These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Separate the four empires with low security space.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Archess Nei
#461 - 2013-05-19 07:01:57 UTC
I was already to give my carebear reason why this is a bad idea then i realized something. As a carebear, I'm risk averse so I would just sell to a buy order or refine the item. The person who buys my wares then could ship it to another empire and make even more isk off the transaction. While i'm perfectly safe(sorta) to keep doing what I like to do. The person who then decides to say ship a load of ore from jita, where its wothless, to rens, where the price is crazy would make a ton of isk. All the while the risk averse players could keep doing there thing.

For something like this to work the T1 and T2 indy ships need a major overhaul to make this idea workable.
I can almost picture haulers hiring protection to go and clear out gate camps while a fleet of frieghters and indy ships wait for the all clear to jump.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#462 - 2013-05-19 07:21:32 UTC
Archess Nei wrote:
I was already to give my carebear reason why this is a bad idea then i realized something. As a carebear, I'm risk averse so I would just sell to a buy order or refine the item. The person who buys my wares then could ship it to another empire and make even more isk off the transaction. While i'm perfectly safe(sorta) to keep doing what I like to do. The person who then decides to say ship a load of ore from jita, where its wothless, to rens, where the price is crazy would make a ton of isk. All the while the risk averse players could keep doing there thing.

For something like this to work the T1 and T2 indy ships need a major overhaul to make this idea workable.
I can almost picture haulers hiring protection to go and clear out gate camps while a fleet of frieghters and indy ships wait for the all clear to jump.



The indy ships have absolutely nothing to do with this being workable or not. The Deep Space Transport ships have +2 warp core strength and a large low slow fitting, as well as being super tanky. They would probably be the go to ship for low sec transport.

And as for hiring protection to clear gates, i really doubt you'd have to actually pay many people to do this. If there's a good fight to be had then i'm sure someone will do it for free. but then again they miight just turn around betray you. so be careful who you get!
Archess Nei
#463 - 2013-05-19 07:52:30 UTC
My last concern would be IF ccp does this what kind of warning should be given out before hand. Would they just move everyone out of the systems that are becoming low sec? Would hate to log in and be in a .2 system that was .7 the day before with a hauling orca trying to burn towards hi sec.

Other than that, As a carebear i +1 this idea
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#464 - 2013-05-19 10:24:44 UTC
I don't know if this was mentioned, but if the idea goes through we will see an evolution to 1 major trade hub (probably jita). The other markets will grow much smaller or cease to exist all together, only cheap t1 and t2 items will be sold on those hubs.

Energy will always flow to the path of least resistance.
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#465 - 2013-05-19 15:26:15 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but if the idea goes through we will see an evolution to 1 major trade hub (probably jita). The other markets will grow much smaller or cease to exist all together, only cheap t1 and t2 items will be sold on those hubs.

Energy will always flow to the path of least resistance.


A couple other people have also speculated this in this thread, could you explain why you think that would happen, because I honestly suspect the opposite would happen.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#466 - 2013-05-19 16:23:59 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:



You still fail to understand that this sort of gameplay is not in the least bit interesting or fun to your intended targets. If it was, they would be there, reaping the already higher rewards of low sec and dealing with the hassle.

Its a serious opportunity for grief and hassle that is for that very reason being completely passed up.

Being the target of ambush predators is not fun, interesting or exciting for the prey.


Who are my intended targets? Did I say I wanted to gate camp? Is this the fourth time you have accused me for something I deny?
If I want easy targets I can go to hi sec already, do you realize just how many stupid people are just sitting their for the picking? Are you just mentally blocking out the points I want to make and just read LOL CAREBEARS LOL CAREBEARS.

Secondly who says it isn't fun? You, a person who as far as I can tell has never even tried doing things in low sec? Some of the most engaging moments I have ever had were evading gate camps in null sec with a cloaked hauling ship filled with modules I bought using a loan from a friend to sell.
No i am not making that up, I jumped through a gate and was bubbled with a sabre 5km from me.

Also the status quo right now is no gameplay, autopilot and go. I also have yet to see an actual reason for anyone to say they NEED to go back and forth between two empires.

Also if you actually get ambushed your an idiot. A complete idiot, who has no reason to go back and forth between the empires anyway.



Very well, lets just say the intended targets of your trade nerf then. You in no way want this so that you have more 'content'.

I have read your points. I disagree with them, and feel as if you have failed to truly think through the consequences of making a change such as this.

