EVE General Discussion

You keep using these numbers as if it were relevant. They are not.

They aren't relevant because the moment you limit access of ships though any space you start to develop corridors and chokepoints. Those areas would allow larger alliances to control access into vast areas of null-sec. Smaller alliances would not have the ability to expand into those areas and large tracts of null-sec would go unused because people simply cannot get to them and operate in them effectively. On that point alone, your idea of removing capitals and cyno access through low-sec would be highly detrimental to the game.

It doesn't matter if null-sec had a billion systems and low-sec had five. The moment you implement your idea there would be major, but short, battles over the chokepoints and access to the games content for large swaths of players would be removed, without any legitimate way to get back into there effectively. It would result in the worst "N+1" dynamic ever in the game.

1) That there is 4x more NS systems that LS systems, is relevant. It means LS is a thin line stretched between HS and NS.
It also means there are 4x more systems to run cynos/caps in (where there is no security and no restrictions), whereas LS is overshadowed, penetrated and overrun by its NS neighbors.

LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.

2) Lol at chokepoints. Are you trying to claim there arent gatecamps in NS and HS?
Cynos currently serve as a means to pass through LS WITHOUT interception.
Its ridiculous.

3) Smaller entities can expand into Player Sov through the far wider web of connections in NS itself.
Yes, invading NS with cynos/caps from LS will no longer be possible.
You can however operate in LS instead with sub-caps to cripple that bordering NS entities access to HS markets, and back.

4) To run material through LS between HS/NS, you will either have to escort it, or risk it.
No more lol-cyno skipping.

1) LS is 800 systems, stretched all the way around HS.
At its deepest, its like 10 gatejumps wide.

2) As long as its sub-caps and non-cynos, both HS and NS can break through gatecamps from either end.
Freighters can arrange escort and/or fly safer. There are no bubbles in LS, so really its not that hard.

3) People travel through gates in slower ships than cruisers all the time. BCs, BS.
If you dont like it, fly something faster.

The insane volume of material transport between HS and NS, passing/cynoing through LS with impunity (under a cap umbrella), is support enough.

Or do you really think LS doesnt want to pirate the hell out of that enormous bounty?

You don't really address the points he raised about it making gameplay in lowsec more annoying for many and that it would hurt lowsec logistics quite a bit by forcing them to go through lowsec chokepoints just like those traveling from null would.

Your idea would definitely present more targets to lowsec gatecampers. But does that really help lowsec residents overall? Does it draw more people to lowsec? I'm not so sure.

With their life style being reliant on those same JF, I doubt they all want them to be interdictable at every gate camp.

LS isnt reliant on JFs.

NS-HS trade networks are (currently conveniently cynoing their way through LS past gatecamps).

LS can run its own goods out with existing sub-caps and gatecamp avoidance precautions (easier to HS however, than NS, due to bubbles in NS).

Wtf are you doing traveling through 800 LS systems?
Is this some roleplay thing?

LS is like 10ish gates deep at its deepest point.

1. Not technically true. There are high-sec to null transitions (like Dital to Providence).

2. Why? I mean the people pirating are already there. Null and wormhole corps are already hot-dropping in null. It might focus the pirates on certain systems but I'm not sure why this would increase the number.

3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.

4. Gatecamps in my experience shoot everyone who's not allied. Don't think they'll let a missioning battleship pass and only gank freighters.

Again... the only group that this would seem to be a positive for is gatecampers. Everyone else... from low-sec indy/PI groups to low-sec missioners to FW participants who look for solo PvP instead of camping gates would all seem to not like this idea... because dealing with more gatecamps pretty much hurts all of their play styles.

stfu you noodle, "traveling in 800 lowsec systems" i didnt say through, do you think every where in lowsec takes 10 gate jumps? ffs man