These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Time for a map redraw?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#21 - 2013-01-02 19:38:15 UTC
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
Yet another belligerent undesirable attempting to force filth and lawlessness on we the True Citizens and Desirables of Eve, the High Security Players.

Back to the bad lands, savage. Smile



Nah. They just have some dream of never-ending perpetual boring low sec roams. Weeee, fun.

"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
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2013-01-02 19:39:48 UTC
CCP please move this thread to Features and Ideas thread.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#23 - 2013-01-02 19:42:16 UTC
Generals4 wrote:

No, i don't want to go through null when going to harrass some gallente in their territory.


Sure, have a losec bisect joining the faction hisecs; key is to encourage (but not force) transits to low (or null). Picture was a sample to that goal.

Would you like to know more?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#24 - 2013-01-02 19:46:44 UTC
The reason players stay in high sec is they do not like stress. You cannot force them to like stress by redrawing the map. Either they will stay in one high sec pocket or leave for a different game.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#25 - 2013-01-02 19:47:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
Yet another belligerent undesirable attempting to force filth and lawlessness on we the True Citizens and Desirables of Eve, the High Security Players.

Back to the bad lands, savage. Smile


Nothing I proposed actually forces empire players to change, its about incentivizing transits through losec, and aquisition of sov in null -- with the ability for smaller organizations to actually aquire sov (by breaking up null)

Imagine small pockets of null that aren't worth the trouble for big alliances to take, but well worth small alliances or big corps to constantly fight over....breaking up null with losec pockets will do this.

Would you like to know more?
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#26 - 2013-01-02 19:48:39 UTC  |  Edited by: AlleyKat
I created a graphical representation some time ago of how the map should have drawn from day one:

link

Please note: not to scale; it's just illustrative of design.

But sadly I feel it's too late.

AK

This space for rent.
Sarmatiko
#27 - 2013-01-02 19:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarmatiko
Ideas coming from pilot, who mostly kills fresh and vulnerable darwin-fitted newbies in Oursulaert (0.9). He knows how to change low and null sec pvp for sure! Smile

ps: OP i'm not judging your playstyle. It's just the whole stupidity of the proposed ideas - as if you decided to SUDDENLY build industrial zone in the middle of modern megapolis downtown to increase level of crime and violence, because safe downtown is too boring to live and small gangs need some place to hang out.
Lexmana
#28 - 2013-01-02 19:59:39 UTC
You are going to far IMHO. But I agree that empire highsec should be islands surrounded by lowsec. It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other. As a twist I would make FW have an impact by temporarily open up a highsec corridor between allies when certain FW objectives are met.
Rath Kelbore
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-01-02 20:03:27 UTC
I wouldn't mind having each faction seperated by null. That map is hilarious. You should add a "you are here" star or something. Make it look professional.

I plan on living forever.......so far, so good.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-01-02 20:03:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lexmana wrote:
You are going to far IMHO. But I agree that empire highsec should be islands surrounded by lowsec. It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other. As a twist I would make FW have an impact by temporarily open up a highsec corridor between allies when certain FW objectives are met.


Sure, I also like AlleyKat's proposed model of what you mention...makes more sense for a no-mans-land to exist between factions lore wise for that reason alone....

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?a29iuch6rpfkwcl#

Although, I do think the big null blocs should be broken up with smaller chunks of non-linked null they wont bother with separated by lowsec swaths, and smaller alliances or corps can (and will) then fight over...

Would you like to know more?
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-01-02 20:07:02 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other.

Sure it does. Why wouldn't you increase security in and fortify a system right next door to your enemy?

CCP has no sense of humour.
Manhoris Prime
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-01-02 20:07:42 UTC
PLEASE Mr. Custer, I don't wanna GO!!!


There's a PVPer out THAR, waitin to take ma HAR!!!


WHY won't you let me carebear in peace??
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#33 - 2013-01-02 20:09:14 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
You are going to far IMHO. But I agree that empire highsec should be islands surrounded by lowsec. It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other. As a twist I would make FW have an impact by temporarily open up a highsec corridor between allies when certain FW objectives are met.


It might be better otherwise, but it certainly makes sense. You can think of it as the north/south Korean border zone. The close proximity is actually a reason for increased security presense, since both sides recognize the necessity to keep tight control of such an area and can't afford any vulnerabilities or disruptions there.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-01-02 20:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
You are going to far IMHO. But I agree that empire highsec should be islands surrounded by lowsec. It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other. As a twist I would make FW have an impact by temporarily open up a highsec corridor between allies when certain FW objectives are met.


It might be better otherwise, but it certainly makes sense. You can think of it as the north/south Korean border zone. The close proximity is actually a reason for increased security presense, since both sides recognize the necessity to keep tight control of such an area and can't afford any vulnerabilities or disruptions there.


FYI: There is a 4km wide 'DMZ' between north and south Korea filled with mines and covered by snipers waiting to do target practice..... aka Losec/nullsec :)

Would you like to know more?
Lexmana
#35 - 2013-01-02 20:21:19 UTC
Some Rando wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other.

Sure it does. Why wouldn't you increase security in and fortify a system right next door to your enemy?

Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
You are going to far IMHO. But I agree that empire highsec should be islands surrounded by lowsec. It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other. As a twist I would make FW have an impact by temporarily open up a highsec corridor between allies when certain FW objectives are met.


It might be better otherwise, but it certainly makes sense. You can think of it as the north/south Korean border zone. The close proximity is actually a reason for increased security presense, since both sides recognize the necessity to keep tight control of such an area and can't afford any vulnerabilities or disruptions there.

Fair points. Though I would expect some "lower sec" between two empires such as the demilitarised zone between north/south Korea and perhaps also eastern Europe between the Russia and the western part of Europe after ww2.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#36 - 2013-01-02 20:24:24 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


Won't work. People would stay in thier "island".


Sadly, I think this is the case.

I think the map is fine as is.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-01-02 20:27:00 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Fair points. Though I would expect some "lower sec" between two empires such as the demilitarised zone between north/south Korea and perhaps also eastern Europe between the Russia and the western part of Europe after ww2.

We already kind of have that in the FW zones.

CCP has no sense of humour.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#38 - 2013-01-02 20:27:40 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Some Rando wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other.

Sure it does. Why wouldn't you increase security in and fortify a system right next door to your enemy?

Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
You are going to far IMHO. But I agree that empire highsec should be islands surrounded by lowsec. It doesn't make sense that bitter enemies highsec systems are next to each other. As a twist I would make FW have an impact by temporarily open up a highsec corridor between allies when certain FW objectives are met.


It might be better otherwise, but it certainly makes sense. You can think of it as the north/south Korean border zone. The close proximity is actually a reason for increased security presense, since both sides recognize the necessity to keep tight control of such an area and can't afford any vulnerabilities or disruptions there.

Fair points. Though I would expect some "lower sec" between two empires such as the demilitarised zone between north/south Korea and perhaps also eastern Europe between the Russia and the western part of Europe after ww2.



No, there was no demilitarized zone between Eastern and Western Europe during the Cold War.

Just a thin 100 yard or so 'no man's land' leading up to a fence.


And it was not low sec or null sec in equivalence. It was Death sec.

"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
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#39 - 2013-01-02 20:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
FYI: There is a 4km wide 'DMZ' between north and south Korea filled with mines and covered by snipers waiting to do target practice..... aka Losec/nullsec :)


How much trade is there across that DMZ, or any similar boundary land? So yes, it would be like low sec: Mostly dead, except for snipers.

If the goal is to Balkanize high sec and fill EVE with more dead low sec systems, this will work. If the goal is to give people an incentive to go into low sec, it won't work: You forgot the incentive.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#40 - 2013-01-02 20:29:29 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


Won't work. People would stay in thier "island".


Sadly, I think this is the case.

I think the map is fine as is.



Yeah...reaarange Null and THEN we shall hear their screams.

My God it would never ever stop.




......like this thread topic.

"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
Previous page123Next page