These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Remove all highsec faction crossings.

First post
Author
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#41 - 2012-04-16 14:37:22 UTC
Potrondal Morrison wrote:
-1

Surely it makes more sense to increase the security between borders to stop any attacking faction? Look at any border ot Earth and tell me that they have lower security than the rest of that country.

Also it would make capital freighters almost usless unless they gave them some serious love.

Faction space is huge with many regions within it. Capital freighters would still have use.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac

Altair Raja
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2012-04-16 14:40:23 UTC
isnt the hisec areas jsut where concord hangs out? the 4 races each have there own part of area within the space concord patrols.

but really want my FW upgrades, better system.. oh yay

AFK cloaking doesn't earn anything, so it needs a buff!

ISD 3-14
Doomheim
#43 - 2012-04-16 14:43:59 UTC
Moved from General Discussion.

ISD 3-14 Community Communication Liaisons (CCL) Волонтёр группы по взаимодействию с игроками Interstellar Services Department

Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-04-16 14:46:48 UTC
Schalac wrote:
You people that are talking about taking the long safe road are not getting the point. There would be no safe way around lowsec. If you want to go to any of the 3 other factions space from the one you are in right now you would have to go through lowsec. That is the way empire should be split up. Localize EVE.



I am not really opposed to your idea, but I see no point making it worth it, either. You have yet to explain why you think localizing Eve would be a good idea (aside for a handful of risk-adverse "pvpers" who don't envision pvp behond a low-sec gate camp, that is)...

Tobiaz
Spacerats
#45 - 2012-04-16 15:08:56 UTC
Mark Androcius wrote:
Once again ( no offense ) this is very self centered talk.
This would ONLY play into the hands of the PVP orientated players.

Whether or not you think this is what EVE is about anyway, is not relevant.

I believe there are MANY players out there, who avoid lowsec vigorously, just because of it's lawlessness and it's pirate friendly nature.

Forcing people to take that risk is ridiculous, whether or not you think they're p*ssy's or not.


You are wrong. Dividing up the empires benefits everybody. It grants more opportunities for carebears to make money because they will have a lot less competition to deal with. Differences between the empires in resources also mean price differences, which means ISK for those willing to risk low-sec travel.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Mark Androcius
#46 - 2012-04-16 15:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Androcius
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Yes, the faction high sec areas should be islands surrounded by low sec. That's the simplest, most logical change that needs to happen and it's been voiced since forever. Just make sure that there's many crossing routes so it doesn't get to be one choke point. Also, system sec should be more logical: high sec in the centre and lower to the outer rims, if you look at Gallente space for instance it's one big illogical and unexplainable mess in that respect.

This would make trading an actual career choice, at least moreso than it is now.
Vilnius Zar wrote:
First of all "the idea has been voiced since forever" doesn't mean "the majority is for it" instead it means exactly what it says: "people have talked about it before".


I've bolded it to help you see more clearly.
You specifically state, that the "fact" that it has been "voiced since forever", is a reason to implement it.


Vilnius Zar wrote:
If you really want to try and argue against something you don't like, use logic and don't try to dumbass your way out of it.

First of all "the idea has been voiced since forever" doesn't mean "the majority is for it" instead it means exactly what it says: "people have talked about it before". Secondly, just because a large percentage of players don't post on the forum doesn't mean you get to decide their stance on things, they very well might be for it, or against it or indifferent. Either way, it's like voting: the people who vote have their voice heard and generally the percentage that voted will probably reflect the stance of the whole group.

Until you wisen up, stop posting.


Why do people post on the forum?
1) for a laugh.
2) because they want changes.
3) because they've just been ganked and want to vent their feelings, which are usually totally out of place.

Having said that, we can conclude that most people are perfectly happy with the way the game works, otherwise there would be way more people posting here.

This is a computer game.
This game is CCP's main source of income.
This is not a country.

Having said that, we can conclude the following:
CCP will NEVER do what the minority wants, just because the minority "voted" to do so, since that will most likely ruin their most important source of income.

However, if CCP were to implement an in game MANDATORY poll on the issue ( or issue's ) this becomes a completely different ballgame.
If the majority voted to go this route, then by all means, implement it asap.

Tobiaz wrote:
Mark Androcius wrote:
Once again ( no offense ) this is very self centered talk.
This would ONLY play into the hands of the PVP orientated players.

Whether or not you think this is what EVE is about anyway, is not relevant.

I believe there are MANY players out there, who avoid lowsec vigorously, just because of it's lawlessness and it's pirate friendly nature.

Forcing people to take that risk is ridiculous, whether or not you think they're p*ssy's or not.


You are wrong. Dividing up the empires benefits everybody. It grants more opportunities for carebears to make money because they will have a lot less competition to deal with. Differences between the empires in resources also mean price differences, which means ISK for those willing to risk low-sec travel.



Now there's a guy who actually makes a valid point, but i think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, don't know the numbers though.
AureoBroker
Perkone
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-04-16 15:29:49 UTC
Sure.
But then, lowsec gates get beefed up, and once you get to -5, there's no turning back.
And -5's cannot access market, trade or contracts, except with other -5's.

Then we talk real "harsh world, consequences".

With proper adjustements in making passing lowsec more feasible, full support.
Josef Stylin
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-04-16 15:39:46 UTC
Considering it's CONCORD that secures space, and tensions would be highest between warring faction, meaning there would be the highest CONCORD presence on rival faction borders, technically wouldn't sec status there be higher? Roll
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#49 - 2012-04-16 15:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Vilnius Zar
Mark Androcius wrote:
Having said that, we can conclude that most people are perfectly happy with the way the game works, otherwise there would be way more people posting here.


In that case the majority of players in high sec are thus also perfectly happy with Hulkageddon because there's not many whine posts about it. Per your logic it seems CCP would do well to implement changes to facilitate Hulkageddon and to make it easier and less costly to gank Hulks and haulers on a daily basis.

Yes/no?
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
#50 - 2012-04-16 16:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbara Nichole
Schalac wrote:
With boosts to FW coming and incursions getting retolled, I think all highsec to highsec faction jumps should be removed. From now on if you want to go to another races sovereign space you have to do so through lowsec.



Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the lore. This idea doesn't fit.

Then, there is also the trade bubble that it would cause in each region.. and the gate camps trying to control empire markets from low sec... yeah that would be good ..sic. Some minerals would become very much harder to get in regions of empire..

Frankly, I think it's not a good idea.. but if this change happened to make it in some people would become very rich over it.

P.S. this is not a new idea.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Mark Androcius
#51 - 2012-04-16 16:04:59 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Mark Androcius wrote:
Having said that, we can conclude that most people are perfectly happy with the way the game works, otherwise there would be way more people posting here.


In that case the majority of players in high sec are thus also perfectly happy with Hulkageddon because there's not many whine posts about it. Per your logic it seems CCP would do well to implement changes to facilitate Hulkageddon and to make it easier and less costly to gank Hulks and haulers on a daily basis.

Yes/no?


I dunno bout that, my hulk doesn't have a scratch on it.
Besides, what you're saying right now, is the exact opposite of a "vote", it's a hunch, not many people complaining does not mean you should try harder to make them complain.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#52 - 2012-04-16 16:20:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Vilnius Zar
Mark Androcius wrote:
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Mark Androcius wrote:
Having said that, we can conclude that most people are perfectly happy with the way the game works, otherwise there would be way more people posting here.


In that case the majority of players in high sec are thus also perfectly happy with Hulkageddon because there's not many whine posts about it. Per your logic it seems CCP would do well to implement changes to facilitate Hulkageddon and to make it easier and less costly to gank Hulks and haulers on a daily basis.

Yes/no?


I dunno bout that, my hulk doesn't have a scratch on it.
Besides, what you're saying right now, is the exact opposite of a "vote", it's a hunch, not many people complaining does not mean you should try harder to make them complain.


EITHER the people making posts are the vocal minority who shouldn't be listened to OR you accept that, on average, both sides of the story will be decently covered by the people who post. You can't change you stance on this when it suits you, consistency and all that.

Back to the topic at hand: it would be good for the game if it wouldn't advocate half-afk play styles by making them worthwhile, like mining, hauling and related stuff. Not saying they shouldn't be allowed but there should be an incentive to actually play the fricking game. In this case local traders will do the easy station stuff while people who specialise in hauling also have a part and play their role, more so than now. That also means that mining should become more interactive, first of all that probably means less bots and less people running 17 thousand accounts, meaning the normal guy or starter can make good isk with mining. Making stuff easy isn't good, it's long term bad. It's like incursions: easy money thus bad.

So, dividing up the empires means there's opportunities for people who are willing to take (calculated) risks in order to make a few extra bucks. It also makes sense from a lore point of view and it makes more well rounded corps who interact with others better suited for overall game play, rather than the "we only carebear" fake zombie/alt corps. The simple fact that this hampers existing setups and play styles is here nor there because those are based on lazy/easy game play.

