Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I know it's another 'How to solve Null' topic, but it's an idea I haven't seen before, so **** it I'm posting it. I'll try to keep it short.

This is not about the entosis link mechanics. CCP will tweak it and it eventually will be ok or be replaced.

I think the risk vs reward balance in null should be work the other way around as it does now. Here is why:

At the moment I see a few problems:
* There is no insentive to take more space once you've got the sov you like.
* Once you are able to take and protect valuable rescources you want, you will start accumulating and will get stronger and stronger over a long period of time, creating an unbalanced situation.
* The mechanics reward alliances who concentrate a lot of people in a small area.

When you are active in your space (ratting, mining, ...) two things happen. The space gets safer (indexes increase, more eyes & ships in system, ...) and the space gets more valueable (better anomalies spawn, better belts spawn). So you are actually rewarded to remain in a safe place.

But what will happen if you reverse this mechanic:
Inhabited space, far away from outposts will have the best anomalies and ore. When a lot of people start using a system the returns will start to get worse (lower bounties, less anomalies, lower value ore, ect ...).

This will reduce the alliance size, will increse travel and it will force alliances to expand their space. NPC null will get more valueable.
It introduces a mechanic that fits nicely with the natural behavior of null sec forces: accumulate isk >> go to war >> return home and accumulate again.

All of the above leads to conflict, which generates content.

Capital content:

Content for capital ships is lacking at the moment. I think applying the same principle to moons will generate content for these ships. Moons should deplete over time when mined and should respawn in another area.
Systems with low usage should have a better chance to spawn moons with minerals. Capitals might also be used to 'maintain' or 'repair' moons. The moon will give out minerals for a longer period, but at the cost of putting capitals at risk (risks vs rewards again). This also will allow smaller entities to have a better chance in keeping their moons in stead of loosing it over and over again to the local bully. If you combine this with the reduced jump ranges capital ships now have, it might generate interesting content. Introducing a travel mode for capitals might be something worth considering too.

Benefits for Sov holders:

These benefits could include system upgrades which reduce the effects of system and/or moon usage, system or constallation scanners for anomalies and moon minerals, modules which increase the chances moons / anoms spawn ect .. The sky is the limit.

Even moving citadels around might be an option one day. It's time null sec gets off his lazy fat ass and start to be space nomads. It's time for another change!

If the lore or realism is the only issue, it's worth trying I guess. I'm not talking about moon spawning, but the spawning of minerals on said moons. This can be explained by shifting (Ice) surfaces, astroid impacts, ...
If you really want to explain everything, try explaining system indexes, vunerablity windows, indestructable stations, reinforcement timers, ect ect ect ...

But please don't go off topic to much.

The idea behind moons depleting is generating a dynamic environment in null sec. This will force players to adapt, travel, claim and protect new space all the time in stead of attacking Proviblock because they (we) are bored.

What do you thing will happen if a small alliance suddenly finds 3 tech moons in their back yard? B-R v2? I sure hope so!

At the moment null sec income for induviduals seems to be high enough for them to live there. The only change will be that you'll have to find a low populated system in order to retain your income. It might require a small buff or a nerf, but that's something which can be worked out.

I don't really think an slightly increased difficulty won't drive the null sec player off. A good portion of the null sec population isn't interested in high sec content, or running missions for example. Last 5% PVE nerf didn't scare players off either. I for instance would rather quit Eve then go to high sec. I can imagine I'm not the only one.

The general idea is that players and alliances should be flexible and moving around in order to retain their income.

True sec can still come into play as in how many players a system can support. High true sec systems should degrade slower as lower true sec systems do, but should still degrade.


Give 2 kids a bit of candy and they'll be happy. Give only 1 piece of candy and they'll fight over it sooner or later.

In Eve we need conflicts in order to create our content. Shortages will create conflict, thus content.
At the moment Null sec is full off 'isk fountains of wealth'. Getting rich is very easy. Fozzie sov created a huge null sec PVE buff. We have so many anomalies we don't know what to shoot first.

Is it any different than magically never ending minerals on one moon?

Respawning moons makes way more sense than being able to milk a single one for 10+ years with no end in sight. No incentive to do anything but turtle in and suck up ISK. Whereas limited moon resources would create conflict. And conflict creates content. And content attracts new players. And new players gives CCP more money. And more money means a better game.

See how that works?

Mr Epeen

I used to buy a PLEX + ships as a relative newbie in Worm Hole.
I basically break even in Null Sec.

What you suggest would just be a huge pain in the neck.
(The moon minerals thing might be okay if it shifts around relatively closely)

Moved to Features & Ideas.

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that moon depletion is resonable, considering the long run, especially at 10+ as you say (and hopefully many more decades to come of EVE).

How about this then:

PI offers an extant model, perhaps, for moon management, with its own existing game interfaces and systems.
The effort ingame is small, but would be consistent, if PI style resource management on the surface was transplanted also to Moon harvesting, as it is on Planets. Or am I missing something. Atleast it would involve some small player interaction.

No, in the sense that magically appearing Moons is just wrong, and as OP later stated, was a misunderstanding.
He meant, according to a later comment, that the resources respawn, not the Moon itself.

Im stuck in a **** position, cos Im arguing realism in a sci-fi system!

Nonetheless, I tried my best above by suggesting PI style mechanics ( and the existing game code/systems) being applied to Moon harvesting in someway as well. That removes the "moon exhaustion" and misunderstoof "moon disappearance and magical reapperance" issue, as well as requiring some small degree of player involvement for maximum goo output.

Hit me with your best shot, Im bracing as hard as I can against a Mr.Epeen rebuttal! :D

PS: ****, we got moved to the F&I blackhole...

Thats why I suggested one of the sov structures would be able to scan moons in the nearby systems :)

If you just break even in Null sec you either are doing something horrebly wrong or you are in a bad place.

I assume you just are in an unprofitable null sec area. My sugestion would increase the income of the people living there significantly. NPC null sec often has stations far apart, hostiles very close and very poor intel. These hostile pockets of space will have a low population, thus very good anomalies, moons ect ...

It's very simple actually. The more unsafe a system is the more rewarding it will be.

At the risk of sounding like a goon... why go to war?

Every 'make the XXXXX deplete!' idea I've seen misses fact that each time your moon dries up and blows away, a new moon from your enemy will be drying up and floating into your system. You don't need to move, just re-moon.

Figure out a way to make the enemy's territory more valuable than your own, which can't be gamed by simply blue-ing up and trading spaces periodically.