Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 21:56:00 -
[1]
Back in the days before Yulai, there was widespread clamor for highways to connect the capitals of each empire. The argument was, it takes too long to get anywhere. There aren't enough players to justify the space. "Approaching Stargate." Etc.
So CCP added superhighways that connected all four empires with CONCORD space. Yulai supermarket hub was created. Market prices across the empires were homogenized. The inter-regional / inter-empire trader was dead. Concurrent players peaked around 7,000 at this point in time.
Fastforward. At some point (I do not know when, as I was on official leave of absence from the game), CCP removed the superhighways and Yulai died. Enter the age of Jita, Amarr, Rens, and Dodixie.
Fastforward to present. Eve reaches 60k concurrent players. Space is crowded. Jita is today's Yulai. Prices are once again mostly homogenized (not completely).
In my opinion, it is time to take the final step and remove the highsec highways that connect empires to empires. Each empire should be bordered with only lowsec systems, so that in order to travel between empires, you have to travel through borderzones rife with piracy and warfare.
With this change, you could add four new currencies unique to each empire each with a fluctuating exchange rate with the isk.
The benefit? For one, it would allow the possibility of lucrative and specialized trade routes. Tweak drop rates in different areas and you will have vast price differences, with people unable to connect them with autopilot in a freighter. Two, it will spread the population out from the central network that connects the major hubs.
Finally, doing this would at last create the unique 'flavor' of each empire/race. It would also create far more opportunity for lowsec gameplay, and by that I don't just mean ganking and pirating although certainly there would be that as well.
AUB
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 22:25:00 -
[2]
Sounds like fun and new profit potential with less risk than selling in lowsec.
I support it, with or without exchange rate arbitrage opportunities.
|
Sazkyen
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 22:35:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Sazkyen on 12/07/2010 22:35:43
Cool.
Make it happen CCP.
Good idea.
-SIG- Ship comparison |
Henri Rearden
Gallente XII Legion Southern Connection
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 22:39:00 -
[4]
I like it. It makes sense from an RP point of view, and from a gameplay one. Lets see this one happen!
/signed
|
Ataxio
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 22:41:00 -
[5]
With one exception, leave the highways as is. Except. you pay ???m each jump through concord space :d
|
Grendell
Technologies Unlimited
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 23:06:00 -
[6]
Old idea, that I've been hoping for years would one day become a reality. Grendell ♥
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 23:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Grendell Old idea, that I've been hoping for years would one day become a reality.
QFE...
I'd love to go an extra step and only make Amarr BPO's and Skills available in Amarr space, Caldari in Caldari space etc. This would open up market opportunities by itself.
Amarr for Life |
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 23:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: SencneS
I'd love to go an extra step and only make Amarr BPO's and Skills available in Amarr space, Caldari in Caldari space etc. This would open up market opportunities by itself.
Well considering that faction specific BPOs already exist, though they are sold by that factions stations which might exist outside of that factions region.
Capital Cargo Bays, Capital Armor Plates, Drones, Ammo, Cap Rechargers, ect. are just some examples. Thats not even counting the ships.
|
Thoraemond
Minmatar Far Ranger
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 00:22:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator Space is crowded. Jita is today's Yulai. Prices are once again mostly homogenized (not completely).
The item of these three that I would address most directly is that space seems crowded. I think the best way to address that is to add many more solarsystems (e.g., 20 k new solarsystems), rather than to increase the average solarsystem-to-solarsystem route length (which presumably would not change the universal average solarsystem population).
Originally by: Aurum Bellator In my opinion, it is time to take the final step and remove the highsec highways that connect empires to empires. Each empire should be bordered with only lowsec systems, so that in order to travel between empires, you have to travel through borderzones rife with piracy and warfare.
How about this as a middle ground?: Substantially increase the length of high-sec routes between the major hubs, ensuring that there are much shorter (e.g., 5+ shorter) low-sec routes between the same hubs. á á
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 00:39:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Thoraemond How about this as a middle ground?: Substantially increase the length of high-sec routes between the major hubs, ensuring that there are much shorter (e.g., 5+ shorter) low-sec routes between the same hubs.
