open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Remove highsec routes between empires....
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

betoli
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.24 12:37:00 - [1]
 

More price differentiation (and hence trade opportunity) - good.
More lowsec activity - good.
More tears - good.

What else would happen?

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2011.01.24 13:19:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 24/01/2011 13:19:39
Quote:
More price differentiation (and hence trade opportunity) - good.

No. The profit will still be ruled by demand and offer. Some items will become more expensive, but since there will be less visits coming from other regions will also the demand for them drop. It does not create more profit, only more price and volume differences.

Quote:
More lowsec activity - good.

Agreed.

Quote:
More tears - good.

At start, yes, but later will everyone have adjusted to it, meaning they will stay where they are or get used to more low-sec travelling.

Still, it is an interesting suggestion.

Laborantka T
Posted - 2011.01.24 14:15:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: betoli
More price differentiation (and hence trade opportunity) - good.


some deaths in low end trading for ordinary people
result
fewer goods in the market, higher prices for all

Originally by: betoli

More lowsec activity - good.


why?

Originally by: betoli
More tears - good.


why?

Originally by: betoli

What else would happen?

most people never leave their region
many things will disappear from the market
quickly discourages new players to the game
reduce trade hi sec <> 0.0
summarizing
very bad idea


Crucis Cassiopeiae
Amarr
PORSCHE AG
Posted - 2011.01.24 14:28:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Crucis Cassiopeiae on 24/01/2011 14:35:38

well... not empires, becouse there need to be back story behind it...
but between factions in war... YES...
so if will only follow story...
amarr and cald VS. gall and minny... and low sec space between that two clans...
it would make 2 trade regions...
there would be less impact on economy then 4 trade regions...
and it can produce new faction warfare battle-grounds that are between empires in war...

but... nice idea... +1

betoli
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.24 14:36:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: betoli on 24/01/2011 14:40:52
Originally by: Laborantka T
Originally by: betoli
More price differentiation (and hence trade opportunity) - good.


some deaths in low end trading for ordinary people
result
fewer goods in the market, higher prices for all



It changes the risk/reward balance of inter-empire trade. Naturally resulting in a small price rise for some things. Higher prices is not neccesarily a bad thing for the game economy (CCP could easily make everything cheap if the really wanted to, and there is not a *correct* price for anything in particular - supply/demand is king). In particular it nerfs afk long distance hauling.

Originally by: Laborantka T

Originally by: betoli

More lowsec activity - good.


why?



erm. Because it increases the range of game play - currently ls is a bit quiet! This will create some important ls systems that are realtively busy and bustling, something that I personally think is missing.

It will also create a context where more PVP corps will hang out to try to grief/tax/control the shortest routes.

All good game dynamics IMHO.

Originally by: Laborantka T

Originally by: betoli
More tears - good.


why?



more ships lost, more market turnover (good for the economy), more pvp.

Originally by: Laborantka T


Originally by: betoli

What else would happen?

most people never leave their region
many things will disappear from the market
quickly discourages new players to the game
reduce trade hi sec <> 0.0
summarizing
very bad idea



I doubt lowsec trade would impact people who are happy to do null sec trade! I also doubt things will vanish from the market, just some price correction.

Noobs don't have to do inter-empire trade, or move between empires at all - and lets face it moving a frig through low sec isn't that hard as long as you don't fuss with the autopilot and make coffee whilst sitting on gates :-)


betoli
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.24 14:39:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae
Edited by: Crucis Cassiopeiae on 24/01/2011 14:35:38

well... not empires, becouse there need to be back story behind it...
but between factions in war... YES...
so if will only follow story...
amarr and cald VS. gall and minny... and low sec space between that two clans...
it would make 2 trade regions...
there would be less impact on economy then 4 trade regions...
and it can produce new faction warfare battle-grounds that are between empires in war...

but... nice idea... +1


Thanks. (and yes, makes more sense with the back-story and less impact on the economy to have just the 2)

Zephris
Posted - 2011.01.24 14:39:00 - [7]
 

More tear is only good for those who want tears.
And there are a lot people in highsec who just want to mind their own business.
This idea benefit a few player at cost of a many others.
terribad idea.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.24 15:02:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae
well... not empires, becouse there need to be back story behind it...
but between factions in war... YES...
so if will only follow story...
amarr and cald VS. gall and minny... and low sec space between that two clans...
it would make 2 trade regions...
there would be less impact on economy then 4 trade regions...
and it can produce new faction warfare battle-grounds that are between empires in war...

but... nice idea... +1

this.. +1

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.24 16:43:00 - [9]
 

This used to be in game at one time. It had to be removed. A tried and failed concept.

shady trader
Posted - 2011.01.24 21:34:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae
Edited by: Crucis Cassiopeiae on 24/01/2011 14:35:38

well... not empires, becouse there need to be back story behind it...
but between factions in war... YES...
so if will only follow story...
amarr and cald VS. gall and minny... and low sec space between that two clans...
it would make 2 trade regions...
there would be less impact on economy then 4 trade regions...
and it can produce new faction warfare battle-grounds that are between empires in war...

but... nice idea... +1


Most boarders between nations at war tend to be fairly heavily policed by there army, they also tend to have things like marshal war declared to the army can attempt to control insurgents. Look at the amount of people and hardware sitting on the Korean boarder.

Its pretty hard to hijack a gold shipment when there are check points at every other cross road.

In the case of Eve, concord would be on hand to make sure the rules of war are followed if there is an attack, in the mean time they amuse them selves by killing pirates.

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2011.01.25 02:13:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 25/01/2011 02:14:01
I agree with the proposal.

Some items will become more expensive yes. Thats the way things should be. If you go to columbia and buy a kilo of ******* you could probably have change left over from your unemployment benefits to pay for EvE.

If you try to buy a kilo in Australia (where I live) it will cost you around 300-400 dollars per gram.

Now, on the UP side, if you go to Columbia and buy a kilo of ******* and then bring it to Australia, you make an extreme profit.

The same would happen in EvE on a smaller scale. Items will become tradeable commodities again. Some things that might happen.

1. Cloaky hauler traders.
2. Pirates groups running goods or protection for running goods.
3. Capital transport chain merchants.
4. Independent traders running goods.

Profit at least in this sense might be adjusted back to those people prepared to take risks in EvE.

All in all a great idea, one that CCP will never implement because they're cowards when it comes to staying true to the spirit of EvE (harshness and risk).

Edit: now what the hell does this filter block the normal word for coke?

Admiral Leviathan
Posted - 2011.01.25 02:31:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 25/01/2011 02:14:01
I agree with the proposal.

Some items will become more expensive yes. Thats the way things should be. If you go to columbia and buy a kilo of ******* you could probably have change left over from your unemployment benefits to pay for EvE.

If you try to buy a kilo in Australia (where I live) it will cost you around 300-400 dollars per gram.

Now, on the UP side, if you go to Columbia and buy a kilo of ******* and then bring it to Australia, you make an extreme profit.

The same would happen in EvE on a smaller scale. Items will become tradeable commodities again. Some things that might happen.

1. Cloaky hauler traders.
2. Pirates groups running goods or protection for running goods.
3. Capital transport chain merchants.
4. Independent traders running goods.

Profit at least in this sense might be adjusted back to those people prepared to take risks in EvE.

All in all a great idea, one that CCP will never implement because they're cowards when it comes to staying true to the spirit of EvE (harshness and risk).

Edit: now what the hell does this filter block the normal word for coke?


you fail to see the point some of these gentlemen have made that the demand would drop as the price would increase, which is a valid concern. Your <censored item> would sell better in Australia but you would still make more profit selling 10x more where it is cheaper. Why do you think Costco makes more money than your local store?

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2011.01.25 03:03:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 25/01/2011 03:05:48
Overall demand would not drop. If 100 people desire a product and you separate them by a fence. 100 people will still desire that product.

If the product is difficult to get across that fence then the price of the product on the side of the fence that is affected would rise while the price on the side where the product exists would drop (50% less demand).

The same percentage of demand would still exist except there would be an opportunity for people with a bit of courage to buy low and sell high if they can get that product over the fence.

Price is dictated by demand, the price would never rise so high that people would lose their desire for that product, if that happened temporarily the price would drop down to a level where demand would pick up and eventually stabilize.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.25 04:15:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Goose99 on 25/01/2011 04:19:15
Edited by: Goose99 on 25/01/2011 04:17:20
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 25/01/2011 03:05:48
Overall demand would not drop. If 100 people desire a product and you separate them by a fence. 100 people will still desire that product.

If the product is difficult to get across that fence then the price of the product on the side of the fence that is affected would rise while the price on the side where the product exists would drop (50% less demand).

The same percentage of demand would still exist except there would be an opportunity for people with a bit of courage to buy low and sell high if they can get that product over the fence.

Price is dictated by demand, the price would never rise so high that people would lose their desire for that product, if that happened temporarily the price would drop down to a level where demand would pick up and eventually stabilize.


False. Demand and price are both affected by each other, one is not purely dictated by the other and not in turn affected. Given enough financial incentives, people lose desire for a certain overpriced product in favor of another more attractively priced competitor. For example, a buyer in Gallente may favor a golem that can be produced locally, instead of a CNR that needs to move across the border, given enough financial incentives. Or, Caldari faction hybrid ammo are the mainstay in all highsec atm, after division, Fed hybrid ammo may pick up in popularity, as it has same stats and locally produced for cheaper price. A popular product that currently dominate market in all areas, such as CNR or Caldari faction ammo, suddenly losing easy access to 3/4 of its clients, will lose some market share to competitors, eventually resulting in lower production over time. The idea that price has no bearing on people's buying decisions is absurd.

Mike Voidstar
Posted - 2011.01.25 04:39:00 - [15]
 

Busy and bustling Low Sec systems would be a nightmare of ganks and LOLkills.

While the Pew-Pew-Moar crowd does not care about it, realistically any major trade route would over time become high sec, because governments would move in to protect their trade interests. The only reason the high sec routes would not be the shortest route is because it was cheaper to just go around the problem areas. However, assuming no way to go around is possible, the only route would become a safe(ish) one.

A large government might not care (at least enough to put themselves out) if they lost the occasional freighter. However, if pirates were to start interdicting major supply lines, you would see large scale military response on the scale of a fully active Sansha Invasion, or worse assuming that the major factions have more resources than Sansha's Nation.

Now, if your purpose was to alter trade, national taxation would be the way to go. It's how RL governments control trade through tariffs. At that point, you produce a 'black market' with trade hubs in low or null sec to avoid the government taxes, and you get your intended supply lines running through low sec, because it's 1/3 cheaper to buy the same ship away from civilization. It also opens the door to realistic smuggling, if they choose to support it with game mechanics. A RL example is the price of gasoline in Venezuala, and buying venezualan produced gasoline in the US.


DrDooma
Posted - 2011.01.25 05:44:00 - [16]
 

personally i would like to see a more randomised security status system. Sure, a few system where new players spawn should remain always the same, but the rest of the low and high sec space should change randomly after each DT by a few points.

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2011.01.25 06:03:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Edited by: Goose99 on 25/01/2011 04:19:15
Edited by: Goose99 on 25/01/2011 04:17:20
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 25/01/2011 03:05:48
Overall demand would not drop. If 100 people desire a product and you separate them by a fence. 100 people will still desire that product.

If the product is difficult to get across that fence then the price of the product on the side of the fence that is affected would rise while the price on the side where the product exists would drop (50% less demand).

The same percentage of demand would still exist except there would be an opportunity for people with a bit of courage to buy low and sell high if they can get that product over the fence.

Price is dictated by demand, the price would never rise so high that people would lose their desire for that product, if that happened temporarily the price would drop down to a level where demand would pick up and eventually stabilize.


*snip* The idea that price has no bearing on people's buying decisions is absurd.

Last line on my post. Price rises, demand drops, demand drops price lowers, price lowers demand rises. Ad nuseum.

CarnegieSteel
Posted - 2011.01.25 06:39:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: DrDooma
personally i would like to see a more randomised security status system. Sure, a few system where new players spawn should remain always the same, but the rest of the low and high sec space should change randomly after each DT by a few points.


It shouldnt be random, but should be dictated by player actions. And I think only border systems between high/low and low/null should be changeable.

Dr Ackermann
Posted - 2011.01.25 07:22:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: betoli
More price differentiation (and hence trade opportunity) - good.
More lowsec activity - good.
More tears - good.

What else would happen?



I actually think it's a good idea. It changes a lot of stuff but it's probably good overall because it creates more regional markets and more dynamic gameplay. It will also drain more money out of the economy which i'm sure CCP would love :) More ships blowing up = more ISK sunk. But I think we would need lots of portals between disconnected sections of highsec. Like at least 5 alternate routes because otherwise it will be nonstop gate camp and wars.

I think another thing that it will truly encourage is the original idea by CCP to encourage moving minerals from one area to another and it will create higher profits for haulers of minerals (kernite in Amarr space vs Omber in Caldari or something like that).

All in all it has really far reaching consequences but I think it would be a good improvement to gameplay. Also it would reduce the load on Jita server magically.

betoli
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.25 07:33:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:47:02
Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:43:41
Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:39:49
Originally by: Goose99
This used to be in game at one time. It had to be removed. A tried and failed concept.


Can you or anyone else let us know why it didn't work?

Originally by: Admiral Leviathan

you fail to see the point some of these gentlemen have made that the demand would drop as the price would increase, which is a valid concern. Your <censored item> would sell better in Australia but you would still make more profit selling 10x more where it is cheaper. Why do you think Costco makes more money than your local store?



You mean volume, not 'demand'? Not sure that this makes economic sense to me. High volme business makes more than low volume business (when the price differential is the same)

Originally by: shady trader

Most boarders between nations at war tend to be fairly heavily policed by there army, they also tend to have things like marshal war declared to the army can attempt to control insurgents.



I wouldn't say thats universally true. Most borders between disputed territory have demilitarized zones as buffer where the military can't operate. That may be some back-story explanation as to why the wars are fought by proxy via capsuleers rather than huge fleets of npc navy ships doing incursions into each others space. er Korea included.

Originally by: Dr Ackermann

I think we would need lots of portals between disconnected sections of highsec. Like at least 5 alternate routes because otherwise it will be nonstop gate camp and wars.

I think another thing that it will truly encourage is the original idea by CCP to encourage moving minerals from one area to another and it will create higher profits for haulers of minerals (kernite in Amarr space vs Omber in Caldari or something like that).

All in all it has really far reaching consequences but I think it would be a good improvement to gameplay. Also it would reduce the load on Jita server magically.


agree - the hs/ls mineral content was one of the motivations - of course you can also tweak the mineral availability quite easily if needed.

Ydyp Ieva
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.01.25 09:17:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Ydyp Ieva on 25/01/2011 09:27:40
Originally by: betoli
Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:47:02
Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:43:41
Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:39:49
Originally by: Goose99
This used to be in game at one time. It had to be removed. A tried and failed concept.


Can you or anyone else let us know why it didn't work?



In early times Concord was just a laughable joke and easy tanked. This resulted in the newbie stations/gates and all to be camped all time and a lot of new players lost their ship just on the first time they undocked. And a lot got disencouraged by this and you didn't had a lot of influx of newer players.

Not good for business so Concord got buffed. And highsec got relative safe, but between the empires there was still lowsec if I'm not mistaken. And with just the T1 industrials and the no WTZ it was near impossible to cross that lowsec bridge. Meaning a lot of newer players making a specific race for certain skills couldn't get to their friends in other empires. Meaning lesser influx of newer players, so Eve got made a bit more secure again.

However with the introduction of T2 industrials, jump freighters and especialy WTZ lowsec became a lot easier to move through then before. Good luck trying to catch a pod or cloaky in lowsec these days (at least if they aren't stupid).

And incursions could be used as a background for this as the empires are mobilizing their fleets and pull them back closer to their core worlds to make sure they can be easily deployed if the Sansha's invade their core worlds. Leaving the border systems less protected and open for piracy/raiders. Concord lowers because of this the security status of these systems.

Also these lowsec systems should be added to the fw-region. As the empires just pulled some of their forces out but not all and still claim those systems, and leave it to the militia's to protect them.

