These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Dividing High Sec borders with Low Sec

Author
Tyrant's Bane
Honor's Lost Cause
#1 - 2017-06-27 23:34:31 UTC
I know this has probably been suggested before, and in all honesty will likely be suggested again in the future, buy why not change up how High Sec/Low Sec are divided.

As it is High sec is for the most part one large continuous space between all four empires. Why not change it so that NONE of the high sec empires are connected to each other directly. Instead have Low sec in between them, turning it into a frontier/contested border regionbetween the 4 empires and 0.0.

To me this just makes a lot more sense, and quite honestly gives a bit of a boost to piracy and FW play-wise.
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
#2 - 2017-06-28 01:12:33 UTC
-24/7 dreadnought or Super Capital gate camps on Region to region trading?

-Concord taxes all trade.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Tyrant's Bane
Honor's Lost Cause
#3 - 2017-06-28 01:18:49 UTC
your assuming there's only one or two routes of high sec this way. there would be hundreds. Could it be done? Sure, but it wouldn't be profitable and be more then just a bit boring. In all honesty if something like that were to happen we would likely see a bunch of bored 0.0 roaming gangs in low sec breaking em up for fights.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#4 - 2017-06-28 03:07:20 UTC
Very, very old topic that is being brought up here.

To give a brief rehash of the previous threadanaught on this subject (yes, it was a threadanought);


- support was mixed
------ some REALLY hated the idea
------ some REALLY liked the idea
------ some were in the middle

- those that hated the idea argued that it would...
------ effectively remove the ability for groups (especially small groups) to operate in all areas of high-sec
------ it would be too high of a "barrier"/"risk" for traders whose gameplay depends on access to all trade hubs
------ certain areas that have certain skillbooks, BPOs, and/or LP items would effectively be "stuck" in certain areas of high-sec
------ there would be too many gatecamps and/or it would encourage more gatecamping
------ it would be a problem for newbies to get around
------ Freighters could never survive such a journey

- those that liked the idea argued that it would...
------ create **real** variances between goods at different trade hubs
------ create ** real** value in certain items (especially faction items)
------ it would give low-sec an actual "thing" that it can call its own (besides Faction Warfare)
------ more points of entry and more reasons to transverse through low-sec means more potential for conflict
------ it would potentially create "professions" and/or revive the merc market because there would be an actual reason to move Freighters through low-sec


- those that were in the middle argued that...
------ they would like to see more (A LOT MORE) connections and "pipes" be made between high-sec and low-sec... so there are less chokepoints and thus more room to "maneuver" around
------ gate guns on high-sec gates should be powerful... very powerful... so that it would be impossible to maintain a gatecamp for an extended period of time. Within low-sec itself, anything goes
------ Jump Freighters and Blockade Runners would be mandatory and no one would use anything else... something else would have to be given to other hauling ships to make them more "palatable" for low-sec use
Cade Windstalker
#5 - 2017-06-28 13:56:24 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Very, very old topic that is being brought up here.

To give a brief rehash of the previous threadanaught on this subject (yes, it was a threadanought);


Lol

That's a bit of an understatement. That thread went on for almost a solid year and hit some ridiculous length.

The basic reality of this is that it would be such a huge structural change to Eve that no one can fully guess the actual impact. The original thread was about piracy but that was ridiculous, since if you substantially increase the risk of trade people will stop engaging in the high risk behavior.

This also makes discussing this again kind of a moot point. CCP are never going to make that kind of massive change to the game, especially to its geography, unless there is an overwhelming and clear benefit to doing so, and this just doesn't have that.

It's like saying it's a good idea to pick up your fish bowl and shake it because you're *pretty sure* the fish won't die, and hey he might enjoy it...
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#6 - 2017-06-28 22:46:56 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

It's like saying it's a good idea to pick up your fish bowl and shake it because you're *pretty sure* the fish won't die, and hey he might enjoy it...


More like it *might* make him a super-awesome uberfish, will most likely kill him, and has a good chance of getting water ******* everywhere either way.

It may not seem like it at first, but this is seriously one of those "why don't we have realistic physics"-level ideas that might as well be a different game entirely.
Cade Windstalker
#7 - 2017-06-28 22:49:15 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

It's like saying it's a good idea to pick up your fish bowl and shake it because you're *pretty sure* the fish won't die, and hey he might enjoy it...


More like it *might* make him a super-awesome uberfish, will most likely kill him, and has a good chance of getting water ******* everywhere either way.

It may not seem like it at first, but this is seriously one of those "why don't we have realistic physics"-level ideas that might as well be a different game entirely.


LolLolLolLol

I love what you did with my metaphor there! Pirate

Yes, that's pretty much it. Cutting High Sec into pieces would effectively make Eve a different game in terms of how big the impact would be.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2017-06-28 23:47:35 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The original thread was about piracy but that was ridiculous, since if you substantially increase the risk of trade people will stop engaging in the high risk behavior.


This point should be called out on it's own. I see a constant failure to appreciate this point. If the risks get high enough, you just stop...move on to something less risky and that's that. Same thing with firms, "Oh, your costs went up, well raise your prices." Thing is people react negatively to that price increase and the marginal firms...their optimal response is shut down and let those resources be moved to other activities.

Freighters will not attempt to cross those LS border zones. So the idea of catching and killing them will not happen.*

*The exception being the odd idiot who does not fully understand the differences between LS and HS.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
#9 - 2017-06-28 23:54:06 UTC
There really wouldn't be anything to gained by the Empires to leave low security pipes between the Empire regions. Having open trade routes is a very basic concept that is what makes bulk trading profitable. The whole "Global trade" thing makes tax revenues for all land holders.

Boarder taxes on for the use of gates at high security pipes would accomplish roughly the same game mechanics without breaking the map.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

mkint
#10 - 2017-06-28 23:54:21 UTC
Having it in place would actually be really cool. Putting it in place would suck and probably kill the game. Maybe the proposal this topic needs isn't a yes/no, but a how-to-roll-it-out. Come up with ideas that would make the transition smooth. Ripping off the band aid in this case might kill the patient.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Atomeon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2017-06-29 00:09:50 UTC
If you make each empire space an island the game will shrink for sure.
Maybe make a Low Sec "Ring Road" that is faster to travel (less that half jumps) from Dodixie to Jita, Jita to Amarr and so on.
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
#12 - 2017-06-29 00:23:06 UTC
mkint wrote:
Having it in place would actually be really cool. Putting it in place would suck and probably kill the game. Maybe the proposal this topic needs isn't a yes/no, but a how-to-roll-it-out. Come up with ideas that would make the transition smooth. Ripping off the band aid in this case might kill the patient.

***Sure, i love bad ideas.***

Interstellar trade tax at border system gates. .01% of cargo value fee funding the combat of excessive piracy.

Most freighter pilots will pay. Jump freighters will jump across boarder tolls adding additional jumps into low security space. Blockade runners and Deep space Transports will divert through low security space to avoid toll fees. Creates a new ISK sink and moves some people through low security space.

For added pressure, Sansha Nation can implement a divide a conquer campaign in which these boarder systems are extensively targeted for incursions.

As traffic reduces through these systems the taxes progressively increases until they reach a point where they are abandoned to low security space.

***Que tears and applause.***

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Tyrant's Bane
Honor's Lost Cause
#13 - 2017-06-29 00:24:17 UTC
Atomeon wrote:
If you make each empire space an island the game will shrink for sure.
Maybe make a Low Sec "Ring Road" that is faster to travel (less that half jumps) from Dodixie to Jita, Jita to Amarr and so on.



The problem with any singular "ring road" is that it would be camped to hell and back. Many exits make gate camping impractical since you can just choose a new route. 2-3 exits make it fairly simple to camp it.

I think the most intelligent thing to do in this situation is to come up with a list of problems and see how we can solve each one as we go.

1. Inherently higher Market risk (trade slows)

you know, I think we can actually get around this. We can use faction warfare for it to tie it into the game as well. In any war you will always have supply pipelines right? What if by actually being a part of the faction you gain access to these dependent on your actual participation? The pipeline only goes as far the territory your faction has conquered tho. Basically high sec jump bridges that lead to low sec.

