Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Joan D'Jita
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 00:01:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Jada Maroo
Lastly, this whole idea of "boost null sec by punishing carebears" needs to end. They aren't gonna go to low sec by force. It's not going to work. It's just going to make the Eve universe a lot smaller for a huge amount of players. CCP knows this -- this is why they aren't ever gonna remove the highways. You'd be better off getting behind ideas that CCP might actually implement to bring more peeps into low and null and to create regional markets.
As I understand the argument, this is not an effort to "boost low sec" but is rather a debate that is separate from the whole lowsec problem. I believe the people pushing for this change are primarily traders who want a new opportunity to specialize in their professions.
I don't see this proposal as punishing carebears either> I am curious to know how many people actually use the inter-empire highways. Probably not too many outside the afk autopilot traders.
I support this proposal for the reasons stated in th OP as well as for the reasons stated in the new thread in general discussion on the topic.
|
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 00:28:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Joan D'Jita
Originally by: Jada Maroo
Lastly, this whole idea of "boost null sec by punishing carebears" needs to end. They aren't gonna go to low sec by force. It's not going to work. It's just going to make the Eve universe a lot smaller for a huge amount of players. CCP knows this -- this is why they aren't ever gonna remove the highways. You'd be better off getting behind ideas that CCP might actually implement to bring more peeps into low and null and to create regional markets.
As I understand the argument, this is not an effort to "boost low sec" but is rather a debate that is separate from the whole lowsec problem. I believe the people pushing for this change are primarily traders who want a new opportunity to specialize in their professions.
I don't see this proposal as punishing carebears either> I am curious to know how many people actually use the inter-empire highways. Probably not too many outside the afk autopilot traders.
I support this proposal for the reasons stated in th OP as well as for the reasons stated in the new thread in general discussion on the topic.
So you're saying that if an argument is made on merits of one idea that just happens to benefit another idea you can/will ignore this supposed coincidence because the merits of the first idea are absolute and incapable of being corrupted/misused to frame change that otherwise would be less appealing if presented by itself? Furthermore the fact that the 'unintended consequences' of the first idea have no merit because that isn't what the person/people arguing for it want you to look at?
Feel free to send someone any amount of isk so the can triple it, pay no attention to the fact that people who say that just take your isk and never give it back, just listen to what I'm saying about them tripling your isk cause that is all that is important the other thing isn't, so stop talking about it or thinking about it in regards to you giving someone your isk to triple.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Fanboys would make great cult members. |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 01:11:00 -
[153]
If the issue is the desire for more opportunities for budding industrialists, might I suggest that scarcity or disparity of resources is the mother of trade.
It makes no sense to me that someone in Caldari space has access to Republic Security Services loyalty point stores, for example. It makes no sense to me that a station no different to any other in the game hosts 50% of all trade.
To increase the scarcity of resources, limit LP stores to stations in their own faction's space (hisec or lowsec, doesn't matter).
To increase the opportunities for new traders, limit the number of trades that can be hosted at any one station, both by number of trade slots (or "hangars") and by total volume of items (per hangar, and per station). Stations designed for logistics would have greater market capacity, while stations designed for assembly will have greater manufacturing capacity. Thus Jita 4-4 would be a good place to build things, while Jita 4-6 would be a good place to sell things.
Logistics & Storage stations would be ideal for large markets, Assembly Plants would be better manufacturing centres, Refineries would have the higher quality refineries - no more absurd situation of Navy stations having the 50% refineries, while the mining corporation Refinery stations have 35% refineries.
Furthermore to add the feeling of "space is big", give star gates a limit as to how much tonnage they can move per hour. A system gate might be able to squeeze through a few dozen battleships per hour, a constellation gate might be able to handle double that, a region gate double that again, and a border gate double again. Trim these values so that the current volume of traffic through Niarja/Sivala cannot be sustained - why would a system gate (Perimeter-Jita) be able to sustain the same flow of traffic as a border gate?
The market for hisec-hisec wormholes will be created, and there will be further opportunity for those stargates in various missions to become useful for something (secret gates to connect to other empire space) :)
We would need some way of controlling traffic through stargates, such as pilots contacting gate control and being given a window in which they may transit the gate: much the same as airports grant windows for aircraft to land/takeoff. Perhaps the time-constraint could be replaced with transit fees, which are charged in terms of ISK per unit weight, calculated on an exponentially rising scale based on the volume of gate traffic compared to the design limits of a certain gate type.
