These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1681 - 2014-11-01 20:20:30 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
It would be great if the empires were separated by low sec and faction warfare could effect the security status, and what empire owned these parts of space.


Empire Space is already divided by Low sec for FW.


Na i mean that you wouldn't be able to get from Dodixi to Jita without going through low sec if the low sec systems were contested by rival factions.


Only for FW participants, I presume.

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.
Ezek Price
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1682 - 2014-11-01 22:22:08 UTC
make it so -- more player content

War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.

My blog, Civire Commander: http://civre.blogspot.co.uk/
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1683 - 2014-11-01 22:25:17 UTC
Ezek Price wrote:
make it so -- more player content


You can't even fill the existing Low sec with activity.

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.
Humang
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#1684 - 2014-11-02 00:18:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Humang
I'm surprised this thread is still going, but I'll still give it a +1 provided that the idea: separate empires with lowsec, but keep a few regional gate between each that incur a nominal fee to use (based on the ship-mass to cargo-room ratio).

People can still move between high sec systems without ever setting foot in low, but now that have a reason to decide otherwise.

AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#1685 - 2014-11-02 04:21:53 UTC
Humang wrote:
I'm surprised this thread is still going, but I'll still give it a +1 provided that the idea: separate empires with lowsec, but keep a few regional gate between each that incur a nominal fee to use (based on the ship-mass to cargo-room ratio).

People can still move between high sec systems without ever setting foot in low, but now that have a reason to decide otherwise.


Rather than a gate charging a tax, I would suggest an increase in HS-HS wormholes. Some large enough to fit a freighter through, but with an overall mass limitation only allowing a few of them to pass through before collapse. With a bit of effort large scale trade would be possible with variable consistency.

The connecting wormhole spawn rate and mass limitations could then be used to balance the situation.

On a long enough timeline, the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero.
Humang
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#1686 - 2014-11-02 08:17:44 UTC
Evora Pirkibo wrote:
Rather than a gate charging a tax, I would suggest an increase in HS-HS wormholes. Some large enough to fit a freighter through, but with an overall mass limitation only allowing a few of them to pass through before collapse. With a bit of effort large scale trade would be possible with variable consistency.

The connecting wormhole spawn rate and mass limitations could then be used to balance the situation.

The only issue I see with that is that it wouldn't be consistent enough with comparison to current game-play, which would be one of the main points that people would raise.
With the tax and region gates (said gates being on the shortest routes between trade hubs) its a more subtle change as people can still auto pilot, and industry haulers/freighters are less effected by the tax.

AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#1687 - 2014-11-02 08:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Evora Pirkibo
Humang wrote:
The only issue I see with that is that it wouldn't be consistent enough with comparison to current game-play, which would be one of the main points that people would raise.
With the tax and region gates (said gates being on the shortest routes between trade hubs) its a more subtle change as people can still auto pilot, and industry haulers/freighters are less effected by the tax.


Separating the empires with lowsec is in no way subtle, nor is it intended to be. One of the better ramifications of the proposition is that it stops complete afk freight. The principal behind my suggestion is the ability to mitigate risk with active effort. Maintaining an active gate connection between empires defeats this purpose.

Yes that would help shake the boat less, but i believe much of the benefit lies with rough waters.

On a long enough timeline, the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero.
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1688 - 2014-11-02 09:56:09 UTC
Humang wrote:
I'm surprised this thread is still going, but I'll still give it a +1 provided that the idea: separate empires with lowsec, but keep a few regional gate between each that incur a nominal fee to use (based on the ship-mass to cargo-room ratio).

People can still move between high sec systems without ever setting foot in low, but now that have a reason to decide otherwise.


Not a bad idea, what if players themselves made toll gates though. Like bandits you don't know if they'll kill you or let you pass. Player run convoys similar to the Red Frog corp. Instead you pay for protection through dangerous points.
Ix Method
Doomheim
#1689 - 2014-11-02 10:40:33 UTC
Humang wrote:
I'm surprised this thread is still going, but I'll still give it a +1 provided that the idea: separate empires with lowsec, but keep a few regional gate between each that incur a nominal fee to use (based on the ship-mass to cargo-room ratio).