It encourages pvpers to take and engage critical regions and take territory so that other members of their race can actually trade.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2017-06-29 01:29:40 UTC
Actually, I think it would be possible to separate the factions with FW zones that are connected to the rest of low and null sec and this way make it faster to leave hi-sec (Couster is a good example, it's literally in the middle of hi-sec, you need to jump a lot to get out) while not cutting the factions completely, only reducing the number of routes where you can move through hi-sec without leaving it.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Tiberius NoVegas
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#15 - 2017-06-29 03:25:02 UTC
I wouldnt mind seeing FW system become low sec and rotate back to High sec as they are secured by one faction or another. beyond that the logistics of this idea are imnense.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#16 - 2017-06-29 04:03:27 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Actually, I think it would be possible to separate the factions with FW zones that are connected to the rest of low and null sec and this way make it faster to leave hi-sec (Couster is a good example, it's literally in the middle of hi-sec, you need to jump a lot to get out) while not cutting the factions completely, only reducing the number of routes where you can move through hi-sec without leaving it.

So you want more Niarja's where Freighters simply can't avoid it and if they want to gank you they can kill your webbing alt one jump out, and then the freighter at their leisure?
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2017-06-29 09:55:16 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Actually, I think it would be possible to separate the factions with FW zones that are connected to the rest of low and null sec and this way make it faster to leave hi-sec (Couster is a good example, it's literally in the middle of hi-sec, you need to jump a lot to get out) while not cutting the factions completely, only reducing the number of routes where you can move through hi-sec without leaving it.

So you want more Niarja's where Freighters simply can't avoid it and if they want to gank you they can kill your webbing alt one jump out, and then the freighter at their leisure?

Not necessarily. We could have 3 or 4 alternative routes between trade hubs with a few (or many) jumps difference between them, while the shortest path going through the low sec border zone.
Just like many other things, camping to catch freighters shouldn't be easy either. This way you would need recons to figure out which route your target will take, and set the trap there.

Also, if they know your webbing alt, maybe it's time to make a new one. Especially now that it's free.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Cade Windstalker
#18 - 2017-06-29 12:54:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The original thread was about piracy but that was ridiculous, since if you substantially increase the risk of trade people will stop engaging in the high risk behavior.


This point should be called out on it's own. I see a constant failure to appreciate this point. If the risks get high enough, you just stop...move on to something less risky and that's that. Same thing with firms, "Oh, your costs went up, well raise your prices." Thing is people react negatively to that price increase and the marginal firms...their optimal response is shut down and let those resources be moved to other activities.

Freighters will not attempt to cross those LS border zones. So the idea of catching and killing them will not happen.*

*The exception being the odd idiot who does not fully understand the differences between LS and HS.


Yup, exactly this.

Also idiots who don't understand how Low Sec works generally either figure it out long before they can fly or afford a Freighter, or they fly through Rancer as things are now. In either case you don't need walls of Low Sec to see them die to their own stupidity.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#19 - 2017-06-29 13:05:36 UTC
Bad idea the last god only knows how many times this has been mentioned, and it is a bad idea now.

You cannot force players into low sec, those who are willing to accept the risks go there now, those who are not willing to accept the risks will not go there if this change was made so in the end all this would do is increase the hold the large nul sec blocks have on the game and that is not a good thing.

Like ti or not the high sec only denizens are the ones that support this game with their cash money, cash money that buys the plexes that most of the rest of use so we do not have to pay cash money to play the game. Why would CCP do anything that has this high a risk of cutting off that cash flow?
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2017-06-30 05:22:46 UTC
mkint wrote:
Having it in place would actually be really cool. Putting it in place would suck and probably kill the game. Maybe the proposal this topic needs isn't a yes/no, but a how-to-roll-it-out. Come up with ideas that would make the transition smooth. Ripping off the band aid in this case might kill the patient.


I think you'd find it is just like the rest of LS for the most part. Nobody is going to move through LS border systems in anyway you are probably considering. People will move with Blockade runners and use pings to avoid even smart bombs. JFs will become much more of a thing as well. Not sure where cool comes into this...but maybe you can elaborate.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

12Next page