These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

[Proposal] Sorting Out 0.0 Space

First post
Author
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#1 - 2011-09-14 11:42:27 UTC
Overview For The Impatient: Make the costs of holding sovereignty more expensive based on how many systems you hold.

This is something I have been thinking about for a long time and I believe discussions have been going on for a while regarding how to get more people out in 0.0 space.

My solution is actually a fairly simple one, Costs.

Currently I think the cost of holding Sov is way too low. As such there are many large alliances holding onto large sections of which they really are not even using.

There is a lot wrong with 0.0 at the moment but by changing the way Sov costs work I think would open up a lot of space for smaller corporations and alliances to "get their foot in the door".

I understand that "Pets" form a large part of the equation but if more space was available there would not be a need for "Pets".

There are a number of alliances who hold 50+ systems, I have been in many of these systems before and half the time you can warp around for 30 minutes and not see a single person.

CPP wants to get more people out in 0.0 space and the solution I am proposing should help solve some of the issues. The solution only covers costs, there is more to it like risk / reward but as this is long enough already I wont go into that now.


The Solution

The reasoning behind raising costs is to lower the number of systems the larger alliances hold and force people to actually use the space they are paying for.

Currently (or at least these were the prices when I started thinking about this) holding a TCU in a system costs 6m ISK a day. That is a nominal fee and can easily be paid for by running 1 Complex, not a big deal in the slightest.

To add any infrastructure upgrades obviously costs more but I am not going into that now.

I propose that the costs of every additional system being controlled be 10% greater than the base cost.

For example, 1 system = 6m ISK a day, the second system would be 6.6m isk a day, the 3rd system would be 7.26m isk a day, etc...

This cost increase is negligible for holding only a few systems, if you hold 5 systems currently the cost would be 900,000,000 ISK a month. With the new costs structure it would be 1,098,918,000, that is only a couple of million isk more which is really not too much.

When you get up to the 20 system level however this changes from 3.6B ISK a month to 10.31B ISK a month.

I believe that doing this would help 0.0 greatly. The large alliances would be able to have a home area they look after, plus they would be able to take key systems to use as jump systems, jump bridges would therefore become much more useful.

By freeing up space hopefully more small alliances will come out, people will be able to take Sov on their own and not have to be "Pets".

It might also get some more Industrial alliances out of high sec.

At the moment 0.0 is a complete waste of space. By increasing costs it might mean the space gets used more effectively.

There would be more PVP opportunities, PVE characters would be able to move about a little more.


Some comments and suggestions would be welcome, this is still an idea in the making, I am pretty sure the changes would not be difficult to do.


Hopefully this all made sense. Sorry for making it so long...

Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#2 - 2011-09-14 11:43:08 UTC
Saved space for idea updates etc...
grazer gin
Raving Rednecks
#3 - 2011-09-14 12:53:49 UTC
Shingo stop being a idiot

Our russian overlords can afford to pay that kind of bill with easy

We will discuss this more tonight hunny mkay
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#4 - 2011-09-14 13:02:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Shingorash
I doubt that. You clearly havnt bothered to run the numbers.

Shadow of xXDEATHXx currently hold 253 systems.

At current cost that would be 45,540,000,000 ISK per month, with the new method I have suggested the bill would be 53,409,910,488,360,900,000. I don't even know how to say that number!!!

Their current monthly costs under the system I proposed would limit them to 34 systems. That is 219 less systems.

That is a hell of a lot of space that others could possibly use.

Not being funny but if you are going to comment can you at least actually look at the idea and not just brush it over and post something irrelevant?

If CCP need an ISK sink, I have just given them one.
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#5 - 2011-09-14 13:44:53 UTC
How about I report you for trolling and posting stupid things which are off topic?

Im not picking on anyone in particular, if you have nothing on topic to say just don't say anything.
Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-09-14 14:25:22 UTC
All this would do is force the huge alliances to break into smaller alliances within a coalition.

This would harm cooperation within the game mechanic, and creates quite a few avenues for exploits.
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#7 - 2011-09-14 14:27:58 UTC
Zagam wrote:
All this would do is force the huge alliances to break into smaller alliances within a coalition.

This would harm cooperation within the game mechanic, and creates quite a few avenues for exploits.


Can you elaborate a little bit?
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#8 - 2011-09-14 14:49:35 UTC
While I love the objective behind that proposal. You're going to say welcome to the alliance: Shadow of xDeathx1, Shadow of xDeathx2, Shadow of xDeathx3, Shadow of xDeathx4, Shadow of xDeathx5, Shadow of xDeathx6, Shadow of xDeathx7, Shadow of xDeathx8, Shadow of xDeathx9, ... Shadow of xDeathx16, Shadow of xDeathx17 and Shadow of xDeathx18.

All of which will be ran by the alts of the same bloke, and you'll have accomplished nothing except make it a nightmare to manage sov for everyone.

PS: that would be 53 quintillions.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#9 - 2011-09-14 14:59:12 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
While I love the objective behind that proposal. You're going to say welcome to the alliance: Shadow of xDeathx1, Shadow of xDeathx2, Shadow of xDeathx3, Shadow of xDeathx4, Shadow of xDeathx5, Shadow of xDeathx6, Shadow of xDeathx7, Shadow of xDeathx8, Shadow of xDeathx9, ... Shadow of xDeathx16, Shadow of xDeathx17 and Shadow of xDeathx18.

All of which will be ran by the alts of the same bloke, and you'll have accomplished nothing except make it a nightmare to manage sov for everyone.



Which kind of implies that some mega-alliances at least would fall under the weight of logistics.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#10 - 2011-09-14 15:04:14 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
While I love the objective behind that proposal. You're going to say welcome to the alliance: Shadow of xDeathx1, Shadow of xDeathx2, Shadow of xDeathx3, Shadow of xDeathx4, Shadow of xDeathx5, Shadow of xDeathx6, Shadow of xDeathx7, Shadow of xDeathx8, Shadow of xDeathx9, ... Shadow of xDeathx16, Shadow of xDeathx17 and Shadow of xDeathx18.

All of which will be ran by the alts of the same bloke, and you'll have accomplished nothing except make it a nightmare to manage sov for everyone.



Which kind of implies that some mega-alliances at least would fall under the weight of logistics.


Logistics wouldn't change, just management. The end result for the people who'd like some space to settle in would be exactly the same. It's just one bloke (maybe 2) who'd have more work, the rest would stay the same.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#11 - 2011-09-14 15:18:13 UTC
That is still 253 alt's which is a pain in the backside, never mind the managing of POS' etc.

Or CCP could just make sure you are not allowed to do that, it would afterall be considered an exploit surely?

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#12 - 2011-09-14 19:31:50 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Shingorash wrote:
That is still 253 alt's which is a pain in the backside, never mind the managing of POS' etc.


NEVER underestimate other players' willingness to perform painstakingly tedious tasks... especially when such tasks give them a clear advantage over other players.


Shingorash wrote:

Or CCP could just make sure you are not allowed to do that, it would afterall be considered an exploit surely?


Nope. Many alliances ALREADY do this, just on a much smaller scale. It's not uncommon for corps/alliances to create a corp/alliance that is "separate" and holds the majority of the corp/alliance wealth, assets, and "critical equipment."
More than that... how will CCP be able to tell alt corps/alliances from "real" crop/alliances? Maybe the "alt corp/alliance" actually does have real people in it, but the leadership is a bunch of alts... the situation can also be in reverse.

There could also be no alts at all. All of the alliances in a given area are all real people on their main characters... they just don't "officially" form into a "mega-alliance" so they can artificially keep costs down. The territory they control is still the same though.
Anna Orkiste
DELTA FORCE RANGERS
#13 - 2011-09-15 09:28:04 UTC
Shingorash wrote:
Overview For The Impatient: Make the costs of holding sovereignty more expensive based on how many systems you hold.

This is something I have been thinking about for a long time and I believe discussions have been going on for a while regarding how to get more people out in 0.0 space.

My solution is actually a fairly simple one, Costs.

Currently I think the cost of holding Sov is way too low. As such there are many large alliances holding onto large sections of which they really are not even using.

There is a lot wrong with 0.0 at the moment but by changing the way Sov costs work I think would open up a lot of space for smaller corporations and alliances to "get their foot in the door".

I understand that "Pets" form a large part of the equation but if more space was available there would not be a need for "Pets".

There are a number of alliances who hold 50+ systems, I have been in many of these systems before and half the time you can warp around for 30 minutes and not see a single person.

CPP wants to get more people out in 0.0 space and the solution I am proposing should help solve some of the issues. The solution only covers costs, there is more to it like risk / reward but as this is long enough already I wont go into that now.


The Solution

The reasoning behind raising costs is to lower the number of systems the larger alliances hold and force people to actually use the space they are paying for.

Currently (or at least these were the prices when I started thinking about this) holding a TCU in a system costs 6m ISK a day. That is a nominal fee and can easily be paid for by running 1 Complex, not a big deal in the slightest.

To add any infrastructure upgrades obviously costs more but I am not going into that now.

I propose that the costs of every additional system being controlled be 10% greater than the base cost.

For example, 1 system = 6m ISK a day, the second system would be 6.6m isk a day, the 3rd system would be 7.26m isk a day, etc...

This cost increase is negligible for holding only a few systems, if you hold 5 systems currently the cost would be 900,000,000 ISK a month. With the new costs structure it would be 1,098,918,000, that is only a couple of million isk more which is really not too much.

When you get up to the 20 system level however this changes from 3.6B ISK a month to 10.31B ISK a month.

I believe that doing this would help 0.0 greatly. The large alliances would be able to have a home area they look after, plus they would be able to take key systems to use as jump systems, jump bridges would therefore become much more useful.

By freeing up space hopefully more small alliances will come out, people will be able to take Sov on their own and not have to be "Pets".

It might also get some more Industrial alliances out of high sec.

At the moment 0.0 is a complete waste of space. By increasing costs it might mean the space gets used more effectively.

There would be more PVP opportunities, PVE characters would be able to move about a little more.


Some comments and suggestions would be welcome, this is still an idea in the making, I am pretty sure the changes would not be difficult to do.


Hopefully this all made sense. Sorry for making it so long...




actualy itsn to the problem costs curently in eve.
Curenty in eave probelm is noting to do in that space it waste land over all, no sanctums to run etc, when was sanctums up was full systems with pilots tey had soemtign to do there, now they moved alts to high sec run misions for isk or incursions wath ever no point to stay there in 0.0. i personaly keep only there pvp alt that it if i see op giung one so i jump in to alt and go pvp. when no ops i go again log high sec alt for farming incursions.
If some one wish to see more ppl in 0.0 then need to crerat more ting to do with gives great oportunitys, fun and isk.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#14 - 2011-09-15 09:35:05 UTC
2 Things.

1) this would make the pet/renter alliance situation worse, because it would encourage the large entities to use pets to hold space in the overlords name

2) If I recall, this was part of the original Dominion expansion, and was removed after like a week or 2 because the rage over it was so immense, and the alt alliances to exploit it did instantly pop up.

Good idea in theory, unworkable in practice

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#15 - 2011-09-15 09:35:46 UTC
Don't get me started on Incursions!, the rewards are far too high for the risk.

With a decent group and an empty system you can easily make 60-100m an hour not including the LP rewards, and that's in high sec!
Anna Orkiste
DELTA FORCE RANGERS
#16 - 2011-09-15 09:49:53 UTC
Shingorash wrote:
Don't get me started on Incursions!, the rewards are far too high for the risk.

With a decent group and an empty system you can easily make 60-100m an hour not including the LP rewards, and that's in high sec!



that means 0.0 pl need ern more then every vere els in worst system that they have thato nly can bring ppl back to 0.0.
ccp need to look always income oper hour not over all money income but per hour if that woth to lose your ship or not to do that ting weath ccp disined that wie shuld do. if you ned run back your ship like 181 with its with mining curenty than not woth the effort to do thos tings. normaly you need get back fancy ship in 3-5 hours off rating or duing els wath. that wuld be notrmal price for beaning in 0.0 and risking expensive rating ship.

if that wil be so that means wil be back pp in 0.0 more to do for ratets, miners more to do for small gang pvpers etc.
Retarie
Pegasus Innovations
#17 - 2011-09-15 11:28:46 UTC
People could start multiple alliances to avoid the cost but only to a limited degree. Pet alliances would most likley become more prevalent. And it wouldn’t deter renting of space. But it would make holding large tracts of 0.0 space more difficult not only for logistics (access for non-alliance members at structures refuelling etc.) also the more alliances involved in a coalition the more leadership issues/goals/defence/ and general diplomacy that will be needed to hold it together.

Saying that, huge alliances are part of the “end game” so do we really want to put an end to them.

I’ve lived in 0.0 (until recently) since 3 weeks after I first started playing, I first lived in a pos with no stations within 8 jumps, and personally had a great deal more fun before carriers and dreads where introduced, not to mention supers and titans. It used to take real effort, time and isk to take and hold sov, now spending 4hrs a day for 3 days a fleet of supers can take a consolation.

I love your idea but I don’t think it goes nearly far enough, increase the sov cost, lower the mineral drops, reduce the mining amount, ½ the bounty’s, greatly increase the number of higher and mid-range moons ect ect. Bring some challenge back into the game, and allow the mid-sized alliances a chance to hold their own 0.0 space.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#18 - 2011-09-15 11:50:57 UTC
Retarie wrote:
People could start multiple alliances to avoid the cost but only to a limited degree. Pet alliances would most likley become more prevalent. And it wouldn’t deter renting of space. But it would make holding large tracts of 0.0 space more difficult not only for logistics (access for non-alliance members at structures refuelling etc.) also the more alliances involved in a coalition the more leadership issues/goals/defence/ and general diplomacy that will be needed to hold it together.

Saying that, huge alliances are part of the “end game” so do we really want to put an end to them.

I’ve lived in 0.0 (until recently) since 3 weeks after I first started playing, I first lived in a pos with no stations within 8 jumps, and personally had a great deal more fun before carriers and dreads where introduced, not to mention supers and titans. It used to take real effort, time and isk to take and hold sov, now spending 4hrs a day for 3 days a fleet of supers can take a consolation.

I love your idea but I don’t think it goes nearly far enough, increase the sov cost, lower the mineral drops, reduce the mining amount, ½ the bounty’s, greatly increase the number of higher and mid-range moons ect ect. Bring some challenge back into the game, and allow the mid-sized alliances a chance to hold their own 0.0 space.

All your changes here, especially reducing income, will INCREASE the difficulty of new blood coming out to 0.0. To live out here, especially when you are trying to fight to take space is VERY expensive due to the constant replacement of pvp ships. Trying to force large alliances to break up with only work on paper, because they will just break into smaller alliances and each one hold 2-3 systems to keep costs down. Believe it or not, even if the CEO had to pay for 200 accounts out of his pocket to gain the advantage, it would happen in EvE.

All you do is make it harder work to live out here, and almost impossible for a new entity to come out.

Before proposing/endorsing any idea, ask yourself 1 question. Is there any way this can be abused? If the answer is yes, it WILL be abused in EvE. Its what we do here, sorry.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#19 - 2011-09-15 12:09:18 UTC
I wouldn't call splitting into smaller alliances an exploit as a few people have said it makes logistics harder.

If people are concerned about how expensive ships are to replace they should perhaps start using the space they have more effectively.

That is the point I was trying to make....
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#20 - 2011-09-15 12:21:38 UTC
Shingorash wrote:
I wouldn't call splitting into smaller alliances an exploit as a few people have said it makes logistics harder.

If people are concerned about how expensive ships are to replace they should perhaps start using the space they have more effectively.

That is the point I was trying to make....

*wonders how to 'use space more effectively'*
Space in 0.0 would have to be worth more for what you say to be true, as far as that.

And it wouldn't make logistics a whole lot harder, you since its the same small group of people organizing everything... Only diff would be using contracts(ooo... 10k broker fee) instead of... ummm... really, since assets are owned at the corp level anyway, not the alliance level, nothing would change.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

123Next page