These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#321 - 2015-08-18 22:25:03 UTC
Mobadder Thworst wrote:

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.



Dude, that's like my first post in this thread.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#322 - 2015-08-18 22:42:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mobadder Thworst wrote:

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.



Dude, that's like my first post in this thread.


Who has time for reading though?

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#323 - 2015-08-18 22:44:50 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
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.
I can definitely see the goal here but the usual issues aren't necessarily resolved.

Will to fight remains an issue because the barrier there isn't simply having nothing to fight for, but also believing one case win and that the reward will be worth the losses involved in securing that victory. A miss in any of those considerations becomes an issue, and with having the resource or structure acting as a beacon for potential fights the predator/prey mechanic isn't truly removed, but rather is just focused on fewer "prey" groups that in theory should be defensible best case and worse case these resources just get locked down by the owners of the biggest stick.

If the latter happens then lesser predators will do what they are doing now, pooling resources to become big fish or hunting easy prey for not being able to hold their own in the big boy mechanics.

As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#324 - 2015-08-18 23:24:10 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mobadder Thworst wrote:

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.



Dude, that's like my first post in this thread.


Who has time for reading though?


I'll just claim that I was a visionary who was unappreciated in his time, like Nostradamus or Spiderman.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#325 - 2015-08-18 23:38:47 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened.


Now this is just nonsense.

Income, and thereby purchasing power, is 100% relative. If NPC corps are made into a sub optimal method of personal income generation, then player corps are definitively more attractive by comparison. And that is what they are being compared against, NPC corps with their functionally free safety in which to grind, while player corps by and large just have a chat channel and a group hangar.

If we want to encourage more participation in player corps (which CCP has stated is a goal of theirs), then it will not be accomplished without nerfing NPC corps, and that's just the reality of it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#326 - 2015-08-18 23:45:26 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
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.
I can definitely see the goal here but the usual issues aren't necessarily resolved.

Will to fight remains an issue because the barrier there isn't simply having nothing to fight for, but also believing one case win and that the reward will be worth the losses involved in securing that victory. A miss in any of those considerations becomes an issue, and with having the resource or structure acting as a beacon for potential fights the predator/prey mechanic isn't truly removed, but rather is just focused on fewer "prey" groups that in theory should be defensible best case and worse case these resources just get locked down by the owners of the biggest stick.

If the latter happens then lesser predators will do what they are doing now, pooling resources to become big fish or hunting easy prey for not being able to hold their own in the big boy mechanics.

As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened.

I see what you're saying, those who believe they cannot fight will still believe they cannot fight, but will just be more poor. Those who already know they can fight probably won't notice much change.

My biggest problem with trying g to push people into null or WH space is that people who can't play every night reliably tend to run into problems in those ares. I myself, in my last 3 or so months with test, spent ~%50 of my time on move ops, ~%30 of my time shooting structures, ~%10 of my time ratting or running sites with corp mates, and ~%10 of my time actually in fleets shooting baddies or roaming.

It was the primary reason I left, when I was available, nothing good was happening, everything fun was happening g while I was at work or sleeping or hanging out with my wife.

Low sec obviously doesn't suffer that problem as much as 0.0 or WH but still there at least a bit.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2015-08-18 23:49:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

As for the nerf isk crowd, that's always a goal without an end. It doesn't change motivations or rework the power balance between corps/alliances. Sure, the feel good stance of we make more than them is there, but the core complaint of war evasion because being in a corp is worthless only gets strengthened.


Now this is just nonsense.

Income, and thereby purchasing power, is 100% relative. If NPC corps are made into a sub optimal method of personal income generation, then player corps are definitively more attractive by comparison. And that is what they are being compared against, NPC corps with their functionally free safety in which to grind, while player corps by and large just have a chat channel and a group hangar.

If we want to encourage more participation in player corps (which CCP has stated is a goal of theirs), then it will not be accomplished without nerfing NPC corps, and that's just the reality of it.
No, the issue isn't the worth of NPC corps to player corps, it's the worth of player corps to each other. So long as player corps have no distinction, meaning the benefits of being in one are conveyed to all corps equally, there will be no advantage to staying in any particular corp during a war.

The optimal method of NPC corp dwelling will shift to 1 man corps and wardec evasion corps. Which is something I really have no issue with. My comment actually had nothing to do with NPC corps but rather entirely to do with the idea that nerfing even those player corps via changes to highsec in general makes any aspect of loyalty to a single flag in a fight even less appealing, so the whole point of NPC corps being relative isn't even addressing the statement I made.

Player corps have never been only compared to just NPC corps and never will be. So long as non-social and evasive player corp options exist player corp membership will still remain meaningless.

Tengu Grib wrote:
I see what you're saying, those who believe they cannot fight will still believe they cannot fight, but will just be more poor. Those who already know they can fight probably won't notice much change.

My biggest problem with trying g to push people into null or WH space is that people who can't play every night reliably tend to run into problems in those ares. I myself, in my last 3 or so months with test, spent ~%50 of my time on move ops, ~%30 of my time shooting structures, ~%10 of my time ratting or running sites with corp mates, and ~%10 of my time actually in fleets shooting baddies or roaming.

It was the primary reason I left, when I was available, nothing good was happening, everything fun was happening g while I was at work or sleeping or hanging out with my wife.

Low sec obviously doesn't suffer that problem as much as 0.0 or WH but still there at least a bit.
I'm certainly not advocating the idea of forcing people out of highsec, I tend to consider it as valid a place to play as any other, rather I'm just pointing out that the current wardec mechanics had the same high hopes as the suggestion while filling in none of the actual gaps and further incentivizing dog piling on opponents. The only difference here is that there is now a game acknowledged throne for the top dog. As you stated, all those who would rather not compete go on as normal.

I'm not sure what the solution is, mainly due to the will to exploit whatever is put into place, but who knows, maybe the evils with this idea are lesser than what we currently suffer.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#328 - 2015-08-18 23:58:53 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, the issue isn't the worth of NPC corps to player corps, it's the worth of player corps to each other.


No, the issue literally is NPC corps vs player corps. There are too many reasons to be in the first, and not enough reasons to be in the latter.


Quote:
My comment actually had nothing to do with NPC corps but rather entirely to do with the idea that nerfing even those player corps via changes to highsec in general makes any aspect of loyalty to a single flag in a fight even less appealing


How? Giving player corps a starbase module that would improve their income, and only one can exist per constellation, perfectly improves incentives for sticking with one corp, and improving it. It also encourages PvE corps to compete over something instead of competing over nothing.


Quote:
So long as non-social and evasive player corp options exist player corp membership will still remain meaningless.


People who insist on excluding themselves from the game shouldn't even be considered in the caculations. We should be focusing on encouraging people who aren't maladjusted misanthropes to play with one another, instead of having mechanics that discourage such interaction.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#329 - 2015-08-19 00:10:27 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, the issue literally is NPC corps vs player corps. There are too many reasons to be in the first, and not enough reasons to be in the latter.
Which isn't an issue if being in the latter inherently only gives advantages but never requires those advantages be defended. Rather as things stand now there are advantages distinguishing the 2, but nerfing NPC corps to the point of further compulsion towards 1 man corp online eliminates that barrier. That's a reality I'm fine with as it's personally beneficial, but it's certainly not a social or conflict improvement in itself.

Quote:
How? Giving player corps a starbase module that would improve their income, and only one can exist per constellation, perfectly improves incentives for sticking with one corp, and improving it. It also encourages PvE corps to compete over something instead of competing over nothing.
No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage."

Quote:
People who insist on excluding themselves from the game shouldn't even be considered in the caculations. We should be focusing on encouraging people who aren't maladjusted misanthropes to play with one another, instead of having mechanics that discourage such interaction.
Ignoring the unnecessary pejoratives applied to those who haven't fallen for the typical "only one way to play" BS, if this is true there are no reasons to change NPC corps as they are collectives consisting of largely those kinds of players.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#330 - 2015-08-19 02:10:54 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I'm certainly not advocating the idea of forcing people out of highsec, I tend to consider it as valid a place to play as any other, rather I'm just pointing out that the current wardec mechanics had the same high hopes as the suggestion while filling in none of the actual gaps and further incentivizing dog piling on opponents. The only difference here is that there is now a game acknowledged throne for the top dog. As you stated, all those who would rather not compete go on as normal.

I'm not sure what the solution is, mainly due to the will to exploit whatever is put into place, but who knows, maybe the evils with this idea are lesser than what we currently suffer.


Sorry the part about kicking people out of high sec by making it utter crap to live in wasn't directed at you, it was directed at Feyd. I'm on my phone and out for dinner with my inlaws so I probably failed to make that clear.

I agree that there are no simple solutions, and I have yet to read a suggestion that fills in all the gaps without breaking g something else in some horrible way.

I don't claim to have an answer, and while I don't agree with all of Feyds ideas, I do concede it's very well put together. I think many of the things here have merit of their own.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#331 - 2015-08-19 02:39:02 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage."


And attitudes like that can just sit in an NPC corp for all I care. With significantly reduced income, of course.

If you aren't willing to fight, you do not belong in a player corp. If your false dichotomy consists of "I should get to grind in complete safety or else I'll quit", then quit. You're what's holding the game back.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2015-08-19 03:26:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, it gives a few that capability and the rest the option of joining the winning side or ignoring the mechanic. If only 1 can exist then those who know they aren't the strongest there need not apply. There is no reward for participation, just the cost of replacing the wrecks that were once your ships. Worse, if the mechanic is a conflict driver you can bet you won't get a moments peace to enjoy your "advantage."


And attitudes like that can just sit in an NPC corp for all I care. With significantly reduced income, of course.

If you aren't willing to fight, you do not belong in a player corp. If your false dichotomy consists of "I should get to grind in complete safety or else I'll quit", then quit. You're what's holding the game back.

Who's post are you reading where you saw something about quitting? It wasn't in what you quoted. It wasn't in the parts of the post you didn't quote either.

Either way there isn't any reason for anyone to feel required stay in NPC corps if they are nerfed so of course they won't if the nerfs affect them significantly. Your opinion about attitudes based on the way someone else is enjoying the game holds no weight over other players. Each of them will decide what to do for themselves as they should if such changes were to happen, just as they do now.

If being in a player corp is significantly advantageous to me I will be in one, and I will continue to fight on the terms I decide to the extent of my ability to determine those terms.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#333 - 2015-08-19 04:15:33 UTC
I don't see too much issue with the Wardec system, the biggest problem seems to be that highseccers who get decced don't know how to stay safe and so they just stop playing. Once you understand how they hunt you and find you, you can pretty easily make yourself very scarce most of the time.

But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#334 - 2015-08-19 07:40:04 UTC
Op is now updated. have at it again Big smile

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

Black Pedro
Mine.
#335 - 2015-08-19 08:24:35 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets.
No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels).

Of course, the "social corp" proposal could solve this - the NPC corp that has a player-selected name and chat channel. I still am in favour of this idea as a way risk-averse players can tune their risk but still play the game with a social group while respecting the risk vs. reward side of the game.

Ultimately though, corporations exist to compete with each other. This game is founded on the ideas of competition for power and resources. Players need tools to disrupt their rivals.

It seems that these new structures might be just that. The fact that much of the bonus of them comes from rigs that are unanchorable, means that players will be forced to defend them, and their corporation if they want to keep the benefits of them. It all depends on these bonuses and their cost, but if both are significant, we have a new reason to fight for your corporation in the event of a wardec which might make some of the problems with wardecs go away.

Seems like the OP proposal for additional, but limited, constellation-wide structure benefits could co-exists with this and drive even more conflict. So +1 in general for the idea.

These new structures have much promise to revitalize the game. I might even go as far as saying the long-term health of the game depends on CCP getting them right, and maximizing their potential.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#336 - 2015-08-21 09:36:02 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets.
No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels).

Of course, the "social corp" proposal could solve this - the NPC corp that has a player-selected name and chat channel. I still am in favour of this idea as a way risk-averse players can tune their risk but still play the game with a social group while respecting the risk vs. reward side of the game.

Ultimately though, corporations exist to compete with each other. This game is founded on the ideas of competition for power and resources. Players need tools to disrupt their rivals.

It seems that these new structures might be just that. The fact that much of the bonus of them comes from rigs that are unanchorable, means that players will be forced to defend them, and their corporation if they want to keep the benefits of them. It all depends on these bonuses and their cost, but if both are significant, we have a new reason to fight for your corporation in the event of a wardec which might make some of the problems with wardecs go away.

Seems like the OP proposal for additional, but limited, constellation-wide structure benefits could co-exists with this and drive even more conflict. So +1 in general for the idea.

These new structures have much promise to revitalize the game. I might even go as far as saying the long-term health of the game depends on CCP getting them right, and maximizing their potential.

Non mutual violence is part of the essence of eve. I do not want this gone however I do want there to be a reason for more people to want to do space violence.

I do think that a corp lite is needed that isn't deccabel but cant compete with a real corp on its benefits. that's an idea for another thread now Big smile

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
#337 - 2015-08-21 13:19:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tengu Grib
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see too much issue with the Wardec system, the biggest problem seems to be that highseccers who get decced don't know how to stay safe and so they just stop playing. Once you understand how they hunt you and find you, you can pretty easily make yourself very scarce most of the time.

But it would be nice if it were possible for a corp to be immune to non-mutual wars. It should of course also mean they cannot start non-mutual wars. Perhaps corps could maintain a security status much like corp standings, based on the security status of players within the corp. Perhaps any corp with a security status of at least 5.0 would be able to decline war declarations and force them to not happen. This gives corps a way to do it, but makes it a goal that can be difficult to reach, especially if you don't police your members very well. It's an alternative to living in a NPC corp for those of us who have trouble avoiding war targets.


Your idea is awful but let me explain why.

If that were the case, it would lead to corporations filled with veteran risk averse players (people who could defend themselves if they chose to). Their corps would be immune to war decs under your system.

These groups would refuse to recruit newer players as it would lower their average security status, putting their war immunity at risk. Due to this, veterans would be immune to war and new players would be left to the wolves (I am a wolf). Seeing as all other targets would be immune to war, war dec corps would have no one to attack but newer players.

Overall, this would be the complete opposite of healthy for the game.

It's important for new players to get a taste of war, or some other form of spaceship violence, early. But they shouldn't be singled out as the only viable targets of war.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2015-08-22 02:13:51 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought faction navies do not assist in illegal POS bashes in lowsec? Unless you're referring to POSes in highsec?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#339 - 2015-08-22 02:50:12 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought faction navies do not assist in illegal POS bashes in lowsec? Unless you're referring to POSes in highsec?

He is talking about highsec. People forget that this is something that will affect lowsec (albeit only slightly and make more isk for those living in their areas)

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

Black Pedro
Mine.
#340 - 2015-08-22 05:44:43 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
No, unworkable. Enables veterans to grind ISK and do Industry in complete safety. There would be no way to take down a POS (and soon citadels).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought faction navies do not assist in illegal POS bashes in lowsec? Unless you're referring to POSes in highsec?

Highsec. There is no other mechanism to remove/attack a POS in highsec other than a wardec.