Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Missions are not not about fixing stuff , they are about providing income for every one.
Income = Ships = PVP
Currently system can feed only small amount of players , so alliances got to have big space. What is more annoying , most of the systems have so shi... bad anomalies that it is better to do missions in higsec than farm them this leading to afk empires , as you need to have much much bigger space to accumulate enough systems that can provide proper income, and as in each of region there is only had full of those you have 90% of sov space empty.

Mission system is "easier" way of fixing this , as from agent , unlimited number of players can get missions.
I was suggesting 1 agent site per constellation - this way we will get good balance, as 1 constellation will be able to provide income for alliance members.

Think about those missions as a easy way to replace current moongo income.
Each completed mission give :
5% tax to some new alliance wallet
5% tax to some new corporation wallet
Let's don't make this as a variable , but a constant value that no one can change or adjust.

This 5% tax don't have to be in ISK , but in LP or whatever else CCP will come out with.

Additionally this LP have to be connected to some new store , that will have new items.
I suggest new ship lines - something easy to implement - as those will be T1 Ship hulls having additional EHP bonus and nothing more. What more those BPC will require T1 Hull , and some minerals , to not brake production.
Guristas regions -> Caldari ship BPC
Angel Regions -> minmatar ship bpc
etc.

Something nice for PVP , and useful for fleets.

This get us to another point.
IS ISK A PROPER PAYOUT.

I think no , because this injects something that is much harder to burn than any other "material" in game.
Lets assume that CCP decides that it is time to bring something similar to old drone minerals.

The payout from those missions will be :
20% ISK
40% LP
40% minerals

This way game will not be flooded in ISK , but in minerals.
Will miners be impacted?
Yes.
But at the same time : Big material flow -> more materials for ships -> more ships you can loose or kill -> reason why people go to nullsec.

Yes lowsec , and higsec is a bit different.
Still this are talks about how we can fix nullsec , and i don't count how much isk i can get from some activity , but how this activity will be useful in funding my PVP.

All my free isk i invest in mods and ship hulls - hulls that i hope to burn at some point , while having fun doing this.
Fun that current nullsec cannot provide any more , as people are scattered and hide from small gangs, or fly in 200+ man roaming fleets , trying to find something to kill for few hours.
After a while most of those groups decide decide to farm KM on the H.E.R.O. what is bad to a game.

Worthless PVP, hitting newbites in T1 frigates using T2/Faction ships with links , discourage both new , and old players from EVE.

If we were not one of the big powerblocks someone else would be. The two superpowers locked in a forever cold war neither can afford to fight is inevitable under the current sov system. We didn't make this mess the mechanics did. We have been calling for changes for years now and this push for occupancy sov started a good year ago now long before CCP announced their plans to announce changes to sov.

We make more fleets.

I would point out that we are playing a game.

We want, no... , we demand that the groups make the best effort possible.

It means that if they can use overwhelming force to win, that means doing anything less seems like taking a dive.
You don't respect either side if you think one took a dive, because to many that means it was rigged.

If we want a change, and remap null along more competitive lines, we want to earn it.

What good is playing a game, if your actions and efforts have no meaning in the results?

This means we need diminishing returns encoded at some level, if not multiple levels, so that the bigger groups have exponentially more effort required to hold space.

They will be reduced in size for practical reasons.
It also means that meta agreements and treaties must be undermined by the very mechanics themselves.

Give groups the ability to avoid being identified, so noone knows WHO launched what attack.
No non-aggression treaty will ever be taken seriously, the moment it can no longer be enforced.

Do you ever blame the guy who decided to take the train this morning instead of driving through the heavy traffic? When you take the stairs and he takes the elevator to the top floor, do you believe he is at fault for not making needless sacrifices?How can you even begin to blame someone for using tools at their disposal when the whole point of the game is to gain an advantage over your opponents? Do you ever see any of the top football players tying weights to themselves whenever they play a team that isnt as good or prepared? Or when someone shows up early to a movie premier and is one of the first to get in, but you have to wait hours in the back of the line? How can you even begin to blame someone for using tools at their disposal when the whole point of the game is to gain an advantage over your opponents?

Why should anyone willingly give anyone else an advantage in a contest? Honor? Pity? Shame? Do you really want the game to be a charade of people living in space only because the biggest powers are holding back and allowing them too?

true, but it still requires more effort though. more fc's. more boosters. more coordination amongst fleets.

Not much more effort, we already deploy multiple fleets.

Nerfing supers doesn't change the fact that the current setup forces you to own large areas of space. This letter is to do with ending empire sprawl, supers and other null issues are a different matter that also needs to be fixed.

There is a big problem with occupancy system and that is it will kill non-NBSI politics (and we need more than one type of politics). Allowing neutrals and other entities in your space would kill your sov. and this should be addressed by the people that proposed it. Already having only 2 politics types (NBSI and NRDS) is kinda poor.

We also must to acknowledge that the current mentality of "bring more friends" and "you can't nerf friendship" lead us to the current cold war. This did nothing else but promote a risk adverse type of gameplay. As a community, we need another EVE meme, one that should promote courage and fun. We shouldn't need mechanics to make our sandbox game fun, we only need to change a little the way we are thinking and promote other values.

Edit: also it would be nice if CCP would develop politics more (Civ style is the first example that comes to my mind) and tie these politics to sov, different types of politics should give different bonuses to the sov owners. Or just simply develop more politics tools.

Nothing? Which is why there wasnt any real sov movement in I dont even know how long. And also why is half of even near provi dunking on Brave/CVA fights.