These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#561 - 2013-06-12 06:58:52 UTC
Ordellus wrote:
Commander Ted wrote:
Sounds like extremely boring emergent gameplay.


Actually LOL'd there. By "emergent gameplay" do you mean a bunch of prepared war vessels trapping and killing a respectively helpless ship?

I'd rather keep the high sec where it is.


Yea, it is emergent gameplay. Do you know what that even means?

Also I have yet to see any good reasons why Hi-sec needs to be kept the way it is.

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

Samuel Wess
Doomheim
#562 - 2013-06-12 07:18:47 UTC
+1

Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#563 - 2013-06-16 19:18:55 UTC
I keep seeing Fozzie respond to new posts all the time so I know he has read this.

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

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#564 - 2013-06-16 19:27:17 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
I keep seeing Fozzie respond to new posts all the time so I know he has read this.


That is correct.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#565 - 2013-06-16 19:29:41 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Commander Ted wrote:
I keep seeing Fozzie respond to new posts all the time so I know he has read this.


That is correct.

Well at least it now says dev next to the thread

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

Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#566 - 2013-06-16 20:06:06 UTC
Breaking up hisec into several small pockets would not encourage/force more people into losec or to hop in a combat ship and go pewpew. At best they would just stick to their little pond and at worse they would quit. And before someone says those people should quit, no we need every real person we can get lest this game becomes Alts Online.

Sorry I didn't read this threadnaught, so if that opinion has been expressed before then count this post as a no towards your idea.



Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#567 - 2013-06-16 20:15:00 UTC
I don't exactly see what would be wrong with people staying in their ponds by choice, hasn't there always been an element of risk vs reward in mist mmos? Also, the risk udverse are more likely to get alts for anything from orca boosts to lvl 4 mission salvaging.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--

Bibosikus
Aliastra
#568 - 2013-06-16 21:08:35 UTC
Haven't read more than the first page:
Nice idea *if* it had been implemented from 2003. As it is, this would be too disruptive to the present economy.

Any suggestion which would seriously affect Eve's monetary turnover in an impossible-to-foresee manner is simply a no-no.

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#569 - 2013-06-16 21:14:46 UTC
So you're saying adding incursions and sleepers was a bad. Idea because of how they could have affected the market?

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--

Bakuhz
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#570 - 2013-06-16 22:01:40 UTC
Interesting to see the haulerbears adapt to this situation.
although as a pirate i rarely gate camp it is so damn boring but it would juice up the camps for sure.
i see a bear market for cloaky trucks.

it is going to be the big cargo's that would get reall risky needing a escort team for that one jump or protect the cyno and gates.
i like the post but i dont know if this really would be good for eve as i am not sure how far the high sec dwellers wil lbe scared off by this it could ruin the full eveconomy aswell.

https://zkillboard.com/character/584042527/

Arkenai Wyrnspire
Incorruptibles
#571 - 2013-06-16 22:17:30 UTC
+1.

Someone.

Lacun Motabilum
Shadow Brokers
#572 - 2013-06-16 22:31:55 UTC
I think with some tweaks this idea has real merit. If you have a need to get goods through low sec there is a way, and this idea wouldn't change that.

That said, in keeping with ccp's praise worthy "decisions have consequences" mantra, I think the consequences for being a pirate would need to be increased. I believe an interesting way to do that would be to regionalize sec status, then tie sec status to docking rights.

What this would mean in practice is if you actively pirate on the gallente side of the gallente/caldari low sec border you would not be able to dock in any stations in gallente space once your gallente security status got low enough. You would have to travel a few jumps to caldari space for a safe haven station to dock in, giving any law abiding people in the area a slight home field advantage.

I also think it would be interesting to tie security status into all forms of trade and commerce. If you supply pirates that operate in gallente space buy filling market orders or contracts or even trading, it would only be natural for the gallente to resent you for that. But if you supply said pirates in caldari space what could the gallente do but lower your sec status with them and wait for you to enter their borders.

I realize lore wise this might be hard to justify and that it might make faction standing indistinguishable from sec status, but I was just trying to think of ways to create an environment similar to the one in which historical pirates operated. In which they essentially sided with one empire or another for access to supplies, markets for their stolen goods and friendly, or at least non-hostile ports. Overall I like the idea of low sec between empires.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#573 - 2013-06-17 01:14:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Bibosikus wrote:
Haven't read more than the first page:
Nice idea *if* it had been implemented from 2003. As it is, this would be too disruptive to the present economy.

Any suggestion which would seriously affect Eve's monetary turnover in an impossible-to-foresee manner is simply a no-no.


Like removing ice belts, changing moons, Dominion Sov system, the changes to barges, adding plex, removing drone minerals, removing the super gates, jump freighters, and faction warfare e-z money printing?

I really don't see how it is that massive and game breaking a change to not have everything be connected to a central hub, we already have 4 established trade hubs of decent quality that could quickly pick up the slack from jita.

