| 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 :)
|
|
|
Mini Tee
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 09:37:00 -
[31]
The lowsec borders sound like an awesome idea!
Currencies not so much, too complicated, as stated above multiple times.
|
Guilliman R
Gallente
PRO Space Hunters
HUNTER'S BROTHERHOOD
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 11:26:00 -
[32]
I would support this on one condition. Cyno works in highsec for jump freighters only.
That way those that invest and are more then two accounts can haul large quantities of goods without having to take a freighter trough lowsec.
That or give freighters low slots for warp stabs.
A huge downside of the lowsec borders between empires would be that eventually people will migrate to a single faction, and do everything there (mission/mine) and those are most of the players, resulting in super busy caldari space and near empty amarr, galente and minmatar space. Segregation isn't the best idea.
I don't see how this would benefit anyone but lowsec pirates. BUT I do think the idea in itself is cool. If this were to happen, a few other changes would need to be done to balance it a bit in the freighter department. |
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 11:34:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Aurum Bellator on 13/07/2010 11:35:38
Originally by: Syath
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.
If someone takes the time and money to invest in a jump freighter, they deserve to profit from its use. As to your original point, I am not a pirate so I wouldn't be out to get more 'pirate kills.' I am, however, training for transport ships  .
Ultimately, the point I'm trying to make is that Eve is big enough now to support four mostly independent population focal points (in empire space) instead of having everyone crowded around a string of centralized systems and a few scattered mission hubs. The incentive to travel through lowsec to connect trade routes will stimulate population out there, too, which would only exponentially increase with the planned public missions that they spoke about.
@Varo: Well I just plain disagree with your viewpoint. As far as the multiple racial currencies piece, that was not the focal point of my suggestion and was more of a throw-away off the cuff suggestion.
As far as your comment about 'buffing' the most lucrative career in Eve; if you are talking about 'trade' you are painting with too broad of a brush. You've got to separate 'station trader' from 'interregional trader' or 'interracial trader' and certainly the latter two are not even close to as lucrative as the former, or to other career fields such as mission running, ratting, etc.
I agree that station trading is the most bang for the buck, but my suggestion wouldn't really change station trading, would it?
AUB
|
Fumitsugu Sylwia
Guristech
One Stop Research
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 11:42:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Guilliman R
I would support this on one condition. Cyno works in highsec for jump freighters only.
Hmmm no. What you're saying is "I want to ignore this cool new lowsec barrier in complete safety, while everyone poorer slogs through in hulltanked Badgers"
Originally by: Guilliman R
A huge downside of the lowsec borders between empires would be that eventually people will migrate to a single faction, and do everything there (mission/mine) and those are most of the players, resulting in super busy caldari space and near empty amarr, galente and minmatar space. Segregation isn't the best idea.
Space would become homogenised, as it is at present, because the lure of empty, say, Amarr space, and sky-high prices for corresponding faction items due to a lack of supply, would pull in a lot of people. Industry and the market would follow this influx accordingly.
|
Nin Kimrov
Minmatar
Kenzi Arms and Munitions
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 11:55:00 -
[35]
It could be also a new role for the faction warfare : protect the borders and secure trade highways.
There lots of thing that could be made with that.
|
ThisIsNotMyAlt
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 12:33:00 -
[36]
it makes no sense for the empires not to secure their interconnecting routes. they would loose profits and it would also be unwise diplomaticly. |
PJ Johnes
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 13:09:00 -
[37]
I must say i like the idea of separated regions/empires, i do not however support the idea of different currencies in the empires
----------------------------------
The end justifies the means |
Pasadenasman
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 13:36:00 -
[38]
fully support this thread. It could be the boost needed for the low-sec.
Pirats were to sit in sea and wait for other boats travelling by their area to make money by market use. This happened when the sea doesn't have "secure" area and travelling was quiet dangerous. By now you have the opportunity to make the same with planes and have more security for cargo. Safe road is the empire connection between trade hub. If these roads will be cut, this will bring back piracy in line with other carriers and give lowsec better activity, for market, pvp, exploration, etc.
PLZ CCP JUST DO IT ! 
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
manufacturing disaster
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 13:47:00 -
[39]
@OP.. If you recall and argue using history, you might need to consider such things as the market order nerf, and SCC boost. Also the huge number of new traded items that makes Jita the living beast it is.. Check EVE metrics for details.. The volumes and moving graphs speak clearly of the issue of order saturation.
Creating a barrier between empires might sound nice, but I would like to point to Tornsouls reply and expand on it.. Better than the OP suggestion would be to have a more dynamic respond system to aggression. Thus basing it on system security status and imho also the local SOV holder. Responses should be not just by CONCORD but also by local SOV holder. Thus you shoot down a gal pilot in gal space you would get whooped. Add to this that security should be based dynamic in nature to, so that it would change depending on Kills (or rather insurance claims value in a system) Thus you go and manage to kill a **** load of expensive ships with high sec rating and high local SOV standing, then you would be able to shift the systems security down a big deal..
tl:dr Get CCP to make the systems of security and aggression dynamic and flow with player interaction.. Would improve gameplay for all types of players and not be biased..
NB: Examples of a rather interesting PvP dynamic is in "Pirates of the burning seas" where a zone of aggression moves around. The above would potentially make all eve an ebbe and flow of pvp areas. OFC some might need to be fixed.
Tycoon wannabe go here: SCC Lounge
****tails and Dreams. |
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 13:55:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
Creating a barrier between empires might sound nice, but I would like to point to Tornsouls reply and expand on it.. Better than the OP suggestion would be to have a more dynamic respond system to aggression.
Ahem.
MDD
|
|
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
manufacturing disaster
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 14:52:00 -
[41]
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
Creating a barrier between empires might sound nice, but I would like to point to Tornsouls reply and expand on it.. Better than the OP suggestion would be to have a more dynamic respond system to aggression.
Ahem.
MDD
Soz.. Reading the thread you and Torn were the posts that made sense :) Corrected it^^
Tycoon wannabe go here: SCC Lounge
****tails and Dreams. |
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 15:06:00 -
[42]
Let me start by stating: I HATE low sec.
Having said that, I find this idea very interesting.
Let me comment on some statements.
Quote:
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense. Four empires supposedly at peace with each other would make damned sure routes were clear and safe.
Let me remind you of The Empyrian Age. Which brings me to ...
Quote:
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.
I agree on that "least RP consious game(r)" part. Nonetheless, games changes based on the official back story still make more sense than all of a sudden, out of the blue "WTF? Planets?" kinda changes.
Quote:
Currencies not so much, too complicated, as stated above multiple times.
Can't be more complicated than PI or WiS. And it would add another money sink ("exchange fee/rate") and even provide the chance to add an additional skill (another money sink) for lowering the rate/fee.
I also agree that this thread would be better in Assembly Hall. The OP might consider reporting his own thread and ask for having it moved to Assembly Hall.
--
EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
ThisIsNotMyAlt
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 15:13:00 -
[43]
it is a false asumption that the four empires would only benefit from "secure trade" in times of peace. Actually the (cold)war is indeed one of the thriving factors that does generate the profits for them. |
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 15:21:00 -
[44]
I also like MDD's suggestion - but they need not be exclusive.
You could improve lowsec generally as stated by MDD, and further add lowsec paths between the various empires.
As for incentives to "risk" goign through lowsec - simply create market rules and/or scarcity of goods between the races that aren't getting along. For example - Gallente ships cannot be sold on the market in Caldari space, or vice verse.
I even think the currencies would be interesting, if not overly complex, with taxes on currency exchanges, etc.
After pew-pew, Eve's market is its best resource. No other MMO has as complex or rich a market. This would be a nice addition that would provide additional opportunities for hauling as a mini-profession. It might also develop some interesting citizen-police forces for those low-sec pathways ...
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 15:32:00 -
[45]
Edited by: SencneS on 13/07/2010 15:35:22
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
As for incentives to "risk" goign through lowsec - simply create market rules and/or scarcity of goods between the races that aren't getting along. For example - Gallente ships cannot be sold on the market in Caldari space, or vice verse.
After pew-pew, Eve's market is its best resource. No other MMO has as complex or rich a market. This would be a nice addition that would provide additional opportunities for hauling as a mini-profession. It might also develop some interesting citizen-police forces for those low-sec pathways ...
It would make "RP" sense to have boycotts on Gallente anything in Caldari Space, but that would also kill markets. Which might not be bad, but it's reducing marketing/manufacturing areas for profit.
I'd rather see..... You can't build anything Gallente in Caldari space stations (But you can at POSES) and you can sell them in Caldari space.
This would mean..
1) You have to travel to Gallente space to pick up the BPO, or buy the overpriced BPO from Jita.
2) You have to build in Gallente space and haul, or deploy a POS in Caldari space and build at the (Currently 1.1 waste multiplier) Ship assembly arrays.
3) Buy ships from Gallente space which sell cheaper because of cheaper build costs, haul them to Jita.
All the while taking the risk of transporting either ships or BPOs across low-secs.
If you want to build non-local racial stuff you have to do it from a POS. I could DEFINITELY support that.
Amarr for Life |
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 16:01:00 -
[46]
Edited by: MailDeadDrop on 13/07/2010 16:04:39
I'm not convinced that driving people towards POSes is a good thing. For starters, POSes are corporate assets, not personal assets. The roles interface is already a mess; imagine how much worse (Eve) life will be when you push more people to have to deal with it. Actually, I think you (SencneS) owe a fine for even suggesting such an idea. (Pay Chribba; he'll see that it is properly disbursed to a worthy charity.) But I get what you're trying to do (introduce more racial effects into the markets), and agree that appears to be a worthy goal.
But, I believe that the NPC seeding of racial items should be addressed. And from a programmatic point of view, it seems like a trivial change for CCP. It has the added effect of stimulating more player-run economies (skillbook & blueprint trading).
MDD
(Edit: Correct spelling of SencneS' name. Sorry 'bout that.)
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 16:26:00 -
[47]
Edited by: SencneS on 13/07/2010 16:29:55
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
I'm not convinced that driving people towards POSes is a good thing.
I doubt we'll ever see such a report even if we requested it, but I'd be interested to know how many non-Caldari Things are built in station slots in Caldari space. And I agree POS pushing is not a good idea, it would place demand on POS fuel and cost more to run my POSES :) So I would refine my statement to...
Have it cost 1.1 material multiplier for all T1 and T2, non-local racial items being built in stations. Make sure if you build say a Thorax in Caldari Space at a Station it's 1.1x, and at a POS it costs 1.1 too (At the moment it's only 1) and adjust Local Racial T2 ships to have a 1 Multiplier at POSes. This means it'll be cheaper to build T2 ships in that Empire's space, at Station and at POS, and everything non-empire costs 10% more to build.
Create some real need for haulers to go from empire to empire picking up local manufactured T1 and T2 items for sales in other regions. Taking the homogenization out of EVE again.
Edit - After you're second edit my post is redundant but I like the way we think Either a bonus for racial, or a penalty for non-racial items in each Empires space is something worthy of a CSM topic.
Amarr for Life |
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 16:51:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Hel O''Ween on 13/07/2010 16:53:43
As a middle ground between "Can't build other race ships in stations - use POS" and "Build where you like" you could restrict building to the racial stations in the foreign empires.
Taken the Gallente ship from the example: you can build it anywhere in Gallente empire (or anywhere in Gallente + Minmatar empire) or in Gallente (+ Minmatar) stations*) in any of the other empires.
Not sure though, if the distribution of those stations would allow for this.
*) "Stations" as in "stations controlled by a NPC corporation aligned with Gallente empire"
--
EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
HowardStern
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 17:44:00 -
[49]
I wonder how many iterations it would require to get to this little lot to a non-****ed state.
|
Durin Sarga
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 17:52:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Your Client
sounds like a nightmare if you live in nullsec... what currency would you use?
Umm.... because I'm a nerd.
Quote:
Your Republic credits are no good here!
I agree. Four distinct currencies would be a pain to keep track of. Would the nerds like any of us like it? Maybe. Probably. Would the mainstream computer gamer like it? Hassle = No. If this type of system was implemented, I would advocate for no designated currency in null-sec. Lawless space would most likely recognize the Factional currency with the most purchasing power at the time, however it needn't be so. Large alliances could say 'We only take Tritanium' and in effect you would trade Trit at their stations in exchange for goods/services.
As for getting rid of the hi-sec highways, sure. I'd support that. I agree that it would probably achieve the OP's goal of lowering the 'crowds' in some areas.
|
|
|
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 18:10:00 -
[51]
I think the OP has a good idea... it would add excitement and challenges
...it could create an incentive for more group play in trading if there were lucractive arbitrage profits where a corp controling a couple low sec systems could escort a jump freigter to cynos on both sides. Perhaps the trader would be in corp or perhaps escort corps could build enough trust and repuation to charge tolls for safe passage.
A suggestion though: I think that a few more low sec systems or links should be put in so systems like rancid or amake wouldn't be quite as much linchpins to travel. A few low sec systems parallel to them would allow a little more cat and mouse and make counter ganks on pirate gangs (or between pirate gangs) a bit more feasible without as many jakals concentraded in one system to warp in on others figts. (not a bad thing, just that it can get out of hand and a little tweeaking would help if things got too concentrated)
|
Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 19:02:00 -
[52]
A couple thoughts:
I like the single consistent currency of isk, for use by concord. However, I can see a value in having a sort of empire / corporation specific currency for specialized items. Perhaps the easiest way to implement this, would be to make LP a marketable item (sort of like tags). This could be coupled by expanding the LP shop, and adding more ways to acquire LP than just mission grinding.
I'm not really sold on why anyone feels empire freighters need to be forced through low-sec. In my opinion, the whole concord system is a bit broken atm: you go from a guaranteed concord death to guaranteed concord leaving you alone at a clearly defined cutoff that divides piracy acts into very limited risk to the pirate, to guaranteed suicide. You feel empire "carebears" have it too easy: IMO the problem is that piracy is entirely too easy, but then shuffled off under the rug where only a tiny % of the player base bothers with.
I'd do this instead: make it really random in .5 - .7 systems how long it takes till concord shows up: essentially, it should be possible to gank someone and flee the scene before the cops show up, taking a smaller security hit and no concordokkan. Possible, but not guaranteed. Sometimes Concord might show up within seconds, and bust the freighter gank. Concord should also police the remains of any ship blown up: frankly scooping loot with a hauler alt right in front of the cops is terrible pvp design.