Lets be honest, all these "reasonings" people use, about it being bad for newbies and all that, is all just nonsense, the real issue is that it would mean change and them having to put in more effort, that's all it is.
Mark Androcius
#53 - 2012-04-16 16:28:01 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:
EITHER the people making posts are the vocal minority who shouldn't be listened to OR you accept that, on average, both sides of the story will be decently covered by the people who post. You can't change you stance on this when it suits you, consistency and all that.


Well if that were true, they could have just taken the votes of the 2008 US election from Texas and assume that the rest of the country would probably vote the same, meaning they'd have McCain as president in stead of Obama.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#54 - 2012-04-16 16:28:49 UTC
Mark Androcius wrote:
Vilnius Zar wrote:
EITHER the people making posts are the vocal minority who shouldn't be listened to OR you accept that, on average, both sides of the story will be decently covered by the people who post. You can't change you stance on this when it suits you, consistency and all that.


Well if that were true, they could have just taken the votes of the 2008 US election from Texas and assume that the rest of the country would probably vote the same, meaning they'd have McCain as president in stead of Obama.


You're obviously evading.

Uit positie gelult.
Mark Androcius
#55 - 2012-04-16 16:31:33 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:
You're obviously evading.

Uit positie gelult.


No no, this is exactly what you said.

O btw, if you are dutch, go back to school, cause that didn't make much sense at all.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-04-16 17:23:02 UTC
I would rather cancel my account then be locked to one region region of highsec. Let me explain the several deities that exist in order

- CCP on the top
- Whiney players with wallet money, forcing CCP to fire 20% of its staff (too soon to remember that ?) to make change
- Sensor resolution
- Carebears
- Rest of the game that thinks...it works fine, you stupid chumps

If you notice in the middle, Sensor Resolution which makes you go...W T F ? you talking about? Add to that humans obssesive compulsive nature to sit at a watering hole in a blind and wait like its 1999 for the Ghoul Lord to spawn at a jump gate. Yeah, I would much rather quit the game entirely then bother with the Gods called high scan resolution which wins everytime and why I will not bother visiting lowsec anymore since a fast align frig failed causing me to belive that even a cloak and MWD trick will never work (until I see a rant to nerf it), nothing gets by competent gate games or lazy f*cks with smart bomb battleships. You guys win, CONGRATS. Keep lowsec, its a shithole.

Oh, and do you know what a militia is? Its a civilian army, which are not paid for their service but under a patriotic bullshit assumption with their pride that "its the right thing to do" so they will throw themselves into the line of fire. EVE empires are not at war...if anything its a Cold War (third expansion BTW) where all sides are not actively fighting its just a bunch of non-existant dudes we never see (outside mission agent pics) who are supposedly at high tension, high alert, and an arms race of ships they don't even use (lol, never seen them use any tier 3 BS or Tier 2 BC). See, these civillain armies are basicly Joe Chumps that like to put on the theme song to Top Gun and find some LARP reason to shoot people "for Da Mother Land!" and "Big Brother Wants me!". In the real world, these Top Gun dudes think they are protecting borders and killing innocent people because they belive their nation is failing but in EVE, you don't need a reason to shoot people and its possible anywhere but docked up (we don't need to change that). So, EVE is fine as is and you need to get over it.
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#57 - 2012-04-17 11:09:54 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
I would rather cancel my account then be locked to one region region of highsec. And then a bunch of gibberish that didn't make sense.

So because you lost one ship in lowsec you quit? Seeya, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

See I think this idea would be great for EVE. You aren't forced into lowsec, you aren't locked into one area and due to the way EVE works it would build a stronger game. Traders would actually be trading, haulers hauling and faction items would truly be faction(unless someone wanted to jump into a different hub and make more selling them).

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac

AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#58 - 2012-04-17 11:46:17 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
So, EVE is fine as is and you need to get over it.


Erm, not it isn't.

Please look at the picture I uploaded on page 1.

You'll see from that there would be so many routes between hubs that gate campers would not truly exist, as there would not be one single point of entry and exit [so to speak] between hubs.

There may be a 'fastest' route, but not one route.

People may gate camp, but facing facts; what would be the point when multiple routes exist? They would be easily avoided, and have to work to get their targets.

My suggestion, if anything, would remove camping and increase the population of low sec.

Not only this - but null sec would also have the very real potential of having multiple entry points into their space, as one entity would be able to go from north-south or east-west without hitting high-sec, making jump bridge tactics way more interesting - not to mention general fleet movements.

This must be preferable to a circular system where the only transit routes are clockwise or counter-clockwise.

