Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I am not saying that...i am saying only Jump freighters. Do you even read posts before shooting nonsense on forums.

Banning Jump Freighters from highsec/lowsec can have only one incentive - to make logistics harder. However, what would stop people to load-up industrials, chuck them into Carriers and jump them into lowsec instead? To maintain the objective, one would also have to ban carriers from lowsec.
Or change their Ship Maintenance Bay to not be able to accommodate anything with a cargo bay large enough to (ab-)use this. And good luck with that..

It really seems to me that some people who do not have JFs at their disposal are trying to deny this to the rest as well. Not saying it's necessarily you, I am just getting that overall vibe.

Also, if you'd like, try to entertain the concept of NOT using subtle personal attacks against people whose opinion differs from yours. You'd be less likely to come across as a c-word.

I apologize for this slightly off-topic spin-off and to actually contribute to it, my opinion as a highsec dweller - yes, by all means, do it!

Yea that is kind of the point, this only affects the people who want it to affect them.

1. What da f*** do i care if all the pirates arent blue to each other all i care about is what is going to happen when they see my charon without CONCORD protecting it.

2. A charon holds more than twice what the Rhea holds so to get from Rens to Amarr with my ore you want me to jump freighter that distance 4 times (twice for each half load), you have ZERO idea of the economics of high sec transport or about the low profit margins of highsec mining.

Also, if we're all going to be Jump Freighting our ass pass your new low sec gank fest what is the point of adding it?

3. You don't see a reasoned argument because having blinders on is much easier when you're being beaten in said argument.

1. The point is to illustrate how these gates wouldn't be perma-camped. Your response is it wont make your freighter safe. Yes, you undocked, you are no longer safe.

2. Thats your choice of investment. You would still be able to compete locally, saving those JF trips for what would be worth it. What is it that forces you to freight that cargo across empires? Could it be your choice of where to aquire these goods? Your choice of what goods to invest in?

2.5 The proposition isn't about ganking freighters.

3. Show how you've trumped the supporting arguments in any way shape or form.


You attempt to argue against me by using the example of a space ship in the context of real life. Then proceed to attack me personally for poorly thinking. Sounds like projection. What makes it a bad example of how trade does not need stability to exist?


What would stop you from continuing to mine or run missions?

Personal attacks just damage your credibility. They are also delicious. If you have a counter argument reasoned out I would be happy to see it presented.

if CCP do seriously consider this, i will suggest the below :

1) instead of the suggested hard core low sec boundary around every empire, introduce a new type of space --> 0.4 space is now known as neutral space.

2) in 0.4 ... both lowsec and high sec mechanics are in place. there is a secondary concord police call the mercenary concord and there is also random pirates.

3) merc concord reaction time in 0.4 carries a delayed reaction time of additional 15 seconds but the armada that turns up will only consist of ECM frigates. they are destroyable ships.

4) CCP introduces a new type of player structure. a mercenary concord battlestation (MCB) with finite HP (player destroyable). the MCB defense mechanics is the same as a POS, but MCB consumables do not require player intervention. it only functions to dispatch more merc concord ships based on concord rules of engagement (and these MCB will dispatch ships that carry heavy firepower, not like ECM frigs)

5) every addition/anchoring of these MCB will impose a merc concord NPC tax on the anchoring corp. maybe a daily tax charge of 5m isk per MCB set to auto deduct from corp wallet. due to this variation, mercenary concord will also react faster to anchor corp members under "distress".

6) MCB structures are usable in 0.4sec (so now 0.4 may see a whole new type of game play). logistics "business" alliances will need to secure a route lined with MCBs, player pirate group will seek to destroy these annoying things in 0.4. and for these things to play out flexibly, CCP will need to create a rather large boundary of 0.4sec.

7) in any 0.4 sec, a MCB can be anchored (and up to 2 per gate) 500km off the gate. or maybe this is a new mechanics, MCB can be anchored off anywhere min 500km away.

8) MCB structure and ships can be targetted and destroyed just like a PVE item. a MCB station can spawn a finite number of merc concord ships per minute, and there is a maximum limit of 10 additional merc concord ship spawned per system per MCB anchored.

