Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khandara Seraphim
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 00:38:00 -
[1]
I mean, doesn't that create a much more dynamic game?
As far as I can tell, creating lowsec/0.0 between empires makes all of the following great things happen:
- It partially fixes Jita. Each empire will have its own regional center where trading occurs, with freighter pilots unwilling to risk their ships in the trek to Jita. While Jita might remain the biggest trade hub, getting to/from there from anywhere that isn't Caldari space makes it a much bigger risk.
- It fosters teamwork and cooperation. AFK flying freighters to and fro in empire is not what EVE is supposed to be all about. Escorting your corp's freighter with a hefty support fleet and having some great fights is what EVE is supposed to be like. If you don't have the friends/combat ability, then no problem! Just be prepared to accept a lower price in your local trade hub.
- It adds more character to the empires. Right now, Each empire isn't interesting and unique because they're all blobbed together. The fact that I can jump from the Amarr Homeworlds to the Center of the Gallente Federation in very few jumps cheapens the whole aspect of 4 separate empires. Why not make them 4 distinct places in fact as well as in the lore?
- It gives pirates something to do. Trade convoys being ambushed by pirates is a mechanic that always should have been in the game, but never will be with the current system. Suicide ganking and war decs should not be the only way to disrupt trade. Who knows, maybe we'll even see the return of honorable ransoming!
- It's not even hard to implement. Put it in factional warfare, say CONCORD lost control of border systems due to the increased hostilities and the lessened support of the empires. Make a few existing chokepoint or highway systems low sec and boom, instant excitement. I'd recommend at least 3 or 4 systems of low sec between empires but of course thats something to test out.
I'm sure I can think of more, but you get the idea. What I DONT see is why this is bad. As far as I can tell, the only people that lose out are the ones that prefer to AFK fly their trade routes all day. If you're going to pay a monthly fee to essentially be a trucker... why not get a job as a trucker and MAKE money doing it? Putting lawless space between empires makes the game more interesting, more challenging, and more fun. Let's get the ball rolling on this one!
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 01:33:00 -
[2]
Because concord is inter-empire and this is central to the plot? There are interesting ideas, but it could seriously hurt the economy. ---------------------------------
Oh noes! |
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 01:43:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Arana Tellen Because concord is inter-empire and this is central to the plot? There are interesting ideas, but it could seriously hurt the economy.
This isnt real life, "hurting the economy" makes for better gameplay. Its not like you're living off eve.
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 01:44:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Arana Tellen Because concord is inter-empire and this is central to the plot? There are interesting ideas, but it could seriously hurt the economy.
This isnt real life, "hurting the economy" makes for better gameplay. Its not like you're living off eve.
Ships become more expensive, people cant afford ships as much and therefore fly out less..... ---------------------------------
Oh noes! |
Commander Awkward
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 01:53:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Arana Tellen .... There are interesting ideas, but it could seriously hurt the economy.
This isnt real life, "hurting the economy" makes for better gameplay. Its not like you're living off eve.
The "hurting the economy"-part probably referred to CCP's economy hurting when a large part of the carebear population logged off for good.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 02:53:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Commander Awkward
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Arana Tellen .... There are interesting ideas, but it could seriously hurt the economy.
This isnt real life, "hurting the economy" makes for better gameplay. Its not like you're living off eve.
The "hurting the economy"-part probably referred to CCP's economy hurting when a large part of the carebear population logged off for good.
If by large you mean you and 10 people just like you, then sure.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 02:54:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Arana Tellen
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Arana Tellen Because concord is inter-empire and this is central to the plot? There are interesting ideas, but it could seriously hurt the economy.
This isnt real life, "hurting the economy" makes for better gameplay. Its not like you're living off eve.
Ships become more expensive, people cant afford ships as much and therefore fly out less.....
Ships wont become much more expensive. Compare prices between amarr and jita right now, its not that much different.
|
Khandara Seraphim
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 06:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Arana Tellen Because concord is inter-empire and this is central to the plot? There are interesting ideas, but it could seriously hurt the economy.
Concord gets its resources from the 4 empires sharing. If war were to break out between them, it would only make sense that a first step in the war would be to withdraw resources and troops from concord. It makes complete sense as to why the areas between empires would see a reduced presence from a RP perspective.
as for the economy issues, that's kind of my whole point. a common complaint has been that highsec has all the money and none of the risk, which goes against Eve's ideas. My proposal doesn't remove carebears, it just makes it less profitable by forcing people to travel through dangerous areas en route to market.
For instance, right now carebear can mine hypothetical ore A that tends to spawn in amarr space. however, the best prices are in Jita or gallente space or wherever. Our carebear mines all day, loads up his trusty freighter and makes a bank without ever being in serious danger.
With my proposal, the carebear can still follow his previous strategy. However, he either has to settle for reduced profit by selling somewhere close to home where the prices are lower, or accepting a greater risk that comes with flying through dangerous areas. This brings risk vs reward back into eve and makes the universe a much more interesting place.
The economy as a whole won't crash... there will be MORE profit in carrying your goods long distance, because demand will rise when haulers decide their favorite trade routes are now too risky. Prices can't rise too high, because then nobody buys and the market checks itself. I forsee lucrative business opportunities for freighters willing to take the risk and mercenaries willing to do regular escort runs along trade routes. Even pirates win with new lowsec space lanes that actually see regular traffic.
What isn't there to like? I have yet to hear a real reason why this is a bad idea... it seems so staggeringly "Right" and in character with Eve that I'm surprised it hasn't been like this from the start.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 07:41:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Gamesguy
If by large you mean you and 10 people just like you, then sure.
Nay. He means a lot more people than over carrier nerf. For example there was suggestion a while ago to move all lev 4 missions into low sec. It reached 70 pages 'I will quit' statements faster than that carrier thread.
Now I can understand the urge to get 'moar targets', but adding 0.0 between empires would quarantee only that those routes would be camped 23/7 by 100 man blobs. Even adding just low sec between empires would result in same situation, it's just might ... if you are lucky and manage to use different approach vectros ... be possible to avoid clever smartbombers in small and agile ship if it's low sec and not 'proper' bubble camp.
So there would be some people who would clonejump into one of those hi sec pockets and would never leave them (at whitch point you might as well have sharded universe) and sizable portion of people quitting. Not all of them who threaten to do so ofc, but even if 20% of those who threaten to quit would quit it would be noticeable drop in subscription numbers. And for what gains ... to boost ego of some 5% game population for nothing?
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 07:59:00 -
[10]
It makes no sense to have lowsec or 0.0 between empires. The backbone of any society is trade, and those empires will enforce trade ability much faster than the rights of their citizens. YOu can see in our own history what happened to "pirates" and lowsec when it started interfering with nations' trading. The markets in Eve are as important or more so than the PvP in keeping the game running and interesting, hindering one to boost the other will damage the game and its player base.
Game-wise it makes no sense either and would only sever relations between players and decrease interaction. If you had each empire consist of 4 solar systems and the rest of the game was 0.0 or LowSec you STILL wouldn't get more targets; you would only get empty servers.
If this is a whine about lack of targets (which is what it sounds), I have to assume the old standby of "this is a PvP game, you are too safe in Empire". To which my response is to read Oveur's actual comment: "eve is PRIMARILY a PvP game." Simply adding the word PRIMARILY changes the entire sentance. He also continued in that same paragraph to say "balancing that PvP can be difficult". Maybe with all the alterations people have said are "ruining" PvP CCP is trying to say that PvP in Eve is out of balance (ie-too prevelant and over-shadowing the rest of the game).....
Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
|
Commander Awkward
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 10:42:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gamesguy
If by large you mean you and 10 people just like you, then sure.
Good job understanding the playstyle of a major part of the EVE population
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 10:48:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 26/01/2008 10:52:16 Every time I see this kind of post people that don't play in empire is very free giving away empire space, especially high sec.
It is very greedy from people that have 70% or more of the EVE systems (0.0) to ask that empire was reduced to give them more space.
You really feel the need for 1 system for each palyer? Try to populate what you have before asking for what other people use.
|
SoldierOfJustice
Infortunatus Eventus HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 10:56:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Venkul Mul Every time I see this kind of post people that don't play in empire is very free giving away empire space,e specially high sec.
It is very greedy from people that have 70% or more of the EVE systems (0.0) to ask that empire was reduced to give them more space.
You really feel the need for 1 system for each palyer? Try to populate what you have before asking for what other people use.
As far as I can see the OP didnt say "reduce" empire, but add 0.0 space between the empires.
IMO it does make sense that the space between 2 empires at war should be lower sec, and it shouldnt be possible to travel between the 2 except through lower sec systems.
If CCP loses some customers it might mean CCP would then have the ressources to run the server without the lag . As far as I can see they dont care what their customers want anyways. ---------- My words represent my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of my corporation or alliance. |
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 11:14:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Carniflex
Nay. He means a lot more people than over carrier nerf. For example there was suggestion a while ago to move all lev 4 missions into low sec. It reached 70 pages 'I will quit' statements faster than that carrier thread.
What does that have to do with this?
Quote: Now I can understand the urge to get 'moar targets', but adding 0.0 between empires would quarantee only that those routes would be camped 23/7 by 100 man blobs. Even adding just low sec between empires would result in same situation, it's just might ... if you are lucky and manage to use different approach vectros ... be possible to avoid clever smartbombers in small and agile ship if it's low sec and not 'proper' bubble camp.
It has nothing to do with more targets and everything to do with promoting trade, and promoting the sense of a difference. Right now empire is just empire, because everything is connected by highsec systems. If the 4 empires were seperated by 0.0 space, then it would actually mean something to be in Caldari space rather than amarr space.
Plus it would help solve the jita problem.
100man blobs? I rountinely fly through ec-p8r, the most "dangerous" system in eve according to eon magazine, without a scout and alone. 100 man blobs are a figment of your imagination. They dont exist outside of POS warfare.
Oh and anything that can go about 2.5km/s with a mwd can escape a bubble camp.
Quote: So there would be some people who would clonejump into one of those hi sec pockets and would never leave them (at whitch point you might as well have sharded universe) and sizable portion of people quitting. Not all of them who threaten to do so ofc, but even if 20% of those who threaten to quit would quit it would be noticeable drop in subscription numbers. And for what gains ... to boost ego of some 5% game population for nothing?
There are people that never leave highsec now, so whats the difference? You honestly trying to tell me your average mission runner flies to all 4 empires on a regular basis? Hell no. Most people are based around a few systems or a constellation and only leave to fly to jita to buy/sell things.
Well instead of flying to jita, they'd just fly to amarr/rens/ours/jita instead.
|
Andre Ricard
Gallente EnTech Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 12:17:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Andre Ricard on 26/01/2008 12:18:01 Edited by: Andre Ricard on 26/01/2008 12:17:20 As far as full-blown 0.0 between Empires goes, that would make no sense. 0.0 denotes space not yet claimed by a major human government. The Outer Rim is lawless simply because nobody wants (or yet has the resources) to exert authority there.
But the four major human nations have been in contact with one another for two centuries or more. Hell, remember that the Caldari rebelled against the Gallente Federation and for all intents and purposes took part of the Fed with them, ala the Confederacy winning the American Civil War and taking part of America. It makes no sense for them to be very distant from each other, they're supposed to be next to each other and belligerent. It even makes sense for their to be police presence on both ends of the border in that case (with CONCORD there as a reminder to not leap on top of each other like angry pit bulls!)
Now, from the design side of things, I've always thought - and when the game was first coming out, assumed - that there would be lowsec between the empires. It would make inter-empire travel such a massive pain in the ass, though, if that lowsec itself was connected to Outer Rim 0.0 that the pirates could then hide in. While I've actually seen a lot of evidence for EVE industrialists having a fair bit more spine than a lot of people assume, constant hundred man gatecamps really would choke the life out of a lot of EVE. Hell S******dly did it once for giggles (look up their Amamake Gate Camp video) and they racked up hundreds of kills in the space of about a week. On one gate.
The idea has a little merit, but it's a bit late in EVE's life cycle to make such a sweeping change to the game mechanics. ----- Character back under original management. |
Horeta
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 12:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Khandara Seraphim I mean, doesn't that create a much more dynamic game?
As far as I can tell, creating lowsec/0.0 between empires makes all of the following great things happen:
- It partially fixes Jita. Each empire will have its own regional center where trading occurs, with freighter pilots unwilling to risk their ships in the trek to Jita. While Jita might remain the biggest trade hub, getting to/from there from anywhere that isn't Caldari space makes it a much bigger risk.
- It fosters teamwork and cooperation. AFK flying freighters to and fro in empire is not what EVE is supposed to be all about. Escorting your corp's freighter with a hefty support fleet and having some great fights is what EVE is supposed to be like. If you don't have the friends/combat ability, then no problem! Just be prepared to accept a lower price in your local trade hub.
- It adds more character to the empires. Right now, Each empire isn't interesting and unique because they're all blobbed together. The fact that I can jump from the Amarr Homeworlds to the Center of the Gallente Federation in very few jumps cheapens the whole aspect of 4 separate empires. Why not make them 4 distinct places in fact as well as in the lore?
- It gives pirates something to do. Trade convoys being ambushed by pirates is a mechanic that always should have been in the game, but never will be with the current system. Suicide ganking and war decs should not be the only way to disrupt trade. Who knows, maybe we'll even see the return of honorable ransoming!
- It's not even hard to implement. Put it in factional warfare, say CONCORD lost control of border systems due to the increased hostilities and the lessened support of the empires. Make a few existing chokepoint or highway systems low sec and boom, instant excitement. I'd recommend at least 3 or 4 systems of low sec between empires but of course thats something to test out.
I'm sure I can think of more, but you get the idea. What I DONT see is why this is bad. As far as I can tell, the only people that lose out are the ones that prefer to AFK fly their trade routes all day. If you're going to pay a monthly fee to essentially be a trucker... why not get a job as a trucker and MAKE money doing it? Putting lawless space between empires makes the game more interesting, more challenging, and more fun. Let's get the ball rolling on this one!
had same idea, but never posted: agree |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 12:52:00 -
[17]
Originally by: SoldierOfJustice
Originally by: Venkul Mul Every time I see this kind of post people that don't play in empire is very free giving away empire space,e specially high sec.
It is very greedy from people that have 70% or more of the EVE systems (0.0) to ask that empire was reduced to give them more space.
You really feel the need for 1 system for each player? Try to populate what you have before asking for what other people use.
As far as I can see the OP didnt say "reduce" empire, but add 0.0 space between the empires. Feel free to move to 0.0 m8, I personally wont stop you. 0.0 is as accessable for you as it is for me and the rest of eve, just dont use AP.
Originally by: Khandara Seraphim - It's not even hard to implement. Put it in factional warfare, say CONCORD lost control of border systems due to the increased hostilities and the lessened support of the empires. Make a few existing chokepoint or highway systems low sec and boom, instant excitement. I'd recommend at least 3 or 4 systems of low sec between empires but of course thats something to test out.
Care to repeat your staement Soldier?
The OP is very willing to give away high sec (system protected by Concord) to get more low sec/0.0. And naturally those will be "chokepoint or highway systems", obviously for the good of EVE .
Originally by: SoldierOfJustice
IMO it does make sense that the space between 2 empires at war should be lower sec, and it shouldnt be possible to travel between the 2 except through lower sec systems.
First: the empires are not at war. If and when factional warfare will be implemented I hope that it will be something more than gifting some more chokepoint to pirates.
Second: as was discussed more than once, generally the front lines in a war have a high level of military presence and are hardly the best routes to try to smuggle something unseen.
Blockade runners or smugglers operate through other nations not at war, very rarely passing throught he fighting forces.