Given these restrictions - stations being functionally different based on design purpose, combined with star gates being functionally different based on design purpose - I would expect trade hubs to shift closer to border or regional gates.
There could be mechanisms in-game for stargates to be upgraded over time. The entity controlling certain space could procure gate upgrades which are then applied to a stargate over a period of days (or weeks?). Enemies could use repurposed SBUs to downgrade a stargate, effectively interdicting travel through that gate.
Faction Warfare militias become the entity responsible for "maintenance" of gates in empire space. They would be responsible for both upgrading gates in their space, and disrupting gates in enemy space. A focussed militia could, for example, upgrade all the gates between Colelie, Dodixie and Sivala in order to provide a high throughput corridor in hisec and increase volume of trade. Alternately they could disrupt all gates leading into Jita or Amarr in order to break those markets.
This would give industrial alliances a reason to sponsor faction warfare, and give faction warfare a meaningful way of impacting upon the simulated universe of EVE.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
count sporkula
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 02:28:00 -
[154]
|
Jypsie
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 05:08:00 -
[155]
Not supported.
Removing the high security links between empires will result in even more individual players and corporations move their operations into the already overcrowded Caldari space.
They will not run the low security routes; they will just pack up, move once, and settle back down somewhere they can get to Jita in relative safety. Amarr, Dodixie, and Rens/Hek markets will crash and the three related empires will be shadows of their former selves that slowly bleed what little population that stick around to Caldari space as those people eventually realize that without the population to buy and sell to and from that there is no recovery.
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 06:02:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Jypsie Not supported.
Removing the high security links between empires will result in even more individual players and corporations move their operations into the already overcrowded Caldari space.
They will not run the low security routes; they will just pack up, move once, and settle back down somewhere they can get to Jita in relative safety. Amarr, Dodixie, and Rens/Hek markets will crash and the three related empires will be shadows of their former selves that slowly bleed what little population that stick around to Caldari space as those people eventually realize that without the population to buy and sell to and from that there is no recovery.
This ^^
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 06:43:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Jypsie Not supported.
Removing the high security links between empires will result in even more individual players and corporations move their operations into the already overcrowded Caldari space.
<good stuff>
I was going to post the same thing. I think this idea would not achieve the OP's goal of spreading people out - quite the opposite. On the other hand, if there were still highsec routes between hubs, but it took longer to travel that way or there were other significant costs / barriers to entry (tariffs / tolls, for example), we might see some more varied markets spring up. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Kairo Jaide
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 08:46:00 -
[158]
Supported
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 11:00:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
Stuff
So your idea is that to make the EVE cluster feel larger you need to shrink the space people can use?
No thanks.
Especially the part about limiting the tonnage moved by system gates to a few dozen battleships/hour.
Just to point it up: 1 battleship is about 100 mil tons, 1 freighter about 900 mil tons, so what is your "bright" idea, 4 freighter moving minerals in or out of a system and it is locked for an hour?
A few mission runners doing missions outside a system and it get locked, blocking other people play for an hour?
Pirates jumping several times in succession through all the gates save one of a system to lock them so that when a target enter the system it can't leave?
Miners doing the same to all the gates to lock a system and mine in peace?
0.0 subcapital fleets not moving around?
0.0 denizens locking all the gates of a cynojammed system?
Think about the effects of your proposal.
|
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 12:09:00 -
[160]
supported
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sig.php |
|
Feone
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 19:44:00 -
[161]
Not supported, why should we sunder the 'verse for a select few player's profit and enjoyment, your 'inter-regional / inter-empire trader' and lowsec pirates?
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 21:37:00 -
[162]
I like this idea on one condition: There must be several gates through low sec that can get you to the other side. If there were only 2 or three between each empire space they would forever be camped by smart bombing mouthbreathers. Another option would be to allow a high sec path but have that path require an additional 30 jumps or so.
I think on the whole it would definitely add to the trade aspect of the game and it would also make the different factions more defined. As far as rp it would be much better. -Cearain
Make fw occupancy pvp instead of pve: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906 |
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 03:41:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Rip Minner on 01/09/2010 03:48:32
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
All you people that belive this should put pass it over already. It's puff puff pass not puff puff and puff some more.
No one that is not already willing to go to low sec will go. They will always find ways around going though low sec even if that means having multable ships and gear in each empire they wish to do bussness with. And seting up jump clones.
