These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Separate the four empires with low security space.

First post
Author
Llyona
LP Enterprises
#401 - 2013-05-10 00:51:10 UTC
Xavier Thorm wrote:

1). The Empires are in a state of cold war, which (given that in the case of the Minmatar and Gallente they just slaughtered a couple thousand of each others military service people and destroyed over a dozen Dreadnaughts) could escalate to full war at any time. Nations don't just keep trading with each other when they go to war in the real world because they've been doing it for a while. And that's entirely discounting the Empire factions that weren't already friendly with each other. Yeah, there's been a lasting peace for a while, but I doubt trade between the Minmatar and Amarr was ever that much of a priority for either Empire, and even the Gallente and Caldari massively distrust each other. Honestly, you're claiming it would be illogical for them to stop trading, but I think it's more illogical for them to currently have as open commerce as they currently do.

You're confusing The State with The Market. It's a common mistake made by many simpletons. You see, taxes from The Market pay for all those shiny dreads and soldiers The State throws away in wars. Also, taxes pay for all that CONCORD protection all those Hbears receive when transferring goods. So, you see, it's in each faction's interest (and CONCORD's) that goods keep flowing freely between markets.

Also, I have no clue how you can interpret increased military presence on borders as creating less security for trade routes. If anything, a war between the factions would increase security of their own systems for anyone except rivals to their faction. So, a war between the factions would actually cause the opposite result of the one you'd like.

Xavier Thorm wrote:

2). A central marketplace which allows everyone a single place to compete on prices, etc. etc. is pretty much exactly what proponents of this change are against. As multiple people have pointed out: it raises the barrier to entry to become involved in the market, reduces the advantage from specializing in particularly regional goods production, limits the existence of actual trade (by which I mean the shipment of goods from one location to another because of price differences), homogenizes the empires, eliminates a lot of danger from market activity, and draws people away from other regions of the game.

If anything you said were true, there wouldn't be massive mark ups in Amarr, Dodixie and Rens compared to Jita. Check the market data to and you'll see there are genuine price differences between the main hubs on certain commodities and that trade volume actually occurs. I make massive profits on buy orders that are at 80% Jita price in a 0.7 system that's connected to several 0.5 systems on low-sec borders. People constantly sell me billions in goods simply because they either don't have the sec status to go above 0.5, or because they're too lazy to ship the items to Jita themselves. However, according to you, this never happens because you think every player has huge freighters to move everything anywhere they want.

Xavier Thorm wrote:

3) Security of trade should be paramount to the market, but it should be made possible by the players, not by game mechanics that allow the nearly danger-free movement of goods from one end of high security space to another.

You were going great until you said "but". Security to The Market is paramount to survival of The State and The Citizenry. Imagine an empire that allows it's roads to it's neighbors to be ransacked by pirates. Such empires rarely last very long.

Let's face it, the only reason anyone would want this change is to allow easy targets on a silver platter. Unfortunately for you, this will never happen.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

Commander Ted
Syndicate Enterprise
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#402 - 2013-05-10 01:32:35 UTC
Blueclaws wrote:
I have thought of this idea before, but it really doesn't make a lot of sense when you really think about it.

The 4 empires wouldn't want to cross low sec to get their goods to or from another empire and risk it. So their natural solution to that would be ensure that their trade routes are more secure. Hence no low sec between empires.

No saying its a bad idea, but it wouldn't be a very natural evolution.

Would they even want to trade goods with their enemies?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#403 - 2013-05-10 01:33:39 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Blueclaws wrote:
I have thought of this idea before, but it really doesn't make a lot of sense when you really think about it.

The 4 empires wouldn't want to cross low sec to get their goods to or from another empire and risk it. So their natural solution to that would be ensure that their trade routes are more secure. Hence no low sec between empires.

No saying its a bad idea, but it wouldn't be a very natural evolution.

Would they even want to trade goods with their enemies?


Seems blockades and embargo's are the common thing to do with enemies.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#404 - 2013-05-10 01:42:12 UTC
Llyona wrote:

Let's face it, the only reason anyone would want this change is to allow easy targets on a silver platter. Unfortunately for you, this will never happen.


Let's clarify, through the insults and character smearing, that your position is largely dedicated to this last line. Or to be more honest, it seems to me that this is your real stance.

However it has been argued time and again that any means to make low security space more viable, profitable or necessary to it's occupants and visitors, is a means to enhance piracy.

This kind of baseless thinking is why, 10 years later, losec is still some of the least useful space in ... well, space. When players support improving it in any way, the inherent danger of the area causes others, who wish to avoid that danger at all cost (oft-times having never lived or traveled in losec outside exceptional incidents) to come up and begin insulting and haranguing anyone as an 'evil mass murderer', or some such.

Now, I've made newbie alts just to sit in NPC corps and tell players that, no, losec is not that dangerous. A quick scan of your map tools, a little help from a buddy, and watching the ever powerful local ... and losec is actually easy. Your heart races a bit, and you get a little jittery, but it's not actually a bad place where pirates camp every corner.

Despite my inherent and versed disagreements with commander ted's idea, I still will stolidly support nearly any idea that gives losec more of a reason to be. By making it required in order to move between empires? Simply makes sense! It's logical, and sound. It may not, however, be balanced.

But it's not just about targets. It's about differing lifestyles and types of players, and RESPECTING each.

I'm a hisec industrialist, who's played a pirate and nulsec instigator. What are YOU?

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Blueclaws
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#405 - 2013-05-10 01:57:26 UTC
to the OP, the empires wouln't trade with enemeies.

Still war would mean more military presence. So there would be more security. Either way, it doesnt make a lot of sense.


Xavier Thorm
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#406 - 2013-05-10 02:30:21 UTC
Blueclaws wrote:
to the OP, the empires wouln't trade with enemeies.

Still war would mean more military presence. So there would be more security. Either way, it doesnt make a lot of sense.




Well, the military presence could be in lowsec, and since the security status of systems is actually a measure of CONCORD response to capsuleer actions and not of the stance of the Empires, to me it makes sense that CONCORD would not want to put as much effort into policing a militarized border zone as they would with "secure" space.

To respond generally to Lyonda:

You're the one claiming the empires would secure trade routs, so you're already assuming the state is directly intervening in the market. Further, you are correct that taxes would pay for the expenses of the Empires, but again, that would be a good reason for them to restrict trade with foreign powers. Reducing exports would both drive up demand (and therefore prices and therefore taxes) of locally produced goods, and would also encourage more local commerce, which would increase their ability to collect transaction taxes from capsuleers in their stations.

You are absolutely correct that there are price differences between the large trade hubs, but I would not describe them as "massive mark ups". However, making a counterargument based on something I didn't even see does not address the rest of my argument and thus makes it seem as if you are trying to deflect from a conversation you have no real point to make in.

I'm amused that you continue to accuse me of having some kind of interest in piracy in lowsec, considering that I only ever entered that space to run incursions.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#407 - 2013-05-10 03:13:59 UTC
I'd rather they be separated with middle-sec, but I do feel that separating them with lowsec is better than leaving them how they are currently.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Llyona
LP Enterprises
#408 - 2013-05-10 03:21:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Llyona
Ruze wrote:

Let's clarify, through the insults and character smearing, that your position is largely dedicated to this last line. Or to be more honest, it seems to me that this is your real stance.

However it has been argued time and again that any means to make low security space more viable, profitable or necessary to it's occupants and visitors, is a means to enhance piracy.

This kind of baseless thinking is why, 10 years later, losec is still some of the least useful space in ... well, space. When players support improving it in any way, the inherent danger of the area causes others, who wish to avoid that danger at all cost (oft-times having never lived or traveled in losec outside exceptional incidents) to come up and begin insulting and haranguing anyone as an 'evil mass murderer', or some such.

Now, I've made newbie alts just to sit in NPC corps and tell players that, no, losec is not that dangerous. A quick scan of your map tools, a little help from a buddy, and watching the ever powerful local ... and losec is actually easy. Your heart races a bit, and you get a little jittery, but it's not actually a bad place where pirates camp every corner.

Despite my inherent and versed disagreements with commander ted's idea, I still will stolidly support nearly any idea that gives losec more of a reason to be. By making it required in order to move between empires? Simply makes sense! It's logical, and sound. It may not, however, be balanced.

But it's not just about targets. It's about differing lifestyles and types of players, and RESPECTING each.

I'm a hisec industrialist, who's played a pirate and nulsec instigator. What are YOU?


First off, Low-Sec is far from dangerous and should be slightly less useless than high-sec, which it is. In fact, Kspace in general is a giant carebear-fest.

Secondly, I live in wspace, where danger (and ridiculous reward) actually exists. I have an alt who carries product from my 0.7 station to Jita and that's all it does. In fact, this idea wouldn't affect my enterprise at all. The fact of the matter is, low-sec regions between trade hubs makes no sense at all. It doesn't happen in the real world and certainly wouldn't happen in EVE.

What is being suggested is akin to a world where the US Navy (and other nations) no longer patrol major trade routes and simply tell their citizens they have to fend for themselves against pirates. It makes zero sense and no self respecting nation would allow it to happen.

As for the motivation behind these suggestions, it's quite apparent to me that Low-Sec "Pirates" are lazy and generally afraid of risk. They roam around in their faction blobs with cheaply fit tech 1 frigates/cruisers attacking anything they outnumber significantly and station hug the moment an equal fleet is about. Seeing a suggestion that forces traders to move through low-sec only leads me to believe this is another example of the lazy low-sec bear trying to force more indy pilots through low-sec pipes.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#409 - 2013-05-10 03:52:23 UTC
Llyona wrote:

First off, Low-Sec is far from dangerous and should be slightly less useless than high-sec, which it is. In fact, Kspace in general is a giant carebear-fest.

Secondly, I live in wspace, where danger (and ridiculous reward) actually exists. I have an alt who carries product from my 0.7 station to Jita and that's all it does. In fact, this idea wouldn't affect my enterprise at all. The fact of the matter is, low-sec regions between trade hubs makes no sense at all. It doesn't happen in the real world and certainly wouldn't happen in EVE.

What is being suggested is akin to a world where the US Navy (and other nations) no longer patrol major trade routes and simply tell their citizens they have to fend for themselves against pirates. It makes zero sense and no self respecting nation would allow it to happen.

As for the motivation behind these suggestions, it's quite apparent to me that Low-Sec "Pirates" are lazy and generally afraid of risk. They roam around in their faction blobs with cheaply fit tech 1 frigates/cruisers attacking anything they outnumber significantly and station hug the moment an equal fleet is about. Seeing a suggestion that forces traders to move through low-sec only leads me to believe this is another example of the lazy low-sec bear trying to force more indy pilots through low-sec pipes.


Well, you've at least proven my theory of stance. And since your statement shows actual proof that you don't know much about losec as it currently stands, we'll move on from that side of the argument. I'd be remiss if I didn't direct any w-space opinions in your direction. Otherwise, it's essentially invalid.

Your talking international waters with the Navy reference, though, which is and of itself is NOT what sec space is. Period. Its quite possible that by using a misguided analogy, you've sprung upon a great idea: International space. Inter-empire space. We'll drift back to this. First we have to set some points in place:

Point: Trade hubs are player creations, not made by CCP. Not really a necessary point, just background.

Point: If the empire sought to protect it's trade profit before war broke out, it would have allowed trade to exist between itself and all other empires. This is before one of the expansions, I think Empyrean, a few years back.

Point: After war breaks out, buying from an enemy empire would be a traitors act.

Point: After war breaks out, buying from an ally would often be seen as 'okay.'


So if we can trade with allies, but we don't want to be supporting enemies with monies, we'd cut off ties with them. So at the very least, Commander Teds' argument for low security space between warring empires (the Amarr/Caldari might versus the Gallente/Minmatar gaggle) would not be supportive of trade. And since CCP did not, in fact, declare Jita a trade hub, it would probably destabilize the market to a great degree as the Minmatar and Gallente economies would suffer (there simply being more product for sale to Caldari, safe trade to Amarr, and more production capabilities in Amarr).

So we've got the why and why not. What about this new 'inter-empire space'? That's a bunch of funny options. The empty vast that only the navies themselves protect, where traders are supposed to be able to roll in peace, and where pirates prey on the weak. Sounds like losec, I guess. More thought will have to be put into that train.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Commander Ted
Syndicate Enterprise
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#410 - 2013-05-10 04:00:52 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd rather they be separated with middle-sec, but I do feel that separating them with lowsec is better than leaving them how they are currently.

Middle sec will just be a no fun space for everyone.
Carebears will die and pvpers will be forced out by dicks with enough overwhelming force to ignore the consequences.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#411 - 2013-05-10 04:08:33 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd rather they be separated with middle-sec, but I do feel that separating them with lowsec is better than leaving them how they are currently.

Middle sec will just be a no fun space for everyone.
Carebears will die and pvpers will be forced out by dicks with enough overwhelming force to ignore the consequences.


Your choice of wording caught my attention. When your talking about the risk-averse, it's carebears. But the ones shooting each other are pvpers ... until they have 'overwhelming force'.

