These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Separate the four empires with low security space.

First post
Author
Dave Stark
#1541 - 2014-06-15 06:46:25 UTC
separating the 4 empires with low sec will just lead to people gate camping obvious high-low gates and popping the odd blockade runner and/or jump freighter.

the cost of hauling **** back and forth between the hubs will just add a premium to everything since certain minerals are now exclusive to these newly formed high sec islands, and logistics costs will have increased.

meanwhile, everyone who isn't a hauler or gate camper gives exactly 0 *****.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1542 - 2014-06-15 07:02:27 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:

And how do you get the materials to your manu stations outside major hubs (Idc about Forge when it comes to manufacturing stations)? Roll

You do realize that everything is not just automatically seeded in Jita right? A trade hub only exists because it's convenient to trade there either by location or market size. If the location becomes inconvenient don't worry, the market sizes of the current trade hubs will still perpetuate themselves and they'll continue to be the major trade hubs. But it's pretty silly to believe that materials won't move freely through hostile territory. It already happens now, and in great volumes.


I'd love to see numbers supporting your claim. My experience, so far, tells me otherwise.

Moreover, you are too fixated on stuff that is truly available throughout the cluster and truly won't be affected much by such change. Henceforth, it's not a good point for supporting your argument and you should find more suitable goods.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1543 - 2014-06-15 21:57:08 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Another very simple thing is supply and demand, if the demand moves to one area so will the supply. Why risk moving stuff between all the empires when all you have to do i a trip to jita one way or another? All trade would move to the easiest place which right now would be jita. The other hubs would be marginalized to local goods that are in less demand.

I repeat again no market has ever been benefited by being separated from other markets by large numbers of homicidal heavily armed nutters hellbent on killing anyone who ventures anywhere near them.


I see you don't understand the meaning of Supply and Demand. The law of supply and demand says the price of a good will vary until the demand at a certain price will equal the quantity supplied by producers at that price. The law of supply and demand has only to do with the price of a product. It has nothing to do with population/migration trends. Any movement trends attributed to it are speculative and opinion based only.

So your assertion is that "demand" will move to Jita.

OK, then answer this. Which group of players has the largest impact on demand? And where do these players generally base out of?

*Here's a hint, High sec mission runners and miners probably don't incur enough losses to drive any significant portion of demand.

Dave Stark wrote:
separating the 4 empires with low sec will just lead to people gate camping obvious high-low gates and popping the odd blockade runner and/or jump freighter.

the cost of hauling **** back and forth between the hubs will just add a premium to everything since certain minerals are now exclusive to these newly formed high sec islands, and logistics costs will have increased.

Where there are gate camps near high sec, there will be people to come bust up the gate camps in the name of "gud fights". If gate camps were more common and accessible, there'd definitely be a rise in gate camp busting. Which would put a fair amount of risk on the gate campers themselves.

And what is this "cost of hauling"? It's the amount of money someone makes for taking the risk of moving something from one place to another. This is a great thing. Hauling would then not only be more dynamic but much more lucrative too.

Yes these are some of the positive points to this change.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:

You do realize that everything is not just automatically seeded in Jita right? A trade hub only exists because it's convenient to trade there either by location or market size. If the location becomes inconvenient don't worry, the market sizes of the current trade hubs will still perpetuate themselves and they'll continue to be the major trade hubs. But it's pretty silly to believe that materials won't move freely through hostile territory. It already happens now, and in great volumes.


I'd love to see numbers supporting your claim. My experience, so far, tells me otherwise.

Moreover, you are too fixated on stuff that is truly available throughout the cluster and truly won't be affected much by such change. Henceforth, it's not a good point for supporting your argument and you should find more suitable goods.

I'm not sure what numbers you'd love to see... Stuff that moves through hostile areas? Ok...

100% of Moon Goo travels through hostile territory. 100% of tech III materials travels through hostile territory. 100% of pirate ships, modules and bpcs (excluding SOE) travel through hostile territory. A large % of high end minerals travel through hostile territory.

In fact if the empires were split, do you think entities in the south are going to make a cyno chain around amarr and gallente space to get their stuff to Jita? Do you think they'll travel to Amarr manual or auto pilot across then cross Low Sec just to get to Jita? Or will they even further perpetuate Amarr by buying and selling there instead of putting forth the massive effort to get to Jita?

What seems more reasonable?
Spacemover
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1544 - 2014-06-22 15:07:07 UTC
i would like to hear what our dev´s are thinking about that idea. i mean more than "i read it."
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#1545 - 2014-06-22 15:46:13 UTC
What about establishing a neutral zone around each of the Empire space boundaries? In order to pass through each Neutral System Gate you would have to meet a satisfactory standing with the local agent that would give you missions in either empire space or another low sector non-neutral zone system.

Once you would reach lets say a 2.0 standing with the agent they would give you a pass key that would unlock each gate to travel through neutral zone space to low sector and null space.

Once you unlocked the route into low or null space you would never have to use the gate key again and those systems would be open to you permanently.
Inshallah Eichman
Doomheim
#1546 - 2014-06-22 22:34:12 UTC
Very cool idea.

Very cool.

It is risky to implement. It may lead to severe fracturing. Not in a beneficial sense. Not in a good economic sense for the game itself either.

But if it didn't, this would be totally awesome.
Madbuster73
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1547 - 2014-06-23 01:22:14 UTC
I like the idea, it would mix things up again.

Sunai Karvinoinas
#1548 - 2014-06-24 10:22:13 UTC
Stay tuned. I will create a new char to refuse this stupid idea once more. After that I will delete this char and come up with a new one tomorrow in order to refuse this idea again...

Since my last post in this thread there's only a long circle of nearly the same arguments, without any progression in developing a useful and serious proposal. Again and again and again...
No typical highsec player, who is travelling between empires often, will support this idea as it's proposed.

You can paint 78 further pages black with posts like the previous ones or give some new ideas with compromises which are worth to discuss really between all affected parties.

CCP will not f*** off a huge part of their paying player base. I believe the players in highsec are more often paying for their accounts due to a lower income in general. (except multiboxer or botter and some really active players) Casual players will more often stay in highsec and may not be interested in making money to buy PLEX every month.

I'm really sure, this whole thread was created as a funny provocation only. But hey... not everybody has the same definition of fun.

CU

Jade Blackwind
#1549 - 2014-06-24 10:31:44 UTC
Supported.
Syd Unknown
#1550 - 2014-06-24 19:50:46 UTC
GOOD IDEA!!!
Vovan Sotkin
Berserk Production and Distribution
#1551 - 2014-07-16 13:41:05 UTC
I like this idea
Thorr VonAsgard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1552 - 2014-07-16 15:10:22 UTC
+1 to this idea for me ^^

All the 4 empire are supposed to be at war but it's so easy to go trought the 4 empires

You miss blink ? Come and play with us at EVE-Lotteries.com !

Envie de fraicheur ? Frugu, le forum fruité est fait pour toi !

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#1553 - 2014-07-16 15:36:04 UTC
The Empires are in a sort of Cold War, only occasionally breaking out into fighting, and that kept covered up. Usually it's a proxy war using deniable assets (us cap pilots) rather than open war.

Maybe if Low sec was changed so that gate camps were impossible it could be a thing.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#1554 - 2014-07-16 15:38:07 UTC
Klymer wrote:
Breaking up hisec into several small pockets would not encourage/force more people into losec or to hop in a combat ship and go pewpew. At best they would just stick to their little pond and at worse they would quit. And before someone says those people should quit, no we need every real person we can get lest this game becomes Alts Online.

Sorry I didn't read this threadnaught, so if that opinion has been expressed before then count this post as a no towards your idea.





Agreed.
NiteNinja
Doomheim
#1555 - 2014-07-16 18:37:42 UTC
What is the hardon for lowsec lately? First faction warfare, then increased wormholes in Lowsec, now this idea?

Case in point, lowsec is for nullsec PVP wannabes who are afraid of interdiction spheres and highsec market carebears who set up sell order traps to lure new players into gank traps.

I had, and never will have desire to go to lowsec. Maybe if lowsec PVP didn't involve docking your security status, I might venture out more often, but I keep to Nullsec for any of that.

If this is implimented, trade will literally come to a halt. Marmite will have every direct and indirect path in lowsec camped. Freighters will be useless, jump freighters will be worth tens of billions, and cyno traps will become a nusiance. New players making a living on T1 haulers moving stuff from Jita to Dodixie or wherever will just have more barriers to overcome, and would just put another gauntlet on EVE life for rookies.

Maybe if there was a 5 system diameter NKZ around starter systems, and more education on how to stay safe in lowsec, this could possibly work. But I doubt it.
Pie Napple
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1556 - 2014-07-16 19:28:34 UTC
NiteNinja wrote:
What is the hardon for lowsec lately? First faction warfare, then increased wormholes in Lowsec, now this idea?

Case in point, lowsec is for nullsec PVP wannabes who are afraid of interdiction spheres and highsec market carebears who set up sell order traps to lure new players into gank traps.

I had, and never will have desire to go to lowsec. Maybe if lowsec PVP didn't involve docking your security status, I might venture out more often, but I keep to Nullsec for any of that.

If this is implimented, trade will literally come to a halt. Marmite will have every direct and indirect path in lowsec camped. Freighters will be useless, jump freighters will be worth tens of billions, and cyno traps will become a nusiance. New players making a living on T1 haulers moving stuff from Jita to Dodixie or wherever will just have more barriers to overcome, and would just put another gauntlet on EVE life for rookies.

Maybe if there was a 5 system diameter NKZ around starter systems, and more education on how to stay safe in lowsec, this could possibly work. But I doubt it.


Lowsec is the best part of this game. It's superior to null for solo and small gang pvp. Lowsec is thriving and nullsec is dieing.

Marmite leaving highsec? What?

And all this elite pvp talk, coming from a renter. Really?

Why do you care about your security status if you live in null?

I like this idea.

Alternative Splicing
Captain Content and The Contenteers
#1557 - 2014-07-16 20:07:37 UTC
NiteNinja wrote:

Case in point, lowsec is for nullsec PVP wannabes who are afraid of interdiction spheres and highsec market carebears who set up sell order traps to lure new players into gank traps.


I believe you have it backwards, nullsec is for lowsec PvP wannabes. Lowsec people tend to have the opposite reaction to people entering local as most sov residents.
Satyr Ersatz
New Eden Security Services
#1558 - 2014-07-16 20:08:33 UTC
I really like this idea, for gameplay reasons, because it would spice things up, and because it fits perfectly with the current narrative of the empires losing control.

+1
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1559 - 2014-07-16 20:38:27 UTC
I rather like this idea. +1
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#1560 - 2014-07-16 21:42:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
The ganking crowd constantly crows about how elite it is and how easy we highsec players have it, when the truth of the matter is that highsec ganking is actually rather easy.

How is it then that you need more and more aids to do a simple gank?

Perhaps you would eventually like CCP to make it so we have to take one ship per day out, park it in front of a known hostile, flag ourselves and then your ship "auto-fires" because lets face it if you cannot pull off highsec ganking now you probably cannot figure out how to push your damage dealing button either.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.