Player Features and Ideas Discussion

sorry but this is one of the worst ideas i have ever heard. first of all i would like to point out the impact this would have on the already expensive market, everything would sky rocket in price as it already has regarding the tech moon changes, second of all what business do you have recommending such a stupid idea, are you really that dumb? do you not realize what is going on in high sec at the moment (suicide ganking) i think that alone is bad enough why in hell should ccp make it even harder to make traveling threw highsec in this crap that you suggested. what do you thinks going to happen EVERYONE will start camping the routes in between the hubs sure you could make it threw with cloaky haulers and other methods but for the new players it would be absolutely unfair. you obviously dont understand how eve works on top of that why should new players learn about low sec if they dont want to, let them learn the hard way as everyone did they could easily find a corp to train them to pvp or let them learn about the game. you sir are the definition of pure stupidness this is just as bad as that one guy who's complaining about suspects being able to dock. why dont you go crawl back in the hole u came from.

dumb ass

I like this idea.

EVE universe is way too static, since the beginning, always the same pattern with empire space in the middle. I feel it uniform and isotropic.

Anything that changes this pattern would be great. (i.e. Faction warfare to affect system security)

PvE Players already do this, the number of people with CovOps Cloaks that still get caught by 'skilled' or 'lucky' gate campers or smartbombers is probably much higher than you believe it is.



It's a pretty good idea actually, would create bigger market influxes importing racially specific items into the 3 other regions (which is already done); It would make the game world seem bigger for those that don't mind traversing low-sec, and it would make the game world feel like 4 seperate areas instead of being defined currently by the colors of stations/gates and local nebulae.




Don't do much jump planning do you? The space between all the factions is typically within carrier range (i.e. >14ly).

First of all, the mission description would tell them about the risks associated with lowsec.

Second, this is EVE. Prepared or not you're going to lose ships and things. The whole point is to show them this in a controlled environment where the losses are minimal. What's probably worse is if that player goes the Mining route and then gets ganked in highsec immediately after buying their first mining barge which they depleted their wallet to buy because they had no concept of loss in this game. I wonder how often this has happened.

You know maybe there should be more than one place where you lose something. Maybe a few where you just lose your ship and then maybe 1 or 2 where your pod gets killed too. This way they understand the meaning of "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" before they invest everything into one ship that gets blapped.

As for smartbomb BS. Well if the gate defenses are beefed up on High to Low gates, or if the defense escalates it would be tough for them to perma camp smartbomb cycle gates like that. Besides you could always get a HIC to snag one up pretty easy. Free BS kills? Don't mind if I do!

After a long time - and having re-read this thread - I would again ike to offer my support to this idea!

There are already small Hi-Sec islands. They do work well. They do cause a dynamic to manifest itself that you don't get elsewhere. They do cause local flavour that is created by the "island's" inhabitants - this is spontaneous and player driven. They cause PvP to happen - it is somehow fun for everyone involved - even when I lose industrials and freighters. It's just odd - but come to Orien and check out the atmosphere - spend a week there!

I beleive that these smaller islands would scale up as larger "Islands" were created - as per the OP.

I'd love to see a careful consideration in terms of bottlenecks between the empires - a cost benefit of risk and reward - between bottlenecked direct trunks and then safer, (multi route), but indirect, (Slow), alternatives.

I'd love a neutral (ORE?) - highsec island in the middle!. . . .

- just loads of fun things that can be done

I think this would be ace

Claire Raynor you are right ...for me and many others we have lived in null and low sec ...so i don't have a problem but there are many people in high that want to hang with there friends and enjoy the game ....they know as soon as they step into low sec to mine or anything else , someone will come around to kill em ...so its just not viable

It might sound redundant but what about a compromise between the current system and the one proposed by Commander Ted?

Split the main faction regions by low-sec as suggested but keep one or two regional gates that connect from one regions high sec to another and place a "toll-gate" like charge based on ship size, so that ships with good size-to-cargo ratio are still profitable to move items between regions with, but constantly moving smaller ships would be much less so.


Possible Issues

• Easy to camp "toll pipe" for high-sec gankers.
• Toll amount would have to be carefully worked out to be effective, but no overly restrictive.

Possible Benefits

• (Ties in with the first Possible Issues) It is not completely safe and should still have the affect that Commander Ted wanted.
• It could still encourage people to venture into low-sec to avoid the toll.
• Have low-sec seem a more natural part of life in space as pilots are exposed to it more often.

TLDR;
Split Empire regions by lowsec, keep one or two highsec paths between each and add a toll based on ship size, but still have many alternative routes that travel though low. Have people make the choice to use the safer (but more expensive) or the cheaper (but more dangerous) routes to get where they want to go.

More pvp= tedious and boring

Also the point is to make moving ships an infrequent event.

How about this for a compromise?

1. Sure, separate hisec into islands.

2. Change what low-sec means a bit -- still no concord presence, but make it compensated by beefing up gate security (based on sec-status) and making the guns fire at criminals in range, thus making gatecamps less possible. People will be less hesitant to enter lowsec because there will be fewer gatecamps. Please note I said 'Less possible", not impossible.

Pvp'ers would actually get to hunt down their target rather than the tedious waiting, bonus being that there will be more people making excursions into lowsec for the extra resources found there. Really, do you want to smack on an industrial or some silly missoner who decided he wants to go find a 6/10 DED plex to run in a ridiculously expensive fitted ship? Might even run into a mining barge or three who decided the less-often gatecamps would be worth snagging some of that low-sec ore.

Just an idea for a compromise-- As it is, the idea of just separating low-sec is too much. Way too many subscriptions would be lost because non-pvpers don't like to pvp, they like to make isk. Give them a chance to make isk (not risk free, of course), pvp'ers a chance to track them down in low sec with less of that silly gatecamp business, and people might decide that overall it's more fun with low-sec becoming a fun place to live.

With less gatecamps, people might even decide to move a freighter or two through lowsec if they thought they would have a decent chance of getting away with it.

Btw, if you're going to quote someone, or respond to them, putting the words 'blabla' or something else trivializing what they say is not a good way to continue dialog. It's just rude.