People can still move between high sec systems without ever setting foot in low, but now that have a reason to decide otherwise.

This is interesting but nominal to who? if we're talking nominal to new players its kind of pointless. But if you're talking say 5-10m? Just enough to slowly effect the price of inter-regional trade, making trips to other regions 'special' for new players - that could have genuinely interesting ramifications.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Adela Talvanen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1690 - 2014-11-02 13:53:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Adela Talvanen
Just wondering but has CCP ever intergrated any of the ideas about the game and the game mechanics that have been put forward and discussed on this forum?
Davey Talvanen
Kingsparrow Wormhole Division
Birds of Prey.
#1691 - 2014-11-02 13:58:16 UTC
What about a CONCORD system right in the middle that increases travel time by 10-20 times with no stations in a 5 jump vicinity for carebears to use but will severely cut isk/hour
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1692 - 2014-11-02 15:33:20 UTC
Cutting isk per hour of trade is a bad idea as it would raise all prices impacting everybody but new players the most. Increasing travel time is pointless as those who afk freight would just sénd two freighters instead of one. Breakinghisec apart completely would lead to mass hisec unsubs as dtated by those hisec folks who have replied here.

If losec players don't like hisec afk hauling they arre free to gank them. if loseccers can't be bothered then why should hiseccers be forced to make aditional effort? Messing with hieec travel affects so many people for no gain to the game.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1693 - 2014-11-02 15:55:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Cutting isk per hour of trade is a bad idea as it would raise all prices impacting everybody but new players the most. Increasing travel time is pointless as those who afk freight would just sénd two freighters instead of one. Breakinghisec apart completely would lead to mass hisec unsubs as dtated by those hisec folks who have replied here.

If losec players don't like hisec afk hauling they arre free to gank them. if loseccers can't be bothered then why should hiseccers be forced to make aditional effort? Messing with hieec travel affects so many people for no gain to the game.

Freighters are capital ships. CCP has stated they never intended for capital ships to be solo ships, so weather or not a solo freighter could make it through low sec is irrevilent.

This change would give opprutinities for Blockade Runners and well for t1 industrials.
CCP Greyscale wrote:
First, capital ships are not intended to be solo assets, so we don't tend to weight the needs of solo capital pilots when doing balance work.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ix Method
Doomheim
#1694 - 2014-11-02 15:58:34 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Cutting isk per hour of trade is a bad idea as it would raise all prices impacting everybody but new players the most. Increasing travel time is pointless as those who afk freight would just sénd two freighters instead of one. Breakinghisec apart completely would lead to mass hisec unsubs as dtated by those hisec folks who have replied here.

If losec players don't like hisec afk hauling they arre free to gank them. if loseccers can't be bothered then why should hiseccers be forced to make aditional effort? Messing with hieec travel affects so many people for no gain to the game.

Freighters are capital ships. CCP has stated they never intended for capital ships to be solo ships, so weather or not a solo freighter could make it through low sec is irrevilent.

This change would give opprutinities for Blockade Runners and well for t1 industrials.

That's stunningly disingenuous even for this place.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1695 - 2014-11-02 16:13:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Cutting isk per hour of trade is a bad idea as it would raise all prices impacting everybody but new players the most. Increasing travel time is pointless as those who afk freight would just sénd two freighters instead of one. Breakinghisec apart completely would lead to mass hisec unsubs as dtated by those hisec folks who have replied here.

If losec players don't like hisec afk hauling they arre free to gank them. if loseccers can't be bothered then why should hiseccers be forced to make aditional effort? Messing with hieec travel affects so many people for no gain to the game.

Freighters are capital ships. CCP has stated they never intended for capital ships to be solo ships, so weather or not a solo freighter could make it through low sec is irrevilent.

This change would give opprutinities for Blockade Runners and well for t1 industrials.
CCP Greyscale wrote:
First, capital ships are not intended to be solo assets, so we don't tend to weight the needs of solo capital pilots when doing balance work.


So ...
Will you be the person who plays the webber for your alliance's haulers?
Will you be the person scouting them?
Will you be the person escorting them on their slow treks through space?
Will you be the person responding in favor when your haulers ask for help when they need to move the materials for your toys?
Will you be the person driving bumpers away and sacrifice your ship if necessary?
Will you be the person who does this paid or unpaid?
Will you be the person to sacrifice your time spinning ships in station or playing other games when your haulers need help?

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
#1696 - 2014-11-02 16:35:04 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Cutting isk per hour of trade is a bad idea as it would raise all prices impacting everybody but new players the most. Increasing travel time is pointless as those who afk freight would just sénd two freighters instead of one. Breakinghisec apart completely would lead to mass hisec unsubs as dtated by those hisec folks who have replied here.

If losec players don't like hisec afk hauling they arre free to gank them. if loseccers can't be bothered then why should hiseccers be forced to make aditional effort? Messing with hieec travel affects so many people for no gain to the game.

Freighters are capital ships. CCP has stated they never intended for capital ships to be solo ships, so weather or not a solo freighter could make it through low sec is irrevilent.

This change would give opprutinities for Blockade Runners and well for t1 industrials.
CCP Greyscale wrote:
First, capital ships are not intended to be solo assets, so we don't tend to weight the needs of solo capital pilots when doing balance work.


So ...
Will you be the person who plays the webber for your alliance's haulers?
Will you be the person scouting them?
Will you be the person escorting them on their slow treks through space?
Will you be the person responding in favor when your haulers ask for help when they need to move the materials for your toys?
Will you be the person driving bumpers away and sacrifice your ship if necessary?
Will you be the person who does this paid or unpaid?
Will you be the person to sacrifice your time spinning ships in station or playing other games when your haulers need help?

I expect 3 things when escorting a ship through hostile space;
1. I expect there to be PVP
2. I expect to lose my ship.
3. I expect Corp reimburse the for the lost ship.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1697 - 2014-11-02 16:37:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Double post.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1698 - 2014-11-02 17:24:17 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:

So ...
Will you be the person who plays the webber for your alliance's haulers?
Will you be the person scouting them?
Will you be the person escorting them on their slow treks through space?
Will you be the person responding in favor when your haulers ask for help when they need to move the materials for your toys?
Will you be the person driving bumpers away and sacrifice your ship if necessary?
Will you be the person who does this paid or unpaid?
Will you be the person to sacrifice your time spinning ships in station or playing other games when your haulers need help?

I expect 3 things when escorting a ship through hostile space;
1. I expect there to be PVP
2. I expect to lose my ship.
3. I expect Corp reimburse the for the lost ship.


So you only do it if there is PVP. And what if there is no PVP, for many hauls? What if you basically escort your freighter just for the sake of it regardless if it's dangerous territory or not? Not all freighters venture into Low sec, but as they are not supposed to be solo'd, you would have to escort them in safe territory as well. What then? Will you do answer yes to the above questions?

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.
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1699 - 2014-11-02 18:28:37 UTC
Adela Talvanen wrote:
Just wondering but has CCP ever intergrated any of the ideas about the game and the game mechanics that have been put forward and discussed on this forum?


Yes.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1700 - 2014-11-02 19:08:54 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
...
Freighters are capital ships. CCP has stated they never intended for capital ships to be solo ships, so weather or not a solo freighter could make it through low sec is irrevilent.

This change would give opprutinities for Blockade Runners and well for t1 industrials.
CCP Greyscale wrote:
First, capital ships are not intended to be solo assets, so we don't tend to weight the needs of solo capital pilots when doing balance work.


Nobody is saying that a solo freighter should make it through losec, those against the proposal are pointing out that the hisec industrialists have no wish to enter losec so would *never* take a freighter there escorted or otherwise. And the Empires would never allow for their trade to be interupted by losec pirates. It would damage them too much. Such a change would be incredibly bad for the markets, all the hisec folks who put their effort into buy and sell orders, mass movement of goods and manufacture would be crippled by it.

Those who are willing to fly BR already do and they don't have the hold space for bulk goods movement, T1 haulers haven't got the hold for bulk goods movement either. This kind of arbitrary change to such a large portion of the player base in order to fix no actual problem would be plain nuts.