IMHO that won't help. As long as there is a highsec route, there will be autopilot freighters (some perhaps even augmented with warp-to-zero autopilot external programs).
MDD
|
|
Vasaczk
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 00:39:00 -
[11]
As someone who is relatively new, I find this idea really good.
But surely this has been suggested 100000 times over already?
|
TornSoul
BIG Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 00:48:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
In my opinion, it is time to take the final step and remove the highsec highways that connect empires to empires. Each empire should be bordered with only lowsec systems, so that in order to travel between empires, you have to travel through borderzones rife with piracy and warfare.
I've been championing this exact idea every now and again over the years. (I think I might even have a post somewhere in the assembly forum about it) Never gotten much traction unfortunately...
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
Finally, doing this would at last create the unique 'flavor' of each empire/race. It would also create far more opportunity for lowsec gameplay, and by that I don't just mean ganking and pirating although certainly there would be that as well.
The above being my main goal for making the change.
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
With this change, you could add four new currencies unique to each empire each with a fluctuating exchange rate with the isk.
I don't see the need for this however. It would simply get annoying.
BIG Lottery |
Syath
Caldari Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 00:52:00 -
[13]
sounds like a good idea, but if your just wishing for a way to get more pirate kills probably not gonna happen. People will use jump freighters instead and not have to risk their precious cargo.
|
Xylopia
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 00:53:00 -
[14]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
With this change, you could add four new currencies unique to each empire each with a fluctuating exchange rate with the isk.
I don't see the need for this however. It would simply get annoying.
I don't recall specifically where or when but Dr. Econ. says he wants central bank, racial currency, and few other absurd things.
|
Looby Loo
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 00:57:00 -
[15]
Should probably be moved to Assembly Hall.. I support this though but only if there are multiple lo-sec paths between each region. Otherwise you just end up with 50 Rancers. Should be a high level of risk to travel between sectors but not guaranteed suicide. Need to be careful about balancing though to avoid a mass exoidus of pilots back to their home regions.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 01:02:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Breaker77 Well considering that faction specific BPOs already exist, though they are sold by that factions stations which might exist outside of that factions region.
Capital Cargo Bays, Capital Armor Plates, Drones, Ammo, Cap Rechargers, ect. are just some examples. Thats not even counting the ships.
Yes, Most are available only in their space, but not all. Why not take it the whole way, ONLY BPOs available for that Race available in that empire's space. Not to mention this would effect skills the most.
I mean right now I looked up Amarr Cruiser in Forge and it's for sale in State War Academy.. Now this might be acceptable since Amarr and Caldari are allies, but why is Gallente Cruiser available at the same locations :)
Amarr for Life |
Your Client
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 01:07:00 -
[17]
sounds like a nightmare if you live in nullsec... what currency would you use? would a corp wallet need 4 wallets for each currency? sounds like a mess.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 01:10:00 -
[18]
Originally by: SencneS Now this might be acceptable since Amarr and Caldari are allies, but why is Gallente Cruiser available at the same locations :)
Because Gallente cruisers are the best
Back on the subject though... As far as most skills go, it's already rough enough starting out in EVE just trying to figure everything out. Much less making some poor noob fly 40 jumps just to pick up energy management from some Amarr station who will probably end up going through lowsec because he doesn't know any better.
Now as far as Racial ships, yes I can agree that they should be separated just like the racial ship BPOs currently are.
|
Veni Ra
Amarr Brotherhood Of Cash
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 02:21:00 -
[19]
More isk for my trade alts, more killmails from lowsec for my pvp alt.... hhhhmmm, sounds good to me.
|
Charles37
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 04:33:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Your Client sounds like a nightmare if you live in nullsec... what currency would you use? would a corp wallet need 4 wallets for each currency? sounds like a mess.
To get around this you could have 3 currencies: Amarr/Caldari, Gallente/Minimatar, and then something sponsored by Concord/DED. The empires pay for what happens in their hi/low sec space, and Concord/DED pays for what happens in 0.0 (and maybe the x/10 rated complexes in hisec?).
It'd be pretty easy to do some sort of RP explanation via some big schism that builds up over about two months before a patch. With the reduced cooperation and monetary support from the empires, Concord would have to consolidate it's patrols, giving rise to increased low sec areas between the empires.
All that being said though, I would like to see some more reasons for people to spread out, although I'm worried that tweaking drop rates like you suggested might give people too much of an incentive to stay in hisec, which goes contrary to CCP trying to get more people into low/null.
|
|
Tuggboat
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 05:52:00 -
[21]
We're becoming more civilized not less. System security ought to be going up and not down to reflect this. Possibly some of the pipes could be determined by faction warfare I've always though System security ought to be unstable but just to go backwards while the game is going forward only makes sense from a profits point of view for traders. Makes no sense from any other viewpoint.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 05:54:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator In my opinion, it is time to take the final step and remove the highsec highways that connect empires to empires. Each empire should be bordered with only lowsec systems, so that in order to travel between empires, you have to travel through borderzones rife with piracy and warfare.
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense. Four empires supposedly at peace with each other would make damned sure routes were clear and safe.
Quote: With this change, you could add four new currencies unique to each empire each with a fluctuating exchange rate with the isk.
You don't need any change to make a pitch for different currencies. Trouble is, if it did happen, you'd have every wannabe forex trader screwing things up in classic Eve fashion. Anyway, ain't gonna happen. Too messy. Not needed at all.
Quote: The benefit? For one, it would allow the possibility of lucrative and specialized trade routes. Tweak drop rates in different areas and you will have vast price differences, with people unable to connect them with autopilot in a freighter. Think of the trade possibilities that would erupt by simply altering the spawn rate of certain asteroids in the four empires.
And there's the nub. You want to buff what is already the most most lucrative career in the game. Ain't gonna happen.
Quote: Two, it will spread the population out from the central network that connects the major hubs.
Jita is the trade capital. Caldari is the most popular race. Your proposals would not change that one whit.
Quote: Finally, doing this would at last create the unique 'flavor' of each empire/race.
This is the least RP conscious game I've yet to see, and traders are the least interested in RP. Besides, nothing you proposed would do anything towards creating racial flavours.
Quote: It would also create far more opportunity for lowsec gameplay, and by that I don't just mean ganking and pirating although certainly there would be that as well.
Lowsec is a wasteland. It needs something radical, not tinkering with tarmac.
|
Tamirr U'tath
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 06:19:00 -
[23]
I love the idea for lowsec border zones between empires.
It would simultaneously stimulate low sec activity and create a more interesting global market.
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 06:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Varo Jan Lowsec is a wasteland.
Agreed. And I believe I know why: it's too predictable. "WHAT?!!" you exclaim. Hear me out.
Those bent on "involuntary PvP" (a/k/a "pirates") *know* that Concord will not get involved in lowsec. They *know* the damage they will get from gate & station guns. They *know* how much of a security status hit they will take (and how log they will have to rat to undo the damage, should they so choose).
Those who'd rather obliterate computer-controlled pixels (a/k/a "carebears") *know* that in lowsec they are up against *both* the pirates *and* the NPCs. They *know* that a ship fitted for best performance against NPCs would be handicapped versus a pirate, and a ship fitted for best performance against pirates would be underwhelming versus NPCs.
And guess what: very similar "rules" apply in highsec, too. The pirates know how long Concord takes to respond, and they work out where they can gank successfully (hello, Hulkageddon!). Carebears cry that this is unfair and that pirates should be denied insurance for such attacks.
And finally, CCP bemoans the distribution of characters, with gobs in highsec, somewhat lesser numbers in 0.0, and lowsec being a ghost town.
Clue stick time: Make the transition from highsec to lowsec less clearly defined. I propose that Concord's response *probability* and *time* be functions of:
1. system security. Concord responds faster in higher security systems than in lower security systems (no change). The probability that Concord responds *at all* is also partially a function of system security.
