These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3481 - 2015-03-08 12:44:02 UTC
What to do about moons that are in npc controlled space is simple, and there is a precedent for it. Make them subject to a hefty NPC tax, as was done with PI. 25% should do it. Give a corresponding boost to moon yield in sov space at the top end of the indexes when the iHub has the appropriate upgrade, while making sov a requirement for anchoring a moon miner in conquerable space.

It's the additional incentive to move out to null and conquer some space that people have been asking for, while adding another driver for conflict over sov.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3482 - 2015-03-08 12:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
davet517 wrote:
What to do about moons that are in npc controlled space is simple, and there is a precedent for it. Make them subject to a hefty NPC tax, as was done with PI. 25% should do it. Give a corresponding boost to moon yield in sov space at the top end of the indexes when the iHub has the appropriate upgrade, while making sov a requirement for anchoring a moon miner in conquerable space.

It's the additional incentive to move out to null and conquer some space that people have been asking for, while adding another driver for conflict over sov.

What you would end up with, is large alliances still holding all the valuable moons and simply having 1,000 or 2,000 members living in each mooned system.
So yes, content and conflict, for about a month.

Tax lowsec moons, Good moons lose value but are still valuable, lower level moons become useless as many aren't all that profitable now until reactions are done and often there isn't 25% profit in them.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3483 - 2015-03-08 13:03:31 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

What you would end up with, is large alliances still holding all the valuable moons and simply having 1,000 or 2,000 members living in each mooned system.
So yes, content and conflict, for about a month.

Tax lowsec moons, Good moons lose value but are still valuable, lower level moons become useless as many aren't all that profitable now until reactions are done and often there isn't 25% profit in them.


I think you're misreading the value of these moons. Their value is that they're passive. As a power block, you can count on them month in month out while hardly ever having to defend them as long as you have the "nuclear deterrent" of a super-cap blob. They generate a lot of income, but not enough to justify the manpower that it would take to actively defend as many as the power blocs own today.

Yes, people who are used to mining moons in low-sec would probably have to move to null if they wanted to continue doing that. CCP might want to take a look at how moons are distributed, with some attention to placing valuable moons in systems with less desirable truesec, to provide additional incentive for conquering those systems.
RogueHunteer
Doomheim
#3484 - 2015-03-08 13:58:05 UTC  |  Edited by: RogueHunteer
STOP FAILING - AS THEIR ARE STILL SOME STUFF WE STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE!

THE SOV CHANGES ARE GOOD!

TCU NEEDS A BIT MORE TO FIGHT FOR HERE - WHY CAN'T WE LINK LOCAL TO IT FOR OWNERS ONLY!
MAKE THE ATTACKERS WORK BIT HARDER WITH NO LOCAL. AND MAKE A LOCAL FREE-PORT SYSTEM.

CLAM OWNERS SEE LOCAL AND SET BLUES!



BRING ****RING MINING****** IN TOO THE GAME PLEASE THANKS END PASSIVE INCOME! Bear
Lord Zeuus
Shadow State
Goonswarm Federation
#3485 - 2015-03-08 14:18:58 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, it's become clear to me that he's an absolute ****** who shouldn't be anywhere near game design.

He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships.
He wants delayed local in nullsec.
He wants to remove fleet warp.
He wants to nerf combat probing.
And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.

I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers.


This post couldn't be more accurate. I actually pay cash for my accounts and will probably find something else to do if the above changes are implemented.

The game is already fun or we would have the numbers of people playing. Jump Fatigue has made it much less enjoyable, now this? It's painfully obvious CCP can't fix the lag issues so more workarounds to come. There are so many other areas of EVE that could be fixed, it's a shame this is their focus.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#3486 - 2015-03-08 14:29:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Primary This Rifter wrote:
After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, it's become clear to me that he's an absolute ****** who shouldn't be anywhere near game design.

He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships.
He wants delayed local in nullsec.
He wants to remove fleet warp.
He wants to nerf combat probing.
And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.

I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers.
I think it is almost everyone, very few people will want Null SOV when NPC Null, Worm Holes, even Low Sec are probably more desireable
Dracvlad wrote:
... most of my contacts want to own a system or two to say that they have done it, though I have done that, but in the main to have small fun fleet fights.
Low Sec's role that it is failing to fulfil.
Tau Phoenix wrote:
Just a view on the 'Freeport' mechanic. If a system or constellation is under attack and there is only one station in that area it would be reasonable to assume that both the attackers and defenders will stage out of that freeport station....
... or the one next door but besides the lag, the chaos with quick anchoring, timing and so forth might be interesting.
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
The concern people have is that the additional ball-ache factor in sov just isn't going to be worth it, and large groups might just pick up their sov and sit in NPC nullsec and hold the moons
For emphasis, this is the most frequent plan of current coalitions.

