Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Because, to reduce the need for an alliance to hold vast amounts of space to rat in. Thus freeing up large swaths of "useless" space for other entities to settle in who might not be to friendly to your alliance.

It took me like 3 seconds to think that one up, if I may paraphrase your useless non answer from earlier.

EDIT: dangit Baltec1

+1

Good point, I remember living in Omist before Dominion, it was actual hell, only a few systems with enough belts to get as good chain going. any anomalies and sigs that poped up were done instantly. It was like being a Dirt Farmer in 1920s Arizona lol.

What was odd was that there was less pressure to keep a high sec isk making alt back then.



And this gets forgotten (which is why these circular arguments keep happening lol). Dominion made it EASIER and FASTER to take a system.My 1st alliance (in coalition with groups like Dead Man's Hand, Veritas Immortalis and others) fought for 5 WEEKS taking 2 out of the way systems in Cloud Ring. The fight literally exhausted our resources (both player and organization) which made our invasion grind to a halt.

The current situation is proof that making things easier isn't the answer. And I think the people in this thread are displaying the exact same form of thinking that led to the current situation. I don't think it's malicious (the path to hell is paved with good intentions), but rather uninformed.

It's natural that people would want to change something they could (game mechanics) rather than deal with something they can't (behavior and human nature of the game participants). But no matter how much people wish it true, it's just not, you can't 'game mechanics' your way out of a human nature problem.

Mainly because whatever you do along those lines will be figured out and then exploited in short order. You can see it all the time with PVE: Incursions and wormhole pve were supposed to be 'dangerous', it took less than 2 weeks for people to figure out 'doctrines' for making that content nearly 100% safe. It took less time than that for 4-5 powerful people to figure out Dominion SOV.


That's not to say that game mechanics changes (based on evidence) can't help, but I think the answer to every sandbox problem is more sandbox tools along with reasonable/obtainable goals ('making null good for small groups' and 'breaking up coaltions' are not reasonable/obtainable goals btw). For example, whatever happened to the 'strategic weapons' for strategic cruisers? What happened to the "Battleship sized anti capital" ships idea?

Additionally, all this talk of SOV changes are useless is the systems aren't worth living in, and it's hard to make something worth living in when you can make better isk in high sec with a machariel blitzing lvl 3s than you can with that same machariel doing lvl 3 equivalent anomalies in null...

Just sayin, there are no easy answers.

I liked the idea of Lu Ziffer.

yes coalitions have the meta gaming.

kill it. and they are done!

shut down the API keys and you have solved your problem!

If you want to see something you have to do it in-game!

send an alliance mail when the TCU is in RF and let the party begin :)

kill the API the evil of EvE!

Edit:

I like this one, everything is based on API keys, Spy's, trust, timers, operations, kills, participation, forum authentication, teamspeak authentication, pidgin authentication everything is based on that little ****.

lets get rid of it and make our life less easy.

yes I believe a portion to the right direction is the end of the API key.

No. If CCP makes the changes we want it would become impossible to hold vast areas of space. Its all of these small changes that are needed because it all works together to fix null.

Yes you didn't say that but you said that everything an alliance have is out of game with cost of $ 1000 per year.

What if ccp destroys the easy way of running an alliance, what if you have to log on to see how many npcs are killed rather than go to dotlan.

what if you have to be in game to run your ingame empire, I believe it is not easy and many "leaders" will stand down by the weight of the everyday stuff they have to do, they have to trust people (people are just people you don't know how they will react if you kill their falcon) and not running an corp, alliance, coalition with some 3rd party tools.

I like the idea of not having that API key it will solve many issues with the game and the meta gaming.

I believe that API made the leadership of big corporations / alliances very easy without them even logging on.

I upvote to shut down the API keys :)

Kill it with fire! next nerf! API keys

Prove that with math no "I believe" or "I think" .

12000 characters in 34 systems that would be 350 per system you realy want that?

Yeah, I think it might be better to make null systems be able to support more players, like high sec systems have missions which spawn infinitely, so replicating something similar for null would be the best way to do that. I'm not sure if missions can be botted? I don't think they can because each mission is different.

Then you have to consider the economy, is this going to be a massive ISK faucet? Because that could break the economy, I would say the best way to control that is to keep the liquid isk from missioning and bounties to a minimum and instead drop modules and items because the market will control the payouts from that. Maybe it's time to get rid of most liquid ISK payouts across the game. There are not as many ISK sinks as people might think... for example when players build ships and they get blown up some people think thats an isk sink but its not, that's just isk moving from one player to another but not actually leaving the economy. So all those massive T1 fleet battles in null and low are not actually removing all that much ISK from the game. Only faction ships/items purchased in lp stores, clones, trading fees, sov payments or basically any time you pay isk to npc entities is an isk sink, but there are not enough of them to counter the trillions of isk that would be made from unlimited ratting in null.

You are distorting things. The too much EHP measn nothign on a coalition level to deter a strategic invasion. But it means a LOT in the tactical level, meaning you NEED a very large capital fleet. That means that either you have capital superiority or you have NOTHING.

IT transform the system in a binary salughter or no advance situation.

Less EHP would make possible a smaller group of capitals to cause minor movments on different points, would make a more attrition level warfare operate and would mena an allaince would not need to commit full capital fleets, therefore a situation much more likely to happen.

These changes are not ENOUGH, but they are a mandatory part to achieve it. After that you need to create reasns for people to distrust other parts, create conflict, like the reseeding of moon minerals did. But ifyou try to create the drive before changign the mechanics you will end up in same place within 6 months at most.

Ok let us make your idea real.
We increase the maximum number of supported characters per system to about 500.(how does not matter we all know 50versions how todo that)
Funny thing would be that a roaming in this systems would be suicide and probably the gates would have so many bubbles that you would not even try.
Then we decrease jumpcabability and bridges by 75% so that large coalitions can not use wrecking ball and super tactics everywhere.
This will increase the time to move capitals significantly because they are not able to jump over empty space between some regions.This will end all jumpfreighter logistic and probaly most capital production. Flying freighters through stargates and making 200au freighter warps is so much fun, protecting them is even more fun.
Then we have to take care of the capability to move fleets through stargatesotherwise we would be able to kill the small groups with supcapitals.
Easyiest way would be to return to hardware 10 years ago, the lag would be so painfull nobody would want to move. Other option would be somekind of artifical number of how many players can use the gate per hour.


By that point you would have destroyed the game but at least the coalitions can live with 25000members in 50system and they are not capable to strike smaller groups with overwhelming force.