These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ideas for Increased (Anti-) Social Activity in Highsec

Author
Michael Ignis Archangel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-03-23 02:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Ignis Archangel
I've read many complaints about the need to nerf high security space, and the need to force more of a social aspect to the game. With that, I humbly submit three ideas to this effect. Some are minor tweaks to the game to change some aspects of the economy to balance things out, and some would be major game-changers. Listed in approximate order of the magnitude of the change:

1) Tritanium and pyerite "nerfing" - though not how you'd expect.
I suggest that in all hisec systems, if all belts are mined out, that there spawn grav sites containing Veldspar and Scordite exclusively. They'd be relatively easy to scan down, so it wouldn't bar new players.
This would alleviate the clear supply shortages of these ores - it shouldn't be the case that mining Scordite is more profitable (or even close!) to Arkonor - or even Kernite/Pyroxeres. Increasing supply would likely have the effect of both increasing mined volumes (to help with inflation) and decreasing the price of the minerals to a level that provides additional pressure on people to mvoe to riskier areas to make their living. Riskier areas require larger fleets and support capabilities (or if not, a more target-rich environment!)

2) Mini-sov over grav sites.
Create a mechanic such that a fleet of 3-5 players can "ring-fence" a site, pay a token fee to CONCORD (hooray ISK sink), and "lay claim" to a deadspace mining pocket for the duration that they are there. It would take a few minutes to set up, during which a different group of players can show up, stake claim, and thereby create a limited engagement between the two gangs. Claimholders have the option to sell their claims to approaching gangs as well (to give newbie pirates something to do). Mining in someone's claim creates a suspect flag on that player.


3) Player-driven system security status - the big one.
For a certain band of "base" (what they currently are) security statuses, suggesting 0.4 - 0.6, player actions would have an actual impact on the local security status. First mechanic - allow players to join CONCORD similar to how FW works, creating a 'player police' force. This player police force could respond in lieu of CONCORD's initial response in current hisec, or even into 0.4 space if they're feeling saucy. They'd do so via a 'CONCORD cyno', the range of which would be the current constellation and/or a certain amount of jumps - effectively an NPC hot drop on the offending pirate. As with any player, these player police can fire on the criminal's ship, but not his or her pod (dropping in via CONCORD cyno would prevent podding or use of AoE weapons). If they are successful in destroying the pirate, security status in the system would rise slightly. If they do so before the victim's ship is destroyed, it would rise even further. Opposite mechanics for the pirate - if they destroy the target, it lowers the sec status - if they are not destroyed by CONCORD players, status lowered even further. Criminal actions would still be NPC-slaughtered after a certain amount of time as they are currently, if hisec status were in effect. CONCORD vessels could employ logistics on the victim ship in an attempt to save it. Lack of activity on either side would cause the system's status to gradually drift toward its current, baseline level. This would give players in hisec an actual chance to change they world they fly in - and also allow folks who would like to see it destroyed a chance to put their money where their mouth is!


I think all of these features would increase the social nature of the game, teach new players that they must defend themselves and their assets from their first days in a capsule, and finally give the player community a chance to modify the empire map in ways never before possible. I personally would greatly enjoy the good-versus-evil nature of the conflict!
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#2 - 2013-03-23 10:15:06 UTC
Good ideas, I especially like no2 as changes to mining are long overdue. I can't see you having much luck with the player driven concord police though as players are fickle and wont always respond in the way you imagine.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Dave Stark
#3 - 2013-03-23 10:53:13 UTC
1) no. it's null sec that needs more access to trit/pyerite, not empire space. adding more hidden belts isn't going to make me more social. in fact, allowing me to hide in such belts is going to make me more anti social.

2) or how about you just take the current grav sites, take some pvp ships there, and do exactly the same thing without the need for a pointless game mechanic? if people don't want to do it without an obstructive game mechanic in the way, they won't want to do it with an obstructive game mechanic in the way.

3) i think it's a crap idea, but i can't find anything "wrong" with it, i guess.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#4 - 2013-03-23 11:45:59 UTC
#2 is nice ... but the new "suspect to everyone in the system" flag is annoying (IMO). keep it between the fleets/corps.

Maybe (and this is "just woke up batshit crazy") re-work that "corp limited engagement" flag so it escalates towards a (mutual?) wardec between the two corporations. The industry side really needs it beaten into their collectively thick carebear skulls

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
#5 - 2013-03-23 12:06:50 UTC
I see huge problems with 3# the abuse of this would create unstable system, as I artificially drive down the sec status of a system cyno in a bunch of supers and caps, then drive the sec status back up.
After that I control that system, war dec and remove all poses, and "Passively" remove all competition from the system.
Pirates would be easily dispatched at this point as there would be carriers for fighter support, Titan boosting, an just all around shenanigans that are not wanted in high sec.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Michael Ignis Archangel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-03-23 12:22:18 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I see huge problems with 3# the abuse of this would create unstable system, as I artificially drive down the sec status of a system cyno in a bunch of supers and caps, then drive the sec status back up.
After that I control that system, war dec and remove all poses, and "Passively" remove all competition from the system.
Pirates would be easily dispatched at this point as there would be carriers for fighter support, Titan boosting, an just all around shenanigans that are not wanted in high sec.


Very fair point I had not considered the impact of capital ships on this idea. However one could either maintain the ban on cynos to systems that are both current low sec and base low sec, or apply the current rules to capital ships left in hisec -ie that they essentially cannot be used. The idea is centered around less stability, not more.
Michael Ignis Archangel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#7 - 2013-03-23 12:25:42 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
1) no. it's null sec that needs more access to trit/pyerite, not empire space. adding more hidden belts isn't going to make me more social. in fact, allowing me to hide in such belts is going to make me more anti social.

2) or how about you just take the current grav sites, take some pvp ships there, and do exactly the same thing without the need for a pointless game mechanic? if people don't want to do it without an obstructive game mechanic in the way, they won't want to do it with an obstructive game mechanic in the way.

3) i think it's a crap idea, but i can't find anything "wrong" with it, i guess.


1) maybe? How about more trit and pyerite for everyone then?
2) you don't live in empire do you? Unless you're willing to lose them taking PvP ships to a regular asteroid belt is useless. This would legalize aggression. The mechanic is needed in order to do so. I see your point on decreased social behavior though... Maybe make "claimed" sites visible on the overview as a cynos?
3) thank you for the tremendously constructive feedback
Dave Stark
#8 - 2013-03-23 13:08:36 UTC
Michael Ignis Archangel wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
1) no. it's null sec that needs more access to trit/pyerite, not empire space. adding more hidden belts isn't going to make me more social. in fact, allowing me to hide in such belts is going to make me more anti social.

2) or how about you just take the current grav sites, take some pvp ships there, and do exactly the same thing without the need for a pointless game mechanic? if people don't want to do it without an obstructive game mechanic in the way, they won't want to do it with an obstructive game mechanic in the way.

3) i think it's a crap idea, but i can't find anything "wrong" with it, i guess.


1) maybe? How about more trit and pyerite for everyone then?
2) you don't live in empire do you? Unless you're willing to lose them taking PvP ships to a regular asteroid belt is useless. This would legalize aggression. The mechanic is needed in order to do so. I see your point on decreased social behavior though... Maybe make "claimed" sites visible on the overview as a cynos?
3) thank you for the tremendously constructive feedback


1) to be blunt; high sec simply doesn't need more trit and pyerite. the issue with just giving more trit and pyerite out will indeed cause trit and pyerite prices to drop... along with everything else since most things use lots of trit and pyerite. generally speaking miners don't care what isk/hour they're making because the hours of mining per thing they want to purchase remains relatively constant. i remember nearly a year and a half ago now, when trit was around 3 isk/unit or so, a charon was about 800m isk or so. now trit is nearly double that, at 6 isk/unit, and a charon is around 1.6bn isk. both items have doubled, so miners still have to mine x hours to buy a charon. nothing has changed.

while i agree, high sec mining shouldn't be more lucrative than null sec mining, the way to counter that isn't to flood the market with locally produced trit/pyerite but remove the export demand by adding it to ores like spod and gneiss. this will both lower high sec isk/hour, and raise null sec isk/hour that way you don't have to add too many minerals in null sec in comparison to what you'd have to add in high sec. double bonus points because you've also just solved null's low end mineral bottleneck issue at the same time.

2) i see, i assumed by "mini sov" you were referring to actual sov in 0.0, i seem to have misinterpreted what you're saying. in short, people still won't use it because grav sites are less isk/hour than regular belts. hi, i'm omber and i'm a terrible ore. unless grav sites in high sec stop being awful isk/hour, then this idea is a waste of time although i can see the merit behind it.

3) yeah, sorry i just didn't want to leave #3 out.
Tweaks Huren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2013-03-23 16:07:24 UTC
I really like #2, but I'm not so sure about the other ones.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#10 - 2013-03-23 16:34:49 UTC
Problem with n°3 is, if CONCORD will stil intervene after some time (even if it's longer than the current time), the pirate can't survive. Plus, I think highsec would just disappear completely after a very short while, because I honestly believe that the griefers have a massive number advantage over the white knights in this community.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Michael Ignis Archangel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-03-23 18:38:37 UTC
Agreed. It would not change the universal death penalty for criminal actions in hisec. Would allow an unpoliced system or constellation to be more a haven for griefers, again forcing carebears to defend their assets and homes. Now this would not apply universally to all of empire, but it would allow dedicated griefers to cut off the empires from one another.

I also think that not all PvP players are griefers and pirates at heart, but are forced into it by the funhouse environment that some people would like to see hisec become. I'm sure there would be some who would join CONCORD for the chance to get the drop on some criminals, and maybe even some industrialists who might pitch in to have a serious chance to defend themselves. One of the problems with the current system is the reliance on the NPC in hisec to punish offenders - this might give an opportunity for otherwise peaceful players to pick up guns to defend themselves rather than rage quitting or complaining about gankers on the forums.
Zircon Dasher
#12 - 2013-03-23 19:02:07 UTC
Michael Ignis Archangel wrote:
Agreed. It would not change the universal death penalty for criminal actions in hisec. Would allow an unpoliced system or constellation to be more a haven for griefers, again forcing carebears to defend their assets and homes. Now this would not apply universally to all of empire, but it would allow dedicated griefers to cut off the empires from one another.

I also think that not all PvP players are griefers and pirates at heart, but are forced into it by the funhouse environment that some people would like to see hisec become. I'm sure there would be some who would join CONCORD for the chance to get the drop on some criminals, and maybe even some industrialists who might pitch in to have a serious chance to defend themselves. One of the problems with the current system is the reliance on the NPC in hisec to punish offenders - this might give an opportunity for otherwise peaceful players to pick up guns to defend themselves rather than rage quitting or complaining about gankers on the forums.


Wouldn't it be easier to to just move all L4's to lowsec? With a relatively small amount of organization it would be easy to push the sec stat below .5. This both traps shiny boats (or catches people who have not logged in a few days unaware) and pushes people out.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#13 - 2013-03-23 20:09:00 UTC
u cant force carebears to defend themselves. they just wont do it. they'd sooner live in noob systems in NPC corps than systems that can be subject to change or defend their own mining sites.

where im going with this is that if this was implemented, mining someone elses roids will be considered griefing, and therefore prohibited in noob systems, which is where all the carebears will move to.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Michael Ignis Archangel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-03-24 14:26:25 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:

1) to be blunt; high sec simply doesn't need more trit and pyerite. the issue with just giving more trit and pyerite out will indeed cause trit and pyerite prices to drop... along with everything else since most things use lots of trit and pyerite. generally speaking miners don't care what isk/hour they're making because the hours of mining per thing they want to purchase remains relatively constant. i remember nearly a year and a half ago now, when trit was around 3 isk/unit or so, a charon was about 800m isk or so. now trit is nearly double that, at 6 isk/unit, and a charon is around 1.6bn isk. both items have doubled, so miners still have to mine x hours to buy a charon. nothing has changed.

while i agree, high sec mining shouldn't be more lucrative than null sec mining, the way to counter that isn't to flood the market with locally produced trit/pyerite but remove the export demand by adding it to ores like spod and gneiss. this will both lower high sec isk/hour, and raise null sec isk/hour that way you don't have to add too many minerals in null sec in comparison to what you'd have to add in high sec. double bonus points because you've also just solved null's low end mineral bottleneck issue at the same time.


I see what you mean now, I've done a fair amount of building though and not found trit/pyer to be the bottlenecks. Then again that building has not been in null, so taking your word for it, perhaps a rebalance of blueprint material requirements, coupled with a change in the supply side, would have the intended effect? Happens in the real world too after all, if prices for certain goods stay high for long enough, substitutes are found.
Zircon Dasher
#15 - 2013-03-24 16:39:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Zircon Dasher
Adding minerals to spod or gniess doesn't really help mitigate export demand or ISK/HR (risk v reward) issues long-term. If there is an increase in the local availability, importing to null only decreases to the point where highsec supply saturates the market. As prices fall, it becomes more profitable to import those minerals from highsec again. If people unsub their high-sec mining accounts and go back to other activities because mining no longer earns a livable wage, then the price goes back up due to people not doing something. That means more people start whining about how high-sec gets more/equal ISK/HR.

Altering content is silly if you don't also address the ability to 1) produce and 2) import from empire. If ISK/Hr is all that people care about then upping the material reqs on high-ends is a much smarter move. (even that has problems though)

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Dave Stark
#16 - 2013-03-24 17:57:01 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
As prices fall, it becomes more profitable to import those minerals from highsec again.


wrong.

the issue with mineral supply in null is that you have no choice in what to mine, the entire grav site must be mined in order for it to be flipped and respawned. so people will still mine it regardless of the isk/hour so importing it will never be a valid alternative unless there's a shortage (eg the current situation)