These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#741 - 2013-07-09 11:00:52 UTC
Its remotely possible that making hauling many times more expensive will have little effect on the market. If that is the case your idea won't work. Without the market fluctuations sufficient to cover the loss of a billion+ ship plus cargo, the incentive won't be there to bother with any of this except people like me that like to move around. Everything either gets made locally, or the markets run wild... What you want does not allow for the fantasy that fat targets that have no reason to run that gauntlet decide to put their ship and cargo on the line for a very mild profit increase.

There is no version of your idea yet that both works as you intend and does not destroy the game. Either the profit motive is there, or it is not. Given the ludicrous risk of the weapons free gank zone that is lowsec, the profit potential of going through there has to be monsterous to get anyone who does not already like that playstyle in there. Those people are already there. You can downplay and softsell the risk all you want, but the fact that you are trying to boost lowsec gate camping should be all anyone that isn't a lowsec gate camper needs to hear.

With hisec suicide ganking of freighters the cost to pop a freighter is almost as much as the freighter itself. Right around 800 million is the break even point to profit. The same job in lowsec is much easier and safer for the pirate in lowsec, and without the cost--- which is why you want it forced through there. Moving loaded freighters in hisec isn't safe, it's just a lot more expensive to pirate them. Your suggestion offers no way to offset that additional risk to the hauler except market fluctuations, which would have to be ruinous to cover the potential cost.

With the changes as you propose them either the market tanks and takes the game with it, or the point of the changes does. Either way your idea fails. I wish it didn't. It does not have to be that way, but with the state of PvP balance in the game and the culture in lowsec, that's how it is.
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#742 - 2013-07-09 12:06:52 UTC
The issue of cross boarder trading - and the Pirate and gate camp thing - I think are being looked at from possibly too narrow a point of view.

Gate camps effects can be reduced by increasing the number of potential bottlenecks - this can be engineered into a game mechanic with shorter and longer routes with correspondingly less and more possible options. To fly currently from Minmatar space to Jita I can take the short route through Rancer or the longer highsec route. If in the split-empires scenario there was a direct route - but also many longer alternatives - people would have choices to make. Flight time is almost equal to profit per hour for trading - and so you would get something of a risk reward system being made manifest. Gate camps themselves are a bit of a lowest common denominator mechanic and I feel that it is a shame that a pirate has not more options available to them than the gate camp tactic. But gate camps and the mechanics that make them more-or-less the only method of entry into a losec pirating scenario is beyond the scope of the OP in my opinion although it does affect the proposal.

I don't feel the proposal's design intent is really to force people who are averse to losec into losec, I beleive the proposal can change what "LoSec" really means to players. I don't feel that the proposal's strength is in forcing more non-consentual PvP. In fact if that were to be the most significant affect then i wouldn't support the proposal because I think it would drive people away from the game.

The proposal would affect people who trade between the empires most. Undoubtedly. But would the issue be insurmountable? People run jump-freighters out and to Jita from null. But that probably raises the barrier to entry too high if these expensive and skill intensive ships were made necessary for that profession. However the creation of distinct and seperate markets would also open opportunities to traders. If managed correctly I beleive that this could give traders and all character more decisions and options for managing their EvE careers. I don't sell at Jita because the Rens market works well for me as an example. The PI changes, for example, made me think I would quit PI, but they actually made PI more lucrative for me. The PI change was a well managed change in my opinion - even though I opposed it to start with. Enhancing the character and indeviduality of local trade hubs would be a by product and would present options. Is it so great that currently Jita is so busy? Does that not actually make the world a smaller place?

The proposal fails in my opinion if there are a lot of players who really don't want to go into LoSec, (even if the proposal changes what the reality of losec actually is in practice), but do like flying between the empires at will. If these players regardless of any local trade opportunities, local regional character being created (maybe), greater access to a possibly different in nature lo-sec, etc. will feel too restricted - then it wouldn't be fair to them.

But I sincerly beleive that with the selection of some countermeasures to perceived or actual barriers to entry the benefit would be great. There are many options and some have already been almost implemented - non-freighter goods transport ships have larger holds - maybe Border gates could have much increased weaponry or EWar on their LoSec sides to offer a beach head into Lo - maybe expensive-to-use gates between the empires could be implemented - these just come to mind as potentially bad but never-the-less possible options for handling a transition?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#743 - 2013-07-09 14:19:23 UTC
I don't disagree.

To be clear, I'm not against the idea in particular, just implemented in the current environment.

Change the nature of the PvP this is meant to enhance, and you radically change the value of the suggestion. As it is, he stated a page or so back that the point was gatecamps, which is why he is Ok with a toll conduit between empires, but not with making the entry gates to lowsec safe on the lowsec side.

A lot of the problem is indeed perception. Make lowsec something other than a a guns free gank zone, and you will get more people in there. This is largely due to the people that inhabit it now--- they have hunted their prey to extinction, and only a few masochistic pilots, fellow gankers, and those passing through to Null are left.

There are so many reasons for a bear to go to Lowsec, from POS to level 5 missions, better ores, higher rat bounties, etc... But the gank culture of ambush predators makes it all worthless. This proposal won't change that, and forcing trade into the blender won't make for a stable market, which he admits is the point when he's not trying to softsell the results.

This idea is fine if it comes on the heels of a massive change in how PvE and PvP is balanced. As it is now it's poisonous to the game.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#744 - 2013-07-09 17:07:58 UTC
You can use the current cost of a JF service from high sec to low sec as a guide to estimate costs.

Add 50-80 million isk to 1 billion isk cargo. With increased demand this number may go up, or more people will eventually get into JFs and it will come back down.

JF's may not be able to transport massive volumes like a high sec freighters, so perhaps high volume (size) items (ships, minerals) will turn into local products while low volume (modules) will still flow through Jita. ?
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#745 - 2013-07-09 18:43:39 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I don't disagree.

To be clear, I'm not against the idea in particular, just implemented in the current environment.

Change the nature of the PvP this is meant to enhance, and you radically change the value of the suggestion. As it is, he stated a page or so back that the point was gatecamps, which is why he is Ok with a toll conduit between empires, but not with making the entry gates to lowsec safe on the lowsec side.

A lot of the problem is indeed perception. Make lowsec something other than a a guns free gank zone, and you will get more people in there. This is largely due to the people that inhabit it now--- they have hunted their prey to extinction, and only a few masochistic pilots, fellow gankers, and those passing through to Null are left.

There are so many reasons for a bear to go to Lowsec, from POS to level 5 missions, better ores, higher rat bounties, etc... But the gank culture of ambush predators makes it all worthless. This proposal won't change that, and forcing trade into the blender won't make for a stable market, which he admits is the point when he's not trying to softsell the results.

This idea is fine if it comes on the heels of a massive change in how PvE and PvP is balanced. As it is now it's poisonous to the game.


I think the problem here is your lack of experience (or amount of negative experience) in low sec. You don't understand how many options you have to get around low sec. You also don't seem to understand what a trade hub is, and why it exists. And there are already trade hubs in every empire. Nobody goes to jita every time they need something, unless they live right next to it.

There are already dozens of paths from one empire to the other through low sec space. It would be impossible to keep them all camped constantly. There are already lots of people (nullsec carebears) that fly through low sec to get their stuff to high sec markets. All the stuff that you think will happen probably won't. And for the people who do like to do stuff in every empire then either they can risk their ship going from place to place (warp stab fit anyone?) Or they can just set up jump clones everywhere and buy ships where they need them. Do you think its good for the economy if everyone could exist without ever losing a ship?

And I'm not sure what you're talking about pvp vs pve balance. Pve can't be pvp because you can't simulate another player. Players have lots of options, play styles and tricks. If they did give the npcs similar randomness then missions would have a high fail rate, especially if they all equip warp disruptors. Missions with neuts are already fairly devestating to most mission runners. Much less having a blob of ships with random ewar too.

You do keep stating the market would be ruinous. Please, give us an example of one item that would be of ruinous value and explain how you envision it getting to that point. I can't see that happening personally.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#746 - 2013-07-09 19:01:40 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
You can use the current cost of a JF service from high sec to low sec as a guide to estimate costs.

Add 50-80 million isk to 1 billion isk cargo. With increased demand this number may go up, or more people will eventually get into JFs and it will come back down.

JF's may not be able to transport massive volumes like a high sec freighters, so perhaps high volume (size) items (ships, minerals) will turn into local products while low volume (modules) will still flow through Jita. ?


Yes anything that can be done locally will be now, instead of it being freightered in for free from jita.

You also need to remember, jfs use fuel to jump. They also reduced the access to fuel in high sec. So if people do start to JF more, they will use more fuel and the demand will go up. When the demand goes up the price goes up, so the price of JFing stuff goes up. As more people use JFs more fuel is used again, causeing fuel prices to go up even more. So the cost of JFing things around becomes very high and then people will stop JFing. It will eventually reach an equalibrium where people will only jump certain things that will make a profit and everything else will not be worth the price of fuel. This will leave the door open for people to move stuff from place to place in small haulers.

I envision having buy and sell orders on the border systems and someone moves stuff from one border system to the opposite side of the low sec gap and then the buyer freighters it to their local trade hub when they gather enough of said item.

The original seller makes money, the hauler makes money and the buyer makes money. Everybody wins! You don't have to be the original buyer and end seller to make a profit here.
Aramis Defranzac
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#747 - 2013-07-09 19:44:02 UTC
Yarrr!!!!!

Love the idea for more attacks of opportunity, not so much this idea.

I'd prefer to shrink the overall size of Hi Sec versus creating faction based Hi Sec islands.

Aramis
Ghosteagle Knight
One Legged Space Chickens
Electronic Control Monkeys
#748 - 2013-07-09 20:13:02 UTC
Sounds to me from what i have read that some one pissed in Commander Ted's cheerios....LolLolLol
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#749 - 2013-07-09 20:33:59 UTC
As I said...

Either the idea works, prices become ruinous, and the traffic through lowsec increases, or the idea fails as all or almost all production stays local, and other than a few people that like to travel things remain as they are.

There is no benefit to this. It's best outcome is it's own failure. Anyone who likes doing what the idea is trying to force people to do is already doing it. This might get you a little more at first, but most will rather leave or do something else if forced to play this way.

The whole point to the proposed change is to create market pressure sufficient to warrant the risk of the now required losec route. As that risk is extreme, so too will the rewards, and thus the cost.

If these changes happened, and worked, every single high/low gate would be camped because the rewards would be worth the effort. Now you have a few lazy campers on more popular gates because rewards are few since the prey is nearly extinct. This would completely change the game, or do nothing at all. I'd bet even the majority of the 2nd and third gates would be camped too, because of those who can run the gauntlet.

The only way to make this work would be to redistribute ores so that there was a shortage in every empire. After that it's all downhill. Prices skyrocket as pirates flock to the easy kills and phat loots. More and more Indies quit as the costs of resources go up even as demand falls from high prices, and probably inside 2 years we are looking at newbie frigates online as even the cheapest ships require hours if ISK grinding to afford.

Or production stays local, and nothing changes except EVE is now a bigger PITA than ever for a select few.

So... Bad idea.

And the PvE vs. PvP balance I'm talking about is the incompatible fits that make anyone doing PvE remotely efficiently laughably easy to kill for the average PvP fit.

In general missioning is in large, somewhat expensive ships with very specific tanks that need cap to run and lack basic tackle. If a pirate pays attention to local rats he can easily know all he needs to curbstomp a missioner in complete safety. This is why missioners are considered stupid if they don't dock the second anyone pops up in local... Which somehow most pirates equate with them 'winning' because they stopped playing. The issues are similar with most other PvE activities as well.

Change that dynamic, and the rest of this changes dramatically with it.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#750 - 2013-07-10 02:34:40 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As I said...

Either the idea works, prices become ruinous, and the traffic through lowsec increases, or the idea fails as all or almost all production stays local, and other than a few people that like to travel things remain as they are.

There is no benefit to this. It's best outcome is it's own failure. Anyone who likes doing what the idea is trying to force people to do is already doing it. This might get you a little more at first, but most will rather leave or do something else if forced to play this way.

The whole point to the proposed change is to create market pressure sufficient to warrant the risk of the now required losec route. As that risk is extreme, so too will the rewards, and thus the cost.

If these changes happened, and worked, every single high/low gate would be camped because the rewards would be worth the effort. Now you have a few lazy campers on more popular gates because rewards are few since the prey is nearly extinct. This would completely change the game, or do nothing at all. I'd bet even the majority of the 2nd and third gates would be camped too, because of those who can run the gauntlet.

The only way to make this work would be to redistribute ores so that there was a shortage in every empire. After that it's all downhill. Prices skyrocket as pirates flock to the easy kills and phat loots. More and more Indies quit as the costs of resources go up even as demand falls from high prices, and probably inside 2 years we are looking at newbie frigates online as even the cheapest ships require hours if ISK grinding to afford.

Or production stays local, and nothing changes except EVE is now a bigger PITA than ever for a select few.

So... Bad idea.

And the PvE vs. PvP balance I'm talking about is the incompatible fits that make anyone doing PvE remotely efficiently laughably easy to kill for the average PvP fit.

In general missioning is in large, somewhat expensive ships with very specific tanks that need cap to run and lack basic tackle. If a pirate pays attention to local rats he can easily know all he needs to curbstomp a missioner in complete safety. This is why missioners are considered stupid if they don't dock the second anyone pops up in local... Which somehow most pirates equate with them 'winning' because they stopped playing. The issues are similar with most other PvE activities as well.

Change that dynamic, and the rest of this changes dramatically with it.

First of all you didn't answer the question of how prices would be "ruinous". You just keep repeating that they would.

You also say that for this to work there would need to be a redistribution of ores so there is a shortage in each empire. THIS WOULD MAKE PRICES RUINOUS!!!

The only things that would be significantly effected are the Empire Faction gear and Ice products. Ores would stay the same so you could have local production. This would ensure prices on the market will remain steady and not "Ruinous". Everything else would trend based on supply and demand in a region.

Second, There's no way every gate would be camped at all times. It's just not possible. First of all there's not enough people dedicated enough to camp all the gates constantly. And even if there were enough pirates, they'd all have to play nice with each other and we all know that pirates don't play nice.

Please stop writing lame posts and explain why you think this stuff will happen the way you see it. Describe the chain of events that will occur that will end EVE online as we know it.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#751 - 2013-07-10 16:31:18 UTC
It's an either/or proposition.

It either does nothing, and thus time would be much better spent on a change that would better EVE for everyone, or the full body of changes is implemented to give the effect the OP wants, and the game is ruined.

I already answered your question, you just don't agree. That is fine. Hopefully it will remain forever unproven either way, as the only way to find out is to go ahead and do it.

The core of the idea is market differences driving enough reward to make the radically increased risk balanced, thus providing gate campers with content. Faction ammo and the few mods worthwhile in each empire won't drive that. It will have to affect nearly the entire production chain to be worth the risk. As the prices go up more and more pirates will join the lazy few already doing this, as it has now become both mandatory for the haulers and exceedingly lucrative for the pirates. It's that simple. If this isn't done so that no empire can float significant production on it's own everything will just stay local, no one new will travel lowsec, no new content is created for anyone, and the idea fails.

The vast bulk of the marketing for this change is aimed at softsellijg the risk that drives the profit increase for the haulers. Without the risk, rewards will not increase, the idea ends with the same situation we have now, the idea fails.

The idea exists purely to boost gatecamping by creating insane fluctuation in the markets from region to region. The effects would be devastating, and it would not take long, unless it came with measures to ameliorate the damage, which would hamstring the 'benefit'.

There is no third fairy tale option that ends with all the risk adverse haulers rejoicing as they swallow the costs of their losses and discover that being preyed upon really is more fun than completing their goals.
Brujo Loco
Brujeria Teologica
#752 - 2013-07-10 16:58:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Brujo Loco
Been skimming this thread lately ....

I proposed something like this a LOOOOONG TIME AGO, but with different twists, in my infamous ARCHIPELAGO THEORY back in 2007.

As a blast from the past you can see some replies to my thread back in 2007 mirror some of the ones here, when you have been for so long here, you will begin to laugh at how cyclical these forums are, hence why I love them to death Big smile

Though I hardly like most of your ideas, the core concept, of having a Hi Sec Island surrounded by Lo sec is extremely appealing to me and I have done a living over the years under different guises in two of the most fun (for me anyway) "Islands" currently ingame, one in Gallente Territory (you deserve everything if you manage to thrive there and survive the gatecamps) and the one in Ammatar Space (slow traffic, good nice lite pvp)

EVE Needs better "Islands", with a core set of L1-L4Agents , some decent Industry/Research slots and low enough hi-sec for enterprising corps to mount their POSes.

I have tried (sometimes miserably) to set up small market hubs in these desolate places. It´s a pain, but very, very doable.

So, I like your idea, but needs more refining.

What I would love to see is at least a SINGLE NPC station in the Island have a MEDICAL FACILITY ...

Inner Sayings of BrujoLoco: http://eve-files.com/sig/brujoloco
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#753 - 2013-07-10 18:58:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Brujo Loco wrote:
stuff


When you say Islands I am not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking like 10-20 little areas or what I am talking about?

You can't break up Hi-sec TO much or else you really would have large price hikes across lots of items.

With few producers for each area you would see the issue of having certain things be in short supply in some areas because nobody is capable or willing to make them and people would just specialize for the things everyone needs. Because the fewer industry people you have the less flexibility you have.

Of course the extra chaos in how things are broken up would make it much much easier to do trade because you would probably not run into gate camps often making moving regular freighters and badgers much more feasible.


Also this is definitely the largest of any thread of this type, so it isn't entirely cyclical.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#754 - 2013-07-10 19:24:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Commander Ted wrote:
I keep seeing Fozzie respond to new posts all the time so I know he has read this.


That is correct.

Pushing you past the quadruple 6's...
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#755 - 2013-07-10 21:14:53 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As I said...

Either the idea works, prices become ruinous, and the traffic through lowsec increases, or the idea fails as all or almost all production stays local, and other than a few people that like to travel things remain as they are.

There is no benefit to this. It's best outcome is it's own failure. Anyone who likes doing what the idea is trying to force people to do is already doing it. This might get you a little more at first, but most will rather leave or do something else if forced to play this way.

The whole point to the proposed change is to create market pressure sufficient to warrant the risk of the now required losec route. As that risk is extreme, so too will the rewards, and thus the cost.

If these changes happened, and worked, every single high/low gate would be camped because the rewards would be worth the effort. Now you have a few lazy campers on more popular gates because rewards are few since the prey is nearly extinct. This would completely change the game, or do nothing at all. I'd bet even the majority of the 2nd and third gates would be camped too, because of those who can run the gauntlet.

The only way to make this work would be to redistribute ores so that there was a shortage in every empire. After that it's all downhill. Prices skyrocket as pirates flock to the easy kills and phat loots. More and more Indies quit as the costs of resources go up even as demand falls from high prices, and probably inside 2 years we are looking at newbie frigates online as even the cheapest ships require hours if ISK grinding to afford.

Or production stays local, and nothing changes except EVE is now a bigger PITA than ever for a select few.

So... Bad idea.

And the PvE vs. PvP balance I'm talking about is the incompatible fits that make anyone doing PvE remotely efficiently laughably easy to kill for the average PvP fit.

In general missioning is in large, somewhat expensive ships with very specific tanks that need cap to run and lack basic tackle. If a pirate pays attention to local rats he can easily know all he needs to curbstomp a missioner in complete safety. This is why missioners are considered stupid if they don't dock the second anyone pops up in local... Which somehow most pirates equate with them 'winning' because they stopped playing. The issues are similar with most other PvE activities as well.

Change that dynamic, and the rest of this changes dramatically with it.


All your posts are based on false premises. You project your own inability to adapt unto others, and see everything in either black or white, their division based purely on ignorance and adapted prejudices.

No, they only way would not be to force mineral shortage, where did you dig that up? It would be interesting to emphasize local flavours, but reducing total amount of resource makes no sense.

You say that every gate would be camped. Well, besides that being physically impossible, there would be more and stronger camps- but the camps would let their blues through, profiting both the hauler and themselves. They would keep the route clean for their own, while preventing competition. See, in EVE, people communicate, negotiate standings and form alliances- real, result-oriented and organized human interaction.

Another method you neglect to recognize is using jump freighters to avoid inbound gate camps.

There are already commercial freight operators providing low/null transport services, this proposed change would create more of them, and especially multi-disciplinary organizations.

Your vision of PVE vs PVP fits is a classic misconception. Do you think that sitting around a low/null/wh system in a PVP fit would improve your chances of winning, when you get jumped? If you are not the one picking the fight and controlling it, you lose. Ships and fits don't kill people, tactics do.

I haven't lost a PVE ship in lowsec in years. 90% of lowsec is barren, empty carebearing paradise. Furthermore, having the player skills required to hunt PVErs benefits one massively when assuming the role of the prey.

Again, OP's suggestion would benefit the whole game by creating an improved simulation of real global economy.

.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#756 - 2013-07-10 23:19:06 UTC
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:


-1 from me for the idea of the op so. Freighters would have to be redone massively, ive seen enough gatecamps in my eve live that i know that they would be screwed to much otherwise


the bumping mechanics would definitely need to be changed
dis-aligning a freighter should take something with comparable mass.
it should be impossible for something as small and light as a frigate to even slightly affect something with the mass of a freighter

but of course that would cause an outcry from the ganker/camper corner of the sandbox
Johnson 1044
Johnson Organic Produce
#757 - 2013-07-11 01:25:23 UTC
Let's do it already. This game needs a shot in the arm.
DataRunner Touch
Doomheim
#758 - 2013-07-11 02:17:47 UTC
actually I greatly support this idea, and I will provides thoughts of my own.

"Gatecamps Blah-blah-blah."

Currently the most popular gatecamps are found in bottleneck systems, as these are the easiest gate-camps to main as you will know that if something wants to get from point a to point b, they have to pass by your gate, if you add more entrences and start to take out the bottleneck systems, then you will discover that gatecamps will become easier to avoid cause if you use a little smarts, you just go into the next few systems down.

second thought: This will allow for more use of other types of Indy ships, currently the tech two indy ships are rather under used. Null sec alliances typically uses jump freighters to ship all their stuff from high sec to null sec. Blockade runners and Deep space transports actually see very little use when compared to the amount of use and demand that a Jump freighter has. With this, a blockade runner, with their ability to run expensive, yet small cargo between the different regions would make them a high value courier. As for the deep space transport, well that thing is a interesting bugger. They are slow and unwelding, but they make up for that with the ability to fit quite the scary tank, and with the fact that it starts with a +2 warp core stab built in, well it would be a tough bugger warp scram if fit correctly. If the empires are separated by low sec, I fore-see convoys of these guys shipping bulk orders between the the different empires.

And the final thought. If something like this does get in place, I fore-see many interesting things happening, new types of jobs popping up, I fore-see certain things becoming more in demand, and I also see people making quite the amounts of money by filling orders from empire space to empire space.
Dani Lizardov
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#759 - 2013-07-11 08:00:57 UTC
I like it!
Now make it happen

I think that this game need changes, big changes, covered with more stories, to stay attractive for old and new players...


CCP did advertize this game like this:
The Butterfly Effect
bounty hunters

etc.... I am not going to link all good trailers here :)
I just wanted to make a point: EVE Online looks much more exiting in the trailers then actually is.
After initial excitement in a eve player pass (few mounts from start at best), he / she quickly finds a low risk and boring way to
exist ...
Ex. High Sec: Miner, Trader, Industrial, Mission runner
Ex.: Low Sec: Gate Camper (*pirate), Missions/ Complex runner, Industrial
Ex.: Null Sec: Join big alliance in a big fu** coalition and have half of eve player base blue to you :)

Any way the point is, I support this change, because it will bring something new and exiting, it can be covered with a good FW story.
Oraac Ensor
#760 - 2013-07-11 08:06:27 UTC
Daft idea.