Retired from corp sales. Time to spend some of this on pretty explosions :) |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 19:41:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Fumitsugu Sylwia
Lowsec serves a valuable purpose.
Really? What purpose is that? Which major section of the EVE population benefits from low sec?
Quote:
If you have balls and brains you can safely navigate through lowsec space and therefore profit.
You need neither balls nor brains. You need a frigate or a BR. Singing "U Can't Touch This" is optional.
Anyone with a modi****of sense knows not to take a floating brick through Hagilur when the weekend weenies are out.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 19:47:00 -
[54]
I remember reading somewhere someone suggesting that instead of Concord being overzealous cops, they need to be peace loving hippies full of passive aggressive attributes. Where Concord didn't show to blow you to pieces but they showed up to rescue the ship under attack.
It when something like this.. There should always be a chance for you to kill someone anywhere any time. However the higher the sec the more "HIPPIES" show up to remote repair the ship under attack.
Attacking Concord gets the local Navy to attack you, but if you're setup right and can tank the Navy you can kill the Navy AND the Hippy Concord, and then the target. But you have to be fast because the Local Navy spawns every minute or so, and Concord Hippies spawn every 45 seconds or something. If you choose to gank a Freighter in a 1.0 system, you're going to have to come at it with more a LOT of fire power, because the Hippies have UBER Repairing abilities, all three to, Remote Hull, Remote Armor, Remote Shield.
The idea was a something about removing Sec-Status but I can't be bothered to find it. OLD Idea I've always thought might be fun on SISI but I don't think it'll work in EVE. People will die all over the place without Wardecs because you have 50 battleships camping Jita killing everything that undocks even if it's empty.
Amarr for Life |
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:15:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
I also agree that this thread would be better in Assembly Hall. The OP might consider reporting his own thread and ask for having it moved to Assembly Hall.
Done. If it does get moved, I hope that those of you who support the idea will continue to follow the discussion at Assembly Hall. Perhaps we can get one of the CSM on board.
AUB
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:20:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
@Varo: Well I just plain disagree with your viewpoint.
Of course you do. :) Consider this. Caldari and Amarr are allies. Minmatar and Gallente are allies. Each faction has more than one region. It makes zero sense to have low sec borders between regions belonging to the same faction; and low sec borders between either Amarr and Caldari or Minmatar and Gallente. If you really want to play the RP card, think it through.
Quote:
As far as the multiple racial currencies piece, that was not the focal point of my suggestion and was more of a throw-away off the cuff suggestion.
A major change warrants more analysis and thought than an off the cuff suggestion. Ditch it. It doesn't belong here.
Quote:
As far as your comment about 'buffing' the most lucrative career in Eve; if you are talking about 'trade' you are painting with too broad of a brush.
Yes I am painting a broad brush. That's all that's needed right now. Buff mining before you even start to think about buffing trading or pirating.
|
Covert Kitty
Amarr
ISK Solutions
SRS.
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:26:00 -
[57]
I had suggested something like this awhile back, the difference being that there could be a rolling "security tide" where security status would fluctuate predictably through the week. So on some days the empires would be surrounded by only lowsec, other days various combinations would be connected, and on others it would be as it is now.
Other possibilities would be utilizing fleet warfare to effect change in security status in some way.
Though I would certainly support a permanent lowsec around all empires as well.
|
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
C C P
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:45:00 -
[58]
Moved by request to the Assembly Hall from Market Discussions. If you support it please be sure to reply again with a thumbs up!
Zymurgist
Community Representative
CCP Hf, EVE Online
Contact Us |
|
EyeCeeYou
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:54:00 -
[59]
I like the mandatory lowsec to go to different regions, as long as (1) there are multiple ways to do it so that its not just a guaranteed gate camp/gank and (2) there are sufficient economic incentives to bother - i.e. disparate seed rates for highly used items (supply imbalances), possible restrictions on market listings in each region, etc. As long as every route isn't gatecamped and simply an insta-gank, it would provide economic incentive for haulers/traders to venture into lowsec (to get/deliver cheaper goods).
I also like the idea of putting some "risk" into ganking people in lowsec by having some kind of chance of a Concord response that is variable.
A big part of the problem with lowsec is the perception that if you go, you better be in a fast covop or equivalent, or you better have friends, because you will get in a fight. This could change that and cause a group of 5 to think hard before jumping a solo frig trying to pass through - is it worth possibly losing all 5 ships for that one little frig?
|
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:57:00 -
[60]
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
Moved by request to the Assembly Hall from Market Discussions. If you support it please be sure to reply again with a thumbs up!
Obviously, I support this idea. I certainly hope anyone else will take the time to read through the posts and continue the discussion. Although I like the 'idea' of the racial currencies, if possible I'd like to drop that topic as it is not directly related to the main thrust of this post.
CSM reps, please take note! Let's have this brought up 
AUB
|
|
|
Voogru
Massive Damage
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:59:00 -
[61]
This would never happen, but I do like the idea.
One problem with the idea though, you might have people just moving over to one empire and then everybody does their missions there. Right now this would pretty much be Caldari space.
So you could see everyone from the other empires move over to Caldari space and the other three empires go bone dry.
To the pirates that whine about no targets in low-sec, it might have something to do with insta-popping with 15 bs vs 1 cruiser, and scrambling once 3 bs show up to counter 15 bs. Lay off the targets and just siphon off their profits when you catch them. If you make it unprofitable for them to be in low-sec, they won't go there anymore. Simple.
Hate Farmers? Click Here |
Heroldyn Yhamad
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 21:02:00 -
[62]
Voting against the proposal for Reasons allready stated within the Thread. |
Fumitsugu Sylwia
Guristech
One Stop Research
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 21:13:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Fumitsugu Sylwia
Lowsec serves a valuable purpose.
Really? What purpose is that? Which major section of the EVE population benefits from low sec?
Quote:
If you have balls and brains you can safely navigate through lowsec space and therefore profit.
You need neither balls nor brains. You need a frigate or a BR. Singing "U Can't Touch This" is optional.
Anyone with a modi****of sense knows not to take a floating brick through Hagilur when the weekend weenies are out.
First:
Lowsec is an extremely viable casual PvP environment that faction warfare and pirates benefit from. Explorers go there. POS are set up there due to their proximity to Empire. It is a good place for people to experience a life outside highsec without the drag of bubbles (pun intended) which poses a tougher challenge. I could go on, but it is safe to say a large portion of Eve players live there.
Second:
My definitions of balls and brains are relative to the majority of Eve players
I didn't mean "navigate from gate to gate". I meant "move around in". Even so, if you believe you are perfectly safe going through lowsec in a BR or frig you are mistaken. It's just safer. I'd say Covops frigs are 99% untouchable, however.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 21:37:00 -
[64]
I do not support this at all.
It would buff the most lucrative profession in EVE - trading. There's no call for that.
As far as low sec is concerned, tinkering with the tarmac is pointless. The whole concept needs a radical overhaul, and this isn't it.
It makes zero sense from a role play angle when you consider carefully the social context.
Originally by: Fumitsugu Sylwia
Lowsec is an extremely viable casual PvP environment that faction warfare and pirates benefit from. Explorers go there. POS are set up there due to their proximity to Empire. It is a good place for people to experience a life outside highsec without the drag of bubbles (pun intended) which poses a tougher challenge. I could go on, but it is safe to say a large portion of Eve players live there.
