Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Apparently not, or the select very few wouldn't have to keep bumping the thread....
(Still not convinced they're not all the same person)

Exactly

I would agree with low and even null bordering the enemy empires, but having low sec separating caldari and amarr for example has no reason. Minmatar and Ammatar should have, but not Amarr and Ammatar.

But all of this would make no sense at all if the present state of crime, penalties and concord action remains the lazy work it is.

The sense a true section of the empire alliances would work for its possible reasons only if such empires had engaged in full war. If there is trade from NPC corporations among empires, enemy corps operating in enemy space (like pend in amarr space), there is no reason to have such thing aswell.

Empires grudges (cant be called war) is something very little loved by CCP it seems. Things in that front had not change from a long time, and it seems not likely that they will change soon.

But again, with the kind of players that dominates the online time of hisec, there is no reason to look into this matters aswell.

This should happen.
It could be implemented with FW events which would gradually change the controlled territories and maybe even destroy some star gates.

I have 188 characters to like this thread.

I also was posting under 20 different personas on the forums.

this shouldnt happen.

low/null are already rather unpopulated except for the choak points and stating areas.. all you would be doign is creating more choak points and more low/nulls which wouldnt get attention

I can get on board with this, with a few stipulations:


There needs to be tax on racial goods for empire stations. Pirate goods should be taxed more heavily in empire than lowsec. Hybrids should be taxed more heavily in Amarr/Rens than in Gallente/Caldari space. Shield tank modules should be taxed in amarr/gallente space; AND racial stations should give production bonuses to their racial mods, so it's cheaper to produce gallente things in gallente space, and caldari things in caldari space.

I would like there to be incentive for the minor hubs to be better than Jita for non-caldari items; but the players won't do that on their own.

I'd like a universe where you want to go buy a ship, you have to ask "which hub do I go to to get it cheapest" instead of "oh, I'm going to jita..."


---

Second, there should be ONE highsec route around the 4 empires, but it should be the absolute longest way imaginable. All trade hubs should be at least 20 jumps from each other through highsec.

There should be ONE, ridiculously short, optimal route, which links each hub together within ~7 jumps, 3 of which are lowsec.
There should be TWO alternative routes, which makes the trek from hub to hub about 10 jumps, which has 2 distinct lowsec jumps.
There should be TWO additional alternative routes, which makes the trek about 13-15 jumps, and has only 1 lowsec jump.

The ability to chose an alternate route and the unlikelyhood of all 5 routes being camped would give players incentive to use these routes. Not with freighters, mind you, but maybe battleships, cruisers, things they don't want to burn 20+ jumps in to buy a module 10-15% cheaper.

yes, but nowadays eve population is 4 times larger... no way to have that traffic only trough single lines on low sec. The whoel network would need to be revamped to have at LEAST 3 routes always...

Make this so CCP.

I think.. another way .. but less enforceful woudl be.


Add a TAX based on the ship mass to jump between regions.. except when in low sec... suddenly there is a reason to try to do it.

As long as the tax is enough.