These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dynamic PvE reward depending on the current risk in any solar system
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2012-05-30 11:12:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
The idea is to have a dynamic reward system for any PvE actions depending on how big the current risk is to act in a specific solar system.

Defining the risk:
How much player owned ISK were destroyed over a specific period of time determinates the risk in any solar system.
(Calculated like the LP reward in FW for destroying ships but including everyting else, destroyed structures etc.)


Dynamic system security scales the reward vs risk:
If more than X amount of player owned ISK were destroyed in a system the security level falls, if less than X amount of player owned ISK were destroyed the security level raises. (The math function behind that should be of course not linear). The lower the security level of any system is the higher the PvE reward will be.


Explanations and details:
A solar system with a -1 security level has the highest PvE reward in terms of NPC bounty, loot, mission payout, mining and industry resources (better roids, higher respawn and reduced industry build time and costs, more industry slots etc.). That means this system has seen a lot of destroyed player owned ISK over a period of time thus is a very dangerous system to be or act in.

The dynamic security level will scale over time, if a solar system is quiet and less violent its security level approaches the highest possible level (highsec = 1.0, lowsec = 0.5 (0.499), zerozero = 0.5(0.499)) and vice versa. How fast or slow a solar system changes its security level is depending on the gradient of violence, aka amount of player owned ISK destroyed vs time. Means nonetheless a big fight with lots of stuff being destroyed changes a system security rather fast, repeatly fights and it will stay at the lowest possible level for some time and vice versa.


Pros and Cons:
This method can be applied to any highsec, lowsec and 0.0 system. Some highsec systems like the big trade hubs, Jita, Amarr, etc. may need special configurations to avoid abuse. WH systems may need a special configuration, too.
The basics to calculate the worth of player owned/destroyed stuff is already implemented. See latest FW and UI changes.
A dynamic security system needs to be coded. The math functions behind it needs to be developed.

CCP will be able to adjust and control all NPC ISK/Goods output for the whole universe with a very few functions.
The biggest advantage will have the players as they can choose very easily how much risk vs reward they are willing to invest.





Please add your feedback and likes, i will check this topic from time to time and will add any Pros and Cons to the OP

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
MortisLegati
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-05-31 10:39:25 UTC
I can just think of a titan getting killed in a system then ratters flocking to it like flies on a fresh turd.
Hrothgar Nilsson
#3 - 2012-05-31 11:23:33 UTC
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-05-31 14:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
MortisLegati wrote:
I can just think of a titan getting killed in a system then ratters flocking to it like flies on a fresh turd.

Yep, that's the aim behind it but on the other hand it will draw the attention of your enemies/pirates etc. And with a lot of enemies/pirates in that system the ratters have to be really careful but get a great reward or move on to a more quiet system if they want more safety but less reward.

Sure after a Titan kill the security level will be quite low but if there isn't subsequent violence it will quickly climb back.
The math behind that should work like standing, the closer you are to one end the more/less violence you need to push it further. And if you reach one end it will swing back rather quick without more correct input.

Example (Numbers are made up to illustrate)
A +1 security level system, 1x CR is killed as result the sec level will drop to +0,90. The next day 10x CR are killed and the sec level will be at 0.875 as result. After a week with no kills it will climb back to +0.9 but for the last 0.1 it will need a month with no kills to reach +1 again.
A -0.5 security level system, 1x Titan is killed as result the sec level will drop to -0.95 without further kills the next week the sec level will climb back to -0.85 after a month it will be at -0.7 and after 3 month it will be back to -0.5 without more kills.

Anyway i think CCP will have no problem to calculate a balanced math function.


Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
Seems overly complex.

The math behind it isn't that complex and the players don't need to know/understand it. They can just check the sec level and will either know, ok a lot stuff was destroyed recently or less stuff but frequently (lower security level) or hey it's rather quiet here (higher security level).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-06-21 08:44:45 UTC
So the better we are at keeping people safe, the shittier the space gets to live in?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-06-21 14:26:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
Yes and no. If you mean by kept safe no traffic, no fights then yes but if you mean by kept safe you're regular fighting in those ones then no.
What will happen in non NPC 0.0 is that the backyard, no traffic systems will be the worst ones to PvE in until fights occur.
Border, transit and valuable systems like the ones with current tech moons or strategy important ones etc which have regular fights over resources or just have more traffic (more traffic usually means more fights) will be the best ones to PvE in but also the most dangerous ones.
If i'm correct non NPC 0.0 will be more centralized with a lot of hot spots of various degrees. It's like bees and honey and the occasional raiding bear a selfregulating system in the end.

NPC 0.0 will be not that different but will have natural hot spots around the systems with Agents and many belts.


Ideally a system with lots of regular fighting will attract the less risk averse PvE'ler, they will attract your enemies/pirates, those ones will attract your home defence and so on until it is really dangerous and even the least risk averse PvE'ler will stop farming there. Then the system traffic will fade down a little and the PvE'ler will come again. Rinse and repeat. Imagine that in 10% to 15% of your "owned" systems.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Liliana Rahl
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#7 - 2012-06-21 14:29:29 UTC
Yeah there's no way this could possibly be abused.
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-06-21 14:45:45 UTC
Liliana Rahl wrote:
Yeah there's no way this could possibly be abused.


That's the idea, if you really want you can "abuse" it by lurking your enemy into a special system get a fight and have a nice PvE space for some time but as i said, with no regular fights the bonus will tune down rather quick.

If you mean by abuse to kill your own/blues, possible but if CCP does the math behind it correct you won't be profitable by trying that. The closer you are getting to the bonus the more stuff needs to be regular destroyed to maintain it. The math behind that should work like standing, the closer you are to one end the more/less violence you need to push it further. And if you reach one end it will swing back rather quick without more correct input.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-06-21 14:47:15 UTC
What this means is that the further out from hisec you get, the worse the logistics is and the worse the rewards are.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-06-21 15:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
Yes, the real backyard systems will be the worst ones to own in non NPC 0.0 but also the safest. :) I can't see nothing wrong with that, super safe but worst reward.
Lets assume my idea works and we are about 6months in the future, you can then check dotlan to see which backyard systems have seen less violence but lots of NPC kills, set course to them and hope that you aren't hitting a botting system but one with guys that have already lowered their guard, thinking they are safe.
On the other hand if you aren't happy with your backyard, low traffic systems, rent them out or abandon them. My idea will reward the alliances which are actively defending their territory by killing their enemies/intruders and penalize the lazy risk averse ones.

My idea will work as a selfregulating system even for backyard systems.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar