Player Features and Ideas Discussion

small groups shold NOT operate on defensive mode. Make easier to disable structures and infrastructure and small groups will fight on attrition tactics. THey will strike and hide, strike and hide. Static defenses are thing for the large forces. If the small groups are annoy8ign enough the large groups would simply let them have a few system so they stop pestering them .

Would be far more healthy than what we have now.

I believe the main question is :

"why should I invade CFC or N3 space?"

what is to gain? more moons? more ratting space? what is there? Honor? space fame?

at the moment I think there is nothing to win for the 2 big coalitions they both have renter programs and moon income.

the isk sources are the main reasons for an invasion, and atm there is no shortage in isk.

I think everything should get a rebalanced for getting in the fight again.

1. give a reason to invade someone space.
everyone want a reason to go out there and fight I believe.

2. give tools so every alliance can tax everything in their space
something like ESS tax everything in your sov space if a neut comes in and make a plex you will get your portion of that.

3. kill every passive income source
no moons, you have to do something to get some isk, or make them like comet as someone said.

4. make the cost of sov scalable (1 system = 250m, 2systems = 500m, 3 systems = 1b etc)
yes the end game should not be to give SRP should be to have sov space so all your money have to go there if you want space if you don't then HTFU

5. charge the alliance if they want to have standings with others (get some free tokens maybe 5)
Every isk sink is a good isk sink

6. make the regions not accessible with jump bridges or jump drives
why not! gate-camps everywhere.

Atm the game is like planetside 2

log in, choose class, warp to titan jump to fight kill / heal / boost till you die.
If dead choose class, warp to titan jump and the same story is repeated.

I think the big problem is the SRP in this game if someone destroy your ship you don't worry anymore, you know that you will have one at your hangar the next moment without isk loss.

how many alt alliance can you make?

5. charge the alliance if they want to have standings with others (get some free tokens maybe 5)

the 5 first standings are free (blue, light blue, neutral, light red, red)

then you get a daily standing offer that will be 250m and both parties should accept
standings are not permanent and with this way you can only put some in an operation
if you want them permanently then you have to do this job every day

You might have missed a patch when they introduced siphons.
And to prove my point, the "occupancy sov" is not working when it comes to moons. Renters choose to avoid risks and dont plant siphons on their landlords' moons. They could use neutral alts, but it's too risky, dont you see?
So it's not the mechanics that formed the blue doughnut, it's human nature.

I would advise you to travel a bit more around nullsec that isn't with your fleet. I roam all over the cluster and find 90% of the systems are empty or just the occasional passerby. More space will just mean more empty space until CCP gives more of an incentive to venture outside of the good ratting system. Even then without more players more space would just go unused.

I don't know wheher he is or isn't. But if you don't look at the underlying behavior, no system will ever accomplish anything.

Dominion was supposed to 'fix' nullsec, to save it from the insane pos grind it was in the past. It was based on assumptions that turn out to be false in the same way that so many other assumptions are (like the one I like to link about how the anom nerf was supposed to mean more conflict, or how nerfing moon goo should have meant more conflict when all it resulted in was more renting).

One bad assumption is that people want conflict. It's a reasonable one because this is a video game, but the truth is that people don't fight over things they can buy/rent or negotiate for. if the cost of cooperation is less than the cost of conflict, people will cooperate (ie bluing everyone in site).

Also, people tend to think they want things (like a chaotic game universe) but the real truth here is that if null were as Chaotic as people say they want, most of us wouldn't like it because we'd be forced to move all the time, lose access to stuff we have in stations, and never feel that sense of "this space is mine".

Most of the people in this thread are getting bogged down in the details (based on personal biases to boot) and are clinging to the fallacy filled thinking that you can engineer certain outcomes via game mechanics.

I'm sorry, you can't.... CCP has learned this time and time again (for example, risk vs rewards, if it worked the way CCP thought they would, few people would be doing high sec incursions and people would be fighting tooth and nail to secure whatever space a null incursion landed in, showing that despite this being a game, people prefer safety and comfort over freedom, chaos, conflict and riches).

Not saying that the SOV system doesn't need a revamp, but the place to start is with the system's assumptions, not with it's mechanics. The SOv system needs some evidence based thinking here.

Whatever the specific SOV v2.0 mechanics look like, the key thing is that it is essential that ISK generation be directly tied into continual conflict at the alliance level. Once you harness greed and income through conflict, you might really have something.

Specific changes to timers, structures, force projection etc are all needed, but if CCP doesn't get the above ISK generation ties written into the DNA of SOV v2.0 as its core change, we will just end up back where we are now again.

F

I think you ask a good question...which is why invade *insert owner's* space. However I think that you miss the other side of that question...which is why hold this space? There needs to be a mechanic that will make empires question the 'greenness of the grass'. That means no static isk printing. That means moon good needs to be dynamic. There should be a reason to frequently probe moons...especially ones that were known to be dead previously.

This means that resources will shift around and people will have to fight over them. Imagine that a region like Venal had some native technetium...it may shift around the region but always have say 8 tech moons with the potential for another 8 r64 and 8r32 etc. Those moons could be dead at any given point or with anything between a gas or whatever and r8-r64 ofc with weights toward certain things based on true sec.

Yes, this is good thinking. there is very little incentive to go and kick someone elses sandcastle over, take their sand to make yours bigger.


Wait what? that is the stupidist idea and has been repeatedly squashed as bad for the game. All that would accomplish is for the big coallitions to remain as they are to maximise the area to catch the moons as they shift. Goodby Provi block as the chance a money moon winding up there, although small, would mean that one of the two blocks will see it burned for potential moon income. Also it would mean that any tower in lowsec would be from one of the coalitions, it wouldn't do for the lowlifes in low to get uppity thinking they might get rich off a dead moon that suddenly started printing Dispro/Promethium ISKies into their wallet now would we?

You want an Eve where the big coallitions remain in power?

Because that's how you get an Eve where only the big coallitions remain in power.

You guys should also see this person's suggestion on sov change! He wrote a damn paper on it.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=346861&find=unread

I honestly think his thread should be merged with this one, it damn good.