These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proposed Changes Empire Space and some supporting changes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#301 - 2015-08-12 00:26:56 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Concord protection.
Well the old saw is that Concord doesn't provide "protection". Consider: If you were running a highsec incursion, and 30-odd Talos showed up on dscan, what would your response be? "Oh, it'll be OK - Concord protects"? Is it just the travel (i.e. gatecamps) that makes lowsec incursions undesireable?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2015-08-12 00:43:34 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Concord protection.
Well the old saw is that Concord doesn't provide "protection". Consider: If you were running a highsec incursion, and 30-odd Talos showed up on dscan, what would your response be? "Oh, it'll be OK - Concord protects"? Is it just the travel (i.e. gatecamps) that makes lowsec incursions undesireable?

The more accurate sentiment is "concord deters" I suppose. Consider: we don't see 30 Talos' going after Incursion runners on the regular. We know people are able, but they don't. Something about 100k+ EHP targets with logi support not dying terribly fast, said targets putting being able and willing to put up a fight themselves, and a short time limit in which the opponent only needs to hold out alongside the guaranteed complete loss of the aggressing Talos'.

And of course it's only Talos' and not something beefier + their own logi and/or ewar support because of that guaranteed loss.

Change that dynamic by removing concord and the toolset for aggressors expands to whatever can fit through the gate. Thus you have to, again, factor responses to hostiles with capabilities far greater than in highsec and ship up and fit accordingly to mitigate the impact of losses.

Plus yeah... gate camps... sure.
DD Barbie
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#303 - 2015-08-12 00:58:23 UTC
You guys all cry more than my little sister. And she is a cry baby girlscout wimp.

You know there is a drought in California. Maybe I could get you all to come to my house so I can fill my swimming pool with your tears....( why drink them when you can swim in them and enjoy them over and over again)

Xoxo Double D barbie
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#304 - 2015-08-12 01:05:41 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Consider: we don't see 30 Talos' going after Incursion runners on the regular.
You're right. Personally, I think that's more because they've got easier targets. But those targets do show that 100k tanks aren't an insurmountable barrier, even in highsec.

Your response points to what I'd love to see changed about lowsec though, the risk/reward balance. Even with a nearly 50% higher reward you know that the same evaluation for the pirates is skewed even further. Could that be changed though? Could the Incursions themselves (and by extension other forms of lowsec PvE) be modified to deter piracy enough to keep lowsec profitable for the Incursion runners?

Which isn't to say I've got the answers. But I think if a way to make lowsec a more attractive PvE/lifestyle proposition than highsec can be found, that solves a lot of the OP's stated problems.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2015-08-12 01:15:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Aerasia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Consider: we don't see 30 Talos' going after Incursion runners on the regular.
You're right. Personally, I think that's more because they've got easier targets. But those targets do show that 100k tanks aren't an insurmountable barrier, even in highsec.
You missed the combination of factors it would appear, unless you mean to suggest a freighter holds similar mobility and offensive capabilities as an incursion BS. Also the logi support. And again, not insurmountable, just largely unworthwhile, partially because of softer targets, yes.

Aerasia wrote:
Your response points to what I'd love to see changed about lowsec though, the risk/reward balance. Even with a nearly 50% higher reward you know that the same evaluation for the pirates is skewed even further. Could that be changed though? Could the Incursions themselves (and by extension other forms of lowsec PvE) be modified to deter piracy enough to keep lowsec profitable for the Incursion runners?

Which isn't to say I've got the answers. But I think if a way to make lowsec a more attractive PvE/lifestyle proposition than highsec can be found, that solves a lot of the OP's stated problems.

The issue is the massive gap in regular behavior that constitutes the risks and creates logistical hurdles, thus justifying the higher payout. Work around that and you eliminate the justification for the payout (and barring some really clever solution, the distinction between lowsec and highsec).
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#306 - 2015-08-12 02:10:39 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
unless you mean to suggest a freighter holds similar mobility and offensive capabilities as an incursion BS.
No, I only meant to point out that Incursion fleets aren't safe in highsec because they invulnerable - only because Concord invariably imposes a gank tax.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The issue is the massive gap in regular behavior that constitutes the risks and creates logistical hurdles, thus justifying the higher payout. Work around that and you eliminate the justification for the payout (and barring some really clever solution, the distinction between lowsec and highsec).
By all accounts, the logistical hurdles are in place - but the payouts aren't. I want to 'work around' the fact that lowsec means far more work for slightly more pay on the PvE side, but more pay for less work on the Pirate side.
Oxide Ammar
#307 - 2015-08-12 02:25:00 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:

Proposal 1
Constellation/Corporation Structures
ConstStructs
There would be ONE of these in every single High/Low-Sec Constellation. It's function would be to boost current output of ISK, LP and mining yields by 15%(Figures may need adjusting) throughout the whole of the Constellation as well as have a minor tax cut to station trading. I also think that they could be used to display who has control of the area like sov but to a lesser degree. To take it would require a Wardec (or in Low-Sec yellow safeties same as shooting a person) and the use of the entosis link. It would only be vulnerable during the 4 hour window set by the Corp/Alliance that owns it and would enter RF for 48 hours giving the defenders time to plan and react. If it is RF'd with the war having less then 48 hours to go the war is extended until one side takes control of it after it comes out of RF. If neither side takes it then the war could theoretically go forever (mutual wars). Similar indexes would be applied for activity in the Constellation to make it take longer to take the Structure. A Corp/Alliance could only hold ONE of these making enough for smaller corps to have (and fight over) their own while making the most valuable Constellations a real source of conflict between the powers I could see arising from this.

CorpStructs
These Would be a much lesser version of the Constellation version and would need to be anchored at a moon. A corp could Purchase/Build one and it would provide a lesser bonus of 5% yeilds and the same station trading tax cut except both would only be effective System wide instead of constellation wide. Should a Corp take a Constellation structure the Corp version would be rendered inert. A Corp could only hold ONE of these at any given time. They could be unachored and re anchored as needed with an appropriate cooldown. They could not be taken down in times of war or on the warm up period. If the corp were to be disbanded the structure would unanchor and be claimable by any interested party or vanish on the next downtime (or several later or never). A wardec would be needed to destroy this and it would be vulnerable during the 4 hour window to the entosis link just like the 'ConstStruct' and have all the same mechanics. However should it be taken on the RF timer by the aggressor instead of the aggressor claiming the structure and benefits it would simply blow up. Cost I think costs of building one of these should be roughly 300mil isk as a ball park figure and will be subject to change.

TBC on POST 4


So you basically wants to import nullsec mechanic into hisec so you hypocrites who are blaming care bears for dodging wardec to run more contracts to the other care bears who can't do their wardec by themselves.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#308 - 2015-08-12 03:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Aerasia wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
Why should I do your work for you?
Work for me? Noragen's the one that wants to shoot all the people. I'm just pointing out that there's already a fertile field of shooting all the people available, and usually only a half dozen jumps away.

I can already shoot all the things. My issue is that nobody else in high sec has an incentive outside of the actual shooting to shoot the things. Look past corp tags for 10 minutes and read post 1 and 4. Or alternatively propose a better method of getting people to compete for areas of space and its resources or just a better way to compete. So far you have not refuted a point based on merit or added to the discussion.



Actually, what was proposed not changing much really. Or may backfire.

giving bonuses has 2 issues. As it can play out a few ways.


Not many will use them. Put up stuff, get decked, tear down. 5 times of this and at some point many might go well lets try this...not put up anything, stay low on radar and make current money. It can be worth the loss of profit to not deal with the crap.


Or it will be used, and abused. Not all corps get dec'd 5 second into the game. Some run no issues for years. this could be an isk faucet.

Or how I could use this would be to alt run the missions. As I read post 1 here is what happens:

my lp goes up and my isk take in. I am assuming bounty on rats and the actual mission payout by agent for the isk.

I might run 2 accounts, have one in one corp put this up, get the mission and well...after getting another alt in another corp into the mission room redock up.

Alt runs the mission to completion. other char turns in the mission and gets paid. I get the boosted LP, I get the higher agent pay. All I lose out on is rat bounty. Fair tradeoff....as a char who is basically docked 99% of the time draws all the heat of the war dec. If this pays out well enough to where I can lose this structure fairly often....this would go from idea to implementation real quick.


And it would have to pay out this well. If this is not paying well...no one will use it. Looking at 0.0 and CSAA's. They make the isk to justity the pita of having them. Makes their owner prime choices for attacks, usually involves intensive and long save ops (can reach alliance level CTA status real easy even). They are a mofo pita....but one taken for the payout to go but damn....look at the isk it makes.

Pays out this well and well.....with my setup I have a nice little faucet that gives the added benefit of that empire dec bear crew is spending their entire time fighting the wrong damn corp.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#309 - 2015-08-17 12:52:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
How did I miss this one? Sorry Noragen. I don't have time to read the entire thread right now, so I'll stick with your updated OPs.

1. I like the idea behind Proposal 1. However, any kind of system- or constellation-wide benefit needs to be exactly that: a benefit to the owning corp, not any sort of penalty to anyone else. Hisec is free and open to all comers, even -10s.

There is one thing that I think should come in addition to this: monthly upkeep. You shouldn't just get a benefit like this because nobody has bothered to challenge you on it yet, you should have to pay for it. If this is going to be some melding of Sov and POS mechanics, and both of them include upkeep, this should too. Not only would this encourage corps to stay active to get the benefit, it would hopefully reduce the number of corps con-trolling* a system/constellation.

*(See what I did there?)

2. I've liked this idea and its variants for a long time (you can hardly take credit for this one). Two changes though. First, I would make the "yield" penalty to refining yield, not to actual miner yield. I know, ideally it'd be nice from your standpoint to actually reduce the mining laser yield so miners are encouraged to get out of NPC corps, but that gets into weird game mechanics issues that I don't think we want to mess with. I think it's neater and cleaner to keep changes to station/POS services, not in-space mechanics. Secondly, I would also include an increase to market transaction fees and job installation costs to your CONCORD taxes so that trade and research/industry alts are also discouraged from staying in NPC corps.

EDIT: One thing that I've seen tossed around with these ideas in the past is a minimum membership. I would totally and wholeheartedly oppose this as it would effectively destroy a way of life for myself and many of my associates. If you're willing to put yourself on the line, membership numbers shouldn't count.

3. I like where you're going with your proposed wardec changes, especially allowing offensive assistance, but I can't entirely support it. Allowing offensive assistance would get abused like all get out without hard limits on offensive wardecs and I'm pretty sure you agree with me here. The problem is that I don't like the idea of hard caps on wardecs. Scaling costs? Sure. Hard caps? No. If you want to wardec a corp that is much smaller than you, you should probably pay more. If you want to have a bunch of wardecs active at once, they should probably start costing more per wardec. If you want to keep one wardec active for several months, it should probably start costing more.

So, no to offensive assistance because I don't like the idea of hard caps and it would be broken without them, yes to scaling wardec fees to discourage long, numerous, or lopsided wars.


Cheers.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#310 - 2015-08-17 22:29:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Noragen Neirfallas
Bronson Hughes wrote:
How did I miss this one? Sorry Noragen. I don't have time to read the entire thread right now, so I'll stick with your updated OPs.

1. I like the idea behind Proposal 1. However, any kind of system- or constellation-wide benefit needs to be exactly that: a benefit to the owning corp, not any sort of penalty to anyone else. Hisec is free and open to all comers, even -10s.

There is one thing that I think should come in addition to this: monthly upkeep. You shouldn't just get a benefit like this because nobody has bothered to challenge you on it yet, you should have to pay for it. If this is going to be some melding of Sov and POS mechanics, and both of them include upkeep, this should too. Not only would this encourage corps to stay active to get the benefit, it would hopefully reduce the number of corps con-trolling* a system/constellation.

*(See what I did there?)

2. I've liked this idea and its variants for a long time (you can hardly take credit for this one). Two changes though. First, I would make the "yield" penalty to refining yield, not to actual miner yield. I know, ideally it'd be nice from your standpoint to actually reduce the mining laser yield so miners are encouraged to get out of NPC corps, but that gets into weird game mechanics issues that I don't think we want to mess with. I think it's neater and cleaner to keep changes to station/POS services, not in-space mechanics. Secondly, I would also include an increase to market transaction fees and job installation costs to your CONCORD taxes so that trade and research/industry alts are also discouraged from staying in NPC corps.

EDIT: One thing that I've seen tossed around with these ideas in the past is a minimum membership. I would totally and wholeheartedly oppose this as it would effectively destroy a way of life for myself and many of my associates. If you're willing to put yourself on the line, membership numbers shouldn't count.

3. I like where you're going with your proposed wardec changes, especially allowing offensive assistance, but I can't entirely support it. Allowing offensive assistance would get abused like all get out without hard limits on offensive wardecs and I'm pretty sure you agree with me here. The problem is that I don't like the idea of hard caps on wardecs. Scaling costs? Sure. Hard caps? No. If you want to wardec a corp that is much smaller than you, you should probably pay more. If you want to have a bunch of wardecs active at once, they should probably start costing more per wardec. If you want to keep one wardec active for several months, it should probably start costing more.

So, no to offensive assistance because I don't like the idea of hard caps and it would be broken without them, yes to scaling wardec fees to discourage long, numerous, or lopsided wars.


Cheers.

While some tweaks and ideas are originals in this thread alot of it is just combined into one place and feed off each other for a total rework of the current system. The OP's do need redoing again as more tools are available to us then were when I first started it in C&P. I'm of the opinion social corps and NPC corps should share all the same stuff now except the imposed NPC corp tax gets dropped for social corps. I don't like minimum membership as much as when I first added it in here to see what the communities reactions were too it however I am still a fan of corp creation costs rising to a not insignificant amount while social corp creation could (and probably should) be free.

The wardec offensive assist would be treated the same as a new offensive war.

While I do NOT like hard caps for wars I can tell you what would happen if a group were allowed to control multiple areas. The current powers that be in highsec may see some nullsec competition for viable areas but basically we would have the new rental space in the game via the use of corp tax. Yuck. I would be a fan of the alliance HQ (or corp) was moved to the place where the main capture objective was and yes a fee to maintain your control of it is an excellent idea. I'll have a ponder on that and update (and scrap some stuff) in the OP's and get an opinion then. thanks for the input it's good having another fresh perspective in here.


FOR EVERYBODY
This is about removing the predator/prey system in highsec while attempting to drive conflict and not remove it. If you have any ideas on how to achieve this feel free to add them. If you want to moan about stuff or can't see past a corp ticker there are multiple threads in C&P you can go and moan on until they get locked Blink

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#311 - 2015-08-18 16:42:02 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
How did I miss this one? Sorry Noragen. I don't have time to read the entire thread right now, so I'll stick with your updated OPs.

1. I like the idea behind Proposal 1. However, any kind of system- or constellation-wide benefit needs to be exactly that: a benefit to the owning corp, not any sort of penalty to anyone else. Hisec is free and open to all comers, even -10s.

There is one thing that I think should come in addition to this: monthly upkeep. You shouldn't just get a benefit like this because nobody has bothered to challenge you on it yet, you should have to pay for it. If this is going to be some melding of Sov and POS mechanics, and both of them include upkeep, this should too. Not only would this encourage corps to stay active to get the benefit, it would hopefully reduce the number of corps con-trolling* a system/constellation.

*(See what I did there?)

2. I've liked this idea and its variants for a long time (you can hardly take credit for this one). Two changes though. First, I would make the "yield" penalty to refining yield, not to actual miner yield. I know, ideally it'd be nice from your standpoint to actually reduce the mining laser yield so miners are encouraged to get out of NPC corps, but that gets into weird game mechanics issues that I don't think we want to mess with. I think it's neater and cleaner to keep changes to station/POS services, not in-space mechanics. Secondly, I would also include an increase to market transaction fees and job installation costs to your CONCORD taxes so that trade and research/industry alts are also discouraged from staying in NPC corps.

EDIT: One thing that I've seen tossed around with these ideas in the past is a minimum membership. I would totally and wholeheartedly oppose this as it would effectively destroy a way of life for myself and many of my associates. If you're willing to put yourself on the line, membership numbers shouldn't count.

3. I like where you're going with your proposed wardec changes, especially allowing offensive assistance, but I can't entirely support it. Allowing offensive assistance would get abused like all get out without hard limits on offensive wardecs and I'm pretty sure you agree with me here. The problem is that I don't like the idea of hard caps on wardecs. Scaling costs? Sure. Hard caps? No. If you want to wardec a corp that is much smaller than you, you should probably pay more. If you want to have a bunch of wardecs active at once, they should probably start costing more per wardec. If you want to keep one wardec active for several months, it should probably start costing more.

So, no to offensive assistance because I don't like the idea of hard caps and it would be broken without them, yes to scaling wardec fees to discourage long, numerous, or lopsided wars.


Cheers.

While some tweaks and ideas are originals in this thread alot of it is just combined into one place and feed off each other for a total rework of the current system. The OP's do need redoing again as more tools are available to us then were when I first started it in C&P. I'm of the opinion social corps and NPC corps should share all the same stuff now except the imposed NPC corp tax gets dropped for social corps. I don't like minimum membership as much as when I first added it in here to see what the communities reactions were too it however I am still a fan of corp creation costs rising to a not insignificant amount while social corp creation could (and probably should) be free.

The wardec offensive assist would be treated the same as a new offensive war.

While I do NOT like hard caps for wars I can tell you what would happen if a group were allowed to control multiple areas. The current powers that be in highsec may see some nullsec competition for viable areas but basically we would have the new rental space in the game via the use of corp tax. Yuck. I would be a fan of the alliance HQ (or corp) was moved to the place where the main capture objective was and yes a fee to maintain your control of it is an excellent idea. I'll have a ponder on that and update (and scrap some stuff) in the OP's and get an opinion then. thanks for the input it's good having another fresh perspective in here.


FOR EVERYBODY
This is about removing the predator/prey system in highsec while attempting to drive conflict and not remove it. If you have any ideas on how to achieve this feel free to add them. If you want to moan about stuff or can't see past a corp ticker there are multiple threads in C&P you can go and moan on until they get locked Blink



Moan moan grumble grumble


I fully agree that the war system is not very good and creates situations like the Marmite model of dec all the things. I am fond of the idea of allowing corps to have an anchored structure which gives them bonuses in a system or constellation. Not so sure that there should be any limit on those though, no reason two friendly corps can't coexist.

One aspect of wars that I see often neglected is that any industrial alliance should be able to dec on any other industrial alliance out of spite / hate. Unfortunately this means that groups like Marmite can also do that, but some of the suggestions here would curb that at least partially.

I'll have to read over them again with the update and ponder.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Mobadder Thworst
Doomheim
#312 - 2015-08-18 18:05:29 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
How did I miss this one? Sorry Noragen. I don't have time to read the entire thread right now, so I'll stick with your updated OPs.

1. I like the idea behind Proposal 1. However, any kind of system- or constellation-wide benefit needs to be exactly that: a benefit to the owning corp, not any sort of penalty to anyone else. Hisec is free and open to all comers, even -10s.

There is one thing that I think should come in addition to this: monthly upkeep. You shouldn't just get a benefit like this because nobody has bothered to challenge you on it yet, you should have to pay for it. If this is going to be some melding of Sov and POS mechanics, and both of them include upkeep, this should too. Not only would this encourage corps to stay active to get the benefit, it would hopefully reduce the number of corps con-trolling* a system/constellation.

*(See what I did there?)

2. I've liked this idea and its variants for a long time (you can hardly take credit for this one). Two changes though. First, I would make the "yield" penalty to refining yield, not to actual miner yield. I know, ideally it'd be nice from your standpoint to actually reduce the mining laser yield so miners are encouraged to get out of NPC corps, but that gets into weird game mechanics issues that I don't think we want to mess with. I think it's neater and cleaner to keep changes to station/POS services, not in-space mechanics. Secondly, I would also include an increase to market transaction fees and job installation costs to your CONCORD taxes so that trade and research/industry alts are also discouraged from staying in NPC corps.

EDIT: One thing that I've seen tossed around with these ideas in the past is a minimum membership. I would totally and wholeheartedly oppose this as it would effectively destroy a way of life for myself and many of my associates. If you're willing to put yourself on the line, membership numbers shouldn't count.

3. I like where you're going with your proposed wardec changes, especially allowing offensive assistance, but I can't entirely support it. Allowing offensive assistance would get abused like all get out without hard limits on offensive wardecs and I'm pretty sure you agree with me here. The problem is that I don't like the idea of hard caps on wardecs. Scaling costs? Sure. Hard caps? No. If you want to wardec a corp that is much smaller than you, you should probably pay more. If you want to have a bunch of wardecs active at once, they should probably start costing more per wardec. If you want to keep one wardec active for several months, it should probably start costing more.

So, no to offensive assistance because I don't like the idea of hard caps and it would be broken without them, yes to scaling wardec fees to discourage long, numerous, or lopsided wars.


Cheers.

While some tweaks and ideas are originals in this thread alot of it is just combined into one place and feed off each other for a total rework of the current system. The OP's do need redoing again as more tools are available to us then were when I first started it in C&P. I'm of the opinion social corps and NPC corps should share all the same stuff now except the imposed NPC corp tax gets dropped for social corps. I don't like minimum membership as much as when I first added it in here to see what the communities reactions were too it however I am still a fan of corp creation costs rising to a not insignificant amount while social corp creation could (and probably should) be free.

The wardec offensive assist would be treated the same as a new offensive war.

While I do NOT like hard caps for wars I can tell you what would happen if a group were allowed to control multiple areas. The current powers that be in highsec may see some nullsec competition for viable areas but basically we would have the new rental space in the game via the use of corp tax. Yuck. I would be a fan of the alliance HQ (or corp) was moved to the place where the main capture objective was and yes a fee to maintain your control of it is an excellent idea. I'll have a ponder on that and update (and scrap some stuff) in the OP's and get an opinion then. thanks for the input it's good having another fresh perspective in here.


FOR EVERYBODY
This is about removing the predator/prey system in highsec while attempting to drive conflict and not remove it. If you have any ideas on how to achieve this feel free to add them. If you want to moan about stuff or can't see past a corp ticker there are multiple threads in C&P you can go and moan on until they get locked Blink



Moan moan grumble grumble


I fully agree that the war system is not very good and creates situations like the Marmite model of dec all the things. I am fond of the idea of allowing corps to have an anchored structure which gives them bonuses in a system or constellation. Not so sure that there should be any limit on those though, no reason two friendly corps can't coexist.

One aspect of wars that I see often neglected is that any industrial alliance should be able to dec on any other industrial alliance out of spite / hate. Unfortunately this means that groups like Marmite can also do that, but some of the suggestions here would curb that at least partially.

I'll have to read over them again with the update and ponder.


I think we need a strong industrial/mining incentive to wardec.

Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.

Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.

However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#313 - 2015-08-18 18:15:15 UTC
Mobadder Thworst wrote:


I think we need a strong industrial/mining incentive to wardec.

Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.

Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.

However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.



Agreed, and I believe it would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#314 - 2015-08-18 18:21:52 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
...would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources.

I may well steal this for my CSM platform.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#315 - 2015-08-18 18:27:22 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
...would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources.

I may well steal this for my CSM platform.


I'd vote for you.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Mobadder Thworst
Doomheim
#316 - 2015-08-18 18:41:24 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
...would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources.

I may well steal this for my CSM platform.



Bring back can flipping as well and I'll vote for you...

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#317 - 2015-08-18 19:06:47 UTC
Mobadder Thworst wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
...would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources.

I may well steal this for my CSM platform.



Bring back can flipping as well and I'll vote for you...


You still can still can flip, game mechanics don't prevent it, it's just that people are less likely to mine into a jetcan these days. I suspect-gamed this Retriever into aggressing me (and dying, along with his pod) just a few days ago. (Full disclosure: I shot his MTU instead of flipping a can, but the principle is the same.) I also used to do it recently in ice anoms, but in those cases I just wanted the ice so I didn't shoot anyone. Blink

So...do I get yer vote?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2015-08-18 19:26:46 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Mobadder Thworst wrote:


I think we need a strong industrial/mining incentive to wardec.

Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.

Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.

However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.



Agreed, and I believe it would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources.

Would nerfing market driven activities accomplish anything other than generally higher market prices (and consequently nerf static incomes like bounties and blue loot in all securities)?

Also wouldn't a system that makes carebears want to fight (something I'm not sure actually exists or could be created) be the exact thing that wardecers would want as it actually assures them the fights they are after, even if they have no interest in the structures themselves?
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#319 - 2015-08-18 22:06:52 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:


I fully agree that the war system is not very good and creates situations like the Marmite model of dec all the things. I am fond of the idea of allowing corps to have an anchored structure which gives them bonuses in a system or constellation. Not so sure that there should be any limit on those though, no reason two friendly corps can't coexist.

One aspect of wars that I see often neglected is that any industrial alliance should be able to dec on any other industrial alliance out of spite / hate. Unfortunately this means that groups like Marmite can also do that, but some of the suggestions here would curb that at least partially.

I'll have to read over them again with the update and ponder.

This is why alliances exist. When 2 friendly corps wish to coexist with all the benefits. The issue about not limiting it to one a constellation or some limit is it doesn't drive conflict it just provides a buff.

@the fighting bears comment (phone sorry)
If we buffed conflict drivers for those utilizing space and nerfed mechanics currently encouraging the predator/ prey system how many groups would be 'forced' to contest a mass dec outfit adjusting to the new mechanism? Maybe a few for a few weeks until the target poor environment bled their member base down to those wanting the actual merc life

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#320 - 2015-08-18 22:18:11 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
Mobadder Thworst wrote:


I think we need a strong industrial/mining incentive to wardec.

Perhaps if we were able to nerf isk hard in highsec, but give a substantial bonus for controlling a structure in a system.

Greed is traditionally a great driver of conflict. I think isk is already too easy to get in high-sec, so a nerf would be necessary.

However, if there were facilities (and maybe not in every system) that would be FAR more valuable to carebears than war deccers, you would create 1) an incentive for carebears to attack and 2) meaningful war efforts.



Agreed, and I believe it would reduce the frequency of troll decs and blanket decs. More of the wars being declared would be 'legitimate' wars over resources.

Would nerfing market driven activities accomplish anything other than generally higher market prices (and consequently nerf static incomes like bounties and blue loot in all securities)?

Also wouldn't a system that makes carebears want to fight (something I'm not sure actually exists or could be created) be the exact thing that wardecers would want as it actually assures them the fights they are after, even if they have no interest in the structures themselves?


Your points are valid but what I'm trying to get at is that a model that encourages conflict over improved resources would take people interested in conflict and hive them something to do beyond simply hunting whatever prey they can catch. Obviously they would still be doing that somewhat, but if they are getting their fix elsewhere there's less incentive to hunt prey.

People looking g to avoid conflict would still have to be wary, but their predators would be mostly preoccupied in more meaningful fights.

Of course that's an idealized view of what I think would improve the situation, actually getting to that would be difficult to say the least.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.