Player Features and Ideas Discussion

We do not need more conflict drivers in null sec to generate more PVP. Much of null sec is a ghost town, regardless of conflict drivers, you need players to be there for PVP to happen. The problem with null sec is not the big blue dounut, this is not the case. The problem is the low population. What we need to generate more PVP is more players in null. Populate those empty systems. Alliances holding a hundred systems as a buffer while only actively using 20-30 of them is a big part of the problem. Smaller empires, in terms of systems, not members, will mean there is more room for more groups of players to get a foot hold in null. More individual groups will result in more conflict. The more PVPers you put in null the more PVP you will see. PVPers do not need a reason to fight, that is why they play the game, What they need is targets.

Holding space you do not need should be prohibitively expensive, while having your space get crowded and needing to expand can be a conflict driver. I think system maintenance should be linked to the number of members you have. A small group should have a greater advantage through cheaper system maintenance. Say for example you can hold up to 5 systems at a minimal cost. after that you need 50 members per system to keep that lower cost. After 10 systems the base costs for each system could go up 5% even when meeting the 50 member per system requirement. This would discourage excessively large alliances controlling large areas of null, as the cost of their space would go up. For example a group of 60 members would have the base cost for the first 5 systems plus base costs for a 6th system due to having over 50 members. But they would need 100 members to get base costs for a 7th system. Claiming a 7th system without 100 members would result in 20% higher maintenance cost. These increases would compound based on the previous system. So the 7th system would cost 20% more than base, while the 8th system would cost 20% more than the 7th, and so on. A 5th system beyond what the number of members support would cost 100% more than base cost. 10 systems over would be 200% higher. Supporting more systems than the member base supported would result in costs quickly getting out of hand.

In order to really discourage larger alliances there would need to be added costs to an increased number of systems regardless of member numbers. say every 10 systems after the first 10, the base cost goes up 5% for all systems independent of the member driven costs. So if your alliance controlled 20 systems base cost of all systems would go up by 5%, with additional increase if you did not meet the 50 members per system requirement beyond 5 systems. So a 100 man alliance (member count only supporting 7 systems) holding 20 systems would pay an additional 20% compounding per system for 13 systems. The 20th system(13th extra beyond the 7) would cost 260% higher maintenance, on top of the 5% increase for the 20 systems. A 500 member alliance (member count supporting 15 systems) would only pay the 20% compounded on 5 systems. The 500 member would have lower maintenance fees that the 100 man alliance, discouraging system growth beyond member growth.

An alliance holding 20 Systems would be paying 5% more base cost on all systems than an alliance only holding 19 systems. The same for an alliance holding 30 systems compared to 29. This will establish plateau's where you can have a maximum size before a large jump in costs. An big advantage of this is you will get many more alliances matching up in these size brackets. Smaller alliances will hold off growing beyond 19 systems as long as they can to keep costs down. The next plateau would be at 29 systems, then at 39 systems. For perspective a 39 system alliance would need 1700 members to hold those systems at base costs, which would still be 10% higher base costs than an alliance holding 19 systems. 1000 members would naturally support 25 systems. Each extra system would significantly rise in price. If you need more systems you can hold them, the the higher costs will discourage large alliances from holding more space than they need, opening up more space for smaller alliances.

For example TEST currently controls 200 systems and has over 12500 members. This member count would naturally support 260 systems( 10+(12500/50))=260 putting them at base costs. While S2N Citizens hold 210 systems with only about 4000 members. This member count would only support 90 systems (10=(4000/50))=90 leaving them with 120 systems affected by the compounding 20% interest. Their 210th system would cost 2400% above base costs. Would that not be enough to drive down the number of systems they would be able to support?

However they would both still be affected by the 5% per 10 systems raising base maintenance costs by 100%. This would make system maintenance harder to support discouraging such large alliances. For an alliance like S2N citizens they would be paying that 2400% on a base cost 110% higher than a 10 system alliance. Such alliances holding massive space with low numbers would be a thing of the past.

An alliance like GOONS with over 10600 members could maintain base costs up to 220 systems but only hold 121 systems. This serves to illustrate that these large alliances do not need +200 systems to sustain the large member base. GOONS are doing very well with an average of about 88 members per system, but would still be looking at a 55% increase in base costs. Manageable for a large alliance, but for smaller alliances holding the same number of systems, the 55% compounded with 20% per system, from not having enough members to support the number of systems they own, it can get insanely expensive.

What would these changes do for the game? Keep empires from out growing their numbers, Drive empires to grow through recruitment, not just conquest, and leave unused space empty for smaller alliances to get a foothold.

Just another terrible post about null. Null requires greater risk than high sec but lower reward. Increasing those costs only hurt null more. Your plan doesn't address that underlying problem. Make something worth fighting for in null sec, its simple. Your cost structure is bad and you should feel bad.

An assertion with nothing to back it up. Not very convincing.

You go on and on about making costs, essentially exponential past a certain point, but you don't do anything in terms of the rewards of owning space. 50 people in a single system is going to make it rather hard for those 50 people to do much, even if they are fairly dispersed across a number of time zones.

Looking at just the cost side of holding sov is not a balanced approach.

Mine tritanium, the trit problem has been solved.

BTW, that was my thought as well. You might get a few more supported by a system with PI, maybe one guy who is old enough/rich enough to do reactions (provided there is an outpost/station in system). Maybe at most 10 guys.

Explaining how the other 40 could make isk in that system. If the 10 ratters/system is a reasonable number right now, then it would seem that to get to 50 you'd need to increase the rewards/system 5 fold to support 50/system.

If the resources support 10 pilots/system on average, then randomizing wont do ****.

Think of it this way:

You have 50 people. You have enough food to keep 10 alive. Randomizing the food distribution wont suddenly make the available food capable of feeding more people.

Now, maybe if you were Jesus and you could keep pulling battle ship rats out of your butt.....

GOONS have over 10,600 members and only 121 systems, that's an average of 87 per system. If they needed more space they would have it.

Null is mostly full of PVPers. PVPers do not need a reason to fight. They play the game for PVP. What they need is targets.

The under lying problem is that a few massive alliances control the majority of null sec. The conflict is limited to small pockets with vast empty area's. You can not create PVP with content. PVP is created by having more PVPers, A higher population will do more to drive conflict than any content the developers can create.

My Idea is not about making living in null sec more expensive, it is about making it more cost effective for smaller alliances, and more difficult for the massive alliances that cause the stagnation we see currently.

Sure if this was implemented it may just result in the current large alliances breaking down into smaller alliances forming an equal size coalition. But that would still be better than we have now. Coalitions are less stable than alliances. In a massive alliance everyone shares the same space, in a coalition the smaller alliances would each have their own space that the coalition would help them defend.

This drives conflict thru which alliances in the coalition get the best space, and which ones are stuck in crap systems. Under a single alliance banner the crap systems are empty while everyone lives in the better systems. Under a coalition, individual alliances will be required to live in there own space as ratting in the best systems belonging to another coalition alliance will create conflict within the coalition. Those alliances stuck with the crap systems will be fighting to prove they are of more worth to the coalition than another alliance with better space. Those alliances may break away from the coalition, or at least reduce the support they give to coalition ops, if they feel they are treated unfairly. Coalitions break apart far easier than alliances , due to members feeling like they are doing more of the work while others are getting more of the rewards. We see this on a large scale now with the massive alliances and their super coalitions. Having more smaller alliances, even if they are still flying under the same large coalition banner will drive more conflict.

The main reason I see holding smaller alliances back from getting their own null sec space is all the crap space that nobody wants is still claimed by larger alliances. it is dead space where nobody lives, but they still own it as a buffer boarder land to insulate their core systems. I have traveled through null extensively the last few weeks. Once you get past the defended boarders it is empty. Why do these huge alliances need so much space they do not use. Game mechanics need to be changed in a way to make holding systems you do not need or use will not be worth the effort.

With my idea holding all those extra systems would unnecessarily drive up the costs of all systems they hold, so only holding the systems they need/use will keep costs down. There is no need for a 2000 man alliance to hold over 100 systems. they do not need or use that much space. Drop the crappy systems, leave them open for smaller alliances to get a foot hold. If nothing else it will give your PVPers more targets.

perhaps my numbers are not what they should be to achieve the right balance, maybe it should be 20 members per system rather than 50. But keep in mind this is not 50 members all online at the same time.

I refer again to the example of the GOONS. over 10,600 members last I checked. But they have only recently started to see over 2000 in alliance chat. I have read comments from Goons leaders that they find the current systems they hold to be a good balance to support their alliance. I expect there are less bears and more PVPers in GOONS than many other alliances, but those PVPers must support themselves, many do this by ratting.

So if the GOONS 10,600 members means a peak of say 2000 members online at any given time, and they are well supported by their 121 systems, that is only an average of 16 members per system online at peak time. I expect for most of the day you would see closer to 10 members online per system. Considering my number of 50 members per system after the first 5 systems would mean they could have up to 217 systems at base maintenance costs before the 20% increase per system hit them, they would have at peak times when 2000 are online less than 10 members online per system. The 50 members per system is total characters in the alliance not online at any given time, this includes all alts and inactive members.

Currently system maintenance fees are a joke, unless the system is heavily upgraded. My Idea only makes it so these fees will be more significant the larger an alliance gets. And it is only the base fees I am talking about increasing, not the fees on upgrades. I believe having the cost increase exponentially past a certain balance between number of systems owned and number of members will be a healthy change for the game. The only reason I added the extra 20% increase for each 10 systems regardless of member count was to prevent these large alliances from simply filling slots will inactive characters and alts to artificially keep costs down. Although that will still work to a point, it will still be more cost effective for even the largest alliances to only hold the space they need, not have massive sections of null they own, but leave empty.

Ok, a few points for you to consider:

- Any system involving number of members is horribly exploitable, for example: create 3 characters on trial account, put into corp, let account expire, rinse, repeat, congratulations infinite member count.

- If you make it disadvantageous to hold sov on a large scale as a single entity then you will simply see the sov being split up and held by puppet entities, i.e. 'Goonswarm Holding 1-99'

- For your statistics~ you are comparing a renter alliance, where all of the players do PvE almost exclusively, with proper alliances where maybe 40%, if that, of its members do PVE on any kind of a regular basis. This diversity in alliance makeup means that your 'system needs' figures will never add up for everyone and are in fact unlikely to add up for anyone.

- Cost is irrelevant to the ability of small alliances to hold space. The fact that large alliances are unwilling to allow a hostile entity to hold space near them is the restricting factor.

E: and most of the **** space that no one wants is currently held by CVA and associated pets.

by your own numbers goons have 10k people, with the actual total supposedly in 0.0 if you go by alliance member counts higher still.
the issue is not getting numbers into sov holding alliances. that is already there. the issue is making it worthwhile for them to actually be there. currently risk vs reward dictates that it makes more sense for the average pilot to live in high sec.

once that decision becomes null sec. you will see the 0.0 population boom.

also for smaller groups it is perfectly viable to become renters to gain a foothold in 0.0 before trying to take their own space. this is not something new and has worked reasonable well for a long time.
note: it also works directly agasint any description of system holding fees, because the 'renters' simply hand the systems to the 'tennets' and get isk for space they do not use and now do not own, leaving them free to go and claim eve more.

And yet, despite your great accomplishment, people keep complaining about nullsec being stale and inaccessable. Maybe the gameplay of nullsec is not necessarily getting better just because huge groups "earned" being there. Maybe smaller groups that doesn't get blapped immediately might improve the gameplay as well.