These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Evolving Empire [Suggestions for Change]

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lharanai
Fools of the Blue Oyster
#61 - 2011-10-31 19:12:42 UTC
Ah just make the wardec fee dependent on the SP of the involved parties

Wardec fee = (SP of aggressor/ SP of defender) * ISK factor

Prerequisite = nobody is able to join a corp or alliance during a wardec, or you include another factor for joining members, like additional fees which have to been paid otherwise the wardecs drops.
Neutral RR = still a problem
ISK factor = a value CCP has to figure out, I am to lazy to come up with a number which makes sense
SP count = sum of all player SP in the corp/alliance


What would happen, wardec cost would be higher if the aggressor has more members or more SP and really increasing if the aggressor has more members AND SP. But it would be cheaper to small newer groups focusing on industrial only groups, so please no whine about High Sec should not be safe.

Wardecs as they are at the moment is just another form of a blob, biased towards the griefers, why should High Sec be easy for them Smile

Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2011-10-31 19:26:19 UTC
Hrald wrote:
Considering that the lack of insurance when ganking someone in hisec means you only lose a couple million ..
For a frigate. A bit more than that for battlecruisers. Either way, you are correct ... not substantial, but harder for a ganker to break-even. Which is the point. Gankers should be doing it for the tears alone. :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#63 - 2011-10-31 19:26:41 UTC
Rose Hips wrote:
Yet another "Let's make life harder on Empire people so they have to go to Lowsec" fail
Empire people already live in lowsec… or, rather, lowsec people already live in empire.

Stan Smith wrote:
[No. Empires do not govern system security, CONCORD does, a third party organization independent of imperial politics enforces system security. this idea makes no sense
No. CONCORD only deals with capsuleers breaking the peace — the actual system security is policed by the faction navies and police forces. CONCORD doesn't care one bit about criminals
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2011-10-31 19:28:01 UTC
Lharanai wrote:
Neutral RR = still a problem
That is covered in #19, I believe. Third-party aggression. Reparing a ship that is aggressed/attackable by another makes the repairer aggressable as well. Same goes with ship with docking bays, etc.
Lharanai
Fools of the Blue Oyster
#65 - 2011-10-31 19:32:28 UTC
ah sorry I was just jumping in, only referring to the wardec fees, as I really don't like flat rates

Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2011-10-31 19:37:34 UTC
Lharanai wrote:
Wardec fee = (SP of aggressor/ SP of defender) * ISK factor
I thought of this ... but the skill point of who? The CEO's of the respective corps? The average SP of each corp? Maybe you just base it off corporation inception date, since one can probably assume that the older the corp, the more seasoned the members.

All of this leads to exploits, though, where you can either create a new corp every month or so. Or just pack your corp with non-training newb alts to keep the SP low. Or just ensure your CEO is a non-training newb alt.
Lharanai
Fools of the Blue Oyster
#67 - 2011-10-31 19:39:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lharanai
Lharanai wrote:



SP count = sum of all player SP in the corp/alliance....


Smile



means all SP from all individuals in a corp/alliance...just a sum

more noobs = increase the sum of SP
SP of CEO counts the same as each other member

Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2011-10-31 19:51:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Lharanai wrote:
Lharanai wrote:
SP count = sum of all player SP in the corp/alliance....Smile

means all SP from all individuals in a corp/alliance...just a sum

more noobs = increase the sum of SP
SP of CEO counts the same as each other member
I missed that obviously.

A flatrate makes exploitability difficult. As soon as you start adding in equations, exploitability comes into play.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2011-10-31 21:09:37 UTC
Updated list of suggestions to add the following:
Quote:
22. Transferable kill rights. Kill rights are a transferable item, which can be traded to players or sold on the contract market. Allows weaker players to transfer kill rights to more powerful players, so that appropriate punishment can be eked out. The kill rights interface to be upgraded so that the offender knows who is in possession of their kill rights (so they can take appropriate defensive actions.)

Read about this idea in another thread. Fits in nicely with the updated bounty system idea.
uglybass
Spatial Idiocity Inc.
#70 - 2011-10-31 21:59:07 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
uglybass wrote:
Problem is that all people dont wanna PVP.

Then those people should probably be playing another game. This is a PvP game. Every non-PvP activity in this game is there to support and drive PvP.

If someone really hates PvP, then they shouldn't open themselves up to it. They should stay in an NPC corp and limit their exposure to it as much as possible.


Dear madam, You are drasticly mistaken there. Not everyone shares the same view as you do.
Some people just enjoys "simcity" style of game play. They have some arbitary goals like building bigger ship arsenal, or they just enjoy the community they are in. 70%+ of players lives in high-sec, ofc theres plenty of hauling alt etc, but why would so big part of the players would stay there if all they want is to blow stuff up. wardeccing corp with some hauler alt just postpones he's/she's operation for a week and is not usually any real problem for alts. And its common sense not to fight if youre enemy is way bigger or has some other huge advantage.
wardeccing might have some issues but forcing people to hide until dec is over isnt gonna make it much better.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#71 - 2011-10-31 22:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Weakness should not be its own defense. Players should be encouraged to either improve their own defensive abilities or seek alliances with people who can provide for their defense. Being unable to defend yourself should not be a means to defend yourself.