In EVE the gate between 2 warring empires would have the highest security, not the lowest (at least if you follow a logic approach) and would be totally proibited to civilians.
It would be the gates between the non warring empires that would have a lowered security as all manpower will be moved in the war zone.
If the war was Gallente <> Caldari and Minmatar <> Amarr, the Gallente-Caldari gates would be blocked, while the Gallente-Amarr gates would get lower security, same thing for the Minmatar <> Amarr side.
|
Tek'a Rain
Gallente Collegium Mechanicae
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 16:00:00 -
[18]
splitting the empires will not help. already some of the fastest route between hubs are through a couple lowsec jumps. You know who gets caught at the camps? new, foolish players. and thats all.
People can weigh the risk to the reward and take the long way around. if there is no way around, a "smart" person avoids it altogether.
pockets of 0.0 in between would be worse. instead of braving this, a huge number of people would try to get into the caldari side.. with jita.. before the gate changes, and simply never leave while the other hubs become yulai ghost towns.
They would then hang out in there and whine until every caldari system was on its own node like jita, and anyone stating a new account as any other race will be laughed at for "doing it wrong"
tl;dr bad idea. it wont fix anything and might break Everything.
|
Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente Eve University
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 17:53:00 -
[19]
As usual, people who want the epic ganking go off posting without considering the second order side effects.
Lowsec is already depopulated. Forcing empire to segment would just increase the amount of depopulated low-sec and hisec. And full-blown 0.0 with bubbles, etc? If I want that, I'll head out to 0.0, thank you very much. All that would do is end inter-empire travel permanently.
|
Leuko Uratne
Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 17:57:00 -
[20]
I believe that if this is to happen more routes too and from the empires needs to be created. These routes should be of approximately the same number of jumps. This is to make sure that no one gate (or a few gates) can be camped to shut down trade, but instead a multitude of paths needs to be blocked. These paths might also be intersecting so that various routes can be taken. This will promote traders to diversify their routes, and thus give them more oppertunities to avoid being killed by pirates. I haven't yet thought much about the exact numbers, but maybe somewhere between 10 and 20 routes would be decent. I also believe that the systems between empire should be no less than 0.1.
|
|
Khandara Seraphim
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 21:35:00 -
[21]
I have yet to hear a real response to why this makes the game worse other than "wahhhh pirates get to do whatever they want"
-Lowsec is depopulated currently BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON TO GO THERE EVER. By forcing trade between large empires to have to use lowsec, it reopens a whole section of the game that currently sucks.
If you're worried about chokepoints and monster gatecamps, then fine! Keep empire the same size, and put new systems between them. make it 15 jumps of 0.0 with multiple routes so you can scout past the gatecamps. I don't really care on that one.
Can someone give me a real reason why this makes the game worse other than "all the carebears will leave" and "this gives the game to pirates forever and ever the end"? because both of those are pretty lame and don't really address any of the specific reasons why I wrote the game will get better.
|
Verone
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 00:19:00 -
[22]
To be honest, I'd love to see four seperate currencies with an exchange rate system, four unique sovreign factions seperated by lowsec/0.0 and the spreading of most of the major tradehubs to stop jita like population issues.
The fact of the matter is that there will always be "hub systems" that have a high population and a solid market, but seperating the four sovreign states would spread the load a bit more evenly.
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW - EVE FICTION <<<
|
Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente Eve University
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 03:53:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 28/01/2008 03:53:44
Originally by: Khandara Seraphim -Lowsec is depopulated currently BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON TO GO THERE EVER. By forcing trade between large empires to have to use lowsec, it reopens a whole section of the game that currently sucks.
And if the only reason to go through lowsec is to get from one empire to another, then guess what? THERE WILL STILL BE NOBODY IN LOWSEC. You'll get people zipping through in inties/blockade runners/etc. and that's it. Why in the hell would adding a craptastic obstacle make me want to live in said craptastic obstacle?
