These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Station Upgrade Missions in Sov Null

Author
Gh0stBust3rs
Templars HIghsec
Stellar Fusion
#1 - 2014-09-29 16:09:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Gh0stBust3rs
Ok with the idea to switch ot occupancy based sov on the table I had an idea for a station upgrade that is an isk sink at an alliance level to improve the line members source of income. As most people know even a really good null system can only support 6-8 ratters at a time before the decent sites are all gone and the low levels just are not worth the time to run nor are they newbie friendly

What I suggest is a remote Agent Station Upgrade. The Costs will be explained in detail below. Instead of getting missions like in high sec you can decide which Organization you want(Up to 5) Installed in the station. They will offer level 1-4 missions against only pirate factions.


The reasoning behind this is making isk in null can be difficult for newer players and the fact these can scale with them with the option of making them some isk. This also allows the player density of a system to go up as it can support more ratters. The Escalations will be within reasonable distance 1-2 regions and result in people actually having to refit then just shoot guristas angels or sansha all day long.


Income levels should be better then high sec but not insanely better.


Costs:
-The initial upgrade should be something like 5 billion isk.(Sold Directly from concord)
-500m a month once installed(Maintenance fee to concord)
-100m a month per remote Agent(up to 500m a month for a full station)

I considered making it scale based on the number of people using that service. That seems like it would cost far too much. Also considering that LP prices could tank if everyone decided to use a single faction it would result in people not running that one.

Agent Types:
-Security 1-4(You must have the standings to use the proper agent)
-Can Hand out 5 Missions at once(IE 5 level 4s. Get those mobile depots out.)


Cashing Out:
-LPs must be redeemed at an empire station(Or NPC Null/Low)
-Station Owner should be able to set a tax rate for this service.

Balancing:
-Most null sec entities that decide to use this will only have a few per region which means camps and roams for those that want to ruin some fun.
-No Pirate Faction Remote Agent(Angels, Blood Raiders, Guristas, Mordus, Sanshas)
-The Scaling based on the Highest Low Sec is to keep it from being completely broken(0.0 Pirate Missions can pay out 20k lp and 7m isk) This should be more profitable in null sec then it is in high but not to the point that there is no reason to want to be in high sec(For those that want to be there)

Thoughts? Likes or Dislikes?
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#2 - 2014-09-29 19:52:25 UTC
I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, encouraging PvE in null means more targets in space. On the other hand, anoms can be instantly warped to, while missions sites must be combat scanned. Many missions also require acceleration gate for access, making these essentially immune to ganking short of bubbling up the station from the right direction before the target initiates warp out of the mission.

Maybe if you make the mission pockets visible on the overview or something? And they definitely would need to be only single pocket missions, not acceleration-gate-based ones.
Gh0stBust3rs
Templars HIghsec
Stellar Fusion
#3 - 2014-09-29 20:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Gh0stBust3rs
Daenika wrote:
I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, encouraging PvE in null means more targets in space. On the other hand, anoms can be instantly warped to, while missions sites must be combat scanned. Many missions also require acceleration gate for access, making these essentially immune to ganking short of bubbling up the station from the right direction before the target initiates warp out of the mission.

Maybe if you make the mission pockets visible on the overview or something? And they definitely would need to be only single pocket missions, not acceleration-gate-based ones.



I know the Faction Warfare Missions are like this. They create a beacon in Space. As for no acceleration gate I am also Torn on this. Ideally It would mean more people in space but at the same time Then carriers could solo everything and it defeats the purpose really.


This also fits into CCP's idea of a bottom up income level. Alliance Pays big bucks for said upgrade and maintains it while membership farms it to make isk.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#4 - 2014-09-29 20:52:28 UTC
I'm not convinced carriers being able to do it all is a bad thing, or at least, not a bad enough thing to justify allowing some of these missions to be locked behind acceleration gates, effectively making them immune to ganking in-pocket.
Gh0stBust3rs
Templars HIghsec
Stellar Fusion
#5 - 2014-09-30 18:36:00 UTC
Bump
Gh0stBust3rs
Templars HIghsec
Stellar Fusion
#6 - 2014-10-04 04:46:51 UTC
bump
Athryn Bellee
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-10-04 06:24:12 UTC
Daenika wrote:
I'm not convinced carriers being able to do it all is a bad thing, or at least, not a bad enough thing to justify allowing some of these missions to be locked behind acceleration gates, effectively making them immune to ganking in-pocket.


If people are able to gank low-sec mission runners that are behind an acceleration gate, I don't see why no one would be able to gank the same thing in nullsec. People run nullsec combat signatures all the time and I'm pretty sure they aren't immune to ganking.
Gh0stBust3rs
Templars HIghsec
Stellar Fusion
#8 - 2014-10-04 13:02:15 UTC
Athryn Bellee wrote:
Daenika wrote:
I'm not convinced carriers being able to do it all is a bad thing, or at least, not a bad enough thing to justify allowing some of these missions to be locked behind acceleration gates, effectively making them immune to ganking in-pocket.


If people are able to gank low-sec mission runners that are behind an acceleration gate, I don't see why no one would be able to gank the same thing in nullsec. People run nullsec combat signatures all the time and I'm pretty sure they aren't immune to ganking.



Also True. I dont mind the idea of accel gate missions but I do like the idea of once you open it its on everyone's overview as a beacon.
Gh0stBust3rs
Templars HIghsec
Stellar Fusion
#9 - 2014-10-09 22:25:12 UTC
bumping up again
Gh0stBust3rs
Templars HIghsec
Stellar Fusion
#10 - 2014-10-14 20:32:07 UTC
bumping again because people seem to like the idea here http://themittani.com/features/fixing-null-player-density-and-interaction
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2014-10-18 09:14:42 UTC
You're going from 6-8 pilots to 25 in missions + 6-8 anoms. You also want to make them worse than NPC null missions which can be done quite easily if you know the locals. I'm not sure this is the carrot worth dangling.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#12 - 2014-10-18 11:07:40 UTC
I find it interesting that a good system can support 6-8 these days... Because before anoms and so forth, when ratting meant warping round the asteroid belts, an average system could support 5-6.
Is null paying so much less these days? Roll
Anthar Thebess
#13 - 2014-10-18 11:39:12 UTC
Agent should be outside stations in sites.
1-2 site per constellation.

Next thing :
- each site should have upgrade ( something like communication tower ) that will allow this site to operate.
When not defended and destroyed by roaming gang - local people will have to put new one.

This structure should not be to costly , but online time of new one should be around 45 minutes.

This 'communication tower' can have short 20-30 minute reinforce timer , and can have some guns that will exclude possibility for a lone bomber to kill it during the night.

Structure itself should also not generate KM , from the same reason.
Gh0stBust3rs
Templars HIghsec
Stellar Fusion
#14 - 2014-10-21 09:08:24 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Agent should be outside stations in sites.
1-2 site per constellation.

Next thing :
- each site should have upgrade ( something like communication tower ) that will allow this site to operate.
When not defended and destroyed by roaming gang - local people will have to put new one.

This structure should not be to costly , but online time of new one should be around 45 minutes.

This 'communication tower' can have short 20-30 minute reinforce timer , and can have some guns that will exclude possibility for a lone bomber to kill it during the night.

Structure itself should also not generate KM , from the same reason.


Sadly if it doesnt generate a killmail their really isnt a reason to grind a structure. Might as well be like all deployables and generate a killmail