Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is incorrect, and if you disagree with me you should explain how you came upon those numbers.

Overall, OP, I like this idea in a general sense. I think it is a good direction for CCP to look in.

There are groups of people who will always live in certain areas of the game but there is a large chunk of the population who would move around depending on what the think is best for them, it is these people the risk/reward balance affects and it's those people who we are talking about when we're talking about population shifts.

The other anomalies, the belts, complexes, etc. Or they rat in groups, burning down anomalies repeatedly with groups of ships.

The current system has left us with massive blocks of null sec that are empty. GOONSWARM is one of the few that only hold the amount of space they need. It was meant as a compliment. The fact that most of the high system holding low member alliances are renters alliances is irrelevant. The current system does not work. It encourages a stagnant null sec, this is proven by the fact that this is what we now have.

I get that things may not change much in the big picture with coalitions just dividing space between more smaller alliances, but even that would be a massive improvement, as there is far more conflict between members of the same coalition, than there is between members of an alliance. Alliances share there space, Coalitions divide there space. many smaller alliances making up the same coalitions would mean players would be more spread out, Do goodswarm members rat in systems belonging to other alliances in their block? Do other alliances get pissed off when the good space goes to the favorite alliances while they are stuck with the leftovers? If the coalition was broken into smaller pieces these minor conflicts would be far more common. Running the huge power blocks would be more difficult, There would be a lot more conflict then we have now.

How many systems does the various alliances in the CFC hold? 400-500? More? How many of them are empty ghost town systems? If those empty system were not worth the cost and effort to hold the CFC would not hold them. Why keep something you do not need? Currently they are only kept to keep them away from other non friendly entities. This is possible because there is no burden associated with keeping all those empty systems, the cost is so small the alliances holding them do not care.

If the system was changed so that you had to consider each additional system you controlled as to whether or not the cost was justified we would see much of that empty space in null opened up for smaller groups. More groups would bring more conflict, More conflict means more PVP. Is that not the most common complaint from PVPers? that they go on roams for hours and may not get any good fights? More smaller entities will generate more PVP.

If you do not like my proposal, fine, I know it is far from perfect, just an idea. What are your ideas to bring more PVP to Null sec? One thing I think we can all agree on is that the current system has lead to null sec becoming stagnant. The PVP we do have is Blob warfare between massive power blocks. Fleets of supers hot dropping anyone who gets out of line. We need small scale PVP. We need a change, and it has to be something that will discourage the massive blocks of blue space defended by huge fleet of super capitals we see now.

Not to mention that Querious just went up for grabs and could be quite valuable after Odyssey.

Why doesn't the OP do that? He pulls some number out of his posterior based on Dotlan and runs with it.

The OP starts with the number of people in GSF, 10,600.

First remove the inactive players.
Then remove the alts.

You could cut that 10,600 down to 5,300 or even lower. Now suddenly, based on the OP's "reasoning" we have 25/system.

In other words, the OP's methodology sucks donkey balls. You call out one person on this who actually makes a good point regarding ratting. On average, I bet you can only get 3-4 people earning decent isk in a system by ratting. Note, it is on average, not how many people could be supported in a -0.7 system or lower.

And for somebody demanding empirical evidence you kind of suck in that department too. I live in Cloud Ring. Do you know the average true sec there? -0.0745. In Fountain the average sec status is 0.292.

And even if Danika is off considerably, e.g. say a factor of 4, the max number is still well below what the OP is calling for. Basically, you don't change the risks, but lower the rewards.



My understanding is that respawn rates depend on the systems True Sec and system upgrades....in other words, in your average system in regions like Cloud Ring and Fountain aren't going to worth all that much, so burning down a whole lot of crap anomalies wont get you much.



Because that space sucks, at least for things like ratting and mining. Using your preferred group, Goons, the average sec status of the systems they hold is pretty good, -0.462. That means about 60 of those systems are greater than that Of course, they can't rat in all of them depending on their agreements with their allies. Still limiting it to just Deklein that is 57 systems with an average sec status of -0.657.

So Goons might not be the best example given the high average sec status of Deklein, their main region. Also, you'd probably need to make the scale adjustable to the overall value of the region.

Did you stop to consider that the system might be worthwhile to hold for reasons unrelated to security status and the systems ability to support a number of pilots? For example moon materials? Or how about for a tactical advantage. A system might not be worth much economically, but its tactical importance could be quite significant.

Your reasoning is facile and simplistic. You don't take into account that a system supporting pilots via ratting depends on sec status, that some regions are "richer" than others in that regard, that a systems value is not just on what individual pilots can extract from the system, etc.

Edit: Oh and this bit of silliness:



That is 10,600 characters. If goons are like me that could be anything between 2,000 - 2,500 members (i.e. people). Even if we go with as few as 2 alts + their main, that puts Goon membership at about 3,500.

Can any of these other anomalies consistently better the isk/hour of running level 4s entirely risk free in highsec in a moderately expensive faction battleship? No? Then they are not worth doing.

In essence you are misunderstanding the argument, I at least am arguing that while you could squeeze more players into a system it is only worthwhile (as in more income than they could easily get in highsec) for 5-15 pilots in the best systems and one, two or none in the **** ones.

So basically for many poster there sys in null are empty because there isn't enought rats, due to true sec problem, to sustain the same isk/hr of lvl4 in high sec?
If that is the real problem why not ask ccp to build up mission hubs in sov null? Maybe after building an outpost a bunch of officer take home in it and start giving out mission with a high isk/hr ratio than higsec lvl4 ; what i'm a bit sceptical is if pvper are willing to committ themselve to protect those who do mission in sov null.

There is a fairly strong case for this although it would make people ratting in 0.0 a lot harder to catch, perhaps if a new kind of mission with no acceleration gates was used it would make it feasible.

Personally though I think it would be easier for CCP and less homogenizing for the game if they just buffed system upgrades or truesec so at maximum levels the lower end of worthwhile anomalies would appear in all systems and generally more anomalies spawned at any given time. Or just buffed the worse anomalies to make them usefull.