All this still avoids the fact that CONCORD has the empires by the *insert noun*. If not for them, there would be no forced tech sharing, etc.
|
Bane Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 05:30:00 -
[24]
Well, you have the Solitude region. Highsec space completely surrounded by 0.0, bordering Syndicate.
Nobody lives there, though. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 07:43:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Khandara Seraphim 15 jumps of 0.0 with multiple routes so you can scout past the gatecamps
That alone is a reason to say very bad idea. It would mean that the empires would be separated by Alliance claimed territory. And tha t mean 0 trade.
Your general idea is "My stile of play is superior, even if it is played by 30% of EVE population it should dominate all the other playstiles".
Well, the other 70% of players don't like it. Learn to live with that.
|
Spoon Thumb
Caldari Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 10:54:00 -
[26]
What you really have to ask is not what the effects would be but what problem are you actually trying to solve.
I come from the school of thought that says low sec isn't broken and that somewhere has to have the lowest population and be the crappiest place to be. It isn't actually all that bad, and ** shock revelation** you can make more in low sec than high sec with a little teamwork.
As someone else pointed out, if you separate the empires, everyone will just congregate in the "best" empire pocket, most likely Caldari space, and make Jita, Motsu etc even worse. If you are trying to "solve Jita" then this is will not produce the "solution" you are looking for and will have unintended consequences. (Again, I don't think Jita needs to be solved, because it is artifically breaking up a natural process. Ideally you add the number of things people can compete on. Atm all you can compete on for any 1 product is price and location, since an expanded cargohold I is an expanded cargohold I costing the same to build, just as reliable, just as good or bad attribute wise, no matter who makes it. That is what could amongst other things help alleviate the total reliance on Jita)
We all know the "best" resources are in 0.0 for those big alliances etc able to get the organisation etc together to take advantage of them, and as afforementionned, you can "carebear" in low sec or 0.0 with a little help from friends and organisation/teamwork
The final point about making the empires a little different in character is something that needs a lot of work on, in my opinion in terms of scenery and completely trivial things as well as geography, rewards etc. 0.0 between empires will not make the empires any different per-se, just make four instances of essentially the same thing (4 big trading hubs, 4 motsu's / "best" mission running systems etc etc)
Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Commander Awkward
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 11:15:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin
And if the only reason to go through lowsec is to get from one empire to another, then guess what? THERE WILL STILL BE NOBODY IN LOWSEC. You'll get people zipping through in inties/blockade runners/etc. and that's it. Why in the hell would adding a craptastic obstacle make me want to live in said craptastic obstacle?
This man speaks the truth.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 13:14:00 -
[28]
There is one reason for hi-sec between empires : CONCORD.
The most direct routes usually go through lowsec, so, the safe routes are already longer than the short ones. If the routes are cut, either we need hundreds of hi-low sec exchange points so it doesn't get all camped as the 0.0 entrances are, and no bottlenecks inside the lowsec causing a major camps a few jumps later.
Empire space being cut by lowsec or 0.0 would just be the end of the small corporations that enjoy different styles of play than the large 0.0 alliances.
And for the any tradehub fix, as people always want more profit and that's the reason why they go there, a tax based on the sales volume will move the traders working in very high quantities and low margin. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
violator2k5
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 13:18:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Arana Tellen
Ships become more expensive, people cant afford ships as much and therefore fly out less.....
Ships wont become much more expensive. Compare prices between amarr and jita right now, its not that much different.
dont forget to mention that with the drop in pricing on almost all T2 gear that players wallets should be fat enough to aford any pricing change. I think arana is arguing this point because he probably has a trade route that passes through 2 different factions space and thus isnt happy about the proposed change. i for one think its a good idea except instead of it being 0.0 space make it more low sec space so that it has some aspect of safety as you have more chance of moving stuff through low sec then you would ever do if it were 0.0 RE: heavy interdictors / interdictors. ---------------------------- BOB 4 LIFE NOT JUST 4 A DAY ----------------------------
|
Skyr
ECP Rogues The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 15:49:00 -
[30]
You have jump freighters in game now, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |