These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1501 - 2014-05-21 08:58:45 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:


Ok, i'll concede these points, there is no perfectly safe place. However High sec does have a major deterrent to hostility where as low sec has basically none. In high sec you can fly a ship around of sufficiently low cargo value and not get ganked. However in low sec it doesn't matter if you have your cargo over loaded or completely empty, you will still be ganked.

So what i said is still mostly true, if you're hauling within reason of course. The fact is that you have a choice between very very safe and slow, or very very unsafe and fast. It's like the choice is jump off a waterfall to get down quick or walk around the safe way. That's about how much difference there is in the choice viability as of right now.


CONCORD are no deterrent to ganking as they kill the gankers *after* the fight, it just means you can fly empty haulers place to place relatively safely.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

my blurb...

What play style is this that contains a "large chunk" of the player base that lives solely in high sec space that requires constant travel between all the empires? Who are these people???

Well, unlike WWII, the Empires in eve are just a fantasy place that actually do not consume any goods. The Empires are not impacted at all by player trade. If they were then the Caldari would have taken over most of the game. [/quote]

The large chunk is the group of players that don't have the time or inclination to dedicate to nullsec 'yes sir, no sir' games or have no wish to be answerable to others. It is those players who follow a tradoing playstyle whcih even if they don't ever leave station they still impact them game by moving goods around, affecting goods prices, generating sales for the goods they buy to sell on later. There will be many other hisec playstyles no doubt that I've missed but I very seriously doubt that the bulk of Eve players (the players not the myriad alts) who live in null/losec.

My example of WWII was oversimplified granted, but the point remains the same. If you choke trade between the empires then the empires will die. losec haulers *won't* step up and pick up the slack, those willing to do so simply couldn't cover the volume of freight. The folks not willing to fly losec never will no matter what.

The real benefit for losec would come from the constructive ideas presented in this thread other than breaking hisec. Players need to *want* to enter losec. That can only be changed by giving incentive to do so that players choose to follow. The desire to enter losec is a mindset thing, not a game mechanic.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1502 - 2014-05-23 01:17:26 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

CONCORD are no deterrent to ganking as they kill the gankers *after* the fight, it just means you can fly empty haulers place to place relatively safely.

Actually it is a deterrent and a limiting factor to ganking in general. Basically, it's going to deter people from ganking without making a profit. And in the same way it will limit people who decide to gank without profit based on their level of expendable assets. This does not exist in low sec. There is no deterrent in Low sec at all and as such traveling through low sec has so much more risk that it is not a proper balance to the time it saves.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

The large chunk is the group of players that don't have the time or inclination to dedicate to nullsec 'yes sir, no sir' games or have no wish to be answerable to others. It is those players who follow a tradoing playstyle whcih even if they don't ever leave station they still impact them game by moving goods around, affecting goods prices, generating sales for the goods they buy to sell on later. There will be many other hisec playstyles no doubt that I've missed but I very seriously doubt that the bulk of Eve players (the players not the myriad alts) who live in null/losec.


So this "large chunk of the player base" who's "play style will be destroyed" is everyone is high sec? Is that what you're telling me? Where do you get the idea that this change will "destroy" the play style of everyone in high sec? Do mission runners Need to travel between empires to run missions? Do miners need to travel between empires to mine? Do Haulers and scanners need to travel between empires to haul and scan? Do Incursion runners need to travel through empires... yes. Incursions are the only play style that require mobility. And they're such a small, yet wealthy portion of the high sec demographic that it really doesn't bother me if their play style is infringed upon.

Oh wait you're saying traders who don't leave the station? How large of a demographic is this? Why would they need stuff moved around, they only play games with the value of currently available items. They won't be impacted at all...... What are you smoking??!?
Quote:

My example of WWII was oversimplified granted, but the point remains the same. If you choke trade between the empires then the empires will die. losec haulers *won't* step up and pick up the slack, those willing to do so simply couldn't cover the volume of freight. The folks not willing to fly losec never will no matter what.

Even if that was true, which it's not and can see by the mere fact that people live in low/null/wh space for the profits, local production will also be incentivised. Local production is the whole idea for the upcoming Industry changes. The maximum anything will be worth is the cost to produce it locally. With the exception of things you can't produce locally.
Quote:

The real benefit for losec would come from the constructive ideas presented in this thread other than breaking hisec. Players need to *want* to enter losec. That can only be changed by giving incentive to do so that players choose to follow. The desire to enter losec is a mindset thing, not a game mechanic.

Breaking high sec apart doesn't "break hisec". People will still have large swaths of continuous high sec to fly around. By putting low sec between empires it does provide much greater incentive to travel through low sec than we have now. People will still need to *want* to enter low sec, but with this there are reasons to do it. Currently the only incentives are FW and just to see what's there. There is no driving factor for/to lowsec. And by surrounding low sec with null, that makes low sec effectively the path to nowhere.

Think of it like this, what other games can you travel from town to town in complete safety(with out at least having been there first)? Basically EVE just has one town, High sec, and there's really no incentive to leave.
Bira Fortuna
KMEN CARTEL
#1503 - 2014-05-24 16:55:17 UTC
Hmmm what an interesting idea.

Big enough for another expansion.Cuz you forgot that Eve is living world so it can and shouldl adapt for it somehow.(I mean the CCP guys can handle it somehow Big smile )

I see how shipcrafting NPC corps make develop new kinds of ships, haul frigs (so to fast for catch) for beginners with extra huge cargo for frig class and whole new class Jugernaut (like that name) with is some kind of semi-freighter (for advanced players) witch have smaller cargo then freighter but larger then ordinary hauler and have +1 warp, lots of drones, cloak or something what makes them simply ungankable by one pirate frig, so it must be organized small gank.

I see new factions of NPC mercenary corps (so new ships?tech?) wich will also gate camp for period of time (or will be trigged when someone start shooting) and kill all criminals they see, or attack everyone who start shooting first. As pirate factions have they way how to kill you (webing,energ drains...) they shall have theyr ways hot will they try to save you (caldari mercs repair your shields, amars armor, galante damp those who attacking you, minmatars makes you warp scramble free, or some kind of support).
Sou you have 10%?30%?50%? chance to survive even if pirates will be there cuz they must handle these mercs somehow or clear the gate first. And if pirate gank camp gate for too long, each wave of mercs can be stronger and stronger until they beat/make pirates flee, then guard gate for couple of minutes and disapear etc.

Why merc should be there you ask?
Cuz it gives work to Eves citizens, they will see bounty on capsulers, empires wanna safe trade and transport between empires (and no, they wont send imperial fleets cuz its like if North korea send army to demilitarized zone).

How to make low-sec there?
I dunno...rebellion?rise of new pirate faction?New alien-like race who came through WH from "somehwere"? (and bring new missons,ships, blablabla) sleepers?Big smile , some fenomena of strange new gas that expand space (new stuffs to explore, harvest...)?

So if CCP wanna make this idea real, they will, cuz Eve will evolve Blink
Spacemover
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1504 - 2014-05-25 18:13:54 UTC
simple thing: the empire factiosn are at war with each other. thats the idea of factionwar.

so ther should be borders guarded by heavy npc forces and "dead system aka lowsec" in between.

right now it´s like russia sitting next to the usa and both looking the border and telling you "there is a boarder? we couldn´t care less" empire is right now just oone big blue muffin sitting in a ring of nullsec (no matter if donut or no donut)
ugh zug
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1505 - 2014-05-25 21:47:16 UTC
OP idea, +1

not only would this bring more pew pew and tears but shake up the markets from their current stagnation by causing shortages and offering locals the chance to actually produce goods and make some serious bank.

Want me to shut up? Remove content from my post,1B. Remove my content from a thread I have started 2B.

w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
#1506 - 2014-05-26 01:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: w3ak3stl1nk
I think a better idea is have incursions do a temporary low sec any system it exist in for more than 48 hours. Might add variety to the static alliance gate camp mania you are all searching for. Like a storyline of incursions scrambling concord communications or something. Still should not allow POS but everything else like low sec.. I just think there are better forced pvp options. And still block cyno beacons...

Is that my two cents or yours?

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1507 - 2014-05-27 00:29:08 UTC
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think a better idea is have incursions do a temporary low sec any system it exist in for more than 48 hours. Might add variety to the static alliance gate camp mania you are all searching for. Like a storyline of incursions scrambling concord communications or something. Still should not allow POS but everything else like low sec.. I just think there are better forced pvp options. And still block cyno beacons...

??????

I really don't understand what you're saying at all....

However, if you're saying add more incursions then I'll have to say, that is a terrible Idea. Incursions are a terrible game feature.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1508 - 2014-05-27 08:55:37 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think a better idea is have incursions do a temporary low sec any system it exist in for more than 48 hours. Might add variety to the static alliance gate camp mania you are all searching for. Like a storyline of incursions scrambling concord communications or something. Still should not allow POS but everything else like low sec.. I just think there are better forced pvp options. And still block cyno beacons...

??????

I really don't understand what you're saying at all....

However, if you're saying add more incursions then I'll have to say, that is a terrible Idea. Incursions are a terrible game feature.


I think he meant have incursions turn the system into losec temporarily So no CONCORD response etc

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1509 - 2014-05-29 19:34:57 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think a better idea is have incursions do a temporary low sec any system it exist in for more than 48 hours. Might add variety to the static alliance gate camp mania you are all searching for. Like a storyline of incursions scrambling concord communications or something. Still should not allow POS but everything else like low sec.. I just think there are better forced pvp options. And still block cyno beacons...

??????

I really don't understand what you're saying at all....

However, if you're saying add more incursions then I'll have to say, that is a terrible Idea. Incursions are a terrible game feature.


I think he meant have incursions turn the system into losec temporarily So no CONCORD response etc


Ah, yeah, ok

Well i don't like any mechanic that will change high sec to low sec in any way. That would actually have the potential to Force someone into low sec by dumping low sec right on top of them.

Why don't we just move all Incursions out of high sec and double them up in low sec. In fact that makes more sense then just having them randomly in the middle of high sec space.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1510 - 2014-06-01 21:12:20 UTC
With a change like this, maybe we can change other mechanics that could use some updating.

For instance: War Dec Revamp

If you want to own POCOs or POS' in empire space you have to register your corp/alliance with the respective empire of the space you want to use(requires certain level of faction standing). Only registered Corps are able to be the non-consensual target of a War Declaration and it only applies in the empire of the specified faction. Also all FW corps will automatically be "registered" with their faction.

Any structures anchored in Empire space that are not registered with the faction in control of the space are free targets to anyone. (including offline POS', haha 2 birds 1 stone)

This means War Decs wouldn't be able to be used to grief noob corps. Their purpose would be to fight for assets in high sec space. And if your corp can't handle it, you can always move to another Empire where the wardec is not in effect.

Of course there will still be suicide ganking for anyone that's a big proponent of non-consensual pvp. And of course for RvB there can still be mutual forever wars.
Regnag Leppod
Doomheim
#1511 - 2014-06-08 23:00:36 UTC
+1 to the OP's idea.

It's a simple change, but would have a big impact on how the cluster functions.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1512 - 2014-06-12 05:47:48 UTC
I've changed my mind. This should be done. It is just too easy to move around highsec. Stronger regional hubs would be good for the game - more diversity.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1513 - 2014-06-12 23:00:10 UTC
Zappity wrote:
I've changed my mind.

awesome!

Even more awesome to admit it!
Barry Filler
Cold Moon Consortium
#1514 - 2014-06-12 23:32:28 UTC
I supportPirate
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1515 - 2014-06-13 00:22:19 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think a better idea is have incursions do a temporary low sec any system it exist in for more than 48 hours. Might add variety to the static alliance gate camp mania you are all searching for. Like a storyline of incursions scrambling concord communications or something. Still should not allow POS but everything else like low sec.. I just think there are better forced pvp options. And still block cyno beacons...

??????

I really don't understand what you're saying at all....

However, if you're saying add more incursions then I'll have to say, that is a terrible Idea. Incursions are a terrible game feature.

I actually agree. After spending some time lurking common incursion channels I have to say I hate what incursions do to about 10% of the EVE player base. Or whatever the number is.
ashley Eoner
#1516 - 2014-06-13 03:57:48 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think a better idea is have incursions do a temporary low sec any system it exist in for more than 48 hours. Might add variety to the static alliance gate camp mania you are all searching for. Like a storyline of incursions scrambling concord communications or something. Still should not allow POS but everything else like low sec.. I just think there are better forced pvp options. And still block cyno beacons...

??????

I really don't understand what you're saying at all....

However, if you're saying add more incursions then I'll have to say, that is a terrible Idea. Incursions are a terrible game feature.

I actually agree. After spending some time lurking common incursion channels I have to say I hate what incursions do to about 10% of the EVE player base. Or whatever the number is.

What you say is completely absurd. Incursions do nothing to people other then slightly inconvenience those in the area. Your complaint is with the eve player base in general. Incursions have nothing to do with how people are in this game.


What is the point of this idea? This change will not produce magical gatecamp fun. It'll just result in less movement of people which will result in large areas of highsec being useless. I guess that's a great thing if you're a ganker as you won't have to put forth as much effort to find targets. For the rest of the population it'll just mean a move to the populated faction.
ViRtUoZone
Spitfire Syndicate
#1517 - 2014-06-13 04:15:43 UTC
Lets come up with more and more ideas to slow down the economy and continue to build the inflation that CCP is trying so desperately to get rid of! Remember when drakes were GOOD and only cost 30mil? Boy those were the times.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1518 - 2014-06-13 04:36:51 UTC
ViRtUoZone wrote:
Lets come up with more and more ideas to slow down the economy and continue to build the inflation that CCP is trying so desperately to get rid of! Remember when drakes were GOOD and only cost 30mil? Boy those were the times.

You don't know what you are talking about. EVE's economy deflated during the last year.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1519 - 2014-06-13 06:54:29 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

What is the point of this idea? This change will not produce magical gatecamp fun. It'll just result in less movement of people which will result in large areas of highsec being useless. I guess that's a great thing if you're a ganker as you won't have to put forth as much effort to find targets. For the rest of the population it'll just mean a move to the populated faction.

Hmmm, i think you have the wrong idea. We don't want there to be lots of islands of high sec in a sea of low sec. We want there to be the 4 Empires complete as they are, but each one separated from each other by low sec. So yes high sec will lose it's current, what, 99%? continuity?

About ganking: Yes, this may increase ganking in low sec. But maybe it will take some of the heat off of high sec. In one instance the ability for high sec ganking group (i.e. thecode or whatever) their mobility will be hindered a bit as well. So if they're primarily in one empire, the other empires should be at least slightly safer. But yes, low sec may have more targets with a change like this. But it's a good thing for pvp areas to have traffic and pvp. Maybe more positive pvp encounters will happen where it's someone looking for a fight getting a fight from a ganker or gatecamper.

Do you you really believe everyone living in minmatar space will move to caldari space because of this change? Do you believe gallente inhabitants will move to caldari space? Do you really truely believe anyone from Amarr space will move to caldari space even though Amarr players are the only ones with any measurable sense of nationality?

Maybe you should think a bit more about the plausibility of the effects you foresee.

ViRtUoZone wrote:
Lets come up with more and more ideas to slow down the economy and continue to build the inflation that CCP is trying so desperately to get rid of! Remember when drakes were GOOD and only cost 30mil? Boy those were the times.

How is this supposed to drive up inflation? I guess if more ships get killed in general then there will be a lot more Insurance pay outs and in turn a lot of isk generated into the game. But otherwise i don't quite see it. If you're talking about the relative cost of goods, well you're in luck! This change should have basically zero effect on mineral based commodities (such as drakes) but there will probably be noticeable price shift on non-local materials.

It's not too scary of an idea.
Barry Filler
Cold Moon Consortium
#1520 - 2014-06-13 11:27:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Barry Filler
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
[quote=ashley Eoner]
How is this supposed to drive up inflation? I guess if more ships get killed in general then there will be a lot more Insurance pay outs and in turn a lot of isk generated into the game. But otherwise i don't quite see it. If you're talking about the relative cost of goods, well you're in luck! This change should have basically zero effect on mineral based commodities (such as drakes) but there will probably be noticeable price shift on non-local materials.

It's not too scary of an idea.


Inflation could happen because of the slight decentralization in trade. Jita dictates prices more than any other place in EvE, and if you did surround every Empire space with low sec we would have 4 big trade hubs instead of one super. That would mean 4 times less undercutting of price. Less competition = more profit and higher prices.

(Edit: But likely more people would just move to Caldari because of Jita. That problem needs to be adressed)

Also more ships would blow up and that would drive the mineral prices up. But currently EvE has a slight deflation so it wouldn't be bad.