You make some valid points. However, I disagree with your claim that a large portion of EVE players live there. No, I haven't taken a census; have you? But all the whines about low sec being empty/unprofitable don't support your claim.
Quote:
If you believe you are perfectly safe going through lowsec in a BR or frig you are mistaken. It's just safer. I'd say Covops frigs are 99% untouchable, however.
Nowhere is totally safe, not even high sec. But you have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly unlucky to get ganked passing through.
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente
XII Legion
Southern Connection
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 21:49:00 -
[65]
Just chiming in with a thumbs up for a gradient of CONCORD responses, multi-route low-sec borders. Thumbs down for multiple currencies.
|
Jada Maroo
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 22:30:00 -
[66]
Not supported, and it make zero sense from an RP point of view. You are telling me that some of what would be the most heavily fortified borders in the Eve universe are somehow going to be LESS secure? That pirates are going to have a field day in the same area where heavily armed navies would logically congregate to protect their territory?
Makes absolutely no sense.
|
Vasaczk
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 22:41:00 -
[67]
Just putting in my thumbs up since it got moved.
- Love the idea of lowsec only routes - and i'm a trader/hauler not a pirate.
- Think Currencies is a tad silly and not something Eve is ready for.
|
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 22:58:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Jada Maroo
Not supported, and it make zero sense from an RP point of view. You are telling me that some of what would be the most heavily fortified borders in the Eve universe are somehow going to be LESS secure? That pirates are going to have a field day in the same area where heavily armed navies would logically congregate to protect their territory?
Makes absolutely no sense.
Look, this argument that it makes no sense from an RP point of view is simply wrong. "Heavily fortified borders" even if true does not necessarily equate to "heavily policed borders." In addition, who is to say they are heavily fortified? You don't just build a fence in space.
I can point to real world examples, to the extent they are relevant, to support my position. Take, for example, the United States border with Mexico. The two countries are friendly, if not necessarily allied. Yet the U.S.-Mexican border is a lawless zone of terror, murder, kidnapping, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and gang and cartel warfare.
There are other examples in the real world. Think of the frontier time in U.S. history a/k/a the "Wild West." There are many other examples but for brevity's sake I'll let someone else point them out. It only makes sense that states will focus their limited resources devoted to policing to secure the hearts of population and commerce, and that the fringe territories will be neglected.
So this whole notion that CONCORD, which is a police force, is going to focus its efforts on far-away solar systems that are not very heavily travelled is simply wrong.
AUB
|
Suah Sponte
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 23:02:00 -
[69]
This would be a great change to the game as it matures. It would help spread the population out and it would give life to the lowsec border zones. Fantastic, thumbs up!
|
d4shing
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 23:16:00 -
[70]
Sounds like fun.
Except the currency part.
|
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 23:32:00 -
[71]
I agree, there needs to be some form of separate of the empires. It's silly to think I can fly between Amarr and Rens and not have to go though Low-Sec combat zones.
However, It does make sense to be able to fly from Amarr to Jita for example since Caldari and Amarr are allies.
For that matter, you could probably get away with very few high-sec links from Amarr to Gallente space since they are not exactly enemies but not friends either. Same goes for Caldari and Minmatar space.
This would make it possible to travel from Rens to Amarr in high-sec but you need to go though Caldari Space.
Amarr for Life |
Andreus LeHane
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 23:39:00 -
[72]
No.
You now simply place the lion's share of trader-generaated wealth in the hands of people who have jump freighters, and you isolate a lot of players in a single empire. Now that there is no safe way of moving between empires, there exists no compelling reason for those players to do so - there is, besides the belt NPCs, available mission agents and occasional standings issues, very little actual difference between different areas of hi-sec, and in making it harder to get between them you take away the already very small number of reasons for people who don't like low-sec to ever move between them. I realise that this will only inspire some people to comment on how the relevant people should learn to like low-sec, but you and I both know that's unconstructive and it's not going to happen anyway.
-----
|
Looby Loo
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 01:22:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
[
I can point to real world examples, to the extent they are relevant, to support my position. Take, for example, the United States border with Mexico. The two countries are friendly, if not necessarily allied. Yet the U.S.-Mexican border is a lawless zone of terror, murder, kidnapping, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and gang and cartel warfare.
AUB
Think this is kind of the point, the naysayers see Rancer gatecamps everywhere, the people for the proposal see a three thousand mile long border.
In order for this to work there needs to be a lot more lo-sec added, some routes one hop deep, some up to five and multiple paths at each point.
Means far less gate camps and finally the chance of lo-sec being seen as less like certain death.
But no to the currencies.
|
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 01:48:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Crazy KSK on 14/07/2010 01:49:41
I support all of it except the currency part as there is just not need for it lol
I would love to see both lowsec routes only between empires and all empires moved away from each other a lot so there will be the need for smaller hubs on the way as traveling all the way from one to another empire would becrazy for one person but for that to happen there would be the need for hugely long ways like 100 jumps or even more which I think is way too much I rather increase the warp ranges by a lot which would actually make warp speeds of ships much more important too which I think would be nice
|
Onyth
Had Investments
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 02:37:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
Look, this argument that it makes no sense from an RP point of view is simply wrong. "Heavily fortified borders" even if true does not necessarily equate to "heavily policed borders." In addition, who is to say they are heavily fortified? You don't just build a fence in space.
They don't need a fence, they've got fleets stationed in these systems, and as you only have a few entry points, all they'd have to do is sit on their gates and blow you up when you come in through the 'gate', much as you'd do when you come in through the gate of a fence. Only here you can't climb over the fence, so its actualy more effective.
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
I can point to real world examples, to the extent they are relevant, to support my position. Take, for example, the United States border with Mexico. The two countries are friendly, if not necessarily allied. Yet the U.S.-Mexican border is a lawless zone of terror, murder, kidnapping, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and gang and cartel warfare.
This is EVE though, not the US-mexico border, the cartels have their own space here where they have their warzone and lawlessness (see .0 pirate owned space). On top of that, the us-mexico border is a long line that can't be quite completely foolproof watched, the EVE jumpgates however are much easier to monitor, definatly if you own the things (as I can imagine the factions do in their own space)
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
There are other examples in the real world. Think of the frontier time in U.S. history a/k/a the "Wild West." There are many other examples but for brevity's sake I'll let someone else point them out. It only makes sense that states will focus their limited resources devoted to policing to secure the hearts of population and commerce, and that the fringe territories will be neglected.
The distance between say Amarr and Jita is only 9 jumps, if the amarrian and caldari navy cannot protect that many systems between their 2 trade hubs, then I doubt they'd be capable as empires to defend themselves against the pirate factions should they ever decide to come and say hi.
So no, this is NOT the wild west, this is not some place that is just being colonised. Rather, its a hi-tech civilisation that will do everything in its power to insure its wealth remains intact and giving away trade routes to pirates is not one of those things.
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
So this whole notion that CONCORD, which is a police force, is going to focus its efforts on far-away solar systems that are not very heavily travelled is simply wrong.
I would believe that CONCORD is stationed according to sec status, and sec status is higher in more populated systems, hence you void your own point about 'far-away' solar systems, its the same as where a city has more agents than a town has, no matter how much closer the town might be to the capital than the city.
|
Mike C
Caldari
MicroFunks
Green Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 02:44:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Mike C on 14/07/2010 02:44:34
Nice idea but SEVERELY flawed. This is an age where everyone and their mother has a jump-capable ship. Markets would be about as homogenized as they are now. Any practical trader has more than one account, and it wouldn't cost much to keep a disposable cyno alt in a system...
Jita to Dodixie - Ark Rhea Anshar Nomad
1. Warp to Perimeter Gate & Jump (Saves some fuel)
2. Jump to cyno alt in Decon
3. Slowboat to Dodixie, 3 jumps.
4. Profit
Dodixie to Jita - Ark Rhea Anshar Nomad
1. Jump to cyno alt in Ignoitton
2. Slowboat to Jita, 3 jumps.
3. Profit
Amarr to Dodixie - Ark Rhea Anshar Nomad
1. Jump to cyno alt in Decon
2. Slowboat to Dodixie, 3 jumps.
3. Profit
Dodixie to Amarr - Ark Rhea Anshar Nomad
1. Jump to cyno alt in Naguton
2. Slowboat to Amarr, 4 jumps.
3. Profit
Not even going to go into Hek/Rens, my ****ing Redeemers could (and do) jump that run.
↑↑ bar is just /quote ↑↑
[03:17:29] Trade Skills > Jesus believes in god
[03:17:38] Mike C > believed*
[03:17:48] Trade Skills > touche |
Jada Maroo
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 02:52:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
I can point to real world examples, to the extent they are relevant, to support my position. Take, for example, the United States border with Mexico. The two countries are friendly, if not necessarily allied. Yet the U.S.-Mexican border is a lawless zone of terror, murder, kidnapping, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and gang and cartel warfare.
You're comparing a vast border with countless points of entry between two mostly friendly nations to a very limitted number of points of entry between potentially hostile empires.
And you're implying that those well known points of entry shouldn't be fortified to hell and back.
The empires better pray you never take charge of their defense. 
ALso, one of CONCORD's priorities, RPly, would be to secure routes of safe trade between empires. Just from a logistics standpoint, CONCORD isn't going to allow its network of control to be carved into four seperate divisions unable offer each other support.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 02:54:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
I can point to real world examples, to the extent they are relevant, to support my position.
Mexico.
The "Wild West."
RL examples rarely help as we're talking about a game set far, far, far into the future. However, US comparisons are not appropriate at all as you're talking about a land-locked country - and most trade historically has been by water.
Countries like England, Spain and the Netherlands went to great pains to protect their trade routes. Stands to reason that empires that far into the future would do the same.
It is nonsense to think that low sec areas would abound along trade routes. So, yeah, this proposal makes no sense from an RP point of view.
|
Cain m
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 03:16:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
I can point to real world examples, to the extent they are relevant, to support my position.
Mexico.
The "Wild West."
RL examples rarely help as we're talking about a game set far, far, far into the future. However, US comparisons are not appropriate at all as you're talking about a land-locked country - and most trade historically has been by water.
Countries like England, Spain and the Netherlands went to great pains to protect their trade routes. Stands to reason that empires that far into the future would do the same.
It is nonsense to think that low sec areas would abound along trade routes. So, yeah, this proposal makes no sense from an RP point of view.
Erm, what the hell are you on? Only two countries (Paraguay & Bolivia in South America) in the western hemisphere are landlocked, plus Mali and Burkina Faso if you want to count them.
Originally by: YouDoNotOwnSalvage
You do not in any way shape or form own salvage.
|
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 09:33:00 -
[80]
Posting to add support for this suggestion. (Although I will hate it myself, but it does make sense, game/RP-wise, in my opinion).
--
EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
|
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 11:16:00 -
[81]
You propose a solution that doesn't really fix something that isn't really a problem. And the issues with low sec are more grave than you could fix by driving more people through it. And like was mentioned before, trading doesn't need a buff, especially those already flying jump freighters.
Quote:
Space is crowded. Jita is today's Yulai. Prices are once again mostly homogenized (not completely).
That's the result of efficient markets, not necessarily smallness. Anyway, if you think space is too crowded and that markets should be de-homogenized a bit, there's been a few proposals around citing the following ideas, among others:
- Make the universe bigger by adding more systems/regions, maybe also increasing the distance between the main hubs
- Tweak resources and drop rates in each region to make them more distinct then they are currently (you mention that too, point given)
Quote:
With this change, you could add four new currencies unique to each empire each with a fluctuating exchange rate with the isk.
That's just complexity for complexities sake -> bad game design.
All in all an interesting proposal that's not really feasible. Glad it came up tho, as the discussion brings up all counter arguments.
|
Resonanza
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 11:32:00 -
[82]
Denied.
That is one more attempt to nerf highsec and to lure all the highsec players into lowsec to gank them, because pirates have run out of easy targets.
So no. Not supported.
|
Angie McFish
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 12:00:00 -
[83]
Supported.
Freelancer Discovery server, anyone?
|
Stegas Tyrano
GREY COUNCIL
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 12:10:00 -
[84]
Supported.
Anyone saying that it goes against lore isn't exactly educated in the subject.
Make Jump Freighter's able to jump between low-sec system's but give AP freighter's a longer way around.
|
Seylah
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 12:23:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Seylah on 14/07/2010 12:23:38
Fantastic idea. Supported.
I would like to briefly state that most of the replies against this proposal miss the main point. That is, to actually make the empires their own separate communities in and of themselves, making it dangerous and lengthy to travel between them.
If this were actually implemented (please, CCP!) I would be making my home in the space between the empires as I'm sure it would be full of content and lacking any significant population = profit. Also I like nonconsensual pvp, even if I'm on the ganked side every now and then.
Someone mentioned 'everyone and their mother' has a jump freighter these days. Maybe among the alliance CEOs, but your average Joe certainly doesn't.
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 12:59:00 -
[86]
Excellent idea and I fully agree with the original poster. I don't think it really nerfs any activity. But it does add some real potential for profitable trade between empires.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 15:17:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Cain m
Erm, what the hell are you on? Only two countries (Paraguay & Bolivia in South America) in the western hemisphere are landlocked, plus Mali and Burkina Faso if you want to count them.
Yeah, bad choice of words. The fact remains that the US does not provide appropriate comparisons for trade routes.
And there are 44 land locked countries in the world - they all count even if 42 aren't part of the Americas.
|
Raid'En
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 18:13:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Raid''En on 14/07/2010 18:14:16
Edited by: Raid''En on 14/07/2010 18:13:05
Originally by: Voogru
One problem with the idea though, you might have people just moving over to one empire and then everybody does their missions there. Right now this would pretty much be Caldari space.
So you could see everyone from the other empires move over to Caldari space and the other three empires go bone dry.
for sure this will happen.
do you really think carebear will move to low sec ?
you saw this will lv5 missions, they won't do it.
"you" hate carebear because they don't want to take risks, and you think they will do it with this change ? no way.
with your idea go live jita will become way more crowded, as all people who don't want to go to los sec will move to caldari space.
and as some already said, traders who are capable of using LS without much risk will gain ever more than before.
if the goal of this idea is to have more people on LS it won't work at all.
on the price difference between empire, it will change a little, but not so much.
it will only change who get the money by trading from a lot of people to a less people.
if you really want more people on low sec (and i'm for), you need to make it more profitable living inside, or adding something new on it.
this tweak won't work.
moreover there's a real risk about a part of players stopping the game with this, and of course CCP won't allow it.
not supported.
|
Auri Hella
Downwind Trading Guild
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 20:09:00 -
[89]
+1
|
nickersonm
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 23:56:00 -
[90]
I support lowsec borders, but there's no reason to abandon ISK as a universal currency. |
|
|
Tacolina
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 01:46:00 -
[91]
Hate to be the minority here but I invite the complexity that four currencies would bring to the game. I'm all for realism of this idea. It would bring an immersive gameplay aspect unique to each empire. And as much as I dont like adding skills to the game this is one that I would definitely promote added trade skills for. Such as racial brokering.
There I said it.
|
TheTravler
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 03:11:00 -
[92]
thumbs up for the idea but, nut for more than one currency
|
Kireiina
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 04:15:00 -
[93]
So for those who cannot compete with the pirates the end result is shrinking the playable universe to 1/4 of the size? With the most likely result that 2-3 empires will become back-waters the on-line guides recommend against starting in?
Terrible idea... unless you are a pirate. And if you want to get newbies or PvE people into 0.0 then focus on actually making the PvP gameplay fun.
|
Slimy Worm
Sons of Viagra
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 04:25:00 -
[94]
Supported, and nice way of framing it OP. :)
|
DJ Obsidian
New Eden Technical Institutes
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 20:23:00 -
[95]
I lol at the op cause this wont happen. you saw what happened when autopilot broke. rancer was camped 24/7 with some 200+ ships. So what you are suggesting is, have 4 empires, completely seperate from each other and have a list of systems heavily camped 24/7 which would not allow any trade?
Oh and Oursulaert was a trade hub long before dodixie.
|
Seamus Donohue
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 00:09:00 -
[96]
Not supported.
__________________________________________________
Survivor of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke. |
Svarty II
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 01:35:00 -
[97]
.... and, and, and... make it so you start off your fAction's militia! Bleh! Bright orange! 
|
Jasper Mc'Innis
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 02:31:00 -
[98]
Yes because this would encourage risk averse players to leave their mission hubs how?
|
Shaalira D'arc
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 04:36:00 -
[99]
Could be fun.
|
Ronan Connor
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 13:27:00 -
[100]
not supported - there are already enough nerfs of high sec play. go play at the playground which is designed for the bloodbears --> null or wh
btw low sec needs to gets sufficient attention by ccp without cutting away the playing high sec player by nerfs in the same move.
what i am for 100% is to have the possibilty of getting to the hubs faster via low sec or null sec. why not introduce a technique by the pirate factions which is like "hyperspace". think of it like a form of wh space but without sleeper drones. rats could be some form of creatures like in star trek (liquid space). designed around pirate activities, with organic pos'es etc.
|
|
|
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
The Uninvited.
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 13:54:00 -
[101]
Full support to this. It even has a storyline to make it right with faction warfare... Eventually in such an environment the borders could quite believably become neutral zones of lowsec...
Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
Tacolina
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 14:32:00 -
[102]
^ Agreed, this has great faction war potential
Quote:
Yes because this would encourage risk averse players to leave their mission hubs how?
Not in the op. This is about trade not missions, and nothing short of agent's limiting their missions followed by cool down times would subvert that.
|
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 14:58:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Ronan Connor
not supported - there are already enough nerfs of high sec play. go play at the playground which is designed for the bloodbears --> null or wh
I don't see how this is a "high sec nerf". The typical "high sec dweller" (=for example me) won't recognize this change at all. He'll still run his Lvl4 missions where he run them before, he would still farm his datacores where he did before, he would still visit his local hub to buy stuff like he did before.
--
EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
Kisdis
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 15:02:00 -
[104]
New players often create characters in one empire, but need to travel to another to join their friends. Low sec highways today are filled with smart bomb camps, I imagine it would be even worse if they were the only route.
I think this would make it really hard for new players to hookup with their friends online.
In addition increasing the number of prowlers flying threw low sec isn't what I would consider a win for increasing interest in low sec.
not supported.
|
Rocito
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 12:42:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Rocito on 19/07/2010 12:42:31
Originally by: Kisdis
New players often create characters in one empire, but need to travel to another to join their friends. Low sec highways today are filled with smart bomb camps, I imagine it would be even worse if they were the only route.
I think this would make it really hard for new players to hookup with their friends online.
In addition increasing the number of prowlers flying threw low sec isn't what I would consider a win for increasing interest in low sec.
not supported.
What a load of rubbish.
I fly through low-sec in my pod ALL THE TIME. Smart bombing gate campers are easy to avoid. Learn to use your D-scanner.
To link up with your friends you would only have to do the run once!!
|
Brutus B
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 20:45:00 -
[106]
I support killing highsec routes between empires. They are currently at war after all. That would be the one improvement to lowsec that is needed most I think. But to make it less likely that supper camps would be everywhere, more lowsec routes/points of entry would need to be established. Of course, lowsec systems could be the new expressways, making some lowsec routes more vauable to control and shorter than others. Maybe have some storyline introduced where the serpentis or jovians come in and destroy the highsec supper highways, over a multitude of battles players in which highsec players could benefit by particpating in, and potentially delaying what may become the inevitable? (That would be great fun.) Of course, you would have to contest Concord in those systems... I think it would be great though if Concord could be weakend/cutoff in such live-event contested systems, so pirate players could go after them, while highsec corps go after the pirate factions and player factions supporting the pirates... THAT WOULD OWN
I don't support more than one currency--at least not entirely. According to the fiction, there is already more than one currency in eve, but pod pilots only trade in ISK which is a credit more vaulable than all the other currencies available to the NPC's. Maybe when dust comes out, they could introduce some type of currency/forex exchange mini-game bewteen dust and eve, for traders to work, but I wouldn't want it to be a compulsive thing everyone in eve has to use. (I'm sure that would be entertaining to people smarter than me, but I don't want to trade currenies everytime I shop for ships in different trade hubs.
|
jk scowling
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:21:00 -
[107]
Supported
|
Karonys
Balderfrey Enterprises
Deadline.
|
Posted - 2010.07.28 18:08:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Nin Kimrov
It could be also a new role for the faction warfare : protect the borders and secure trade highways.
There lots of thing that could be made with that.
Supported. This alone isn't the silver bullet needed to fix low sec, but adding low sec regions between the empires and having factional warfare fight to protect the trade routes adds some good flavor and encourages people to venture out of the high sec safety zone. Many won't do it, and will just hang out in Caldari space, but I still think it's a good idea.
|
chingchongchangy
|
Posted - 2010.07.28 21:37:00 -
[109]
+1.
I am strongly against homogenization, different regions should have meaning.
Here is an idea on similar grounds
|
Kristina Kirtchner
|
Posted - 2010.07.28 22:05:00 -
[110]
yes |
|
|
Voddick
|
Posted - 2010.07.28 22:43:00 -
[111]
"With this change, you could add four new currencies unique to each empire each with a fluctuating exchange rate with the isk."
Everything sounds great except the diff empire currencies.
FULLY support Lowsec inbetween each empire. This is something that lowsec REALLY needs in addition to a major overhaul.
|
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 04:46:00 -
[112]
So your idea is that in space vast empires with their own police/navy/and a unified security force, concord, allow the borders to be controlled by pirates?
