These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Idea] Shifting the Sand. A Dynamic New Eden.

Author
#1 - 2013-05-31 10:19:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
For a game that claims to be a cruel and harsh sandbox, one that is in a perpetual war, it sure lacks that feel in Empire. The lack of dynamics and the static nature of Empire Space, coupled with the limited overall effect of FW and pirate factions, is a major missed opportunity to make Eve a true sandbox and expand the role of the players effect on the universe.

To keep this simple I will just do bullet points, instead of writing up a long drawn out thread. Understand the effects of is will not be a overnight thing, it would take possibly months to flip.

-All NPC corps will become members of their respected factions militia. Reasoning is if you want the protection from non FW decs, you need to support your faction. Otherwise join/make a player corp.

-Pirate factions(Non Drone) will become part of FW and players can join or align with them. Pirate factions will be at war with ALL empire factions or a player vote, or other. Not sure exactly how you would do this.

-ALL systems from High to Low will have dynamic sec status. Sec status will decrease slowly when the system is being assaulted, the longer a war drags out the lower the sec status will become. If the victor is a empire faction the sec status will slowly(but faster then when it decreased) gain back sec status based off of usage of system. Pirate factions I'm still unsure about, maybe it allows it to be owned by the pirate faction and stay lowsec and maybe dip into 0.0. Or the pirate faction just has the ability to keep it in a state of conflict(aka keep it lowsec but still owned by the defending empire), yet takes control of the stations.

-Stations in the systems will slowly convert ownership based off of who controls the system.

-Incursions will be expanded to ALL factions, and will allow players within factions to vote on what system to launch a incursion in next. The voting system will be weighted based off of your rank within the Faction. Systems that are eligible for a Incursion must be adjacent to a contested or owned system. Players who are aligned with the Incursion Faction can assist and are given similar rewards.

-With Incursions you can support your faction by either donating goods, missions, etc which then will increase the size of the incursion. This is to allow non combat pilots to support the war effort.

-Capitals can move into newly transitioned lowsec areas, but if the system converts back to High then all offensive or logistic actions whether on a player or NPC will be considered an act of aggression, and Concord will become involved. This is the simpiest solution for capitals in highsec issue, to avoid abuse.

I might expand on this or not, really depends on feedback. It's a quick and rough write up atm.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden

#2 - 2013-05-31 10:26:46 UTC
For the record, I like the idea of including Pirate factions into Faction Warfare and overall making Faction Warfare have a much bigger impact on life in High Security space. Combine this with Dust 514 mercenaries also affecting Faction Warfare.

Dynamic sec status is something I've never agreed much with though. It'd have to start turning null sec into more secure space based off of how well the system was defended by the governing corporations or alliances, and I'd be interested to hear what people thought of that.

Can you elaborate further on what you're talking about with the Incursions?

Save the drones!

#3 - 2013-05-31 10:47:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
ExAstra wrote:


Can you elaborate further on what you're talking about with the Incursions?


Incursions would be more or less used as a way for a faction to spearhead a invasion on a system. It is also a way to drive engagements as well as deter stagnation or gridlock.

Pretty much Incursions would be a group effort to achieve a certain level of resources which then would allow a vote on which system to send the incursion. Players could then assist in the Incursion in hopes to take the system or cripple the enemy. How you would reward assisting in a Incursion could be killing defending NPCs and killing enemy faction players, and same goes for defending.

E: Why are you against dynamic sec status in general? Out of curiosity.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden

#4 - 2013-05-31 11:10:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ExAstra
There have been no dynamic security status proposals that I have seen that have made me think "Oh wow, that would be so much fun." (or cool, or interesting, etc. pick a word)

Under this proposal it has actual use/meaning but I still don't see it adding much. Let players take control of the law and now you have an idea going.

Edit: I'm also not too sure how I feel about the players voting for which system to incursion into. I can only see that as everyone trying to incursion Jita. Restricting it to border systems with lower security status, offering incentive for a strategic push into enemy space makes more sense.

Save the drones!

#5 - 2013-05-31 11:34:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
As stated in the original post, Incursions can only be launched into adjacent systems to a conflict zone or into a system adjacent to a system your faction owns. It would be more or less a multiple choice vote then "write in Jita". Though taking Jita COULD be possible, which is kindof the idea of the system. It may never happen but the possibity is there.

"Adding much" is up to the activity of the playerbase. It's more setting the stage for player interaction through dynamic changes.

E: Random Thought. You could in a odd way tie it into CCPs development. For example depending on the metrics whoever is most successful at controlling/expanding their territory, CCP could design a new ship for that faction, which the BPC would then be seeded into that factions LP every expansion. Adding a bit of immersion and reward.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden

WE FORM V0LTA
#6 - 2013-05-31 12:11:59 UTC
You described my dream sandbox almost perfectly <3

.

Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2013-05-31 16:07:40 UTC
Incursions being A) player driven and B) only possible in systems adjacent to SOV is just begging for them to be farmed to hell and back. Every pirate group would pnly be able to send theirs to the surrounding areas of sov 0.0, who would promptly ignore it the way they do the current ones. if you make it so they can't ignore it, with some kind of sov capture by the NPCs, then how do you stop whoever gets control from parking a whole load of caps/supers in an important system, dropping an incursion on it and being totally immune to the sov holder's capfleets?

How do you stop the large blocs taking control of the locations and using them to farm ludicrous amounts of isk?
#8 - 2013-05-31 16:23:51 UTC
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
As stated in the original post, Incursions can only be launched into adjacent systems to a conflict zone or into a system adjacent to a system your faction owns. It would be more or less a multiple choice vote then "write in Jita". Though taking Jita COULD be possible, which is kindof the idea of the system. It may never happen but the possibity is there.

"Adding much" is up to the activity of the playerbase. It's more setting the stage for player interaction through dynamic changes.

E: Random Thought. You could in a odd way tie it into CCPs development. For example depending on the metrics whoever is most successful at controlling/expanding their territory, CCP could design a new ship for that faction, which the BPC would then be seeded into that factions LP every expansion. Adding a bit of immersion and reward.

I was more thinking out loud than talking about your idea. I was thinking, "Just being able to vote would be a bad idea. Restricting it to adjacent systems makes more sense"

It was like a "Ah okay that sounds good" not a "Your idea isn't finished you should do this instead" Sorry for the lack of clarity in my post.

Save the drones!

Forum Jump