And yes. I say it isn't fun. My friends say it isn't fun. The hordes of traders not taking advantage of low sec trade opportunities or trying to independently haul items into NPC null say it isn't fun with their avoidance. If it was fun for them, they would be doing it... but it's not, so they don't.

Here is a clue: If you have to strongarm people into doing something, it's probably not fun for them.

The status quo isn't gameplay You Enjoy. For those players making ISK is their fun. Rather than adapt your own playstyle to find your own fun, you want to steal theirs.

Sandbox Ted. It's not just for Ship on Ship PvP.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#467 - 2013-05-19 17:29:21 UTC
Archess Nei wrote:
My last concern would be IF ccp does this what kind of warning should be given out before hand. Would they just move everyone out of the systems that are becoming low sec? Would hate to log in and be in a .2 system that was .7 the day before with a hauling orca trying to burn towards hi sec.

Other than that, As a carebear i +1 this idea

No, hopefully they would add new regions, which would be a big lore explanation of why this happened in the first place

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#468 - 2013-05-19 17:33:39 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:



Very well, lets just say the intended targets of your trade nerf then. You in no way want this so that you have more 'content'.

I have read your points. I disagree with them, and feel as if you have failed to truly think through the consequences of making a change such as this.

And yes. I say it isn't fun. My friends say it isn't fun. The hordes of traders not taking advantage of low sec trade opportunities or trying to independently haul items into NPC null say it isn't fun with their avoidance. If it was fun for them, they would be doing it... but it's not, so they don't.

Here is a clue: If you have to strongarm people into doing something, it's probably not fun for them.

The status quo isn't gameplay You Enjoy. For those players making ISK is their fun. Rather than adapt your own playstyle to find your own fun, you want to steal theirs.

Sandbox Ted. It's not just for Ship on Ship PvP.


People do take advantage of this sometimes, but rarely as their is no reason to. Not to mention low sec camps are fairly uncommon now anyway, its mostly just smartbomb camps with a few instalock nados popping dumb frigates. Their is no good isk reason to go through low sec when the benefits provide are minimal.

Also once again, their are lots of safe ways to go around low sec you totally ignore.
Cloaks
Wormholes
Red Frog
Jump Freighters

Now explain how that is such a gameplay killer for a small minority of afk zombies?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#469 - 2013-05-19 18:25:46 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:



Very well, lets just say the intended targets of your trade nerf then. You in no way want this so that you have more 'content'.

I have read your points. I disagree with them, and feel as if you have failed to truly think through the consequences of making a change such as this.

And yes. I say it isn't fun. My friends say it isn't fun. The hordes of traders not taking advantage of low sec trade opportunities or trying to independently haul items into NPC null say it isn't fun with their avoidance. If it was fun for them, they would be doing it... but it's not, so they don't.

Here is a clue: If you have to strongarm people into doing something, it's probably not fun for them.

The status quo isn't gameplay You Enjoy. For those players making ISK is their fun. Rather than adapt your own playstyle to find your own fun, you want to steal theirs.

Sandbox Ted. It's not just for Ship on Ship PvP.


People do take advantage of this sometimes, but rarely as their is no reason to. Not to mention low sec camps are fairly uncommon now anyway, its mostly just smartbomb camps with a few instalock nados popping dumb frigates. Their is no good isk reason to go through low sec when the benefits provide are minimal.

Also once again, their are lots of safe ways to go around low sec you totally ignore.
Cloaks
Wormholes
Red Frog
Jump Freighters

Now explain how that is such a gameplay killer for a small minority of afk zombies?



It's not that there is no reason. I just don't find the game play there to be any fun.

What you seem to have a problem with is that there is no requirement. That list of ways to 'safely' get around in low sec is useless to me, because none of it allows me to successfully fulfill my goals in game without the hassle of having to run everytime a neutral enters the system.

You can not like the playstyle of Highsec players all you like, that still does not justify stealing their fun to increase your own. People avoiding lowsec isn't a problem that you can solve with game mechanics. The same dynamic occurs in the lawless areas of the real world too--- only people without choices or a criminal bent in their attitude will live there. The only way to make Lowsec more populated with targets is to remove alternatives from those targets. As this is a game that people not only play willingly but actually pay for, it's a minority that will deal with the hassle of piracy to perform PvE activities in that area rather than just playing a game that is actually fun for them.

Haulers and other PvE minded players are not just going to wake up one morning and realize that their antagonists were right all along and it really is more fun to put yourself in a position to be victimized.

Figure out a way to manage the out of control risk involved in actually playing the game in that area and you will get more players. So long as it's hide in station or whack-a-ship. This is less of a hauler issue than it is a mining/mission running/exploring issue. It's all well and good that it's possible to usually make it to a station... but that's not gameplay either, from the perspective of those that like PvE.
hellcane
Never Back Down
#470 - 2013-05-19 21:19:52 UTC
Interesting idea. However 90% of the ways suggested to make this happen are nothing more than "let's get non pvp ships into pew pew space".
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#471 - 2013-05-19 21:31:55 UTC
hellcane wrote:
Interesting idea. However 90% of the ways suggested to make this happen are nothing more than "let's get non pvp ships into pew pew space".


All space in EVE is "pew pew" space.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#472 - 2013-05-19 21:40:29 UTC
hellcane wrote:
Interesting idea. However 90% of the ways suggested to make this happen are nothing more than "let's get non pvp ships into pew pew space".

or give a reason to pew pew in pew pew space?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#473 - 2013-05-19 23:04:26 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
hellcane wrote:
Interesting idea. However 90% of the ways suggested to make this happen are nothing more than "let's get non pvp ships into pew pew space".

or give a reason to pew pew in pew pew space?



Anyone that wants to Pewpew in pewpew space is already there, pewpewing. This is trying to force (god, yes, I know it's not actually forcing anything, just removing other options so that the ones you want to deal with are all that's left) those who don't want to pewpew into pewpew space for the one sided fun and pleasure of those who like to pewpew with all the reward stacked on their side, and the risk on their target.
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#474 - 2013-05-19 23:21:38 UTC
Making ALL routes go through lowsec... would kill the market and destroy the marketeering career track.

It would also make EVERYTHING in Eve WAY more expensive.

Marketeers would simply station spin and go PVP only, until the ammo and ships finally ran out and CCP had to seed more into the game...

In other words...

... we would be playing the spaceship version of WoW by the end of the month.

NO!
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#475 - 2013-05-19 23:23:41 UTC
Increasing the AMOUNT of low sec systems between high sec systems would maybe do the trick but, there MUST be at LEAST ONE fully 100% green route between each empire, otherwise...

... you risk turning the 4 empires into 4 different versions of North Korea.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#476 - 2013-05-19 23:26:01 UTC
SGT FUNYOUN wrote:
Increasing the AMOUNT of low sec systems between high sec systems would maybe do the trick but, there MUST be at LEAST ONE fully 100% green route between each empire, otherwise...

... you risk turning the 4 empires into 4 different versions of North Korea.


No. There will Jitaland, and then there will be the 3 N. Koreas.Big smile
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#477 - 2013-05-19 23:32:59 UTC  |  Edited by: SGT FUNYOUN
Here's MY suggestion... make System Security status be PLAYER movable.

IOW, if a corporation wishes to take on the task...

They could attack Concord and the Navy of that system, thus decreasing the sec status of that system.

Concord and the local Navy would go into a factional war with the player corp, and if the player corp BEAT Concord and the local navy...

... then the SOVEREIGNTY of that system (NO MATTER WHAT Sec status it was) would transfer from the empire to that Corporation.

It would make the NPC's a more engaged part of the game...

... and it would allow me and my Corp a chance actually OWN Jita for a while...

... at least until Concord, the local Navy, and some other Corp teamed up and stomped our collective behinds.



***Also, the longer the war dragged out, the lower the sec status would go.
Colonel Goatbanger
Doomheim
#478 - 2013-05-19 23:42:53 UTC
No, bad idea. This would be the equivalent of in large part killing all markets and hubs or centralizing them to the extent where the free flow of goods and services is hampered on a large scale. I deem this only a viable option if you are able to circumwent these said systems with the use of jump freighters or some form of specialized transport in hi-sec. The 0.5 systems that usually act as bottlenecks Niarja, Uedama etc are fine as they are.

Besides, can you spell "GATECAMP DELUXE".
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#479 - 2013-05-20 02:03:28 UTC
Blockade Runners and DSTs can all be effectively used to haul through dangerous space, so making trading between empires inherently dangerous would make these ships more useful.
L4V4
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#480 - 2013-05-20 02:07:47 UTC  |  Edited by: L4V4
I liked this idea until I thought about it.

Doing so would be unnatural, as some borders (in real life and otherwise), are secured, while others are not.

edit: but more low security is always a good thing ;)