P.S. I love jump fatigue, hope they consider making team required Null Sec anomolies and allow us to consolodate our space so more alliances can fit out here with us.
I also hope they announce indy and Black Ops fatigue bonuses will be reduced within three months

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3487 - 2015-03-08 14:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Schluffi Schluffelsen
Primary This Rifter wrote:
After reading Fozzie's comments on EVE Down Under, it's become clear to me that he's an absolute ****** who shouldn't be anywhere near game design.

He wants supers to be some kind of force multiplier giving some type of bonuses, instead of damage ships.
He wants delayed local in nullsec.
He wants to remove fleet warp.
He wants to nerf combat probing.
And he thinks nullsec has enough incentives as it is.

I'm starting to get seriously pissed off at CCP. Way to completely flip the bird to some of your most loyal subscribers.


Seriously? Ah well, all of these changes should ramp up FW and WH action quite a bit. I wish Fozzie would go back to just commenting ATs, that's what he's good at. Pick any random person of the street and put him/her in game design, that would probably have more positive effects on 0.0 than this rubbish.

btw. for those of the 0.0 guys who go to Fanfest, grab some eggs for me and throw them constantly at fozzie. Call them entosis-eggs. :P
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#3488 - 2015-03-08 14:36:49 UTC
Alp Khan wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


I earn more than this running level 4 missions in my trusty Velator armed with civilian mining lasers !

Jeez, I sure do feel sorry for all you null-sec paupers.


Again, just like the high-sec salvager, you are attempting to troll, and doing it very poorly at that.

Now, I'll just repeat what I've said before regarding high-sec individual PvE income vs. null-sec individual PvE income.

Through choosing the faction he runs missions for (a faction with a high LP to ISK conversion), a high-sec L4 missioner, flying a T1 battleship with rather mediocre skills is able to make almost two times more ISK per hour over a highly trained Ishtar pilot in null space anomalies killing rats. Let's not also forget that if he is rather aware and informed, the high-sec pilot has almost no risks that he gets to be burdened with, and one cannot say the same about a pilot ratting in null. Low-sec is probably the craziest, an individual flying a T2 frigate at FW can make up to 400 million ISK per hour, which is EIGHT times what the Ishtar pilot makes in null. Again, because he is flying a stealth bomber or a cloaky T3, the risk he will be facing is extremely low. Wormholes? Well, they are even worse. We are talking billions per hour when it comes to PvE activities of a well established organization. They face increased risks over low-sec and high-sec, but they also are competent enough to work the wormhole mechanics, so that their system would be on virtual lockdown when they are doing PvE.

Can anyone in their right mind claim that null individual income is fair and balanced vis-a-vis other types of space?

Are the trolls posting able to dispute any of what I've been citing?


In my experience hi sec income is roughly comparable to null sec income. Variations can rise from pilot risk aversion, particular skill levels, tactics used and what is measured.

Before great anomaly nerf dialing most of null sec significantly down and a little boost a bit later grinding anoms in sec -0.05 system with upgrades with t2 fit T1 BS or carrier vs blitzing L4's in hi sec in moderately faction pimped pirate BS (low enough module value to remain unprofitable to suicide back then) being in null sec was 15% better isk/h wise, after anomaly nerf it was about 10% worse after the little boost it ended up roughly equal. Margin of error (statistically) in my spreadsheet is (was even, as I have not done the numbers over the last year) approx 5% as I did not bother generating very much samples.

But that is only one aspect, active grind for isk. Overall I think the isk/h balance is more or less fine. EVE is not a game of linear progression and one region of space should not be obviously better than every other region of space as that would limit the "reasonable" number of playstyles.

If one is in null purely for isk/h it is one particular playstyle. I believe, however, that most of people are in null for different reasons than isk/h. similarly some people are in low sec purely for isk/h or hi sec purely for isk/h as particular pilots playstyle generates highest isk/h in that area for him and that what he tries to maximise. Other people do not care about isk/h and try to maximise something else, be it then fun per hour, killmails per hour, K/D ratio, isk per effort or click .. etc.

So whining that isk/h in null sucks for particular playstyle is not particularly productive. If you can make more isk/h somewhere else and you care so much about isk/h go for it instead of whining that the particular area is not the most optimal place for your particular play-style.

Risk (in the the sense of probability of loss x cost of the loss) vs reward (isk/h; isk/click; isk/effort, kills per hour, etc) is not a fixed general number applying for all pilots but is instead a highly personal variable to be optimized for particular play-style and goals in game.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3489 - 2015-03-08 14:40:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Emmy Mnemonic
Sgt Ocker wrote:

What you would end up with, is large alliances still holding all the valuable moons and simply having 1,000 or 2,000 members living in each mooned system.


Yes, that is what will be the case after Entosis-EVE. Status quoe in nullsec considering control over the passive incomes. Small-scale fights over sov, because sov does not have any real value for the alliances.

In Fountain alone, there are 73 R64 moons spread out over ~45 systems *).
No alliance would be able to keep 1,000s of people in all those moon-systems all the time! So there would be possibilities to attack the sov of those systems to weaken alliances that try to control them.

Those 73 moons can also be maintained by some handfuls of IRL people, using JFs, Rorquals and cynoalts.
There is no requirement to own sov to control these moons, of course it is convenient with JBs, cyno generators etc, but not necessary. So, large alliances will keep control over these assets, even after Entosis-EVE, since they can and since sov is not required to keep control of the R64 moons.

The R64 moon-goo churned out of those 73 R64 moons have a raw market value of 285 B ISK every month (based on todays sell-values in Jita). POS fuel for 73 large POSes would be in the vicinity of 30 B ISK / month if you have them in sov-systems, and the transport jump fuel much much less. So lets say there is a minimum net income from the Fountain R64 moons of around 250 B ISK/month. Without sov the cost for the POSes would increase to around 40 B, so net incomes would be 240 B ISK. Ouch! That hurts the wallets of the alliances, right ?! (irony).

So, a couple of handful of people ensure that these R64 POSes generates a net income of 240-250 B ISK per month to the alliances that control them. Nice passive incomes!

To generate THAT kind of income to an alliance every month by ratting would require several hundreds of ratters running scores of Forsaken Hubs every month and a high ratting tax! Even if ratting is done a lot in nullsec, the ratting-ISK does not primarily end up in the pockets of the alliances. And thus, alliances are not affected so much by ratting, and thus they will not fight huge wars and never-ending conflicts for ratting-space. ANd incomes generated by some handfuls of people are more easy, stable and effort-less to control than incomes that require hundreds, if not thousands of people.

CCP wants to generate conflicts and they think that ratting in nullsec is the "driver" for conflicts. I think they are severly misstaken! CCP should tie in the R64 moons in the sov-equation, because they represent the least-effort and largest income (second to renting probably) for the power blocs. THEN we will have conflicts over sov worth the name!

Sgt Ocker wrote:

So yes, content and conflict, for about a month.


Oh, I think it would be more than a month of conflicts if R64/32 moons are tied to sov...

*) Stats collected from Marlona Skyes complete mapping of the moons in Fountain

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]
Drogo Drogos
Liquilibi Nuclues
#3490 - 2015-03-08 14:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Drogo Drogos
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Glorious days, this thread is a tsunami of nullbear tears.

Please do continue broadcasting loud and clear how the reason you like the proposal is out of spite, instead of enlightened interest in the future health of the game.


You sound mad. Good, when CCP does their job right, people like you always get mad, it's a good sign for the future health of the game.

But there's more to come, can't wait for the capital ship nerfs, bombers nerfs, T3 nerfs, jump freighter nerfs, plus the new delayed local system.

Yes I'm mad. Did you think I was trying to hide it?


What he and CCP might miss is the thousands of people who are going to unsub.

Super pilots /unsub
Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub
Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub

I have 4 accounts active and will close 3 of those and pay for the remaining one in cash instead of plex.

The question remaining is: is this change going to attract new players into eve and will these players apply to nullsec alliance's ?
It sounds more that these changes are going to become a chore and a second job instead of a exciting way to generate fights and contend.

Already looking forward to see the many abusers of Entosis links day in day out waisting my time to reship undock and then they hide or run away and give no fights or action.

And no local will sure as hell drive out the faint of hearth back to Hisec as the isk made in Nullsec cannot be compared to Wormholes....what dafuq is CCP thinking lol.


But Fozzie knows best as he also said there is nothing wrong with battleships and bombers :P
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3491 - 2015-03-08 14:56:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Shodan Of Citadel
CCP,

Let alliances build actual empires...

Use current incursion system to let empires 'claim' space as their own.

Remove moon mining completely. Put moon goo in unstable "Rogue Dwarf Moons" located in scannable sites or thrown in with asteroid and ice sites. "Rogue Dwarf Moons" contain a good mix of stuff so no alliance can lock-up moons like they do now and F* the rest. Indices improve number/quality of moons, but makes it so alliance has to actively mine the goods.

Capital Exhumer or 50km "Moon Strip Miners" for dreadnaughts -either way, you get a veldnaught of some kind and reason for rorquals to see wider use. Hell, reminds me of the days long ago when I was flying a bestower as a newbie in Black Plague with Satan and saw the entire alliance out in Stain with a massive 40 mining apocs and assorted mining cruisers with people escorting us haulers.

Planetary Interaction... add population and their needs. happy population, some indices climb, unhappy and they drop. Needs can be met though bringing various trade goods to PI hubs.

Alliances able to hire randomly generated agents or just 'bounty office' where leveled missions are posted to protect your population/space from encroaching pirate forces.

Player kills and losses affect colonization -you keep your losses low and population rates swell, lose thousands of ships and population rates slow (but not stop or someone like Goons and BNI would never see colonists except on market).

Planetary Interaction Bonuses... happy populations provide bonuses to the commodities in addition to what is normally at the customs offices.


no reason to scrap a pvp based conquest system for KOTH.

maybe give low-sec more of these rogue dwarf moons in roid sites and belts than null... knowing you can get some of the best moon-goo there and you'll see low-sec get active.
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3492 - 2015-03-08 15:03:08 UTC
Drogo Drogos wrote:

Super pilots /unsub
Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub
Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub


Maybe CCP just wants to downsize on alts and us bitter 0.0 vets. Give some more realistic "account" numbers when logging with way less alts...
Drogo Drogos
Liquilibi Nuclues
#3493 - 2015-03-08 15:07:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Drogo Drogos
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
Drogo Drogos wrote:

Super pilots /unsub
Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub
Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub


Maybe CCP just wants to downsize on alts and us bitter 0.0 vets. Give some more realistic "account" numbers when logging with way less alts...



Meh whatever their intention is i hope they know what they are doing before they can fire half of Reykjavik...

Was looking at The Metashow last night with The Mittani / PGL / Laz / Nys and the idea's they had were beyond epic.
That would make Eve Online so exciting and generate so much contend.

Yet i knew this would take them years and years to implement....
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3494 - 2015-03-08 15:13:37 UTC
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
Drogo Drogos wrote:

Super pilots /unsub
Multiple nullsec accounts /unsub
Nullbear hardcore ratters ( i know guys who own up to 25 active accounts to rat ) /unsub


Maybe CCP just wants to downsize on alts and us bitter 0.0 vets. Give some more realistic "account" numbers when logging with way less alts...


This sounds like a great way to minimize profitability.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Commentus Nolen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3495 - 2015-03-08 15:14:32 UTC
Quote:
Was looking at The Metashow last night.


Please link.
Omgitsbears
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3496 - 2015-03-08 15:29:38 UTC
I'm glad to see how vocal people are against the changes to sov, and local delay. Both are terrible ideas that will hurt Eve-Online. This game doesn't need huge sweeping changes, if it wasn't fun to play then it wouldn't have the consistent player numbers it does have. Eve-Online is over 10 years old, at this point it just needs minor tweaks and more content. Not these gigantic sweeping changes that redefine the game.
AfroFlipp Mabata
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#3497 - 2015-03-08 15:57:06 UTC
Can you compress tears? I am running out of room!
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3498 - 2015-03-08 16:16:23 UTC
AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:
Can you compress tears? I am running out of room!


Says the renter?
Roofdog2
Penn Industries
#3499 - 2015-03-08 16:21:09 UTC
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
AfroFlipp Mabata wrote:
Can you compress tears? I am running out of room!


Says the renter?


whaz wrong with being a renter?
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3500 - 2015-03-08 16:23:00 UTC
Dominion, with its super-cap buffs could be called the "Death from Above" expansion. It sparked a super-cap arms race, and polar super-powers. Now, here's your "Death from Below" expansion, so that those super-powers can die deaths of a thousand cuts, and ownership of space pixels becomes accessible again.

These mechanics enable that, but they don't require it. Players will actually have to seize the opportunity. The psychology on display in this thread suggests that what might happen is - nothing, because rank and file players believe that nothing can overturn the big bloc's lock on power. As long as most players believe that, they'll continue belonging to one of the big blocs.

You'll know that the big blocs are dying a "Death from Below" if they start to bleed numbers, and participation. They'll have to, in order for newcomers to be able to stake a claim. Mechanics alone won't do that.