These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make the game more interesting: break empire highsec connections

First post
Author
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#41 - 2014-02-08 19:23:47 UTC
Is this the "We Need More Gate Camp Spots!" thread? Am I too late?

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.

Arcticblue2
Nordic Freelancers inc
#42 - 2014-02-08 20:50:32 UTC
Do not try to force pve'ers out of their comfort zone, if you do ... it would only result in people leaving the game.

I am a so called pve'ers or industrialist... I suck at PvP (probably) and even tough I have joined one or two fights it have been a while now since last.

I used to do missions in low sec and honestly I like the "thrill" of doing stuff in low sec, but I gave it up ... why ? because people did not let me do what I like to do, they liked to kill me off, I did not like to be killed off so often and quite honestly it made me do what I like to do less and less fun.

So I went back to high sec where I do PL, Missions, Mining, Tech-2 research and building **** I hope people want to buy...

There you have it, that's the reason people don't want to be forced into low sec and rather quit if somebody tries.

I don't mind a fair fight ... I might loose the fight, but if it is a fair fight then woohoo I would love it, infact one of my more enjoyable fights happend when a brave pirate jumped me in low sec while I was doing a mission... the fight took like 10 minutes as I had tanked wrong for the mission but right for his damage, in the end I lost but I loved the fair fight.

All other times I have been jumped while doing missions it usually is 3-4 pirates in buffed up ships against my poor Raven that I keep low cost because of the danger of being jumped... it's been so bad that even the pirates yell at me because they don't make much isk from killing my ship.

And because I'm doing the stuff I like to do ... missioning, I don't stand a chance against the gankers.

They are the ones you should thank for the high population of High Sec... bravo, you rock !
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua
Doomheim
#43 - 2014-02-08 21:37:51 UTC
Arcticblue2 wrote:


I used to do missions in low sec and honestly I like the "thrill" of doing stuff in low sec, but I gave it up ... why ? because people did not let me do what I like to do, they liked to kill me off, I did not like to be killed off so often and quite honestly it made me do what I like to do less and less fun.
!

By breaking up these connections between empires would not change your mission running in any way.
Helia Tranquilis
Confused Bunnies Inc
#44 - 2014-02-08 21:51:07 UTC
This would hardly change the current reality. Uedama, Niarja and Deltole are already the 3 most dangerous systems in "hisec" in terms of freighter pinatas being "catalyzed". Making each a lowsec would at least encourage everyone to treat said systems like they already should.
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#45 - 2014-02-08 21:52:50 UTC
Helia Tranquilis wrote:
This would hardly change the current reality. Uedama, Niarja and Deltole are already the 3 most dangerous systems in "hisec" in terms of freighter pinatas being "catalyzed". Making each a lowsec would at least encourage everyone to treat said systems like they already should.

^^Good Point
Arcticblue2
Nordic Freelancers inc
#46 - 2014-02-08 21:58:09 UTC
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua wrote:
Arcticblue2 wrote:


I used to do missions in low sec and honestly I like the "thrill" of doing stuff in low sec, but I gave it up ... why ? because people did not let me do what I like to do, they liked to kill me off, I did not like to be killed off so often and quite honestly it made me do what I like to do less and less fun.
!

By breaking up these connections between empires would not change your mission running in any way.


I would not go into Low-Sec either if I was forced to do so by trade.. I rather just quit than being forced to do something I don't like to do... if EVE-Online would not want my money then no problem :-) (BTW been playing since 2004 so seen abit on the way).

Basically unless you solve the problem with blobbing that ganking have become ... then don't bother to try and change.
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#47 - 2014-02-08 22:16:35 UTC
Arcticblue2 wrote:
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua wrote:
Arcticblue2 wrote:


I used to do missions in low sec and honestly I like the "thrill" of doing stuff in low sec, but I gave it up ... why ? because people did not let me do what I like to do, they liked to kill me off, I did not like to be killed off so often and quite honestly it made me do what I like to do less and less fun.
!

By breaking up these connections between empires would not change your mission running in any way.


I would not go into Low-Sec either if I was forced to do so by trade.. I rather just quit than being forced to do something I don't like to do... if EVE-Online would not want my money then no problem :-) (BTW been playing since 2004 so seen abit on the way).

Basically unless you solve the problem with blobbing that ganking have become ... then don't bother to try and change.


