| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Oregin
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
13
   |
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:28:00 -
[61] - Quote
Having read through this thread I can see both sides of this argument.
I prefer the idea that we separate the cal/amarr from the gal/min. Partly from a common sense angle and to add a bit more meat to the longstanding conflict story.
Re: Changing the trading hubs.
I think reaching up the markets more-so could be a good thing. Make it worthwhile to trade between regions and sneak things through low sec. It would be interesting to see shortages of some mods/ships in certain regions. Then you'd have genuine dangerous seat of your pants traders going Han Solo between high sec regions.
Re: Gate camps.
As some people have said before, you'd have to avoid a pipe. Make it a diffuse spattering of low sec with region gates leading in/out such that it's harder to camp. In many ways, with people having to think a little bit more about trading i'd be inclined to suggest this would reduce a lot of gank losses, to compliment the break up of the jita hub.
I disagree that we ought to break up the allied factions, it makes sense that they'd be accessible to one another.
The low sec between the warring factions could create a good battleground for the factional warfare too, as long as they sort it out and make it meaningful.
I agree that we shouldn't be forcing people to use low sec if they want to stay in high sec. However, since it's a choice to visit other regions in the first place, there should be some risk attached to whatever reward they seek in moving.
All this comes from somebody who realises it'd be a PITA and somebody who has long lived in gallant space and shopped in jita. |
betoli
Morior Invictus.
KRYSIS.
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 00:09:00 -
[62] - Quote
This would obviously be a positive move. It would diversify trade, create at least one extra trade hub, and provide incremental exposure to low sec for new players.
It would need a bit of thought about connecting system density, and gate defences in connecting systems, so that camps don't perma-block all routes. It must remain reasonably accessible....
On the 'forcing' issue - I don't think many players would have problem getting across a few systems in a frig, but it might well push out the SP needed for long distance traders. |
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae
ROMANIAN-LEGION
120
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 00:21:00 -
[63] - Quote
There is one serious part that nobody is considering, and that is base metals. Take isogen, need omber and needed for most things. With mineral reprocessing going downhill (hopefully) mining and mineral trading will become more important. So production will become a huge hassle as people have alot more difficulty getting these high quantity minerals around.
On the second thought, more expensive battleships and battlecruisers is never bad, bring it on? Doing this change would need the creation of alot of transit points or well, one can imagine if we had more rancers. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |