These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Making Null Sov Valuable and more Condensed

Author
Nelthaerius
Dead and Delirious
BBQ BOIS
#1 - 2015-08-16 21:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Nelthaerius
Null Sec, as the current state of it, greatly supports the idea of pilots co-operating to defeat or defend the opposing player. However, there is little difference between what the most favorable space is, versus the least favorable.
As it currently stands, the only things that warrant the favorability for areas is
*Logistics
*Anomalies
*Money Moons
*Defense/Offense capabilities

As the current mechanics work, to earn any kind of money in null sec you must be able to either kills rats, or mine minerals (for the average null player). I aim to supply a possible change to anomalies which could change the overall isk capabilities for null sec pilots that will help compete with isk income compared to incursions or lvl 5 missions, that in turn, will
*Make space more desirable
*Allow larger alliances to need less space, Allowing for more corporations and alliances to be present
*Increase players working together and flying together without the penalty of isk with pilot count.

The changes I propose will be to have the true sec of null effect anomaly rats. Suggest we have a -.3 system. The system then poses a greater value to the rats AI so they want to defend it heavier than a -.2 system. When a pilot is inside an anomaly, the rats will respond accordingly, almost like WH AI with capital escalation. However, once the wave is cleared of pirates (rats),or upon warp-in to a new site, they will respond with the next wave (or landing in site) accordingly to how many pilots are in the site. With greater number of pilots, come greater reinforcements to the pirates.

Example-
*1 Pilot-Regular Wave (-.1 through -1.0)
*2 Pilots- 50% more show up (Only -.2 through -1.0)
*3 pilots- 75% more (Only -.3 through -1.0)
*4 Pilots- 100% more (Only -.4 through -1.0)
*5 Pilots- 150% more ( -5. Through -1.0)
*6 Pilots- 175% more (-.6 through -1.0)
*7 Pilots- 200% more (-.7 through -1.0)
*8 Pilots- 250% more (-.8 through -1.0)
*9 Pilots- 275% more (-.9 through -1.0)
*10 pilots- 300% more (1.0 only)

How are the % calculated when looking at wave spawns? This can be done through isk value. Say if a wave is worth 20m regular split up between 10 Battleships, 8 cruisers, 4 frigates. % of is increases and gets distributed through the rats that show up.

4 Pilots in a -.4 are currently in an anomaly, the next wave generated will yield a potential of 40m isk, which can be divided up into 20 battleships, etc (way over exaggerated but you get the idea).

This means in a different security rated systems, there can be more people doing anomalies, increasing the amount people can be ratting and allowing a system to have a much higher pilot cap. As for alliances that have a much hire pilot count, this allows them to condense in current sov mechanics, allowing for more alliances to congregate to the surrounding space.

This will increase content availability as well as allowing pilots to sustain the same isk/hour as if they were solo, or even allow greater isk if fleeted together.

Other benefits-
*ESS modules will have a MUCH greater impact on pilots as to wanting one.
*This will allow for more salvage, which in turn makes more ship parts through minerals or drops.
*Sov Holders will WANT better sec depending on their alliance size and ability to hold more pilots in a single system reasonably. Everyone will want the maximum isk potential of -1.0’s as well as ability to condense their pilots (Great with new fozzie sov)
*Pirates will want those highly filled ESS modules.
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#2 - 2015-08-17 07:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Sitting Bull Lakota
Looking over your proposal, I think I understand the goal:
To increase the available isk in each system of null sov which would allow each system to accomodate the ratting needs of more players. Which, in turn, would allow more people to live in null and support sov activities.

I have two concerns.

First, how would increasing the value of each system lead to the standing coalitions deciding that they don't want/need as much space?

Second, wouldn't the greater availability of isk in null sov greatly diminish the value of isk and substantially weaken the whole economy of eve?



I'd argue that, following the recent buffs to null ores and general safety (at least against roaming cap fleets and titan bridges), null sec actually needs a debuff to its profitability to keep eve's general economy from becoming oversaturated by all these isk faucets.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2015-08-17 12:32:58 UTC
But we already condensed massively.

Also, yes, please, make Deklien even better!


While null does need an ISK buff, (Sitting bull, you make more ISK running highsec incursions than you do ratting in a bloody carrier. Please, tell me how that's the right way around.) one that just encourages people to multibox isn't the way to go imo.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2015-08-17 12:37:56 UTC
I'd rather not increase the isk faucet - but perhaps something like paying out decent chunks of concord LP

Why concord and not local corps? To avoid crashing a given market thus devaluing the LP reward, thus keeping a steady level of income AND simultaneously offering a manner of isk sink (in the shape of said LP stores).

And I mean a real decent level of reward.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#5 - 2015-08-17 13:15:14 UTC
Making the payouts in local LP would encourage movement by alliances and thus hopefully decrease the sov stagnation. I don't really understand why the bounties are paid by concord for rats killed in nullsec either :S

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2015-08-17 13:24:44 UTC
It'd never be enough to move an alliance for. The income level isn't enough to warrant strategic upheaval. It would also encourage more blues.

Nah you want something for line members to work with which doesn't really change too much in the way of value but is sustainable and draws them out.

Missions have been suggested before as they scale infinitely, not sure I like this as it adds safety - scanning mandated to locate, behind gates, deadspace etc.

Grezh
Hextrix Enterprise
#7 - 2015-08-17 13:31:55 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
But we already condensed massively.

Also, yes, please, make Deklien even better!


While null does need an ISK buff, (Sitting bull, you make more ISK running highsec incursions than you do ratting in a bloody carrier. Please, tell me how that's the right way around.) one that just encourages people to multibox isn't the way to go imo.


Apparently with the massive amount of data CCP can collect about EVE they believe that the "can make more money running incursion then ratting in null" is not a problem, and personally I agree; what everyone always fails to mention when they say you can make more money running incursion is the big emphasis on 'can'. Of course the absolute best case senario in highsec rivals a mediocre nullsec senario for making isk, but you don't mention that it's a real possibility to not get invited into the leet incursion fleet when there are too many people looking to join. I believe that the greatest sign that null doesn't need a buff to maximum possible income is what your own alliance has done with making the rattlesnake 350 mil in Jita, if the income disparity was as great as you say then why were you ratting in null instead of running incursions well before fozziesov hit?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2015-08-17 13:52:59 UTC
Grezh wrote:
I believe that the greatest sign that null doesn't need a buff to maximum possible income is what your own alliance has done with making the rattlesnake 350 mil in Jita

I agree with most of your post but this one I felt the need to comment on because you are blaming the wrong people for the price drop of the Rattle since it's re-balance.
A player, corp or alliance can ask whatever they want for a ship / module but in the end it is the players buying them that ultimately decide the prices. If you are on the selling side you should blame CCP since that is where it truly belongs.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#9 - 2015-08-17 13:55:39 UTC
There's also the consideration that if EVERYONE in eve ran incursions then the payouts and efficiency will drop for all but the most elite of contest fleets.

With a maximum of 3 concurrent highsec incursions (usually only 1 or 2 active with the remaining focuses on respawn timers) and with those peaking at about 15 systems per focus (Stadakorn: 1 HQ, 4 ASs, 5 VGs) you're limited in how many capsuleers can actually be earning isk at the same time from each focus (assuming about 3 fleets/system before contests start occurring due to spawn timers):

3x40 in HQ fleet, 12x20 in AS fleets and 15x10 in VG fleets. The MAXIMUM that this particular focus can support is 510 pilots at the same time.

For comparison a constellation like Kainokai only has 3 VGs and 1 AS system = approx 270 pilots.

So considering that there's usually a couple of focuses running and that those are the rough maximum and minimum figures we're looking at something like 500-1000 pilots that can be earning isk at any one time from highsec incursions before the efficiency starts dropping like a stone due to contests. That probably doesn't even equate to the number of pilots that can be supported by just a single region of nullsec and who allegedly earn somewhat similar incomes.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Lu Ziffer
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2015-08-17 14:05:08 UTC
@Grezh
He is just sad that he only makes 75mil per hour in his carrier doing 21 mouseclicks which was a realy hard job for him. At that speed he needs 60days to get a titan that is to long.

If 0.0 gets another ISK buff we will make 300mil ISK per hour with a BS and nobody is going mining.
Plex prices will skyrocket as there is no reason to sell plex if you can make 300mil ISK per hour
Nelthaerius
Dead and Delirious
BBQ BOIS
#11 - 2015-08-17 16:46:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nelthaerius
Lu Ziffer wrote:
@Grezh
He is just sad that he only makes 75mil per hour in his carrier doing 21 mouseclicks which was a realy hard job for him. At that speed he needs 60days to get a titan that is to long.

If 0.0 gets another ISK buff we will make 300mil ISK per hour with a BS and nobody is going mining.
Plex prices will skyrocket as there is no reason to sell plex if you can make 300mil ISK per hour

I fail to see how my proposition encourages the idea that if your solo in a battleship you will make more isk. I believe you should reread my statement. However to ease it for you I will explain more clearly.
The idea and purpose behind this is to encourage grouping up to anom (sort of like incursions), and when you do, the increase in potential isk will split more evenly which will allow you to maintain the same or better isk group ratting compared to the current mechanics. In current mechanics the only way you can make isk better than solo is if you bring in more or equivelent dps to clear the sites and make up for the % of isk your not recieving.

Ex. Anom payouy for solo=20m
Anom payout for duo( per person)= 10m
In my stated suggestion by buffing it 50% of the potential available isk from an anom with 2 people in it this changes to each person being able to have 15m instead of 10. ( You will only get the % increase if you fulfill 2 requirements, the correct null sec and having more pilots in site. This will only buff the sites to compensate for pilots being in them, not a flat buff.)
When you are ratting in groups, I don't know if you are competent in math or not but it still gets split between everyone. With my suggestion the more people you bring into the anom (according to the sec status) you still will be able to achieve the same or slightly better income as if you were solo. Which in the end encourages group ratting. Like incursions.
Nelthaerius
Dead and Delirious
BBQ BOIS
#12 - 2015-08-17 16:57:00 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Looking over your proposal, I think I understand the goal:
To increase the available isk in each system of null sov which would allow each system to accomodate the ratting needs of more players. Which, in turn, would allow more people to live in null and support sov activities.

I have two concerns.

First, how would increasing the value of each system lead to the standing coalitions deciding that they don't want/need as much space?

Second, wouldn't the greater availability of isk in null sov greatly diminish the value of isk and substantially weaken the whole economy of eve?



I'd argue that, following the recent buffs to null ores and general safety (at least against roaming cap fleets and titan bridges), null sec actually needs a debuff to its profitability to keep eve's general economy from becoming oversaturated by all these isk faucets.

All this really does is reduce the falloff of potential isk available when group ratting in cerrain null secs. If a -1.0 has 8 decent anoms and each one can accomidate 10 pilots thats 80 people able to rat without a falloff in isk potential.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#13 - 2015-08-17 17:32:18 UTC
Making sov null valuable and more condensed is an oxymoron. If you can cram more people into any system, then it does not become more valuable. If every system can be turned into a glorious anomaly farming ISK fire hose, that does not drive conflict. It just devalues ISK.

CCP's efforts to make it so that "more pilots can live prosperously all crammed into one alliance's space" actually devalues space. People should instead be encouraged to spread out: "If I went over there a few jumps, I might be a little less safe, but I wouldn't have to compete with as many people for resources." Alliances needing to own more space so that their members can prosper should be a conflict driver.

The problem with that is that as long as high sec has competitive income sources, it will become the default spillover area if a null sec area gets too cramped. Once again, CCP is screwed, because if they nerf high sec, they risk pissing off a major part of the population.

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

Nelthaerius
Dead and Delirious
BBQ BOIS
#14 - 2015-08-17 17:57:46 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Making sov null valuable and more condensed is an oxymoron. If you can cram more people into any system, then it does not become more valuable. If every system can be turned into a glorious anomaly farming ISK fire hose, that does not drive conflict. It just devalues ISK.

CCP's efforts to make it so that "more pilots can live prosperously all crammed into one alliance's space" actually devalues space. People should instead be encouraged to spread out: "If I went over there a few jumps, I might be a little less safe, but I wouldn't have to compete with as many people for resources." Alliances needing to own more space so that their members can prosper should be a conflict driver.

The problem with that is that as long as high sec has competitive income sources, it will become the default spillover area if a null sec area gets too cramped. Once again, CCP is screwed, because if they nerf high sec, they risk pissing off a major part of the population.

Wouldn't say a larger alliance under new aov mechanics want being able to cram more pilots into smaller space which makes it easier to defend. So by that a larger alliance will want -1.0s since more pilots can live easier than say -.7s. So alliances will reasonably want to consolidate to these areas. And if memory serves alliances are having trouble maintaining their current systems being spread out. So allowing a much higher pilot cap per system allows more alliances to fit into null, increasing conflict and keeping the value of the isk the same.
All my suggestion means is individual pilots can maintain isk/hour while grouping the same as incursions. I don't forsee why so many people are viewing this as a drastic and enourmous buff to isk when all this does is allow people to group without a falloff exactly the same as incursions.