These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposed Changes Empire Space and some supporting changes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#341 - 2015-08-22 11:02:15 UTC
NPC corp is 11%. I can put my own corp at 0% if I wish. It is like tithing to someone who doesnt do much, well except protect you from wardecs.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#342 - 2015-08-24 06:53:35 UTC
Added some ideas to the OP that people have been commenting about to get them discussed a bit more

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#343 - 2015-08-24 19:45:05 UTC
SOV already exists and already destroyed about 90 percent of the systems in EVE so naturally we should duplicate the idea in the 10 percent of EVE that isnt a total snooze fest.

This isnt just my sole opinion CCP isnt scrambling to do something about SOV because it has been good for the game.

Homogenization has sent the biggest online game in history to its deathbed and it would swat a small niche game like EVE straight to the F2P graveyard.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#344 - 2015-08-24 20:10:55 UTC
I still look at the idea and think most will conclude "why bother?"

Solo/small entities need not apply for reason of insufficient strength.
Entitiles capable of taking the constellation get locked into an endless game of king of the hill which sucks up any profit gained by being on top.
Non-combat focused entities of similar size do better by being able to apply their focus freely without incurring continual defense costs (whether via merc costs or internal defense routing players away from industrial/PvE focuses and the gains provided).
Fight trolling instead of actual use is encouraged since owning the structure makes your PvE/Indy pilots targets.

The most beneficial arrangement for these structures as proposed is a large PvP corp/alliance with indy characters who don't undock and rely on out of corp (or better NPC corp) logistics. Meanwhile nothing prevents or even discourages hunting smaller prey.
Joanna RB
JoJo Industries n Shipbreakers
#345 - 2015-08-31 22:04:32 UTC
Lyric Masters wrote:

If you would seriously stay docked to a one-man wardec that wasn't active in your system, you are far too risk-adverse. Unless of course, you are AFK in which case you should garner zero sympathy.

If you would seriously even consider undocking a 2b+ ratting ship while under wardeck, you wont get any sympathy when you get locator agented and smashed open before you have the chance to warp out.
If you keep your 2b+ ship docked, the wardecker has defeated you without even undocking himself.

Either way, its wardecker 1, you 0. There is no possible way a non-combat player can defeat a wardeck. Even if they fight and win, their operations are being interrupted and they gain nothing, the decker corp just reships.

Lyric Masters wrote:

"Non-combatant" -- by undocking in EVE, you fully consent to PVP and the possible loss of your ship. You can look it up.


This statement, probably the most stupid, hated, worthless but often heard in EVE, is the main reason EVE is struggling with player numbers.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#346 - 2015-09-01 06:34:28 UTC
Homogenizing a game is ALWAYS bad for a game, removing real choice removes players permanently without gaining any new ones.

If you start with a bowl of mixed fruit you appeal to a broad audiance. If you change the bowl to only have variants of oranges you lose a lot of your audience because while you have 20 different orange variants you lose everyone that hates oranges. EVE has one apple, highsec space, in a bowl full of variants of oranges, if you dump the only apple in the bowl you will lose subs.

If your idea is implemented, it will cost EVE subs, it will negatively effect CCPs finances, which will permently hurt EVE.

Lets hold out hope that CCP devs are better at game design and direction than you are or we are in for problems.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#347 - 2015-09-01 06:48:40 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Current Proposal (after reading the entire thread again)

All points are still open for discussion

A constellation structure set in one system that gives a bonus to bearing by the corp/alliance that owns it. This includes but may not be limited too
1. Bounty payouts
2. Mission rewards
3. LP Generation
4. Mining cycle times
5. Station related fees

It will also provide to the corp/alliance that owns it
Your Corp/Alliance ticker next to the empire that owns the space throughout the constellation AKA sov lite (if not claimed it will be blank or say unclaimed)
The ticker will link to your corp/alliance description (will show who is active in the area you are in. Maybe you will join up?)
I have toyed with the idea of faction police bearing your alliance logo but have been told and agree its kinda silly. what do you think?
Slightly increased refining yields
Slightly reduced production times

Ideas to discuss
Cap an alliance to owning only one of these in Empire space?
Scaling costs in owning more then one of these in Empire space?
Wardecs getting scaling costs that get quite expensive beyond 10 decs

It requires
An upkeep cost of some sort that is not insignificant but on the other hand is not bank breaking to a smaller group of players
You to defend it if somebody else decides your constellation should be theirs (insert current ideas for vulnerability periods and entosis links). This will require a wardec by the offensive party. Unclaimed one's could be Entosised by anybody

To prevent abuse of the newly formed battling bear corps
Wardecs would be hard capped at 10 offensive decs (or whatever the powers that be work out is acceptable). This would leave Mercenary work in highsec viable while pretty much destroying the blanket decs (sorry guys Bear). Assisting would be possible for both sides of a war however an assist would count as 1 of the 10 war limit. To prevent abuse assisting a corp defensively it would be possible to assist all their defensive wars as if they were the same war.

The goal of all this?
Drive content while removing the predator/prey system that currently is the way things are. I have recently spent a lot of time with groups that would fight if they thought they stood a chance. I feel this proposal would drive conflict between like groups while not removing the value of mercenary work. If you have other ideas to support this goal please post them.


So instead of making the "real" Sov a good gain exept for the flag, we want to introduce "a Sov light" in highsec. There is plenty of 0.0 space available, they can take that and go play there.

-1
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#348 - 2015-09-01 15:04:22 UTC
Tabyll Altol wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Current Proposal (after reading the entire thread again)

All points are still open for discussion

A constellation structure set in one system that gives a bonus to bearing by the corp/alliance that owns it. This includes but may not be limited too
1. Bounty payouts
2. Mission rewards
3. LP Generation
4. Mining cycle times
5. Station related fees

It will also provide to the corp/alliance that owns it
Your Corp/Alliance ticker next to the empire that owns the space throughout the constellation AKA sov lite (if not claimed it will be blank or say unclaimed)
The ticker will link to your corp/alliance description (will show who is active in the area you are in. Maybe you will join up?)
I have toyed with the idea of faction police bearing your alliance logo but have been told and agree its kinda silly. what do you think?
Slightly increased refining yields
Slightly reduced production times

Ideas to discuss
Cap an alliance to owning only one of these in Empire space?
Scaling costs in owning more then one of these in Empire space?
Wardecs getting scaling costs that get quite expensive beyond 10 decs

It requires
An upkeep cost of some sort that is not insignificant but on the other hand is not bank breaking to a smaller group of players
You to defend it if somebody else decides your constellation should be theirs (insert current ideas for vulnerability periods and entosis links). This will require a wardec by the offensive party. Unclaimed one's could be Entosised by anybody

To prevent abuse of the newly formed battling bear corps
Wardecs would be hard capped at 10 offensive decs (or whatever the powers that be work out is acceptable). This would leave Mercenary work in highsec viable while pretty much destroying the blanket decs (sorry guys Bear). Assisting would be possible for both sides of a war however an assist would count as 1 of the 10 war limit. To prevent abuse assisting a corp defensively it would be possible to assist all their defensive wars as if they were the same war.

The goal of all this?
Drive content while removing the predator/prey system that currently is the way things are. I have recently spent a lot of time with groups that would fight if they thought they stood a chance. I feel this proposal would drive conflict between like groups while not removing the value of mercenary work. If you have other ideas to support this goal please post them.


So instead of making the "real" Sov a good gain exept for the flag, we want to introduce "a Sov light" in highsec. There is plenty of 0.0 space available, they can take that and go play there.

-1


Except that Sov sucks. Why would you want to hold Sov?

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#349 - 2015-09-01 15:13:59 UTC
Joanna RB wrote:

Lyric Masters wrote:

"Non-combatant" -- by undocking in EVE, you fully consent to PVP and the possible loss of your ship. You can look it up.


This statement, probably the most stupid, hated, worthless but often heard in EVE, is the main reason EVE is struggling with player numbers.


By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.

And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.

The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#350 - 2015-09-01 15:38:36 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
...

By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.

And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.

The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing.


On the upside just think of all the prospective sociopaths EvE has kept off the streets over the years :D

New EvE advertising tagline:

CCP: Proud to play a part in Global Care in the Community...
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#351 - 2015-09-01 15:42:28 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
...

By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.

And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.

The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing.


On the upside just think of all the prospective sociopaths EvE has kept off the streets over the years :D

New EvE advertising tagline:

CCP: Proud to play a part in Global Care in the Community...


Thanks for making me crack a smile this morning. Needed it.

Seriously though, the vast majority of Eve criminals I've meant are fantastic people. I can only think of one exception but I won't name names. (wait maybe two come to think of it)

My time among carebears though, I met a lot of people I consider to be awful people.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#352 - 2015-09-01 16:26:28 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
...

By undocking in Eve you do consent to PVP. If you wish to avoid it, you are welcome try and do so. But you must try and do so.

And no, the people who truly love Eve embrace that fact. For some the thrill of combat is worth the risk of the ship. For others the excitement lies in careful planning, plotting and sidestepping in preparation of activities to ensure no such losses occur.

The moment your ship undocks it has already been destroyed. It's up to it's pilot to try and keep that ship alive long enough to redock before exploding, or to ensure that it's destruction is worthy. Sometimes you'll succeed. Sometimes you will not. The idea of safety in Eve is a fallacy and goes against the game's intent. Danger and risk are what makes Eve worth playing.


On the upside just think of all the prospective sociopaths EvE has kept off the streets over the years :D

New EvE advertising tagline:

CCP: Proud to play a part in Global Care in the Community...


Thanks for making me crack a smile this morning. Needed it.

Seriously though, the vast majority of Eve criminals I've meant are fantastic people. I can only think of one exception but I won't name names. (wait maybe two come to think of it)

My time among carebears though, I met a lot of people I consider to be awful people.

Having spent a large amount of time among both I will say that both groups have their questionable people and I am in no way talking about their ingame methods... I tend to find that the RL threats come from the prey community (mostly there are some shining examples from the predator community) and I have heard and read chats from the predator side that honestly made me wonder if those people used those same mouths to kiss their mothers and hands to hug them (again the Prey community has some shining examples of this too). What I'm not a fan of is that there is a prey community and a predator community and no reason to intermix and I feel this is the main barrier between the 2 groups is the lack of incentive to mix them. I will respond to the posts that deserve it in the morning (like the orange post that is actually the first decent rebuttal so far until it got ruined in the last 2 sentences). see yall in the morning

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin