These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So EVE is becoming just a rental universe now is it?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Garandras
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2014-06-03 23:16:46 UTC
In the end Renting is a player mechanic

And the only thing that will top renting is if player stop paying

no matter what way the SoV Mechanics are changed, renting will still happen as the 'land lords' will just change the terms to fit within the new system. As the renters are not paying for the space itself, they are paying to not be shot at.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#122 - 2014-06-04 00:06:44 UTC
Andski wrote:
Tauranon wrote:
CCP did something about it, they nerfed moongoo value, so that systems were more valuable to empires as living quarters than they were as empty buffer space around very-important-towers (tm).

Why is it good for nullsec

(a) rise in population
(b) rise in corporation units that are sized for small gang warfare, that are not deployed to strategic objectives, and thus are not fleeted up in strategic sized units.

ie its likely that a good 5 man crew will get a fight or at least intercept some unwary traffic in Vale, without much fear that the CFC will order a cleanup on aisle 9 and eject you with 100 ships when you finally made someone angry by shooting the wrong afktar. In fact they only come when you start with the SBUs or their goo towers, they don't do local security.

One imagines that careful observations of NA regions would also locate regions that provide content for small gangs.

I do think this is an intermediate phase for the game, a phase where the average bear has the opportunity to lose his or her fear of null, and if you are a risk averse highsec bear, this may be the best time ever to try nullsec life.



On the other hand, small gang warfare is irrelevant to the bigger picture. A coalition doesn't collapse because some ratters got blown up or because they lost roaming gangs to gate camps or logoff traps.

0.0 has greater access, sure, but not many people want to play feudalism in space other than botters, independent supercapital builders and multiboxing ratters.


Sounds like your problems centralise around AFK behaviour. When I was in CFC I observed 70+ people online at any time, but to type in chat and get a response? Maybe 2 people actually say Hi back. That's a pretty serious problem. Maybe sov should be more dynamic like FW where you can whittle down control instead of necessitating massive structure grinds all the time. Making towers consume 4x as much fuel too might help in cutting down the extraanneous grinding.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#123 - 2014-06-04 00:10:08 UTC
Garandras wrote:
In the end Renting is a player mechanic

And the only thing that will top renting is if player stop paying

no matter what way the SoV Mechanics are changed, renting will still happen as the 'land lords' will just change the terms to fit within the new system. As the renters are not paying for the space itself, they are paying to not be shot at.


Wasn't this what easily scannable and destroyable mobile depots were supposed to help in solving? i.e. creating launch platforms for groups to destroy enemy infracstructure one bit at a time from the inside out?

It just doesn't work. You gotta make defence much more active. Make towers and POCOs and other trash structures not give out attack notifications. This one simple change alone would completely reshape nullsec and lowsec because guess what? You won't get any notification of being under attack unless you're actually in the vicinity and checking.
DownTwisTeD
Doomheim
#124 - 2014-06-04 00:23:57 UTC
Its all about the landlords now in eve, we gotta take eve back. Pirate
Adunh Slavy
#125 - 2014-06-04 01:03:32 UTC
More like feudal tithe than rent.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#126 - 2014-06-04 02:27:28 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Sounds like your problems centralise around AFK behaviour. When I was in CFC I observed 70+ people online at any time, but to type in chat and get a response? Maybe 2 people actually say Hi back. That's a pretty serious problem. Maybe sov should be more dynamic like FW where you can whittle down control instead of necessitating massive structure grinds all the time. Making towers consume 4x as much fuel too might help in cutting down the extraanneous grinding.


Nobody watches corp/alliance chat

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Adira Nictor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#127 - 2014-06-04 02:31:03 UTC
Tradari wrote:
personally i would like to see systems that are not being used automatically drop sov over time.

IE you need to keep mil 1 or industrial 1 within the first 7 days of taking sov or it drops back to default claimable null sec. it will force large alliances to spread out to enable to hold vast areas.


That wouldn't work. Back in the day, before dominion, we didn't keep sov in every system, just a pos in the important ones with good moon goo. Otherwise it was left unclaimed. If we happened to notice that a small upstart alliance claimed the space on the sov map, we would go stomp them out.

This would still be true if it wasn't for renting this space to people instead of just sitting on the good moons.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#128 - 2014-06-04 02:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
According to CCP, "the outer regions are a swirling maelstrom of capsuleer empires rising and falling in titanic struggles for power".

The rental empires are an embarrassment for the game design.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Tradari
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#129 - 2014-06-04 04:27:53 UTC
arr yes i remember now but there were plenty more heads of states back then but now were down to 3, are we going the way of the first china server where all of null sec was owned by one alliance? (so the rumours had it)


  • maybe lose the standing markings so you don't know who is blue till you chat to them?
    • lose local maybe?
    remove notifications of attacks (previous suggestion)
    vastly high costs the more space you own (this could put renting out of reach to be cost effective maybe forcing to control smaller areas.
    can only fuel pos's if you own sov? and you need to hold either military or industry 1 for sov to be claimed. + other mech to hold too.



throwing things out there lets see if this thread can be turned into best fixes rather than ask for a fix.
Saracena
Infinatech
#130 - 2014-06-04 06:08:01 UTC
You're looking at this 'problem' the wrong way. Renters are delicious and the more of them there, the better.

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#131 - 2014-06-04 09:11:32 UTC
Tradari wrote:
arr yes i remember now but there were plenty more heads of states back then but now were down to 3, are we going the way of the first china server where all of null sec was owned by one alliance? (so the rumours had it)


  • maybe lose the standing markings so you don't know who is blue till you chat to them?
    • lose local maybe?
    remove notifications of attacks (previous suggestion)
    vastly high costs the more space you own (this could put renting out of reach to be cost effective maybe forcing to control smaller areas.
    can only fuel pos's if you own sov? and you need to hold either military or industry 1 for sov to be claimed. + other mech to hold too.



throwing things out there lets see if this thread can be turned into best fixes rather than ask for a fix.


All of your ideas are 1) awful and 2) only diminish quality of life in 0.0 without solving any of the inherent issues

Alliances holding huge amounts of space would simply create puppet alliances if per-system bills were increased with the number of systems held. Removing local and changing the way standings work won't change a thing (and just pulls more people towards highsec - screwing 0.0 over isn't a solution)

Requiring sov to drop towers is stupid

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#132 - 2014-06-04 09:41:05 UTC
Linking the bonuses of system upgrades to structures that could be disabled by small to medium roaming gangs would force the sov holders to maintain a presence at home to defend against incursions instead of projecting all of it at any time in any one battle.

This would also force renters to defend their system(s) or lose the advantage of sov renting and rely on the sov holder to repair/replace the structures who may become annoyed when they have to do it the xth time in x days and just kick the useless renters out.

Also it would promote small to medium gang warfare within sov claimed space. Maybe even have those structures drop some spoils for the raiders to take home.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Lifelongnoob
State War Academy
Caldari State
#133 - 2014-06-04 11:29:19 UTC
renting suits a lot of player's game styles

not everyone has time to play to constant timers and some players like to just rat / plex exploration sites or do industry stuff.


if the big super blocs want to make easy isk for doing feck all except defend a timer every now and again fair play to them as it makes sense.

renter pays for use of system and gets infrastructure defense from it's landlord.

it is upto the renter to defend his or her assets against roaming gangs but if their pos/sov structures are attacked it means a timer which the super bloc's will fight to defend cos they sometimes get gudfites or super kills from it.

it is a fair deal. safer from invasion but still risky vs roaming gangs. keeps the renter on it's toes
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#134 - 2014-06-04 12:49:20 UTC
Lifelongnoob wrote:
renting suits a lot of player's game styles

not everyone has time to play to constant timers and some players like to just rat / plex exploration sites or do industry stuff.


if the big super blocs want to make easy isk for doing feck all except defend a timer every now and again fair play to them as it makes sense.

renter pays for use of system and gets infrastructure defense from it's landlord.

it is upto the renter to defend his or her assets against roaming gangs but if their pos/sov structures are attacked it means a timer which the super bloc's will fight to defend cos they sometimes get gudfites or super kills from it.

it is a fair deal. safer from invasion but still risky vs roaming gangs. keeps the renter on it's toes


I think you are missing the point slightly

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit
Sato Page
Auctor Illuminatas Infinitum
#135 - 2014-06-04 13:27:35 UTC
OP should AFK cloaky camp some low true sec ratting system.

Dinsdale Pirannha for [u]CEO [/u]of [u]CCP[/u]
Strat Plan
Doomheim
#136 - 2014-06-04 15:37:38 UTC
Sato Page wrote:
OP should AFK cloaky camp some low true sec ratting system.


Screw that. Just go there and ninja rat without paying rent.
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#137 - 2014-06-04 15:57:42 UTC
Strat Plan wrote:
Sato Page wrote:
OP should AFK cloaky camp some low true sec ratting system.


Screw that. Just go there and ninja rat without paying rent.


Ok let's get back on topic, ta..

I do feel that perhaps it's too late. CAN would have to do something radical to make it change and I don't think they are prepared to. Which could actually be there downfall but given these 2 coalitions holds a large majority of eve subscriptions and vets with multiple accounts I can't see them shaking things up.

Removing the grind of taking so would certainly help, meaning I hubs etc could be taken down quickly without the reinforce mode.

But I think alliances should be restricted to.the amount of sov they own perhaps.

It would be really interesting to hear more ideas on what could make this better but still make nulls fun and dynamic

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit
Varathius
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#138 - 2014-06-04 16:25:24 UTC
why would that worry you? What you see is peace and prosperity? Why do you associate that with being worried ? Are you mad? You must be mad.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#139 - 2014-06-04 16:36:10 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:


But I think alliances should be restricted to.the amount of sov they own perhaps.


How would this make any difference. What's to stop an alliance from just making more and more 'shell' alliances to hod space like "Rentistan Associates I, Rentistan Associates II" etc etc.

Most if the times when we hear ideas about various aspects of the game, the people with the ideas seem to not take into account lots of 'meta' issue like people owning more than one account/having alts, outside automation and things like that.

I've heard people say "limit the number of blues/make people pay for blue status" but that only works if CCP takes over the whole internet and then prvents people from making web pages and sites accessible via the ingame browser that lists 'blues' lol.

As long as their is any advantage whatsoever to numbers, to 'blobbing', to bringing more guns to a gun fight etc, you will have people who will find a way to side step any kind of potential road blocks a game maker tries to set up.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2014-06-04 17:42:40 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:


But I think alliances should be restricted to.the amount of sov they own perhaps.


How would this make any difference. What's to stop an alliance from just making more and more 'shell' alliances to hod space like "Rentistan Associates I, Rentistan Associates II" etc etc.

Most if the times when we hear ideas about various aspects of the game, the people with the ideas seem to not take into account lots of 'meta' issue like people owning more than one account/having alts, outside automation and things like that.

I've heard people say "limit the number of blues/make people pay for blue status" but that only works if CCP takes over the whole internet and then prvents people from making web pages and sites accessible via the ingame browser that lists 'blues' lol.

As long as their is any advantage whatsoever to numbers, to 'blobbing', to bringing more guns to a gun fight etc, you will have people who will find a way to side step any kind of potential road blocks a game maker tries to set up.


Really this is the key - you can't impact the meta game with game mechanics. In the end what would need to change this is to change how rapidly alliances can respond to an attack, and how rapidly they NEED to respond to an attack. Now, they only need to respond once every seven days to prevent loss of sov. Even a crippled monkey with one bad eye could manage to move a defense fleet into position in that kind of time.

The only thing that would cripple the rental feudalism we have no is if the renters suddenly had to defend the space they were holding because their landlords couldn't deploy their own forces fast enough. That's where the power projection nerfs come in. if the renters suddenly have to defend the space, they're not going to want to rent it, they're going to want to own it - they may as well, since they now have the headaches of sov defense.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.