Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Zim you're hunting for a contradiction that isn't going to come. As I stated before its directly relative to how much I care for the alliance and how much appreciation is shown for doing so.

But nullsec is not lawless, actually! It's just player controlled. Alliances that hold the sovereignty set the rules and guard the space (best way they can, of course, nothing in null is completely safe). As EVE claims to be a sandbox, and as we talk about butterfly effect, a AI-controlled Empire space should not be praised over player controlled space.

loosing 1/7th or 1/14 of your time for your alliance doesn't sound to bad to me at all, depending on the number of members you have. Working towards building up your alliance is kind of par for the course. If you can't help your alliance why would you be in one?

Beyond the interior of the cluster lie the outer regions, lawless zones where the independent space captains of EVE, the capsuleers, contend with one another for supremacy.

http://www.eveonline.com/universe/the-world-of-eve/

without going into it to far it is provisional space being fought over by Alliances who's size is tiny by comparison to empires.

See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110157&find=unread for rest of argument.

Perhaps such casual players don't belong in null? And since homeland security is important for null-alliances, perhaps a alliance that wants to survive in null, should pay players to run occasional shifts as boring security guards? And they don't have enough pilots to do so, perhaps they shouldn't claim so much space?

With the changes Caliph proposes, I agree. They'd be much better off just doing their thing in hisec instead.


I mentioned 40m/hour as a wage, but Caliph balked at that price and claimed he'd do it for free. I'm just wondering how long he'd spend his 1 hour pr day for free being a security guard.


It's not so much "claiming" as "using". Not having local won't do anything to hinder claiming a system.


You might want to check those numbers a bit, dear.

That'd spend 10 minutes just jumping into the next system, let alone 60+.

Actually, scratch that, it'd spend 10 minutes in warp from the station to the outgate, and then it'd spend another 10 minutes switching solar system.

Combine a sov revamp so you can lose an undefended system in, say, 2 days, with a removal of jump drives or a hefty reduction in the distance of both jumpdrives and titan bridges, and I'm pretty certain you'd see some hilarious wars break out.

Yeah. We could wipe out regions in even less than a week

And someone else could wipe out yours if you overextend.

Anyway I don't think nerfing jump&bridge mechanics into uselessness is good. Just massively increase their cost to the point where it becomes hours of work for an individual to pay for a single jump (and even more for supercaps). This means using capitals for static defense costs little and using them on alliance-level to conquer a moon or an outpost would be economically viable investment. But that's pretty much it.

Using them to hotdrop targets of opportunity, trying to defend an overextended territory and all their moons, or having to fight non-blues on the other side of the map because of NAP-trains, would bankrupt alliances.

Having a lot of Tech moons might give an alliance more ISK to jump around with, but it'll be a bit like owning a gold mine and then having to spend most of it on security and just chasing after all the ambitious neighbors trying to take a moon for themselves. Thus leaving you only barely richer than without them.

And don't forget: it also becomes a logistical problem if you can't simply continue to jump in cheap ice from empire.