These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Null sec Conflict creation changes

Author
Bilbert lashlily
Toad Whipper's United
#1 - 2016-02-07 20:51:34 UTC
Null sec currently has an issue of stagnation, after many years this issue is starting to erode. but I believe there could be a way to drive conflicts a little better.

Disclaimer: this idea is not entirely my own, but I cant find a cross post from anywhere on here and I don't remember whose idea it originally was.

So, in null sec the Ihub is the most important part of sovereignty right now. Most wars usually start off, kill the ihub and station and then worry about the tcu, as the tcu provides no real benefits other then your name on the map.

I propose the TCU generates an actual passive income, that is affected by the index levels. so a system with all the industry and rating indexes at 0 has very low income and a system with level 5 indexes has a rather high income.

The income would be distributed 3 ways. The first 50% going to Corp or the alliance who owns the tcu. The second 40% going straight into the TCU itself. which would be dropped in a coin like currency upon the destruction of the tcu. And the last 10% going to paying the sov bill. All these number are negotiable but the overall idea would be a massive ess that cant be killed in 2 days and cant be stolen from.

The longer the TCU is alive, the more isk that will be stored inside. Making the potential profit from killing a long standing alliance incredibly lucrative. And smaller, newer alliances being less so.

Eventually, all alliances would be worth it to go after, and wars that were costly could turn a major profit.
Snowmann
Arrow Industries
#2 - 2016-02-07 20:56:04 UTC
How would you prevent an Alliance from destroying their own TCU to get the isk payout at some point?
Bilbert lashlily
Toad Whipper's United
#3 - 2016-02-07 21:01:52 UTC
You couldn't, but you could make it so that you cant self destruct your own tcu and get the payout, then make the payout unable to be hauled in a jf. That way, if nothing else, you have a ship or ship that has to be escorted to Highsec for the payout to be received. giving a content driver for most of eve as well
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#4 - 2016-02-07 21:33:33 UTC
Because coalitions totally wouldn't just swap their TCU kills internally for more income....
Passive income is bad and does not drive conflict, it actually stagnates conflict and cements the people who own nullsec in an unassailable position over time. Hence why Nullsec has gotten so stagnant because of the passive moon goo income.
Bilbert lashlily
Toad Whipper's United
#5 - 2016-02-07 21:45:51 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Because coalitions totally wouldn't just swap their TCU kills internally for more income....
Passive income is bad and does not drive conflict, it actually stagnates conflict and cements the people who own nullsec in an unassailable position over time. Hence why Nullsec has gotten so stagnant because of the passive moon goo income.


You're right, for a time, their would be some coalition who want to hold on to their isk. but eventually other people, other coalitions start looking at that pot thinking, that it looks pretty tasty. But the other thing, youre right, nothing stops coalitions from swapping tcus on a whim. The proposal to counter this would be to make it impossible to move the cargo in anything smaller then a standard freighter so the alliances cant easily make the money. they would have to run the dropped items from whichever system the tcu was in, to a high sec trade hub system to exchange the coins for isk. providing a chance at content all along the way. you would have convoys with escorts running to Highsec again, and gankers having a hayday.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#6 - 2016-02-07 22:15:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Conflict in null is a meta game issue.

After all the changes CCP have made and suggestions by players on top of that, my own view now is that anything that is designed to work based on changes in mechanics is going to fail, simply because it targets the wrong part of the game.

This proposal does have the greed/envy angle to it by creating the potential for one group to desire what a different group has; but is the difference between what everyone could own going to be significant enough to really drive conflict?

For example:

Group A: TCU giving passive income + moons + IHUB giving consistent ratting = comfortable income
Group B: TCU giving passive income + moons + IHUB giving consistent ratting = comfortable income

Why would Group B be any more inclined to attack Group A under this proposal. It seems both can comfortably earn income and why rock the boat?

I think mechanics provide ways to attack someone else, but they don't provide the reason why.

Get the why sorted and the how will take care of itself.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#7 - 2016-02-07 22:36:37 UTC
Bilbert lashlily wrote:
they would have to run the dropped items from whichever system the tcu was in, to a high sec trade hub system to exchange the coins for isk. using a couple of jump bridges to a low sec system bordering highsec and then through highsec in an NPC corp alt freighter.

Fixed that for you to what would actually be done.
Also trade hubs are not mechanical places in the game, they are simply player designated, so CCP does not make new mechanics limited to what we have defined as 'trade hubs' anyway.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2016-02-07 22:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Bilbert lashlily wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Because coalitions totally wouldn't just swap their TCU kills internally for more income....
Passive income is bad and does not drive conflict, it actually stagnates conflict and cements the people who own nullsec in an unassailable position over time. Hence why Nullsec has gotten so stagnant because of the passive moon goo income.


You're right, for a time, their would be some coalition who want to hold on to their isk. but eventually other people, other coalitions start looking at that pot thinking, that it looks pretty tasty. But the other thing, youre right, nothing stops coalitions from swapping tcus on a whim. The proposal to counter this would be to make it impossible to move the cargo in anything smaller then a standard freighter so the alliances cant easily make the money. they would have to run the dropped items from whichever system the tcu was in, to a high sec trade hub system to exchange the coins for isk. providing a chance at content all along the way. you would have convoys with escorts running to Highsec again, and gankers having a hayday.

Which pot? Coalitions would simply have an alliance in their coalition attack a TCU on a predefined ISK level on a regular basis. If you made it impossible to haul that coin out of Null sec without a freighter, you reduce your idea to absurdity because no attacker could bring a freighter into Null sec and back out unless they own that Null sec. Convoys in the current NBSI cancer environment are nothing but a naive pipe dream.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Bilbert lashlily
Toad Whipper's United
#9 - 2016-02-07 22:57:43 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Bilbert lashlily wrote:
they would have to run the dropped items from whichever system the tcu was in, to a high sec trade hub system to exchange the coins for isk. using a couple of jump bridges to a low sec system bordering highsec and then through highsec in an NPC corp alt freighter.

Fixed that for you to what would actually be done.
Also trade hubs are not mechanical places in the game, they are simply player designated, so CCP does not make new mechanics limited to what we have defined as 'trade hubs' anyway.


Yeah, trade hubs aren't designated by ccp, but agent locations are, and you can make the coin delivery to a specific agent in those hubs.
Neutral alts carrying more then a billion in isk value in a freighter are still large targets for gankers.

on the topic of just a freighter, maybe make the item have a causality that makes it incapable of being jumped. so that you cant just bridge it out of null sec. My mine point about the jump freighters was to make the materials capable of being attacked, as it stands, only bad jf pilots get caught.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#10 - 2016-02-07 23:01:03 UTC
If you have to add that many restrictions to something, it's a bad idea.
Bilbert lashlily
Toad Whipper's United
#11 - 2016-02-07 23:09:07 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Bilbert lashlily wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Because coalitions totally wouldn't just swap their TCU kills internally for more income....
Passive income is bad and does not drive conflict, it actually stagnates conflict and cements the people who own nullsec in an unassailable position over time. Hence why Nullsec has gotten so stagnant because of the passive moon goo income.


You're right, for a time, their would be some coalition who want to hold on to their isk. but eventually other people, other coalitions start looking at that pot thinking, that it looks pretty tasty. But the other thing, youre right, nothing stops coalitions from swapping tcus on a whim. The proposal to counter this would be to make it impossible to move the cargo in anything smaller then a standard freighter so the alliances cant easily make the money. they would have to run the dropped items from whichever system the tcu was in, to a high sec trade hub system to exchange the coins for isk. providing a chance at content all along the way. you would have convoys with escorts running to Highsec again, and gankers having a hayday.

Which pot? Coalitions would simply have an alliance in their coalition attack a TCU on a predefined ISK level on a regular basis. If you made it impossible to haul that coin out of Null sec without a freighter, you reduce your idea to absurdity because no attacker could bring a freighter into Null sec and back out unless they own that Null sec. Convoys in the current NBSI cancer environment are nothing but a naive pipe dream.


Maybe, you're right, as I read your post I have a hard time finding a way to argue against you because, tcus can be continuously swapped, The problem with this idea is , its great on paper, but when you decide to throw it into the furnace that is eve, it burns up pretty quickly.


Well, thanks for entertaining the idea o7 for now!
Roenok Baalnorn
Baalnorn Heavy Industries
#12 - 2016-02-08 00:38:30 UTC
Bilbert lashlily wrote:
Null sec currently has an issue of stagnation, after many years this issue is starting to erode. but I believe there could be a way to drive conflicts a little better.



I find null to be unstagnated. You just have to go to the right places at the right time. Also blue donuts are bad for you. Also i foresee CCP doing away with TCUs in the future.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2016-02-08 01:13:53 UTC
O.o this would be one hell of a faucet
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2016-02-08 16:36:08 UTC
Nullsec alliances don't need more isk faucets than they already have.