Aquila Draco
Posted - 2011.01.25 09:27:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Aquila Draco on 25/01/2011 09:28:57


+1 for idea


Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae
Edited by: Crucis Cassiopeiae on 24/01/2011 14:35:38

well... not empires, becouse there need to be back story behind it...
but between factions in war... YES...
so if will only follow story...
amarr and cald VS. gall and minny... and low sec space between that two clans...
it would make 2 trade regions...
there would be less impact on economy then 4 trade regions...
and it can produce new faction warfare battle-grounds that are between empires in war...

but... nice idea... +1



and +1 for this.

empires in war must be separated with low sec space - hard to believe in back-story when all is conected.
this will help in the way that jita will spread out on 2 hubs - so less lag

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2011.01.25 11:30:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 25/01/2011 12:27:41
Originally by: Ydyp Ieva
Edited by: Ydyp Ieva on 25/01/2011 09:27:40
Originally by: betoli
Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:47:02
Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:43:41
Edited by: betoli on 25/01/2011 07:39:49
Originally by: Goose99
This used to be in game at one time. It had to be removed. A tried and failed concept.


Can you or anyone else let us know why it didn't work?



In early times Concord was just a laughable joke and easy tanked. This resulted in the newbie stations/gates and all to be camped all time and a lot of new players lost their ship just on the first time they undocked. And a lot got disencouraged by this and you didn't had a lot of influx of newer players.

Not good for business so Concord got buffed. And highsec got relative safe, but between the empires there was still lowsec if I'm not mistaken. And with just the T1 industrials and the no WTZ it was near impossible to cross that lowsec bridge. Meaning a lot of newer players making a specific race for certain skills couldn't get to their friends in other empires. Meaning lesser influx of newer players, so Eve got made a bit more secure again.

However with the introduction of T2 industrials, jump freighters and especialy WTZ lowsec became a lot easier to move through then before. Good luck trying to catch a pod or cloaky in lowsec these days (at least if they aren't stupid).

And incursions could be used as a background for this as the empires are mobilizing their fleets and pull them back closer to their core worlds to make sure they can be easily deployed if the Sansha's invade their core worlds. Leaving the border systems less protected and open for piracy/raiders. Concord lowers because of this the security status of these systems.

Also these lowsec systems should be added to the fw-region. As the empires just pulled some of their forces out but not all and still claim those systems, and leave it to the militia's to protect them.

I don't remember EvE having completely separated empires. When they were separated there were superhighway links.

Sinikka Huiputti
Posted - 2011.01.25 14:21:00 - [24]
 

I wouldn't mind if geography would matter more but it is just not going to happen. Because TEARS.




Michael McNeil
Posted - 2011.01.26 06:10:00 - [25]
 

the best two things that would come out of this

1) is that each empire would develop their own jita, as the .00 spaces from the outer ring would bring their goods to the jita of each empire, this may open inter-empire trade a bit, and will increase the fun for empire corps as they would have real life missions of protecting... or raiding supply convoy's between the empires. (it could play into the empire wars.)

2) given that the empires are at war, the zones between systems would be more dangerous as reality has it, law enforcement isn't exactly concerned with protecting john Q public in war zones, they are protecting government facilities and personnel.


The only issue I see is that you would be making the existing empires much smaller, even if all you are doing is removing or reducing Concord and allowing areas to become free shooting zones for 2-3 jumps. Also realize that this would allow people who have carriers or other jump abled ships to get into empire with their ships and goods and closer access to the 4 jitas of each empire.

Misanthra
Posted - 2011.01.26 07:21:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Michael McNeil

The only issue I see is that you would be making the existing empires much smaller, even if all you are doing is removing or reducing Concord and allowing areas to become free shooting zones for 2-3 jumps. Also realize that this would allow people who have carriers or other jump abled ships to get into empire with their ships and goods and closer access to the 4 jitas of each empire.


this the main problem with this. It takes trading from the hands of all players (noob to pro) and puts in the hands of the pro's only. JF pilot paradise since its hard to lose a jf. And they can find alternate ways to get around. They will get lions share of trade profits, very low risk.


I'll say for arguments sake there are like 8 direct links to gallente space from caldari. Easy enough to perma camp with the collected number of pirates in eve 23/7. Jf pilots....don't need these 8 links. If any 0.0/low sec experience (which they will have...jfs are not a cheap ship, you played eve a bit to make the isk for it, most likely living out of empire a decent amount of time as well) they will hit the less camped systems they do now and hop through null/low and sneak in through the side like they have done for years. These systems would be even less populated to make it easier...more pirates would be in the dmz's between empires.

Lusulpher
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.26 12:38:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Misanthra
Originally by: Michael McNeil

The only issue I see is that you would be making the existing empires much smaller, even if all you are doing is removing or reducing Concord and allowing areas to become free shooting zones for 2-3 jumps. Also realize that this would allow people who have carriers or other jump abled ships to get into empire with their ships and goods and closer access to the 4 jitas of each empire.


this the main problem with this. It takes trading from the hands of all players (noob to pro) and puts in the hands of the pro's only. JF pilot paradise since its hard to lose a jf. And they can find alternate ways to get around. They will get lions share of trade profits, very low risk.


I'll say for arguments sake there are like 8 direct links to gallente space from caldari. Easy enough to perma camp with the collected number of pirates in eve 23/7. Jf pilots....don't need these 8 links. If any 0.0/low sec experience (which they will have...jfs are not a cheap ship, you played eve a bit to make the isk for it, most likely living out of empire a decent amount of time as well) they will hit the less camped systems they do now and hop through null/low and sneak in through the side like they have done for years. These systems would be even less populated to make it easier...more pirates would be in the dmz's between empires.


SO you are refuting this idea based on Risk v Reward. And your example is a risky vessel doing risky hauling for more reward...

Also ignoring the fact that in-station module trading can be done by noobs, and should be as they have no idea how to safely move JF 2 months into EVE.
AND noobs will have 4 Jitas, 3 more opportunities to become Jita-naires...Rolling Eyes

+1 to this idea.
Train up covert hauler skillset and adapt as usual. Or don't. WoW is that way. <---

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2011.01.26 12:52:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Lusulpher
Originally by: Misanthra
Originally by: Michael McNeil

The only issue I see is that you would be making the existing empires much smaller, even if all you are doing is removing or reducing Concord and allowing areas to become free shooting zones for 2-3 jumps. Also realize that this would allow people who have carriers or other jump abled ships to get into empire with their ships and goods and closer access to the 4 jitas of each empire.


this the main problem with this. It takes trading from the hands of all players (noob to pro) and puts in the hands of the pro's only. JF pilot paradise since its hard to lose a jf. And they can find alternate ways to get around. They will get lions share of trade profits, very low risk.


I'll say for arguments sake there are like 8 direct links to gallente space from caldari. Easy enough to perma camp with the collected number of pirates in eve 23/7. Jf pilots....don't need these 8 links. If any 0.0/low sec experience (which they will have...jfs are not a cheap ship, you played eve a bit to make the isk for it, most likely living out of empire a decent amount of time as well) they will hit the less camped systems they do now and hop through null/low and sneak in through the side like they have done for years. These systems would be even less populated to make it easier...more pirates would be in the dmz's between empires.


SO you are refuting this idea based on Risk v Reward. And your example is a risky vessel doing risky hauling for more reward...

Also ignoring the fact that in-station module trading can be done by noobs, and should be as they have no idea how to safely move JF 2 months into EVE.
AND noobs will have 4 Jitas, 3 more opportunities to become Jita-naires...Rolling Eyes

+1 to this idea.
Train up covert hauler skillset and adapt as usual. Or don't. WoW is that way. <---

Agreed.

CarnegieSteel
Posted - 2011.01.27 07:07:00 - [29]
 

As long as the path between empires isnt choked to a single point (or even 2 or 3 points) then yes, I support.

If you narrow it to 1 single low sec system that you MUST go through, then you will have battleships smartbombing the gates 24/7 and nothing will be able to get through at all.

Joe McAlt
Posted - 2011.01.27 07:32:00 - [30]
 

Considering how much more crowded High Sec is than Low Sec one must assume that the vast majority of players preferr to remain in high sec regardless of what one would think by reading the Forums. Therefore it would be logical to conclude that constricting high sec even more would only serve to make thos High Sec systems even more crowded.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only