These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Add Lowsec Highway Gates!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Christine Peeveepeeski
Low Sec Concepts
#21 - 2012-12-24 12:46:12 UTC
I love this idea, I only live in low sec and hate the fact that when i wish to visit other areas I had to train up a carrier alt :/
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#22 - 2012-12-24 13:16:00 UTC
Okay, here are a few quick rebuttals to people who are against this idea:

"Pirates should deal with the consequences of their actions, they CHOSE to be pirates"
And mission runners chose to run missions, but that doesn't mean that every rat in the mission should have a longpoint and a web. Piracy is already really hurting as a form of gameplay. Its hard to earn a living in lowsec, its hard to get ransoms, no one lives there so its hard to find kills and mostly what people end up doing is just running roaming gangs into either the other pirates or into factional warfare groups. What the game currently considers 'pirates' based on security status are really mostly 'small gang pvpers.' Piracy, as in, killing/ransoming helpless ships to make ISK is practically dead, just for the reason that there is no one around to pirate. The only people living in lowsec right now are there for small gang PVP. That's really all that lowsec is good for at the moment. Increasing the interlinks between regions would boost that form of gameplay by giving a way for roaming gangs to go into wider areas.

"It would change the fundamental nature of lowsec by removing some interesting terrain created by different system linkages"
Notice that the suggestions for what gates to add are just ideas. I'm not a CCP Dev, I don't have the training in game design to be able to pick the exact best places for interlinks to go, to maintain the varied terrain of lowsec. Maybe solitude should stay isolated? I don't know. But I've gone into Solitude at 17-1800 and had to wait for systems to turn on because no one had been there all day. Its cool in principal to have isolated systems, but if no one's using them then all they're doing is taking up server space. I don't want lowsec to change into a nullsec NAPtrain, and I don't think it will change just from being easier to get around. A giant powerbloc won't take over lowsec for the same reason it won't take over highsec: because there's nothing for them there. People in lowsec don't want blues. I've had people offer to blue me repeatedly and I've turned them down 99% of the time, on the grounds that if I blue everyone then who can I shoot at? What's the point? People don't go to lowsec for the NAPtrain, they go to lowsec for pvp, and that's hard to do when everyone's your best friend.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Kari Juptris
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#23 - 2012-12-24 13:21:53 UTC
On the surface it sounds like a good idea. I don't venture into lowsec often so I can't speak to the detailed implications, but CCP did a similar thing in nullsec by adding something called Smuggler Gates that connected the far reaches of nullsec to one another (ex, Y-2 in Fountain to ZXB in Delve) so it'd be possible to fly between the edges of nullsec without needing to enter lowsec or hisec.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Stargate#Smuggler.27s_Gate
Unoob Udumb
Doomheim
#24 - 2012-12-24 13:26:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Unoob Udumb
Saede Riordan wrote:
people already limited by being cut off from highsec.


This is a joke, right?

Consequences ...
Jev North
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-12-24 13:34:09 UTC
Very much agreed. I think more space and better interconnection will help make lowsec more viable as a separate ecosystem.

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-12-24 13:34:15 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Saede Riordan wrote:
Okay, here are a few quick rebuttals to people who are against this idea:

"Pirates should deal with the consequences of their actions, they CHOSE to be pirates"
And mission runners chose to run missions, but that doesn't mean that every rat in the mission should have a longpoint and a web.

mission runners already have their consequences: working for 1 faction you broke your standings with some other 2. And when you work "too hard" for Gallente you can find yourself not so warmly welcome in Jita (for example). That's how i lost my very first Myrmidon. (funny experience for 2 months-old n00b)

Saede Riordan wrote:
Piracy is already really hurting as a form of gameplay. Its hard to earn a living in lowsec, its hard to get ransoms, no one lives there so its hard to find kills and mostly what people end up doing is just running roaming gangs into either the other pirates or into factional warfare groups. What the game currently considers 'pirates' based on security status are really mostly 'small gang pvpers.' Piracy, as in, killing/ransoming helpless ships to make ISK is practically dead, just for the reason that there is no one around to pirate. The only people living in lowsec right now are there for small gang PVP. That's really all that lowsec is good for at the moment. Increasing the interlinks between regions would boost that form of gameplay by giving a way for roaming gangs to go into wider areas.

it doesn't matter. Piracy is CHOSEN BY YOU style of playing this SANDBOX game.
Should i choose to run lvl4s in T1 fitted frigate would you support my demands to CCP for making it more easy?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-12-24 14:31:36 UTC
Great idea!

Now let me tell you what will happen. All the pirates would be forced to join one alliance for survival and would hang around in a handful of systems in one large blob.

Be happy with what you have before you turn lowsec into nullsucks.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-12-24 14:54:51 UTC
Miner: "Stop it! I want to mine here."
Pirate: "There are consequences for your choices, ya know. Deal with it! If you don't want to interact with other players go play WoW."

...

Pirate: "I want to be a badass pirate! I don't want to interact with other players."
Miner: "No. You have to interact with other players."
Pirate: "I'm content maker here you noob! Deal with it!"
Pirate: Oops. Oops

Did I get this right?
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#29 - 2012-12-24 15:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Eternal Error wrote:
-1

I want lowsec and highsec to be more scattered. I ******* love regions like Solitude. I do not like loops.


0.0 is one big loop

Solitude is great, the island effect makes people more self sufficient (something I always support, screw Jita!) but we need easier ways to get from one pocket to another (screw highsec and their gankers and carebears!)

Highsec is one big loop, null is one big loop, why isn't lowsec a big loop?
CCP, Fix this please Pirate

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#30 - 2012-12-24 15:12:20 UTC
+1 for this excellent idea. Highway robbery anyone? Pirate

It baffles me every -10 I speak has a hauling alt. As if pirates don't have sekrid bases in spaes that need to be fueled / filled / looted. I like the idea to never have to leave lowsec and still be able to move through Minmatar/Caldari/Amarr/Gallente Empire space. It would offer interesting alternatives to stuff you still need hisec access for now. I'd support any idea that would seperate -10 players from their neutral hauling alts and increases incentive for industry and research in lowsec itself.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#31 - 2012-12-24 15:28:21 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
On the face of things, this sounds like a fantastic idea. But when you really think about it. having lowsec split up is actually great. It maintains how lowsec is still filled with small gangs. If lowsec were one continues loop, then it would be possible for one or two massive pirate entities to control lowsec in it's entirety, much like null sec is now.

I don't want my lowsec all blue. I like my fights, and I like the fact that big pirate alliances are isolated to certain areas. It also gives smaller corps and alliances the chance to find an area or lowsec to call their home,without having to worry about other lowsec residence come in force.

I would be very very upset if this happened. No to all blue space, no to bland territory controlled by one or two coalitions, and no to isolating small corps trying to leave highsec.
This is not far from my thoughts.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Othran
Route One
#32 - 2012-12-24 15:39:51 UTC
Frankly the game needs less routes, not more. Every attempt to implement highways has resulted in large chunks of the map being permanently dead.

Eve needs more variety and the only way to do that is by making it less easy to get there.

Solitude is an excellent example - accessible via Aridia (fair few low-sec hops) or Syndicate only. As a consequence of that and the clever low/null sec split between one half and the other it has a rather unique feel to it - a strange mix of miners/builders and budding PvPrs.

The rest of Eve empire (high and low sec) feels much of a muchness.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-12-24 15:42:01 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

Highsec is one big loop, null is one big loop, why isn't lowsec a big loop?
CCP, Break this please Pirate


Fixed that up for you. So eager to ruin a good thing.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2012-12-24 15:43:45 UTC
Othran wrote:
Frankly the game needs less routes, not more. Every attempt to implement highways has resulted in large chunks of the map being permanently dead.

Eve needs more variety and the only way to do that is by making it less easy to get there.

Solitude is an excellent example - accessible via Aridia (fair few low-sec hops) or Syndicate only. As a consequence of that and the clever low/null sec split between one half and the other it has a rather unique feel to it - a strange mix of miners/builders and budding PvPrs.

The rest of Eve empire (high and low sec) feels much of a muchness.


Agree 100% percent.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#35 - 2012-12-24 15:52:22 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Othran wrote:
Frankly the game needs less routes, not more. Every attempt to implement highways has resulted in large chunks of the map being permanently dead.

Eve needs more variety and the only way to do that is by making it less easy to get there.

Solitude is an excellent example - accessible via Aridia (fair few low-sec hops) or Syndicate only. As a consequence of that and the clever low/null sec split between one half and the other it has a rather unique feel to it - a strange mix of miners/builders and budding PvPrs.

The rest of Eve empire (high and low sec) feels much of a muchness.


Agree 100% percent.


Indeed.

I will agree that some changes to the Low Sec layout might be in order, but ease of travel in EvE is one of the more serious issues we face right now. It messes with the other game mechanics on a very basic level.

I'd support expanding Low Sec, or better yet make most of it an area where the Sec Status changes based on player actions. I also support making travel between various high sec and null sec area's more difficult with the way low sec is laid out.

But highways? No. We need to eliminate most of the ones' we already have.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#36 - 2012-12-24 16:06:50 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Great idea!

Now let me tell you what will happen. All the pirates would be forced to join one alliance for survival and would hang around in a handful of systems in one large blob.

Be happy with what you have before you turn lowsec into nullsucks.


already addressed:

Saede Riordan wrote:
"It would change the fundamental nature of lowsec by removing some interesting terrain created by different system linkages"
Notice that the suggestions for what gates to add are just ideas. I'm not a CCP Dev, I don't have the training in game design to be able to pick the exact best places for interlinks to go, to maintain the varied terrain of lowsec. Maybe solitude should stay isolated? I don't know. But I've gone into Solitude at 17-1800 and had to wait for systems to turn on because no one had been there all day. Its cool in principal to have isolated systems, but if no one's using them then all they're doing is taking up server space. I don't want lowsec to change into a nullsec NAPtrain, and I don't think it will change just from being easier to get around. A giant powerbloc won't take over lowsec for the same reason it won't take over highsec: because there's nothing for them there. People in lowsec don't want blues. I've had people offer to blue me repeatedly and I've turned them down 99% of the time, on the grounds that if I blue everyone then who can I shoot at? What's the point? People don't go to lowsec for the NAPtrain, they go to lowsec for pvp, and that's hard to do when everyone's your best friend.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
#37 - 2012-12-24 16:26:07 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Pirate: "I want to be a badass pirate! I don't want to interact with other players."
Miner: "No. You have to interact with other players."
Pirate: "I'm content maker here you noob! Deal with it!"
Pirate: Oops. Oops

Did I get this right?


Absolutely not. It's more like:

Pirate: "Damnit I can't find any targets. I think it'd be cool if I could quickly sneak over to a few regions over and mess with a different group"

Miner: "No. You CHOSE to be pirate."

Pirate: "Hey, it's not my fault lowsec has NO flavor content or reason to be there whatsoever, bar some broken and uninteresting FW mechanics and the occasional gud-fite."

Miner: "So why did you CHOOSE that if it's so terrible?"

Pirate: "Because I'm a PvPer who doesn't want to belong to a large null alliance and NAPtrap. I like small, close-knit groups over huge alliances, much like how many mining corps enjoy their small size and sense of comradery in hisec. I like my smallgang PvP, so please buff our playground. They buffed your exhumers to ungankable status, so why not give us a bone now? So what, we're not allowed to complain but you are?"

That's basically it.

I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way.

Destination Unreachable: the worst Wspace blog ever
Ghazu
#38 - 2012-12-24 16:31:53 UTC
A good idea but may make regions too homogenized.

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984
Spurty
#39 - 2012-12-24 16:36:14 UTC
Making capitals more obsolete isn't a feature you're going to see explored by CCP

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-12-24 16:38:09 UTC
So make things easier for people who want to do bad things with less consequences?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Previous page123Next page