Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is an extremely ganker-centric view of the universe, puts all the control in their hands, and thus is very much unrelated to the idea of opening up security status to an equal voice of everybody of every play style. You're not even really attempting to comment on this idea, honestly. I invite you to start your own thread about it, but it has little to do with this one.


Why? You didn't really support that claim at all, except for a flimsy lore excuse, whereas I have explained in a lot of detail why such a system would be extremely abusable. Also, your lore excuse doesn't even make sense: the whole idea of voting is that we are TELLING concord where to spend their resources. Thus, if people voted for such a currently null area to become low-sec, it would lore-wise be nothing more than us telling CONCORD to send some ships over there. Roleplaying-wise, there is no reason at all why that would require the voter to have visited the system. In fact, it makes MORE sense for them NOT to have visited the system (if you want CONCORD there, then it implies you think it is too dangerous right now, so why would you have visited?)


Fixed that for you. Obviously that's what those folks would want to do, but lots of other folks (both high sec types AND their fellow null sec enemies) would be working equally hard to stop them from doing exactly what you're saying. Which makes it quite an uphill battle, since nullsec is not very populated with voters...


Dumb people might do that. Anybody being strategic, however, would not just "dump" their points into a useless no-strategy zone. That's wasting half the power of your vote. You should be spending BOTH halves of your vote on active, strategically valuable regions. For example, alliance A might vote to increase sec status between their space and Jita, and then use their DOWN votes to hinder similar paths being attempted by rival alliances. Or whatnot. People should catch on very quickly that it is a really bad and wasteful idea to do what you are suggesting here.


Perhaps. Do you have any numbers on such things (the alts and populations part)? I can't think of any way to actually find out if that's true one way or the other.

Also, regarding the regional limitation: Eh, maybe. I'd prefer something of a "soft" regional boundary (like... for instance, the sum of all changes in a region has to be between -0.3 and +0.3 or something, as a sort of compromise between full freedom and strict regional cutoff. At least to begin with. CCP could always tweak it, obviously)



@The most recent two posters above this post: I'm sure you have lots of nice opinions hidden somewhere in your brains, but your horrendous English has made me give up on trying to understand any of your reasoning. Please try again?

Not going to happen.

So now you've gone from 'never going to happen' to 'If it does, so what?' That alone, should have alarm bells ringing in your ears.

The sec status of systems being put in the hands of players, would be a recipient for disaster.

Um, no. It IS never going to happen. But since some people don't believe me, I SEPARATELY asked a hypothetical "so what?" since I don't think it would be all that bad anyway. it's called attacking an argument's soundness and its validity at the same time. I never changed my mind at all. Would still be utterly shocked if Jita ever went below 80% "up" votes.




10 + 6 + 4 = 20,000 players.

Compared to a likely 200,000 players of Eve (assuming each player has one alt account on average, which is very generous), they have 10% of the vote... And that's assuming that EVERY person in ALL of those alliances pulls together and they coordinate perfectly with no squabbling.

Color me not impressed. Could they pull some shenanigans? Yes, temporarily. But if the starmap had a statistics visualization option, as suggested, that shows you which areas have been vote-changed recently, and in what direction, any such shenanigans would be short lived. if they started doing anything that significantly hurt the typical high sec player, then it would be VERY visible, and they would suddenly have up to 9 times as many votes crashing down on their heads to undo whatever they had done. There's something to be said for organization power, but it will not make up a difference of a 9:1 ratio.

If you're still worried, then there are a number of simple ways to help handicap the ability of large groups to pull fast ones on everybody else:

1) Make it so that every account can make a maximum of 10 votes (5 up 5 down) per week. One of the major advantages of a large alliance would be that they can enforce the discipline of having their members vote more often than a casual player (placing 100+ votes instead of just voting on stuff they know locally). By capping the limit at 10 votes per week, though, you eliminate this advantage of an alliance. Also, this addresses the poster above me, who says it would be an unfun grind. 10 votes per week is not unfun at all, or grindy. Most people would probably find it very amusing, and empowering to have their chance to influence the galactic map. More fun for the typical player, less grind, AND less coalition power = win win win!

2) You could even make it so that you only get one set of votes PER CREDIT CARD. The credit card used is the first one that was ever associated with each account (not the most recent). If no credit card was ever used, then the account gets no votes (since it is 99.9% likely to be an alt. Virtually no new player is going to make 600 million isk in 14 days) This would effectively eliminate the voting advantage of people who can afford multiple alts. Which makes it more egalitarian, and less of a "buy the vote" situation (with real money OR isk). And it would severely limit the power of major alliance blocs to sway the vote to their own ends and steamroll people. And since it is the FIRST card used, not the last, you couldn't just shift your alts to a new card. If you wanted more votes, you would have to eaither pay whole extra subs every month, OR give up on months or years of SP training of your cyno/trading/whatever alts to start new ones on a new card.

3) There was a suggestion earlier in the thread about making it so that each region of the map would have to add up to zero sum (as many downs as ups), not just the whole galaxy. Considering your solid point about how CCP has carefully designed the map, I think this is a better idea than I did before. This would prevent dramatic shifts of, for instance, the entire empire space over to one corner of the galaxy, or creation of huge goldmine -1.0 spaces in areas that were entirely poor before. Making the overall design of the map still more or less constant in a rough region-by-region sense, and also limiting alliance blocs' power.

4, 5, 6) It would be easy to come up with other limitations. None of the ones above really undermine the main goal and fun potential, despite lopping off probably 75%+ of coalition's extra advantages.

Week, not day. if you can't handle 10 clicks a week, then EVE is the wrong game for you, I'm sorry to say...

And no, if you live in wormhole space, then you have no reason to vote at all. That's pretty much THE one exception, though. Everybody else in the galaxy who lives anywhere else would have a definite opinion about what they wanted changed.

Have you ever even looked at the CSM candidate list??? There are Nine members from Nullsec, Two from Lowsec, One from Wormhole Space, and ONE from highsec. I'll repeat that, ONE from highsec.... despite the fact that majority of players live in highsec, only ONE candidate was elected; And do you know why? Because organized powerblocs win elections... Frankly, those top 3 alliances will easily rally their members to create major changes through the voting system, while most highsec players will only vote in reaction to some negative change impacting them. Jita suddenly turns lowsec, it'll get tons of upvotes.... The empire trade routes suddenly require lowsec travel.... suddenly highsec votes.... Until then, they will complacently play the game completely oblivious to the changes occurring around them. lol.... and the only people that will strategically vote, will be well organized groups with a designated strategist to tell them what to do. In short, this system will be abused by those with organization and numbers, and the average joe player will suffer from this!

As to your other comments: Concord does not influence nullsec sec status.... Nullsec means no concord pressence, and the difference between -0.1 and -1.0 is, "lore speaking," determined by the presence of NPC Pirates (Sansha, Guerista, Angels, Serpentis, etc). As such, it really makes no sense why some highsec mission runner should be able to change the sec status of Serpentis Prime, unless they fly their ship out to serpentis prime and start shooting the Serpentis ships there....



The genius: if you want to influence an area of space, you have to visit that area of space. This encourages traffic in that region, which encourages targets of opportunity and fights... .all of which are a good thing. Your counter argument is that it is too easy for a large nullsec group to inhibit people entering their space, while they can easily enter "en mass" other areas space (like highsec) and work their will. The truth is, this is a big dilemma for highsec peeps, as the nullsec organizational structures pretty much will result in the dominance of their will. Entering any nullsec empire's space is actually fairly easy.... but most people are too risk adverse, or to ill-informed to do it.

quoted for importance:

i think u are misunderstanding how eve works, or how the majority of eve players think.

just for the lols i'd vote jita into the dust and try to make the more populated pockets of null hi-sec

surprise concordokken! :P

and what about the poor bastards that log off for a few months to go fight a war on the opposite side of the world, only to come back and find that they now live in low sec and their billions of assets are essentially trapped.

so no, its a terrible idea for very obvious reasons

according to the OP, this would be obtainable given enough time. considering the goons burnt jita when it was high sec, it would be entirely possible for them, their budskies, my budskies and my accounts and anyone else with a shred of a sense of humor to eventually make it low and even null sec.

eve has been around for years, and will probably be around for many more. time we have. common sense the OP has not.

ok, so 7 months? 8 months? what happens after 10 years of focused voting?

the solution is not to make it take longer so things aren't too sudden, and the argument that ppl can get their assets out in time is not pertinent either. this shouldn't happen at all.
what business does any player have for changing sec status?
if u want a system to be safer, get some friends together and go police it urself. if u want a system to be less safe, go scan, cheat, steal and gank ur way to infamy.

great examples of these are systems like uedema being dangerous despite its high sec status or the fact that u are more likely to get attacked in jita (0.9) than u are scheenins (0.5). Intaki, which is a low sec area that a group of players tried to police by rewarding vigilantes and bounty hunters. and of course null sec, which is a lot safer than low sec if u have the players that can be bothered to look out for and protect each other.

the sec status of a system only controls some game mechanics, but in reality, its the behavior of the players that make a system safe or dangerous.

TL;DR there is no point in changing a systems sec status. ppl will just abuse it for 'long term' griefing or shenanigannary. want systems to be safer or more dangerous? do the dirty work needed or pay someone to do it for u.

voting is bullshit, this isnt democracy online, its eve online, you should have to buy it not vote it