EVE Information Portal

This is manifestly untrue. There are plenty of people in this thread who are concerned about these changes who do live in our space. People who have actually built a home in 0.0. People whose alliances are less than 500 people.

The only people in this thread consistently in favor of this proposal are those who live elsewhere: lowsec, highsec, WH's, NPC 0.0. People who just control valuable moons are largely unphased by these proposals.

True enough. Most things are speculation right now... My reason for linking Entosis modules with dead Drifters, is speculation on the Antikythra Element which people are saying is salvageable from Drifter wrecks on Sisi.
As for Drifters being easy to kill, I'm reasonably sure their AI will be tweaked some more before they're finished.

Any time I see this much whining and butthurt and general antimony, I can't help but think that CCP is on to a good idea.

That'd be interesting. I like the concept behind the mechanic, although it would be better if the prime time wasn't on a daily basis in the first place.

If you had a vulnerability period (can we call it vulnerability period because prime time sounds terrible) every couple of days then it would give players a chance to play other aspects of the game and enjoy the fact that they have managed to keep their space safe for the next couple of days. I don't think that making it happen on a daily basis would be conducive for good gameplay. I see Eve a long term strategic game at its core, and so a longer period between engagements would be more fitting with what most players would expect from a game like this.

Also I think CCP need to look at active defence that rewards players further for operating in their own space and putting in some effort to actively defend. So on top of the variable mechanic above, you could also reduce the vulnerability period further by doing activities such as supplying your structures with fuel such as strontium, and carrying out maintenance with hull repairing logistic ships.

On top of this I'd like to see some anchorable structures such as guns and defences, they could be limited by the PG and CPU of the structure they are anchored at, and also would be expensive and slow to construct and anchor so that they aren't easily replaceable should attackers destroy them. Allowing players to base build in some form or another is a good aspect of any strategy game.

So my overall suggestion would be to implement the variable mechanic mentioned above, along with spreading the vulnerability period so that it occurs between another variable safe period of around 5 to 10 days. This will stop things getting to boring and predictable. On top of this make the vulnerability period quite a bit longer, for instance 12 hours at a minimum which could be reduced by a factor of 2 if you are actively defending and making use of occupancy bonuses as described above.

*Snip* Removed a reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.

The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. If that income is not making it down to line members - that is an issue to take up with your leadership.

Just because it is not convenient to "woe is me, ratting isnt good enough" doesn't make it untrue.

Yes, ratting alone doesn't meake eye watering income, but the other areas DO. I've not paid for a loss in a loooooong time. If you can't see how that is income of a different nature well I don't know what to tell you.

What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.



No, that's not the point. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income.

Individual income should not be worse than highsec.

Period.

"Individual" income is dictated BY THE LEADERSHIP and not CCP. If you have an income problem - speak to the directorate. CCP do not force to not share communal wealth, there is no mechanic enforcing this.

Point is, you need to accept that if null income is rebalanced, maybe it won't go the way you like. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell how we all need to ignore the moon income, but CCP cannot and will not.

As I've said, I've no problem with a null rebalance - but people best be careful what they wish for.

This is the key aspect that so many people who cry about level 4's miss, to break into 0.0 means that you have to compete against SRP. In the Goons all they have to do is to earn the ISK to buy the ship at the start, once they have that they get it replaced if they lose it in combat, at one point people were getting ships replaced when they got caught ratting, that is how good the SRP was in some alliances.

And yet people go on and on about level 4's, most of us think the people doing this are trolling, however it is possible that they are so fixed on ISK per hour that they ignore the more strategic aspects of the game.

Please stop Kaarous!

Whilst I understand the sentiment, I do not want Kararous to stop.

It never fails to amuse me that no matter what the source to the contrary, from CCP down, dear Kaarous can always find some metric to claim that hi-sec folk are spoilt rotten and that null-sec folk are on their uppers relatively speaking.

If null-sec corp bosses keep most of the dosh for themselves, why should anyone not affected care?

a Sliding scale would be good.

a no index no useage system has a 24 hour vulnerability timer.

Soverenty takes 3.5 hours per level

military index takes 0.5h per level
Industry index takes 0.5h per level


so a maxed usage system would have a vulnerable timer of 1.5 hours per day
a system that has a tcu only and no usage has between 24 hours and 6.5 hours vulnerability per day

so a level 5 ratting system at max sov with no miners will have 4 hours per day
a lvl 2 mining system with lvl 2 sov will be vulnerable for 16 hours during a day


ive been trying to balance these figures for an hour and they still don't seem to balance very well.
they probably need to be percentage baised.