| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fenderson
Finite Horizon
Synchr0nicity
   |
Posted - 2007.10.09 15:13:00 -
[1]
this is the first "fix lowsec" idea that i have ever really liked.
if the map were to be redrawn, great care would need to be taken to provide lots of alternate routes through lowsec so that nothing short of a massive force of hundreds of players would be able to totally block all the routes between 2 empires.
i really like this idea because lowsec mainly restricts the movement of stuff without restricting the movement of players. with the exception of smartbombing motherships, shuttles are mostly invincible in lowsec. so players would be able to move from one empire to another without too much trouble, but ships and large amounts of goods would be alot more difficult.
this would also have the positive effect of decentralizing trade hubs. every empire would now need its own trade hub, and industrialists would be encouraged to operate within the empire where they want to sell their products.
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon
Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.09 17:47:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Saffron Reynoldes
I think this is a cool idea. I've also always wanted to see the Empire navies floating about on patrol in the border systems. Would be an interesting way to help limit gate camping in these "border" areas of lowsec if fleets of player ships would move about the systems breaking up camps.......
fixed 4 u...
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon
Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.09 17:49:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme
this wont change anything except the profit to be had in high sec, the carebears will still never go there and regional tradehubs will get more popular
no one wants to be a victim, so low sec will never be busy, deal with it or move to 0.0
care to back up this argument with some logic?
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon
Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.10 11:59:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
The spans of water between the islands would remain full of sharks and little else. Rare would be the person willing to brave the waters. Trade would dry up in certain regions since the risk would outweigh the reward, better to trade internally and not risk losing ship and cargo.
I disagree with your analysis if the effect this would have. It would certainly limit trade between empires, but not remove it altogether. Blockade runners are still fairly invincible in low-sec and i think we would them alot more in use.
even freighters could still get thru, they would just need a bit of escort.
also, theres nothing wrong with local trade. breaking up the jita industrial megaplex would be overall very healthy for the game economy.
factional warfare can also play in to this. it could be a goal for factional warfare to break up pirate camps along trade routes. also, pirate gatecamps are nice juicy targets to alot of people, so we would see alot more lowsec pvp going on, and maybe some real anti-pirate corps stepping up.
anti-piracy could even become a new business, as traders may want to pay for escort thru lowsec zones that they must cross in order to complete a valuable trade run.
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon
Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.10 16:43:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
You underestimate how unwilling a large portion of the playerbase is to enter lo-sec and the validity some of them have for not going.
In relation to trade, profits are typically in the 5-10% range. Losing a single runs worth would require up to 20 runs to replace, where again if you take a loss another 20 successful runs are required. Escorts are all well and good but even the most wealthy of traders couldn't afford to pay more than a handful of pilots to cover them (I'm talking the 300m+ a day traders, most can't afford to pay for more than one escort even with the profits from freighter trading). The pirates however will be camping the gates en-masse.
Jita will not break up, it will grow, why live in Amarr space and pay more for your modules and ships when you can move to Caldari isle and pay far less, the difference in price are large now, but with a lack of trade (since the mark-ups to cover escorts would increase the cost of items far beyond manufacturing price) the differences would be far greater.
you are thinking in terms of present market conditions. if this system were implemented and the overall risk of trade runs was made higher, the margins on trade runs would be higher.
why live in amarr space when you could just as easily live in jita? well, because amarr space has something that jita doesnt. that could be certain kinds of minerals, certain kinds of NPC produced goods (non-ice POS fuel comes to mind), or, (to use an example currently in place) faction mods that can only be acquired by running missions in a given region.
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon
Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.10 18:51:00 -
[6]
fester- your objection is based on an RP/backstory perspective, and while you do have a valid point, the issue you present can certainly be overcome. i think the basic idea is still very solid, and i dont think anyone would mind a little bending or evolving of the backstory of the game to allow for such a thing.
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon
Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.10 22:51:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Fester Addams
The flaw I see in this idea, old idea I might add, is that it gies nothing to the hauler, nothing to the producer, nothing to the traveler.
It merely creates easy targets for the camper.
I want to point out here that I think the camper is a viable profession but it is one that is by far too simple, far too safe and one that is not risk vs reward balanced.
the non-pvp rewards do need some better balancing, but i still think this would be a positive thing for the game overall. yes, it would be a large blow to people who like to make solo trade runs in freighters, but that is not a bad thing imo. many other professions would be enhanced by this, including anti-pirate pvp, industry, and small scale trade. large scale trading would still be possible, but would require more people to be involved.
|
| |
|