Player Features and Ideas Discussion

But we want to encourage MORE people to live in null, which means having a higher population density. Your idea does nothing of the sort, actively punishes people for using the space they own, and encourages them to just give up, move to lowsec or thera, and make money elsewhere.

Why would you want null to be a wasteland?

So basically i get punished to be active and defend my space. Is that the reward for defending my systems every day.

No thx.

-1

This proposal is completely different than your quoted CCP change to null. Making static areas of low and high value only leads to the big boys taking the good space and staying there increasing the gap between the big guys and the little guys. This is bad.

OP's idea to have resources move based on activity would work as it would take a large force longer to relocate than a small group. It also means people will need to travel to their content opening themselves up to becoming content themselves. Currently alliances can find a good ratting system, put up an outpost and now they are next to 100% safe if they watch local. Make null bears travel for their content and if necessary increase the rewards to compensate for the travel so people don't just move to highsec.

I'd prefer nullsec had it's income increased, I'd rather the time-to-buy-ship not be longer as ship losses do already hurt in eve.

But surely nerfing highsec income would make it take longer to buy a ship, as of now highsec has better isk/he than null with incursions. So nerfing that must increase time to but a ship.

And what would you do for max profit? Most ships prices can't go much lower already or they are produced at a loss.

You are assuming people will relocate and that is a dubious assumption. Why move? Why not just stay in your current space?

Is Space Alliance XYZ’s current space going to become completely fallow? If yes, then will the space for Alliance 123 which is next door also become completely fallow from the people there using it? If not, then why will Space Alliance XYZ’s space become fallow? Seems to be, based on the OP, everyone’s space will decrease in value depending on use. That is the value of a system is determined by some function:

Value = f(n;x)

Where N is the number of people using the space and x is an array of parameters defining the initial value of the space (i.e. when n = 0). Further that f is decreasing in n. But if an alliance has a number of systems they can minimize the effects of this new mechanic by spreading their people out.

Suppose we have two systems and to keep it simple, the x parameters are the same for both systems. How would you maximize the value of both systems simultaneously? I submit that in this case the solution is to put half your pilots in one system and the other half in the other.

Even if we let system quality vary, then players would experiment with the numbers until they had a rough idea of how many players could be in each system so as to not degrade the system as little as possible relative to other systems. That is, if a system had a very “high” x, you’d put more pilots in that system than in a system with a “low” x. In the end, systems would be roughly of equal value.

Now, if this is true. Why go fight your neighbor? Unless he is an idiot, his space is just as good as yours. And even if he is an idiot, in the end you’ll be back where you are in your current space.

The only reason is expansion. Hold the systems you currently have and expand and bring in more pilots to your alliance/coalition. But that comes with its own costs/problems, so after a certain point that will lose its allure as well.

So, tell me…why would this system promote a dynamic and changing NS. Seems to me, that in the end it would head towards a steady state.

I apologise for the misunderstanding but I had meant only moon resources. So that on an alliance/ coalition scale there would be reason to move. Possibly even reason for small alliances to capture unused (and easy to take sov of) systems which would have higher value for a time. The aim wouldn't be to spread out pilots as such but more movement in space is good for content. Think of all the supers caught trying to move around the phoebe change, now imagine this is a regular occurance spurred by dwindling moon resources.

A concern would be that alliances would simply give up caring about moon resources and take more renters but IF belts and anomalies also could be exhausted for a while then even that tactic would not work long term and alliances must move. Remember much of nullsec is currently empty so there is plenty of space to move around in. And when a big group moves on for greener pastures small groups can move in and take the empty space.

A steady state might be a possibility but due to the time needed to start and stop large campaigns this might act to hold off an equilibrium.

I doubt alliances will chase random moon income. My guess is they'd shift income sources such as taxation of ratting income, and maybe imposing user fees for certain station services (refining being the main one). They’d treat moon income as a bonus based on how things move around randomly.

And if you broadened it to include all resources and the noting the costs associated with campaigns the desire to move could be weakened even further and I find it highly unlikely it would be increased. And yeah, quite a bit of NS is “empty” but it is not abandoned in that people still claim sov over that space.

As I noted, if you had a systems value decline with the number of pilots/usage, then the solution to maximize space is to spread people out. “Good systems” would have a higher population and “bad” systems smaller populations so that in the end the various systems are providing roughly the same income. Since this would be true everywhere for every corporation, alliance, and coalition, you’d probably end up with space that is all roughly of equal value. And corporations, alliances and coalitions could monitor this via tax revenues on various activities as tax revenues are based on flat taxes. That is, if your tax is ‘t’, then multiply your tax revenue by 1/t and you’ll know how much revenue that system is producing. If a system is producing less revenue but activity is high relative to other systems….move people out of that system.

This way, a corporation, alliance or coalition will maximize the value of their systems. Now there is even less incentive to move because if you move you’ll have to start this process all over again assigning people systems, etc. and tweaking things again to get it right. So not only is there the cost of a campaign to take space, the set up costs to maximize the value of that space.

And where exactly will these “greener pastures” be? The guys next door are simply not using their space at all? They aren’t ratting or mining…every? Then why are they holding sov to begin with if not to reap some of the rewards? And even if this is the case, some space is being held, but not used at all and is, relatively speaking, more valuable than the surrounding space they’ll be invaded by those who want to use it…and there…once people start using it…where will the “greener pastures” be”?

Or lets think of it this way….what happens if I make your income stream, IRL, random, but it is at the end of the year the same. Will you starve some weeks when income is low, then go on spending sprees other weeks when your income is high? Or will you try to smooth things out by saving when income is high so you can spend when income is low? There is quite a bit of evidence that people prefer a smooth consumption pattern even when income is volatile. Given that campaigns are extremely costly undertakings…I don’t see coalitions or alliances doing it if all they are going to get, in the end, is income similar to what they had in their old sov. In fact, these alliances and coalitions would be explicitly worse off because they’d have incurred this large loss with little or no additional income to offset that loss.

This summerises it quite nicely.

Moon rescources are a large part of alliance income. Just look at PL's recovery after B-R, their income is massive (they replaced 5.500 bil worth of supers in 10 months). So what about the alliances which didn't loose that much? Some of them have been accumelating for years.

I remeber a corp member of mine roaming belts in NPC null sec trying to find officer NPC's. He succeeded several times and bragged about it on Facebook. He took a lot of risks venturing in unsafe space. But all in all his travels returned him far less isk per hour as a null sec miner does with little risk. The miner stays in a (bubble protected) deep space null sec system, draggin ore to a can while whatching porn on his second monitor. So why does he have a better income? This is wrong.

The main idea about my original OP is that Eve needs to be a more dynamic environment where alliances are pushed to wage war. At the moment a lot of alliances are ok with what they have, thus creating a blue donut. The current imperium Providence war is only happening because they are bored. There is no real reason behind it. It's an artificially created war. Drifter incursions are similar and in other cases sponsors even have been sacrificing Revelations and Titans in staged events to create content.

I'm sure the details aren't perfect, but the general idea is that some need to suffer in order to create content. Null sec needs to be more nomadic.

In general I feel a lot of support for the idea behind the OP. More as expected actually. Ofcourse there is some healthy critisism and some worried players, but for now it stands. Please continue to discuss the OP, but don't go off track to much. Try to keep the general idea in mind.

"Higher risk means better rewards. Safe systems should have deminishing returns. "