These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Barbeque
Mayhem and Ruin
#921 - 2013-09-27 16:04:26 UTC
Ordellus wrote:
This is just as silly as dividing low sec up into regions and intra spacing it with high sec space.

Forcing playstyles is a bad thing.

Highsec to highsec wormholes, 'safe' international travel. The only thing that would stop people from finding and using these is a lack of will. What exactly is forced?

Joe Risalo wrote:
It may not "break" the game in your understanding of the word, but it would break the game.
The best market in game is in Jita. Everyone would flock to this region.

Market saturation and over competition promote separation. People always have, and will continue to pay for convenience.

Joe Risalo wrote:
All new characters would be created as caldari.
What's the point of creating an Amarrian if you're just gonna move to caldari space and can cross train for anything?

Of course every new player has in depth knowledge of Eve's markets, would never want to try something different, would never feel bored or adventurous, would never want to leave their insular area, or diversify in any way. You got me there.
Freako X
Doom Inc
#922 - 2013-09-27 16:19:07 UTC
Change is hard. +1 to the idea.

I also like the idea of faction consequences if you pirate in the empire. Ie. Gallente pirating will lower Gall faction but raise Cal.
Tilly Delnero
Doomheim
#923 - 2013-09-27 19:15:44 UTC
Mr Barbeque wrote:
Highsec to highsec wormholes, 'safe' international travel. The only thing that would stop people from finding and using these is a lack of will. What exactly is forced?

Because of these pesky things called 'mass limits', freighters won't actually fit through a highsec-highsec wormhole. Not to mention the potentially ridiculous amount of time spent trying to find this 'perfectly safe' road to a specific constellation or region would further reduce any profits you might make.

This whole idea is based on so many fallacies and a complete lack of experience in the different aspects of gameplay it sets out to change, it's really quite amusing.
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#924 - 2013-09-27 23:21:47 UTC
Tilly Delnero wrote:
Mr Barbeque wrote:
Highsec to highsec wormholes, 'safe' international travel. The only thing that would stop people from finding and using these is a lack of will. What exactly is forced?

Because of these pesky things called 'mass limits', freighters won't actually fit through a highsec-highsec wormhole. Not to mention the potentially ridiculous amount of time spent trying to find this 'perfectly safe' road to a specific constellation or region would further reduce any profits you might make.

This whole idea is based on so many fallacies and a complete lack of experience in the different aspects of gameplay it sets out to change, it's really quite amusing.


When Freighters were first introduced, people were opposed to them as well. The ability to move such a large amount of goods from place to place was considered 'game breaking' as well. Now they are just accepted as a normal part of EVE. Before there were freighters, there were industrial ships. New players get not one, but two of these ships if they do the tutorials. They are often scoffed at, but they must be important since you aren't allowed to fly one as a trial account.

For those starting out in combat, there's the frigate. For those starting out in mining, there's the Venture. For those that want to start out in hauling, there's the industrial ship. Sadly, since the introduction of the Freighter, there aren't a lot of hauling opportunities left for newer players. Courier contracts typically demand a huge deposit, as well as an enormous cargo hold. That's in high sec.

Cloaky haulers have the ability to fly into low sec and null sec with fairly little risk. Despite this, there is no presently reason to ship goods through low-sec really, because of the proximity to high sec. Low sec is essentially a PVP arena for faction warfare and the occasional pirate battle. Who wins or loses in factional warfare really doesn't matter, it's like a football game.

In real life, war is all about economic consequences and supply lines. All wars are economic wars. An army travel on it's belly. If the enemy is winning, less food and fuel for you. When your side is winning, to the victor goes the spoils. When two countries have a hostile relationship, one of the first things that happens is an embargo against that country. Supply lines are cut off. Trade routes are choked. A few entrepreneurial types might manage to get around the embargo and smuggle goods in or out.

The best way to duplicate this in EVE is to separate the four empires with low sec space. Now suddenly, factional warfare matters. Low sec matters. Low sec systems between the empires are no longer empty space, they are now become hotbeds of PVP combat activity. It's not just 'pew pew' anymore, or flying around low sec for hours looking for a fight, simply to have a fight. It's now your military keeping the area safe from pirates and the enemy militia so that their merchants can transport goods from one empire to the next. Carebears and FW fighters are on the same team. Pirates have more incentives, but also more challenges.

If you can't fit a freighter into a high sec to high sec wormhole, then you can fly through with an Orca or even an industrial ship. What the jaded five-year old manufacturer characters perceive as a tedious extra minute or so scanning down a wormhole (that's how long it took me to do it) and cutting into their hourly profits becomes a new adventure and a rare and profitable opportunity for the newer player.

Not to mention the fact that the wormhole I found would have taken 22 jumps off a trip from Tash-Murkon to Rens, so that minute or two I 'lost' scanning down a HS to HS wormhole would have saved me hours of high sec hauling.

Also, I don't understand how the idea is full of fallacies. A fallacy is something that seems logical, when in fact it's not. An example would be the fallacy of the false dichotomy, saying there are only two choices when there are actually more. "You are either for us or against us, a friend or an enemy".

The only reason I can see to be against this is that you make a lot of money through high sec inter-regional trading hauling by freighter. Well, the people that made wooden wagons for a living didn't like the invention of the automobile either.

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
Tilly Delnero
Doomheim
#925 - 2013-09-28 02:59:51 UTC
Sera Kor-Azor wrote:
...
The only reason I can see to be against this is that you make a lot of money through high sec inter-regional trading hauling by freighter. Well, the people that made wooden wagons for a living didn't like the invention of the automobile either.

+1 for a well-reasoned and written argument.

Honestly I wish I could afford a freighter, but yeah I fully agree on the lack of new-player hauling opportunities. A new player can make money moving goods between systems (especially regional border systems due primarily to market data visibility limitations) at the moment, but that involves trading as well rather than simply hauling. There are quite a few low-volume courier contracts that new players could potentially perform but even those typically involve a high collateral so are out of reach of most. This border change idea wouldn't improve that situation however, since new players don't have access to blockade runners and would have to train even more skills and spend more time (exploration) to do the same task, not to mention making courier missions in systems near to border zones difficult or near-impossible to complete if the destination takes the player through a camped system.

I won't get into the EVE vs IRL war aspect, since it makes no sense to me. The reason no-man's land and DMZs exist in the real world is that it provides a buffer that makes borders easier to defend and police. In EVE, with the single-point entry of system gates that can be locked-down at any time (or just camped) and highsec system-wide cynosural jamming, the concept of a buffer zone just seems silly. Since the empires aren't actively opposed to civilian inter-empire trading (and as in the real world probably even require it to some extent, through lacking access to race-specific resources or technology for example), it again makes no real sense to institute such restrictions.

Some of the more obvious fallacies that keep recurring:

Transports will hire escorts for protection (suggesting the intention of more player interaction)

This is similar to the 'miners will hire protection in highsec if xxx is changed' argument, it simply doesn't work in the real world. Hiring escorts costs ISK, meaning fewer profits and less incentive to even get into hauling in the first place. Not to mention that in the case of adding lowsec buffer zones, blockade runners will become the new inter-regional transport method, and those are typically only useful solo (typically with a scout alt, due to the potential for another player to stab you in the back).

Wormholes will provide safe passage between empires, everyone should use them and is an idiot/lazy if they don't!

Mass limits aside, when you want/need to sell in or transport to a specific region or even empire, wormholes become unreliable and time-consuming unless you happen to be extremely lucky (it also involves needing to train up exploration skills, an otherwise useless skillset for a hauler character). Setting out to find a highsec-highsec wormhole leading from The Forge to say, Amarr or Molden Heath could potentially take hours. If used enough, it makes sense that they could also become natural suicide-gank spots, though this in itself is merely speculation on my part.

Making border crossing more dangerous will lead to a healthier economy.

It would lead to more expensive goods certainly, specifically ores and modules not normally obtainable in any quantity in a given empire. Healthier? I don't see how. Supply would drop, prices would rise and activities such as PvP (which has already become substantially more expensive since the mining bot bans) would become even more costly to maintain. There's also the increased vulnerability toward market manipulation - if a large entity (or multiple smaller entities) decided to close off specific border routes in order to drive up prices of say faction modules or PLEX, there's very little anyone besides another large entity could really do about it.

'For Factional Warfare', 'For the economy', 'For fun'

I may be jaded on this one, but this whole suggestion (the segregation of highsec empire) has been put forward under numerous guises by lazy gatecampers who don't like waiting for prey or expending effort for as long as I've been playing. The old forums seemed to see a new version of it I would probably say anually at most, sometimes more often depending on what else had been changed at the time. I'm not saying lazy gatecamping or griefing of new players (SOE arc with permacamped lowsec border zones?) really is the OP's intention, but it does seem eerily familiar.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#926 - 2013-09-28 05:31:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Tilly Delnero wrote:
Sera Kor-Azor wrote:
...
The only reason I can see to be against this is that you make a lot of money through high sec inter-regional trading hauling by freighter. Well, the people that made wooden wagons for a living didn't like the invention of the automobile either.

+1 for a well-reasoned and written argument.

Honestly I wish I could afford a freighter, but yeah I fully agree on the lack of new-player hauling opportunities. A new player can make money moving goods between systems (especially regional border systems due primarily to market data visibility limitations) at the moment, but that involves trading as well rather than simply hauling. There are quite a few low-volume courier contracts that new players could potentially perform but even those typically involve a high collateral so are out of reach of most. This border change idea wouldn't improve that situation however, since new players don't have access to blockade runners and would have to train even more skills and spend more time (exploration) to do the same task, not to mention making courier missions in systems near to border zones difficult or near-impossible to complete if the destination takes the player through a camped system.

I won't get into the EVE vs IRL war aspect, since it makes no sense to me. The reason no-man's land and DMZs exist in the real world is that it provides a buffer that makes borders easier to defend and police. In EVE, with the single-point entry of system gates that can be locked-down at any time (or just camped) and highsec system-wide cynosural jamming, the concept of a buffer zone just seems silly. Since the empires aren't actively opposed to civilian inter-empire trading (and as in the real world probably even require it to some extent, through lacking access to race-specific resources or technology for example), it again makes no real sense to institute such restrictions.

Some of the more obvious fallacies that keep recurring:

Transports will hire escorts for protection (suggesting the intention of more player interaction)

This is similar to the 'miners will hire protection in highsec if xxx is changed' argument, it simply doesn't work in the real world. Hiring escorts costs ISK, meaning fewer profits and less incentive to even get into hauling in the first place. Not to mention that in the case of adding lowsec buffer zones, blockade runners will become the new inter-regional transport method, and those are typically only useful solo (typically with a scout alt, due to the potential for another player to stab you in the back).

Wormholes will provide safe passage between empires, everyone should use them and is an idiot/lazy if they don't!

Mass limits aside, when you want/need to sell in or transport to a specific region or even empire, wormholes become unreliable and time-consuming unless you happen to be extremely lucky (it also involves needing to train up exploration skills, an otherwise useless skillset for a hauler character). Setting out to find a highsec-highsec wormhole leading from The Forge to say, Amarr or Molden Heath could potentially take hours. If used enough, it makes sense that they could also become natural suicide-gank spots, though this in itself is merely speculation on my part.

Making border crossing more dangerous will lead to a healthier economy.

It would lead to more expensive goods certainly, specifically ores and modules not normally obtainable in any quantity in a given empire. Healthier? I don't see how. Supply would drop, prices would rise and activities such as PvP (which has already become substantially more expensive since the mining bot bans) would become even more costly to maintain. There's also the increased vulnerability toward market manipulation - if a large entity (or multiple smaller entities) decided to close off specific border routes in order to drive up prices of say faction modules or PLEX, there's very little anyone besides another large entity could really do about it.

'For Factional Warfare', 'For the economy', 'For fun'

I may be jaded on this one, but this whole suggestion (the segregation of highsec empire) has been put forward under numerous guises by lazy gatecampers who don't like waiting for prey or expending effort for as long as I've been playing. The old forums seemed to see a new version of it I would probably say anually at most, sometimes more often depending on what else had been changed at the time. I'm not saying lazy gatecamping or griefing of new players (SOE arc with permacamped lowsec border zones?) really is the OP's intention, but it does seem eerily familiar.

You're not jaded, you're right...
Separating empires with low is nothing more that some BS to try and force people to take risks.
Problem is, the people that agree with this have yet to realize what has always been the truth in Eve, and that is that if you try to force risks on people, they'll either quit the game, or find another way to avoid those risks.

This is exactly why I say it is game breaking, because a change like this will cause mass grouping(probably around Jita) and will lead in little to no point in have the other faction territories.
This would eventually lead to massive onslaughts of ganks to try and force some kind of ajenda, but will ultimately lead to mass sub drops, and the eventual death of Eve and/or movement to a FTP and/or micro transaction model with little to no care, or support by CCP.

This is why CCP hasn't posted anything more than "we're here" on this thread.
They know damn good and well that this kind of idiotic move would lead to Eve's death.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#927 - 2013-09-28 06:34:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Mr Barbeque wrote:

Read the OP, then some of the thread. It has been repeatedly made clear that this is not a change to funnel traffic through specific choke points. In fact, in the cartography discussed should have many different route possibilities and combinations as to avoid predictable insta-lock camps and such.


With the entire high sec economy wanting to do business across this new low sec divide any reasonable number of paths between the new high sec islands will all be packed with gankers.

Mr Barbeque wrote:

Freighters would not be forced into lowsec, nor does anyone expect them to be. They should not be flown there. There's a class for this called transport ships. Cloaky haulers can move your shinies, with reliable success. JF's can move large volume if you know how to cyno.


You want me to move an entire Charon full of ore through this new divide, parsing it into ships with tiny little holds, which under the best of circumstances means i make like 8-10 trips across this low sec space that im sure would be a multi-jump gate camp hell?

Your understanding of the transportation of large volumes of product in high sec space in EVE is profoundly flawed.

Mr Barbeque wrote:

Pirates do not sit on gates all day. Not every jump in low is camped by a gang of pirates. A gate camp is also a large static target for other 'pirates' (aka NBSI players in low) to attack. The only more static camps are at the predictable entry and choke points, see cartography above.


You are using the current lowsec system model that is by-passed by high-sec transportation as an example of what it would be like when major commerce is using this new lowsec divide. Your ability to see the ramifications of your suggestion is both sad and laughable at the same time.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#928 - 2013-09-28 11:43:44 UTC
So today I had to travel from Amarr to Dodixie.

To do it all in high sec requires 16 jump, setting the autopilot routefinder to shortest requires 14 jumps, with I think 2 of those in lowsec.

Thus there is absolutely no incentive to opt for the low sec route other than actively searching for pvp.

This just seems a bit lame to me.

A half-way solution might be to cut the lowsec journey in half and perhaps increase the hisec distance.

Then there is a trade-off in route selection.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#929 - 2013-09-28 15:57:19 UTC
holy **** 30k views.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Mr Barbeque
Mayhem and Ruin
#930 - 2013-09-28 16:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Barbeque
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

With the entire high sec economy wanting to do business across this new low sec divide any reasonable number of paths between the new high sec islands will all be packed with gankers.

These 'gankers' you speak of aren't all blue to each other, and sharks eat each other. Are scouts out of the question?

Prepare for the worst of course, but just assuming the worst is silly. Its like assuming you'll be suicided on every gate, every jump, every day.

Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Mr Barbeque wrote:

Freighters would not be forced into lowsec, nor does anyone expect them to be. They should not be flown there. There's a class for this called transport ships. Cloaky haulers can move your shinies, with reliable success. JF's can move large volume if you know how to cyno.


You want me to move an entire Charon full of ore through this new divide, parsing it into ships with tiny little holds, which under the best of circumstances means i make like 8-10 trips across this low sec space that im sure would be a multi-jump gate camp hell?

Your understanding of the transportation of large volumes of product in high sec space in EVE is profoundly flawed.

(JF = Jump Freighter) Smaller yes, such is the price you should pay for moving large quantities 'safely'. You assume much.


Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

You are using the current lowsec system model that is by-passed by high-sec transportation as an example of what it would be like when major commerce is using this new lowsec divide. Your ability to see the ramifications of your suggestion is both sad and laughable at the same time.

I am a supporter, not the OP. And yes, i do formulate my views on the information and experience i have collected.

Are you arguing that all pirates, NBSI pilots, faction warfare pilots, and the walk-ons will all band together to sit on a gate? PL and razor will drop by to say, "Hi guys, that's a pretty gate your circle jerking on. Can we join?" My point is if you allow yourself to become a target, someone may very well act upon that. That goes for everyone, and a bunch of guys on a gate is a fun looking target for the well equipped.

I still have yet to see a reasoned counter argument from you. However I do see evidence of a lack of fully reading things you quote. And I love personal attacks, means I must be doing something right.

Edit:
Tilly Delnero: thank you for being an adult, its very refreshing. I will put more time into digesting your post and writing a response when I have more to give.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#931 - 2013-09-28 17:03:19 UTC
Mr Barbeque wrote:
My point is if you allow yourself to become a target, someone may very well act upon that. That goes for everyone.


I pulled out the only part of your arguement that fits.

Those that always avoid these risks will continue to avoid these risks...

This is why i continue to say that risk averse players will flock to Caldari Space.
Why stay somewhere that costs more?
And when you seperate the factions, it'll cost more and more just to buy a ship.
Most of the items you find in other trade hubs has usually been subsidized by people transporting items from Jita, bringing costs down.


Secondly,
I have yet to see a valid arguement on why this SHOULD be done...
Yet you continue to say there is no argument as to why it shouldn't be done.


If there's no valid arguement as to why yes, and no valid arguement as to why no.
Well, then it might as well stay the way it is now, as we already know it's working, so why take the risks to cut the factions if there's no valid reason why?
Nav illus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#932 - 2013-09-29 02:26:07 UTC
I approve of this idea.
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#933 - 2013-09-29 02:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: SGT FUNYOUN
If CCP makes it so that we can use jump drives from High Sec to High Sec, THEN YES... but unless that...

NO.

Now REDUCING, the amount of high sec in between each empire so as to bottle-neck travelers along specific routes I can see maybe.

Increase the number of low sec and null sec systems between high sec empires would make it harder to move freight from point a to point b and make more pilots brave crossing the sec barrier to make transit times faster, without breaking the marketeering mechanic of the game.

But unless you leave at least ONE "safe" corridor between each empire...

no.
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#934 - 2013-09-29 02:55:30 UTC
Sera Kor-Azor wrote:
...
The only reason I can see to be against this is that you make a lot of money through high sec inter-regional trading hauling by freighter. Well, the people that made wooden wagons for a living didn't like the invention of the automobile either.

+1 for a well-reasoned and written argument.

"This border change idea wouldn't improve that situation however, since new players don't have access to blockade runners and would have to train even more skills and spend more time (exploration) to do the same task, not to mention making courier missions in systems near to border zones difficult or near-impossible to complete if the destination takes the player through a camped system."

At present, PVP is a profession because there are a lot of skills to learn. Mining and manufacturing are a profession for the same reason. Hauling as a 'profession' is comparably easy, you can train a high sec hauler in a matter of hours. To train to fly a blockade runner is easier than training to fly a freighter in high sec, and the ships are cheaper. Exploration and opening up new trade routes involves more skills than simply hauling a load down a safe, paved highway. There's more of a sense of accomplishment when there are obstacles to overcome.

"Since the empires aren't actively opposed to civilian inter-empire trading (and as in the real world probably even require it to some extent, through lacking access to race-specific resources or technology for example), it again makes no real sense to institute such restrictions."

There are open hostilities between Amarr and Minmatar, Caldari and Gallente. There is only peaceful trade between these regions because Concord maintains that peace. This could change at any moment. Each of the four empires has good reasons for a trade embargo against two other empires.

"Some of the more obvious fallacies that keep recurring:

Transports will hire escorts for protection (suggesting the intention of more player interaction)"

This is a little different than miners in high sec, who get ganked anyways. Cloaky haulers hardly ever get caught. Also, an alt as a scout would be more effective than a hired escort.

"Wormholes will provide safe passage between empires, everyone should use them and is an idiot/lazy if they don't!"

It's true that wormholes are unpredictable, just as the seas were for early explorers. Smooth seas do not make for skillful sailors. Scanning down the wormhole you want might take hours, but how long would hauling from Amarr to Rens take? Wormholes aren't the only option, there's also flying through low sec in a cloaky hauler.

"Making border crossing more dangerous will lead to a healthier economy."

I don't see how supply would drop. Everything in EVE is made by players with blueprints. Mining anomalies provide enough of the ores to make each region self-suffiicent. Every region has access to null-sec. Where is the shortage coming from?

Most of the people that live in high-sec make their money from missions. They buy their ships for that. Separating the four empires with low sec would have no effect on Factional mission runners whatsoever. The ISK for running missions will never dry up.

I don't see the increased vulnerability towards market manipulation. Each of the four empires has their own robust trade hub, with several smaller hubs. If they were separated with low sec then each of the larger hubs would each become equivalent to Jita. Prices might be a little higher, but all that would mean is mine a little more or run more missions. I don't know if it would make the economy healthier, but it can't keep growing forever. The world of EVE isn't completely about making and saving money.

'For Factional Warfare', 'For the economy', 'For fun'

I'm not saying lazy gatecamping or griefing of new players (SOE arc with permacamped lowsec border zones?) really is the OP's intention, but it does seem eerily familiar."

I'm not a pirate. I am a high-sec manufacturer and Trader. Let me give you some examples.

Have you ever been to Misaba? That's the low sec market hub for the CVA and Providence. Prices in Misaba are comparable to prices in Amarr. The only way to get goods into Misaba is with a cloaky hauler. The CVA have many enemies, including pirates. It's also a 'pipe', there is only one entry & exit gate for each system which could be easily camped but rarely is, this isn't true of most of low sec systems. Despite this, hardly any haulers lose ships flying to Misaba. Intel channels keep the haulers well informed of any gate camps. Open a map and see how many ships are lost in Misaba, compared to ships lost in Amarr or Jita.

In the real world, it's only logical to want to ship your goods in the safest, fastest way possible. Streets are well lit and paved for just this reason. In the 'world of adventure', like Star Wars, Mad Max, the 16th century, etc, there has to be some dangerous obstacle to overcome to make the story exciting and the character heroic. The problem here is that you don't see the 'logic' in something which makes the game more challenging for you. Why should you have to train up skills that you don't have to train now? Why should something that is easy and safe be made more challenging and risky? Well, the element of a game entails that there are risks as well as rewards, obstacles as well as strategies. High sec is a safe nest, but there isn't much incentive to leave the nest. A low sec barrier between Empires would change that.

"We go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard." -John F. Kennedy

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#935 - 2013-09-29 02:56:51 UTC
SGT FUNYOUN wrote:
If CCP makes it so that we can use jump drives from High Sec to High Sec, THEN YES... but unless that...

NO.

Now REDUCING, the amount of high sec in between each empire so as to bottle-neck travelers along specific routes I can see maybe.

Increase the number of low sec and null sec systems between high sec empires would make it harder to move freight from point a to point b and make more pilots brave crossing the sec barrier to make transit times faster, without breaking the marketeering mechanic of the game.

But unless you leave at least ONE "safe" corridor between each empire...

no.


1. have you even flown a jump freighter

2. It is already like that.

3. It is already like that and people just use the one route.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#936 - 2013-09-29 04:39:22 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

You're not jaded, you're right...
Separating empires with low is nothing more that some BS to try and force people to take risks.
Problem is, the people that agree with this have yet to realize what has always been the truth in Eve, and that is that if you try to force risks on people, they'll either quit the game, or find another way to avoid those risks.

This is exactly why I say it is game breaking, because a change like this will cause mass grouping(probably around Jita) and will lead in little to no point in have the other faction territories.


This is why CCP hasn't posted anything more than "we're here" on this thread.
They know damn good and well that this kind of idiotic move would lead to Eve's death.


1) 'Forcing risks on people'. The only people that this affects are high-sec inter-regional haulers. Nobody is forcing you to fly a hauler from Amarr to Jita. Even as it is, a hauler is still at risk of getting ganked even in high sec.
2) "If you try to force risks on people, they will either quit the game, or find ways to avoid those risks." EVE already states that when you undock, even in high sec, you are agreeing to non-consentual PVP. The only way to avoid losing your ship is to remain docked. The whole of each high sec Empire is a large area where players can avoid risk for as long as they like. If you insist on quitting because EVE is unsafe, that's up to you. If you don't want to play chess because you might lose, that's your decision as well.
3) Mass grouping around Jita: I still don't understand why you think this will happen. Each trade hub is like an empty jar, you will only find in it what people put inside it. If a low sec barrier diminishes trade between Empires, then people will stop hauling their goods to and from Jita and buy and sell from their local market instead. The city of Timbuktu in Africa was once the largest trade hub in the world. The city itself didn't become wealthier when bandits started attacking the merchant caravans.

"This would eventually lead to massive onslaughts of ganks"

Player pirates aren't like Sansha incursions. There aren't massive amounts of player pirates. In fact, there wouldn't be enough pirates to cover all the systems in low sec. If you go to low-sec now, you will see that it is mostly (99%) empty. Most of the low-sec residents are Faction war fighters, who are likely your best customers.

"to try and force some kind of agenda, "

What kind of an agenda would pirates have? The only thing they want to do is blow up your ship and steal your loot, not convert your children to their religion.

"but will ultimately lead to mass sub drops, and the eventual death of Eve and/or movement to a FTP and/or micro transaction model with little to no care, or support by CCP."

Do you really think so? An aspect of the game which is so routine that some people do it AFK is changed so that it becomes slightly more challenging, and the AFK haulers will rage quit over it? Are you saying that the only reason they play EVE is to make easy game money through dull and routine activity, with absolutely no risk to themselves? One would wonder what makes other games so popular then, since they usually involve putting yourself at some risk or overcoming some obstacle in order to obtain a reward. Why did people keep playing Space Invaders when their ship always got blown up in the end? Why do people keep playing baseball if their team sometimes loses?

In their ads and lore, EVE portrays itself as a hostile universe full of risks and dangers. Currently, this is hardly true. The high-sec Empire areas serve well as a kiddie pool for newer players to start out in, so they can develop their skills and explore their interests. Once they hit their adolescence though, the 'kids' are expected to venture into the risker areas of the game, not live in the safety of their parent's basements until they are fifty. No one is forcing these people to become heroes, but it doesn't happen living a life of predictable safety.

No one is forcing the risk-adverse to venture forth from the shallow end of EVE, but unless you enter deeper waters you will never learn to swim. All that separating the four Empires with low-sec is doing is taking the water wings off and telling you that if you want to swim the length of the pool, you have to start training some new skills. If you want to be a better athlete, set the jump bar higher. If you want to remain safe forever, then there should be limitations to your freedoms and expectations. If you want to make more money, then you should have to take more risks. That's what adventure is all about.

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#937 - 2013-09-29 06:06:22 UTC
"I pulled out the only part of your arguement that fits.

Those that always avoid these risks will continue to avoid these risks..."

So what? You can be completely safe if you never undock. You can be reasonably safe if you stay within your own Empire, which is large enough to provide you with all the minerals, missions, and factory slots you want. You can do your trading in Amarr, Dodixie, Jita, Hek and Rens, as well as the numerous other regions and trade hubs within each empire.

"This is why i continue to say that risk averse players will flock to Caldari Space.
Why stay somewhere that costs more?"

Why would the risk averse players flock to Caldari space? This hasn't been explained to me yet.

Caldari space is already the smallest and most densely crowded of the four empires. Amarr is the largest and least densely populated, which means better mining. Minmatar and Gallente space? They have their perks too. New players don't sign up with the knowledge that Jita is a super-hub for trade, or that trade between empires should be through safe or dangerous space. New players choose their race because they think the ships or characters look 'cool', or the storyline is interesting.

As I have said, Jita is like Wal-Mart. Everyone shops there only because you can buy anything from there. Wal-mart is a buyer's market, where buyers can buy things cheaply. It's not a place where miners and manufacturers can sell their goods at a fair price. If everyone stopped shopping at Wal-Mart, they would be out of business in a month. If a low-sec barrier made it more difficult to travel between Empires, everyone would dump their deadspace and faction mods in their local trade hubs instead of flying to Jita. Caldari would shop at Jita, Amarrians at Amarr, Minmatar from Rens, Gallente from Dodixie.

"And when you seperate the factions, it'll cost more and more just to buy a ship."

Really? Why?

Ships are made with blueprints, and can be made at any factory. The price of minerals mined in high sec wouldn't be affected by a low-sec barrier. The only reason to ship things to Jita is because things sell faster there, which means you have to trade in volume. The only reason things sell faster there is because everyone goes there instead of buying from their local market. The only reason things sell faster in Jita is because they are slightly cheaper. If it became more difficult to get to Jita, people would just start selling these things at the local market, which would become just as competitive as Jita.

"Most of the items you find in other trade hubs has usually been subsidized by people transporting items from Jita, bringing costs down."

Hmm, yeah. I would like to see some proof of this. Why would someone that makes ships in Penigram, with some 20 stations only a jump away from Amarr system, need to sell their Amarrian ships in Jita? How many Gallente faction war fighters do you think buy their ships and mods from Jita, or Minmatar for that matter?

"Secondly,
I have yet to see a valid arguement on why this SHOULD be done...
Yet you continue to say there is no argument as to why it shouldn't be done."

What are you considering as a valid argument?

I have suggested:

1) Realism
2) Immersion
3) Risk vs. Reward
4) Challenge
5) Relieving the lag on Jita's servers
6) Making low-sec matter
7) Making Faction war matter
8) Turning hauling into a career
9) Providing more lucrative opportunities for younger pilots
10) Increasing interest through more PvP
11) Increasing economic opportunities for traders, miners and manufacturers replacing ships lost in PvP
12) Developing regional trade hubs to become larger, more robust trade hubs.

None of these are valid reasons?

"If there's no valid arguement as to why yes, and no valid arguement as to why no.
Well, then it might as well stay the way it is now, as we already know it's working, so why take the risks to cut the factions if there's no valid reason why?"

I think that valid arguments have been proposed for both sides of the argument. Your argument seems to be "If it's not broke, don't fix it." The thing is, it only really works for people that think EVE is about being able to make a lot of money without taking risks. That's not what games are about. There needs to be some risks, and some rewards, in order to make it more challenging.

High sec doesn't seem to be 'broke', because the risk adverse are well sheltered there. There are no incentives to leave the shallow pond. No need to grow and evolve. No need to leave the comfort zone.

Low-sec is 'broke' because it is the worst of two worlds, it has none of the freedoms of null sec, but few of the protections of high sec. Faction war was meant to change that, but it never really did. The problem with Faction war is there are no consequences for your faction if your side is losing. CCP tried to fix that in the latest patch, but it only means FW corps can't dock in an enemy controlled system. For most Empire dwellers, Faction war is just a PVP arena, an optional football game with no consequence to the citizens of Empire.

However, if the prices of things went up in Amarr because the Minmatar militia choked off trade routes to Jita, now suddenly things matter. FW fighters matter. Industrialists who can fill demand matter. 'Blockade runners' become a ship whose purpose is now actually suited to their names. Those that fly those cloaky haulers become well paid heroes, like the Ice truckers that haul goods to remote Arctic locations along frozen rivers.

Also, if we try it and the result is a disaster, then CCP could revert to the current system just by loading a back-up. "Oops, the low-sec barrier around Empires people were wrong, this sucks, let's revert back to the old system." Then we will all know for sure.

Sorry if the war is inconvenient for you.

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#938 - 2013-09-29 07:14:34 UTC
SGT FUNYOUN wrote:
If CCP makes it so that we can use jump drives from High Sec to High Sec, THEN YES... but unless that...

NO.

Now REDUCING, the amount of high sec in between each empire so as to bottle-neck travelers along specific routes I can see maybe.

Increase the number of low sec and null sec systems between high sec empires would make it harder to move freight from point a to point b and make more pilots brave crossing the sec barrier to make transit times faster, without breaking the marketeering mechanic of the game.

But unless you leave at least ONE "safe" corridor between each empire...

no.


I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding you here, but you seem to be saying "If it makes things easier for me, then I agree with it. If it makes things harder for me, then no."

Jump drives from high sec to high sec? So in other words just make it easier and shorter for you to haul. Reducing the amount of high sec? So make the distance shorter for you. 'Without breaking the marketeering mechanic of the game?' So in other words, not making any ripples in your pond. Would you like us to roll the donuts into your mouth for you, too?

Look folks, separating the four Empires with low-sec doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly boycott their local Trade hubs. It means the market will have to readjust, and quite possibly Jita may no longer be the central super trade hub. This is essentially like a market bubble in the real world, eventually it pops. Some people might make money, some people might lose money, just like every patch speculation.

Yes, the object of a low-sec barrier is to make it slightly more challenging to haul things from one Empire to the next. The object of 'pushing yourself' in sports, or school, or anything is to make it slightly more challenging than before, so you can become better and achieve greater goals. You don't want to stay in Pee-wee League forever. Yes, in order to fly a cloaky hauler you will have to train Industrial to V, Transport ships to 1, and fit a covops cloaking device. You might have to train a scout alt. You might have to learn to align, and burn back to gate. So what? How long does it take to train a miner to refine and fly a Hulk? How long does it take to train a Trader? It used to take three or more days to train a hauler, now it takes three hours. Why shouldn't there be increasing levels of difficulty for something that could become an EVE career?

When you can do this, and traverse the low sec barrier, you can now charge a huge markup on the 'rare, exotic goods' that you brought back across the danger zone from far-away exotic Jita. If you want to play it completely safe, you can still fly your freighters full of goods to Level 4 mission hubs and haul ore within the confines of your Empire. The only reason prices would possibly go up is because the 'carebear' miners, traders and industrialists are charging more money and making more money. If ships become more expensive as a result, well then that just means there will be less pirates in fancy ships to gank your hauler. If you make your money running missions, it just means you will have to run a few more missions to buy that missioning ship you rarely lose anyways. Maybe even buy some ships and modules from the LP store, and re-sell them if you like.

A low-sec barrier around the Empires is not the automatic gank-fest for pirates that it sounds like. Low sec is huge, and there just aren't enough Pirates to fill each and every system. It's like a cat with a million mouse holes, or a whack-a-mole game the size of a city block. Cloaky ships are hard to spot and hard to catch. Opening up a map will tell you how many ships have been destroyed in what system in the last hour. Just avoid those systems. Not every low-sec system is an Insta-death gate camp like Amamake or Old Man Star. Hockey players still score goals, even with a skillful goalie on net. It's possible to get through a gate camp and live, with your ship and cargo intact.

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#939 - 2013-09-29 12:00:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Sera Kor-Azor wrote:


1) Realism
2) Immersion
3) Risk vs. Reward
4) Challenge
5) Relieving the lag on Jita's servers
6) Making low-sec matter
7) Making Faction war matter
8) Turning hauling into a career
9) Providing more lucrative opportunities for younger pilots
10) Increasing interest through more PvP
11) Increasing economic opportunities for traders, miners and manufacturers replacing ships lost in PvP
12) Developing regional trade hubs to become larger, more robust trade hubs.

None of these are valid reasons?


Sorry if the war is inconvenient for you.


1) not realism - this isn't RL and nothing in RL applies here.
2) emmersion for who? For you? All I see it as is an inconvenience to anyone who doesn't play your way.
3) what risk vs reward? There is no reward... Even if you are that hero jump freighter or blockade runner pilot, wtf is the point?
As you have stated, the players would just begin to flock to their local markets instead of Jita, so why would anyone do trans-regional shipping at all?
4) again, what challenge? The risk averse will stay risk averse
5) once you cut the high secs, all those people in Jita will still be in Jita... So how does this help again?
6) this does not make low sec matter, this makes jump freighters and t2 haulers matter.
7) this does not make factional warfare matter.. At best it gives them targets that aren't even factional warfare targets, yet they lose standing for hitting non-opposition.
8) hauling is already a career. There are character and even corps dedicated to hauling. However, much like mining, once you've gotten to a certain point, it's best a career done with an alt.
9) this does not provide more lucrative opportunities for new players. It does, however, enforce the elitists of the game that can already use t2 haulers, and thus increasing the SP and skill requirement to become an inter-regional trader.
10) if anything this would decrease interest through non-consentual pvp.
11) ok, assuming this makes the number of people dieing in low sec go up for some reason, then I'll give this one to you, but again, it's based solely on more people dieing, which probably won't happen.
12) I'll give you this one free and clear.. It would probably help all regional trade hubs out a bit, however, that doesn't make this a valid arguement.

Quote:
I think that valid arguments have been proposed for both sides of the argument. Your argument seems to be "If it's not broke, don't fix it." The thing is, it only really works for people that think EVE is about being able to make a lot of money without taking risks. That's not what games are about. There needs to be some risks, and some rewards, in order to make it more challenging.

Yes, that is my arguement, just like when any high sec player proposes a change to better high sec in some way, 90% of the thread will be filled with that very comment.
There are risks in high sec... You go fly from Jita to amarr or dodixie 100 times in a freighter full of goods and see if you don't get a little spooked from time to time, if not blown up.
Quote:
High sec doesn't seem to be 'broke', because the risk adverse are well sheltered there. There are no incentives to leave the shallow pond. No need to grow and evolve. No need to leave the comfort zone.

Low-sec is 'broke' because it is the worst of two worlds, it has none of the freedoms of null sec, but few of the protections of high sec. Faction war was meant to change that, but it never really did. The problem with Faction war is there are no consequences for your faction if your side is losing. CCP tried to fix that in the latest patch, but it only means FW corps can't dock in an enemy controlled system. For most Empire dwellers, Faction war is just a PVP arena, an optional football game with no consequence to the citizens of Empire.

We shouldn't be forced to leave high sec through needs, however the fact that there is no incentive to leave has a lot less to do with high sec, and a whole lot more to do with the rest of it.
Quote:
Also, if we try it and the result is a disaster, then CCP could revert to the current system just by loading a back-up. "Oops, the low-sec barrier around Empires people were wrong, this sucks, let's revert back to the old system." Then we will all know for sure.

Do you know how much coding and effort it would take for CCP to do this?
They would have to create new systems, with new gates and everything because it would not be fair to just turn a bunch of high sec systems into low sec.
The amount of effort required to put into this is insane, and that's just the effort required to know which way the damn gates should face.
So why the hell would CCP go through all that just for an idea that may or may not work and can be reverted later.
This isn't a damage bonus on a ship, it's a complete overhaul of the game pretty much.
Martin Lockheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#940 - 2013-09-29 18:25:37 UTC
So, I know I'm WAY down here at the bottom of the thread, and chances are no one will see this... but I fully support this idea.

The creator makes many excellent points, and the only counterarguments I'm seeing are "Well, I want it easy..." The problem with that mindset, of course, is that this is Eve.

I only read a couple of pages through the thread, so perhaps this point has been made already, but I would like to open up another benefit to this: These changes would open up the doorway to use wormholes to create trade routes.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and there isn't an incredibly viable market for this as it stands. Why go to the trouble of scanning down wormholes (or living in them) to find links to other high-sec. systems when you can just autopilot there? With low-sec. between the empires, wormholes would be a beautiful option for finding links between the regions.

I imagine explorers seeking out wormholes, finding the connections inside, looking for lucrative links to other high-sec. zones. Wormhole dwellers could become tradesmen, using high-sec. statics and normal connections to conduct inter-regional trade from their base. Other wormhole citizens could offer their services and escort people through their wormholes for various prices.

These are just a few thoughts I have on this, but I think the opportunity to use wormholes as a means for trade as a result of the low-sec. changes would be fantastic.