open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Changes Which Better Meet CCP's Stated Goals for Nullsec
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.04.20 15:36:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Darth Gustav on 20/04/2011 15:38:36
CCP Greyscale has made it clear that nullsec is currently up for several passes of "refinement" aimed at driving conflict (and presumably favoring newer alliances slightly over older, larger ones). Following is my four step proposal for a system that would do just that:

1) Un-nerf nullsec anomalies. Period. Pilots need ships to drive conflict, risk vs. reward, et al. The rest of this plan is predicated on a return of nullsec to previous states.

2) Levy an asymptotically scalar monthly fee against corporate entities based on the total number of pilots that are set blue to them, even those inherited by alliance settings. This would create a vast ISK sink, with the largest entities paying the most into the system. Over time, this should make the maintenance of uberblobs utterly impossible, forcing alliances to choose smaller groups of allies for their coalitions. Smaller coalitions mean more neutrals. More neutrals mean more targets. More targets with smaller blobs makes Eve Online a healthier game.

3) Implement a way to produce moongoo from Planetary Interaction and remove it from all POS moons. Make the process of producing each type of moongoo sufficiently complex as to exceed that of producing Robotics. Remove POS mining equipment from the game and replace it with modules which mine raw POS fuels such as Liquid Ozone and Strontium Clatherates (yes, Strontium Clatherates). Storing our ships in nullsec shouldn't be quite such a chore, if you want us to use them for conflict. Making some of the fuel accessible directly by the POS itself lowers the ISK sink bar for small corporations and alliances to access nullsec.

4) Limit jump drives and jump bridges to being able to take a ship only to any system a gate in the system of origin could take it to, but reduce the cost of each jump significantly. Let's be honest, this is how it always should have been. Yes, you can try to avoid the incidental gates and camps to wage your war. No, you can't get there in thirty seconds.

I hope folks can see that these changes would go a long way toward "fixing" the current conundrum that is nullsec. And I suspect the changes would be a lot more fun than the current (hosed) situation there.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.04.20 16:12:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav
... Un-nerf nullsec anomalies...

Almost stopped reading expecting another "oh noes, mah wallet!" topic .. Smile

1) Sanctums were added as an extra income, there was more conflict prior to them being introduced so the argument falls flat.
Goes without saying that if everywhere is the same there is no incentive to aggressive seek greener pastures for the bot-herd and conflict is for the 'lulz' only .. look back 2-3 years and compare the type of conflicts with what has happened since Dominion .. They are gone, good riddance!

2) Penalizing people for banding together in an MMO, hmmm. Would certainly make Eve the first to do such a thing .... Very Happy
The ISK sink you are looking for is in the sovereignty maintenance system, make it scale horribly fast after the first few systems/constellations and you end up with US type confederations/alliances just with the added juice from e-peen which will promote even more war.

3) No comment other than, hell yes. Static income should not be a part of a game where income actually matters.
Alternatively the operations should be made extremely vulnerable to attack so that a perpetual guard/patrol has to be in place to protect it.

4) Will happen in some form, but not before a null-industrial revamp is ready I think.
A lot of (or even most) people think the Jita reliance is a little over the top so is just a matter of time.

Will be quite interesting to see what the "Protect the Status Quo" CSM of this term does.
CCP appears determined to try to fix null so question is if they will try to help shape it into something useful/acceptable or hold their collective breaths in defiance.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.20 16:33:00 - [3]
 

Ditch sanctums.

Add hauler spawn anoms.

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.04.20 16:33:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Darth Gustav on 20/04/2011 16:33:35
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
2) Penalizing people for banding together in an MMO, hmmm. Would certainly make Eve the first to do such a thing .... Very Happy
The ISK sink you are looking for is in the sovereignty maintenance system, make it scale horribly fast after the first few systems/constellations and you end up with US type confederations/alliances just with the added juice from e-peen which will promote even more war.


Sovereignty doesn't matter if you've got the cap fleet to say the space is yours and unlimited blues in your coalition to back those claims up. Big alliances won't pay the sov bills for vast space, they'll just hire more renters and claim "Imminent Domain".

Also, EVE has always been the first MMO to penalize people for working together. See CSPA Charges, NPC corps' original lack of taxes, NPC corps being immune to war while player corps aren't, capitalism...

The asymptotic fees would be small and manageable at the lowest levels, but would become huge and unwieldy at the numbers that tend to produce uberblobs.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.04.20 17:12:00 - [5]
 

Don't unnerf. It you guys don't have enough good ratting space maybe you can go take A-5??? Stop crying and put the work in for your space (I heard you all got beat down by the PL feeder corp).

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.04.20 17:39:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
Don't unnerf. It you guys don't have enough good ratting space maybe you can go take A-5??? Stop crying and put the work in for your space (I heard you all got beat down by the PL feeder corp).


"Stop crying," is all you've got to contribute?

1) I don't and never have relied on anomalies for income. Many other vocal players apparently do and/or did.

2) CCP promised us, their clients, that with Dominion all space would be "worth taking." We were given details as to how the system worked, we adapted to it, investing countless hours and ISK to do so, only to have our trust breached by a visibly arrogant dev who seems convinced the current solution is the only solution. They have done this kind of feature bait-and-switch before...and it's never been a particularly good marketing technique for them.

3) People are leaving the game due to this change. We, as players, will probably never see real figures as to how many, but anecdotal evidence proving this seems to be abundant. The "ISK fountain" people refer to probably wasn't enough to even fully accomodate the vacuum these subscription cancellations will leave in the market, especially if a suitable ISK sink to incent players to change their behavior were implemented.

4) I've presented a proposal that removes the most ISK from the biggest botter and blobber alliances while creating a healthier atmosphere for conflict, and the best you have to say is, "Stop crying?"

How about this: "Start thinking."

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.20 18:03:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav
4) I've presented a proposal that removes the most ISK from the biggest botter and blobber alliances while creating a healthier atmosphere for conflict...

Not true. You simply suggested a mechanics change that favors alliances and coalitions that are large enough and RL fiscally strong enough to use out-of-game assets to function.

The NC would likely just set everyone in the coalition neut and set most everyone else red and continue to use all the out-of-game assets we have to organize and function like normal. No skin off our back. Sucks to be the little alliances that use in-game mechanics though.

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.04.20 18:15:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Darth Gustav
4) I've presented a proposal that removes the most ISK from the biggest botter and blobber alliances while creating a healthier atmosphere for conflict...

Not true. You simply suggested a mechanics change that favors alliances and coalitions that are large enough and RL fiscally strong enough to use out-of-game assets to function.

The NC would likely just set everyone in the coalition neut and set most everyone else red and continue to use all the out-of-game assets we have to organize and function like normal. No skin off our back. Sucks to be the little alliances that use in-game mechanics though.



A very good point. I hadn't considered using out-of-game assets (and solely out-of-game assets) for ID purposes. Still, it seems like this could be very unwieldy at large scales. What would happen, for instance, if you guys encountered a large neutral fleet instead of your predicted "red" enemies? Can FC's and pilots all pull off this feat?

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.20 18:20:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Darth Gustav
4) I've presented a proposal that removes the most ISK from the biggest botter and blobber alliances while creating a healthier atmosphere for conflict...

Not true. You simply suggested a mechanics change that favors alliances and coalitions that are large enough and RL fiscally strong enough to use out-of-game assets to function.

The NC would likely just set everyone in the coalition neut and set most everyone else red and continue to use all the out-of-game assets we have to organize and function like normal. No skin off our back. Sucks to be the little alliances that use in-game mechanics though.



A very good point. I hadn't considered using out-of-game assets (and solely out-of-game assets) for ID purposes. Still, it seems like this could be very unwieldy at large scales. What would happen, for instance, if you guys encountered a large neutral fleet instead of your predicted "red" enemies? Can FC's and pilots all pull off this feat?

As we currently sit, it is highly abnormal to be shooting at neuts anyway, other than in small gang warfare. In small gang warfare, you usually know the names and ship types of everyone else in your fleet, so it is quite easy to identify who doesn't belong.

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.04.20 18:27:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
As we currently sit, it is highly abnormal to be shooting at neuts anyway, other than in small gang warfare. In small gang warfare, you usually know the names and ship types of everyone else in your fleet, so it is quite easy to identify who doesn't belong.


Remember, the sum of these changes (not solely fees for blues) are intended to increase the odds of precisely such alliances seeing new "neutral" fleets. That said, I'm still interested in whether or not it's possible for the alliance to function as stated if they're caught off-guard by a reasonably even "neutral" fleet.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.20 18:44:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav
Remember, the sum of these changes (not solely fees for blues) are intended to increase the odds of precisely such alliances seeing new "neutral" fleets. That said, I'm still interested in whether or not it's possible for the alliance to function as stated if they're caught off-guard by a reasonably even "neutral" fleet.

Alliances/Coalitions that can field reasonably sized fleets are known entities though. The only people impacted from such a change would be ratters who would have to check the player info on people who enter their system. Coalitions wouldn't blink about getting rid of in-game mechanics if the costs for using them were noticeable and the benefits were really rather small.

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2011.04.21 02:17:00 - [12]
 

Even if uberblobs continued to use in-game means to identify friend from foe with a huge isk fee, I think you'd just see a new grunt position in alliances open up: the set-everybody-neutral-an-hour-before-the-bill-comes-guy. And after the bill is issued with no blues, set-everybody-neutral-guy becomes set-everybody-blue-again-guy.

Tu Ko
Predator's Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.21 02:36:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Tu Ko on 21/04/2011 02:52:02
This is like cold medicine. We are talking about solutions to a symptom as opposed to the actual disease. The actual problem is that the idea of taking SOV requires that an alliance destroy another alliances TCU and place one of their own. Because the defender can have ANYONE come in and defend their TCU and destroy the invaders is the reason why a small allaince cannot take a single system from a coalition no matter how worthless. This is because to allievate the problem of TZ warfare we have reinforcement timers which is a cute way of saying; game paused, batphone your blues. Why does SOV have to boil down to SOV structures in the first place because thats why everyone blobs, they cannot control how many the enemy brings to the fight so they have to get as many people on the field as they can. The longer the notice the more blues can be rallied.

http://www.eveonline.com/iNgameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1486890&page=1#5
http://www.eveonline.com/iNgameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1486890&page=1#8

1) Un-nerf nullsec anomalies. Period. Pilots need ships to drive conflict, risk vs. reward, et al. The rest of this plan is predicated on a return of nullsec to previous states.

Although I am against the truesec anomally setup I am not against the idea of nerfing the raw isk generated in Null, if it was converted to different types of resources, minerals, gases, whatever it would be much better. My problem with what they did with this change was that they made the entrenched entities able to produce even more isk and removed alot of isk from those trying to build an alliance, IE taking the wind out of the new guys sails. That's not going ot produce more wars, this little shuffle in delve is far more about moons and IT's death than anything about sanctums or ratting in general. Saying that the amount of raw isk generated makes players lazy, in nearly every Null area I have lived in the amount of industry is religated to a very small group of individuals, and those individuals only produce just enough for the local market, I have have yet to see anyone build something in null and take it back to empire to sell.

2) Levy an asymptotically scalar monthly fee against corporate entities based on the total number of pilots that are set blue to them, even those inherited by alliance settings.

As other posters have said players would just meta game the standings. Likely what would happen is that People would reverse the RED standing, so RED is BLUE and Neut is Red. Its just bad either way.

3) Implement a way to produce moongoo from Planetary Interaction and remove it from all POS moons. Remove POS mining equipment from the game and replace it with modules which mine raw POS fuels such as Liquid Ozone and Strontium Clatherates

That'll just make the moongoo cheap. if technium was the same price as atmospheric gases we wouldn't even be talking about this. Granted the Tech bottleneck is a huge money maker for the alliances that hold them ,but the real way to deal with that is to spread the moons around better. Not increase supply dramatically. As far as the second statement if you make the fuel with the pos and assuming you made more of one type than what that particular pos needed in the same period of time, wouldn't this replace ice mining entirely...

4) Limit jump drives and jump bridges to being able to take a ship only to any system a gate in the system of origin could take it to, but reduce the cost of each jump significantly. Let's be honest, this is how it always should have been. Yes, you can try to avoid the incidental gates and camps to wage your war. No, you can't get there in thirty seconds.

I don't think I understand this clearly. So, basically jump bridges would be useless completely, JF's would just die without a prayer, capitals of any other type would have to have a person lighting a cyno in every single system...




 

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