open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked JITA!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

FlyingSpoonyBadger
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:25:00 - [1]
 

Hello,

The madness that is Jita must have been confounding GM's and frustrating players for years could we take a closer look at exactly what is going on in this system please.

Suggestions to ease the load and random responses from GM's would be appreciated. However I'd like to start the ball rolling:

1. Mission agents - Is there any real need for missions to be run within or from Jita. There are thousands of different agents anyone could go to so why go here? The game experience within this system must be particularly bad and we dont need more players and NPC's sprouting up all over the place. It's a sad day when missions can't be run in a system but lets face it Jita is a trade hub pure and simple.

2.Auto pilot - Can we have it so that unless Jita is your intended destination the auto pilot reroutes you through surrounding systems to the best of its capabilities? So long as it doesn't dump people in low sec there should be no real issue with this after all lets face it you aint saving time going thru Jita.

3. Combat - Ok this is probably the most ridiculous idea ever and I can see people burning graven images of me now but.... Can we get this system declared a no fire zone? Could Concord use it as a Neutral zone for peace talks at the benevolence of the Caldari government? This is of course the most extreme measure of change as it will effectively make Jita a haulage yard of gargantuan proportions but really is it not that already?

Spoony

couger malthas
Amarr
Violent Purge PLC
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:29:00 - [2]
 

i dont think you can pull of jita as a no fire zone, it is caldari space not concords, you want a no fire zone by concord i would have to say yulai would be the only system that would work.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:38:00 - [3]
 

Well moving agents/missions to surrounding systems sounds like a pretty good start to a solution to the problem, after all lag caused by so many people in one system must effect the deadspace pockets in that system too, how many craft have been lost due to lag spikes?

Lothris Andastar
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:38:00 - [4]
 

Why should CCP treat Jita any different?

You dont want lag, Dont mission or go there.

Jerald Lutney
Gallente
Tenacious Tendencies
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:43:00 - [5]
 

As for the autopilot avoiding Jita, they already do that. You just have to tell it you. You ever looked at the "Waypoint" option on your autopilot?

Odetta Harpy
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:57:00 - [6]
 

what about a option to add systems to your autopilot that you dont want on the route.
This will make it so people can take jita off their route but also any other systems that they dont want to go through.
And about agent missions, take combat agents out, but maybe keep mining and trade agents there to go with the trade theme of jita.
Also try to make it so agents in surrounding systems dont send you into jita to reduce the ammount of people going there.

Irn Bruce
Posted - 2008.07.31 00:33:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: FlyingSpoonyBadger

1. Mission agents - Is there any real need for missions to be run within or from Jita. There are thousands of different agents anyone could go to so why go here? The game experience within this system must be particularly bad and we dont need more players and NPC's sprouting up all over the place. It's a sad day when missions can't be run in a system but lets face it Jita is a trade hub pure and simple.


I agree.

Quote:

2.Auto pilot - Can we have it so that unless Jita is your intended destination the auto pilot reroutes you through surrounding systems to the best of its capabilities? So long as it doesn't dump people in low sec there should be no real issue with this after all lets face it you aint saving time going thru Jita.


Already an option.

Quote:
3. Combat - Ok this is probably the most ridiculous idea ever and I can see people burning graven images of me now but.... Can we get this system declared a no fire zone? Could Concord use it as a Neutral zone for peace talks at the benevolence of the Caldari government? This is of course the most extreme measure of change as it will effectively make Jita a haulage yard of gargantuan proportions but really is it not that already?

Spoony


Do you realise that this would only make things worse? It's already the case that highsec is massively overpopulated compared to the rest of the universe because it is perceived as safer. It's a sad fact that the majority of Eve players feel the need to be nurtured and protected by the game mechanics, so they flock to the areas of least risk. If there was one system where you were totally immune from attack, don't you think 90% of players would flock to it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fact of a player driven economy is that there will always be trade hubs set up. It is good for the economy if there is a single standard by which prices can be judged, so it's only natural that the players will set up a single major trading centre, whether deliberately or not. No matter what you do to Jita under the current mechanics, the problem wo't go away. There will still be somewhere that players gather to trade at the best prices.

I can think of one change that might help somewhat though. If the services offered in a station, including the types of goods which could be bought there, were limited by the type of station, you could then end up with a number of smaller trade hubs being set up for different types of goods. It would also make it easier to tell if what you're looking for is likely to be in system. For example, Navy stations would have militia offices, repair shops, clone bays and bounty offices, and combat ships and fittings could be bought and sold there. Perhaps you could buy and sell trade goods at a quafe station, and buy shuttles and haulers to ferry around your goods. A mining station would obviously buy and sell ores, minerals, and industrial andmining ships and fittings. Shipyards could be the only places you can manufacture ships, and would only trade in ship hulls and rigs. Then there would be science stations where you could research your blueprints and manufacture modules.

If the types of station in a given system (such as Jita) were limited so that not all trade could occur in a single system, then it may ease the problem a bit. As things stand, there is no real lag problem in Rens, which is also a big trade hub, just not as big as Jita. I reckon even a minor drop in player numbers in Jita would make a big difference.

Aimel
Posted - 2008.07.31 09:26:00 - [8]
 

I don't think an agent is generating any lag.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2008.07.31 13:30:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Aimel
I don't think an agent is generating any lag.

The agent themselves don't generate lag, it's the Pilots using them ie travel to and from, and/or doing missions.
If there are no agents there, then you wouldn't have mission runners in the trade hub system, at least not for mission reasons, they would only go in there to buy/sell.

Shiho Weitong
Caldari
Koa Mai Hoku
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:15:00 - [10]
 

I've never once in my eve-career had a problem with Jita... It's really simple... I've stayed away...

Ydyp Ieva
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:28:00 - [11]
 

And that to know I find all my stuff a lot cheaper elsewhere these days then in Jita Shocked

Schani Kratnorr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.08.01 00:27:00 - [12]
 

There has always been a #1 trade hub in EVE, and it has always been laggy. One of the reasons Jita is the tradehub now is the agent distribution - if CCP changes too much, people will move and a new tradehub will form. Yulai anyone?


 

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