2. difference between aggressor and "victim's" security status. Concord's likelihood of responding is higher when the -10.0 pirate attacks the 5.0 carebear than it is when the 0.0 pirate attacks the 2.5 mission runner. And when the 1.0 carebear chooses to aggress the character-with-a-lower-secstatus? Heh.
Result: lower highsec systems are a bit more dangerous. Higher lowsec systems are a bit less dangerous. High sec status carebears can wander into higher lowsec with some confidence that *maybe* Concord will come to their rescue. Or maybe not. Pirates can polish their sec status and then prowl the lower highsec systems looking for the next big target, knowing that they get more useful time engaging, and might get away scott-free.
Overall, make Concord's security status effects more of a continuum instead of the dichotomy they are now.
MDD
|
Aqriue
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 06:33:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator Fastforward to present. Eve reaches 60k concurrent players. Space is crowded.
EVE has 42-43k concurrent as any one time, at least when ever I log in. Bloated numbers from a tournement weekend does not equate to a new all time high active subs, its jus a benchmark on server resources.
And space would be less crowded if CCP would off its ass and balance out mission hubs instead of moving the player one jump out. Spread out the level 4 agents, even more market hubs could spring up. There are many systems with out even a station, sometimes you get a chain of systems before hitting another station and some stations only have multiple level 1/2 or even have no agents at all (and this isn't DED). Caldari have loads of combat agents from many different npc corps, which is why its so popular while Gallente have maybe 2 decent corps to run.
|
Fumitsugu Sylwia
Guristech One Stop Research
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 06:34:00 -
[26]
The creation of lowsec borders between empires is a good idea. Multiple currencies, not so good (just far too complicated). It wouldn't just act as a buff to bold traders compared to APing freighter pilots, but would go a long way to fixing lowsec's problems. +1
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 07:50:00 -
[27]
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Originally by: Varo Jan Lowsec is a wasteland.
Agreed. And I believe I know why: it's too predictable. "WHAT?!!" you exclaim. Hear me out.
Overall, make Concord's security status effects more of a continuum instead of the dichotomy they are now.
I agree. It is totally predictable. What you propose would make it a bit more of a lottery for both sides, which is good. But I seriously doubt it would have a radical impact on lowsec population.
So here's an alternative - do away with low sec totally. Move some to high sec and some to null sec, and have done with it.
|
Ephia
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 08:01:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Fumitsugu Sylwia The creation of lowsec borders between empires is a good idea. Multiple currencies, not so good (just far too complicated). It wouldn't just act as a buff to bold traders compared to APing freighter pilots, but would go a long way to fixing lowsec's problems. +1
Agreed. Low-sec between empires is a great idea.
Different currencies not so great.
|
PoseDamen
Interstellar-Overdrive
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 08:18:00 -
[29]
+1
Supports this idea, we might aswell get something usefull out of lowsec.
The ***** Who Sold The World ! !
|
Fumitsugu Sylwia
Guristech One Stop Research
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 08:27:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Fumitsugu Sylwia on 13/07/2010 08:27:20
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Originally by: Varo Jan Lowsec is a wasteland.
Agreed. And I believe I know why: it's too predictable. "WHAT?!!" you exclaim. Hear me out.
Overall, make Concord's security status effects more of a continuum instead of the dichotomy they are now.
I agree. It is totally predictable. What you propose would make it a bit more of a lottery for both sides, which is good. But I seriously doubt it would have a radical impact on lowsec population.
So here's an alternative - do away with low sec totally. Move some to high sec and some to null sec, and have done with it.
Actually, just make highsec smaller. Lowsec serves a valuable purpose, and is a different environment to null or highsec. Eve does not need more safe space.
In terms of shipping things around, it's very easy to avoid gatecamps and station camps, if you know how to and prepare adequately (read Blockade Runners, insta-undock bookmarks and maybe a scout), because there are no bubbles. In short, if you have balls and brains you can safely navigate through lowsec space and therefore profit.
If highsec hubs were fully separated by lowsec space, and the number of low-high security border systems increased, you would find that the number of chokepoint systems would diminish because of the "porous" border. Think of the Brazilian police trying to stop drug runners in the Amazon rainforest :)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |