These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1341 - 2014-03-10 08:33:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Oh, and EVE is a PvP game first, last, and always. If you don't like that, feel free to go play Star Trek, because that game doesn't let the special snowflakes get shot at. If you're going to pretend like you're playing a single player game anyway, might as well do it in a game that facilitates that kind of malapropism.


Roll It is not. Stop saying that, it's completely untrue. PVP is a part of it, but not the biggest. That is only what people like you want to think. EVE is a simulation with many different aspects, not a shooter like you want to believe.

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
#1342 - 2014-03-10 10:04:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Oh, and EVE is a PvP game first, last, and always. If you don't like that, feel free to go play Star Trek, because that game doesn't let the special snowflakes get shot at. If you're going to pretend like you're playing a single player game anyway, might as well do it in a game that facilitates that kind of malapropism.


And trading, manufacture and PI are all parts of that PvP. PvP isn't purely about shooting people, how about out producing them? Getting your goods to the best market place before others do? Manipulating markets to gain the best profit or price for your feedstocks?

Those who believe that making money from trade and manufacture is effortless probably don't do it much. Sure you can make isk with minimum effort in some cases, but then you make minimum profit. It is only when you put effort in (beyond pressing F1 when your tackle has trapped some unfortunate) that you you gain real profit. Exactly the same as the real profit for gankers comes to those who actively track their targets, pick the right victim at the right time and spring their trap flawlessly.

Dismissing any of the facets that make Eve what it is is daft, they are all interlinked and all are required to keep the game rich.

As for those who believe that the separate hubs would grow from splitting hisec I believe that to be delusional. Jita is the goto hub right now, if you suddenly make it far more risky to travel to other areas then Jita would likely become the *only* hub anybody bothered to travel to. If you want trade spread around more then you need to encourage that trade by spreading the regions where moongoo, T2 items, mission goods etc are traded to and from. I firmly believe the only way to do this is to improve and increase the quality and number of PvE aspects and place them around the other hubs too. If necessary manipulate the frequency that such PvE missions occur around areas that you want to increase traffic.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1343 - 2014-03-10 10:08:49 UTC
I think it's important to focus on the purpose of the proposal. It has nothing to do with increasing PVP. It is only about creating disparity of supply and thus driving incentives to trade.

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".
Elvis Preslie
NRDS Securities
#1344 - 2014-03-10 11:19:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Elvis Preslie
Phaade wrote:
[quote=Nevyn Auscent][quote=Phaade]

This would, for obvious reason, improve the value of trade. I would love for you to explain to me how I am wrong.




you was proven wrong 2 posts before your post, in my own. If you want to increase value of trade, you make the highsec routes between hubs 2 jumps longer and the lowsec routes 2 jumps shorter - that would make a huge scale tip!

You cannot make it impossible to get from trade hub to trade hub through at least ONE high sec route - with solitude being an exception - and you always make the lowsec routes shorter by half than the high sec. why do you think you can go through bei or rancer to get to hek from jita? - one is much shorter but low sec.

CCP THOUGHT of this way before you even did, the reason the routes are the way they are. If you want to tip the scales, you just add more systems to the high sec route and/or take away from the low sec routes.

Of course, you cant just delete a system but you CAN delete stargates and add them to reroute them! How would you like to have a pos in a system that is suddenly deleted? or how about 100 estamels invulnerabilities in a station in that system?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1345 - 2014-03-10 12:03:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I think it's important to focus on the purpose of the proposal. It has nothing to do with increasing PVP. It is only about creating disparity of supply and thus driving incentives to trade.


To drive trade you need to increase demand rather than manipulate the prices, to increase demand you must give people the incentive to use more of the goods. That's why I am so strongly favouring increasing PvE (which then drives PvP). More ships, mods and ammo will be used in PvE, more will be ambushed in PvP, more moongoo etc will be required, more goods will be shipped etc etc. Done correctly this would improve new player experience also and hopefully improve player retention.

So specifically in response to the original proposal I believe that the change would stifle trade and simply increase the load at Jita since if you have to travel through losec you would only want to do that as few times as possible, you would only buy and sell at the current most busy system.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1346 - 2014-03-10 12:16:14 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


And trading, manufacture and PI are all parts of that PvP. PvP isn't purely about shooting people, how about out producing them? Getting your goods to the best market place before others do? Manipulating markets to gain the best profit or price for your feedstocks?


I didn't say they weren't. Or the rest of this stuff you're going on about me supposedly ignoring.

What I said was, that people need to stop acting like they're entitled to be left alone, to pretend like other players don't exist. And if they do want those things, then they are playing the wrong game.


Quote:
As for those who believe that the separate hubs would grow from splitting hisec I believe that to be delusional. Jita is the goto hub right now, if you suddenly make it far more risky to travel to other areas then Jita would likely become the *only* hub anybody bothered to travel to. If you want trade spread around more then you need to encourage that trade by spreading the regions where moongoo, T2 items, mission goods etc are traded to and from. I firmly believe the only way to do this is to improve and increase the quality and number of PvE aspects and place them around the other hubs too. If necessary manipulate the frequency that such PvE missions occur around areas that you want to increase traffic.


You have no idea why Jita became the primary hub, do you? Here, I'll even link you the wiki entry.

"Better PvE"? As if such a thing is anything but a waste of time, for us and the developers. They've REMOVED those things from Jita itself. There are no belts, no rats, no missions. Those cute little "aspects" do not exist in Jita, "PvE" has not one damn thing to do with the existence of that trade hub where it is.

It's history aside, right now what keeps the trade hub there is the bother to move so much stock and so much inventory around, and the desire to squeeze the last penny by that system's population.

It's there because it's there. Force of momentum. As the wiki puts it, Bandwagon Effect.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1347 - 2014-03-10 12:34:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


blah blah


I didn't say they weren't. Or the rest of this stuff you're going on about me supposedly ignoring.

What I said was, that people need to stop acting like they're entitled to be left alone, to pretend like other players don't exist. And if they do want those things, then they are playing the wrong game.


Quote:
more of my blather.


You have no idea why Jita became the primary hub, do you? Here, I'll even link you the wiki entry.

"Better PvE"? As if such a thing is anything but a waste of time...snip...

It's history aside, right now what keeps the trade hub there is the bother to move so much stock and so much inventory around, and the desire to squeeze the last penny by that system's population.

It's there because it's there. Force of momentum. As the wiki puts it, Bandwagon Effect.


Firstly I wasn't implying that you were ignoring some things, it was a general observation that the general tone in the forums is that industry and manufacturing are somehow less than or inferior to PvP in a game that is based firmly on *both* aspects (otherwise why would CCP bother to employ an economist?) Itw as not directed at you personally.

Secondly thank you for the link, you are correct that I didn't know the history and I use these forums to learn more about the game as much as to discuss ideas. However the link backs up my view (in my opinion). Jita is now the busiest most populated system so why would anybody risk running through multiple losec areas instead of just shipping to Jita to sell and buying from Jita for further production. One run each way would minimize risk whilst maximizing profit. The other hubs would decline and become also there systems.

Increasing the distance to fly around to get to Jita would just push prices up as people would be paying more (in time or haulage fees) to get goods to sale. Since trade would be concentrated further into one region it would be far more simple for gate camps to occur on the fewer systems leading to Jita.. These would then be controlled by whoever has the manpower to do so.

As for PvE I'm not sure if you meant in Jita alone as I certainly didn't. PvE cannot be a waste of developers time and effort otherwise why would they have introduced Incursions, Ghost sites, WH's etc? I stand by my view that PvE needs a massive overhaul to improve it greatly. It is the first thing new players will usually run through to trial Eve and as such should be a primary concern for the developers in terms of impressing and retaining new players. PvE also provides a great deal of the existing content currently played by a large section of Eve. To dismiss the whole of PvE would be to dismiss the most important aspects of the game in my mind.

PvP is self generating, players who want to shoot at others will always find the ways and means to do so but for this to happen there must be more of the other players who give them targets to hunt. Both PvE and PvP should and must exist in equal parts for Eve to thrive otherwise it will stagnate and die. The PvP players and areas of the game are fed by PvE players coming through and wanting to move into something new.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1348 - 2014-03-10 12:49:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Quote:
What I said was, that people need to stop acting like they're entitled to be left alone, to pretend like other players don't exist. And if they do want those things, then they are playing the wrong game.


Can you then please stop acting like you are entitled to force players into player interaction 100% of the time people play this game, to pretend that there always must be player interaction to play this game correctly. And if people do want these things, they are playing the wrong game. Roll

Quote:
It's history aside, right now what keeps the trade hub there is the bother to move so much stock and so much inventory around, and the desire to squeeze the last penny by that system's population.

It's there because it's there. Force of momentum. As the wiki puts it, Bandwagon Effect.


Oh, and this "bother" is naturally going to changed and be easier to manage if there is more low sec and more insecure space between the hubs. Roll
Amarr and Dodi, for instance, usually have the better prices, yet not more traders flock to neither Amarr nor Dodi and exploit the better margins. Why? Because no one wants to move. Will this change if there is even more hassle and bother? Roll

Quote:
"Better PvE"? As if such a thing is anything but a waste of time, for us and the developers. They've REMOVED those things from Jita itself. There are no belts, no rats, no missions. Those cute little "aspects" do not exist in Jita, "PvE" has not one damn thing to do with the existence of that trade hub where it is.


Cherry picking and then even doing it wrongly. Cool

Your quoted text states clearly "around the [other] hubs", including Jita into the other part. Osmon is "around" and very close to Jita, and so are other important mission hubs for Caldari NPC corps. PVE might not be a reason why Jita is nowadays what it is, but it certainly helps to create and foster new hubs today. If you don't believe me then have a look at the Hek - Lanngisi and Apanake - Sanctum constellation/Dodixie trade relationships.

Quote:
"Better PvE"? As if such a thing is anything but a waste of time, for us and the developers.


And here you go again, wholly ignoring other gameplay styles and other players who don't fit into your hidebound view of the world. You seem to feel very much entitled to represent the majority of the game and the players with your views, when this is clearly not the case. Your sense of entitlement makes you blind for every player and way to play this game that you don't like or don't want to like out of principle. You should stop that, or you should stop requesting that other players should not feel entitled to play the sandbox the way they want and how they get the most fun out of it.

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.
Katas Strophe
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1349 - 2014-03-10 13:45:09 UTC
-1 Bad idea

The civilized world (Highsec) should be extended instead of regress.Shocked
Sunai Karvinoinas
#1350 - 2014-03-10 14:43:55 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Sunai Karvinoinas wrote:
I would not change my gameplay and leaving highsec, if lowsec borders would be set up. I had a smaller amount of room to play. If it's getting boring more, I'd leave the game. I'm sure a lot of guys will do that earlier than running lowsec.
In this case I do not think about economy anymore. Because it will affect CCPs RL economy so far.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that the only reason you play eve is because hisec is big and largely uninterrupted?

May I ask how many systems you habitually visit in hisec?

I ask this because it seems to me that on the whole people generally visit 4 trade hubs and one or two mission/mining hubs in hisec and that's about it.
One of the reasons I play EvE is the possibility to travel a huge amount of highsec systems without passing lowsec and keeping life and equipment easily. I'm a lazy guy not willing to scan and watch around before I engange my engines always.
Whatever I do, I do it all around the highsec. And it's no tradehub hopping at all. Splitting highsec would affect my way to play EvE a lot. I'm not settled down anywhere.

Of course I could do that all within a smaller area too. If hisec would be split into empire islands, I'd try to do my job within the smaller part left. Should this become more boring I'd rather quit playing EvE than passing lowsec. I'm not alone with this opinion. That is all, what I said.

In 2006 I tried EvE the first time and left after a few days, because it was about a PvP only game. In 2012 it has been improved into a much more interesting game for gamers who are not interested in PvP only. You should not try to turn back the clock.
Provide a compromise to highsec players instead of depreciating their playstyle only. Splitting highsec contains no compromise but singlesided advantages only.
Mardock Deum
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1351 - 2014-03-10 17:05:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mardock Deum
I agree with this would make being a pirate actually interesting and hauling more of a challenge. But I would leave one highsec connection and have it charge an import tax like 5% of the regional average value
Mardock Deum
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1352 - 2014-03-10 17:12:01 UTC
Sunai Karvinoinas wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Sunai Karvinoinas wrote:
I would not change my gameplay and leaving highsec, if lowsec borders would be set up. I had a smaller amount of room to play. If it's getting boring more, I'd leave the game. I'm sure a lot of guys will do that earlier than running lowsec.
In this case I do not think about economy anymore. Because it will affect CCPs RL economy so far.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that the only reason you play eve is because hisec is big and largely uninterrupted?

May I ask how many systems you habitually visit in hisec?

I ask this because it seems to me that on the whole people generally visit 4 trade hubs and one or two mission/mining hubs in hisec and that's about it.
One of the reasons I play EvE is the possibility to travel a huge amount of highsec systems without passing lowsec and keeping life and equipment easily. I'm a lazy guy not willing to scan and watch around before I engange my engines always.
Whatever I do, I do it all around the highsec. And it's no tradehub hopping at all. Splitting highsec would affect my way to play EvE a lot. I'm not settled down anywhere.

Of course I could do that all within a smaller area too. If hisec would be split into empire islands, I'd try to do my job within the smaller part left. Should this become more boring I'd rather quit playing EvE than passing lowsec. I'm not alone with this opinion. That is all, what I said.

In 2006 I tried EvE the first time and left after a few days, because it was about a PvP only game. In 2012 it has been improved into a much more interesting game for gamers who are not interested in PvP only. You should not try to turn back the clock.
Provide a compromise to highsec players instead of depreciating their playstyle only. Splitting highsec contains no compromise but singlesided advantages only.


So you would rather a whole profession be unvaiable than have a scout and your valuables would increase in value with a new and improved demand. What about have one highsec connection but having an import tax when you move goods through that system. Would fix both problems
Astera Zandraki
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#1353 - 2014-03-10 17:21:33 UTC
+1

Sounds like an awesome idea, representing the Empires losing power to the capsuleers... also more targets!
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1354 - 2014-03-10 17:29:02 UTC
Mardock Deum wrote:

So you would rather a whole profession be unvaiable than have a scout and your valuables would increase in value with a new and improved demand. What about have one highsec connection but having an import tax when you move goods through that system. Would fix both problems


Many players don't have more than one account or multiple computers running the game at once and play solo due to time constraints. Having one connection would simply concentrate gank attacks on one gate and a tax is effectively drifting into 'nerf hisec profit' areas. I think that hisec is fine the way it is and seems to be stable with a healthy economy. I still don't see the benefit of bringing this change in and as I have said previously I believe this would simply push most trade into the current largest hub (Jita) which would exacerbate the load issues there and then also strangle the other hubs as nobody would bother going through losec to get to an also-ran trade centre.

In terms of people runnning across the losec areas all that would happen is that smaller producers would fly in blockade runners to bridge the gap making multiple runs to load up a bigger hauler on the other side. Bulk goods would stop moving or be contract hauled. I can't see there being any real increase in targets for pirates and why should there be an increase in juicy easy freighter targets gifted to one group of players? If pirates want to blow them up they already can by ganking them. If the pirate players want to get the best targets they have to outplay the other gankers which seems to work fine right now.
Apol Regyri
Doomheim
#1355 - 2014-03-10 19:28:30 UTC


-1 No thanks
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1356 - 2014-03-10 23:41:04 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Oh, and EVE is a PvP game first, last, and always. If you don't like that, feel free to go play Star Trek, because that game doesn't let the special snowflakes get shot at. If you're going to pretend like you're playing a single player game anyway, might as well do it in a game that facilitates that kind of malapropism.


Roll It is not. Stop saying that, it's completely untrue. PVP is a part of it, but not the biggest. That is only what people like you want to think. EVE is a simulation with many different aspects, not a shooter like you want to believe.


Which is why I can gank you anytime you undock.

Its a PvP game.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1357 - 2014-03-11 09:40:08 UTC
Katas Strophe wrote:
-1 Bad idea

The civilized world (Highsec) should be extended instead of regress.Shocked


Why don't we just make all space "(Highsec)" and nobody can legally shoot anyone at any time ever.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1358 - 2014-03-11 10:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Katas Strophe wrote:
-1 Bad idea

The civilized world (Highsec) should be extended instead of regress.Shocked


Why don't we just make all space "(Highsec)" and nobody can legally shoot anyone at any time ever.


Because that is entirely not the point. No one ever asked for this kind of change, because even the biggest carebear knows that this would destroy the game instantly. So, if you don't understand how the game works, please leave or at least don't post in this kind of discussions.

"Apol Regyri " wrote:
Which is why I can gank you anytime you undock.

Its a PvP game.


Give it a try, just try a bit harder than usual not to make fools of yourselves, okay?

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
#1359 - 2014-03-11 11:49:54 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Katas Strophe wrote:
-1 Bad idea

The civilized world (Highsec) should be extended instead of regress.Shocked


Why don't we just make all space "(Highsec)" and nobody can legally shoot anyone at any time ever.


I've seen many people suggest homogenizing space as all lo or null sec before. Setting aside the fact I think yours was a tongue in cheek response I think any changes to the current system would be bad and very destabilizing. That isn't from fear of change itself but rather because I believe a stable balance exists currently and should be built upon rather than amended to suit certain playstyles.

My belief is that more PvE content should be introduced in the upcoming releases. Dinsdale Pirhana's idea for null regions popping up is fantastic and could lead to a whole new area of lore expansion too. I also would love to see more missions and mission arcs that drive cross border interaction. These should be both combat and S&I missions. Give people the reason to croos the borders and the initial help to do so (my choice would be to cyno them in, gives people the option to at least get to the mission site safely but also teaches them about a useful game mechanic.

I really think that expanding the PvE elements in this kind of way would drive both PvE *and* PvP as people would become less averse to travelling losec and much more likely to do so in future.
Voxinian
#1360 - 2014-03-11 13:46:35 UTC
Stop forcing PvP inciting mechanics/game structure on EVE while there are tons of PvE/high-sec players, players that pay for their sub and buy plexes. High sec keeps EVE alive and brings in the new players. What I mostly see in EVE is old pvp vet players dictating how EVE should be and everyone that has a different playstyle and different goals and reasons for playing EVE should conform to their wishes. EVE needs more high sec, more and better PvE. I mean when Star Citizen comes out then all EVE has to lure in new players is high sec and PvE, PvE that is dated and not in line to modern gaming standards. Some players here also don't realize that there are a lot of EVE players that despise the lame gate camps and blobs (which is not a skill thing) and mostly play EVE for the space immersion and the PvE interaction. Those people might leave and go play SC. The loud and demanding vets that CCP listens to will be CCP's own downfall, it keeps them in 1999 instead of 2014.