open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Sovereignty: Emergence is neat
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (17)

Author Topic

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:26:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: Asuri Kinnes
Risk vrs. reward? o.O


Perception is not always equivalent to reality, space friend. People might think 0.0 is an important place because they hear all this stuff about it, but if 2 people out of 100 are going at it (very loudly) and it has no impact on what the other 98 are doing - it isn't relevant.

Even if the other 98 have no fascinating stories to share of their own, and are largely consuming the entertainment value of those 2 badasses - they live in two separate worlds just because the 98 crowd isn't looking to get involved now or later.

Now take the exact same situation, with one difference...

The 98 crowd is paying attention, partly for entertainment value, but also because the conflict and political uphevals are simultaneously creating and destroying opportunities. The ones who spot the opportunities can move in to benefit from it. This is an example where public perceptions could be identical, but the underlying situation is different.

The only way to turn the former (current state of EVE) into the latter (desired state of EVE), is when new players think that moving to 0.0 is important for their advancement and growth. Then go on to join or create corporations where everybody has a similar belief and they strive for this goal.

Newb players and corporations still do that now, but get sniped by reality somewhere along the way - the one that goes something like this:

"You can get everything you want in empire much easier it just takes a bit longer. 0.0 is optional, and all that energy and work you're spending is not required."

Corporations which start in the complete opposite way (determined to take the path of least resistance) aren't suitably tempted by the deep end of the pool. Most of them will only give lowsec a shot when the slight economic incentive stacks with utter boredom. And when they do, their initial nature is proven to be correct through marginally improved rewards and exponentially increased risk.

Garok Nor
Caldari
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:31:00 - [272]
 

Originally by: Smyrk
Quote:
there's a lot of players who'd like to try it out but can't seem to get started - in no small part because of the problems outlined in the first few paragraphs

You're describing me, and others in my corp, so you're sort of preaching to the choir with us. That said, I am curious how far you hope to go with this -- do your ideas scale down sovereignty from the current "2-3000" pilot organizations to...200? all the way to 20? or are you rather hoping to provide ways for current outsiders to more easily form new huge alliances or help existing ones? I get the impression that it's more the latter; that you hope to motivate large alliances to include smaller groups in their activities, but that the smaller groups would not be independent (or even mostly independent) nullsec operators. But I'd like to be wrong.

As I mentioned in feedback to the previous sovereignty dev blog, I'd be interested to see w-space used as a gate to regions of nullsec that are not connected to current k-space. Wormholes provide a bottleneck that would keep the current nullsec empires from easily taking over such new space, giving it a level playing field and potentially even scoping those nullsec pockets for smaller-scale sovereign states.


Smyrk:

The gut feeling I got from the blog was a sense of moving passive income AWAY from moon mining and into something more social, call it player mining. Allowing smaller friendly entities to enter your space to carebear in exchange for some pre-arranged rent/profit sharing. If my intuition is correct, I'm assuming this will be tied in with the whole treaty system.... Of course this is wild speculation, but I can see where it would provide the large alliances with a very real isk incentive to have more open border policies.

I do however have to second the opinions that this, and the last dev blogs were many words that actually said nothing, still, I get a good feeling about this expansion.

Garok Nor
Caldari
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:38:00 - [273]
 

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
so you want people exploiting chinese ratters as their primary source of income? man you guys are insane.


Shoot... this is actually a VERY insightful comment. Yet another attempt to squash the isk farmers that are making RL cash off CCP's work. And from what I gather so far, this might actually work to a certain degree.

Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:39:00 - [274]
 

Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Most of them will only give lowsec a shot when the slight economic incentive stacks with utter boredom.


This. 0.0 and low sec is far too much a pvp only playground.

Empire needs to be seriously nerfed. Like any well established empire profits should be razor thin. New players should be encouraged to leave starter corps due to high taxes to pay for concord.

If 0.0 can mine players then high sec should offer safety at the cost of very high taxes and limited resources. Less missioning, high cost npc factory slots, etc. This way there is a reason to mine or build in 0.0.

Currently 0.0 is a wasteland.

Ort Lofthus
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:40:00 - [275]
 

I'm pretty much agreeing with digicom here, its crazy to think of how great the ISK potential is from lvl 4s. What I am not sure about is how many of those people would quit over lvl 4s getting nerfed. I think that the risk-adverse casual players would still run missions in empire, empire industrialists who run missions as supplemental income would still do so, and those running missions to support their PvP habit are probably more than capable of running the missions or ratting in lowsec and 0.0.

My idea for rebalencing lvl 4s:

1) The main unique resources that missions generate are implants and faction gear via LP. This should be the primary source of income for missions.

2) The isk reward from the mission itself is pretty minor, but reduce or eliminate the rat bounty for mission rats. Furthermore, change the drop tables of rats to replace t1 with low end meta, to reduce the profit from melting down the garbage (thus buffing mining as a profession).

3) LP comes from agent quality. Instead of limiting the number of missions agents give out, make the quality dynamic and change the system so that LP rewards are far more variable. Make sure that highsec missions are still worth doing, but the best quality agents should be lowsec. This will cause the 'best' agents to move around and thus the missioner becomes a migrant contract worker, going to where the work is. The smarter, better prepared missioners will be able to predict the best agents and should realize greater isk through LP. On the flip side, increase the maximum level of LP awarded for a mission to make those underutilized agents gold. Since the best missions will be lowsec, this allows corporations of contract workers to move to a good agent, fleet up, each take a mission, blow through the missions together, and share the LP. In the group, they learn coordination, logistics, and hopefully develop some PvP skills. Hopefully they will be able to use this to develop a richer EVE experience for themselves.

4) Make the agent quality system semi-elastic, with the total amount of 'quality' dependent on the number of accounts signed in on average in the last 'x' days by the number of completed missions, perhaps adjusted for level and highsec/lowsec. Therefore, the resource is kept somewhat limited and rewards the career missioners over the macros and empire isking alts while scaling to allow EVE to grow.


On another subject, making deep 0.0 viable without a napfest to secure your empire logistics route: Make it possible to upgrade systems so that NPC sell orders for POS fuel are spawned. This fuel will be more expensive than empire fuel and the sell orders will be limited so that it is desirable to maintain an empire logistics train but not required. Furthermore, add better ice and ores to 0.0 such that it becomes possible to stay competitive industrially without access to the cheap empire materials but again keeping it desirable to have that logistics chain. For the less bulky materials, such as t2 materials and datacores, it will probably be possible to scout out a route to empire via wormhole and bring those materials in with industrials.

Togakure
Sniggerdly
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:48:00 - [276]
 

Edited by: Togakure on 15/09/2009 19:49:15
In line with developing nullsec and getting more empire dwellers to nullsec, what about allowing player corporations to bid for NPC corporations to move their missioning agents to their stations.

For example: In Pure Blind, EC-PR8 station can bid many billions to attract a Home Guard agent to move to their station. Mission runners will have to go to this system, if they want to use this agent. Station owners will make money by reasonable docking fees, getting a % of market fees.

The bid contract will only last for 3 to 6 months. And then it's another round of bidding starts. If no bids are for a particular agent, they go back to empire.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:54:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Togakure
Edited by: Togakure on 15/09/2009 19:49:15
In line with developing nullsec and getting more empire dwellers to nullsec, what about allowing player corporations to bid for NPC corporations to move their missioning agents to their stations.

For example: In Pure Blind, EC-PR8 station can bid many billions to attract a Home Guard agent to move to their station. Mission runners will have to go to this system, if they want to use this agent. Station owners will make money by reasonable docking fees, getting a % of market fees.

The bid contract will only last for 3 to 6 months. And then it's another round of bidding starts. If no bids are for a particular agent, they go back to empire.


LOL. Yeah right. Watch Goonswarm buy out every L4 agent in the Caldari Navy. Still sound like a good idea?

Togakure
Sniggerdly
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:03:00 - [278]
 

Edited by: Togakure on 15/09/2009 20:04:03
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Togakure
Edited by: Togakure on 15/09/2009 19:49:15
In line with developing nullsec and getting more empire dwellers to nullsec, what about allowing player corporations to bid for NPC corporations to move their missioning agents to their stations.

For example: In Pure Blind, EC-PR8 station can bid many billions to attract a Home Guard agent to move to their station. Mission runners will have to go to this system, if they want to use this agent. Station owners will make money by reasonable docking fees, getting a % of market fees.

The bid contract will only last for 3 to 6 months. And then it's another round of bidding starts. If no bids are for a particular agent, they go back to empire.


LOL. Yeah right. Watch Goonswarm buy out every L4 agent in the Caldari Navy. Still sound like a good idea?


Ahhh the Goon Factor. First of all, there will be no Caldari Navy in Delve or any southern region. Only Amarr Navy and other Amarr corporations will be down there.

Secondly, I would advocate a breach of contract when a player corporation/alliance kills too many players with high standings to a corporation they have a deal with. Or if a particular corp has terrible standings to a NPC corp, they can't bid for that corp.

Third, if the Goons or anyone want to spend tons of money to not get anything back from it, they can go right ahead.

javer
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:08:00 - [279]
 

Edited by: javer on 15/09/2009 20:09:50
well ccp trying to balance all at same time is doomed to failure with that being said.....
happy and unhappy at the same time, the changes is overdue but the theories behind the changes contain some rather bad mis-judgements

1) keep moon mins and sov way the feck apart
moon mins can easily be adjusted in a few easy ways, releasing t2 harvesters, altering demand, or by fixing alchemy
sov mechanics is broken but then so is the supporting stuff so it kinda ends up as manhour intensive instead of being isk based

2) sov shouldnt fall in 2-3 days unless you get completly overwhelmed, and then there should still be a long term loyality built up from having held space for xx amount of time, sov shouldnt be a instant yes or no, time invested should still count for something altho maybe less than current amount

3) amount of player alliances who doesnt move out of high sec should also be seen as alliances is the best way to avoid griefing, now figure how they can hold sov without facing down a huge 0.0 super blob fleet/cap deployment when they cant even take on w@nkateers(privateers) or a random 5-30 man gank corp


4) blaming us as in 0.0 players for others lack of willingness to take risk is meehHHh less than usefull, risk v reward was what eve based on it was what left 0.0 in a wasteland status when lvl 4's came out and they are heading towards it again!

without major boosts to profits then empire will remain the preferd playgorund for those with litle time or irregular playtimes, also ccp fails well at understanding the player psychologics, some wont love having to check xx intel chans, aborting a plex run or stopping there activity because a red has enterd the system, look at 0.0 vs low sec... there you have a major point to fix, leave 0.0 alone or phase in changes instead of dumping a full new one size fits all


DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:26:00 - [280]
 

Edited by: DigitalCommunist on 15/09/2009 20:50:30
That last QEN was the best ever, since it actually provides useful info. Info that was important and obvious, but never supported by hard data. I'm going to repost some charts with slight modifications.

Money Distribution Chart
  • red line is where it really ought to be; note that for most people this is not total net wealth but only their liquid float (wallet) on any given moment

  • also note that 95% of content you can buy in EVE is <150mil


Player Distribution Chart
  • besides the obvious; 2 out of 3 people with >100k login minutes are in empire


Net Result

The point of EVE being "cold, harsh and unforgiving" isn't for the sake of being the manliest MMO around. Anyone taking pride in that is pretty damn stupid. The point of being able to fall from grace / get dethroned / ground into dust / bankrupt / etc is so that you can enjoy the comeback.

When you get richer, the game gets easier, safer and ultimately less fun. A player shouldn't feel the need to give away his wealth or start over just to have fun again. A war shouln't go on just because neither side can do enough damage to counter the rate at which wealth is being made.

Terazuk
Amarr
Servants of Drawnon
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:27:00 - [281]
 

Originally by: Togakure


Third, if the Goons or anyone want to spend tons of money to not get anything back from it, they can go right ahead.


And if we are talking about Goons here they will do precisely that, just because they can, for the lolz. It's what they do! They wouldn't be Goons otherwise.

Blackhorizon
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:29:00 - [282]
 

Edited by: BlackHorizon on 15/09/2009 20:35:26
Greyscale, Digi is mostly right, however untactful. The risk versus reward problem with empire space needs a solution, even if it's a simple carrot and stick approach. It has to be addressed, or Dominion will not be as you hope.

One thing I'd like to add is that I'm very pleased with the of direction of logistics difficulty outlined in the blog and in your comments. That is one of the main factor that separated the dichotomy between the Red Moon Rising era and post-Revelations, with two culprits, namely, warp to zero and jump bridges. The nerf to jump bridges/ static cyno chains is a good move. If I were you Greyscale, I would also seriously consider removing warp to zero, and I suggest it here even though know it won't happen. Local chat is another issue which I hope you will address in the comments or in another blog. Razz

The other distinction that existed in the dichotomy era is economics and skillpoints. I'm not sure how to return to that era without a huge influx of new players into the game, or overbalancing the impact skillpoints have now, since nowadays everyone has skills they need to pilot most core ships competently.

On the economic front, there are lots of ways to get to the New Dichotomy and certainly, reducing moon income is a good start. You must also address concerns outlined in the comments that ask what will be the economic motivation to conquer when all space is nearly equally upgradable?

Asteroid mineral distribution must also be much more fractured than it is now on a regional basis so that no one region or cluster of regions have all the necessary minerals to be self-sufficient, and something must be done about the drone regions.


Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:34:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal

Originally by: Adunh Slavy

... npc agents in PC null sec ramblings ...


Who pays for the agent rewards and such?

...

You get rewarded for doing work for the alliance but doesn't have any code or issues with infinate isk printers.



Uh ... It's a game, let's start there. Faucets and Sinks.

In the back-story, far as I know or remember, Rat bounties are paid by Concord, and not the faction. This is the same for NullSec today. The reward from an agent, and the LP, come from the faction and/or the NPC corp. These are big faucets. I don't see why that need change. If an alliance pays for and spends the effort in ISK and Time Sinks to get the upgrade "NPC Mission Agent", then they should be allowed to reap the rewards like everything else in Eve. For instance, I can train a skill to get more ISK from agents, connections I think it is. But I had to buy (ISK sink) and train (time sink) that skill. The reward does not pay out right away, but over time and only when I put my time into the activity to which that skill relates. Think of upgrades as Alliance Skill Books.

This is a game, so the concept of a money supply doesn't really work for Eve like the real world. The only true commodity in Eve is Time. If the alliance takes the ISK and Time to build a thing, then if they want to spend Time to get the benefit of that thing, then they should be allowed to do so. Upgrades and Skill Points require ISK and Time, but once completed, they give a reward of more ISK for less Time, which is then used to build the next upgrade ... Just like better skills can earn you more ISK in the game for less time, which you then use to buy the next more expensive skill book to earn yet more ISK. This is Eve crack, and you like it.

One thing that seems to be overlooked is the new ISK and Time sinks that are going to come with this. But they are no different than the existing paradigm. There will be new sinks. Instead of the endless NPC pos fuel sink, there will be the endless rent and upgrade sinks. To improve a system, to attract players to participate, the outflow of ISK, the faucet, must be higher than the cost, the Sink. If it were not, then players can't afford the next skill book and the toys that the new skill allows them to use. If it is an always break even proposition for individuals - then less will want to invest the time. Would you buy a skill and spend the time training it for no benefit? Who here has defender missiles at level five?

Only through a mechanism of an unlimited money supply can this be achieved. Time, the only limited commodity in Eve, must be rewarded. It can not be a zero sum game, because Joe noob with his $15 dollar a month subscription is no less important than Darth PirateLord The Vet with his $15 a month subscription. Both must be able to gain the resources they need to play the game at the upper limit of their ability, in a timely way, with out one unduly impacting the other in a negative way. Putting bigger faucets in 0.0 would do this nicely.

One last side note, suppose an alliance can have its very own NPC agent, and also do it's very own loyalty points. An individual, as a mission runner, will kill X number of rats, Concord giving some amount of each kill to the alliance. This will help the alliance pay for current upgrades, fund new ones and maybe even supply LP rewards. 500,000 LP for a Crow let's say. That 500,000 LP could be representative of the player having done over 1 billion in Rat bounties for them selves and maybe 200 mil for the alliance. A Crow, a 20 mil ship as a "thanks" seems reasonable. Some other alliance that doesn't give such a reward will not attract as many to its ranks. The industrialist will get his cut from the alliance, the alliance member will get a crow for having earned ISK for him self, and the alliance. The alliance members will be rewarded ships and use them for PVP.

Jean CatClaw
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:37:00 - [284]
 

/OT

High-five for this community!

No derails, flames, haxxor or wtfbbqpwn..

Never seen such a mature comunity.. 10 pages with no bullcrap.

CCP is quite lucky with the playerbase compared to most other mmo's

OT/

Dwindlehop
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:38:00 - [285]
 

Greyscale, the "whys" you've stated here are exactly the problems facing nullsec today.

Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:44:00 - [286]
 

Edited by: Crackzilla on 15/09/2009 20:49:31
Edited by: Crackzilla on 15/09/2009 20:48:09
Originally by: javer
Edited by: javer on 15/09/2009 20:09:50
well ccp trying to balance all at same time is doomed to failure with that being said.....


Because they wait 2-3 years then make massive changes.

They should have been making big changes every 6 months to be more in line with a unified direction. Otherwise is creates a panic as the nerf bat looms.


Originally by: DigitalCommunist
is where it really ought to be;


yep, empire has way too much isk floating around after considering the risk.


Originally by: Jean CatClaw
No derails, flames, haxxor or wtfbbqpwn..



I think its mostly desperation here. The parched too busy praying for rain than to **** on someone else.

Sharp Feather
Gallente
POS Builder Inc.
Silent Requiem
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:48:00 - [287]
 

That was one hell of good read and one big momma of a wall text, every changes make sense are very toughful. Thats a lot more professionnal than 90% of the others MMO compagnie.
Shocked

Great work, really great work, thanks a lot for taking the time to share it with us. <3 <3 <3
Very Happy

Aaron Min
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:50:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: BlackHorizon

Asteroid mineral distribution must also be much more fractured than it is now on a regional basis so that no one region or cluster of regions have all the necessary minerals to be self-sufficient


Mmm I totally disagree. There should be less fracturing in 0.0. Creating more independent Alliances is what will remove the NAP trains from eve.

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:55:00 - [289]
 

Just wanted to comment on outposts.

Outposts are a massive investments and effectively tie that corp/alliance to that space indefinately after planting one. This actually stagnates 0.0 in a way and ruins options for owning corps and alliances quite a bit.

Re: Destructable outposts

Now I read the CSM notes on the technical problems such as docked offline players, clones, and items in the outpost and understand why destructable outposts were ruled out.

However have you ever considered allowing owning corps and alliances the ability to deconstruct their Outposts the same way they construct them?

Perhaps after choosing to deconstruct the Outpost, 24 hrs later, or after downtime a fee could be paid to Interbus to ferry all the clones/offline players/items to the nearest NPC low or high sec station. People could recieve a mail letting them know this has happened, and then the Outpost returns to the Egg, and building materials floating in space.

This would allow alliances more flexibility to deploy then move within 0.0, something which I think hampers the current 0.0 system and stagnates a lot of alliances who actually make the effort and investment of putting up an outpost (which their players often get bored of forever having to defend).

I'd suggest the emergency Interbus idea, with them jump-freighting everything out could be extended to allow destructable outposts, so that no hangar assets/clones/offline players actually get destroyed or lost in the database, only moved, but perhaps a large payable fee must be met to redeem the items similar to closed offices in the event of an outpost being destroyed.

In this way you 'could' also reduce the initial cost of outposts, outpost upgrades and the impact of having one destroyed significantly.

Anyway, thats just one idea for Outposts which is undoubtably one of the factors contributing to the current 0.0 problems. (PS - I got lots more ideas if you ever want/need any. Cheers Idea)

Macon Squaredealer
Squaredeal Enterprises
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:59:00 - [290]
 

For those of you posting "nerf empire", just stop already. We've gone over this ground a million times - trying to force people to move to 0.0 by nerfing the rewards of high sec just won't work. Those that don't quit will just stay in high sec and continue grinding for less. Reducing the rewards of mission running and mining in high sec isn't going to cause them to just pack up and move to 0.0 to provide you with easy targets to slaughter.

If you really want more people to move to 0.0 they have to be NEEDED (and they aren't right now) and REASONABLY SAFE from player attack in the systems your alliance has sovereignty in. Claiming space and even having sovereignty has never meant actual control over space. Until an alliance has real control over their space (and CVA doesn't) and a real need for industrialist types, most empire dwellers aren't even going to consider moving out to 0.0

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:04:00 - [291]
 

Macon Squaredealer, that rhetoric has been done.

enticing != forcing
threatening to quit != quitting
more pvp != one-sided slaughter
more risk != bankruptcy
most of empire dwellers != you

DrMaddog
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:06:00 - [292]
 

Edited by: DrMaddog on 15/09/2009 21:07:42
Edited by: DrMaddog on 15/09/2009 21:06:52
I just got a few questions that i hope get answered eventually, but figured i would post them for others to ponder.

Major question is the whole pet syndrome. You say it will be changed with these new sov changes. Whats to stop an alliance (the big 2-3000 ones you speak of) from allowing Alliance A living in a system, building it up and giving them the boot. While alliance B lives in system paying rent (game rent) and the mafia rent (give us money or we kick your ass out). How has anything changed with this process?

Say we have Goons living in harmony learning how to play the game as they tend to do. But they decide they don't want some space deep deep in delve for one reason or another. Symatics can be argued but not the point here. How is Alliance A that have just been kicked out of their amazing space they spent time and money on supposed to "emerge" in this deep space if the edge of Delve if both Delve and Querious are packed with hives (see what i did there) of goons. If the border regions of these regions are packed to the brim of unfriendlies how does a small time group get into the sphincter of a region to setup? More so with out setting up a Jump bridge network?

Also the whole "More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat" comment is weird in its a not really a fix, or change but idea. If Alliance A (is getting kicked out of their system) by Alliance B of 2-3000 members i dont think thats going to be small and meaningfull, same goes to say I show up in a 10 man fun fleet to pick on some carebears, you roll out your 20 man blob, i in turn QQ and a 45 man fleet shows up and so on. Were back to the large scale fighting. Its all about the Epeen and how big you can make it look.

I just want better clarification, and a lot less assumptions.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:21:00 - [293]
 

Quote:
red line is where it really ought to be; note that for most people this is not total net wealth but only their liquid float (wallet) on any given moment

Because you say so? You apparently want to nerf highsec to about 33% of current value; or make it so highsec dwellers have to be constantly poor based one what?

Sorry but you really cant nerf highsec and expect no other ripples. I get Gist x-type xl booster in 0.0. I sell it. Who is buying? Mission runners. What happens when you nerf them and they cant afford to pay the 2billion isk. Instead I get 700mil(1/3 value) Now recalculate how much I earnt in that time. I just took a massive drop in earning.

Furthermore. The amount of isk coming from mission runners also fairly is representative of how many insured ships I can lose; as a total. I can do many more t2 fit insured megas with 2 bil then i can with 700mil. As the base cost of the ship is set thusly with that of insurance. So generally speaking. It's good fun where it is now.

Hawk TT
Caldari
Bulgarian Experienced Crackers
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:23:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Adunh Slavy

CCP,

"Sovereignty" needs two layers. On the top, the descriptive layer, where an alliance can plant its flag. The under layer will need to be more prescriptive, and the expression of this layer could be "legitimacy". As a quick example - an Army marches on a city and takes it over, they hoist their flag. But they do not have legitimacy over the population of that city. The population is hostile to the new "government". Only after many years can the new government claim any sort of legitimacy. And only then can the full productive fruits of the population be realized.

….

We know Dust is coming, and we know there are habitable planets. These planets would logically have some sort of population. I would suggest that, "legitimacy" can be built up over time, simply as a result of having planted the flag. The less legitimacy an alliance has over a system, the more it would cost to maintain that system, or at least the fewer resources it would give, and the more difficult it would be to defend that system against the previous holders, the "legitimate" alliance.

Legitimacy is earned over lengthy periods of time and does not reverse quickly.

I can think of a few ways to do this, but won't ramble, and let you CCP guys do your thing. Have fun :)



This is something I'm going to go away and think hard about. I can't promise that the results will make it into Dominion, but you may see facets of this in a future update. Maybe.



The departure of the current Sovereignty system sounds good for boosting the 0.0 fun, but IMHO it also “opens the door” for DUST 514. I would be happy to hear CCP commenting on that, but they’ve already implied such intentions…

To my main point - since I've read the first news about DUST 514 I has been thinking that the real conquering of a system has to depend not only on the starbases / POSes kept under control, but also on the planets, and most importantly, on the facilities & resources present on the planets.

The planets could have valuable / unique resources which could be extracted *only* if you have ground support. Not from space, but from the ground. One should not expect the DUST 514 Marines (presumably Console FPS addicts ;-) to mine resources or to engage in anything-but-shooting-things. The extraction could be done by “robotic factories” deployed on the planet’s surface etc and at the same time the DUST Marines could control the access to the planetary resources - they could have means to disrupt/sabotage any attempts made by a conquering space alliance/corporation to perform planetary operations (i.e. to extract resources).

Conquering a system? OK, but it will be (almost) meaningless if the ground corps does not accept the conqueror as a legitimate ruler of the system. Adunh Slavy's post fueled my thoughts further - I would agree that winning/building legitimacy should take time, but I don't believe this should be "prescriptive" or mechanical. CCP, leave such decisions to the consent of the DUST 514 corps and to the diplomats from both EVE & DUST 514 – at least EVE is a sandbox. This is one of the choices that could be left to the players…We could expect that the DUST players will be different from the EVE players, but give them incentives to really care who controls the space! Marines could fight for fun, but they could be paid/bribed by space-corps for certain services, just like the mercenaries and pirates (in some cases) in EVE. The marines could have benefits if they stick and remain loyal to a particular space-alliance. Even if the space is lost by that space-alliance, the planets could become the way-back-in if they have loyal support on the ground.

Macon Squaredealer
Squaredeal Enterprises
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:25:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Macon Squaredealer, that rhetoric has been done.

enticing != forcing
threatening to quit != quitting
more pvp != one-sided slaughter
more risk != bankruptcy
most of empire dwellers != you


Nerfing high sec approach some here propose does indeed = trying to force
I'm not going to quit no matter what they do
pvp with carebears in hulks, haulers, and PVE setups does indeed = slaughter
more risk = less time to do what they really want (fun) for the more casual player mission running/miner types
I'm not claiming to be the high holy statesman for high sec, just myself. So get off your high horse

Arguement is pointless anyway, CCP already said they aren't taking the moronic "nerf high sec" approach anyway

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:27:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Macon Squaredealer, that rhetoric has been done.

enticing != forcing
threatening to quit != quitting
more pvp != one-sided slaughter
more risk != bankruptcy
most of empire dwellers != you


This. A million times this.

Fish Hunter
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:28:00 - [297]
 

Awesome being able to improve space. Would be awesome if with say an outpost could come agents to run missions for. Tie it in to standings of controllers or whatever. This would boost earnings of 0.0 players and boost the ability for individual systems to be profitable for hundreds of players since missions are an endless source of earning isk.

An idea for controlling space maybe a structure put at gates in systems with sov that basically is a bubble but allows blues to pass freely. Something that maybe can be destroyed but has huge hp and configurable, such as allow reds in easily but make it hard for them to escape.

Garok Nor
Caldari
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:30:00 - [298]
 

Originally by: Sybilla Prior
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Harotak

Instead of corps taxing their pilots (which makes no sense, employers dont tax employees), why not make it so that alliances implement system-wide tax for the space they hold Sov, so that the alliance makes isk from everyone that rats in their space, regardless of what corp/alliance they are a part of


That's a good idea. For Every rat popped in a system, who ever holds that system gets 10% of the bounty of the rat, but does not impact the ISK recived by who ever shot the rat. Suppose a Rat is woth 100 ISK, then BillyBob Neutral comes and kills the rat. BillyBob gets 100 ISK and the group with the claim on the system gets 10 ISK. If they upgrade the system to RatTaxing Lvl 2, then they get 20 ISK on the rat, etc etc.


That's what I thought they'd do, but then I realised that it's still more profitable for the Alliance to kill the rats themselves.


It's called leveraging and passive income. It's generally better to have 1% of 100 people's effort than 100% of your own (and still better to have 100% of your own AND 1% of 100 peoples).

teji
Ars ex Discordia
Here Be Dragons
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:31:00 - [299]
 

Edited by: teji on 15/09/2009 21:32:47
Originally by: Macon Squaredealer
If you really want more people to move to 0.0 they have to be NEEDED (and they aren't right now) and REASONABLY SAFE from player attack in the systems your alliance has sovereignty in. Claiming space and even having sovereignty has never meant actual control over space. Until an alliance has real control over their space (and CVA doesn't) and a real need for industrialist types, most empire dwellers aren't even going to consider moving out to 0.0


People like you will never consider living in 0.0 so please stop commenting on a 0.0 thread. Just go back in your hobbit hole and stay oblivious to game design and frightening places where concord doesn't exist. Heaven forbid you might go on a dangerous adventure and like it.

Macon Squaredealer
Squaredeal Enterprises
Posted - 2009.09.15 21:35:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: teji
Originally by: Macon Squaredealer
If you really want more people to move to 0.0 they have to be NEEDED (and they aren't right now) and REASONABLY SAFE from player attack in the systems your alliance has sovereignty in. Claiming space and even having sovereignty has never meant actual control over space. Until an alliance has real control over their space (and CVA doesn't) and a real need for industrialist types, most empire dwellers aren't even going to consider moving out to 0.0


People like you will never consider living in 0.0 so please stop commenting on a 0.0 thread. Just go back in your hobbit hole and stay oblivious to game design and frightening places where concord doesn't exist. Heaven forbid you might go on adventure and like it.


I have three accounts: One high sec, one low sec pirate, and one in a 0.0 alliance. Do try again.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (17)

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