Player Features and Ideas Discussion

since this thread seems to be for everyones idea's ill throw my 2 cents in.

remove jumpbridges,drives!

what about alliance wide bonus/station upgrades for certain amounts of sov control? 3 levels of alliance sov ownership:

Regional
requires sov in every system in the region. gives alliance wide bonus to all alliance members within the region. (5% armor/shield/cap/dmg)
can setup a capital in main solar system that has unique bonus/upgrade. but station can be destroyed eventually
faster spawn rate for rats, sites, plexs
better travel within region (keep JB's for this purpose?, player made stargates?)
10% bonus to moon goo
local delay for none alliance
expensive to take sov outside of region and each additional system taken acts as a multiplyer
jump clone time bonus

Constellation
Requires all system sov within the constellation. Requires a station to set as headquarters. with upgrades or bonus's (3% armor/shield/cap/dmg)
allow for JB's?
5% bonus to moon goo
local delay for none alliance
faster spawn rate for rats, sites, plexs
no penalty for taking more space outside of constellation once headquarters established. aslong as in same region

system
no local delay for none owner
fast(est) spawn rate for rats, sites, plexs?
after 5 systems taken sov each additional acts as a multiplyer (removed once constellation established)


obviously this post was not to address timer's and how sov is taken or established on the physical level. but it does add some flavor to possible station destruction, (for the most part) JB removal, gives incentive for members to live in own systems, makes it tougher for renters to live there. would be interesting to me

It hurts miners.

That is exactly why CCP effectively removed it from the game.

I just question that this was good or bad for a game.

This was good for business in short term : more mining accounts = more $ for CCP.
In long term some of the changes, and lack of other changes lead to dropping player base = less $ for CCP.

Reconsider that last earning report was "not so good as it should" as the player numbers are dropping.
Now factor into this multiple character training that was not there year ago.

So CCP is comparing in this report "old days" where 1 account was = 1 subscription or 1 plex,
to the new scheme where 1 account > 1 subscription and 1 plex,
and yet they loosing money.

I'm training 2 characters on each of my accounts , so this is means that year ago twice more players where generating the same income i am feeding to CCP pockets now.

Slowly i'm getting my alts to the point that there will be no reason to train them more , and if more players will get the same conclusion this Year to Year income will begin to drop rapidly.

My point is that CCP should reconsider what was good change in the long term, not only basing their decisions that something will generate more mining accounts.
Base factor for CCP should be : will this generate more FUN for players or not , as "FUN" factor is something that will bring CCP more $ than mining accounts in the long term.

Players usually bring friends to a game where there is fun , not work on 10 mining accounts.


EDIT:
baltec1:
Miners should be profitable just on one account , not by isboxing mining fleets.
Income from mining on one account = income you can get from ratting.
It could be even bigger as you are doing something quite boring for many players.

I am not talking about higsec mining but about scheme 4x higsec = 2x lowsec = nullsec income for miners.
All current sov mining upgrades should be removed , and all belts boosted by much more "enriched" versions of the ore.

Tell me what in the long term be bad if ALL ores get 2x or 3x more minerals than they have now ?
Yes market will crash for short time , all mineral prices will be 1/3 of current values.
But from miners income perspective - they will be mining the same amount of m3 , for the same isk value.
From the PVP people perspective - they will have 3 hulls in the price of one.

What is wrong about this?

What I'm suggesting?
Cheep T1 Hulls.
Influence of T1 minerals on T2 hulls is small, the same goes for the Faction/Pirate ships.

No, what you suggest is that everything becomes cheaper, which in turn means that with ever bigger numbers there is ever less need for small ships. Why should I bring a BS if a carrier costs 500M, why bring a carrier if an Scap costs a mere 5B. In such an environment there is no place for smaller ships. At all.

Another flaw in your example is the "propaganda and advertisement with big fights". No one cares about EVE fights -- unless the generate huge real life currency values when converted from ISK to RL currencies. If you make the ships, which essentially drive these bills sky high, so much cheaper no one bats an eye for it. If B-R wouldn't have been hundreds of thousands of dollar/euro, no one would have made such a fuss around it.

Exactly.

As for the rest i also say :
Capital changes first , then reduction of cost.
It is also quite easy to leverage cots of capital ships by adjusting needed materials, or simpler - NPC install costs , so keep current mineral levels , but npc cost to build a carrier could be around 400-500mil ISK.

Cheaper T1 hulls actually will help smaller groups.
Now big groups SRP like CFC / NCPL already don't feel big impact if they loose 200 battleships.

For smaller group loosing whole fleet of 200 battleships can lead to reduced activity for a while, but at the same time those 200 battleships after reducing cost by 3 will mean that this small group can field 2 more fleets before it get to this point.

For CFC/NCPL loosing 200 or 600 battleships , still no big difference.

As for rattlesnake - they will not be much cheaper.
Currently rattlesnake cost around 460mil because : you have to pay over 300mil for a BPC and rest is materials, production cost and margin.
After changes you will still have to buy this BPC , and value of this BPC is defined by drop rate and LP value.

1. Not outposts , but agent sites outside of stations - as this will be one more place that something might happen.

2. Missions will generate probably much more isk than current anomalies , as more people can live from them in one place.
Still this will be good change as will make having vast space quite useless, especially renter space , as those renters could join and do missions in one constellation.
This will not happen, as they will probably try to create their new home under their own banner .
3. If those missions can offer something more than ISK - the better , as long as this will be not connected to any current LP stores.
New variations of T1 hulls? for example 10-20% more EHP at same stats and slot layout , boost not connected to raised resistances , just more shield or armor.

One thing I still defend, that has both good effects on economy andon the restriction of power creep is manteinance fees on capital and specially supercapital ships.

You need to pay a feee monthly to represent the manteinance on these ships that cannot dock to get free manteinance. If you do not pay their jump dries do nto work. When you decide to pay again you need ot pay all non paid bills (includign of non subscribed time).

That would make stockpiling of absurd numbers of supercapitals a bad economic decision. Would not allow super entities to stockpile so much that losses agaisnt smaller groups become irrelevant. The other good effect is that it coudl be a great isk sink to help economy issues withinflation.

How much to pay?t hat needs to be analysed. But must be enough that the current super powers should stop and replan their super capital fleet expansion program, istead of continuing until each side has 500 titans.

Yet you managed to match it and overdo it in a single posts.. congratulations.