Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Mike, just so you know, we can already see that it is you who has made a post when you make a post.

s

Would be handy to have a sov model where holders actually have to care about their space. Usually if you go through the majority of nullsec, it's a wasteland. Similar to a fallout landscape, just in space.

I have various ideas, but you'll sure come up with your own, mine include the followings:
- Tie nullsec income to activity. Like if the given indexes are higher, you can get more isk. Even this by tieing moongoo to industrial indexes: higher index, more goo. or just unlocks the goo. Whatever.
- Implication #1 of above: AFK(with probablity p) cloaking problem: with no effort someone can shut a system down. This has to be taken care of
- Implication #2: Most powerblocks will just give space to renters who do the job and collect a higher isk for the rented space. So, no practical changes compared to the current system. This also has to be taken care of
- Higher activity should mean better defence. Like if the strategical/whatever are higher that should grant better resistances to structures, and lower to SBUs => tougher to take used space, easier to mitigate damage in used space. This including POSs.
- If we already have madnesses like ESS, what about being able to define a global ratting tax in nullsec that goes to the sovholder? Whatever.
- Also would be awesome to use JBs in jammed systems.
- Another useful stuff would be to make power projection exponential, like its cost is near-linear on short distances, but on higher distances it gets exponential, things cost really much. This would somewhat help with the dropping thingies.
- Better nullsec could also use things like alliance hangars, FCs, SRP officers and such would love this. No need anymore for utility alts, since it can be taken care of within the alliance by roles.
- Tidying the role system. Currently it's a nightmare to secure things in nullsec. Thefts, POSs, whatever. The current role system is a nightmare on many levels.

For a started, if matters at all.

Well, we haven't left our WH, we still roll our static to see if we can find any content, but we simply don't. Why would i repost hundreds of suggestions from the other topics? If dev's couldn't see other post's they would just ignore another one giving constructive feedback, so I just point on how it was bad for WH community and expect to see mass-based spawn distance for the cyno's =).

A generic agent is not an unique resource. That out of the way, the agent would not need even to be in-station. We have framework in place for in-space agents. The agent would be presumably anyway specific to the entity that "invited" it and would probably mirror his/her contractors standings list so even if you would be able to dock you would not have access to it because it would not like you enough. Ofc the exact terms of introducing agents in sov null would need to be carefully balanced to not make NPC null outright pointless. Perhaps some kind of special LP store which is not directly competing with the Emprie and CONCORD LP stores.

As pointed out agents have one resource in EVE with infinite scaling (limited only by the server node ability to take the population density) as they scale exactly in line with the population using them. That is why an entire alliance of ~1200 characters like Mordus Angels can live off a single NPC null station.

I have been around all over the EVE, in traditional sov null sec you would need a full constellation, at minimum, to support such population and it would be .. well .. somewhat tight fit. Because usually entity population is not divided equally over all timezones so at peak hours there would be not quite enough worthwhile anomalies to go around for everybody.

Putting a pod anyone on the map doesn't equivocate to putting an individual standing fleet (especially of the capital variety) anywhere on the map.

I'm more than aware of the mental hurdles people will jump through to try and suggest this isn't the case. But it flat out is.

And putting bodies in cruisers and battleships is a far cry from dreads and slowcats. And if we want to play mental hurdles... even if someone also stages capital fleets all over the galaxy with jump clones/podding themselves around between them, it's one measure further away from the current state of blinking fleets wherever we want them instantly.

You can can repeat "power projection nerfs won't work" until your blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And as often as someone claims that, .. there will be a person like me explaining that literally every reform of null will be for not if the space and politics cannot be regionalized.

Sov cannot be fixed by any mechanic that is based upon escalatign costs for the alliance. That is irrelevant, coalitions go around that.

SOV cannot be ONLY about activity, otherwise weapons woudl be meaningless and war would become strange.



Sov must be takable by FORCE up to alevel 1 sov. From there onwards you shoudl need activity and investment to increase its level, bringing more benefits.

My Idea. Entity X has enough activity for enough time in constelattion/system Y. It gains a CORE on that constellation. It can attempt to adquire sov on it by deploying Z or T stuff and keep it active. If your activity level drops for too long you lose your core and your claim.

If you keep the core and sov long enough and improve the system you get it to next level, and goes on.

An enemy force can forecefully OCCUPY a system, with different mechanics, based on the deployment/destruction of stuff. But it will not have a CORE on that system, until it gets enough of its own activity there. During that time the former owner still has a core there, so it should have by mechanics a much easier time to take back that system (less requirements to mechanically eject the offending alliance).

A system under occupation can have its station used by the occuping force, but they cannot deploy strategical system stuff ( cyno jammers, bridges, anything that come to be invented). All economical activities are reduced in efficiency if compared to full sov. A system under occupation degrades its core claims by its former owners at 1/4 the usual rate (to give them time to retake and to foment reasons for further war and conflict to take it back.

That way a war would have a violent stage, followed by the need of development and real usage of the space. And on taht time the system woudl be specially vulnerable to the former owners attempts to retake it.

I don't believe I've ever suggested limiting social interaction. You can't do such a thing.
Structural, mechanical interactions you can. (the game is built on them)

The idea of limited and structured sov holders and much more active placeholders in alliance and coalition structure is appealing to me. (for those interested in what this prattling on is about, it's found here.)

It's important to add that even that is game-able by meta... though at least there, those entering into that structure agreeably would be able to see the shifted weights before they came on board. A manner of allowing a level of control (say.. 'skin' in the game') the current control structures don't allow.

But it's well beyond the pale (and far too specific) for anything we can expect CCP to implement. Again, they'll need to arrive at their own conclusions for sov reform itself.

The only concept I feel that is crucial to understanding is, is that as long as one fleet can be projected near instantly across space as it can be today.. that alone will be able to trump and game any other proposed change that is alleged to shake up the status quo. Those ideas stand completely separate from power projection...

(*Except* from the obvious baseline that would be realized by allowing said members to have X more opportunity to cross/engage a blue while their ranks are off accomplishing another goal.)

An opportunity that does not exist today; and the reason we have the blue lists we have.

It would be good.

They'll need something once they realize bridge mechanics need deleted. A failed endeavor as game-breaking and failed as AOE DD.

Well, not to beg the question, but the true value is cornering the market on LP goods gained, not isk rewards in missions.

And seeing as how it's null, "access" to the station is nothing in comparison to real access to the station.

Even if you open docking rights (which is a good idea) you're a country mile and one good bubbled undock away from actual "access" to the station.

So when anyone who doesn't have round-the-clock security has another coalition come in and just shill in their station until it's time to fight? All at the expense of the owning station. Might as well remove access restrictions at POSes too.