9) MCB can be upgraded by anchoring shield resist mods and other mods (limited by PG/CPU similar to a small POS). MCB therefore have much smaller HP than a POS.

10) instead of completely destroying a MCB. MCB can be taken over, by unloading 20000 units of marines into the MCB when it is vunerable during a 30 second window of it coming out of reinforce mode. this is a idea borrowed from HQ TCRC (incursions). now i think this is a good idea, CCP may extend this idea into normal POS, but maybe inject 50000 marines instead, or even 1440 exotic dancers to render it un-usable for the next 24 hours! LOL !

11) to bring things further, maybe this method of implementing MCB can be expanded into the entire universe and not just 0.4sec. and maybe the MCB can become an auxilliary anchor object next to your own POS? a military supplemental station. or even a "reversed" merc concord that attacks concord.

of cos .... i must be very bored to be thinking up the above .... plz do comment

Common Arguments:

This would make everyone just live in Jita!


If all hisec players lived in Jita then who would do amarr missions and mine amarr ice/ore?
Not everything can be found in one empire making it nessecary that players spread themselves out evenly.

**Don't they already?

Every system will be like Rancer

Rancer is Rancer because it is impossible to go around it. Their is only 1 link that connects Minmatar and Caldari space, only one. If new regions are added like I prescribe then it will always be easy to circumvent these camps with a little know how.

** You CAN get around it, it's just a truckload more jumps.

This interrupts my playstyle!

Do you really need to do Damsel in Distress once for every faction?
Is it really that big a deal if you now need to sell your products locally instead of at one super hub as an industrialist?

** Only truly bad indies sell it all in Jita.
Those that pay attention to their goods and their respective values ALREADY park their wares all over New Eden.

It is impossible to cross low sec safely and it disrupts traders gameplay!

On the contrary, empire to empire wormholes that can fit freighters and cloaking haulers are available to traders.
Volumes of items being moved to make prices more homogenous will be reduced meaning greater profits will be made each trip making the use of these methods more profitable.

** Such wormholes are few and far between. The opposite will occur: pirates will all get their sec up to be able to get to highsec and just buy there stuff their directly.
Lowsec markets will be even worse than they are now.

It doesnt make sense lore wise!

WRONG. Borders between enemy nations do not have to be safe and are often not. Security status is not determined by the presence of the empires military but concord's ability to secure those areas. The US Mexico border is a RL example of this, its a desolate desert covered with patrol agents and drug cartel operatives who will sew your genitals to your face and put explosives in them after sending your corpse back to your family.
The borders between allied empires could be also insecure, since they may be frontier areas since this idea comes with adding new regions that disrupt gate travel, these areas would be a frontier, thus not very well secured.

** Empire gates already aren't safe perse.
Plenty of freighters get suicide ganked as is.
Miners get ganked plenty as is.
Plenty of wars to disrupt empire 'safety'.
Also, borders are protected. The people - in EVE's case the players - make it unsafe. It's already that way.

Gate camps aren't fun or pvp!

While mostly true the fact that gate camps exist will provide opportunities for pirates to make money actually pirating.
More importantly the fact that a gate camp is there means that someone will want to come and break it up, encouraging fleet pvp off stations encouraging more fun.

** As you mentioned before: JF's will be used to directly hop into lowsec - if they would to begin with.
As far as making ISK from pirating goes: gatecamping isn't necessarily profitable.
15 people on a gate, 1 bill isk, split 15 ways. Yay.
Also, with numerously more entries, it will be alot easier to detect where camps are, they'll be spread even more thin and creative people will avoid these systems easier than they do now.


I'm not trying to beat you down for being creative, but i don't think this will be a solution, this will only be frustrating.
And not just for carebears - for pirates as well.

HAHAHA ! YES !!!

and for aprils fools joke ... jita is surrounded by lowsec?

actually the idea null is webbed by hisec is great. but i would ... use the neutral sec thingy ... the neutral sec perforates every space system, neutral sec is the only real "highway" to all of eve

damn... and I thought this thread was dead... stupid alt bumping

Alright, who's alt bumping.....