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
Noun Verber
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 13:30:00 -
[164]
I support this, but only if the boundaries are expanded (ie more bottleneck systems)
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 14:33:00 -
[165]
We clearly need to screw up Eve economy for the sole purpose of giving a handful of ppl more kms.
|
Qolde
art of eve Gunmen of the Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 19:55:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Qolde on 01/09/2010 19:54:53 Yes, please.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Cearain
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 22:46:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Jypsie Not supported.
Removing the high security links between empires will result in even more individual players and corporations move their operations into the already overcrowded Caldari space.
They will not run the low security routes; they will just pack up, move once, and settle back down somewhere they can get to Jita in relative safety. Amarr, Dodixie, and Rens/Hek markets will crash and the three related empires will be shadows of their former selves that slowly bleed what little population that stick around to Caldari space as those people eventually realize that without the population to buy and sell to and from that there is no recovery.
I highly doubt this would occur. If people went to caldari space then the value of caldari faction items would tank and the other empires faction items would greatly increase. Sooner or later even the most die hard carebear would muster up the courage to get in an empty pod and shuttle through low sec to get the better lp rewards.
-Cearain
Make fw occupancy pvp instead of pve: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906 |
Perrigrene
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 02:13:00 -
[168]
No, I have no interest in dealing with lowsec at this time, I'd appreciate not being herded there for other player's benefit.
|
Ak'athra J'ador
Amarr Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 15:51:00 -
[169]
oh god yes!
if certain asteroids would only spawn in certain empires, then you would have to haul minerals from all the 4 empires to build a ship. prices would change, and you could actually make money on trading.
please, for the love of all that is EVE, make it happen!
|
Ak'athra J'ador
Amarr Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 16:19:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Perrigrene No, I have no interest in dealing with lowsec at this time, I'd appreciate not being herded there for other player's benefit.
you don't have to, that's just where the highest profit would be.
|
|
Ak'athra J'ador
Amarr Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 16:26:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Rip Minner Edited by: Rip Minner on 01/09/2010 03:48:32
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
All you people that belive this should put pass it over already. It's puff puff pass not puff puff and puff some more.
No one that is not already willing to go to low sec will go. They will always find ways around going though low sec even if that means having multable ships and gear in each empire they wish to do bussness with. And seting up jump clones.
well no, if the only way to build ships is to get 4 different types of minerals, and if these 4 different types of minerals can only be found in large enough quantities in the 4 different empires, then every ship that is build will need to have come from all the 4 empires. the "local" mineral would be worthless as everyone would be mining it, but to build something you would still need to get minerals from the other three empires, and prices for those mineral will be high.
someone could then haul these minerals through lowsec for ****loads of profit.
if people want to stay in highsec, fine, nobody is forcing them, they can run lvl4s all they want. but I don't see why they need to get ****ed at the idea of there being another way of making more isk for those willing to risk more.
|
Zahira Wrath
Amarr Dominion Strategic
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 19:07:00 -
[172]
Not supported. Because Mara Rinn said it best:
Originally by: Mara Rinn
What will really happen: everyone moves to Jita, every other hisec region perishes. Pirates camping low sec border gates wonder what they can do to get more care bears out into low sec.
Forcing trades to go through lowsec will, in the long run, move highsec dwellers to Caldari space.
Empire dwellers choose the path of least resistance. They wont go through lowsec.
|
Jada Maroo
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 20:53:00 -
[173]
Edited by: Jada Maroo on 02/09/2010 20:58:11
Originally by: Ak'athra J'ador
Originally by: Perrigrene No, I have no interest in dealing with lowsec at this time, I'd appreciate not being herded there for other player's benefit.
you don't have to, that's just where the highest profit would be.
Low and null is already where the highest profits are (planets, moon mining, mineral deposits). Lots of people don't go there because of many of the people posting here in support of this idea are waiting at gate camps to destroy them.
I don't have anything against piracy but the pirates who whine endlessly on these forums about low sec and the lack of players are getting tiresome. They spend hours and hours at gate camps and roaming low sec to make it a dangerous place for people and then cry when no one wants to go there.
The low sec dwelling Eve pirate: A bigger group of self defeating forum cry babies you will never see.
I have much more respect for groups like TEARS who bring it to high sec instead of moaning about a lack of targets and trying to force people where they don't want to go.
|
Marak Mocam
|
Posted - 2010.09.03 01:46:00 -
[174]
Edited by: Marak Mocam on 03/09/2010 01:46:05 I like the idea of spreading out trade a bit more but I don't like the idea of 'feed us more n00bs' by forcing players through lowsec systems. There's already a wide enough gap between the earnings potential of more experienced players vs the newer ones and this would simply be exacerbating the situation. More experienced players would find ways around it but newer players would find themselves trapped within a given empires space meaning "where are the mission agents in highsec so I won't get killed? What empire has which types of ore so I pick that one? Which has the better trade hubs for me to work in?" etc... I don't like the "pick your race based upon game play style" and, with the removal of many of the sub-racial differences, it appears CCP didn't like that either.
The only ways I can see to address something like this would be to get rid of the ability to gate camp and station camp lowsec systems but not the ability for pirates to operate there. This would take a hell of a lot more changes than just setting up more lowsec so the pirate types can chew up more newer players.
The only 'fix' for the gate camp gig I could come up with is an "extreme rework" to say the least. Change how warp works and allow bubbles in lowsec. Allow a ship to be pulled out of warp but make the gates and stations "1 shot wonders" against any aggressive combat ships that get within range of them -- 250km out or your pirate will end up dead.
Allow probes to find ships that are warping and provide a ship ID that can be locked onto and allow for 'intercepting' that ship, in warp, to pull it out/ground it. No more "in warp so I'm safe until I come out" -- someone can pull you from warp and nail you. No more gate camps so getting INTO the systems is safe and easy. It's getting across systems that holds the risks vs just entering a "this gate is camped!" spot.
Something that adds to the risk of flying there but removes the entrance blockade effect we currently have.
If such changes were done, I'd support lowsec systems between empires but the way it sits... No thanks. I think the game has enough blocks for newer players without crippling their ability to shop and sell even farther.
|
Teev Yaloh
|
Posted - 2010.09.03 02:30:00 -
[175]
I like the idea, having low security systems between empires gives a sense of more realism to the game, opens up many possibilities with the market, missions (courier), piracy, production, pvp, etc. revitalize low sec, will put it on the map again and not only would the backyard of high sec and 0.0 front.
|
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2010.09.03 03:23:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Ak'athra J'ador
Originally by: Rip Minner Edited by: Rip Minner on 01/09/2010 03:48:32
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
All you people that belive this should put pass it over already. It's puff puff pass not puff puff and puff some more.
No one that is not already willing to go to low sec will go. They will always find ways around going though low sec even if that means having multable ships and gear in each empire they wish to do bussness with. And seting up jump clones.
well no, if the only way to build ships is to get 4 different types of minerals, and if these 4 different types of minerals can only be found in large enough quantities in the 4 different empires, then every ship that is build will need to have come from all the 4 empires. the "local" mineral would be worthless as everyone would be mining it, but to build something you would still need to get minerals from the other three empires, and prices for those mineral will be high.
someone could then haul these minerals through lowsec for ****loads of profit.
if people want to stay in highsec, fine, nobody is forcing them, they can run lvl4s all they want. but I don't see why they need to get ****ed at the idea of there being another way of making more isk for those willing to risk more.
So now you want to nerf 00 and WH space so the only way to operate is acquire resources from all 4 empires? Wouldn't the empires just setup trade agreements if they each are worthless without the other 3? Makes no sense they'd let crappy lowsec separate them if they need resources from the other 3 empires.
There are ****loads of ways to make ****loads of isk, why do we need to create yet another method where the primary beneficiaries will be those who already have ****loads of isk with the stupid idea of screwing players by cutting them off from opting out of lowsec or facing isolationism in a single empire?
If people love lowsec, fine, no one forces them to stay there, they can stare at gates and each other all they want. I don't see why they and these 'elite traders' feel the need to screw other players and their play style to benefit themselves, oh wait yes I do see why they feel that way.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Fanboys would make great cult members. |
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.03 03:40:00 -
[177]
Edited by: Rip Minner on 03/09/2010 03:42:53 Edited by: Rip Minner on 03/09/2010 03:41:10 If I did not know better I would think this is yet another low sec blues cry post.
Just pucker up grow something o somewere between your legs and bring it to high sec lots of targets here lots of corps doing it. Just wardec a nice looking corps and take them out.
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
BlahBlahBlah exwife
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 07:30:00 -
[178]
Interesting.
+1.
I think.
|
Jurinak
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 11:42:00 -
[179]
Nearly everyone will settle down in Caldari space a few in Amarr and the rest will end like Solitude.
not a good idea at all it looks sexy at first but wonŠt work
|
TheWarpGhost
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 13:47:00 -
[180]
Not supported; fix losec in general first. This will not help to that end.
* * *
Death is it's own reward, but so is chocolate. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |