These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harrison Kion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1361 - 2014-03-11 13:58:49 UTC
I live in low sec and I have never lost a industrial when I was hauling. I feel safer in low than high.
Sintiar Loffwagea
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1362 - 2014-03-11 14:31:08 UTC
it's very Brilliant idea i really like it and it's very reasonable.
MoonglumX
Viaticus Consortium
#1363 - 2014-03-11 14:41:58 UTC
No one is forcing you to travel in the low sec boarder systems. You can live in hi sec just as you previously had before. Am I missing something?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1364 - 2014-03-11 14:53:00 UTC
MoonglumX wrote:
No one is forcing you to travel in the low sec boarder systems. You can live in hi sec just as you previously had before. Am I missing something?


It would force traders and manufacturers into losec as it would destroy profit margins without doing so. The larger groups could easily control the faster routes and therfore undercut the smaller producers thus destabilizing the market. So it would force people into losec to be easy targets for those who live there. Would you not prefer changes that got people to enter losec by choice in ships fitted for fighting? Surely that would be more fun than shooting unarmed haulers?
Sunai Karvinoinas
#1365 - 2014-03-11 17:00:18 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.
No. I'm in doubt about piracy becomes *unavailable* while not changing the current status.

Yes, I reiterate again. But it seems nobody takes notice of it.
This thread has been created in order to provide advantages to a part of community while providing disadvantages to another part only. There are no discussed compromises yet. So I only can say: No. Bad idea. CCP would be afraid of loosing subscribers this way.
Mardock Deum wrote:
What about have one highsec connection but having an import tax when you move goods through that system. Would fix both problems
This sounds like one compromise what's able to be discussed.

Another compromise could be to make lowsec transit routes between highsec enclaves in 0.4/0.3 noticable more secure in any way.
Lokar Griman
The Untraceable
M A R A K U G A
#1366 - 2014-03-11 18:49:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lokar Griman
-1 bad idea that makes harder for ppl who live in whs and depend on paticular high sec exits. plus it messes up the main market hubs
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1367 - 2014-03-11 23:35:09 UTC
Lokar Griman wrote:
plus it messes up the main market hubs




Yeah, that is the idea, specifically.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1368 - 2014-03-12 02:28:12 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
It would force traders and manufacturers into losec as it would destroy profit margins without doing so.
It would actually make cross-hub trading a meaningful profession with good profits.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

The larger groups could easily control the faster routes and therfore undercut the smaller producers thus destabilizing the market. So it would force people into losec to be easy targets for those who live there.

This already happens, so there is no change.
As far as being easy targets, a while back there was a thread crying for a nerf to the Epithal because the ship is nearly uncatchable when fit properly.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1369 - 2014-03-12 03:45:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
It would force traders and manufacturers into losec as it would destroy profit margins without doing so.
It would actually make cross-hub trading a meaningful profession with good profits.


It is now but this change would mean far fewer people bothering to go cross hub due to the difficulties imposed by the forced separation of the hisec areas. Nobody would make multiple runs between areas of losec when they could just make one run to jitas to sell manufactured stuff and buy feedstocks. This change would polarize the trade areas for the worse.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

The larger groups could easily control the faster routes and therfore undercut the smaller producers thus destabilizing the market. So it would force people into losec to be easy targets for those who live there.

This already happens, so there is no change.
As far as being easy targets, a while back there was a thread crying for a nerf to the Epithal because the ship is nearly uncatchable when fit properly.[/quote]

Ista-lock gate camps and the like will take down an epithal pretty easily., but if you have that proper fit to hand I'd like to see it Cool
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1370 - 2014-03-12 04:37:13 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


It is now but this change would mean far fewer people bothering to go cross hub due to the difficulties imposed by the forced separation of the hisec areas. Nobody would make multiple runs between areas of losec when they could just make one run to jitas to sell manufactured stuff and buy feedstocks. This change would polarize the trade areas for the worse.


Yup, again that is the idea

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

The larger groups could easily control the faster routes and therfore undercut the smaller producers thus destabilizing the market.


Even better.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1371 - 2014-03-12 08:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
"Onictus " wrote:
Yup, again that is the idea


I was under the impression that less polarization and less concentration to Jita and more trade in other empires to create similar first class trade hubs there is one of the goals of this change. I am not sure if more polarization can achieve that, but I might be wrong. Roll

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.

Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#1372 - 2014-03-12 08:56:15 UTC
basically taking the "suicide" out of "suicide ganking"

... Roll

Blink
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1373 - 2014-03-19 19:31:05 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
basically taking the "suicide" out of "suicide ganking"

... Roll

Blink


I must have missed the part where we want to remove concord from high sec. I believe even after this change "ganking" someone in high sec would still be considered "suicide ganking" as concord will still blow up your ship.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1374 - 2014-03-19 21:10:53 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
"Onictus " wrote:
Yup, again that is the idea


I was under the impression that less polarization and less concentration to Jita and more trade in other empires to create similar first class trade hubs there is one of the goals of this change. I am not sure if more polarization can achieve that, but I might be wrong. Roll


There are already similar first class trade hubs. Jita is just the top because of it's location (a crossroad just like any other major trade hub in any game and real life). The current state of High Sec Empire is equivalent to that of a continuous land mass. And Jita and the other trade hubs can be correlated to urban centers (cities) in real life. So we are going to see the "Push Pull Phenomenon" of urbanization in the game with trade and manufacturing etc of people moving from remote systems towards the trade hubs.

Now here's the catch. Because of the continuous landmass (with insignificant exceptions) of High Sec Empire, all of the Trade hubs will have a pull on all of space. Now because Jita is the biggest trade hub, we can consider it the most "Urbanized" and in that relation it will have the largest pull effect overall. So over time people will continue to migrate to Jita from less urbanized areas. And since everything is less urbanized than Jita, it has a pull even on the inhabitants other trade hubs to an extent.

By separating the Empires with a barrier such as low sec (Real life examples would be: mountains,deserts and bodies of water) there will then be less of a draw from Jita on the other Empires. Each Empire will have it's own trade hub and they'll probably remain the same as it's hard to break people from habits. And the new players that join will be more likely to migrate to their local trade hub than another one elsewhere initially at least.

So I'm assuming when you sarcastically talk about "more polarization" you're getting that idea on the assumption that people will concentrate themselves in the Caldari Empire. Because that would be the only way to increase the level of polarization we see now. But if that did happen there would be a lot of opportunity outside of Caldari space in high sec to make a better income because of the things you cannot obtain in caldari space alone. This would create a draw of people and a draw of income out of caldari space (since non-caldari goods will be sold at a better premium in this "polarized" market). And that income/person draw would create a greater need and profit for local trade.

Thus that prediction also comes with it's own self-depolarizing system.

Separating the empires would definitely cause depolarization on the large scale. Each Empire itself will still be polarized around their trade hub.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1375 - 2014-03-27 07:40:46 UTC
this cannot die!
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1376 - 2014-03-27 07:48:09 UTC
Lokar Griman wrote:
-1 bad idea that makes harder for ppl who live in whs and depend on paticular high sec exits.


As a WH Pilot myself i cant agree with this Statement, as long static highsec WH still leads you in Highsec the only difference would be that you have to guard your moves outside of WH when moving Fuel and Loot, but that apply to anyone so it would simply buff T2 Indus which would be a good thing.
per
Terpene Conglomerate
#1377 - 2014-05-03 09:57:46 UTC
love this idea, yes pls
oohthey ioh
Doomheim
#1378 - 2014-05-03 10:33:53 UTC
making ganking easyer :P
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1379 - 2014-05-03 12:21:56 UTC
Encouraging localised manufacturing of everything is a noble, noble goal.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#1380 - 2014-05-03 12:37:58 UTC
for all the people saying it affects profits or messes up the hubs you're all wrong. It makes each hub more important and would reduce dependence on jita, how many posts have we all seen moaning about lag in jita? If anything it would incease profits for the people who manufacture locally and only reduce it for people who ship things all over eve for selling