These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Missions and 0.0 Starbase Building
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aminari Talar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-07-01 18:52:10 UTC
Iv never been much of a mission guy, but i had an interesting idea today.

The way it would work is as follows.

Corp Builds Space Station.

Owning Corp Declares some sort of loyalty to a faction.
If they

a) change faction
b) remove support

then they gain a massive (-5.0) reputation to that faction, and are prohibited from re-declaring support for 90 days for that faction or any other faction.

When a corp declares loyalty to a faction, they can

1) select any npc body in the game.

Each NPC assignment can grant 5 random agents. Ownership Corp can fire agents, but it will take 72 hours to replace them, and the replacement is random.

Agent missions auto-adapt based on security of space the station is in. this way, you may get level 1 combat agents that will grant 0.0 equiv missions.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2015-07-01 21:22:15 UTC
What, so we can toss a few sisters of eve agents into Deklein and crater the price of Nestors?

Are you talking five agents per station, per constellation, per region, per sov holder or...?
Aminari Talar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3 - 2015-07-01 21:30:16 UTC
5 agents per a station (or up to, randomly generated).

This way you can basically do missions as if you did them in high sec, but in 0.0
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#4 - 2015-07-01 22:28:19 UTC
...or you go to NPC space and do missions there?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2015-07-01 22:49:27 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
5 agents per a station (or up to, randomly generated).

This way you can basically do missions as if you did them in high sec, but in 0.0



Okay. And when you say corp, do you mean that an alliance like mine, with 64 stations and over 300 corps, could quite happily have agents from every single NPC body in the entire game, or would you limit it to alliances (and thus encourage us to game the system with multiple alliances instead?
shimiku
Zircron Industries
#6 - 2015-07-02 01:00:36 UTC
i didnt join null sec to do mission anoms is fine for me and if i want LP i just drop a ESS
Aminari Talar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7 - 2015-07-02 03:07:58 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
5 agents per a station (or up to, randomly generated).

This way you can basically do missions as if you did them in high sec, but in 0.0



Okay. And when you say corp, do you mean that an alliance like mine, with 64 stations and over 300 corps, could quite happily have agents from every single NPC body in the entire game, or would you limit it to alliances (and thus encourage us to game the system with multiple alliances instead?



No, It would be declared by an alliance, Limiting a station, or stations respectively to a specific faction. This would prevent you from doing xyz, but allow more options for 0.0 to become more like an "empire" AKA high sec.

By Corp Declaring support, I ment the executor corp.
Kyeudo Van'mynai
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-07-02 06:11:33 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:


No, It would be declared by an alliance, Limiting a station, or stations respectively to a specific faction. This would prevent you from doing xyz, but allow more options for 0.0 to become more like an "empire" AKA high sec.

By Corp Declaring support, I ment the executor corp.


First, gameable. Goons would have each station under a different alliance ticker in a week, each probably a one man alliance owned by the Mittani or some such.

Second, why would we want null to be more like Empire space? Empire space is dangerous and boring at the same time.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2015-07-02 07:05:15 UTC
Kyeudo Van'mynai wrote:
Second, why would we want null to be more like Empire space? Empire space is dangerous and boring at the same time.

Or, on another note, why making sov space more similar to NPC null.

Something I don't like this suggestion for is because of that and the fact that it diminishes incentive to control particular region and/or type of space.

Now, it's fair argument that in a sandbox players can probably be better off with making their own space rather than choosing what to control, but that would quickly turn into min-maxing game at best, so personally, I'd rather have variety.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2015-07-02 09:27:43 UTC
Kyeudo Van'mynai wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:


No, It would be declared by an alliance, Limiting a station, or stations respectively to a specific faction. This would prevent you from doing xyz, but allow more options for 0.0 to become more like an "empire" AKA high sec.

By Corp Declaring support, I ment the executor corp.


First, gameable. Goons would have each station under a different alliance ticker in a week, each probably a one man alliance owned by the Mittani or some such.

Second, why would we want null to be more like Empire space? Empire space is dangerous and boring at the same time.



Exactly this.

As for the why, using anoms a system can't support that any people at once. More than 10-12 ratters and even a -1.0 system is full, while missions are infinitely scalable. Under fozziesov, where people need to stay condensed in small areas, having missions available in 0.0 would make it actually possible to support more than a handful of people in a system or a constellation. And let's face it, we're not going to get any kind of a buff to actually living in null while Fozzie is in charge of it.

Yes, missions are boring as hell, but so are anomalies.