Player Features and Ideas Discussion

To flesh out a bit my last post, here's how I think something like this can work:

Just a rough idea, I'm sure there are lots of holes. And please remember junk example numbers are junk and examples

---

Coalition, Alliance and Corporation (re)structuring

Coalitions :

• Comprised of Alliances &/or "lone" Corporations
• Automatic blue standings between members
• Able to hold sovereignty over systems

The Executor of a coalition is an Elected Corporation.
The Elected Corporation must be a "lone" Coalition member or the Executor Corporation of a Coalition Alliance.

Elections start on the first of every month and close on the fifth day; to dictate who is Executor until the following months election close.

Every member of the Coalition, alliance or corporation, has one vote it can place support of any member.
Votes may be abstained (an unplaced or missed vote is an abstain)

Any Coalition vote with less than x-5 votes, where x is the number of members, is disbanded (aka, more than 5 abstaining votes will dissolve the relationship)

Alliance shakeup:

Alliance level controls (directors and the like) no longer exist as we know it.

• Automatic blue standings between members
• Able to hold sovereignty over systems

The Executor of a Alliance is also an Elected Corporation.
Elections start on the first of every month and close on the fifth day; to dictate who is Executor until the following months election close.
Every corporation member of an alliance has one vote it can place in support of any member. Votes may be abstained (an unplaced or missed vote is an abstain)

Alliance bills are removed entirely.
Any Alliance vote with less than x-3 votes, where x is the number of members, is disbanded (aka, more than 3 abstaining votes will dissolve the relationship)

Corporation changes

• Corporation controls (ceo, directors, shares, roles) remain as we know them.
• Corporations may only have up to 250 (?) members

--

Standings Lists:

• Individuals may have standings towards up to X players,
(individuals cannot set standings towards corps or alliance)

• Corporations and Alliances may have standings lists of up to X other Corporations or Alliances (?)
(Corporations and Alliances may not set standings towards individuals)

Organizational sizes:

• Coalitions may have up to 15 members
• Alliances may have up to 9 members
• Corporations may hold up to 250 members

--


Moving to how I could see something like this mix up the sov system:

Sovereignty:

• All system and station control is done by Corporations
• Corporations may claim systems on behalf of themselves, their Alliance or their Coalition (corp role required)
[*[ Alliance/Coalition Executor corporations may remove and grant which member Corporation controls a system/station claimed on it's behalf


• Up to X solar systems may be claimed on behalf of a coalition (?)
• Up to X solar systems may be claimed on behalf of an alliance (?)
• Any one corporation may directly control up to X solar systems (?)

Stations:

• Any one corporation may directly control up to 5 stations. More on behalf of an Alliance &/or Coalition
• Docking rights are permitted automatically to blue standings (unless otherwise detailed)
• Docking rights should be held separate from standings lists, capable of being much larger than standings lists and

===



Cue the "you want to destroy our gameplay, why make this game HARDER!!??"

I'm sure people like goons (grr goons, i know, rite?) and other large bloc members see this as an attack on them personally, or their gameplay.

But frankly that's just myopic and self-centered. A structure like this (or different but as graduated and dynamic) is what most of us realize eve should have.
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.

Want to blue the galaxy? Create an organization to do so.
Want to control the galaxy? Do it. Nothing will stop you
...except perhaps people actually wanting to wrestle control away from you. Which is the name of the game is it not?

If you want anything in this game, you should have to work for it. And not just once when you gain control, but maintaining it should also be an involved process.

Not a boring grind of involvement like having a handful of people fuel towers all over (the past)
nor anything as simple and 'click and forget unless structure gets shot' (the present)

-Within a structure like this, there is more than enough capability for large groups, nerfing large groups is not the intention.
-Within a structure like this, there is more than enough capability to maintain a large list of blues if it is desired, but that must exist inside a structure that is vulnerable to PVP activity and other player created content.
-Within a structure like this, there is more than enough ability for massive space control

But there is also opportunity for the game to change, for player created content. To shake things up. It's what most of us KNOW this game needs,

Conclusion:

While many think the solution to 0.0 lies in nerfing how far a fleet can fly, or structures that dictate control of a system, I think it's massively short sighted to not consider the organizations themselves and HOW they control space as the solution to the stagnation.

Dynamic and distributed organizational control structures and the ability to alter these structures through gameplay.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

isolation isn't the way to improve 0.0. 0.0' s connectivity IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

The problem with 0.0 space is two fold:

1) Sov has nothing to do about how much control you exert over a system.
2) Military objectives in 0.0 encourage and require more and more guys in larger and larger ships to be able to capture objectives.

So let me lay down some principals that I think will guide good 0.0 mechanics, then go into specifics.

1 a) SOV should be directly related to how much use a systems sees. I don't care how you define the metrics. However, manufacturing, mining, ratting, plexing, PI, and exploration should all effect the level of sov in a system. In this way, only territories which empires can protect for their own PVE. All the PVP alliances will be butthurt about the fact that PVE will need to happen in their systems in order for them to maintain their happy-fun-times, but this mechanic makes sov a much more dynamic system, where farms must be built, so that they can be burned. It also takes sov away solely from the domain of large fleet fights, and enables pilots to use any number of tactics in order to damage sov. Does your opponent's sov come from market transactions in that system? Take out his jump bridges, and cyno jam the station, see what happens! Do they mine? Interfere with their mining operations! In this way, military operations become more fluid and interesting instead of go here, grind structure, go there, grind structure, fight me maybe?

Without this kind of connection between PVE money making and PVP, we'll forever have a 0.0 where gudfites are found outside of meaningful PVP, and meaningful PVP is done entirely by blob and timer.

1 b) SOV level should be a direct relationship between monetary return/pilot and risk level. High sov systems should have built in safeties (like cyno jammers, and maybe even cloaking disruption?) that can make high sov systems harder to assault and contest, but does so at a greater number of people in system leading to crowding, and lower reward/hour. In this way SOV level means some level of player imposed safety at the price of the wealth 0.0 offers. It will create a dynamic choice between safe small empires, and risky large ones, simulating much more accurately real world issues like 'Can I support having my giant ass empire?' or 'Is bigger always better?'

I imagine this kind of system looking more like a turf war between bloods and crypts, however, it could certianly still provide large empire fights. Its just now in order to have a large empire, you must justify your reason to exist, instead of existing because you have PVP pilots.

2 a) Some of this is covered in 1 a, however let me go over it in detail: Sov should be determined not by the result of one single battle, or even a hand full of them, it should be determined by many small battles that happen over the course of a week or two. Because of this, the very nature of PVP will change. Look at what it's done in FW. Do we have large fleet fights? Yes! But they usually happen only when we're taking a major objective, or in the last sprint towards the capture of a system. In Okkamon last week we were getting close to 70 guys in fleet, which is a pretty decent sized fleet, even for 0.0. However, the vast majority of all battles in FW happen in the under 20 man gang size.

2 b) There should be many ways to take a system, and just as many to defend it. One system of conquest only makes the game easy to define, and easy to master for people who are extremely wealthy and can afford to cover all their bases. However, this is EVE, and there should be many ways to do something. Additionally, doing things one way should leave you more vulnerable in others. For example, maybe you can upgrade the industry bonus in a system, but at a significant drop in structure shield hp! Or perhaps lower the costs of jumping freighters in at the expense of making it ineligible to anchor a cyno jammer.

Capital projection isn't the problem, its the symptom of a larger problem: 0.0 is boring, and they have way too much money for way too little work. Those pilots are now going out in extremely expensive ships and blowing up everything they see in a despirate attempt to have fun in the game again.

The problem of capital projection will disapear overnight when they're busy defending their crumbling empires from economic collapse.

This is going to be my first post in EvE forums since ever but its going to be a big one. I am quite new in the game by average standards but have been in nullsec for almost a year now and have been in both sides of the coalition blocs, been in the big wars, the lag fests (in B-R and more), the roams, the blops (both sides), ratting, building, marketing. By choice I have not dabbled in leadership for lack of time. I do however side with the generalized feeling that nullsec is overdue to a revamp.

Fleets have been stagnant in strategy and doctrines, big terrain grabs and conquers have been inconsequential, most activity in nullsec is either mindless ratting while waiting for blops or relentless griefing of some poor sap that happens to be near the doorstep. The feeling of building something of a home, of defending it against aggression, of actually mattering in shaping the landscape of null is all but a mirage. Eventually boredom hits, there is only so much lost time waiting for a FC to lead a fleet (the only group activity seen positive in nullsec) that one can muster. Motivation fades, better ways to spend precious free time appear.