Sounds like the empires and concord thought that through really well, if they wanted isolationism which would go against Concord's mission and own interests in collecting trade fees, etc. I'm sure the economic interests of the empires and their member corporations would also be suffering too cause cutting off highsec routes would be the way to do that.
Different currency, what is the deal with trying to go backwards in time? Will we have to physically carry our precious metals to trade at stations or can we keep using the electronic credits and other futuristic methods of buying and selling?
Not supported.
-------------------------------------------------------
5 minute forum time delay is a crime against humanity. |
Vherkin
Amarr
Khanids Brownies Industrie
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 05:35:00 -
[113]
Quote:
add four new currencies
The reason why isk was created in the back story is because they're is to much currency, they needed one for interstellar trade. So in RP it's make no sense to go back.
In a gameplay sense, for most people multiple currency fluctuation, economic news, saving in multiple currency, changing a currency for another, ect are boring if not downright irritating and unlike other aspect of eve, you can't simply ignore it, it's will be shoved down your throat every time you will use money.
Quote:
In my opinion, it is time to take the final step and remove the highsec highways
Well some ganker gonna cry to see their nice bottleneck disappear. But i love the idea, i alway found isolated high-sec like solitude really interesting. Most people live only in one nation/region anyway.
Quote:
Two, it will spread the population out from the central network that connects the major hubs.
What population? Most player live around trade hub already. Your idea, i love it, but it's will actually make it harder for people to move in less populated area. Worse, there is a risk that people abandon more costly nation for the one with better price!
|
T'KNaath
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 18:25:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
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 love this idea :D
Supported.
|
Conifold
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 20:11:00 -
[115]
woah , supported 
|
Wraithik
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 01:45:00 -
[116]
|
eava hill
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 04:01:00 -
[117]
Supported
|
Stoogie
Cadre Assault Force
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 22:03:00 -
[118]
Lowsec Borders good.
Differnet currencies would just make a mess.
|
Torrelus Toh'Kon
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 23:41:00 -
[119]
Anything to keep the Amarr out of Heimatar. :)
Also it could cause some very interesting changes to low-sec in general.
|
Battle Mage
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 10:15:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Battle Mage on 31/07/2010 10:16:04
Well, I am seeing a high % of support here.
However, as a new player to this game, I can only say this will make new player life pain in the ass.
As a new player, I am waiting for alot of skill to get train. I am in no shape or form to pvp with my current ship and skill point. Low in isk means I can't afford to keep losing implants, ships and stuff fitted on it.
(1) Price will go up, very high possibility. A big problem for new players.
(2) Places I can fly around safely now, I would have to avoid with this change. Including agent of my faction corp located in another empire.
(3) How the hell players other then Gallent going to do SoE epic arc?
(4) Except for a few brave souls, most new players will not see other empire for months.
With all the above said, this proposed change is a great deterrent for new players, and only benefit the old.
Until someone can convince me otherwise, thumb down.
|
|
|
Niyrah
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 17:21:00 -
[121]
|
mr rens
|
Posted - 2010.08.29 20:21:00 -
[122]
i can't support this because you log rolled the currency system into it.
good try, though.
|
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.08.29 20:54:00 -
[123]
Edited by: Aurum Bellator on 29/08/2010 20:55:50
Removed the portion of the OP that related to currency proposal due to lack of support. Please consider this only related to the removal of highsec highways between empires.
AUB
PS. Need to disclose a bias built into Varo Jan's position throughout this thread. After the main discussion took place, it was later discovered that Varo is setting up a franchise business across all empires (a POS / research franchise). Removal of the highsec highways would severely limit his ability to accomplish this. Thus, consider his arguments on that basis.
|
Harris Dorn
|
Posted - 2010.08.29 23:26:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
Edited by: Aurum Bellator on 29/08/2010 20:52:08
Edited by: Aurum Bellator on 12/07/2010 22:32:29
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.
[PROPOSAL RELATED TO ADDITIONAL CURRENCIES REMOVED DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT]
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.
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
Couldn't 'people' just cyno crap in? And by people I mean a select few just like the select few who who will/can afford an armada to protect their trade convoy.
Secondly yeah it pretty much would just create more ganking and pirating for lowsec.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.08.29 23:27:00 -
[125]
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.
/signed
|
Zirse
ZED Industries
|
Posted - 2010.08.29 23:35:00 -
[126]
/signed
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 00:05:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Battle Mage
As a new player, I am waiting for alot of skill to get train. I am in no shape or form to pvp with my current ship and skill point. Low in isk means I can't afford to keep losing implants, ships and stuff fitted on it.
(1) Price will go up, very high possibility. A big problem for new players.
Not for stuff a new player can afford, as minerals are mined everywhere.
Originally by: Battle Mage
(2) Places I can fly around safely now, I would have to avoid with this change. Including agent of my faction corp located in another empire.
You can fly around there safely too.. just getting there will be a bit trickier than before.. and that would be bad?
The agent system is broken anyways.. many proposals already brought up. Don't hang onto something that's archaic.
Originally by: Battle Mage
(3) How the hell players other then Gallente going to do SoE epic arc?
Phew.. time for CCP to pull out some more for the other factions?!
I mean, they told us a year(?!) ago that their new mission scripting system is so awesome, that they could pull out new epic arcs practically every month..
Originally by: Battle Mage
(4) Except for a few brave souls, most new players will not see other empire for months.
Something to look forward then? Seems to look good under this point of view.. non-instant-gratification.
Originally by: Battle Mage
With all the above said, this proposed change is a great deterrent for new players, and only benefit the old.
Until someone can convince me otherwise, thumb down.
If you get older you will see that this is good.
|
Baroshi Hynas
The Exploratory Project
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 02:56:00 -
[128]
Supported! Besides the bias that I'm a pirate and would love more lowsec to kill in, I like the idea because it adds, as Aurum put it, "flavor" to each empire island.
KILL THE EVE PANGAEA, MAKE INTO CONTINENTS!!!
PS. If you really support this topic, make sure to check the "Check here if you want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on" box, because "+1 support" just doesn't cut it.
|
Stick Cult
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 03:23:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Stick Cult on 30/08/2010 03:23:23
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
]PS. Need to disclose a bias built into Varo Jan's position throughout this thread. After the main discussion took place, it was later discovered that Varo is setting up a franchise business across all empires (a POS / research franchise). Removal of the highsec highways would severely limit his ability to accomplish this. Thus, consider his arguments on that basis.
And let's say I'm a pirate, so I'm all for making lowsec between empires because not doing so would be a huge setback to my possible profits. You also show bias against having Varo set up his research franchise. My friend doesn't want this because he makes money moving things in freighters between trade hubs. A guy I was talking to in local is a highsec carebear and thinks lowsec is bad bad bad, and doesn't want to be forced through it to go to another empire.
Everyone has a bias.
Note: That was all made up, except the part about you, but let's just pretend it's real...
edit: Not supported.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
my bad. Rest assured I'm being ridiculed by my co-workers.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 04:13:00 -
[130]
What the care bears think will happen: brave souls will ship goods across the low sec areas to make huge profits, industrialistsntake advantage of scarcity to make profits manufacturing bulky goods near regional market hubs, everyone is happy.
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.
--
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
|
|
Jada Maroo
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 05:22:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Battle Mage
Well, I am seeing a high % of support here.
Naw you're just seeing the usual suspects trying to force players into to pirates nests to grow their killboard e-peens.