If you made SP a factor in the cost of wars then it becomes a liability for your corp to have high SP players in it and it creates a divide between high SP and low SP players so you'd easily end up with even more corps full of players who are terrible at EVE since having people who actually know about the game in your corp makes you more likely to have war declared on you. Moreover this kind of mechanic would invite alt padding to reduce average SP and the like. Create 50 trials and get them into corp to drive the cost up etc.

Additionally you have to remember that highsec wars were a feature that was added, they aren't some old mechanic that was intended for another purpose that just so happens to spill over into highsec and they aren't an a bad or undesireable type of gameplay that needs to be limited. As such you should not approach making changes to wars with the goal of protecting people from them or discouraging them in your mind.

This is a game about spaceships exploding other spaceships, it is a primarily PVP based game and we should be trying to make the experience of exploding spaceships and having your spaceship exploded better and not trying to come up with ways to make it harder for people to make other peoples spaceships explode.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2011-10-31 23:18:20 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Weakness should not be its own defense. Players should be encouraged to either improve their own defensive abilities or seek alliances with people who can provide for their defense. Being unable to defend yourself should not be a means to defend yourself.

This is a game about spaceships exploding other spaceships, it is a primarily PVP based game and we should be trying to make the experience of exploding spaceships and having your spaceship exploded better and not trying to come up with ways to make it harder for people to make other peoples spaceships explode.

Both of these. +10.
uglybass
Spatial Idiocity Inc.
#73 - 2011-10-31 23:50:44 UTC  |  Edited by: uglybass
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Weakness should not be its own defense. Players should be encouraged to either improve their own defensive abilities or seek alliances with people who can provide for their defense. Being unable to defend yourself should not be a means to defend yourself.

This is a game about spaceships exploding other spaceships, it is a primarily PVP based game and we should be trying to make the experience of exploding spaceships and having your spaceship exploded better and not trying to come up with ways to make it harder for people to make other peoples spaceships explode.

Both of these. +10.


Or maybe encourage people more to move into low/null. where spaceships actually do explode even with out wardecs
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#74 - 2011-11-01 00:43:07 UTC
Sure, we can do that by removing all of the highsec space from the game. That's the only way you're going to get the people who after being presented with the options decided that they want to live in highsec to move into low/null.
Poetic Stanzitroll
Doomheim
#75 - 2011-11-01 13:09:03 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Weakness should not be its own defense. Weakness should not be its own defense. Players should be encouraged to either improve their own defensive abilities. or seek alliances with people who can provide for their defense. Being unable to defend yourself should not be a means to defend yourself.

This is a game about spaceships exploding other spaceships, it is a primarily PVP based game and we should be trying to make the experience of exploding spaceships and having your spaceship exploded better and not trying to come up with ways to make it harder for people to make other peoples spaceships explode.

Both of these. +10.



Exactly. When miners and haulers realize their barges are simply too weak to handle a barrage from a destroyer gank, they can't just go to the drawing boards and design a better ship. Eve is real... and in the real world, you can't just "design" stronger things becuase you have a problem with something breaking or blowing up.

Imagine if engineers decided to design an entirely new ship with a thicker hull and larger engine so they could 'magically' go about the arctic and not sink Titanic style. Imagine if engineers decided to build armored transport trucks that can carry fuel around in war-zones without blowing up at the first pothole. That stuff just doesn't happen in the real world, which is why it shouldn't happen in Eve.

Wait, what was I talking about? I really should put bullets on these ideas so I can make sense of them.

-Check out my blog, it's the best!
Lharanai
Fools of the Blue Oyster
#76 - 2011-11-06 11:41:28 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:


If you made SP a factor in the cost of wars then it becomes a liability for your corp to have high SP players in it and it creates a divide between high SP and low SP players so you'd easily end up with even more corps full of players who are terrible at EVE since having people who actually know about the game in your corp makes you more likely to have war declared on you. Moreover this kind of mechanic would invite alt padding to reduce average SP and the like. Create 50 trials and get them into corp to drive the cost up etc.





Lharanai wrote:

Wardec fee = (SP of aggressor/ SP of defender) * ISK factor

Prerequisite = nobody is able to join a corp or alliance during a wardec, or you include another factor for joining members, like additional fees which have to been paid otherwise the wardecs drops.
Neutral RR = still a problem
ISK factor = a value CCP has to figure out, I am to lazy to come up with a number which makes sense
SP count =absolute sum of all player SP in the corp/alliance


as I made the suggestion of using SP a factor in Wardec costs, I will defend it (or did I miss another commentShocked
your arguments are invalid because I never used the term average SP. So padding would actually make you cheaper to aggress because your sum (absolute SP) would increase. Having only a few high SP players or a lot of newer SP players, SP factor would be the same.....my formula is based on the old:

quantity vs quality, and quantity is a quality by itself Twisted

Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#77 - 2011-11-06 14:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Points 4, 7 and 21 are just another lowsec/nullsec whine callling for the nerf of hisec and the subsequent death of EVE. Roll

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you