These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

why was high sec not divided by low sec when the game launched?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
pussnheels
Viziam
#21 - 2012-11-29 13:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: pussnheels
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
[quote=pussnheels][quote=Krixtal Icefluxor][quote=pussnheels
wretched hive of scum and villiany.

lol so true

but is a player driven game and that is why we ended up with jita, could just aswel been amarr or worse dodixie or anyother system

and indeed ending jita would encourage trading in the other hubs and this will mean more traveling for the trader, /hauler player , which can be good for other players , but in the end we will end up with another main trading hub

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Ronix Aideron
Zymurgy Corp.
#22 - 2012-11-29 13:34:47 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

edit: Corrected a typo and also...I have not had reason to go to Jita in over a year and I sell my stuffs a lot higher than that wretched hive of scum and villiany.


Nice Star Wars movie reference!!

Start the day off slow and taper off from there.

http://eveboard.com/pilot/Ronix_Aideron
Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
#23 - 2012-11-29 13:36:19 UTC
Matarella wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Might it not be the case that it would probably have ended up as four 'islands' with relatively little movement between them?


I'd say 2. why would the alied nations seperate themselves.


because of the way they're laid out - if you link 2 of them the other 2 are cut off from each other
Tul Breetai
Impromptu Asset Requisition
#24 - 2012-11-29 13:40:29 UTC
Ruskarn Andedare wrote:
Matarella wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Might it not be the case that it would probably have ended up as four 'islands' with relatively little movement between them?


I'd say 2. why would the alied nations seperate themselves.


because of the way they're laid out - if you link 2 of them the other 2 are cut off from each other



Umm... you sure about that? It may look that way on the star map, but in terms of stargates, all allied regions connect.

There's nothing worse than an EVE player, generally considered to be top of the food chain in the MMO world, that cannot smacktalk with wit and coherency.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#25 - 2012-11-29 13:41:40 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
[quote=pussnheels][quote=Krixtal Icefluxor][quote=pussnheels
wretched hive of scum and villiany.

lol so true

but is a player driven game and that is why we ended up with jita, could just aswel been amarr or worse dodixie or anyother system

and indeed ending jita would encourage trading in the other hubs and this will mean more traveling for the trader, /hauler player , which can be good for other players , but in the end we will end up with another main trading hub



I just feel trade should be more spread out and competitive. Jita makes it 'too easy'.

Out here in Derelik the older vets talk about how there was a vital Market in Jarizza, but it died rather quickly when the Level 4 Agents were moved around ~18 months ago or so.

The irony is the geographical oddity that is my system...it's exactly 26 jumps to each 3 of the hubs (Rens is only 12).

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-11-29 13:54:58 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
they are already pretty much divided with only a few entry systems , niarja ; Eudama etc all those systems are high on the list of freighter pilots and their nemesis the freighterganker

making them low sec will only result in economic mayhem because those systems would be permacamped 23/7 and killing the trade routes would be the end of jita as the main trading hub of the game
I don't think that would help the game


I don't see this as a bad thing.

Multiple trade hubs would make things more interesting. It wouldn't "kill the game" but like you said, it'd defiantly have an effect on Jita.
Emperors Bride
Space Mermaids
#27 - 2012-11-29 13:57:16 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
they are already pretty much divided with only a few entry systems , niarja ; Eudama etc all those systems are high on the list of freighter pilots and their nemesis the freighterganker

making them low sec will only result in economic mayhem because those systems would be permacamped 23/7 and killing the trade routes would be the end of jita as the main trading hub of the game
I don't think that would help the game


I'm thinking a little economic anarchy might do the game some good.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#28 - 2012-11-29 14:07:06 UTC
Emperors Bride wrote:
pussnheels wrote:
they are already pretty much divided with only a few entry systems , niarja ; Eudama etc all those systems are high on the list of freighter pilots and their nemesis the freighterganker

making them low sec will only result in economic mayhem because those systems would be permacamped 23/7 and killing the trade routes would be the end of jita as the main trading hub of the game
I don't think that would help the game


I'm thinking a little economic anarchy might do the game some good.



I think the restriction on Incursions spawning at trade hub constellations should be removed.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Emperors Bride
Space Mermaids
#29 - 2012-11-29 14:11:21 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Emperors Bride wrote:
pussnheels wrote:
they are already pretty much divided with only a few entry systems , niarja ; Eudama etc all those systems are high on the list of freighter pilots and their nemesis the freighterganker

making them low sec will only result in economic mayhem because those systems would be permacamped 23/7 and killing the trade routes would be the end of jita as the main trading hub of the game
I don't think that would help the game


I'm thinking a little economic anarchy might do the game some good.



I think the restriction on Incursions spawning at trade hub constellations should be removed.


There is no chance of you being killed in an Incursion system if you are only going to be at gates and stations. Trade hub Incursion restrictions are about mechanics conflicts with restrictions on trade hubs. Not to prevent people from blowing up to Incursion content.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#30 - 2012-11-29 14:31:08 UTC
Emperors Bride wrote:


There is no chance of you being killed in an Incursion system if you are only going to be at gates and stations. Trade hub Incursion restrictions are about mechanics conflicts with restrictions on trade hubs.



Erm......shields and bunches of other stuff are indeed altered under Incursion. 2nd sentence needs clarification or 'proof' as it makes not a whole lotta sense atm. It's a sentence that feeds back in on itself.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
pussnheels
Viziam
#31 - 2012-11-29 14:43:54 UTC
Emperors Bride wrote:
pussnheels wrote:
they are already pretty much divided with only a few entry systems , niarja ; Eudama etc all those systems are high on the list of freighter pilots and their nemesis the freighterganker

making them low sec will only result in economic mayhem because those systems would be permacamped 23/7 and killing the trade routes would be the end of jita as the main trading hub of the game
I don't think that would help the game


I'm thinking a little economic anarchy might do the game some good.

maybe maybe no hard to say really , i don't think any of us have any clear idea what would happen in the long run

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Holy One
Privat Party
#32 - 2012-11-29 14:44:52 UTC
Its fairly obvious why not, because the exit points would be camped 24/7 and nothing would get done. Except CCP's bottom line.
Now if ccp had stuck to the idea of system entry/exit points instead of gate to gate, they could have just made those random within each system and disguised it in the fluff as neccessary precaution against cascade harmonic accidentalies etc. I'd have thought that would have made the game a lot more fun and gate camping, with all the associated risk aversion and frustrations, redundant activity.

:)
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#33 - 2012-11-29 15:00:16 UTC
It's possible now to have all 4 nations broken up by low sec pipes. It would mean adding a huge time sink to the logistics game though.

There are several high sec to high sec worm holes. One of them that I know of is capable of moving a freighter to and from high sec. If these worm holes were a little more common, there would be no need to railroad your assets from one nation to another. You wouldn't really be getting less jumps because you have no control over what system you come out in. It might in fact make the journey longer.

Common traffic is in the nation you choose, uncommon traffic means scanning down worm holes or risking low sec. The current system usually sends you to alliance nations most of the time. So most High Sec to High Sec Caldari worm holes come from Amarr, most Gallente come from Minmatar. 1 in 5 are conflict worm holes.

It could be done. It would mean setting New Eden on it's ear though.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#34 - 2012-11-29 15:35:37 UTC
I don't think many systems would be effected. How many systems would need to be changed to 0.4 to make it so all the empires are islands?

I feel this would breath new life into the game in empire at least make it more interesting. It would also break up Jita as the main trade hub and allow others to rise up.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-11-29 15:35:50 UTC
You could shake up trade without adding low-sec (honestly, we need more low-sec and less high, but that's another thread) by simply removing a few gates. IIRC the Niarja - Caldari (can't remember off the top my head) gate was added after game launch, along with another high-sec gate. Longer trade runs might be more rewarding and would probably help local markets flourish.

CCP has no sense of humour.
Zheketri
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-11-29 15:53:10 UTC
Don't think it'll ever happen, but if it does, I'll be able to retire my trade alt team soon after and PLEX my accounts til I die.

"Once you have taken his place, have you then defeated your enemy?"
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#37 - 2012-11-29 15:57:19 UTC
I guess the real question is for me how would changing the empire to islands hurt the game. Trade would be harder but more profitable hell you could even have a new profession of players that live in the low sec systems that provide security for trade for a fee.

If someone sees a huge problem with this that would truly hurt the game please post it.
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#38 - 2012-11-29 16:02:36 UTC
Because there was enough incentive to go there at launch.
Auric Veldfinger
Doomheim
#39 - 2012-11-29 16:05:48 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
Emperors Bride wrote:
pussnheels wrote:
they are already pretty much divided with only a few entry systems , niarja ; Eudama etc all those systems are high on the list of freighter pilots and their nemesis the freighterganker

making them low sec will only result in economic mayhem because those systems would be permacamped 23/7 and killing the trade routes would be the end of jita as the main trading hub of the game
I don't think that would help the game


I'm thinking a little economic anarchy might do the game some good.

maybe maybe no hard to say really , i don't think any of us have any clear idea what would happen in the long run


We do know because Solitude is already seperated by low/null systems, still seems to be economic activity happening there...
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-11-29 16:12:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

It discourages trading at the other 3 major Empire hubs and basically acts like a "Mom & Pop" killing Walmart. What's bad for the economy is bad for the game.


The existence of Jita is a byproduct of economy. Tradehub is formed in the place that has the most traffic. There have been similar examples in old MMOs (afaik everquest had a tradehub form next to a bridge that was an important travel route, unlike the developers intended. I cannot find the book that explained this right now however and I never played everquest myself)

I'm happy that the market system of Eve is free enough to allow the creation of Jita. It just says that we are playing in a true sandbox. (to an extent that devs gave Jita its own dedicated node purely as a result of players actions)

ps. Don't we have "islands" right now though, with Amarr and Caldari on one side, and gallente and minmatar on the other? FW in between?

pps. The reason that its Jita and not some other system is to my knowledge result of Jita's rather centric location in the eve galaxy.

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies