These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Capital Balancing and Isk Sink
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
L'Acuto
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-11-19 04:20:45 UTC
I had a couple of simple thoughts to throw out to the community for controlling capital and super-capital numbers in game.

Capital Operational Cost (COC): limited station docking slots for carriers, dreadnoughts, and rorquals, plus a capital docking fee.

Super Capital Operational Cost (Super-COC): an operational cost of 40 fuel blocks per hour for Titans and 20 fuel blocks per hour for Super Carriers.
Grezh
Hextrix Enterprise
#2 - 2012-11-19 05:03:39 UTC
The problem with this idea is what happens when the titan logs off, and what will happen if they run out of fuel. Right now titans seem to only be used when they are needed so they fuel part, while interesting, is somewhat flawed. The carrier dock cost seems like it could work.
Dawn DiDacyria
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-11-19 05:12:28 UTC
I'd like to possibly give my ISK sink idea another exposure as it pertains to this thread too considering that bigger ships will have a higher cost and you won't have the problem of running out of fuel. Depending on what the total minerals used for a Capital and Super-Capital ship is Corps and Alliances might start thinking twice on when to pull them out from their hiding places:
Dawn DiDacyria wrote:
Ship Wear and Tear

Wear&Tear, Servicing, Maintenance, whatever one wants to call it, could be added as a decent ISK Sink.

Plainly stated it any ship being flown for a period of time, say for each hour of usage, would be subject to a certain percentage of wear and tear and each percentage to be serviced to reach 100% again would cost ISK at a Repair Facility (NPC) or Maintenance Crew (PC). The ISK cost would be completely depending on the amount of minerals the ship is made up of so Frigates would have a negligible cost to service while Titans would be somewhat expensive to fly around in.

Over time any vehicle in use experiences a reduction in optimal performance as circuits, cords, links, couplings, and so on get worn down slowly. The normal repair only repairs damage, it doesn't fix this kind of wear and tear.

In High-Sec this is easily set up by having Repair Facilities have an extra tab for Servicing/Maintaining a ship.
In 0.0, and in POS situations, either a new POS type could be added that houses a Maintenance Crew or a Maintenance Crew can be added to any existing POS that already takes care of repairs. The crew of course consists of planet side personnel that get paid for performing the service. For this crew the job would be somewhat like the Oil Rig jobs of today, very lucrative and high pay with period employment for half a year at a time or so.

With this, and to make it so players will want to service their ships regularly, a slight drop in performance levels could be set on various things that are tied to the ship's systems: Shields, Velocity, Targeting Range, Drone Bandwidth, Inertia Modifier, Capacitor Capacity and Recharge, Sensor Strength, Warp Speed.
I'm thinking that every 4% Wear and tear could drop those things with 1% performance, capping wear and tear performance drop at 25%. In most cases not enough to notice until getting closer to 20% wear and tear but enough that one will want to keep the ship serviced.

If setting the cost per mineral per % wear and tear to 0.001 ISK (roughly one hours usage) then hourly costs would look roughly like:
Frigate, Tristan, 30 ISK/h
Destroyer, Cormorant, 52 ISK/h
Cruiser, Maller, 874 ISK/h
Mining Barge, Covetor, 2706 ISK/h
Balltecruiser, Tornado, 5244 ISK/h
Battleship, Dominix, 5738 ISK/h

Not a lot but a constant source for ISK sink and increasing when newer players get into bigger ships. It might be more for T2 and Capital ships, but how much I don't know.

For T2 and the capital ships the minerals used for the various parts needed to build them would have to be included in the total minerals the ship is made up of, something I am not fully versed in and so have no clue as to how much minerals they consist of in total. Someone that does might want to post an estimated ISK7h cost for maintaining those?

Cheers


Cheers
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-11-19 06:14:39 UTC
I got some Ideas that you may like. As CCP will probably rework the POS system in something that may have limited docking space....

See the link on my signature about POS rework...

There is also a tread about ISK sinks....

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2012-11-19 10:37:44 UTC
I thought the point was to get caps and supers used more, so they die a lot more?
L'Acuto
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-11-19 12:38:58 UTC
Grezh wrote:
The problem with this idea is what happens when the titan logs off, and what will happen if they run out of fuel.

That seems interrogative in nature and I assume it's not rhetorical. With the Super-COC system when the super runs out of fuel it becomes dead in space - basically offline. It will log in and out with the pilot but to become operational again, it would need to be refueled.
L'Acuto
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-11-19 13:22:34 UTC  |  Edited by: L'Acuto
Dawn DiDacyria wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2198676#post2198676


In a scifi setting 10+ thousand years into the future with heavy reliance on robotics and nanotech, wear and tear doesn't fit.

For an operational cost there's a lot of unused heavy water in game and a magical source of energy. Heavy water is what a fusion reactor so why not suggest that the ships run on a zero point energy tap powered by a fusion reactor, and voila, an operational cost.

For a sink why not propose that a station has limited ship storage space for rent. Everyone could have a complimentary 1 million cubic meters and the station has an extra 500 million or so to rent out competitively, like offices.
L'Acuto
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-11-19 14:18:00 UTC  |  Edited by: L'Acuto
Danika Princip wrote:
I thought the point was to get caps and supers used more, so they die a lot more?

"Super Capital Operational Costs" isn't a panacea for super capital blobs, or their abundance in game, but I'd rather see disincentives like this imposed instead of nerfs to the platform.

For example when CCP first implemented on the test server the super weapon change from an area effect to a point target, a handful of players got into a bunch of titans and took down a POS in a couple of minutes. I thought that was awesome. But instead of reducing the power of the weapon, CCP made it incapable of targeting structures. As titans were deployed after the patch and super weapons were effectively used against subcaps, CCP continued the invalid target strategy.

I still think these nerfs to the super weapon are stupid especially if you want incentives to deploy titans into situations where they are exposed. Why not weaken the weapon and modify it with some sig radius formula.

The super carrier nerf was equally daft when all that was needed to be done was reduce the number of deployable drones and fighters to say 10+1 per level.

If getting supercaps destroyed is the plan why not make them more useful (un-nerf them) and give a platform like the stealth bomber something fun like a capital buster bomb - a bomb effective against very large sigs that does a lot of damage - or give current bombs a damage bonus against caps and supercaps. Another idea would be to introduce capital sized neuts and nos.
GizzyBoy
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#9 - 2012-11-19 14:25:45 UTC
you could increase the cost of jump fuel by increasing the amount of fuel used to jump, and that's about all you can do to increase operational cost. and make people way up the cost of distance vrs cost.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2012-11-19 23:06:38 UTC
GizzyBoy wrote:
you could increase the cost of jump fuel by increasing the amount of fuel used to jump, and that's about all you can do to increase operational cost. and make people way up the cost of distance vrs cost.



And, given that any reasonable alliance will pay for fuel for it's pilots, all you do is raise the bar for new alliances even further.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#11 - 2012-11-20 16:06:01 UTC
This thread again.

New and exciting.




Seriously, go jump off a bridge. Caps need expanding, not neutering.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
L'Acuto
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-11-21 11:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: L'Acuto
Danika Princip wrote:
GizzyBoy wrote:
you could increase the cost of jump fuel by increasing the amount of fuel used to jump, and that's about all you can do to increase operational cost. and make people way up the cost of distance vrs cost.



And, given that any reasonable alliance will pay for fuel for it's pilots, all you do is raise the bar for new alliances even further.


1,250 isotopes for a super carrier and a 2,000 isotope wad for a titan wouldn't be unreasonable, and would reflect their larger masses.
L'Acuto
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-11-21 11:21:17 UTC  |  Edited by: L'Acuto
Asuka Solo wrote:
This thread again.

New and exciting.




Seriously, go jump off a bridge. Caps need expanding, not neutering.

What's wrong with COC and Super-COC? COC is basically an isk sink. It's small but it still works - every little bit adds up. Super-COC attempts to reflect costs for maintaining something large and cumbersome - a Titan should have the fuel consumption of a large tower and the super carrier should have the consumption of a medium tower. Players, Corporations, and Alliances that have the wealth to own a super capital or fleet of super capitals should not faint over this proposed continuous cost, but it will task them logistically and might indirectly impose a limit to the population of super capitals an individual or organization maintains.

I think the platforms should be un-nerfed - this is my opinion on the current super capital nerfs:
un-nerf super capitals
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#14 - 2012-11-21 14:37:27 UTC
L'Acuto wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
This thread again.

New and exciting.




Seriously, go jump off a bridge. Caps need expanding, not neutering.

What's wrong with COC and Super-COC? COC is basically an isk sink. It's small but it still works - every little bit adds up. Super-COC attempts to reflect costs for maintaining something large and cumbersome - a Titan should have the fuel consumption of a large tower and the super carrier should have the consumption of a medium tower. Players, Corporations, and Alliances that have the wealth to own a super capital or fleet of super capitals should not faint over this proposed continuous cost, but it will task them logistically and might indirectly impose a limit to the population of super capitals an individual or organization maintains.

I think the platforms should be un-nerfed - this is my opinion on the current super capital nerfs:
un-nerf super capitals


I'm finalizing my suggestion around revamping capitals and supers. I hope to post it soon. Then you can see exactly where you and I agree and disagree on this subject.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
L'Acuto
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-11-29 01:32:08 UTC  |  Edited by: L'Acuto
Asuka Solo wrote:
can you say all that in one breathe

I really don't see the point in presenting a completely fleshed out idea given the variables - CCP, players, stupidity, and what really can be done.

It's better to inseminate an idea into the community - the simpler the better - and nurture it a bit. If it takes, it will swell with response and might develop into a hard presence that CCP can't ignored. So, Asuka, you should start spilling it out all over the forums and see how or if the community laps it up.
Beta Miner
COBRA Logistics
#16 - 2012-11-29 04:20:19 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
I thought the point was to get caps and supers used more, so they die a lot more?


They are used a lot more, too much in fact. The problem is that it is very difficult to kill them. Someone mentioned a capital class warp scram sometime ago, I think that would be the solution.

AFK Cloaking? An afk cloaker has never ganked me. In fact a cloaker at his keybourd has never ganked me either.