Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes, if this and a handful of other changes got implemented we could have some amazing new game features. Maybe a bit more racial distinction. ;)

no time to read this entire threadnaught, but u get my +1

Dear OP,

I cannot comprehend how the isolation of empires would fit into the lore and even if the lore was ignored overall, still would it be very unplausible and strange to isolate the empires and turn them into four islands surrounded by the lawless waters you call "lowsec" in your thread.

Whenever two empire's territories approach one another, a border forms naturally and border zones are the most guarded areas. Border zones are hot zones with pressure and tension between the nations.

The "purposes of CONCORD is to ease the fragile tension and create a foundation for the empires to work their differences out in a peaceful manner." (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CONCORD).
Therefore, CONCORD's core interest is to be the most active at the empire's borders and not to be absent, for that's what lowsec means - CONCORD's absence.

Your thread is literally an outcry to abolish CONCORD and its noble values and its replacement by detestable piracy, which is an abomination.

Chaos and disorder are not from God and the Empress opposes the proposed conditions in disgust.
ALL four empires oppose the proposed condition of isolation and the ulcer of piracy.
All four empires are and will keep supporting CONCORD's deeds and values with all force.

I think they've been ironed out. Where's the toll booth??!!

I think this would be neat.

For my purposes 1 route through hisec= 20 routes through hisec.

Also as long as autopilot exists anything shorter than 35 jumps would be fairly pointless for the purposes of trade, as anyone patient would still use the long way, which is most good traders.

No big surprise, but obviously this is just a troll thread. The OP is active and only replies to supporters or straw man arguments. I believe my scenario is not unlikely and yet there was no acknowledgement of it. No counter argument, no "give me some time to think about that", just another reply to someone who agrees.

have fun o/

remove the 4 empires and make a goon online there too

FW space is active yes, however piracy and lowsec pvp are not synonymous. When was the last time you issued, were issued a ransom? The OP's argument is that there is no advantage to using lowsec routes because they have a disproportionate risk to reward ratio, a core element in the "lowsec is broken" concept. I agree with you that this will not stop traders from training their X amount of freighter accounts into jump freighters, and use them to bridge most of the gap. It does however add risk to the endeavor. Even jumping to a cyno inside the docking perimeter there is a session timer, which can be taken advantage of to bump the target out of range. Do not confuse challenging with impossible.



Previously you argued that people effected by this change would adapt with ways of minimizing the risk and maximizing their profits. Following that line of reasoning, and including your argument regarding the increase of fuel demand, people would logically determine that it would be more profitable to produce goods within their local market area. Material, module, and small ship trade all still possible, and arguably more profitable, with transport ships. Larger entities with the capability to contract or jump their goods would have to move enough volume to offset the price of doing so, which would increase the ability to compete on a smaller scale. Chaos is profitable, with decentralized markets prices would fluctuate, creating more trade opportunities between markets, and promoting player traffic to get the best deal. The reward of the best deal on either the side of the consumer, or the side of seller, is offset by the increased risk of travel. The initial turmoil of the change would likely cause a unilateral rise in prices, but once the fear subsides patters of stability would establish themselves. Prices would shift with the local trends and the cost of trading, but comparing the lowest price from any hub in said scenario to the current price would not be a prohibitive difference. People would still be able to afford pvp ships on small and large scale alike, especially if they shop around.



he OP has clearly demonstrated that the cartography of this change be designed to apply the “needle in a haystack” defense. Some balancing would be in order to make pipes having less lowsec jumps fewer, yet many 'backwater' entrances of longer routes. The number of which should be plentiful enough to give the necessity security from 'hell camps' like Rancer and Amamake. However the precise system layout is a discussion of its own.

It is important to note that since the normal highsec routes that have the attention of suicide groups would be gone, their attention would then be drawn to the local hubs and the popular routes. Those that choose operate in lowsec would face the added risk of the drawing the eye of bigger fish. Since highsec gankers face little unpredictable risk, I believe this to be an improvement.

Burn Jita ad Hulkageddon are prime examples of the playerbase rebelling against current mechanics, and manipulating them to impose risk in a relatively riskless area. Its effectively slapping devs in the face and further shows that ideas like this deserve dev attention. Its simmilar to how coalitions were player formed 'alliances' before the alliance mechanic. This idea is a step in the right direction in fixing the risk verse reward ratio issue in Eve.



There you go. Your argument has been acknowledged and challenged. Do you feel better? Sheesh you didn't even wait 24hrs.

Adds meaning to having four empires. I approve