I do not take myself as experienced as a bittervet but I can relate to most of the recent uproar around nullsec. It is stagnant. It is being held hostage by billions of EHP that can be defended at a tip of cyno. Battles are won and lost before they are fought not in the Sun Tzu kind of way but instead in the “Oh, they’re in Ishtars and crows, don’t bother” kind of way.

I design information systems for a living and have dabbled in game design a long time ago. In the end this is worthless against the solid arguments I hope to provide, but just want to let know they are not being pulled out of nothing. I have read only superficially most of the recent multiple ideas in the forums purposefully, I needed to reach conclusions by logic and not by emotionally liking or disliking how certain ideas are being posted (good or bad) and see if I arrived at equivalent conclusions. I also have no experience in FW but many of the mechanics I propose are inspired by what i have heard from it. I was however very influenced by all the events of the last year of EvE.


Since the post would be the size of an entire article I converted it to a google doc I share:

read at your leisure but I do leave below a polite TL;DR;

Basic principles

- Ownership of space is based on active defence of the space
- Ownership provides services, services require defence, defence provides ownership.

- The task of taking ownership from someone should be equivalent to the task of maintaining ownership.
- Taking full ownership should take no less than actually living in the system.

- Disrupting ownership should take far less resources to achieve but should only cause disruption temporarily, differing from taking ownership.
- Ownership has low inertia, an empty system takes little to no effort to take. Taking undefended services reduces defence capability, lower defence removes ownership. No ownership provides no services.

Consider.

F

there are already MANY ... MANY ... MANY ... MANY ... MANY ... comments about solo entities and small corps wanting to go into NULL to play ... yes PLAY. but for all i know, for many many many many years, there is no tangible push tweaking mechanisms to encourage this. infact, CCP is making large fleet swarms easier to play (more time dilation anyone?)

this "problem" (viewed as a problem by some of course) of players wanting to try out SOVs n NULL etc, i think is SEVERELY overlooked by devs/GM/CSM by giving the solution --> JOIN THE BIGGER ALLIANCE. with so many players giving their views, i for one want to know what is the intention of the devs in changing the NULL? to what end or effect? maybe all these is just a distraction and maybe an even bigger ISK sink is already planned for NULL. how do we know the next change is something WE definately DO NOT like/want but is imposed anyway?

just via 1 patch, INDY reprocessing/recycling get NERFED down to approximately 50%, by doing that, you might as well refund our SP on that. it is now USELESS to reprocess anything. have any dev actually played this part and realise it is now a redundant feature in eve? so can we all get our SP back since this "machine" is now broken? why 50%? who not adjust them like ship rebalancing adjustments? why not -10%? why not -15%? if the idea is that you should not get back 100% of what you produced, then in fact, we should never be able to repair a damaged ship to 100% too, we should only be able to effect 50% repairs maximum, yes?

i cant say that what i see is actually a progression or improvement to INDY other than another huge mineral sink AND wasting our TIME n SP.

in relation to this reprocessing nerf, if this instead is applied to all DPS of ships, why dont all ships get a DPS nerf too? -25%? even -50%? maybe by a sudden reduction of all the DPS, NULL may suddenly get a new lease of life? no ? why do ship balancing get adjustments of small percentages? why not a large swing?

i think the purpose of next few game progression patches is to induce more ISK sinking/inflation and it will spoil the game even further. no number of suggestion threads will help because i think somebody higher up have already given a general development direction and these threads are just a side show.

i have no high hopes that it will get anymore fun, for certain groups, im sure they are profitting from hoards of PVE junk cos nobody wants to reprocess their junk anymore.

Right. With current state on null, going there and becoming apex predator is, well, quite unrealistic.

Bump for CCP Devs.

Read what your customers expect.

Not sure what you mean but you can find me flying around black rise with my Corp. The way I play eve is far from safe.

One of the issues with stagnation is the Local Window feature.

This has to be addressed with the other changes to Null Sov. It would be good if this is addressed first.

Another thread on this is: Local Window

"Cult of War" is a part of N3, that is what I mean.