Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Why do you want to make it harder to live in 0.0?

why should investing in space make it worse?

I never actually considered the renters plight... which in itself I consider a sick joke.

So another +1 reason to do this. Anything that helps to break up the big blue doughnut.

But seriously, you pick out an area which is currently the most lawless and desolate, where all the NPC Officers like to chill out. You slap in an outpost, move hundreds of people in and stays lawless and desolate. You make it all cosy and it stays the most lucrative space to farm, that isn't right. Put money making aside and consider this idea from a game improving PoV

Quick thoughts:

POS's: These are fairly well balanced.
♦ Require moderate investment.
♦ Provide limited protection of assets: Items in the POS may be bumped out, may be stolen, etc.
♦ Provide limited functionality: Specifically, they have limited storage, as well as limited S&I too.
♦ Require routine fueling to operate.
♦ May be destroyed moderately easily, with a 100% loss of assets.
♦ These are potential conflict drivers for medium to larger groups (15 or more players).

Stations: These are NOT well balanced.
♦ Requires a large amount of investment by players (but isk is a pisspoor balancing factor)
♦ These kind of require upkeep, albeit extremely limited upkeep (isk for Sov Bill).
♦ Unlimited personal storage. Personal storage is 100% safe from theft and loss.
♦ Unlimited corp storage for multiple corps, with much easier-to-configure control over corp hangars.
♦ Loss of Station ownership results in a loss of access to station assets only.
♦ Station conquering mechanics require a major amount of firepower, and have several user defined RF windows as opposed to stront levels.
♦ Station conquering mechanics add several RF timers to the Sov conquest mechanics, making it much harder to flip a system.
♦ Stations offer free Jump clones, free repair, free S&I, instant refine at near perfect, and more.
♦ These are potential conflict drivers, but ONLY for large groups (50 or more).
Whoever balanced these was stuck on the "only 2 or 3 will exist in the game" because of isk cost mentality, and obviously did a PISSPOOR job of it.

With the Ops suggestion, it adds another drawback: Your system's Sec Status gets worse.
♦ How much sec status loss would really help limit the deployment of these vastly superior structures?
Only an extreme increase, like 0.3 sec status points, would make much of a difference.

♦ How would this alter the current landscape?
Considering you can't remove a planted station, and many regions have already been heavily seeded with stations, this would be terrible for many existing groups. Frankly, I think this is unacceptable.

To be honest, I think the Ops idea doesn't work out well. I would much rather have nullsec stations become vulnerable to flipping outside of the Sov system than create this drawback, which hits the wrong aspects of the station. The station is simply not vulnerable enough, and your proposal does nothing to address this.

Only if your standards are really really low.

I like the idea of tying together sov and station ownership. Atm it's what, 4 timers to flip both station and system. Making the station = ihub makes sense if only in reducing grind.

The max refine is a station upgrade for minnie stations only that costs billions and needs freightering in, for the agony guy who posted above.

The aim of this suggestion isn't to make life harder (although it may for some), but to discourage stagnation, encourage movement and dispersion of the blob.

Currently we have this situation where the best systems have an outpost planted and people converge on the alliance controlling that system and the system itself. NIPS and NAPS are encouraged as is the renting system.

I think things should be more fluid, resources should run out or diminish in overworked systems, people should need to constantly move around and fight for the newly discovered resources. The most lucrative systems should be the ones that are the most dangerous, without a nearby bolt hole. People wanting to challenge the dominate alliance in the area should have more options than just outblobbing them. Make it viable for conflict to occur in systems where the dominate alliance is at it's weakest. Encourage people to push out from the central home system, by making the best riches spawn further and further away.

Now this proposal is not the solution to all problems, just one step in the right direction. Another would be to make moons run out of goo and have the resource re-spawn on another moon. It is poor game design that all the important moons are known, static and controlled by a few leet blobs. The discovery of newly spawned moon resources and their extraction, should be a viable mini profession, with the opportunity to ninja run it under the nose of the incumbent alliance, as well as the opportunity to create friction between supposedly friendly corps/alliances as to who has the right to extract each new resource found.

I wasn't aware that only one Outpost can be constructed per system (thanks Danika). Ultimately as things stand we will eventually reach the stage where every system in null sec has an Outpost. That doesn't sound very attractive to me. For null to keep it's frontier feel, we need a method to reduce the desire to continually build more outposts and also remove some of the existing outposts as their usefulness diminishes. Now openingly destroying them is fraught with problem as discussed in that other thread I linked in the OP. But would it be possible to allow a station to become uneconomic to continue running and thus allow the owner to decommission the outpost, recovering a portion of the investment. At which point the outpost becomes a ruined or mothballed outpost, station lockout and services fail, along with it's influence on the surrounding area, but assets can still be recovered? Ships can dock, without restriction and remove items from personal and corp hangers but nothing else. Before anyone rubbishes that idea, why is that more unrealistic that the current situation where an alliance can conquer an outpost, but not pillage their enemies personal and corp hangers?

I don't want to get into too many details on the latter, if I try to wrap up too many suggestions in one, all we'll get is a big row. So as I said, little steps first, start with moving the resources and give a reason to restrict the overall number of outposts. Ideas for how to remove/move the outpost will follow in due course.

@ Notorious Fellon. The max improvement in true sec, would still be to a level of null, it wouldn't improve into low sec. But it may be necessary to adjust the level of resources available at each level.