Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I could not agree more that power projection needs to be nerfed severely. It's the only way you'll get truly epic fights that actually mean something. Meaning comes from effort invested, not from numbers.

How about allowing a single character to move more at once, but make the move itself considerably slower and more dangerous?

Imagine carriers/freighters could carry 10 times what they carry now, but moving from the north to the south would take days and requires traveling through every damn system. With some bad luck, by the time you arrive, it turns out your best friends are stabbing you in the back... It would make conflicts slower and somewhat more predictable.

Other than that, I believe sov warfare should be very "minimalist". As few sov structures as possible.. no need for cyno jammers and what not. The main advantage defenders should get is that they're already there and nicely stocked on ships and ammo. If the attackers handle the logistics well, then props to them.

Logistics should be a team effort that requires a proper fleet to guard the convoy. It should involve fighting your way there.

But...there is a fundamental flaw in EVE's industry design: industry is more complex than it should be (too many different components) and anything T2 requires components from all regions.

This encourages trade, sure, but at the same time obliterates any possible local identity. What if the great wildlands provided all raw materials needed for the production of minmatar T2 ships? I am dreaming now, but that is the kind of flavour EVE industry sadly lacks.

This topic has been discussed many times with many different options discussed.

i like the direction and the acceptance of this stand point so far with several parts to it.

however i believe finding the middle ground is the key.

I believe their should be no rental empires/buffer zones and no jump bridge/jump beacon networks to move 200 men across the whole of EVE in 10-20 minutes. i have done that, we even got to the fight in its early stages due to tidi and we raped the hostile fleet, it was a blast yet soooo over powered.



Limiting jump drives is a must, the range of this limitation is the major question.
I believe 1/2 to 2/3 reduction is optimal to really reduce the ability to switch region easily without the use of a gate.
the ability to use a gate would need to be added as suggested.

Or the other option or even combined fix, is to extend the time between jumps.
At this time, the time between being able to jump is completely based of capacitor, if you have a cyno/beacon chain ready.
A timer should be enacted which means that you can only use a drive drive/bridge once every 10 minutes, with the exception being blackops which would have a set % reduction on this timer, i suggest 75% to 90%.


Agreed in order to enable them to switch regions if needed.


Agreed, however with the exception that they can not jump from high sec directly.
A jump drive can only be activated from low sec or below if this change was to occur.


i agree within reason and with a price increase, however i still do believe the logistic chains and industrialists should be able to cover this without much issue and is therefore not needed.
My questions to this option is: where would this trade happen from? NPC station? so adding NPC stations to sov only areas?

the rest i completely agree with.
Stations should need to be stronted, with a max of 36 hours if max fueled and must be refueled to enact the second timer, and shield regen or it just sit there waiting to be destroyed.

Just a few thoughts.

Premises
1. Sprawling empires are bad. This is bad because it makes it more difficult for smaller entities to get into the null game.
2. Dependence on a large number of players/allies to survive is bad. There is only one logical endpoint to this after a period of coalescence: two enormous coalitions which balance each other (see point 1).
3. Alliances would not form coalitions if they did not have to. I am assuming that lack of fights and a desire for independence would be enough to stop coalition formation if point 2 (i.e. survival) was solved.

Actions
1. Nerf power projection.
2. Institute ‘dynamic true sec’ to increase rewards for active space and decrease rewards for inactive space against an unmodified sec.
3. Institute ‘dynamic defence index’ to increase the defensibility of active space and decrease defensibility of inactive space. Somehow.

Results
Rental empires will be maintained as long as it is possible to defend multiple parts of your empire simultaneously over great distances. Nerfing power projection will increase the probability of successful rebellion and territorial wars. This will continue until the optimal empire size is achieved, i.e. small enough to adequately defend all borders.

Alliances need the ability to grow ‘upward’ instead of sprawl ‘outward’ and this must include both rewards and defence. A ‘tall’, active alliance should be very difficult (impossible?) to dislodge from a small area of the map. If an alliance chooses to grow upward (focus their activity in a smaller area of space) then they should attain greater income (‘dynamic true sec’), preferably player-generated rather than moon-generated. They should also attain greater security as a natural consequence of concentrated force but also from sov mechanics (the ‘Somehow’ above), allowing them to defend against a stronger force (‘dynamic defence index’).

Conversely, if an alliance chooses to grow outward then their reward is rental income. Power projection nerfs mean that such an alliance would be inherently unstable, vulnerable to coordinated attacks.

A potential problem with this approach is that an active rental alliance would also grow in defensive strength. Maybe that is alright if the renter would need to be involved in sov defence. If they are strong enough and good enough to repel a strong invader then the chance of rebellion would also be increased.

Clones need to be thrown into the mix about power projection as well. Although not usually important right now on a mass scale...any attempt to curb power projection will see clones being gamed pretty heavily.

Sure and the economy 100 years ago got on just fine too. Of course, it did not and could not support a standard of living like we see today. There is one very simple rule anyone who takes any economics course should learn. Everything comes with trade offs. Everything. I'm not sure you've fully explored the trad offs inherent in your suggestion here.

For example, various items would become more scarce as there would be increased risk in moving stuff around. From empire to null and vice-versa. At the very least that increased risk will mean sometimes stuff does get blown up. As scarciity increase price will go up. If price did not go up then some people would not undertake the actions necessary to provide those items (risk vs. reward calculations).

And who would be less harmed by an overall increase in the price level...older more established characters....often the very same people in the older, larger and well established current null sec entities.

I get what you want to accomplish here and I even applaud your attempt to take on the issue. But instead of making logisitics in Eve even more like a second or even full time job...might I suggest you find ways to that result in more utilization of space and creating content via positive incentives vs. negative ones?

Sure it is. If you make things ****** for them they'll either stop doing logistics, or they'll stop playing EVE altogether. I'm sure that'll be great for the health of the game.

once again: in a manner of speaking yes, but that manner of speaking was that carriers were cheaper, longer range jump freighters (and before that, cargo-expanded dreadnaughts). the jump freighter exists because they had to replace the niche of "thing that jumps lots of cargo to nullsec" when they nerfed the carrier. I do not believe the economy ever got along before the introduction of that niche of ships in any real way because null has never really had the capability to be self-sufficient.

Winning seems to take priority over fun, especially for strategic objectives. If that's the case, winning is the thing that is broken, and needs to be fixed. I think the changes proposed by Manfred Sideous will serve that end well.

Many years ago, there were no restrictions on what could be inside of a ship's cargohold when it was placed in a carrier. People would pack Iteron Mark Vs full of stuff, put them in carriers, and then jump to their destinations.

You can't have cargo in the cargohold of a ship in a carrier's SMA.

Before, people would fill iterons up to the brim then load them into a carrier. You could fit like 3 iterons giving you something like 150km of space (I don't remember exactly what the best packing for maximum space was) being hauled around in your carrier's SMA. The nerf was that now you can't put things that have things in their cargohold into a carrier SMA.

This is, incidentally, why many way-oldschool carrier alts also have gallente industrial V: so they could pack their own carriers.