In general, it would give you:

more traffic in low sec
decrease low-sec risk
increase industrial opportunity
increase trade routes exponentially
increase null sec tactics
increase corporate opportunity
increase PvP opportunity [at all levels]

Arguments about reducing high sec are weak, to be honest, as I'm sure many already limit themselves to a handful of systems anyway...high, low and null.

You need to ask why this is. Why do people stay in only a few systems? Resources? Opportunity? Comfort zone?

By partioning high sec into hubs, you get more opportunity, more resources and a very very solid comfort zone by the fact of a massive increase in in/out points.

More importantly, the mandate from CCP is risk versus reward.

I can't think of a negative to this; but I'm happy to hear of any.

AK

This space for rent.

Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-04-17 14:28:02 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:
What's wrong with breaking up the dominance of Jita, or breaking the status quo on things in general? Lore wise it's simply silly to have 2 warring/different factions without any "no man's land" in between them and apart from that it makes things less simplistic, which is a GOOD thing. Gameplay wise trading and hauling will actually become a profession that requires non-zombie players and ppl will be able to make some cash with it, it'll make for interesting situations and different corps and play styles benefiting from eachother.

Why should an MMO cater for the lazy/easy folks?



The problem you're likely to get is that by slitting up the regions is even less density within certain areas. making it less attractive to start in certain area's, which will be become less and less populated, to a point where new players quite a game after a few hout because there is no one online in their region. or certain races becoming all but non represented.

You seem to forget the so called "war" between the factions is in reallity a coldwar. there are some sqirmishes in the backyard that doesn't mean you can't go to these empires without being shot, not unlike being able to visit eastern Europe in the late 80's unless you where considered a spy of threat to the country, for which we have standing in EVE, so it works as intendid.

Also making the risk factor larger is something different than making things less simplistic. actualy my guess is things will be very simplistic when you make it impossible to reach other empires without entering low sec. Small time traders will fly a blockade runner, bigger traders will fly a jump freighter and depending on the number of routes to a region an alliance will take control over a route. that is about all the options you have. in high sec there is more diversity in the number of ships used for trade, so from that point of view less simplistic.

and last nobody asks you to be a zombie trader and people already can make quite some money from it.

And if you your self want trading exsitement and money, set up a shop in Low sec, that is aready possible. not very hard stuff your blokade runner with faction ammo fly to a Millitia front and put it on sale for double the price you bought it.

And finaly stop telling people how to play a sandbox game, if it was so easy and lazy everyone would do it.
Astroniomix
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#60 - 2012-04-17 15:08:17 UTC
AlleyKat wrote:
Aqriue wrote:
So, EVE is fine as is and you need to get over it.


Erm, not it isn't.

Please look at the picture I uploaded on page 1.

You'll see from that there would be so many routes between hubs that gate campers would not truly exist, as there would not be one single point of entry and exit [so to speak] between hubs.

There may be a 'fastest' route, but not one route.

People may gate camp, but facing facts; what would be the point when multiple routes exist? They would be easily avoided, and have to work to get their targets.

My suggestion, if anything, would remove camping and increase the population of low sec.

Not only this - but null sec would also have the very real potential of having multiple entry points into their space, as one entity would be able to go from north-south or east-west without hitting high-sec, making jump bridge tactics way more interesting - not to mention general fleet movements.

This must be preferable to a circular system where the only transit routes are clockwise or counter-clockwise.

In general, it would give you:

more traffic in low sec
decrease low-sec risk
increase industrial opportunity
increase trade routes exponentially
increase null sec tactics
increase corporate opportunity
increase PvP opportunity [at all levels]

Arguments about reducing high sec are weak, to be honest, as I'm sure many already limit themselves to a handful of systems anyway...high, low and null.

You need to ask why this is. Why do people stay in only a few systems? Resources? Opportunity? Comfort zone?

By partioning high sec into hubs, you get more opportunity, more resources and a very very solid comfort zone by the fact of a massive increase in in/out points.

More importantly, the mandate from CCP is risk versus reward.

I can't think of a negative to this; but I'm happy to hear of any.

AK

Increasing lowsec trafic does NOT decrease risk dumbass. The more people in a given area the higher the chance that one of them is going to want you dead. Especialy if killing you doesn't garentee that they are going to get killed by the npc police. Also INCREASING the use of "nullsec tactics" would mean more hotdrops, blaping titans (they aren't going away in the next expansion so get over it) and general blueballing. Also lowsec is esentaily restricted space for freighters and orcas. They are simply too slow and cumbersome to defend.
/5 A.M rant