EVE General Discussion

Why should only the jumpbridges have to have fuel?
Instead of the standard fuel a JB has to use a pilot also has to carry an own portion of some fuel to be able to use the jumpbridge.
Ofcourse that fuel is also depleteable so you will have to have ship jumping along with the fleet to refuel the ships so they can go on longer travels or return.

That to use a larger portion of your cargobay to carry more fuel but then you can carry less ammo.

Sovheld space which isn't being cultivated to be used should be heavier on the costlist of the alliance holding it. ie: if you hold 50 systems but only are upgrading 20 then those 20 should lower the cost slightly to keep them but the 30 not being utelized should weigh heavier on the sov bill than those 20 bring in in decreased cost.
Thus an alliance won't swallow up a mass of systems and then have large grey spots which hardly see any use.

This would open up the need to either rent out those systems to other smaller entities or to unclaim those systems to ditch a large costpost.
0.0 utelisation would be more complex then but also would open up null sec more to smaller entities and force more interaction in 0.0

Ofcourse this would probably make the smaller entities more prone to end up like cannonfodder so there should be some form of gamemechanic to make it more desirable for the alliance renting out to have a bigger intrest in keeping their renters in there.
Like a base % of the renting alliances income going to the alliance renting the system(s) out.
The alliance will still own the system but the renter alliance will hold sov as renter and as long as the rent bill is paid for by an official bill which also shows up in the wallet the rented sov will continue.

If the renter doesn't pay the bill in time sov falls back to the original owner who then has the burden to find a new renter or else suffer the same consequense again of being stuck with high cost systems.
Incase of held systems which are rented out being sieged the renter can decrease the rentbill by a fixed percentage of the amount of rented space being under attack.
Systems under heavy attack but little defence should cost more in sovbills than they bring in. This would make it more interesting to put systems under siege but would also bring forth more need to defend the systems.


Just a few idea's I will think about more and try to work out.

I read the first few lines and you might have a point. I will read the rest and comment when you post in the right forum.

Neither can you expect that from a Battleship or Frigate... Not exactly a good argument.

I do not think using a ship of any kind should cost anything. And I do not think letting SCaps cost something would solve any problem with them.

I really like most of OP's ideas, especially the part about logisitcs.
A few days ago I was wondering why piracy was in such a bad shape in Eve.
Most pirates have highsec alts that supply their main with enough isk to keep up his pirate career. Am I the only one who thinks that something is terribly wrong here?
Piracy should be a high risk but also a high profit enterprise. But with lowsec being an empty an economically useless space there simply are not enough freighters to loot to make piracy worthwhile, at least isk-wise.

So my idea was to bring trade routes back, interceptable trade routes through low sec, to be more specific.
95% of the carebears are not going to leave highsec, we should start to accept this as a fact and find a way to still integrate them into the game by giving highsec players a new role.
The idea is to split the moon-goo between highsec and null. The more profitable ones will still be located in null sec. But in order to transmute them into more precious materials, you will also need other moon minerals, that can only be found in highsec.
So constant convoys from highsec to null and from null to highsec will be needed to make the most out of your moon goo.- convoys that pass through lowsec. Of course, the ability of JFs, JBs etc. should somehow be nerfed to have those heavily guarded convoys going.
I haven't elaborated this idea yet, there would be many things to consider, but I like the idea of highsec and null being forced to work together with the baddies in lowsec trying to disrupt this to get their share of the pie.

ALLIANCE NEEDS MORE TAXATION METHODS IT WILL IMPROVE GAMEPLAY FOR INVDDIVIDUAL

They tried this already.
Just because I don't hold the space doesn't mean I can't stop you from holding space either and replace you with a renter.

That was the whole idea behind the wall of text, yes.
edit:
fixed this in my previous post, thank you.

WTB TL;DR version of OP's post.

I like some of your ideas, I do not like your moon goo idea though. I think ALL the moon goo needs to go, every single one. Instead of moon goo there needs to be a single resource, lets call it Stellar Mineral Resources (SMR), and this resource inherits the Rarity rating (so you have SMR8, SMR16, SMR32 and SMR64). Now, I liked your idea of making active system generate more benefits for the Alliance. So why not tie in the SMR into the very same system? Instead of all the moon mining POSes there will be one Stellar Mining Complex (or some sort of facility) per system that will generate SMR, and the quality/rarity of the SMR that is generated will depend on the Industrial and Military Indexes of the system.

Benefits of this system:

-Alliances will actually need bears / miners
-Nullsec will be more populated
-Sov holders will actually have to actively protect the system against roaming gangs instead of hiding in Outposts / Force Fields
-Economic warfare / denial
-Less structure shooting since all the Moon Mining POSes are replaced by a single structure


Shortcomings:

-AFK Stealth Cloakers - However many people have already proposed a solution, ranging from POS modules that help the Sov holder scan down the cloaking ship to the new cloak hunter ship discussed in the latest CSM meeting.

I want to come at this from a slightly different angle just to explore the idea.

What if this is that this is a good thing and needs to be made even harder. One of the biggiest complaints I hear about 0.0 is that it's "stagnate". Not that nobody moves, just that the powerblocks are set and only really seem to fall from internal pressures. Well why do things that help decrease those pressures? Many of the 0.0 pilots I talk to identify with their alliance more than their corps now, it seems the more tools we give to alliance management, the more alliances become the new corps. There just isn't much internal alliance drama outside of personal epeen grudges.

But what if you removed the executor corp (if you could?) and replaced it with a treaty system instead? Make the alliances more "loose" in their membership. That way the assets the mega alliances have now would still exist, but they would be even more in the hands of the corps that actually controlled them, and they would have to be given to the alliance voluntarily. Couple this with some way of needing to actual occupy a system to have SOV over it, and give that SOV to the corp not the alliance, and the mega alliances would start to have huge internal pressures on them if they grew to big. Why would X corp now fly 30 jumps to protect Y corps moons, if Y is getting most of the income (or suspected to be hold some back from the alliance, see more political drama). Sure they might still, but they also might think twice out it. Or if the treaty that set up the alliance permitted it, X corp, could even attack Y corp to fight over assets within the alliance. If Z corp has most of the suppers, why should they risk them over M corps anoms? Would they abandon allies in a fight? And would the rest of the alliance care if they are dependent on Z corps suppers? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but the possibilities would all be there, possibilities that don't seem to happen much now.

It just seems that the more tools we give for helping alliances to manage themselves the less reasons people seem to have to fight one another outside of the personal grudges of a few alliance leaders.javascript:if%20(typeof%20posting=='undefined'||posting!=true)%20{posting=true;__doPostBack('forum$ctl00$PostReply','');}