I'm just saying. You're tilting your cards a little there.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Commander Ted
Syndicate Enterprise
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#412 - 2013-05-10 04:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Ruze wrote:


Your choice of wording caught my attention. When your talking about the risk-averse, it's carebears. But the ones shooting each other are pvpers ... until they have 'overwhelming force'.

I'm just saying. You're tilting your cards a little there.


Fun for most pvpers I mean.

In his proposal large groups of people with logistics ships could overwhelm the security in Middle sec, ganking carebears and preventing any good fleet battles, or small gang activities, a no fun zone.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
Roadhouse Regulars
#413 - 2013-05-10 08:31:16 UTC
The Matari and Gallente empires would enforce hisec space between themselves to ensure continuation of trade. Likewise the other two. Atm concord does the enforcing. Separating them all by losec makes no sense storywise.

Separating the 2 factions by losec may affect FW. Or maybe not.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.

The Breath
Brave New Eden
#414 - 2013-05-10 08:57:19 UTC
JITA is not high sec, JITA = low sec in ccp mind,
In fact, ccp is doing this in other ways Sad, so.....

[url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2948446#post2948446][GOOD IDEAS] Part I - Slot Transfer Rigs[/url] [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3156198#post3156198][GOOD IDEAS] Part II - Ship Directiveness Modification Rigs[/url] 

Xavier Thorm
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#415 - 2013-05-10 15:27:55 UTC
The Breath wrote:
JITA is not high sec, JITA = low sec in ccp mind,
In fact, ccp is doing this in other ways Sad, so.....


Could you clarify what you mean by this?
Raijil Saavuj
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#416 - 2013-05-10 18:28:16 UTC
I'm glad you're looking for ways to enhance your gameplay -- but there's a problem with how you're doing it. You want to enhance your gameplay at the cost of someone else's.

You've given many suggestions as to how this MIGHT work, but they are all worse options than hisec carebears already have. You can point, deliver insults, but none of this would convince dedicated hisec players that your proposal would be more fun. It would not be more fun for them. Games that are no longer fun will no longer be played. Less players means even less of a chance for you to have a target for your piratey schemes. A loss of subscriptions would be bad for CCP and they wouldn't implement such a 'feature' (I use this term loosely) because it would decrease their revenue.

There's got to be a better way to enhance lowsec than to royally screw hisec industrialists/traders. I do applaud your attempt to make lowsec more interesting, I just think you're going about it the wrong way.

Until the solution for fixing lowsec is found, I would suggest you focus your piratey depredations in hisec -- There's plenty of targets moving around, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. There's plenty of groups that have done this successfully.
Commander Ted
Syndicate Enterprise
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#417 - 2013-05-10 21:47:48 UTC
Raijil Saavuj wrote:
I'm glad you're looking for ways to enhance your gameplay -- but there's a problem with how you're doing it. You want to enhance your gameplay at the cost of someone else's.


Who would have their gameplay negatively impacted?
Missioners? No.
Miners? No.
Industrialists? No.

People who do interempire trade will still have safe options, because the currently it is easily exploitable by bots, or just being AFK. Not to mention traders who fly around, can still do lots of things in one empire.
I have clearly outline safe ways around and through low sec that have little chance of death multiple times in this thread.


That is the great beauty of this idea, it wont impact anyone's gameplay negatively, it simply adds a new more exciting option for others who want it. This would get CCP more subscriptions from people who want excitement without changing anything for the boring people.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Commander Ted
Syndicate Enterprise
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#418 - 2013-05-10 21:49:44 UTC
Mikhael Taron wrote:
The Matari and Gallente empires would enforce hisec space between themselves to ensure continuation of trade. Likewise the other two. Atm concord does the enforcing. Separating them all by losec makes no sense storywise.

Separating the 2 factions by losec may affect FW. Or maybe not.


That is true, however I think it would be cool if for some reason all the empires went to war for some reason, no idea what, or the new regions that this idea would add would for some reason cut off the two empires, like for example the new area separating them was under amarr rule.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#419 - 2013-05-10 22:14:45 UTC
I like this idea. It makes sense. However, if you have to go through low sec to get from one empire to another, this would REALLY shrink the map for new players. That's about the only real con I see and it can be overcome with a little creative thinking.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Commander Ted
Syndicate Enterprise
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#420 - 2013-05-10 22:16:08 UTC
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
I like this idea. It makes sense. However, if you have to go through low sec to get from one empire to another, this would REALLY shrink the map for new players. That's about the only real con I see and it can be overcome with a little creative thinking.


Shrink the map? 500 systems isn't enough for a noob? Then on top of that how hard is it to go through lowsec by shuttle?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.