Crime & Punishment

As many of you know, I have been nominated to run for CSM. This thread is my first attempt at solidifying a CSM platform. I am posting it here because much of what I have to say deals with wardecs and hisec risk, issues the denizens of C&P are well versed in. Understand that these are not promises as CSM members actually have limited power, but these are all things I'd like to make happen if given the opportunity.

I feel that hisec is stagnant, and know that I am not alone in this belief. It seems to me that too many players are living out their hisec lives in NPC corps relatively risk-free earning the same kinds of incomes that players in player corps do, and that everyone in hisec is earning a much better living than those living in riskier areas of space. I have several proposals to rectify this. (In the interest of fairness, I cannot claim credit for creating any of the individual suggestions below, I am merely collecting ideas that I think come together cohesively.)


One large motivation to stay in an NPC corp is the threat of wardec, and rightly so. Currently, it is almost trivial for a large, experienced PvP corp to wardec any number of smaller entities for an effectively unlimited time. On the flip side, it is also exceedingly easy for members of a player corp who don't want to participate in a wardec to simply drop corp and wait the war out, or to reform in a new corp. I want to move away from the current state of a handful of large merc corps wardeccing everyone under the sun and unwilling targets simply disbanding. Instead, I'd like to see a larger numbers of smaller merc corps wardeccing targets for a specific purpose instead of just for easy station ganks and targeted corps staying whole to protect what they've built.

1A. Cap aggressive wardecs. I am generally not in favor of hard caps in EvE, but after speaking with a few pilots in large merc corps I feel this one makes sense. By allowing for unlimited aggression, blanket wardecs and trolling wardecs are encouraged and I feel this strongly hampers player corp creation. I had considered scaling wardec fees to increase with number of aggressive wardecs, but it was pointed out to me that this would just encourage very large merc corps in order to cover the higher fees which runs counter to my goals. 10 feels like a good number, but this is up for discussion.This has been thoroughly overcome by events. Kill it dead with fire. Arbitrary mechanics are bad, even if they serve a purpose.

1B. Change wardec fees. I would suggest keeping the current wardec fee (50 million ISK) the same, but have it scale based on the relative size of the invovled corps (it scales up if attacking a smaller corp, the number of active wardecs, and down if attacking a larger one) and the length of the war (the more time you've spent at war with a corp in the past six months, the more expensive it is to maintain). These scale factors (the specifics of which would need to be determined) would be applied to each wardec every time the bill is issued (i.e. you wouldn't get billed or refunded for changes mid-war). I feel that this change would still allow hisec PvP corps to carry on about their business of havoc and mayhem, but would discourage large corps from targeting small corps, discourage blanket wardecs, encourage smaller mercenary corps by way of cheaper wardec fees, and encourage aggressors to meet their goals quickly instead of dragging wars out.

1C. Change corporation behavior. While engaged in a wardec (as either as a defender/ally or an aggressor), all corporation members would receive a 48 hour cooldown before being able to leave the corporation. While the wardec is active, any player who clicks "leave corporation" would start the 48 hour cooldown and could leave the corp after that cooldown has expired, much like a director has to wait 24 hours after dropping roles to leave. This guarantees the aggressor at least 24 hours of defender vulnerability to combat, while still leaving the defenders able to evade the war to some extent if they so choose. Note that this change would apply to all corps involved in the war, so it would apply to aggressors and defensive allies as well as defenders. I am aware that there is some potential for abuse here (i.e. hostile alt joins corp, hostile's main wardec corp, hostile's alt gets free reign in corp for 48 hours) but I feel that potential can be effectively mitigated by proper use of roles and friendly fire settings.

In addition, so long as a corp has an active aggressive wardec, any player being accepted into the corp as a member would have a 48 hour cooldown before actually being admitted. This is to discourage merc corps from abusing the fact that wardec costs would scale with relative aggressor and target size. (i.e. large aggressor dumps all members but the CEO, wardecs small corp, all mercs rejoin aggressor.) I realize that this wouldn't prevent it outright but it should hopefully be enough to discourage it, especially with multiple wars running concurrently.Kill this one dead too. Again, arbitrary mechanics are bad.


Continued below....

Currently, different ores are distributed based on the NPC faction owning the space and the security level of the system. While this is a good start, I feel it needs to be taken a step further. (Note, these changes would only apply to ores in fixed asteroid belts in hisec, not anomalies containing ice or rare ores or belts outside of hisec. I'm open to changing those if necessary, but I feel that hisec belts are the problem.)

5A. Limit higher quality ore variants. I would limit +10% variant ores to 0.6 systems and below and +5% variant ores to 0.8 systems and below. This would leave only "base" ores in 0.9 and 1.0 systems and shift mining profitability towards lower security (but still hisec) space.

5B: Shift the ore/security scale. Currently, Veldspar and Scordite are available everywhere, Pyroxeres and Plagioclase are available in 0.9 and below, and Kernite and Omber are available in 0.7 and below. (This varies slightly by region, but it's the highest security that a given ore is available.) I would shift this distribution down the security scale. Veldspar would be available everywhere, Scordite would be available in 0.9 and below, Pyroxeres and Plagioclase would be available in 0.8 and below, and Kernite and Omber would be available in 0.6 and below. This would also shift mining profitability towards lower security (but still hisec) space.

5C: Balance the Procurer and Skiff. Currently, we have three "flavors" of mining barges: max yield, max capacity, and max tank. I feel that this is a good balance overall with one exception: The Procurer and Skiff currently have almost double the ore capacity that the Covetor and Hulk have, respectively. This leaves them in the position of being relatively low risk to fly due to their sturdy tanks yet still able to mine for a considerable amount of time before having to offload, which is supposed to be the regime of the Retriever and Mackinaw. I would suggest adjusting the ore holds on both the Procurer and Skiff down by ~25% to 9000 m^3 and 11500 m^3 respectively to better balance them in relation to the other barges and force players to make harder choices when it comes to mining in relative safety. While I realize that this will have an impact on mining everywhere, not just hisec, I feel that the impact will be most felt there given their rightful popularity in the presence of suicide gankers.



In their entirety, I feel that these changes would make wardecs and player corp membership more meaningful and shift some of the primary sources of hisec income towards lower security space where there is more risk associated with earning it. Players who chose to could still remain in NPC corps in 1.0 and 0.9 systems indefinitely, but they would be at a decided disadvantage over those who joined player corps and moved out to lower security parts of hisec. Players who chose instead to join player corps and move to slightly less safe portions of hisec could still make just as much income as they do now, if not potentially more, in exchange for increased risk yet not as much risk as losec, nullsec, or wormhale space.

You may be asking yourself, "Why not just push people who want to make more ISK out into losec and make them fight for it?" As much as I would like to see losec activity increase, I also understand that there are a large number of players who will never voluntarily leave hisec. They simply don't want to and many of them never will. I don't agree with that choice in playstyle, but if EvE truly is a sandbox, we need to leave a relatively safe hisec as a viable option. If we make the only place where a large number of players will play too undesirable, they will seek their fortunes elsewhere. Not in losec, nullsec, or wormhole space...but outside of EvE. So, while I do want to reign in the current risk vs. reward dynamic for hisec, I don't want to nerf it outright. We want to retain players, not drive them off.

One other topic I'd like to address is allowing capital ships in hisec. I do not currently support this idea and I recognize that there are several non-trivial drawbacks associated with it, but I do also see some interesting opportunities for content, interaction, and player retention if done properly. If they were limited to 0.7 systems and below via gate travel only (no hisec cynos) and limited to capitals only (i.e. no supercaps), I feel that this would dovetail nicely with the notion of increasing the risk involved and income available in the lower end of the hisec security spectrum while leaving higher security (and lower income) systems safer. Realistically though, any discussion of this idea would have to happen after existing hisec issues have been addressed and time has passed for hisec to reach a new equilibrium; making this change now with the given current state of hisec would, I feel, just further break it.

Having said all of that, I want to emphasize the fact that I am open to suggestions. I sincerely feel that my overall proposal is solid and will help revitalize hisec, but I by no means feel that these are the only ways to do it. I'm attached to my goals, not the methods I've chosen to reach them. I want to work with other hisec dwellers who have solid ideas on how to address the issues before us. I value the insight and points of view that other players have, so give me your feedback and ideas!

Thank you for your time, and please spread the word!

I waited. Now I'll wait till you post, then I'll reply again.

OK I agree with much of what you say.
Yes the war dec mechanic needs an overhaul. But I do feel that whilst it is so easy to avoid them, any changes should come with that loophole removed.
1A. Caps tends not to work and we could end up with the whole war dec shield situation again.
1B. Fees may work in regards to size, but I remain on the fence with this atm.
1C. Changes to behaviour should as I said before, look at the easy avoidance first IMHO.

NPC
2A. I quite like the tax idea. I'm not one for forcing players into and out of situations. But I feel you are correct that the whole risk/reward is askew, in regards to NPC corps.
2B. History I'm not sure about. While I see what you are aiming for, it has little impact on me so I cannot truthfully comment.


3. Agents yes. It make sense that the harder agents, would be closer to lower security space.

4. Agreed.

5A. Agreed.
5B. Agreed.
5C Agreed. Wasn't it stated that the ganking of miners, was at an all time low?

Your proposal for adjusting the locations of hisec agents could have an interesting effect on the distribution of mission hubs and some of the smaller trade hubs.

Any lvl 4 agents that ended up in lowsec would be ignored by the majority, just as the lvl 5 agents are. People have a risk threshold that they won't cross, in my case I'm happy to PI in lowsec, there's no way in hell I'd try and run missions there.

Agreed. I would place the absolute best level 4 agents in losec, but leave plenty of really good ones in 0.5 systems.

Again, increasing risk without outright nerfing. Moving most level 4 agents to losec would be a nerf in my view.

Generally happy but reserving for considered feedback tomorrow.

One thing to note: I'm going to be away from the forums for about three days starting in a few hours. Please don't take any lack of response until then as lack of interest. If anything, I think it'll give you folks time to comment and I'll have a critical mass of stuff to read when I come back.

I'm no fan of NPC corps, but wouldn't requiring them to pay extra taxes when using the market shut them out of trading?

CCP actually did this once - they took 10% off. Turns out, all those carebears that run incursions for the community and the teamwork were flat-out lying (carebear liars, who would have thought it? :P). The tears were so bad that CCP reversed the nerf very quickly.

5 no
6 YES