Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is kind of off here. What people are saying is that isk should be changed to be from the bottom up, not the top down. No one is asking for null to have it's cake (like moon income) and eat it too (buff individual level isk making).

Also off is the attack vs defense argument. Malcanis' law applies here, if you give the attacker the advantage, people will 'defend' by just being the bigger attacker. Skewing the game in favor of the attacker makes the 10,000 member elephant in the room (Goons) that much more unstoppable, because they can just let the 'little guy' attack, take the space, then blob them (becoming the new 'attacker') and the result is the exact same as if nothing changed.



What is wrong here is the basic premiss of "smaller weaker group should have a chance". no, they actually shouldn't, a game that rewards people for being weak and small isn't a game with a rule set that any human being would want to play (despite how much they say they would).

Rather, what should happen is CCP develops resources in such a way that the big groups HAVE to fight (ie there is no more incentive to cooperate and 'blue' everyone). This forces the big guys to exhaust their players and materials and leadership and that kind of 'designed chaos' leads to cracks in the 'empires' that leads to fragmentation and conflict.

This is why I say that rather than game mechanics changes (that ALWAYS favor older, more established players), CCP needs to concentrate on 2 things:

-re-working across the board how resource gathering and isk making works to make the natural human tendency to cooperate less profitable (human beings do NOT fight over things they can just buy or trade for, in game as it is in real life).

And

-Adding more 'malcanis law resistant' tools for poorer groups to have an effect on larger groups (like siphons, or something like a bastion module for smaller groups who can't afford dreads to be able to use sub caps to in-cap things) that can aid in the larger groups downfall like Vandals nipping at Rome.

Both of these issues also affect the API data, since they both source from the same place. You could also say that as highsec missions get blitzed, highsec activity and npc kills won't necessarily relate. At the same time, people roll AFK missions in null, literally leaving their PC alone half hour at a time sometimes, so where does activity stop being activity. Mining and exploration won't show up at all. WH activity doesn't show up on the map either.

A sub is a sub, whether it's for an existing player who is encouraged to invest more or a new player investing or the first time is irrelevant. I'm sure CCP can see exactly how many plexes are activated into time, be it a new account, and existing account or a dual character training activation. The "observed phenomenon" most of us actually see is CCPs new reluctance to hint at subs, an increase in the number of people with negative opinions on the game and a distinct lack of fresh content being delivered. Sure, any conclusions made are purely speculation, but speculation isn't necessarily incorrect, and I think anyone looking at the situation realistically would surmise that EVE is in a bad place right now.

Actually, they are. There is nothing in these proposals that say anything about reducing passive isk income (moon income), and making null sec systems more valuable from an isk generation point of view only increases their rental value (further increasing passive income).

The proposal is: "Give us more valuable specific income and we'll let others have 0.0 space"
The reality, if the proposal is accepted by CCP, will likely be: "Thank you for the more valuable systems, we can now increase rent"

The solution should be occupancy based sov with no increase in specific income of 0.0 systems.

Yes, if you stupidly drop sov on your staging system, you can run into issues. Outside of that, losing a primary staging systems is very rare. And the thing is, if it were an issue we could already stage from either existing NPC space or low sec and get pretty much anywhere in the universe.

Well at the moment, if we are deep in our sov, we only need to worry about the force projection supercap groups coming in, so we're already pretty safe. Having an NPC station where anyone can dock and store stuff, sure, we couldn't be prevented from docking, but we certainly could be prevented from undocking, and lets not forget, we couldn't prevent anyone else from docking too. I think if you really really thought about it and took off the "grr goon" tinfoil, you'd see there were far more benefits to other groups than there would be to sov holders.


First off, you stated "it actually amplifies the ability of the powerblocks to wage war". so which is it? Will NPC stations allow us to wage war, or will we not fight either way?

And lets say we won;t ever fight, like you are suggesting above. You also suggest we don't fight right now, right? Because we have all these agreements? So which is better (with "we" meaning sov null coaltions in general):
1. We don't fight, and we own all of the space (like it is now).
2. We don't fight, and we own sections of space, with the other space up for people to grab and fight over (like is being suggested).

I really don't understand what exactly it is you think should be don;e instead. You seem to think that us superpowers should either destroy ourselves for your benefit, or endlessly fight each other in 10% tidi and soul crushing lag.

So then we stay as is, we continue to have to moderate fun we have now, with the leaders setting up soft wars between null groups and the occasional mass destruction of supers, and everyone outside of null continues to cry about how they can only get in by renting, while we roll around in the rental income making ISK angels.

I'm yet to see a realistic counter proposal from you by the way. Why not set one up? You could even get it signed off by Gevlon and MoA (although you might want to avoid that since that would probably be a negative thing). Alternatively, suggest how this proposal could be changed. We all know it;s not perfect and not even remotely a complete idea, so be part of the solution.

That fits then. Sheep are sheep and will always be sheep.

Someone comes in the game and sees sheep and they leave.

I know right. Unintended consequences are a *****, CCP is about to learn this again lol.

As I explained, it doesn't work then, because you shove people into overcrowded systems to make less isk than they could per hour bltizting lvl 3 missions in high sec in a machariel.

'The odd ratter' is sometimes a carrier or super carrier. Fewer of those ships dying is bad. Those ships living longer to spew 200-300 mil LIQUID isk per hour into the economy is bad too.

I'll be in my Thanatos ratting with fighters while aligned to a pos and giving no Fs about the neutral in local if i can't see a blob on my in game map within 5 light years lol. Just because i disagree with a change doesn't mean i won't exploit the holy hell out of it lol.

I have now second idea how to fix sovereignty system. This idea makes it completely impossible to maintain sovereignty in inactive solar systems.

All kind of activities like mining and ratting have change to produce sovereignty objects in each capturable solar system. I call these objects now sovereignty crystals. Each capturable solar system has its own sovereignty crystal. Territorial Claim Unit needs these sovereignty crystals to be active.

Only way to maintain sovereignty is to do something in that solar system. These sovereignty crystals can be sold in market. Solar system truesec would determine drop rate for sovereignty crystals. 0.0 would be the easiest to keep sovereignty (the highest drop rate for crystals) and -1.0 would be the hardest to keep sovereignty since there is the lowest drop rate for sovereignty crystals.

Comments are welcome for my idea.