Apparently that's supposed to appeal to their victims and make low sec more popular or something.
|
Yavanna Akallabeth
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 06:32:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Mike C
Edited by: Mike C on 14/07/2010 02:44:34
Nice idea but SEVERELY flawed. This is an age where everyone and their mother has a jump-capable ship. Markets would be about as homogenized as they are now. Any practical trader has more than one account, and it wouldn't cost much to keep a disposable cyno alt in a system...
Jita to Dodixie - Ark Rhea Anshar Nomad
1. Warp to Perimeter Gate & Jump (Saves some fuel)
2. Jump to cyno alt in Decon
3. Slowboat to Dodixie, 3 jumps.
4. Profit
Dodixie to Jita - Ark Rhea Anshar Nomad
1. Jump to cyno alt in Ignoitton
2. Slowboat to Jita, 3 jumps.
3. Profit
Amarr to Dodixie - Ark Rhea Anshar Nomad
1. Jump to cyno alt in Decon
2. Slowboat to Dodixie, 3 jumps.
3. Profit
Dodixie to Amarr - Ark Rhea Anshar Nomad
1. Jump to cyno alt in Naguton
2. Slowboat to Amarr, 4 jumps.
3. Profit
Not even going to go into Hek/Rens, my ****ing Redeemers could (and do) jump that run.
I for one think this would be a great idea. It would add another choke point in trade and open up another career for traders. I would think this, with CCP help, allow alliances to set up trade control routes through low-sec as one way to add more game play to EVE.
|
mindimoo
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 07:41:00 -
[133]
Supported as long as there are plenty of entry points and the gate guns are also buffed up, way too easy and safe for people to sit and tank them getting easy ganks then running off when something looking a bit more that it could defend itself turns up.
Personally I'd say put scramming and webbing modules as well as the guns on the gates so if someone wants to agress on a gate they also get some risk involved, make a timer on it, 5 - 10 minuites seems fair, enough time for the ganked to get something together and get revenge.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 08:24:00 -
[134]
Yes more chokepoints is really what eve needs...
Quote:
Two, it will spread the population out from the central network that connects the major hubs.
Hahahahhahahhahahhhaha
Wait, you are serious? Spreading the population out? Lol.
Lets add some realism. Jita is the biggest trade hub. Partially due to ignorance, there is no real reason to buy a normal t2 fitted ship in jita instead of amarr for example, but still enough do the trip. So now you want more easy ganks and want to add low sec between the empires, tbh would easier solution would be if you could just ask CCP to spawn NCP freighters in your camp. But why exactly do you think that after this change, which will only lead to the smaller hubs being less stocked, will anyone live in gallente space when you can also just run missions in motsu and do your shopping in jita without low sec between it?
The main effects will be some easy ganks for pirates and even more crowding in caldari space with less people in space of other empires.
|
Lemmy Kravitz
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 08:39:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 30/08/2010 08:40:58
/signed this gets +1 frp, ,e
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 09:44:00 -
[136]
this thread definitely needs more thumbs up from failing pirates.
|
Anders Oxenstierna
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 10:23:00 -
[137]
It's very time consuming to travel through the universe already now. NO. |
Camios
Insurgent New Eden Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 10:39:00 -
[138]
I don't actually know if removing superhighways will change the population distribution or polarize even more the global market and the empire population.
But the example of Yulai gives us some hope about the market decentralizing.
So, I'll support this idea.
|
Bomberlocks
CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 13:26:00 -
[139]
Love it. Make all empire borders in losec.
|
Vesok Toch
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 13:35:00 -
[140]
Great idea |
|
|
Levistus Junior
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 13:55:00 -
[141]
Sounds interesting.
|
BinaryIdiot
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 14:51:00 -
[142]
Edited by: BinaryIdiot on 30/08/2010 14:52:10
+1
When I first started I thought 0.0 separated the different empires and was very disappointed to learn that it wasn't only wrong but that we have high-sec connections! Where's the risk?
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 14:54:00 -
[143]
As long as this doesn't become another Rancor, one system highway.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Zumra
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 15:01:00 -
[144]
Not supported,
and how does this make sense from an RP point of view? CONCORD has a mission, and part of that mission is to promote peace between the major empires. A good step to this WOULD be to create safe space "highways" so diplomats and such could get from empire to empire without being blown up on route. Having safe routes for empire's traders and citizens also promotes communication, friendship and peace. Removing these routes is not something CONCORD would do from an RP point of view as it would push them years back in their mission.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 15:06:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Zumra
Not supported,
and how does this make sense from an RP point of view? CONCORD has a mission, and part of that mission is to promote peace between the major empires. A good step to this WOULD be to create safe space "highways" so diplomats and such could get from empire to empire without being blown up on route. Having safe routes for empire's traders and citizens also promotes communication, friendship and peace. Removing these routes is not something CONCORD would do from an RP point of view as it would push them years back in their mission.
From an RP standpoint? Seriously? Those "highways" should be war zones from an RP standpoint. There should be enormous NPC fleets shooting people attempting to provide their enemy with aid.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
MP Rhianna
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 15:35:00 -
[146]
Not supported, just another BS game change to boost one group's style of play with the lame attempt to say it is to make 'trade better', which would do little more than let each region become a cash cow for fatcat economic warlords.
|
Cikulisuy
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 16:29:00 -
[147]
suppoted wholeheartedly.
~ |
Danesta Rictor
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 17:00:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Danesta Rictor on 30/08/2010 17:00:52
personally i thin kthis is a bad idea.
all i can see is trade being choked off, as no one with a clue would take a freighter into low sec UNLESS they had major firesupport, wich would simply put trade into the hands of the power grps only.
i dont see it as increasing but decreasing trade. the only other group benefited by this are the pirates. welcoem to Rancor #27 enjoy your gank err i meant day.
i support this idea NOT being implamented.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In every race there are 2 positions..... First & Loser. |
Muul Udonii
THORN Syndicate
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 17:55:00 -
[149]
+1 to the idea of making it more likely that high sec regions will have different markets. Somehow.
|
Jada Maroo
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 17:58:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Bagehi
From an RP standpoint? Seriously? Those "highways" should be war zones from an RP standpoint. There should be enormous NPC fleets shooting people attempting to provide their enemy with aid.
So wrong it's hard to know where to start.
First, the empires are not all at war with each other. There are allied NPC "sides" that exist in a state of cold war with the occasional skirmish.
Second, there's no logical reason why the heavily fortified borders between cold war opponents would be *less* secure. Realistically they would be the most secured areas in space.
Third, the empires use Concord for the specific purpose of facilitating trade between them.
Forth, under your reasoning there's no reason why there would be a low-sec border between allies either (Amarr/Caldari, Minmatar/Gallente).
|
|
|
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 won¦t 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. |
|
|
William Archer
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 17:01:00 -
[181]
yes
but the border areas should be small and influenced by factional warfare
|
Scyth Darkhope
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 11:58:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Scyth Darkhope on 09/09/2010 11:58:21
/signed
On one hand, traders and pirates would reap the direct benefits.
The indirect losses, however, would be dispersed among the mission runners and the miners. It would either force them to go to good markets for their intended merchandise (either low-priced ammo, or high-priced ores), or buy/sell them in safety near their farming location. I approve.
However, I also feel that multiple currencies, while an interesting change, would be overkill and annoying.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |