These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1281 - 2014-03-05 00:01:49 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are not going to convince these lazy ambush predators that what they want will not have the results they wish for. All they want is more meat delivered effortlessly to their own table, and it tastes better if it comes from someone else's plate.


I am not a ganker or camper. I'm a null sec miner. I am very in favor of this idea for many reasons, gate camps are not my goal but they are an intrinsic part of eve online itself. This change doesn't "effortlessly deliver more meat to the table" of gate campers. People still have to choose to go into low sec.

You guys picture a bulldozer pushing carebears into the pit of low sec. But that's not accurate. You still have to take the plunge on your own. NOBODY IS BEING FORCED INTO LOW SEC. HIGH SEC WILL STILL EXIST IN HUGE SWATHS.

Rivr Luzade wrote:

They are in more danger because of certain camps. Roll In high sec you only have to worry about gank squads, in low sec systems you have a plethora of other things to worry about.

You do realize the picture you posted is in Null sec right?

Mike Voidstar wrote:

Large alliances have already proven they can and will **** the market if it suits their purpose. Suddenly giving them the ability to cheaply stop inter-empire trade is unlikely to go unexploited. They do it now to a smaller extent, but if all trade must conveinently travel through weapons-free space or get lucky with wormholes they will control all of those market disparities.

It would not be possible for any group of any size to completely stop inter-empire trade. The amount of people it would take would be... well... hard to even imagine much less the amount of discipline. And even beyond that, if you do manage to have assets on every possible route between empires then your forces would be divided into so many small units that they'd be susceptible to smaller groups over taking them. And then with all of that, what about their sov space? What if someone attacks that? Who's going to defend it?

Shutting down trade on a major scale take too much effort. The Ice interdiction worked because of the very limited ice fields and they limited that even further by targeting the ice of one empire. Anyone who had access to that type of ice got rich pretty quick because of the barrier to mine ice. With this idea there will be forever barriers between the different types of ice and empires. And it will always have a certain amount of profitability to move it across the lowsec barrier. Sorry if thats annoying with your arbitrary mission location changes.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#1282 - 2014-03-05 00:34:00 UTC
Quote:
You guys picture a bulldozer pushing carebears into the pit of low sec. But that's not accurate. You still have to take the plunge on your own. NOBODY IS BEING FORCED INTO LOW SEC. HIGH SEC WILL STILL EXIST IN HUGE SWATHS


The entire, clearly stated, goal of this change is to get people into low sec via market pressure. It seeks to reduce the ability of people to move goods from one empire to another without crossing through low sec systems. It wants to take an ability people have currently, so that they will have no other useful choice but to cross into the cross hairs of gate campers.

In other words it intends to use market forces to get people into low sec. You know... force them. As if with a bulldozer made of reduced profits.

It wants to take away some kid's shovel that he plays in the sandbox with and either leave him just using his hands or begging to use someone else's shovel.

Quote:
It would not be possible for any group of any size to completely stop inter-empire trade. The amount of people it would take would be... well... hard to even imagine much less the amount of discipline. And even beyond that, if you do manage to have assets on every possible route between empires then your forces would be divided into so many small units that they'd be susceptible to smaller groups over taking them. And then with all of that, what about their sov space? What if someone attacks that? Who's going to defend it?

Shutting down trade on a major scale take too much effort. The Ice interdiction worked because of the very limited ice fields and they limited that even further by targeting the ice of one empire. Anyone who had access to that type of ice got rich pretty quick because of the barrier to mine ice. With this idea there will be forever barriers between the different types of ice and empires. And it will always have a certain amount of profitability to move it across the lowsec barrier. Sorry if thats annoying with your arbitrary mission location changes.


Sure it could be done. Nothing stops them from setting up Cyno ships to get back to their jump gate networks on a moments notice. They don't have to catch every ship to effectively stop trade. It would not take long before you had to arrange transport with them to move goods with a tax, and the more that knuckle under makes anyone not on the list easier to find and stop. CFC have how many thousands of people? The only people that would be able to challenge them would be another huge alliance, and they would probably welcome the distraction.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1283 - 2014-03-05 01:14:17 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Sure it could be done. Nothing stops them from setting up Cyno ships to get back to their jump gate networks on a moments notice. .



You do understand that jump drives have a limited range? Furthermore the shortest ranges are black ops and titans, and the portals for both is a mere 10LY that isn't far enough to cross a few regional gates. Much less jump from nullsec to high sec border areas.

....and you CAN'T INSTALL A JUMP BRIDGE OUTISIDE OF SOV SPACE.

You feel free to opine on matter that you obviously have not the faintest clue of how they work.
JetStream Drenard
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#1284 - 2014-03-05 01:21:57 UTC  |  Edited by: JetStream Drenard
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The entire, clearly stated, goal of this change is to get people into low sec via market pressure. It seeks to reduce the ability of people to move goods from one empire to another without crossing through low sec systems. It wants to take an ability people have currently, so that they will have no other useful choice but to cross into the cross hairs of gate campers.

In other words it intends to use market forces to get people into low sec. You know... force them. As if with a bulldozer made of reduced profits.

It wants to take away some kid's shovel that he plays in the sandbox with and either leave him just using his hands or begging to use someone else's shovel..

Nah. Your local market is a perfectly good place to buy and sell. And no amount of 'market pressure' is going to force you to go to Jita. In fact, why would you risk it without a damb good reason and the proper ships to make it happen? This would effect me negatively as well as I routinely travel 20 jumps between various systems. I still want it. Make the game harder. Make more consequences.


Mike Voidstar wrote:
Sure it could be done. Nothing stops them from setting up Cyno ships to get back to their jump gate networks on a moments notice. They don't have to catch every ship to effectively stop trade. It would not take long before you had to arrange transport with them to move goods with a tax, and the more that knuckle under makes anyone not on the list easier to find and stop. CFC have how many thousands of people? The only people that would be able to challenge them would be another huge alliance, and they would probably welcome the distraction.

a cyno alt tools around in noob ship. finds 'safe n quiet' system one off high sec and cyno up! Freigher out! This is how they already operate, i doubt they would even notice.. not that complicated. And this idea would have to come with improvements (buff) to blockade runners which is just **** now.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1285 - 2014-03-05 01:33:41 UTC
JetStream Drenard wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The entire, clearly stated, goal of this change is to get people into low sec via market pressure. It seeks to reduce the ability of people to move goods from one empire to another without crossing through low sec systems. It wants to take an ability people have currently, so that they will have no other useful choice but to cross into the cross hairs of gate campers.

In other words it intends to use market forces to get people into low sec. You know... force them. As if with a bulldozer made of reduced profits.

It wants to take away some kid's shovel that he plays in the sandbox with and either leave him just using his hands or begging to use someone else's shovel..

Nah. Your local market is a perfectly good place to buy and sell. And no amount of 'market pressure' is going to force you to go to Jita. In fact, why would you risk it without a damb good reason and the proper ships to make it happen? This would effect me negatively as well as I routinely travel 20 jumps between various systems. I still want it. Make the game harder. Make more consequences.


Mike Voidstar wrote:
Sure it could be done. Nothing stops them from setting up Cyno ships to get back to their jump gate networks on a moments notice. They don't have to catch every ship to effectively stop trade. It would not take long before you had to arrange transport with them to move goods with a tax, and the more that knuckle under makes anyone not on the list easier to find and stop. CFC have how many thousands of people? The only people that would be able to challenge them would be another huge alliance, and they would probably welcome the distraction.

a cyno alt tools around in noob ship. finds 'safe n quiet' system one off high sec and cyno up! Freigher out! This is how they already operate, i doubt they would even notice.. not that complicated. And this idea would have to come with improvements (buff) to blockade runners which is just **** now.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I would think greater JF dependance would be a bad thing. Nor do I think cloaky hauler's and JF's should be the only viable means of routinely transporting goods between empires.

And really, what makes local markets competitive now is the ease of both sellers and buyers to move between markets at will. I've gone 20 jumps to Jita to buy a kronos because of the 150mill isk difference in price between there and Dodixie. Shortly thereafter the difference was halved. Both my actions and the actions of those who either lowered prices after they didn't sell or imported from elsewhere to sell at higher margins helped equalize markets.

This will create stagnation as any restriction on free movement always does, and it will centralize trade even further as a far fewer number of individuals will be able to spread goods and decentralize it.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1286 - 2014-03-05 01:38:52 UTC
If the history of the world tells us anything, it is that people will find a way to trade and prosper no matter what the prevailing conditions.

When I was a kid, there was an active trade in getting Levi jeans into Moscow from the West, despite there being a damn great wall in the way. The politics of the day disallowed it. People traded Levis anyway - despite the strong disincentives.

If you put some lowsec in between the empires, trade will be disrupted for a few weeks until people learn the ropes.

That's how the world really works.

It's also true that in general, people who are comfortably off fear change.

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".
JetStream Drenard
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#1287 - 2014-03-05 01:59:38 UTC
Really the ONLY thing this game has going for it as apposed to other MMO's is the challenge. But it is not challenging enough, still very little thought involved for too many people. In fact, if I believe half of what I have heard and read, this game used to be a whole lot more challenging. But the more 'player friendly' you make the game the more of a decaying circle of **** all it becomes. Just like too many other games. I want you and me to have the knowledge and dedication of a real world military professional. I dont see 'casual play' as a valid reason for stupefying the game any further. Their are hundreds of casual games out there. But only one Eve!

I say it is time for more people to stand up and say, "CCP please make this game more challenging, more difficult, and take us back to your HTFU family values. Please continue to differentiate this game from all the other easy games once again. CCP, I know that we are asking a lot and we know we are asking you to loose some subscriptions, but we ask in good faith. We promise to kill all the things and put Eve on the front page news as often as we can. We want risk, effort and intensity to be the number one driving religion of Eve. We ask you to make it happen. Thank you!"
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#1288 - 2014-03-05 02:42:27 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Sure it could be done. Nothing stops them from setting up Cyno ships to get back to their jump gate networks on a moments notice. .



You do understand that jump drives have a limited range? Furthermore the shortest ranges are black ops and titans, and the portals for both is a mere 10LY that isn't far enough to cross a few regional gates. Much less jump from nullsec to high sec border areas.

....and you CAN'T INSTALL A JUMP BRIDGE OUTISIDE OF SOV SPACE.

You feel free to opine on matter that you obviously have not the faintest clue of how they work.



I am perfectly aware of how they work.

Nothing stops them from setting up cyno ships in a chain to get them back into systems with their own jump networks. If they decided they wanted to, they could do it with ease. it would be a massive undertaking, but that's kinda what those guys do. If they found it to be worth their while, and for a few establishing an iron grip on all trade would indeed be worth it, they could do it. They have already proven they have no problem spending large sums of ISK, time and effort manipulating the markets on a large scale so long as they get more back.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1289 - 2014-03-05 02:45:41 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
If the history of the world tells us anything, it is that people will find a way to trade and prosper no matter what the prevailing conditions.

When I was a kid, there was an active trade in getting Levi jeans into Moscow from the West, despite there being a damn great wall in the way. The politics of the day disallowed it. People traded Levis anyway - despite the strong disincentives.

If you put some lowsec in between the empires, trade will be disrupted for a few weeks until people learn the ropes.

That's how the world really works.

It's also true that in general, people who are comfortably off fear change.
Trade won't be disrupted for a few weeks, it will permanently change in landscape. Whether for the better or worse is the current source of debate. And just because some people can find a way around a change, doesn't make it a good one. I don't forsee regional trade flourishing or markets equalizing, but rather the creation of objectively good and bad places to live in terms of markets. Even without travel obstacles we already see strong concentration of trade, do we expect barriers to somehow not exasperate this further? Or is it that there is simply no concern over it?

Sure, the world gets Levi's to Moscow, but in the same quantity and relative prices it gets to New York? That discrepancy works when you can't just blink over, when you can, it changes the equation. It's easy to cry fear in the face of opposition, even easier to just throw out that people will adapt, but it's harder to prove why a change should occur.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1290 - 2014-03-05 03:45:01 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Nothing stops them from setting up cyno ships in a chain to get them back into systems with their own jump networks. If they decided they wanted to, they could do it with ease. it would be a massive undertaking, but that's kinda what those guys do. If they found it to be worth their while, and for a few establishing an iron grip on all trade would indeed be worth it, they could do it. They have already proven they have no problem spending large sums of ISK, time and effort manipulating the markets on a large scale so long as they get more back.



Except you are missing the point that no one is going to bother trying to lock down FOUR full empires worth of trade routes. No one can even completely lock down Jita, and you KNOW where they are going to be currently.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1291 - 2014-03-05 03:56:11 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Nothing stops them from setting up cyno ships in a chain to get them back into systems with their own jump networks. If they decided they wanted to, they could do it with ease. it would be a massive undertaking, but that's kinda what those guys do. If they found it to be worth their while, and for a few establishing an iron grip on all trade would indeed be worth it, they could do it. They have already proven they have no problem spending large sums of ISK, time and effort manipulating the markets on a large scale so long as they get more back.



Except you are missing the point that no one is going to bother trying to lock down FOUR full empires worth of trade routes. No one can even completely lock down Jita, and you KNOW where they are going to be currently.
Locking down a highsec system isn't exactly feasible. This stems from the fact that locking down any highsec system isn't feasible because highsec doesn't allow open engagement without mandatory consequence. Lowsec doesn't abide by the same rule set.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1292 - 2014-03-05 04:01:08 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Nothing stops them from setting up cyno ships in a chain to get them back into systems with their own jump networks. If they decided they wanted to, they could do it with ease. it would be a massive undertaking, but that's kinda what those guys do. If they found it to be worth their while, and for a few establishing an iron grip on all trade would indeed be worth it, they could do it. They have already proven they have no problem spending large sums of ISK, time and effort manipulating the markets on a large scale so long as they get more back.



Except you are missing the point that no one is going to bother trying to lock down FOUR full empires worth of trade routes. No one can even completely lock down Jita, and you KNOW where they are going to be currently.
Locking down a highsec system isn't exactly feasible. This stems from the fact that locking down any highsec system isn't feasible because highsec doesn't allow open engagement without mandatory consequence. Lowsec doesn't abide by the same rule set.



That is easily enough worked around.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1293 - 2014-03-05 04:07:41 UTC
Onictus wrote:
That is easily enough worked around.
Should it need to be? Again, "can be worked around" alone is not the mark of a good idea. Also why would you? Unless you have some dependance upon a regional resource and are actually a gatherer of that resource, why bother living in the newly isolated areas? It makes more sense to live where trade, and thus commodities to consume, are abundant and leave the collection of regional resources to people with JF's. To ask again, why do we want more concentration around Jita?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1294 - 2014-03-05 07:09:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Erutpar Ambient wrote:

Rivr Luzade wrote:

They are in more danger because of certain camps. Roll In high sec you only have to worry about gank squads, in low sec systems you have a plethora of other things to worry about.

You do realize the picture you posted is in Null sec right?



I unfortunately have no picture of Hier from a year back or so; so this was the most recent one I took of such a camp. Does it matter in the end?

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Onictus wrote:
That is easily enough worked around.
Should it need to be? Again, "can be worked around" alone is not the mark of a good idea. Also why would you? Unless you have some dependance upon a regional resource and are actually a gatherer of that resource, why bother living in the newly isolated areas? It makes more sense to live where trade, and thus commodities to consume, are abundant and leave the collection of regional resources to people with JF's. To ask again, why do we want more concentration around Jita?


m0o

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1295 - 2014-03-05 10:12:08 UTC
I still haven't seen a compelling reason for this change. 'I don't like traders hauling lots of goods under CONCORD protection' and 'It would create more targets for pirates to make money' don't cut it. You can already gank freighters in hi-sec to be a pirate, and nobody has answered yet why losec folks don't fly to null and hunt ratters for there multi-billion ships instead?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1296 - 2014-03-05 11:07:31 UTC
As for the low sec not hunting ratters in 00: because a large number of ratters in 00 behave like bots. As soon as they see a neutral in local, they hurry back to station or their POS.

As for the other statement: I fully support your stance there. The claims of pirates are hilarious sometimes. Almost as if they were entitled to get free kills in high sec, while those who live in high sec have no rights for protection.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1297 - 2014-03-05 12:03:06 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
The claims of pirates are hilarious sometimes. Almost as if they were entitled to get free kills in high sec, while those who live in high sec have no rights for protection.


Are you able to provide an example of such a claim?

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".
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1298 - 2014-03-05 12:09:25 UTC
This thread?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1299 - 2014-03-05 15:12:11 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
The claims of pirates are hilarious sometimes. Almost as if they were entitled to get free kills in high sec, while those who live in high sec have no rights for protection.

You are under the false assumption that every supporter of this idea is a low sec pirate.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Sunai Karvinoinas
#1300 - 2014-03-07 14:04:21 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
You are under the false assumption that every supporter of this idea is a low sec pirate.
No. But I'm sure the supporters are guys, who have only benefits for their way to play the game.

Nowhere in this thread there comes up any compromise. Why? If CCP would like to divide the empire space routes, what major concessions for hisec only players are acceptable without killing lowsec gameplay?
Can transit routes between hisec enclaves be handled another way than deepspace routes?

Let me suggest a 3-step compromise:
(1) - PvE becomes more like PvP in order to reduce the need of completely different fittings and teach all players to pay more attention to the things they do.
- Experienced players and developers create "NPC char skills" and usual fittings for T1/navy issued/Concord ships.
- Concord become vincible but challenging. Navy shoud be vincible already.
- Concord patrols "uplink" gates to higher sec space only with small a bit challenging fleets in sec state 0.4 and 0.3.
- Concord does not roam in lowsec.
- Concord patroles no "downlink" gates to lower or equal security space.
- Concord needs a random time to replace a killed spawn. Time frame for replacement depends on sys sec state.
- Concord will auto aggro only outlaws/criminals (<-5.0 players security state)
- Temporary spawns of factional navy will appear like rat spawns in hisec but a bit more challenging.
- Navy fleets will auto aggro factional enemies only.
- "Downlink" gates will be temporary patroled by factional navy spawns (T1 or navy issued frigates/cruisers/bc).
- From time to time a small navy scout spawns at gates, belts or factional NPC stations (within the own territory only).
- A scout spawn stays a predefined time until it will go away. At gates navy scouts or fleets will stay much longer.
- The max spawn count and size will be limited by system security state.
- Borders between hostile races should be patroled more dense, than space between friendly races.

Nobody should be able permacamp a gate without having several smaller fights against NPC which maybe draw off the attention from transitting travellers possibly. Transitting travellers may have a slightly higher chance to escape.

(2) - There should be several routes with nearly the same hop count between the hisec areas.
- Not only one permacamped route should be reasonable and/or possible. This should reduce the sense of permacamps.

(3) - Building player controlled hisec jump gates to charge toll.