These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

SRP is killing Eve

First post
Author
Sh0plifter
Underworld Property Accounting Partnership
#61 - 2014-07-23 15:04:55 UTC
SRP Main Income: Moon Poop.
SRP Secondary Income: Station Services - Undock, shoot five BS rats. Month of services paid for.

Corporation's SRP Income: Tax.
What Corp Tax money should pay for: Fuels, Ammo.

What Alliance/Corp SRP Has to be used for: This is eve, do we really have to go over this? I just got done burning an alt by scamming a corp out of 2.3b isk in a HS mission running hub. This is EvE online. People do as they wish.

Though, SRP does allow for more people to PVP instead of isk-farming all day and night when they arent on these so-called "Call To Arms" which is being completely exaggerated now and days. Like the amazing CTAs being used to escort a normal freighter to null because someone is too cheap to get a jump freighter.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#62 - 2014-07-23 15:10:49 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Beautiful.

It brought a tear to my eye. I don't think that I could have written a post designed to outrage more of the community if I had sat down and devoted days to do so.

I'm going to watch a little bit of the nerdscreaming before I reply to this. But I'd just like to point out that all of these proposed changes amount to "Play Eve my way." and "Eve should cater to my desires, and no one else's."

Edit: Oh, and the fact that this is an elaborately decorated Remove moon mining repost.


Thanks for providing the TL;DR version.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#63 - 2014-07-23 15:19:40 UTC
I'm looking at the map of Deklein's NPC kills per 24h on Dotlan and wondering where you get off on claiming no one is out in space earning their isk the hard way anymore - and this is despite us paying an excellent SRP program that most membercorps add their own isk to, resulting in people making money from losing ships. I'm looking at all the isk we're sinking into upgrading our space for industry and wondering where you get off on claiming no one uses their space anymore.

Goonswarm: Playing the game the right way, apparently.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#64 - 2014-07-23 16:08:00 UTC
mynnna wrote:
I'm looking at the map of Deklein's NPC kills per 24h on Dotlan and wondering where you get off on claiming no one is out in space earning their isk the hard way anymore - and this is despite us paying an excellent SRP program that most membercorps add their own isk to, resulting in people making money from losing ships. I'm looking at all the isk we're sinking into upgrading our space for industry and wondering where you get off on claiming no one uses their space anymore.

Goonswarm: Playing the game the right way, apparently.


The fact that goonswarm does this does not mean a **** load of space is left unused. Hell even some of yours is. I really don't think SRP is he reason for the unused space tho.
Iain Cariaba
#65 - 2014-07-23 16:26:03 UTC
SRP has been around far longer than the current blue donut. Speaking only for myself, I generally avoid fleets without SRP unless I'm flying some uber cheap frig/dessy/cruiser.

SRP is not killing EvE. It is giving those of us who are overly careful to manage risk a reason to PvP.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#66 - 2014-07-23 16:47:43 UTC
As for moon mining... There is a simpler approach than removing it.

Allow Siphon's to be anchored anywhere on grid of the moon. This will allow them to be positioned outside of POS weapon range, so that attacking and defending them becomes a small gang activity. This allows players to disrupt moon mining operations at will, and really undermines moon mining in general.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#67 - 2014-07-24 03:08:39 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:


While there is a degree of anti-competitiveness to be addressed in the current state of sovereignty and blocs, SRP is far from the prime evil in that equation and seems to be the target of misdirected frustration. At worst, it is a symptom of success and you are complaining that you (and your corp) are not successful in that manner- the problem doesn't lie with the game...


A degree of anti-competiveness... talk about an understatement.

As for the ad hominem, thank you for paying close attention and seeing that I was not referring to my current corporation - but to an alliance I was in seven years ago. While Forged in the Fire may have some shortcomings, most notably my tilting at windmills, inadequate SRP is not one of them.

Yes, you are correct that I went after SRP when I should have focused my attention on the current state of sovereignty and blocs, but my corp has been on a ton of fully reimbursable cruiser, destroyer, and interceptor roams lately and losses just don't seem to have any sting anymore (beyond being ashamed when I lose a ship to a stupid mistake, again).

