Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I still very much support this idea. I strongly believe that long hisec routes between regions combined with short "smuggler" routes will be good for the eve economy and increase the number of meaningful choices available to all pilots.

Make it happen.

The reason high sec needs to be kept the way it is...You will lose the majority of your player base if you radically change it.

I find this idea mesmerizingly attractive. +1

This idea is good for the game!

Why stop there? Why not have the same RNG randomly kill of people every day due to "pod life support failure". That would make the game much more interesting .

Why not have ships randomly explode because of power systems failure? Why not make ships cost money to maintain and if you skimp it explodes even more!!

That'd make eve so interesting!!

Not everyone, of course, no, but the concentration of players in Caldari space would greatly increase -- players would not be evenly spread, or even close. You'd have some players mining ice or what have you and using JFs to get them to the big market, but otherwise most people would be running missions in Caldari space and using the big, deep market there to make money -- as is the case today. This would amplify the concentration, not diminish it.

As I said in the other thread, I don't care much about this proposal one way or the other, other than I think it will increase concentration in the Forge -- which, if the servers can handle it, isn't really a big deal anyway. I don't think the number of targets for lowsec hunters would go up much more than marginally, and a lot of the other three empires would be even less populated than they are now. Not really a big deal, though, I think, because things are already fairly concentrated as they are.

Seriously what part of having four continent of highsec instead of one large continent of highsec you guys do not understand?

There are highsec pockets out there and yes, there are mission runners inside them and they are happy.

Just break the empire space into four continents! It would not harm mission runners at all.

This is a thoughtful post, which shows a good deal of insight and I want to reply to it thoughtfully.

The existing pressure on Jita must have come about in part I think due to the traditional favouring of caldari ships in PVE. Caldari Navy Invulnerability fields, ballistic control systems and missiles have always been in high demand so it made sense for many people to mision for caldari close to a convenient market for these goods. This is of course how all trade hubs emerge, even in the real world.

It is not so true today that caldari ships are far and away the best ships for pve and it seems reasonable to me that demand pressure for them and their fittings must have eased a little.

But your post hints at something else. Caldari Navy goods are still largely the best available from a navy store, certainly for shield fitted ships. The Amarr navy also has desirable items, such as invulnerability fields and armour repairers but these do not confer anywhere near the advantage of the CNIF.

Gallente and Minmatar (fitting) gear is lacklustre in comparison, and it is no surprise that their trade hubs are less populated and liquid.

Separating trade areas would actually in my view, give a more clear picture of which faction's gear was more desirable since as you rightly point out, trade would gravitate to convenient hubs near the good loot.

This is actually a good thing from a game design perspective since it gives good and clear information as to which faction's loot is under-performing and should therefore arguably be redesigned.

With this in mind, I now support the idea of separation even more. I still believe there should be long hisec routes between faction areas but the quick routes should be lowsec, or for the very quickest even nullsec.

Not the point. The point is that at the moment, the shortest route beiween regional trtade hubs is via hisec. There is no decision to make. CCP believe that the necessity of making tradeoffs results in interesting and emergent gameplay. The OP and I agree.



1. Please define Chaos. Also, there is a hidden premise here. The OP is asking for players to have to make tradeoffs in route selection. He's not requesting 'chaos'.

2. This is an assertion. I challenge you to provide evidence of this claim.


If they choose to allocate resources to it, as I would sincerely hope they will, then the resources will be there.

We're talking about re-routing a map during downtime and maybe, at player request, moving some assets via a database update script. It's quite trivial actually once you have designed the new map.



Do you really think that this is under way? Please provide evidence of this position.


[/quote]

As stated above, the OP is simply stating that it's a good idea that players moving between trade areas be pushed to make a decision.

For example, I am not a lowsec pirate. I sometimes go out to fight them, and I sometimes move ships through hisec.

I *want* the choice to shorten my journey by going through lawless space or the take a longer, safer route.

At the moment I don't have that choice. The shortest routes are also the safest. It's ridiculous.