Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I agree with Martin Lockhart. All you do is to twist words and meanings around on themselves here.

The only reason you say you have yet to read a valid excuse is because you refuse to accept anything other than your viewpoint as valid. It's like the Catholic priests who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, saying that there was no such thing as the planet Saturn because the official church doctrine states there are only five planets, and no more. Therefore, whatever they saw in the telescope must be some kind of a trick.

I asked you why you were so opposed to the idea. You seem to have no answer, other than "It's fine the way it is."

As for the other things you said:

"Bad comparison...
the Ocean is more like the borders that factions have with low sec."

A bad comparison? Hrm. An Ocean is an immense body of water, difficult to monitor and police because of it's vast size. Outer space is also a vast and immense expanse, difficult to monitor and police because of it's vast size. Cities, by comparison, are easier to Police and monitor, because of their small size.

So can you explain how the Ocean (a vast expanse) is more like the borders (an imaginary line) that factions have along low-sec? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

"Again though, there is no real world scenario that equates to Eve borders.
That is why I had to make up a funnel situation with the US/Mexico border."

How can you say this? A border is a political boundary, an imaginary territory line. It's the same thing, wherever or when-ever it is. You keep insisting that the game of EVE is some kind of unique and isolated aberration, comparable with nothing at all, with no relationship to anything other than itself. What nonsense!

"Basically, the only way the Factions can respond to a threat is when the threat enters their territory.. Having a demilitarized zone between them and another faction would not do anything to aid them in security, as they have no idea what would be in that system, as they can't monitor from the other side of the gate... Even if they were inside the low sec system, they would not be able to engage anything without cause all out war between the factions."

This is unintelligible gibberish to me. I have no idea what you mean here. What does 'without cause all out war between the factions' mean?

"There's no point in creating a buffer zone when it does nothing to aid in defense."

We aren't thinking from the perspective of the NPC Faction militia or the NPC Concord police here. We aren't thinking 'why would anyone deliberately create a low-sec buffer zone, if it only makes our faction less secure'? We aren't trying to think of ways to make high sec even safer for the greater comfort of the risk adverse.

We aren't voting to take a safe and functional highway system which exists in a real world community, and deliberately destroy lights, smash bridges, and create potholes so that the commuters find it more 'interesting' and 'challenging' to get to work. EVE is not the real world, it is a game. It is supposed to be a dark, dangerous, and adventurous universe. High sec between the four Factions is illogical in such a world as this. We are saying that EVE needs more wilderness zones and less civilized safe urban zones.

The low-sec buffer zone between the four factions would just be a 'natural' frontier or badlands area that would appear on it's own if NPC Concord or NPC Faction militia ran out of financial resources or manpower to secure it.

There's no need to explain how CONCORD is an uber-powered Police force, or how an imaginary demilitarized zone keeps all the NPC Navy rats from one faction from killing all the NPC rats from another faction. It's not relevant.

Why do they need to change it to change it?

You say CCP needs to do things to do things but this makes no sense.
CCP doesn't need to do anything.

Over the 50 something pages of this thread it has been explained over and over and over again why this SHOULD happen, but not for some reason we have to need it? Illogical.

What????

AGAIN

You saying why it SHOULD happen is not the same as saying why it NEEDS to happen.

This fixes no aspect of the game, it doesn't present balance, it doesn't increase subscriptions, it doesn't do anything but help those people that want more shinies to pop.

See, y'all keep throwing out all these BS examples of how it would make life in Eve better (for you), yet you continuously fail to express any reason why it HAS to happen.
What in the game is so broken that this would be worth CCPs time and money to make this change?

So again.
WHY DO WE NEED THIS?!?!?!?!
WHY DO WE NEED THIS?!?!?!?!
WHY DO WE NEED THIS?!?!?!?!
WHY DO WE NEED THIS?!?!?!?!

And remember, because it's fun, because it's cool, because it brings challenge, because it make sense (which it doesn't)
Are not reasons why a massive change, that will take time and money, needs to happen.

Hi, folx

There is one more aspect you are missing in this interesting discussion
Right now EVE Online is a world of thousands beggars
Imagine the separation of faction space SHALL make EVE Universe the world dominated by newbies desperately begging for 10M+
for losses of their brand new frigates/dessies/cruisers etc.
This would simply ruin public and help channels tranforming them ino walls of spam like Jita local read by noone.
Sure, the low-sec border areas should be camped 23.5/7 and sure unaware newbs and more clever twinks pretending they lost their ships shold annoy way more then do now.
Even now public channels are alot of spam and scam. More newbs ship kills shall imcrease begging dramatically
That's my point.
Thanks

Stupid forums

Let's use some logic.
Lowsec - is a location where empires don't have much interest, it's out of the main trade routes. In other words, lowsec is a periphery to all of 4 factions.
So systems inside the highsec in the centre of the populated universe just can't be lowsec. It would be absolutely unrealistic. Also, you should remember that officially the empires are in state of peace, not war, so there just can't even be lawless war lines.

Putting lowsec systems in the centre of empire space, on actively used trade routes - is a complete nonsense.

p.s. I request "DISLIKE" button on this forum, next to "like", with separate counting.

Jump freighters can jump out but not into highsec. It is good as it is.
BTW, covert cynos should be allowed in highsec - for more interesting wardec pvp. It would bring more surprise to fights. It suits especially well with the central theme of Rubicon: capsuleers gaining more power.

I think forcing haulers to pass through lowsec gates is not a good way to boost lowsec pvp and piracy. There is much much better way - encourage people to live in lowsec, like with some good ore, profitable ratting etc.
Instead of forcing people to do what you want, it is better to make things so that they do it out of their free will. Instead of forcing people from highsec - lure them to lowsec with some "tasty" stuff.

I think few hundreds of mission runners / ratters etc are more fun than several occasional jump freighters.

Your post is very logical from the perspective that highsec is as it currently is one ball of "green/blue" safety no risk but suicide gankers. Which I believe to be very boring. But I'm not sure if you (want to) understand the concept.

As you describe it it sounds like and effectively is like a single empire. And even though maybe at peace diplomatically if I understand correct at least half of the factions are still by far more enemies than friends. By far more divided than united.

When you change the perspective from a single populated sector / core / empire to FOUR cores / populated sectors / safe havens / empires to represent the four factions whom are definitely NOT united as one. Then it suddenly DOES make a lot of sense that indeed the four centres of the four empires will have highly secured cores/centres I fully agree with you there, but that they also ALL have their own peripheries since it's not that far fetched to assume that every faction can only guarantee full security in so much space and that the centres will be prioritized in this as to the borders..

I don't think even though this is probably just my opinion that if you look at it this way. That it would be weird or unnatural to NOT have the trade routes "fully secured" along the whole routes. Securing space takes a lot of effort/isk/military power which are all limited. Trade doesn't stop, people doing it will just have to wise up.

Same goes for the newbies and carebears. Smart carebears will have and find ways around it. Will have to take at least some risk to get their rewards.. And newbies might take a few losses at first. But losing stuff and overcoming drawbacks is definitely a part of EVE. the players that quit after losing their first t1 frigate or cruiser probably weren't going to keep on playing anyways.

I could be wrong, but I actually believe the more limited or confined people will feel in the then smaller parts of highsec, the more they will be stimulated to actually go and try something more exciting than just running missions.

Tbh I'm not even sure if it's a good idea since probably gate camping will be too easy for large groups and they might have to change some more things to make it work. But I guess it's a really big change to suggest so that would not be so weird then. And with things like more empire to empire wormholes it doesn't have to be too hard on newer logistics players (basic scanning skills barely take any skill training), but to me four factions: four empires makes a lot more sense and sounds a lot more interesting than four factions: one empire..

Tbh, i like this idea, while it cannot really be explained (atleast i can't come up with a explanation) it would force the traveling to be somehow interesting.