As I look back over my thread, I see I have a degree of rose-tinted glasses. Eve probably wasn't as consistently exciting in 2007 as I remember it being now. I've probably been playing it for too long. Perhaps Eve really is fine? Perhaps that PCU creeping downwards rather than upwards means nothing? Perhaps that PLEX price creeping higher means nothing?

I don't know... but I do know that I have enjoyed the discussion my rambling post started and I appreciate the feedback from my fellow players.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#68 - 2014-07-24 03:30:56 UTC
mynnna wrote:
I'm looking at the map of Deklein's NPC kills per 24h on Dotlan and wondering where you get off on claiming no one is out in space earning their isk the hard way anymore - and this is despite us paying an excellent SRP program that most membercorps add their own isk to, resulting in people making money from losing ships. I'm looking at all the isk we're sinking into upgrading our space for industry and wondering where you get off on claiming no one uses their space anymore.

Goonswarm: Playing the game the right way, apparently.


Fair point - Deklein looks pretty damn busy in terms of NPC kills. So does the East, which might spell trouble in the future... My perspective is coming from Delve, which is obviously a very different environment. Maybe I need to get out more.

Anyway, I was inspired by your response, and some others in this thread, and started looking at Dotlan and Eve-Offline statistics. While the PCU is trending down and PLEX prices are trending up, the number of null sec ship kills is only slightly lower for June 2014 than it was for June 2013 - despite the fact that "Eve appears stagnant."

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2014-06

Something is clearly happening somewhere. As you are aware, that can be the problem from relying on anecdotal experiences rather than taking a good look at the numbers.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Adunh Slavy
#69 - 2014-07-24 03:33:28 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

My solution: Get rid of moon mining completely. Replace it with new mining sites where people can obtain those raw materials. This puts people in space, which provides content for more than the occasional moon POS bash. It cuts out one pillar of coalition income. Players now attack players instead of structures.



That would certainly help, and would help reduce monetary inflation as well. People spending their time actively mining stuff are not shooting rats and generating ISK.

As for costs, a simple double of fee for each additional system would take care of things in short order, and it would not have to be at the corp level. Suppose sov fee simply doubled for each additional system, and the first system costs a paltry 100 million isk. By the time we get to 19 systems, the fee would be more than the net gain in ISK per month, game wide, 26.2 trillion ISK.

Sure some big alliances would split into smaller alliances and remain affiliated, but the admin overhead would increase. Slight political and economic differences and goals would emerge over time, even amongst the Goons. They will deny it of course, as such a denial is and has always been the only defense to such proposals.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Adunh Slavy
#70 - 2014-07-24 03:49:03 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:


As I envision it, mining T2 raw materials should not be solely dependent on using slow, expensive capital class ships that will generally require a blob to kill. It should be something more accessible to everyone - but it would probably be okay if the Rorqual represented the pinnacle in that skill progression.

I would rather see T2 raw material gathering happen at anomalies, rather than on moons, but I don't suppose it matters that much - as long as it is relatively accessible to both PVPers and resource collectors.

A little could happen in anomalies also, but by making it happen at moons there is also a counter pressure to the 'POS everything' attitude. Since you can't have both POS & Moon mining at the same time then.


That is a valid point, but you have a static income source now. It becomes like the old static complexes. It would be better if the mining happened in dynamic anomalies that could spawn anywhere in 0.0 space. That gets people moving around.



Active mining could still happen at moons. Player fits his moon beam mining laser, targets the moon and orbits the moon. Haulers come by and pick up the cans, empty the MTUs. Rovers and pirates come to play and gaurds, something few do any more, need to put down their beer, turn off the TV and get to work.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2014-07-24 06:02:19 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:

My solution: Get rid of moon mining completely. Replace it with new mining sites where people can obtain those raw materials. This puts people in space, which provides content for more than the occasional moon POS bash. It cuts out one pillar of coalition income. Players now attack players instead of structures.



That would certainly help, and would help reduce monetary inflation as well. People spending their time actively mining stuff are not shooting rats and generating ISK.

As for costs, a simple double of fee for each additional system would take care of things in short order, and it would not have to be at the corp level. Suppose sov fee simply doubled for each additional system, and the first system costs a paltry 100 million isk. By the time we get to 19 systems, the fee would be more than the net gain in ISK per month, game wide, 26.2 trillion ISK.

Sure some big alliances would split into smaller alliances and remain affiliated, but the admin overhead would increase. Slight political and economic differences and goals would emerge over time, even amongst the Goons. They will deny it of course, as such a denial is and has always been the only defense to such proposals.

"You get to control 5-10 systems total, because **** you that's why, no we're not going to do anything about the income or player density problems inherent to this idea."


This isn't the way to fix things, hth.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2014-07-24 08:08:44 UTC
FT, I like the core premise of your idea. It's too easy for big blocs to make what seems like monopoly money to most of the line members, essentially making PvP risk free.

This is only possible though because there is a core group of individuals in these blocs who sources this monopoly money. If you were to nerf moongoo income, would that not simply make them focus more on organizing whatever means of new income source that is introduced? And if it is more individual based, then just more rental space? In fact, the current expanses of renter spaces were a direct result of moongoo nerfs.

I understand that the second part of your suggestion is to prevent this kind of activity at scale. Again, nothing that a few clever organizational tools couldn't probably get around. Nevertheless, I think they key is in the second part of your idea. Because whatever new decentralized income source you come up with will be co-opted into the rental framework.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#73 - 2014-07-24 10:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrie Atticus
SRP, renting, big alliances, coalitions. These are all results of playing in a sandbox which encourages player interaction and team play. Those who can afford to give out SRP, keep large amounts of space and have renters usually function together in some higher level than "lol I banged ur mom, gdiaf".

If you want to make EvE a single player experience (having to fly solo all the time to afford ships, this is what you said) make sure that a single player can then hold what he/she acquires alone. Now, as there might be a group of players who want to take whatever the single player has acquired, eve is no longer a sing player but an MMO or a multiplayer game. This led to more and more people sticking together to bash in the heads of the smaller ones.

Your ideas might not be reposted, but the underlying idea of everything having to be solo is not "the eve experience", go play Freelancer 2 if you want that.

Edit: If you want to limit SRP in a more profound level, you need to remove the following mechanics:
API keys to pull losses, killing killboards
Corporation account withdrawals
ISK donating
Contracting system
Station trading
All of the market
Ability to eject from your ship and stepping into a new one

Lets see how long people are going to play a game like that.
Adunh Slavy
#74 - 2014-07-24 12:30:33 UTC
mynnna wrote:
"You get to control 5-10 systems total, because **** you that's why, no we're not going to do anything about the income or player density problems inherent to this idea."


This isn't the way to fix things, hth.


Though I appreciate the humor of the argument, it doesn't sway me much.

Income and player dentistry ... well so what? Humans are forced to deal with the consequences of their birth and geography everyday, why must Eve have a homogenous distribution?

If some group chooses to live in a resource poor area, it is their choice. That may grant them a comparative advantage in some other regard, such as, few people bother to go there, so they can live a bit more carefree.

Resource poor areas, that would not justify another trillion in fees for larger groups, would be ideal for smaller groups that could easily generate the 100 to 200 million ISK in fees.

As for 5-10 systems, granted it is an artificial and somewhat arbitrary boundary, it would be with any sort of escalating cost idea, be it doubling or a 5% increase. The same could be said for any idea that attempts to limit size, regardless of the mechanic involved.

There is an even simpler idea, do away with sov all together. If you are not there, you don't own it. Simple as that.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Stay Feral
#75 - 2014-07-24 13:51:23 UTC
I thought it's been made clear by this point that cost is ineffective at balancing sov. Higher costs only hinder newer groups, and have little effect on the well organized existing groups.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#76 - 2014-07-24 14:07:11 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I thought it's been made clear by this point that cost is ineffective at balancing sov. Higher costs only hinder newer groups, and have little effect on the well organized existing groups.


Scaling costs can impose limits on larger groups without having an impact on small groups at all. Large groups, well-organized groups, such as the two dominant coalitions, will undoubtedly find ways to get around those attempts to limit their power.

That is why CCP needs to be more bold about shaking things up. CCP gave us a sandbox and then basically let us break it. Since there is no incentive for the kids running the sandbox to let other kids play, CCP needs to adjust the rules and see what happens. At least it will make things interesting for a bit.

Taking away moon goo as a passive, centralized income source is a step towards giving some power back to the individual player and taking it away from the centralized power blocs. If nothing else, it gets more pilots into space to collect it.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#77 - 2014-07-24 14:27:46 UTC
SRP is not actually a part of Eve-O. It is managed entirely through OOG apps and spreadsheets. No moons are required if you fund it through another source.

I would support moving the mostly passive moon mining to another source such as ring mining or moon-PI. And I've always thought getting ice from comets makes a great deal of sense, rather than the static giant ice chunks that we arbitrarily find floating around. The old ice belts made more sense than that. Infinite resources don't make much sense either. But for the sake of the game world we have to make some exceptions.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#78 - 2014-07-24 15:49:26 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I thought it's been made clear by this point that cost is ineffective at balancing sov. Higher costs only hinder newer groups, and have little effect on the well organized existing groups.


Scaling costs can impose limits on larger groups without having an impact on small groups at all. Large groups, well-organized groups, such as the two dominant coalitions, will undoubtedly find ways to get around those attempts to limit their power.

That is why CCP needs to be more bold about shaking things up. CCP gave us a sandbox and then basically let us break it. Since there is no incentive for the kids running the sandbox to let other kids play, CCP needs to adjust the rules and see what happens. At least it will make things interesting for a bit.

Taking away moon goo as a passive, centralized income source is a step towards giving some power back to the individual player and taking it away from the centralized power blocs. If nothing else, it gets more pilots into space to collect it.


Why should we frown on large, well-organized groups. Honestly, it takes a fair amount of work to make that happen, and they provide a lot of benefits to the game.

Moon goo is not the main issue. Again, if you really want to solve the moongoo issue, simply allow siphon's to be anchored outside of weapons range of the POS.

If you want to really shake things up in Nullsec Sov, then change the Sovereignty mechanics. Right now, taking Sov ONLY involves shooting 100m+ EHP structures with multiple RF timers. There is no room for a small entity to compete in that environment.

Reduce the HP grind, and base RF timers on system use. If the system isn't used, it gets NO RF timers to protect the system. Only highly active systems should have RF timers. There is still the dilemma of how to define system activity, but we already have two indexes that incorporate two aspects of using a system. Simply add Player Ships destroyed and Jumps into a system so most flying-in-space system activity is covered (since that is what we truly want people to be doing).

Think about it. If you could destroy an unused systems sov in 10 minutes by dropping 10 dreads on it, you'd easily erode away the sov empires. Sure, they could reclaim it, but the only way they keep it is to start using it. This puts pilots in space, which makes the game better!
RoAnnon
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#79 - 2014-07-24 15:50:10 UTC
None of the opinions or anecdotes listed in the OP come close to proving the hypothesis stated in the thread subject, in fact don't even support it.

Demanding that CCP do something to eliminate SRP is as sensible as demanding CCP do something to eliminate players' use Teamspeak/Mumble/Jabber/Ventrilio and start using EVE Voice again, because "Eve is Dying".

There's no correlation.

So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.

Broadcast4Reps

Eve Vegas 2015 Pub Crawl Group 9

Houston EVE Meet

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2014-07-24 16:22:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Adunh Slavy wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:

My solution: Get rid of moon mining completely. Replace it with new mining sites where people can obtain those raw materials. This puts people in space, which provides content for more than the occasional moon POS bash. It cuts out one pillar of coalition income. Players now attack players instead of structures.



That would certainly help, and would help reduce monetary inflation as well. People spending their time actively mining stuff are not shooting rats and generating ISK.

As for costs, a simple double of fee for each additional system would take care of things in short order, and it would not have to be at the corp level. Suppose sov fee simply doubled for each additional system, and the first system costs a paltry 100 million isk. By the time we get to 19 systems, the fee would be more than the net gain in ISK per month, game wide, 26.2 trillion ISK.

Sure some big alliances would split into smaller alliances and remain affiliated, but the admin overhead would increase. Slight political and economic differences and goals would emerge over time, even amongst the Goons. They will deny it of course, as such a denial is and has always been the only defense to such proposals.


So you want to add a management level to the process and think the current SOV holder who already know how to deal with the management requirement won't be able to use the system better than others who don't?