Player Features and Ideas Discussion

+1

A change needs to be made, the current system is dumb.

mlmp

The goal is to make them more valuable when you can keep them, but much harder to keep as an absentee landlord. That's a primary goal of occupancy sov.

We pay 84m every two weeks to maintain sov in a backwater system nobody uses. It's dumb. You make systems able to carry an appropriate volume of people, but then make it much harder to keep when you're not using it with an appropriate volume of people.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

A single POS mining a single type of moon goo yields a specific amount of moon goo per month. If the moon goo drains after one week there will be a period of looking until someone else finds the new moon producing the moon goo. This means there is lost "mining time", meaning there is less moon goo available.
Sure, this could be addressed by increasing the number of moons seeded with each specific moon goo.

Then you have reactions to consider. Today reaction farms churn 24/7 having set up suppliers and buyers. Disrupting the flow of moon goo means disrupting the reaction farms; this in turn means more overhead for reaction farms (changing production, finding new suppliers, or dismantling the POS). In the end this will translate to less material being available to build T2 components from...and then the prices will go up.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Edit: Not a personal attack. Merely a suggestion of how to go shopping in the buddhist sense. vOv

This suggestion serves one purpose: to allow the current power holders to condense their large empires into small, unpenetrable fortresses (cynojam, lot of friendlies in fleet 1-2 jumps away) where they can rat in complete safety, regions away from anyone who could theoretically harm them.

In the meantime both their own PvP-ers and current pirates are pacified by offering them regions full of terrible players who are easy to farm (these are dubbed as "new alliances").

The result: CFC, N3 and PL are ratting in Nyxes in 3 far corners of the universe without any risk of losing them. No more SRP to pay as fleets barely have losses (see PL losses against HERO/Provi), no capital subsidies as there is no need for capital fleet and greatly decreased Sov costs. So alliance leaders could keep the whole alliance income to themselves without the members giving a damn.

*Snip* Removed reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.
You're argument is based around the idea that it would require effort. Sorry bout that is exactly what I purpose. Moons are what make the alliances money. This is what needs to be broken up.

Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up?

The crux of it is that they don't want to downsize. They want to have the same 2 coalitions, each with almost half of the active combat sov pilots, with both coalitions unwilling to fight each other.

At the same time, they want new "content" to materialize out of thin air, in the form of farmable sov-holding non-aligned entities from currently sov-wanting players that don't actually exist.

We have frequently advocated for destructible stations. I would love to be able to not only hellcamp someone but also completely and irreversibly destroy their stuff trapped inside.

We've stated numerous times that if the meta didn't incentivize massive coalitions, then we wouldn't be in one. We, being Goonswarm, does what the most efficient route to both make other people angry and make ourselves happy. A massive ****-off coalition right now accomplishes just that. Now it so happens that the majority of the alliances in our coalition gel well for the most part making it an actual coalition of ideas. With that said, I'd argue that if the tables were turned and we were in a coalition with NC. or PL then culturally we'd be just as successful. Nullsec entities that last are the ones that appreciate the space for what it is, which is a sandbox without limits. You have to earn your keep, by putting in the work either on the logistics front, the battle front, or the spreadsheet front.

I have a question for you. How would a new alliance come into null without being worse at it than some existing null alliances? Holding sov null requires competence above that of the individual player, and organizational competence takes time to develop. Without letting them try how could they do it? They might start out terrible, and they might even fail at sov-null their first try, but at least they would be trying as opposed to now where they either rent or don't bother.

On a different note, why do you think that more players in one place would form an untouchable fortress? Sure a large alliance would be harder to root out of their home system but shouldn't that be how its supposed to be? Why should a 100 man alliance be able to turf a 1000 man alliance out of their home easily? Granted under occupancy sov if I had a 20 man roam I might not be able to truck into YAO and shut down the 300 people that live there, but why would it be good for the game as a whole if I could?

Finally, ratters are already basically untouchable. Even if you find them on a roam they will simply pos/dock/safe and cloak the instant a red his local. Give me concentration and gate movement, it increases my chances of catching somebody at a chokepoint or just somebody dumb. In the desert predators will often wait for prey by waterholes, the same principal applies.

As you are very fond of pointing out Goons lose ratting Ishtars all the time in Dek, and there are standing fleets for defense up 23/7. If you want to say that these places would lead to invincibility somehow then why is it that not the case in Eastern Dek which already has the highest concentration of players anywhere in null?

Then breaking one with sov changes and the other with moon changes sounds even better.