Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I just play...smart would be too much effort...

Not too far off the mark. More like remove the subscription.

Well for me, for all I've never had to use it, it's a nice option to have available.

It's also a beautiful way to 'store' liquid isk if on an extended hiatus

tsk tsk... Gevlon, you cannot logically say: hands off my bread basket when proposing to stick your fingers in the bread basket of other people. PvP is an ISK sink (things go boom, requiring them to be rebuilt/farmed/bought again). Market trading, which I agree is a PvP activity (just ask my market trader), is not an ISK sink - unless you bought Genolution 3 and 4s just before the birthday gift was announced. But that was not destruction of isk so much as gain/loss.

That said: your premise is incorrect. You propose that giving fatigue to the individual is the better way to increase their activities in other areas of EVE online - like PvP. However, PvP itself is not impacted by fatigue so much as the ability to move large ships great distances over a short span of time. PvE is different from this activity - people have to hunt for their prey - unless they go to the predictable locations for ganking: Mission hubs and mining centers.

Instead, what you really want, and would certainly increase PvP in High Sec by giving people more of a reason to wardec or gank each other is system fatigue. Why should more pirate activity be in and around Osmon when so many people are taking missions to eliminate those same pirates? Over time, what should happen is that frequency and quality of missions, minerals, and rats decreases with sustained capsuleer activity. Both in High Sec, Low Sec, and Null Sec.

Unlike jump fatigue this would be more dynamic in that the fatigue is ever present but fluctuates with activity - higher activity results in the system having higher fatigue for a given category while a drop in activity leads to a lessening of the fatigue.

While there is somewhat of a natural control on mining now via depletion of belts, they respawn at a predictable rate. If there were system wide fatigue on mining, then the rate of renewal on the roids would be lower and continue to decrease until the system fatigue begins to reverse. Miners would then need to migrate more often, seeking systems with less fatigue.

Mission givers would start running out of missions as the system fatigue increased. It would start by causing mission runners to travel further to complete the mission until the mission giver has lower quality missions to give (that level 4 agent has only what a level 1 agent has to offer - but further to travel to complete) and even, if the fatigue is high enough, no missions to give until a day or two later. The fatigue would build up by the type of missions as opposed to missions overall. but would still impact any areas of cross over - mining missions would be impacted and impact mining fatigue in a system. shooting red things would be impacted by belt ratting and would likewise impact belt ratting and anomolies. Hauling missions would be impacted by actual market activity of a system.

In Null Sec, while arrays can make it easier to locate anomolies that can be adjusted to lower the rate of fatigue accrual - but not negate it. An overly ratted null sec system will eventually find they have exhausted the local pirates to the point of submission. The Arrays will allow the fatigue to recover faster, but carrier ratters will eventually need to move to other systems to rat.

Market Fatigue: hey, brokers are busy people and the market hubs should see higher broker fees. After all - the more they work, the more they should be paid - and since it is regional... well... the fatigue would be regional as well.

Industry has already had the equivalent of jump fatigue in the form of the dynamic increase in fees paid to research and manufacture. Clearly nothing would need to be done there again.

ps - plex increase from last year is under 20% from roughtly 720million to 850million.

An endless number of activities that need to have fatigue timers attached to them, this thread really revolutionized the way I think about eve online, an internet timer spreadsheet

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Which is the problem with PvE. Even if you run incursions or capital escalations, you'll earn less than the guy who run 10 veldspar miners all day. His main will have more ships, more mercs, more everything.

People who can spend their limited time better should earn more ISK, not the people who have more time to run their accounts.

You have not gone far enough, IMO. Those big corporations will actually support such regulations precisely because it reduces the competition and creates a barrier to entry. There is actually a term for this, rent seeking.



I understand, but I don't think it will work other than to spread PvE people and have them become more nomadic...and the one group where securing a system is actually doable and rotating between systems and exploiting things in a systematic way...null sec.

Personally, I think there is probably too much ISK flowing into the game economy, however there are ways to deal with it other than this which is extremely imprecise.

You fail to show how it is required to be 'competitive'.

The thing about Eve is, throwing isk at a fight doesn't win it. This is why you don't see officer fit frigates. This is why people still laught at stupid bling deaths.

I think this post has gathered most likes in the whole unfortunate thread for a reason. Please stop feeding him, would we? Just ignore it.

You can still rat all day, while a trader cannot do much worth his time after he has filled his order allotment. Updating and putting up 5-10 new ones each day hardly lasts 10+ hours a day, even with 3 market characters to an account.


I argue that it will indeed affect few players directly (this word was included in my original quote, you may have overlooked that). It will affect bots and vegetables a lot, though. And since it will decrease influx of ISK and material from these heavily, it will affect all real, actively playing players positively.
And it would be another, smart way to deal with an activity that violates the EULA, and that conventional methods are not entirely successful at preventing so far. It is an auto-smart mechanism that would work all by itself, without the need to manually identify the longer-running bots and ban them. Team Security could focus on finding shorter-running bots and other villains.