These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

NERF Hisec?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Josef Djugashvilis
#61 - 2014-04-17 19:48:29 UTC
KuroVolt wrote:
Ya'll being baited like suckers.


This man speaks the truth.

Bah!

This is not a signature.
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2014-04-17 19:51:13 UTC
Back in my day trolls had to work a lot harder than the OP of this thread to get four pages of responses. GD residents you should feel ashamed.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#63 - 2014-04-17 19:51:27 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:

Now, back to the subject matter. How would ultrasec impact the market, playerbase, and content creation of the game as a whole?


If I were to guess, which that's all this is, my speculation, there are no defined parameters listed with the OP's post stating how many systems this "ultra sec" area would consist of.

I'd say the market prices would drop a bit. Ore would definitely be mined bare which would cause the lower quality ore to suffer a loss in value due to an indestructable influx originating from the area. It would result in lower prices, varying depending on the complexity of the build requirements of, I'd guess every item in the game. Would it be severe? Maybe, maybe not. I think the idea of it would be more severe than the actuality of it though.

Regarding the player base, I believe it would be a double edged sword. People who desire complete safety would probably make use of it, resulting in their, at least initial, happiness increasing. If they felt like stepping into the realm of possibility, they could make the choice to migrate to high sec, and perhaps beyond if they so desired. The bleeding would be from those who's desire within EvE is to attack people who do not wish to be attacked, because that very herd of prey has become invulnerable rendering their outlet of enjoyment to no longer exist. That portion of the player base would probably decrease, being unable to adjust their enjoyment with eve to other outlets eve offers.

Content creation, I'm going to assume you mean player driven content creation and not CCP content creation. CCP content creation being unknowable even in the game's current state, non-ultra sec state. Pertaining to the portion of the player base who's prerogative it is to attack people who's desire is to not be attacked at that point in time, well their crying about it would create alot of content.

Imagine all the threads on the forums of people complaining they can't attack all the people in ultra sec. It would be a role-reversal. The prey's complaints about being preyed upon were regarded by themselves as "valid concerns" while the predators interpretation was that of "crying". Now the predators complaints, to them being "valid concerns" would now be regarded by the prey as "crying. It would be amusing.

I don't know though, just my speculation.

I think that the massive isk influx from mission bounties coupled with the massive ore influx would cause a market crash or horrible inflation. Sure, a BS might be cheaper to buy because ore is basically worthless, but there would be so much more isk in game that prices would skyrocket.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#64 - 2014-04-17 19:54:34 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
Let me put a stop to your ****. this text is bolded is a fact. Its not relative to your or my point of view, and if you go into the code, you will find the instruction to have said text bolded. And that, is what is known as a fact. What you are doing is stating your opinion.
No, I'm stating facts about how the game works, in particular how all opportunities of interaction are inherently reciprocal.

This idea, and indeed any idea about not participating in PvP, relies on removing that reciprocity in actions and effects.

Once again, no you aren't. Its your opinion, and that's fine. Its not a fact. Unless you can prove it. I said earlier that mission hauling did not flagged you, and you said something about market PvP. That, for starters, is not what the OP said, thus has no place in this conversation, along with several of the points you pulled out of your ass. Second, mission hauling aka courier missions do not place items on the market.


Let me help you.

Awhile back, on a forum board I will not name, I was engaged in an act I see a resemblance with which you are involved in.

I was lucky, a wise man stepped out of the shadows and granted unto me, words of wisdom.

I will share his words with you:

Erufen Rito wrote:

Although logical, it serves no purpose. Tipia's word is the definition of truth, in his eyes, and nothing you do will sway his opinion.
Themanfromdalmontee
EVE RADIO ARMY
#65 - 2014-04-17 19:54:56 UTC
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
how about CCP making an area of space where it is actually SAFE, where any aggression like locking up a ship or bumping results in ship and pod being destroyed..a super safe hisec ultra sec if you will.

Almost impossible to gank in these areas. i say almost, but i mean NEVER.

everyone is banging on about getting more players into the game, welll...this post is directed to all the risk adverse pilots who want to carebear without worry. knowing that gankers and griefers cannot operate as they do now in normal hisec..


i am certain that an area of ultra-sec would be stuffed with pilots every day. and the forums filled with the raised voices of all those pvp pilots who want more access to victims to fatten up killlboards and being denied. let the tears of frustration flow.


nerf hisec ? no i say make ultra sec.

what do you think?







Never, and as to why: This is EVE not wow, the ultra sec as you call it would be full of afk people mining and not have any desirable affect on new players
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#66 - 2014-04-17 19:59:32 UTC
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
how about CCP making an area of space where it is actually SAFE, where any aggression like locking up a ship or bumping results in ship and pod being destroyed..a super safe hisec ultra sec if you will.

Almost impossible to gank in these areas. i say almost, but i mean NEVER.


You already have this. It is in station. Stay docked - no ganking.


I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#67 - 2014-04-17 20:00:14 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:

Now, back to the subject matter. How would ultrasec impact the market, playerbase, and content creation of the game as a whole?


If I were to guess, which that's all this is, my speculation, there are no defined parameters listed with the OP's post stating how many systems this "ultra sec" area would consist of.

I'd say the market prices would drop a bit. Ore would definitely be mined bare which would cause the lower quality ore to suffer a loss in value due to an indestructable influx originating from the area. It would result in lower prices, varying depending on the complexity of the build requirements of, I'd guess every item in the game. Would it be severe? Maybe, maybe not. I think the idea of it would be more severe than the actuality of it though.

Regarding the player base, I believe it would be a double edged sword. People who desire complete safety would probably make use of it, resulting in their, at least initial, happiness increasing. If they felt like stepping into the realm of possibility, they could make the choice to migrate to high sec, and perhaps beyond if they so desired. The bleeding would be from those who's desire within EvE is to attack people who do not wish to be attacked, because that very herd of prey has become invulnerable rendering their outlet of enjoyment to no longer exist. That portion of the player base would probably decrease, being unable to adjust their enjoyment with eve to other outlets eve offers.

Content creation, I'm going to assume you mean player driven content creation and not CCP content creation. CCP content creation being unknowable even in the game's current state, non-ultra sec state. Pertaining to the portion of the player base who's prerogative it is to attack people who's desire is to not be attacked at that point in time, well their crying about it would create alot of content.

Imagine all the threads on the forums of people complaining they can't attack all the people in ultra sec. It would be a role-reversal. The prey's complaints about being preyed upon were regarded by themselves as "valid concerns" while the predators interpretation was that of "crying". Now the predators complaints, to them being "valid concerns" would now be regarded by the prey as "crying. It would be amusing.

I don't know though, just my speculation.

I think that the massive isk influx from mission bounties coupled with the massive ore influx would cause a market crash or horrible inflation. Sure, a BS might be cheaper to buy because ore is basically worthless, but there would be so much more isk in game that prices would skyrocket.


Well, if it were balanced so Ultra Sec was limited to like, level 2 missions max, only veldspar and scordite, it might not have as large of an impact as you think.

As is, the majority, probably an overwhelming amount of the EvE population can go through their every day tasks with next to no hostile interference. Because of this, i don't think there would be much deviation from the status-quo other than the expressed anger of those unhappy with the change.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2014-04-17 20:02:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Erufen Rito wrote:
Once again, no you aren't. Its your opinion
It is also my opinion that the game works like that. The reason I have that opinion is due to the fact that the game works like that. I can prove it by pointing to the game and say “look at how it works”, and if you do, you'll notice that it works like that.

Quote:
I said earlier that mission hauling did not flagged you, and you said something about market PvP.
…because it's not just a matter of flagging — it's a matter of reciprocity. If you are allowed to haul stuff, you will be able to affect the game state for other players, and unless you want to break the reciprocity of the game, they will either have to be able to affect you right back, or you will have to be barred from affecting them, which in this case means that the hauling isn't allowed.

Quote:
Second, mission hauling aka courier missions do not place items on the market.
It places ISK in the economy and it creates opportunities to steal your stuff and ransom it. Granted, hauling missions are mainly a collateral victim of mechanics that would have to be locked down for more pertinent reasons, but they wouldn't exist anyway since agents wouldn't be allowed in these systems.

Again, if you want to be decoupled in some way from the rest of the game, you will have to be decoupled from pretty much all of it in order not to unduly affect the world state from this untouchable position. This turns the whole thing into a single-player game with simulated dynamics (x-series) or one with no actual effect on the universe (sisi).
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#69 - 2014-04-17 20:05:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Organic Lager wrote:
Ah Tippia classic black and white with you. We all know the OP is referring to a zone much like in wow where players can't attack each other. This does not include stealing other players rats, drops, astroids or under cutting their sell orders.
Yes, we know that, and we also know that PvP in EVE goes way beyond just attacking people. If you want a zone where other people can't affect you, you can't be allowed to affect other players in any way. Any loophole creates… well… a loophole that will be exploited to hell and back to gain unbeatable advantages.

Quote:
To question your trolling, by your logic why wouldn't one be allowed to collect cargo, shoot rats or mine in their own little dead space mission pocket.
Largely because there would be no dead-space pockets, and also because they'd be given unfair advantages over their competition if any of those were allowed.

Again, if you wanted it to work like that — that they'd have “their own little dead space mission pockets” — we'd have to create a game that is no longer EVE, but rather another part in the X-series in order to satisfy all the conditions that would let such exclusive zones to exist and work within the game universe.

Quote:
You also forgot to remove chat wouldn't want text pvp to happen
I actually had that on my general “pvp switch” list, but I left it out here because it doesn't affect the game state or ability to counter-PvP unless it happens in areas where local matter — the universal removal of attacks already makes it meaningless for that purpose. But sure, we could add it back in for good measure and to satisfy a wider definition of PvP.


The op is not asking to be bubble boy or make eve a solo player experience. He is simply asking for a zone that doesn't allow players to open fire on each other, much like every other mmo.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#70 - 2014-04-17 20:08:13 UTC
Install Child Safety cap on Eve.

To launch, press in and turn counterclockwise. If Eve clicks, press in harder and repeat.

Remember to not ingest the cottonball and/or the foil freshness seal.

Use Eve only as directed. If redness or swelling occurs, please seek assistance from a physician. For external use only. Caution: Contents may be hot. Do not eat. Do not use if past expiration date. For interaction information, please see our website. Not for use by women who are pregnant or may become pregnant. If firmness is experienced for more than 4 hours, seek medical attention. Does not protect against STDs.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#71 - 2014-04-17 20:09:08 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:

Now, back to the subject matter. How would ultrasec impact the market, playerbase, and content creation of the game as a whole?


If I were to guess, which that's all this is, my speculation, there are no defined parameters listed with the OP's post stating how many systems this "ultra sec" area would consist of.

I'd say the market prices would drop a bit. Ore would definitely be mined bare which would cause the lower quality ore to suffer a loss in value due to an indestructable influx originating from the area. It would result in lower prices, varying depending on the complexity of the build requirements of, I'd guess every item in the game. Would it be severe? Maybe, maybe not. I think the idea of it would be more severe than the actuality of it though.

Regarding the player base, I believe it would be a double edged sword. People who desire complete safety would probably make use of it, resulting in their, at least initial, happiness increasing. If they felt like stepping into the realm of possibility, they could make the choice to migrate to high sec, and perhaps beyond if they so desired. The bleeding would be from those who's desire within EvE is to attack people who do not wish to be attacked, because that very herd of prey has become invulnerable rendering their outlet of enjoyment to no longer exist. That portion of the player base would probably decrease, being unable to adjust their enjoyment with eve to other outlets eve offers.

Content creation, I'm going to assume you mean player driven content creation and not CCP content creation. CCP content creation being unknowable even in the game's current state, non-ultra sec state. Pertaining to the portion of the player base who's prerogative it is to attack people who's desire is to not be attacked at that point in time, well their crying about it would create alot of content.

Imagine all the threads on the forums of people complaining they can't attack all the people in ultra sec. It would be a role-reversal. The prey's complaints about being preyed upon were regarded by themselves as "valid concerns" while the predators interpretation was that of "crying". Now the predators complaints, to them being "valid concerns" would now be regarded by the prey as "crying. It would be amusing.

I don't know though, just my speculation.

I think that the massive isk influx from mission bounties coupled with the massive ore influx would cause a market crash or horrible inflation. Sure, a BS might be cheaper to buy because ore is basically worthless, but there would be so much more isk in game that prices would skyrocket.


Well, if it were balanced so Ultra Sec was limited to like, level 2 missions max, only veldspar and scordite, it might not have as large of an impact as you think.

As is, the majority, probably an overwhelming amount of the EvE population can go through their every day tasks with next to no hostile interference. Because of this, i don't think there would be much deviation from the status-quo other than the expressed anger of those unhappy with the change.

Let's factor in botters. Out of veld and scord, as a low skill noob you can make a very decent living. Now let's add the eve community factor. We would find a way to make isk farms out lv2 missions and low level ore.

As far as content creation, you'll get the random noob corp who will thrive in a gank free environment, and then be dickslapped across the face when they visit the real eve.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#72 - 2014-04-17 20:11:57 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
The op is not asking to be bubble boy or make eve a solo player experience. He is simply asking for a zone that doesn't allow players to open fire on each other, much like every other mmo.

He might not be asking for it, but it is pretty much the only workable solution to ensure that the game integrity is maintained.

The design of EVE pretty much relies on players having the ability to open fire on each other. Removing that ability, even situationally or locally, would require a reworking of pretty much the entire economy and industry parts of the game. So: single-player game, or game that isn't reliant on wanton destruction — either way, it will no longer be EVE.

Oh, and of course, what he's asking for already exists in the form of sisi. Incidentally, it fulfils that non-feedback requirement that ensures the economy doesn't go tits-up.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#73 - 2014-04-17 20:15:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
Because some people seem to be having a hard time understanding this super easy concept, let us further elaborate upon OP's suggestion and input an example of parameters to further clarify what it is that's being discussed.

Amarr, Hedion, and Sarum Prime are now considered "Ultra Sec". Players within these 3 systems cannot attack any other player for any reason. It's just not possible. Cannot attack, cannot be attacked. All mission Agents in this area that offer anything to do above Level 2 are removed or adjusted to fit the Level 2 requirement. All ore other than Veldspar and Scordite are no longer allowed to spawn within these 3 systems.

What happens now?
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#74 - 2014-04-17 20:17:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
Once again, no you aren't. Its your opinion
It is also my opinion that the game works like that. The reason I have that opinion is due to the fact that the game works like that. I can prove it by pointing to the game and say “look at how it works”, and if you do, you'll notice that it works like that.

Quote:
I said earlier that mission hauling did not flagged you, and you said something about market PvP.
…because it's not just a matter of flagging — it's a matter of reciprocity. If you are allowed to haul stuff, you will be able to affect the game state for other players, and unless you want to break the reciprocity of the game, they will either have to be able to affect you right back, or you will have to be barred from affecting them, which in this case means that the hauling isn't allowed.

Quote:
Second, mission hauling aka courier missions do not place items on the market.
It places ISK in the economy and it creates opportunities to steal your stuff and ransom it. Granted, hauling missions are mainly a collateral victim of mechanics that would have to be locked down for more pertinent reasons, but they wouldn't exist anyway since agents wouldn't be allowed in these systems.

Again, if you want to be decoupled in some way from the rest of the game, you will have to be decoupled from pretty much all of it in order not to unduly affect the world state from this untouchable position. This turns the whole thing into a single-player game with simulated dynamics (x-series) or one with no actual effect on the universe (sisi).

I'm on mobile, so I can't do this neat quote stacking.

First things first. Your opinion is not fact. End of story. How, because, being broad and vague as you are, it is my opinion that the game doesn't work the way you think it does, and to prove it, there us the game. Go play.

In regards to the reciprosity bit: says who? Who said that reciprocity was a factor in which eve was built around and a feature that exist in game has to fall in line? And before you answer, let me point you to the station traders who never undock, or alt accounts docked in jita for the sole purpose of studying the market.
Lastly, about your comment on agents and isk: says who? How did you come to the conclusion that agents would not be allowed in space? How would scamming be affected by the "no player aggression" status the op outlined in the op, which you have drifted far from?

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#75 - 2014-04-17 20:21:20 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:

Let's factor in botters. Out of veld and scord, as a low skill noob you can make a very decent living. Now let's add the eve community factor. We would find a way to make isk farms out lv2 missions and low level ore.

As far as content creation, you'll get the random noob corp who will thrive in a gank free environment, and then be dickslapped across the face when they visit the real eve.



Perhaps, but considering the ore is a finite resource, it can only be mined so much until the area, at least temporarily, becomes unprofitable.

For figuring out a way to make Level 2 an isk farm, well that possibility exists right now. It's not done though, because in comparison to other facets of eve, it's not worth it. It would most likely remain "not worth it".

As for a noob corp thriving and being **** slapped, well I guess that's a real possibility.
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#76 - 2014-04-17 20:24:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Organic Lager wrote:
The op is not asking to be bubble boy or make eve a solo player experience. He is simply asking for a zone that doesn't allow players to open fire on each other, much like every other mmo.

He might not be asking for it, but it is pretty much the only workable solution to ensure that the game integrity is maintained.
says who? I don't agree with this motion.

Tippia wrote:

The design of EVE pretty much relies on players having the ability to open fire on each other. Removing that ability, even situationally or locally, would require a reworking of pretty much the entire economy and industry parts of the game. So: single-player game, or game that isn't reliant on wanton destruction — either way, it will no longer be EVE.

Oh, and of course, what he's asking for already exists in the form of sisi. Incidentally, it fulfils that non-feedback requirement that ensures the economy doesn't go tits-up.

Actually, the design of eve relies on all forms of player interaction.

Lastly, if you want to use SiSi as an escapegoat, let me remind you that the isk you generate in systems where PvP isn't allowed can get you stuff to use in the system where PvP is allower, shitting all over your reciprocity farce.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#77 - 2014-04-17 20:27:53 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:

Let's factor in botters. Out of veld and scord, as a low skill noob you can make a very decent living. Now let's add the eve community factor. We would find a way to make isk farms out lv2 missions and low level ore.

As far as content creation, you'll get the random noob corp who will thrive in a gank free environment, and then be dickslapped across the face when they visit the real eve.



Perhaps, but considering the ore is a finite resource, it can only be mined so much until the area, at least temporarily, becomes unprofitable.

For figuring out a way to make Level 2 an isk farm, well that possibility exists right now. It's not done though, because in comparison to other facets of eve, it's not worth it. It would most likely remain "not worth it".

As for a noob corp thriving and being **** slapped, well I guess that's a real possibility.

The reason I found in regards to lv 2 farms happens to be tanks. A 14m cruicer loss can set you back quite a bit with lv2 income.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
BrundleMeth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-04-17 20:29:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
it is a sandbox after all why shouldn't eve have totally safe areas?
Because being a multiplayer sandbox precludes such areas from existing.

While I thik it's a stupid idea, I don't believe your statement means it's an absolute. In other words because it IS a multiplayer sandbox, EVERYTHING should be possible...
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2014-04-17 20:31:41 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Organic Lager wrote:
Ah Tippia classic black and white with you. We all know the OP is referring to a zone much like in wow where players can't attack each other. This does not include stealing other players rats, drops, astroids or under cutting their sell orders.
Yes, we know that, and we also know that PvP in EVE goes way beyond just attacking people. If you want a zone where other people can't affect you, you can't be allowed to affect other players in any way. Any loophole creates… well… a loophole that will be exploited to hell and back to gain unbeatable advantages.

Quote:
To question your trolling, by your logic why wouldn't one be allowed to collect cargo, shoot rats or mine in their own little dead space mission pocket.
Largely because there would be no dead-space pockets, and also because they'd be given unfair advantages over their competition if any of those were allowed.

Again, if you wanted it to work like that — that they'd have “their own little dead space mission pockets” — we'd have to create a game that is no longer EVE, but rather another part in the X-series in order to satisfy all the conditions that would let such exclusive zones to exist and work within the game universe.

Quote:
You also forgot to remove chat wouldn't want text pvp to happen
I actually had that on my general “pvp switch” list, but I left it out here because it doesn't affect the game state or ability to counter-PvP unless it happens in areas where local matter — the universal removal of attacks already makes it meaningless for that purpose. But sure, we could add it back in for good measure and to satisfy a wider definition of PvP.


The op is not asking to be bubble boy or make eve a solo player experience. He is simply asking for a zone that doesn't allow players to open fire on each other, much like every other mmo.

We already have that it is called hisec. If you do CONCORD comes and destroys the offenders ship. There is your "safe zone."

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2014-04-17 20:33:00 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Because some people seem to be having a hard time understanding this super easy concept
No-one has any problems understanding the concept

Quote:
What happens now?

What happens is that you've introduced godmode in a multiplayer PvP game. It doesn't really matter if some of your actions are curtailed at that point — you're still using godmode, which will quickly turn into an abuse of said godmode.

Do you know why godmode is generally not allowed in PvP?

Erufen Rito wrote:
First things first. Your opinion is not fact.
…and I've never claimed that it is — DE tends to equate the two very often, though.

Quote:
it is my opinion that the game doesn't work the way you think it does
Can you provide an example of one player being able to affect the game state of someone else, but that other player not having the ability to affect the first player right back?

Quote:
In regards to the reciprosity bit: says who? […]
Lastly, about your comment on agents and isk: says who?
In the first instance, says the game mechanics. At any time I want, I can try to alter your game state using any method of my choosing. At any time you want, you can try to alter my game state using any method of your choosing. I am not arbitrarily barred from affecting you while you are still given full freedom to affect me. I really could just be flippant and say “the sandbox” here, but I suspect you wouldn't accept it as an answer. Blink

As for the second part, says the game mechanics. It's what agents do: inject ISK into the economy. I come to the conclusion that they wouldn't be allowed based on the notion that it would let you affect my gamestate but I would be arbitrarily barred from affecting yours. Scamming would also be barred, due to there being no market interaction in these systems.