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

Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#574 - 2013-06-17 01:32:29 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:
I don't exactly see what would be wrong with people staying in their ponds by choice, hasn't there always been an element of risk vs reward in mist mmos? Also, the risk udverse are more likely to get alts for anything from orca boosts to lvl 4 mission salvaging.


People making the choice where they want to be isn't wrong. Sorry if I came across as implying that it was a bad thing in my previous post.

Fracturing hisec would just exacerbate the problem of one region being more populated than the rest, something we already see with Jita and The Forge to a certain extent, and more of the trouble we see with that situation. Now one might say that people being forced out of that region due to overpopulation would be good for the rest, but then you just removed the players choice of where they want to be by imposing an artificial restriction, namely the region being a small pond. It could also be argued that we could see a return to a time when one race is chosen based on it's location rather than the players choice, similar to the situation that came about when bloodlines had different attributes. You actually remove risk in these cases as people avoid it by creating their account to start off in one of the small, shallow ponds rather than being dumped into a large, deep one.

As for alt's, the game needs more people, not more alts. People bring new ideas and fresh perspectives whereas alt's just bring more of what we already have, a stagnant player base that simply maintains the status quo.

Suppose I should mention I have 8 accounts, Mr Stagnation checking in Lol

Douglas Whyte
WhyteKream
#575 - 2013-06-17 05:10:51 UTC
The problem isn't with the idea, but the perspective of low-sec.

I'll admit myself I get worried when entering low-sec. However most time's i'm not discouraged. I go in knowing that nothing can distract me, and that I must be hyper-vigilant. I've lost ships in low-sec for sure, however each time it wasn't a depressing experience. I went in knowing that there was the chance, and instead of over-panicking, i was still worried, i aligned and timed an ejection just in time for the last volley and got out with my pod everytime.

Low-sec is fun every time i go through it. I wouldn't ever do something complacently within. I would imagine that forcing players to have to go through in their travel's would be good for their over-all experience.

The real only ships, and gameplay, that would be greatly affected would be freighter's and hauler's. Other then that most other ships could navigate through much easier with enough experience.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#576 - 2013-06-17 05:57:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Klymer wrote:

Fracturing hisec would just exacerbate the problem of one region being more populated than the rest, something we already see with Jita and The Forge to a certain extent, and more of the trouble we see with that situation. Now one might say that people being forced out of that region due to overpopulation would be good for the rest, but then you just removed the players choice of where they want to be by imposing an artificial restriction, namely the region being a small pond. It could also be argued that we could see a return to a time when one race is chosen based on it's location rather than the players choice, similar to the situation that came about when bloodlines had different attributes. You actually remove risk in these cases as people avoid it by creating their account to start off in one of the small, shallow ponds rather than being dumped into a large, deep one.


We already had this discussion in this thread, Hi-Sec is already running out of space and homogenizing on its own. CCP's in house economist said so himself at 2012's fanfest.
Crowding in one region would not work because all the ore, ices, exploration loot, LP Rewards, and station slots would tank in value, making the other regions more attractive and making them all homogenous.

The only reason Jita is more populated is because its more populated. The fact that it is so trivial to move goods to Jita means that it doesn't matter where you put your industrial setup in hisec, as long as you have a freighter and an autopilot button you can sell your items in Jita just as competitively as someone nearby. This means lower prices which means more people come to jita to buy things which means that is has more demand which means your stuff sells faster which means moar isk.

By cutting off players from other empires from Jita, it will quickly shrivel and die leaving Caldari space without any advantage over any of the other empires, encouraging homgenization.

Being kept out of your preferred space might be a problem if we were dealing with a young player base, but we have a mature player base capable and willing to homogenize.

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

Mildew Wolf
#577 - 2013-06-17 07:17:39 UTC
i like this idea in general. i would also prefer to put some more limits on things like jump freighters, jump bridges, titan bridge etc. its become too easy to move things around and force project imo
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#578 - 2013-06-17 07:21:13 UTC
Mildew Wolf wrote:
i like this idea in general. i would also prefer to put some more limits on things like jump freighters, jump bridges, titan bridge etc. its become too easy to move things around and force project imo


Tbh I always thought jump drives were a dumb idea in the first place.

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

Mildew Wolf
#579 - 2013-06-17 09:07:44 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Mildew Wolf wrote:
i like this idea in general. i would also prefer to put some more limits on things like jump freighters, jump bridges, titan bridge etc. its become too easy to move things around and force project imo


Tbh I always thought jump drives were a dumb idea in the first place.



i assume since theyve gone to the trouble of adding these things over time (and because of the potential outcry from some players) they probably wont ever be completely removed but i hope they are lessened somewhat. its makes the game effectively much smaller. being able to move large groups across the entire known universe in a matter of minutes with a handful of mids seems wrong to me but ofc thats just my opinion. i dont expect changes any time soon™
Trajan Al'Thor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#580 - 2013-06-18 19:28:03 UTC
I want this.