Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.