Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It seems like the cost-to-risk ratio is a bit high, especially for mature players that seek productivity over recklessness and PvP.

Again, I stress the economic factors.

So you know how important mining is. If it's so important, why not create a system where mining is more competitive? That way, you've already got your incentive to fight, and you can do battle when it matters the most.

It's what CCP claims Dust 514 is to be. However, there isn't much competition except with who is most coordinated | less prepared for battle.

Well, it was my own idea. I simply thought it could be correlated with yours on highsec and empire control. I guess I have a more economic sense when it comes to resource gathering/control, which is the cause for many actual and [very] real wars today.

However, I am in fact proposing such an overhaul to mining, and particularly mining since much of industry relies on it.

Its totally fine if you disagree. It's a very different approach to what most EVE players are used to, so it is expected.

Also, it isn't an immunity from loss - its loss having a more dramatic and pivotal effect, thus increasing the competitive dynamic of the EVE sandbox.

And you have my empathy for your losses. But I cannot empathize for old players who think they've "Won" the game of EVE.

True, which is why once you have a self-made corp with 20+ dedicated miners on alt accounts, and you start generating millions of ISK per day, you can start buying PLEX reasonably to sustain your alts. Something I'm particularly NOT against. [:D]

However, if with mining you instead mine-for-keeps, by extracting what you can, making a run for it, and stashing it away - or selling it - it would have a lasting effect on what you earned, and what henceforth was made. Of course, this rules in favor of the cheaper, smaller modules that aren't as hard to manufacture which would cater largely to newer players in their T1 ships and seasoned players that like to run in T2 and T3 ships, and less towards building capitals - which shouldn't necessarily take a substantial 'hit' from this, because resources should still be balanced where making them won't be nearly as hard, but they won't be used and wasted. Thus creating a sense of importance for caps, moms and titans.

I guess what I am getting at is this, playing EVE shouldn't be easy for anyone - it was never designed to be such - and for those who have exploited the loopholes, great for you, hope you had fun, now lets even the playing field. You would be astonished at how easily the shifting of economic ties has in the real world, and how quickly tensions flare up when natural (real) resources are strained. Thats why we're having all these wars in Afghan, and doing special ops in various countries. It's about 'control'. And what more realistic way to fuel wars in EVE, than by shifting the weight of the economy onto miners?

And, check this, since miners are so important - they're at higher risk. Meaning asteroid-farming will be harder, especially if someone from a different corp showed up and wanted to mine there. So players would need to keep a closer eye on their ships, and controlling multiple accounts wouldn't be as wise when mining in the same areas. I mean, this could seriously do a 180 degree on EVE's malleability... the tides could shift for anyone claiming nullsec space as their own, guarding their precious reservoirs of minerals that they claim to own... and you can't hide all the minerals inside a station, they're only good when you need to use them (reprocessing, saving in bulk, using to build ships and capitals) - and once they're used in some form, you are risking something of real value.

Lets just say I simply applied the idea of gold, to asteroid and ice minerals and ores... and this, in effect, will instill a sense of real value for items made with this "gold"... with rarer forms, of course, existing in deep space - worth tons more, in magnitudes greater abundance, but rarer and in certain places. Keeps the corps hunting for the next best place to call home. And in the end, EVE becomes a much livelier place - full of excitement, and danger.

To be more precise, there is NOTHING to gain from fighting a hisec war you didn't want. Killmails? Head into 0.0 or lowsec, less hassle. From a purely economic standpoint, one can only lose. Ships, ISK, assets are put on elevated risk on undocking in addition to the time one cannot do mission running or cannot mine.

So the strategy with the most positive (meaning: zero instead of negative) outcome is - not to fight. Simple as that.

Change hisec war so that the winning party may be paid some reparations out of the coffers of the losing party (alliance/corp/it's members, maybe even putting them on negative balance, for example) and more people would be inclined to fight if there is a real gain.

Thank you all for your comments. I'm glad you understood my point. Not necessarily to agree, but understood nonetheless.

And, Vio I never meant to say PvP-oriented players were immature. There are many ways to play EVE, and PvP happens to be one I just believe isn't as productive.

And thanks Rina, for the enthusiastic response. There really isn't anything to lose when players stay in highsec systems, continually pumping ISK with minimal loss. If CCP plans on making EVE any more challenging, a modification as to how ISK is produced AND valued within EVE's economy will add to the plasticity of the sandbox.

However, forcing players to pay out-of-pocket for losing shouldn't be. It's already enough damage done when a player loses a ship. It's something he or she decided could be put at risk. If CCP forced players to pay out-of-pocket, in addition to their losses, there would be even fewer people willing to risk anything. Which is why CCP included an awesome 'Insurance' feature, so people could receive some kind of reconciliation for natural losses.

Which is why I place emphasis on the resource market/economy. If CCP made it so that common ores and resources were moderately taxing (if not already easy) to obtain, and so that the rarer, more exotic elements were less abundant and riskier to obtain, the value (save, also, the actual ISK prices) of minerals would go up. If emphasis was placed there, people would have a much more exciting experience - and would actually be enticed to face possible PvP, to obtain the riskier, more scarcely-guarded resources.

Again, if it costs you more to build your ship (non-ISK wise), the more willing people will do what it takes to secure what they need to make it. And to make it more challenging to maintain resource upkeep, systems would have resource *regeneration* rates rather than resource *respawning* - which also wouldn't be limited to only ice & ores, but NPC entities as well. To say, as one system depletes, another solar system somewhere else gains a *bonus* to it's resource content (and regeneration rate) until someone claims the surplus - all while the depleted system *struggles* to regenerate its resources back to normal.

This sort of natural checks-and-balances exists even in the wild. You can't have too many lions preying on the gazelles, or else they will die. Same as too many gazelles consuming the natural food supply too quickly, or else they'll die. Which is why gazelles constantly migrate, to balance their ecology and consume uneaten grass. As for the lions, their well-being depends on both the condition of the environment AND the gazelles.

This is, of course, saying that miners are like gazelles (the workhorses), and the corporations and alliances in EVE are like the lions.

And just as vigorous as is the African jungle, it's this natural dynamic that we as humans seek - uncertainty. When we don't know what will happen next, when we can't find comfort because you don't know who's going to show up in your system trying to tap into your resources, when it is rightfully yours - and losing that system would mean you would become like them - then nullsec and lowsec systems becomes more of a struggle to control, and henceforth a greater reward since you are able to be more productive so long as your system's resources remain in abundance.


Also, peace treaties are ACTUALLY a GREAT IDEA! Something like that Rina, on the other hand, should definitely impose a cost and is supported by CCP/EVE/CONCORD as far as cease-fires. However, as with many sandbox rules, it should mean that neither entities are allowed to harm the other (at ALL) and cannot utilize any resources in systems owned by either corp or alliance, except jumpgates. Meaning travel is permitted, however interaction between the two entities are not.

whats more legitimate in your wardec than the machanics of avoiding it?
You want shoot them, they dont want to be shot at. So what?
Its high sec after all, leaving it for pvp does make sense then.


lol. If station games arent fun, why do you play them then?? Just stop, nobody forces you to those pointless activities.


mh, playing markets while some dudes camping the station makes sense as well, why is that broken?
They do NOT "overstep their boundaries" quite obvious, otherwise they would suffer ship losses or something, no??
In fact, they know exactly what they can do and what not, they know they can smack in local or whereever, and you cant do anything about that, camp station for hours get bored and leave. Whats wrong with that?


Goals? Why must the game set goals if you can do that better? You decide what your goals are and if you achieved them or not. What do you want else?
Any mechanic giving pvpers any advantage over non-pvpers would violate the principles of high sec I believe. Leave to lowsec/0.0 for pvping, thats the place where stuff is getting shot, not high sec.




improves the game for one group of people, worsens it for the other.

[qqqqqqquoteeeeeeee=Myxx]Edit: I should add that current evasion mechanics such as simply creating new corporations exist at this time because of the relative ease with wich corporations are created and disbanded, they don't really matter. Likewise, some alliances exist for the explicit purpose of helping corporations evade wars. These can be solved by having wars follow corps through alliances and reformations. Decsheilds as they are called exist because of similar reasons.[/qqqqqqqqqqquoteeeeeeee]
If there is a wardec, why should there be no unwardec?? This would be imbalanced.
You want your word to be final but why should it?

PS: CCP remove this pointless annoying limit of 5 quites finally, its no good for anything but using fakequotes

some more arguments from your side??
So far you arent viable at all.

You must understand that there is no real "war declaration" in eve, because there are no "wars" at all in lack of reasons. You might say you want shoot certain people by wardeccing them but because there cant be real reasons for such a "war", the mechanics are easy to avoid your wish for pew pew.

And the biggest fallacy in your idea is your assumption about your wardec being final word, which is not.
I do not know any single reason for this being other way.

Its shorter now, 20 seconds I believe, IIRC

A great topic.

Ban NPC corps.
Make individuals wardecable.
Then have it so each subsequent corp/alliance hop increases the time it takes to join another corp/alliance on an exponential scale within the timespan of, say, a month. In the interim, you're on your own.