Unless you're in something small, high-sec ganks are blobs just like in low. How can you use that for your justification since the same behavior can be found in high-sec?
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua
Doomheim
#48 - 2014-02-09 06:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua
Helia Tranquilis wrote:
This would hardly change the current reality. Uedama, Niarja and Deltole are already the 3 most dangerous systems in "hisec" in terms of freighter pinatas being "catalyzed". Making each a lowsec would at least encourage everyone to treat said systems like they already should.

As stated before, they should add few systems there. Like Uedama would become a lowsec pipe of three to four systems. So it would not be just like Rancer.

But Uedama is not at border so,

[Algogille]***here is the border***[Kassigainen]-[Hatakani]

this would become

[Algogillea]-[low-sec-system-1]-[lowsec-system-2]-[lowsec-system-3]-[Hatakani]

So I would add new low sec systems instead of making our current highsec systems as lowsec systems near the borders.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#49 - 2014-02-09 07:32:59 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I think what a lot of people misunderstand when some of us ask for Empire to be split up we are not necessarily asking for PvEers, Industrialists, or carebears to be "forced" into doing something that they don't really want to do.

High-sec will largely remain as is. So people can still run missions... build stuff... mine... etc. Nothing about that will change.

What a "split up" means to many of us is that there be low-sec border zones between all the empires. That means if you want to ship something from say... Jita to Amarr... you have to cross through a "border zone" comprised of low-sec systems.

This will have more of an economic impact on the game than anything else... encouraging people to build, sell, and buy stuff more locally... rely more on local miners and industrialists (creating new niche markets and agreements)... and creating true price variances between different trade hubs which can reward those haulers/traders and PvPers alike (see: protection rackets).

Now how many jumps of low-sec will separate the empires? It doesn't have to be vast... maybe 1 or 2 systems gap... extra high-sec to low-sec connections can be added to provide many more alternative routes (so there are fewer chokepoints to be squeezed into)... and maybe turn the border gates themselves into regional gates (making them much harder to camp, but not impossible).


Way back in the day there were high-sec "superhighways" linking the different empires together. This was kept around because the server population was low and the economy was more dependent on the fewer people mining, building, and shipping stuff.
When EVE grew to a certain point, those "superhighways" were removed to create a greater separation (through travel time) between the various regions and encourage more localized economies.

I think we are slowly reaching (or have reached) a new point where we have enough people feeding the EVE's in-game economy to sustain truly regional economies.

Think of it... the prices for the LP Faction Mods from different factions will actually have much more value outside of the empire they were gained in (rather than the 5 to 15% differences we see now). The prices of ores and minerals in one trade hub will no longer be directly dictated by the prices of those same things in another trade hub 20 or 30 jumps away. And there will be an actual reason for PvPers in one area to make deals with their local industrialists or traders rather than "fire up alt... buy in Jita... haul 30 jumps... set up."


I won't disagree that there won't be economic turmoil at first (along with the vicious rage of Incusion Runners because now they can't easily just hop from one site over to the next)... but if any of us "veterans" have seen anything, it's that eventually things settle down and reach an equilibrium of sorts... especially if a large enough profit margin is involved.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#50 - 2014-02-09 07:39:02 UTC
Caldari space with 300 - 2000 people per system and everywhere else virtually empty.

I could live with that, actually.

Mr Epeen Cool
Jaxon Grylls
Institute of Archaeology
#51 - 2014-02-09 09:02:09 UTC
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua wrote:

I thought that this game is multiplayer game.

Get friends and break that camp?

This is just another factional interest making special pleadings.

Multiplayer does not mean blobs. All it means is that a lot of people can play the game at the same time.

A common misconception that keeps cropping up.

It is perfectly reasonable to play a multiplayer game as an individual, as many of the people in hi-sec do.

You play the way you want to and have the courtesy to allow others to play as they wish.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#52 - 2014-02-09 09:13:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
I can translate the OP:

Please force people into my gate camp.


If highsec routes must be broken, then so must nullsec-highsec jumps. If highsec MUST deal with lowsec, then EVERYBODY should have to.

Yeah I know, that won't be popular. The point is to get hapless noobs into those camp, not well-protected convoys.

Some of the OPs points are valid though.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua
Doomheim
#53 - 2014-02-09 09:15:25 UTC
Jaxon Grylls wrote:
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua wrote:

I thought that this game is multiplayer game.

Get friends and break that camp?

This is just another factional interest making special pleadings.

Multiplayer does not mean blobs. All it means is that a lot of people can play the game at the same time.

A common misconception that keeps cropping up.

It is perfectly reasonable to play a multiplayer game as an individual, as many of the people in hi-sec do.

You play the way you want to and have the courtesy to allow others to play as they wish.
So you want to play your spaceships simcity alone without any interuptions? Big smile

Ok, now, please tell me how lowsec or nullsec systems prevent that? Do you now go into lowsec? I assume not. So, after this change, would you go into lowsec? No. What would change for your playstyle? Nothing.

I want to be clear that this or the threadnought of 55 pages, has nothing to do with 'nerf highsec'.

Highsec space would be the same, only change would be that you could not travel freely between empires.
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua
Doomheim
#54 - 2014-02-09 09:22:00 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
The point is to get hapless noobs into those camp, not well-protected convoys.

Back in days I lived in Great Wildlands.

We actually did escort convoys of freighters from Minmatar and Ammatar lowsec to Great Wildlands.

I have to say that the escorting duty in a battleship was hell of a fun! Yes, it was the time when we did fly RRBS fleets. Fun times.

We did get attacked many times and IIRC we did not lose any freighters.

I would love to see other empires rise and caldari state get little smaller economy wise.

Of course fighting in lowsec would be fun, no matter if you are defending or attacking Cool
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-02-09 10:01:13 UTC
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
The point is to get hapless noobs into those camp, not well-protected convoys.

Back in days I lived in Great Wildlands.

We actually did escort convoys of freighters from Minmatar and Ammatar lowsec to Great Wildlands.

I have to say that the escorting duty in a battleship was hell of a fun! Yes, it was the time when we did fly RRBS fleets. Fun times.

We did get attacked many times and IIRC we did not lose any freighters.

I would love to see other empires rise and caldari state get little smaller economy wise.

Of course fighting in lowsec would be fun, no matter if you are defending or attacking Cool

don't forget that in past you would not get cynoed 10+ supers into your convoy.....
These days people do this just for lulz

this is the difference: you simply have no chance against any rich group of players to defend your freighter

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Rhanna Khurin
Doomheim
#56 - 2014-02-09 10:48:45 UTC
It kinda does make sense to have a lawless chaotic zone between rival factions borders where their influence isn't as strong
Sentinel zx
#57 - 2014-02-09 10:57:42 UTC
how about a new Mini freighter for low sec with bonus to Target breaker
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#58 - 2014-02-09 11:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
Why is it that the answer to fixing every thing in the game centers on changing HighSec?

HighSec needs to be nerfed to fix NullSec.
HighSec needs to be broken up to fix LowSec.

Can someone explain this to me?

Where is the forum post (in the right forum) that says, "Allowing NullSec alliances to bypass virtually all of lowsec with jump freighters is preventing PvP in LowSec"?

Where is the forum post (in the right forum) that says, "Allowing FW pilots orbiting a button in LowSec to make 600m ISK/hr is making NullSec income look horrible"?

What is it that everyone in LowSec and NullSec has against HighSec? So much so that they are here every day with these kinds of threads?

Anyone?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Bedwyr McNobbler
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2014-02-09 11:20:04 UTC
Z'zauoe Euopaeqorua wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
Do your research. This used to be the case, and it was removed because it was a terrible terrible idea and caused numerous problems.

Name few problems? I would like to hear them.



well heres one, instead of 1 continent you would have 4, anyone who has no interest in feeding your e-peen with their indy will still stay in hi-sec. Your "solution" would achieve nothing.
Bedwyr McNobbler
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2014-02-09 11:21:46 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Why is it that the answer to fixing every thing in the game centers on changing HighSec?

HighSec needs to be nerfed to fix NullSec.
HighSec needs to be broken up to fix LowSec.

Can someone explain this to me?

Where is the forum post (in the right forum) that says, "Allowing NullSec alliances to bypass virtually all of lowsec with jump freighters is preventing PvP in LowSec"?

Where is the forum post (in the right forum) that says, "Allowing FW pilots orbiting a button in LowSec to make 600m ISK/hr is making NullSec income look horrible"?

What is it that everyone in LowSec and NullSec has against HighSec? So much so that they are here every day with these kinds of threads?

Anyone?


Because they don't want PvP, they just want easy targets.