These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#941 - 2013-09-29 18:34:44 UTC
Martin Lockheart wrote:
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.



No, those that tried to transport through Wh space would actually be seeing less reward for higher risks than someone that just uses the mwd/cloak trick on a t1 indy...


Again, there is no incentive to take risks like this or crossing low sec if the payout isn't good enough...
Martin Lockheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#942 - 2013-09-29 18:58:37 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Martin Lockheart wrote:
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.



No, those that tried to transport through Wh space would actually be seeing less reward for higher risks than someone that just uses the mwd/cloak trick on a t1 indy...


Again, there is no incentive to take risks like this or crossing low sec if the payout isn't good enough...


With the separation of Empires by low-sec., empire-based markets will be created, resulting in great price fluctuations from one empire to another. In addition to space-specific items being valuable in other space, this would cause potential profits to be incredibly high. You assume that payout will not be good enough, but with the separation between empires as well as the effects of human nature, the payout will become good enough.

And again, depending on what was done and in what ships, the risk may not be terribly high. You get a scanning ship on the other side (which most people will do for low-sec. anyway if they're carrying anything of value) and you can get a good view of what's going on, which can easily result in having one potentially dangerous jump rather than many through low.

And again, you can have people living in the wormholes who do different things, as previously stated, etc., etc.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#943 - 2013-09-29 19:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Martin Lockheart wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Martin Lockheart wrote:
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.



No, those that tried to transport through Wh space would actually be seeing less reward for higher risks than someone that just uses the mwd/cloak trick on a t1 indy...


Again, there is no incentive to take risks like this or crossing low sec if the payout isn't good enough...


With the separation of Empires by low-sec., empire-based markets will be created, resulting in great price fluctuations from one empire to another. In addition to space-specific items being valuable in other space, this would cause potential profits to be incredibly high. You assume that payout will not be good enough, but with the separation between empires as well as the effects of human nature, the payout will become good enough.

And again, depending on what was done and in what ships, the risk may not be terribly high. You get a scanning ship on the other side (which most people will do for low-sec. anyway if they're carrying anything of value) and you can get a good view of what's going on, which can easily result in having one potentially dangerous jump rather than many through low.

And again, you can have people living in the wormholes who do different things, as previously stated, etc., etc.


pretty much the only thing that you can't get in every empire space is the different types of ice.



Edit...
Look, I personally believe it WOULD add an interest aspect to the game.
However, as interesting as it may be, I strongly feel it will hender the game more than it will help anything.
The best case scenario is that nothing changes and high sec players still don't go outside of high sec, and the players with jump frieghters and/or heavy corp/alliance support will be the only ones who make money off of this...

Sure, it's risk vs reward, but we don't need to go around creating higher risks for the sheer sake of creating higher reward.


This doesn't really give players a reason to be in low sec, but rather gives them a reason to train a JF or t2 indy to go through low sec.


The people who like this idea are digging too far into it and assuming the seperation of the factions with low sec will suddenly make low sec a so much better place and a part of the natural progression of things.

The problem is, things in Eve will remain the way they have always been, even after lvl 5's went to low sec... Thos that didn't go low, still won't go low, and those that used to take the risks of cross faction transport through high sec won't bother going into low sec... Why would they?
They can transport goods to the new regional trade hubs of their factional territory and still make a comperable profit of what they make now...
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#944 - 2013-09-29 19:30:08 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


pretty much the only thing that you can't get in every empire space is the different types of ice.


Small inequalities between production in different empires of different items that can be found everywhere will create exploitable price differences.

Not to mention that some minerals are less common than others in each empire, and there will be differences in the prices of all items due to this.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#945 - 2013-09-29 19:35:19 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


pretty much the only thing that you can't get in every empire space is the different types of ice.


Small inequalities between production in different empires of different items that can be found everywhere will create exploitable price differences.

Not to mention that some minerals are less common than others in each empire, and there will be differences in the prices of all items due to this.


/agreed

However, this is a bad thing...

The reason I say this is because CCP has already taken measures to make ships more costly to better fit their capabilities after rebalance... Just look at the costs of t1 bs's now...

Do you honestly think increased costs of ships will help bring more players into pvp?

If you think yes, you should probably get some sleep (not speaking to you directly)
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#946 - 2013-09-29 19:40:29 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


/agreed

However, this is a bad thing...

The reason I say this is because CCP has already taken measures to make ships more costly to better fit their capabilities after rebalance... Just look at the costs of t1 bs's now...

Do you honestly think increased costs of ships will help bring more players into pvp?

If you think yes, you should probably get some sleep (not speaking to you directly)


Wherever prices rise due to shortage prices will increase due to excess.

Also I really don't think the gaps will be big enough to really change anything.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#947 - 2013-09-29 19:42:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Commander Ted wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


/agreed

However, this is a bad thing...

The reason I say this is because CCP has already taken measures to make ships more costly to better fit their capabilities after rebalance... Just look at the costs of t1 bs's now...

Do you honestly think increased costs of ships will help bring more players into pvp?

If you think yes, you should probably get some sleep (not speaking to you directly)


Wherever prices rise due to shortage prices will increase due to excess.

Also I really don't think the gaps will be big enough to really change anything.


Then why do it?

This is one of several times I have heard this doesn't make much, if any difference...

So why do it if nothing will change?

Edit... again, this is only making the gap bigger for new players to get into the transport industry.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#948 - 2013-09-29 19:47:27 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


Then why do it?

This is one of several times I have heard this doesn't make much, if any difference...

So why do it if nothing will change?

Edit... again, this is only making the gap bigger for new players to get into the transport industry.


A two week old player in a badger could move across low sec with a scout, know how to scan a wormhole, or use a frigate to move modules.

Also things will change, prices gaps would increase, which means more money to be made, im not sure where the disconnect is in understanding this.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Liam Inkuras
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#949 - 2013-09-29 19:53:50 UTC
My third visit to this thread, glad to see its still going strong. Keep at it Ted!

I wear my goggles at night.

Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#950 - 2013-09-29 19:54:23 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


Then why do it?

This is one of several times I have heard this doesn't make much, if any difference...

So why do it if nothing will change?

Edit... again, this is only making the gap bigger for new players to get into the transport industry.


A two week old player in a badger could move across low sec with a scout, know how to scan a wormhole, or use a frigate to move modules.

Also things will change, prices gaps would increase, which means more money to be made, im not sure where the disconnect is in understanding this.



lol, you JUST said that it probably wouldn't make a difference, and now you're saying price gaps would increase, thus confirming what I stated a few minutes ago.

Prices will go up and players will be less likely to get involved in pvp...


I can tell you though, the disconnect isn't on this end...
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#951 - 2013-09-29 19:57:52 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


lol, you JUST said that it probably wouldn't make a difference, and now you're saying price gaps would increase, thus confirming what I stated a few minutes ago.

Prices will go up and players will be less likely to get involved in pvp...


I can tell you though, the disconnect isn't on this end...

A difference for who?

Price gaps increase, some things are cheaper and some things are more expensive, this is acceptable for consumers of ships.

Price gaps increase, therefore there are opportunities for traders to buy something in one spot where it is cheap and therefore better for the local consumers, and move it to somewhere it is more expensive, then to the exact opposite thing on the way back.

Im not sure how that could not be intuitive.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#952 - 2013-09-29 20:06:50 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:


lol, you JUST said that it probably wouldn't make a difference, and now you're saying price gaps would increase, thus confirming what I stated a few minutes ago.

Prices will go up and players will be less likely to get involved in pvp...


I can tell you though, the disconnect isn't on this end...

A difference for who?

Price gaps increase, some things are cheaper and some things are more expensive, this is acceptable for consumers of ships.

Price gaps increase, therefore there are opportunities for traders to buy something in one spot where it is cheap and therefore better for the local consumers, and move it to somewhere it is more expensive, then to the exact opposite thing on the way back.

Im not sure how that could not be intuitive.



oh well...
We can argue about this all day long, but the one thing I notice is that this has been a topic for years and CCP hasn't done so, and has actually done more to support cross-factional trade than to hender it...
Concord changes, removal of capitals from high sec and introduction of freighters, JF, and indy rebalance.
Not to mention the safety button, changes to the map to allow you to display systems by kill volume, avoidance list of auto-pilot, auto-pilot into stations, warp to 0 when not in auto-pilot.

Point is, they've done so many things to make trade life easier, why would they go and throw that all away for this?

People use the term "don't fix what isn't broken" because you're more likely to break something that wasn't broken before...
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#953 - 2013-09-29 22:35:35 UTC

1) not realism - this isn't RL and nothing in RL applies here.

It's true that EVE is not real life. That doesn't mean it shouldn't emulate real life models. The player-driven market system for example, or the lack of a race of green skinned bug-eyed monsters make EVE seem more realistic.

In the real world, the age of exploration was a few brave men and their crews risking their lives taking ships to unexplored regions in search of riches. Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus weren't passengers on a pleasure cruise sipping cocktails.

Have you heard of Joseph Campbell's Monomyth? Every story in the world starts off with the hero reluctant to leave his safe and comfortable home, until he receives the call to adventure and must face great danger. He meets the evil and struggles with it, and he is rewarded with great riches and/or magic. The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, it does not matter, they are all the same story with different scenery and characters. The problem with EVE is that Bilbo Baggins is still smoking his pipe in the shire, and Luke Skywalker is still helping his Uncle Owen on their moisture farm.

2) Immersion for who? For you? All I see it as is an inconvenience to anyone who doesn't play your way.

I'm a high sec industrialist and trader.

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?

There will always be some things that are only available in certain regions. Skillbooks or modules that drop from missions only available in one space for example, or tea and spices from China.

4) The risk adverse will stay risk adverse.

Just as most of the hobbits stayed in the comfort of the shire, but we aren't interested in hearing their stories.

5) once you cut the high secs, all those people in Jita will still be in Jita... So how does this help again?

You have yet to convince me of this.

6) this does not make low sec matter, this makes jump freighters and t2 haulers matter.

Yet the mere idea of a low sec barrier has you concerned. If low sec won't matter, then why be worried about it?

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.

You seem to think a Faction's militia would be attacking traders from their own faction. Why?

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.

Hauling alt =/= Hauling as a career. Mining is dull, but it takes years to train for. Why shouldn't hauling and trading be more challenging and exciting?

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.

Those that can fly T2 haulers are hardly 'elitists'. It takes a few weeks to train, and costs much less than a freighter.

10) if anything this would decrease interest through non-consentual pvp.

As I stated, when you undock even in high sec, you are agreeing to non-consentual PVP. No one is forcing you to do inter-regional hauling. No one is forcing you to fly through a system without checking the map first.

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.

So why the concern?

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.

You say you agree with my statement, but that doesn't mean it's a valid argument. Can you clarify why not?

"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."

So how does high sec protect you? Why even call it high sec?

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.

Yeah, I guess life isn't fair and neither is EVE.

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.

For the same reason Bilbo Baggins left the shire and Luke Skywalker started training as a Jedi I suppose. The story doesn't really go anywhere without the 'call to adventure'.

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#954 - 2013-09-29 23:04:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Sera Kor-Azor wrote:

1) not realism - this isn't RL and nothing in RL applies here.

It's true that EVE is not real life. That doesn't mean it shouldn't emulate real life models. The player-driven market system for example, or the lack of a race of green skinned bug-eyed monsters make EVE seem more realistic.

In the real world, the age of exploration was a few brave men and their crews risking their lives taking ships to unexplored regions in search of riches. Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus weren't passengers on a pleasure cruise sipping cocktails.

Have you heard of Joseph Campbell's Monomyth? Every story in the world starts off with the hero reluctant to leave his safe and comfortable home, until he receives the call to adventure and must face great danger. He meets the evil and struggles with it, and he is rewarded with great riches and/or magic. The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, it does not matter, they are all the same story with different scenery and characters. The problem with EVE is that Bilbo Baggins is still smoking his pipe in the shire, and Luke Skywalker is still helping his Uncle Owen on their moisture farm.

2) Immersion for who? For you? All I see it as is an inconvenience to anyone who doesn't play your way.

I'm a high sec industrialist and trader.

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?

There will always be some things that are only available in certain regions. Skillbooks or modules that drop from missions only available in one space for example, or tea and spices from China.

4) The risk adverse will stay risk adverse.

Just as most of the hobbits stayed in the comfort of the shire, but we aren't interested in hearing their stories.

5) once you cut the high secs, all those people in Jita will still be in Jita... So how does this help again?

You have yet to convince me of this.

6) this does not make low sec matter, this makes jump freighters and t2 haulers matter.

Yet the mere idea of a low sec barrier has you concerned. If low sec won't matter, then why be worried about it?

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.

You seem to think a Faction's militia would be attacking traders from their own faction. Why?

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.

Hauling alt =/= Hauling as a career. Mining is dull, but it takes years to train for. Why shouldn't hauling and trading be more challenging and exciting?

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.

Those that can fly T2 haulers are hardly 'elitists'. It takes a few weeks to train, and costs much less than a freighter.

10) if anything this would decrease interest through non-consentual pvp.

As I stated, when you undock even in high sec, you are agreeing to non-consentual PVP. No one is forcing you to do inter-regional hauling. No one is forcing you to fly through a system without checking the map first.

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.

So why the concern?

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.

You say you agree with my statement, but that doesn't mean it's a valid argument. Can you clarify why not?

"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."

So how does high sec protect you? Why even call it high sec?

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.

Yeah, I guess life isn't fair and neither is EVE.

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.

For the same reason Bilbo Baggins left the shire and Luke Skywalker started training as a Jedi I suppose. The story doesn't really go anywhere without the 'call to adventure'.


Again, nothing you have said suggest why it SHOULD be changed..
I may not have presented a reason why it shouldn't be done, but the. Again, this is like a court.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Right now it's already one way, and it's up to you to present an unquestionable reason why it should change.
All I need is plausible deniability.
So basically, I can simply say that is not a valid reason why it should change...

Find me hard proof of why it should change...

The burden is on you.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#955 - 2013-09-29 23:47:58 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Also things will change, prices gaps would increase, which means more money to be made, im not sure where the disconnect is in understanding this.


You are hoping that the price gaps will encourage traders to cross lowsec boundaries, rather than encouraging manufacturers to fill the demand by simply supplying those items from local manufacturing.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#956 - 2013-09-29 23:53:16 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:



oh well...
We can argue about this all day long, but the one thing I notice is that this has been a topic for years and CCP hasn't done so, and has actually done more to support cross-factional trade than to hender it...
Concord changes, removal of capitals from high sec and introduction of freighters, JF, and indy rebalance.
Not to mention the safety button, changes to the map to allow you to display systems by kill volume, avoidance list of auto-pilot, auto-pilot into stations, warp to 0 when not in auto-pilot.

Point is, they've done so many things to make trade life easier, why would they go and throw that all away for this?

People use the term "don't fix what isn't broken" because you're more likely to break something that wasn't broken before...


Ever notice how they don't put seat belts or airbags on a golf cart?

It's true that CCP has added many features to make cross-factional trade, and flying in general safer. However, what is the use of having these safety features if there isn't an element of danger to begin with? What is the point of having medical clones or ship insurance, if the intention is to be able to travel in complete safety through High-sec at all times? Why not just make it illegal to sell weapons or ammunition in high sec, or remove the ability to declare wars?

I think reading into what CCPs intention probably was behind their safety features is an 'appeal to authority' argument. It's obvious that they need a safe 'newbie zone' so the newer players don't get ravaged by the older players. They have done a lot to ensure that the newer players are reasonably safe, have room to grow, and have a large area to explore and do missions in.

The problem....as I see it....comes from the gap between the safe zone and the adventure zone. There is not enough incentive to ever leave the sheltered area of home. It's like Smaug's treasure horde, with no dragon, or like Star Wars with no evil empire.

Null sec was meant to be that adventurous danger zone, but once a null sec system gets settled it becomes like a player run high sec. Low sec was the next 'danger zone', but it became more like a sparsely populated thunderdome sort of arena that could easily be avoided. The only incentive to go to low sec currently is to seek out PvP.

With all the safety features now available to you, the only excuse you have for losing a ship is human error. You can check the map ahead of time to see how many ships are lost. If you try to jump into low-sec, you will get a warning. So where is the incentive to leave the comfort of home? Why not tell Gandalf the Wizard to stuff it, and throw his own damn ring into Sauron's pit? "Don't go to Mordor, there's shadow riders out there! Leave that stuff to big men with swords! Why should I leave the safety of the shire?"

If there was a low-sec barrier around each empire, you will still have that big pond for the little minnows to keep safe in. The only difference is that when you become a bigger fish, you will want to move into the deeper waters with all the other big fish. It's true that the deeper waters are more dangerous, but you can't stay in the safe and shallow waters forever. A bigger fish has a bigger appetite, and it can only find the food it needs in the deeper waters. Mama bird will kick you out of the nest, and so on.

As I said, a barrier of low sec around the Empires reflects the way things are in real life. Christopher Columbus was safer in Spain, Leif the Lucky was safer in Norway, both of these men went into the dangerous ocean in search of riches. Even today, there are low-security areas of the city and high-security areas. You may not choose to live in the low-sec areas, but that's where all the stories on Detective shows happen. If everything is peace and harmony all the time, there is no story, there is no adventure.

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#957 - 2013-09-30 00:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sera Kor-Azor
Joe Risalo wrote:


Again, nothing you have said suggest why it SHOULD be changed..
I may not have presented a reason why it shouldn't be done, but the. Again, this is like a court.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Right now it's already one way, and it's up to you to present an unquestionable reason why it should change.
All I need is plausible deniability.
So basically, I can confuse to say that is not a valid reason why it should change...

Find me hard proof of why it should change...

The burden is on you.


This is the reason,

The low sec barrier fulfils the 'Call to adventure' part of Joseph Campbell's heroic cycle:

"For the same reason Bilbo Baggins left the shire and Luke Skywalker started training as a Jedi I suppose. The story doesn't really go anywhere without the danger element."

That's the reason. Joseph Campbell. The Heroic cycle. Look it up.

Additionally:

-Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
-No one would really care if Christopher Columbus took a mule cart to Madrid.
-It's only a game if there are obstacles to overcome, risks to balance rewards.
-The first objective of nations at war is to choke off trade routes of the enemy.

I've mentioned these before. The 'hard proof' exists in examples from each of our own lives, as well as all of human nature, human history, biology, evolution, sociology, literary fiction, popular fiction and mythology.

You want hard proof? An axiom is an indisputable fact. 'Water is wet' is axiomatic.

Here is another pair of Axioms:

"You don't get better at something until things get harder and you adapt."

Also:

"You don't appreciate something that took no effort for you to get."

Unless you can disprove these two axioms, would you consider that a low-sec barrier around the Empires would make trans-Factional trade more or less challenging? Require more or less skill? Require more or less effort? Add more or less interest?

I feel as though I have proven my point. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove yours.

There's also the inflationary ISK problem. High sec traders, industrialists, miners and missioners keep making ISK with very little risk to themselves. The ISK from missions isn't tied to anything, it's doled out by NPCs and will never dry up. Mission runners seldom lose their ships, so they don't contribute to the market the way that PvP players do. The PvP players lose a lot of ships, which is the basis of the EVE economy, but there aren't as many ways for the PvP pilots to earn their money.

So, reason two: Game balance.

You have to balance the ISK sinks with the ISK faucets.

I really think you are deliberately ignoring all of the things I have presented, dismissing them as valid reasons. Just saying 'but I don't like them' isn't really a rebuttal, it's more like a complaint. King George and King Louis didn't like the revolution either, but they happened anyways.

It's not about you individually, or the trans-faction haulers, or the low-sec Pirates. It's about game balance. It's about making EVE a richer environment for the EVE community as a whole, not saying "But I make a lot of pretend space money for zero risk, so don't change it, I like it the way it is."

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#958 - 2013-09-30 01:04:20 UTC
Sera Kor-Azor wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:



oh well...
We can argue about this all day long, but the one thing I notice is that this has been a topic for years and CCP hasn't done so, and has actually done more to support cross-factional trade than to hender it...
Concord changes, removal of capitals from high sec and introduction of freighters, JF, and indy rebalance.
Not to mention the safety button, changes to the map to allow you to display systems by kill volume, avoidance list of auto-pilot, auto-pilot into stations, warp to 0 when not in auto-pilot.

Point is, they've done so many things to make trade life easier, why would they go and throw that all away for this?

People use the term "don't fix what isn't broken" because you're more likely to break something that wasn't broken before...


Ever notice how they don't put seat belts or airbags on a golf cart?

It's true that CCP has added many features to make cross-factional trade, and flying in general safer. However, what is the use of having these safety features if there isn't an element of danger to begin with? What is the point of having medical clones or ship insurance, if the intention is to be able to travel in complete safety through High-sec at all times? Why not just make it illegal to sell weapons or ammunition in high sec, or remove the ability to declare wars?

I think reading into what CCPs intention probably was behind their safety features is an 'appeal to authority' argument. It's obvious that they need a safe 'newbie zone' so the newer players don't get ravaged by the older players. They have done a lot to ensure that the newer players are reasonably safe, have room to grow, and have a large area to explore and do missions in.

The problem....as I see it....comes from the gap between the safe zone and the adventure zone. There is not enough incentive to ever leave the sheltered area of home. It's like Smaug's treasure horde, with no dragon, or like Star Wars with no evil empire.

Null sec was meant to be that adventurous danger zone, but once a null sec system gets settled it becomes like a player run high sec. Low sec was the next 'danger zone', but it became more like a sparsely populated thunderdome sort of arena that could easily be avoided. The only incentive to go to low sec currently is to seek out PvP.

With all the safety features now available to you, the only excuse you have for losing a ship is human error. You can check the map ahead of time to see how many ships are lost. If you try to jump into low-sec, you will get a warning. So where is the incentive to leave the comfort of home? Why not tell Gandalf the Wizard to stuff it, and throw his own damn ring into Sauron's pit? "Don't go to Mordor, there's shadow riders out there! Leave that stuff to big men with swords! Why should I leave the safety of the shire?"

If there was a low-sec barrier around each empire, you will still have that big pond for the little minnows to keep safe in. The only difference is that when you become a bigger fish, you will want to move into the deeper waters with all the other big fish. It's true that the deeper waters are more dangerous, but you can't stay in the safe and shallow waters forever. A bigger fish has a bigger appetite, and it can only find the food it needs in the deeper waters. Mama bird will kick you out of the nest, and so on.



Wait wait wait.... I'm going to quote you real quick on another comment you made....


Quote:
2) Immersion for who? For you? All I see it as is an inconvenience to anyone who doesn't play your way.
I'm a high sec industrialist and trader.


That is a direct quote for the comment you made just 2-3 comments above this one...
Soo, which is it???
Are you a little fish that has yet to move out of the pond into open waters?
Or do you take advantage of the safety and security that high sec provides?

Ya know, for a high sec industrialist and trader, you sure sound like a low/null fight pusher....

Quote:
As I said, a barrier of low sec around the Empires reflects the way things are in real life. Christopher Columbus was safer in Spain, Leif the Lucky was safer in Norway, both of these men went into the dangerous ocean in search of riches. Even today, there are low-security areas of the city and high-security areas. You may not choose to live in the low-sec areas, but that's where all the stories on Detective shows happen. If everything is peace and harmony all the time, there is no story, there is no adventure.


Hurray for real life!!!!
Here's the problem....
In real life we don't have spaceships that do universal space travel.
in real life we don't have a massive populous of people spread across the universe.
in real life we don't have people that are basically immortal.
and most importantly, in real life we don't have jump gates to bridge civilization together in the blink of an Eye.

I can tell you though, if we did have jump gates, odds are there would not be a boundry between one gate and another.
All traffic would funnel through that gate.

The point behind a demilitarized zone is to create a buffer so that you have time to respond to a threat and/or dispatch any possible threat before it's too late.

If everything at a demilitarized zone were forced to funnel through a very narrow channel in order to cross (I.E. a jump gate), then odds are there wouldn't be a demilitarized zone, but instead an engagement zone where once something crosses this line, you kill it.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#959 - 2013-09-30 01:24:00 UTC
Sera Kor-Azor wrote:

You want hard proof? An axiom is an indisputable fact. 'Water is wet' is axiomatic.

Here is another pair of Axioms:

"You don't get better at something until things get harder and you adapt."

Also:

"You don't appreciate something that took no effort for you to get."

Unless you can disprove these two axioms, would you consider that a low-sec barrier around the Empires would make trans-Factional trade more or less challenging? Require more or less skill? Require more or less effort? Add more or less interest?

I feel as though I have proven my point. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove yours.


Lol, you missed the point where I said things are already the way I want them.. So, if you want them to change, YOU have the burden of proof...
All I need is pausible deniability.

Also, an Axiom would say that something is true without question.
So,

"water is wet"
is an axiom.

"You don't get better at something until things get harder and you adapt."
This is not true.
I can be given all the information I will ever need for my job and it will make things easy.
However, as I apply that knowledge and memorize everything, I am getting better at my job.
That said, things haven't gotten harder, only require a different solution, which i have at my fingertips.

"You don't appreciate something that took no effort for you to get."
Uhh, I beg to differ.
If i walked in and bought a ticket for tonight's powerball and won... I would have put no effort into that, and I would be very appreciative of it.


Quote:
There's also the inflationary ISK problem. High sec traders, industrialists, miners and missioners keep making ISK with very little risk to themselves. The ISK from missions isn't tied to anything, it's doled out by NPCs and will never dry up. Mission runners seldom lose their ships, so they don't contribute to the market the way that PvP players do. The PvP players lose a lot of ships, which is the basis of the EVE economy, but there aren't as many ways for the PvP pilots to earn their money.


Ahh, I see now... You sit in high sec and produce ships and/or trade goods for ship production, so you stand to profit from seperation.
It all makes sense to me now.

Quote:
So, reason two: Game balance.

You have to balance the ISK sinks with the ISK faucets.

I really think you are deliberately ignoring all of the things I have presented, dismissing them as valid reasons. Just saying 'but I don't like them' isn't really a rebuttal, it's more like a complaint. King George and King Louis didn't like the revolution either, but they happened anyways.

It's not about you individually, or the trans-faction haulers, or the low-sec Pirates. It's about game balance. It's about making EVE a richer environment for the EVE community as a whole, not saying "But I make a lot of pretend space money for zero risk, so don't change it, I like it the way it is."

lol, no it's not about that either...
It's about what you, an industrialist, stand to profit off of the seperation.

You know damn good and well that the seperation would drive up regional prices, and you having the skills and probably a jump freighter to counter the effects of the split.

also, what you seem to fail to realize is that splitting the regions does not create more isk faucets.. It simply increases the amount of isk changing hands.

And while we're talking, can you stop throwing out a bunch of crap about movies and unrelated IRL history that pertains nothing to assist your cause?
Really all it does is force me to have to read through a bunch of garbage to get to the garbage that is on topic.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#960 - 2013-09-30 02:14:33 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

You are hoping that the price gaps will encourage traders to cross lowsec boundaries, rather than encouraging manufacturers to fill the demand by simply supplying those items from local manufacturing.



Yea that will happen, but either way the market will be more vulnerable to fluctuations that allow trade because it isn't super centralized.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.