Jita Park Speakers Corner

When no more then a few systems out of 1200 in hi-sec or so can be actively contested in this way, then avoiding the effects should be pretty easy for those uninclined to participate.

remove npc corps; make people decable any and everywhere

And how does that fix the problem of corp-hopping, or simply logging off?

Did you miss the part where I specifically opposed the idea of forcing people into player corps? And I said that there should be a range of NPC corp styles avaialable to suit the requirements of the players, with the players able to choose their NPC corp affiliation?

I'm not going to waste too much time on your trolling, since such blatant selective quoting won't fool anyone who's read the thread, but for the sake of having you exposed on the same page just in case anyone else comes to this thread and is briefly misled by your out of context quote-mining; here's what I actually said:

Again, I am against this as stated. We have NPC FW corps for people who want to be directly involved in FW. There should be a spectrum of possible choices of NPC corps, with corresponding advantages and risk/obligations. NPC corps that leave the members open to more PvP should also have better agents/facilities/tax rates/LP stores/etc.

But the whole point of the manifesto is that people should be allowed to choose their level of risk:reward*. There should be a wide spectrum of possibilities, with the FW militias at one end and the starter academies at the other. I believe that there should be a much more gradiated level of risk choices available for hi-sec players, allowing them to slowly and gently dabble in the life of the PvP-aware, high risk:high reward lifestyle rather than the current situation where they're basically pushed off a cliff.

*The FW LP stores are a good example of the kind of risk-specific reward I have in mind

In an age of titan jump bridges and Orca ship hangars, there's no such thing as "deep in friendly territory"

Except your whole idea of a -1% to industrial related activities based on the security status in itself is a restriction that forces an unneeded bottleneck. You would be forcing people to move to lower security systems to stay profitable which is a FORCIBLE DISADVANTAGE. Either, don't profit to live in high security systems (not an option), or you FORCE everyone to move to compete.

And based off your proposals, what happens when nobody lives in 1.0 to .6 systems? Jita going to move, markets going to crash? What you're proposing is an end to industry as we know it, and to that point- an end to casual players, and economic juggernauts.

Your proposal sounds like a bad mix between socialism and communism. And I don't like it.

You might be at risk from an invasion while deep in your null sov territory but i would venture a guess more people are subjected to random ganks in Highsec then in null sov space.

Here is why:

#1 you can attack everyone who does not belong when you see them without being concorded.

#2 you have the possibility of real jump gate security for known enemies who show up in sov null space with gate camps and/ or patrols.

#3 once you have detected an intruder you can bubble escape routes and try to hunt them down.

#4 unless they are a jump capable raider they are not going to get out once they have launched their first attack on a sov alliance member or asset and more then likely someone will get a killmail or 2 out of it.

#5 the highsec ganker has no worry of being podded in highsec so he can use his best implants to gain even further advantage.

#6 any ganker with even half a brain is going to choose the easiest kill and the game mechanics make that a highsec target.

#7 because of the unfair imbalance currently in the game the ganker knows the most he'll lose in highsec is his throw away
gank ship and a repairable dip in his sec status that is no obstacle to his freedom of movement in highsec really.

Nullbears have all these protective features that highsec players don't. Granted highsec players don't have to worry about a cyno drop on their heads but a war dec could place an attacking fleet at their door without concord intervention, plus far more ganking ships fly totally unmolested in highsec until they attack something.

Now i have great respect for the Null/ low sec warriors who risk as much as they attempt to get, they can lose their ships and get podded, they can get a killmail or end up a killmail, real risk and reward.

But the same thing doesn't happen in highsec, gankers only lose a throw away gank ship to get a killmail or 2 (ship & pod) and then they fly their pod to the nearest station for their 15 minutes of punishment time out an dock safely.

Upon further review clearly nullbears are far safer flying around in your sov null space then a carebear is flying around in highsec ..... and you think that is as it should be because .....?

At values of 1%/0.1 sec status the change is hardly noteworthy. Those producing smaller items would be negligibly affected. Those producing larger items may very well feel compelled to move to lower sec systems to raise profit margins, but this should be considered working as intended. I'd genuine have to ask if you even know what the words communism and socialism mean to suggest a proposal like this fits them. As far as your doomsday scenarios, hubs exist because buyers go there with the expectation that they can get what they need there. Sellers bring their goods there because that is where the buyers are. Jits isn't supported by local production as is. The volumes produced there can never match volumes traded. Nothing of any significance would change from this alone.

Well you can't have more than 100% efficiency, now can you?

If operations in 0.1 sec were to operate at 110% ME/PE, then that would have exactly the same effect with respect to relative efficiency as giving 1.0 a -10% and 0.1 a -1%. Similarly, even if you operate at a -5% penalty, it doesn't matter as long as everyone else does too; you aren't disadvantaged at all.

The main difference would be that total mineral/material would be reduced, and really the last thing that mining needs at this stage is yet another kick in the pants. My suggestion - and it was only an off the cuff example of the kind of gradiation I was talking about - would actually increase mineral demand a few percent, giving a nice little birthday present to the mineral extraction community.