Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Fun fact: people don't fight wars in real life as a series of 1 on 1 duels.

One of the main goals of introducing faction warface, IIRC, was to get people to work more in TEAMS. And if you are in a team, like in a real war, then you can punch through a silly pirate gate camp easily, and proceed on to destroy your enemy targets or take over control points.

This seems more like an advantage to me than a disadvantage...


No, it punishes them for completely ignoring multiple warning signs all at once:
1) The tutorials which repeatedly say to be careful about low sec space, and which in the future would specifically mention the divided empires
2) The warning the game gives you when you attempt to activate a star gate to a low sec system
3) The orange boxes on your planned route in the upper left
4) The fact that prices are only listed region-wide in the market screen (meaning that for them to even KNOW there are lower prices in another empire, they'd have to have an alt or be using a third party program, which implies they know how the system works already)

People who ignore multiple warning signs without knowing what they are doing are idiots, and I don't feel sorry for them at all when they get ganked.


Your history lesson is meaningless, because the suggested change in this thread is NOT "add more pirates." The suggested change is "add low-sec belts in between empires.


Any pirates who choose to enter those belts would be there precisely because it was advantageous or profitable for them to be there. There's nothing artificial or unrealistic about it at all. Because ANY pirates in that location AT ALL would be there as a result of emergent gameplay, of their own choice, because it gave them some advantage.

So why weren't there so many pirates in real life? Oh I don't know, maybe because it was a COMPLETELY different situation? Let's see:

1) In the far future, offense would become cheaper and stronger much more quickly than defense would. This is a trend we see in real life. People don't build castles anymore, because walls couldn't keep up with bombs. Instead, we fight by gaining intelligence about target locations, and once you know where a target is, theyre usually as good as dead in modern warfare. In EVE, this means that a frigate which can take down a merchant ship is comparatively cheap and risk free, compared to the days of sail on Earth. This is a realistic change that would realistically and emergently result in a higher proportion of pirates in real life, too.

2) On Earth, there were very few chokepoints where ships HAD to travel through, and they were few enough that navies could heavily defend them. Stargates, by comparison, are MANY in number, and cannot all be policed (by CONCORD) as cost effectively. This also realistically implies more pirates. In fact, you can see a miniature example of this in places like Singapore, where there ARE a lot of real life pirates, precisely because there are a series of narrow straits which are campable, but also too numerous for the authorities to defend. Result? Lots o' pirates, just like in EVE.

3) Pirates in the golden age of sail were numerous in part because everybody was always at war with everyone else. In modern day Earth, this is not true, meaning fewer opportunities. But in EVE, there are hundreds of corp and empire wars everywhere, which naturally leads to more pirates.

4) Like you say, merchant ships didn't travel alone. In Eve, they do, which is another reason why it makes sense there are more pirates... But this is not a hard-coded game mechanic. People CHOOSE to travel alone. With divided empires, this would be a poor choice (unless you have a cloaked ship), and people would quickly learn to not do that anymore. Easy, emergent solution.

Most of these reasons for more pirates have everything to do with the intended, basic mechanics of EVE or player's own choices, and nothing to do with the change proposed in this thread.

Freighters are useful and necessary for things other than trading, not to mention a trader can still use a cloaky hauler and cross lowsec and probably make more per trip than he does now. Also the gameplay your trying to protect is boring, really really really boring. People who do it know its boring by virtue of they aren't their at their keyboards most of the time they do it!

It almost seems like this is a feature that should have been with Eve from the beginning.

Well reason null has no trade coming is also because you can't even dock.

This is sort of like my middle-sec idea. If 0.4 - 0.6 systems were all converted to middle-sec, then you'd have to go through middle-sec to get to other parts of highsec. All of a sudden, highsec would be contained in a few major "continents" instead of one single main region.

if you haven't heard of it before, my middle-sec idea is to make a part of space have illegal acts responded by a faction navy rather than CONCORD, making illegal attacks on players much more difficult than in lowsec yet not impossible to survive.

forums ate my text :/

I think that solo pvpers should be able to operate, but so should solo cargo-runners and other soloists. I think middle-sec would be a necessary step to getting a lot of highbears used to the increased danger of lowsec without thrusting them headfirst into it. And some people don't wish to deal with as much danger as you get being in lowsec, nullsec, or uncharted space. They may be willing to be active in middle-sec. It's basically just more opportunity for the individual player to choose their own risk level. And it goes without saying that the reward potential should scale with the risk.

Also, not sure if you were making a point about this or not, but small ships die much too easily to gate guns and player-owned stations. I think stargates should have a variety of turret sizes with varying DPS vs tracking. I think it should be possible to speed tank the gate sentries somewhat. A small frigate shouldn't have difficulty avoiding the large gate sentries. If it's really slick, it should avoid the medium sentries. That leaves only the small sentries hitting it and at somewhat reduced damage. Then it would be possible for it to be remotely repaired and stay in the fight. Similarly, I think that small POS turret DPS should be significantly reduced. A large POS fully armed with large turrets is unable to take out a well-tanked battleship if it has at least 2 logi focusing on it. But a large POS with small turrets will pretty much insta-pop even an assault ship, giving almost no time for logi to react.

All you have to do is hit the back button on your browser and it'll return you to the screen where you were typing it, with all the text still in place.

It might not do this with all browsers, and you might have to go into your internet options and find the setting that makes it store old page information. Google Chrome seems to do this by default.

Not if more Navy spawns for every illegal attacker. I didn't give details on my middle-sec idea, and you just assumed it wouldn't work.

I've already argued with this Edit. Rule 6: Personal attacks are prohibited. - ISD Tyrozan and should be ignored.