These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Solecist Project
#21 - 2015-04-22 16:37:04 UTC
until inevitably the goons come and take it away ...
... and that will happen.

They will make code look like the children's party it is .........

Wow i have lost all my enthusiasm.
sometimes ignorance is more fun.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-04-22 16:55:06 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:

So you feel that increasing income for PvE'ers in battles with other PvE'ers over PvE based objectives Would not encourage PvP in highsec?

....
I feel if you combine 'ownership' and 'ISK rewards' together in highsec and lowsec with a new set of structures that lets everybody know you live here and rewards you for living here it will not only improve highsec and lowsec but will also drive competition for the better areas and thus will attract people to form bigger highsec groups to compete over these while at the same time allowing the smaller groups to get into 'less desirable' areas and grow there while not really getting picked on by anybody due to the changes i proposed in declaring war on others. I would be intrested to hear your thoughts on this?

Well.
- we already have it in 0.0. Did it make PvE players fight? Or it made overall more fights?
- (thanks to Sol for reminding) we already have Customs Offices in high-sec. Did they make PvE players engage in PvP?
And Customs Offices are "ownership + bonuses" in refined form.
- you mentioned 'PvErs against PvErs' but where are PvPers then? You said 'they will assist'. Lol.
They will wardec anyone around knowing that targets have no choices.

Let's compare pros and cons here:
Corporation:
+ (small) bonuses to mission rewards and mining (in constellation or in one system?)
+ 'ownership' of piece of space
- creation payment
- management hurdle (minimal number of players, etc...)
- wardecs (constant if you try to own good place) and losses
- freedom
- you cannot leave the corp - with constant wars you will have everything from 'killright' to 'personal wardec'. And wars will be constant
- you cannot take vacation or go to cinema with wife/kids - your corp needs meatshild to defend that structure
- you cannot just move to other end of universe - you will lose bonuses from that structure you need to have and defend
- you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency

NPC:
- taxes and penalty to mining
- no lvl4s (just blitz lvl3s and you fine)
- did i miss something?

Again:
You make the game as a whole worse for PvEers and say "you can get some of your losses back if you additionally do X,Y and Z. These tasks will take your ISK. And it will take your time which you could spend doing what you like to do...... Yea, don't forget that you WILL lose your stuff trying to do these things to more experienced and organized players".
Personally i'm trying to put myself into such situation.... For now i think i would either:
1) accept losses (taxes, no lvl4s) and ignore new system
2) add alts to my account and switch between them while in war
3) move to 0.0 renter empire
In both cases you got nothing in high-sec. Yes, you did hurt my PvE playstyle so maybe that was what you really wanted to achieve? Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#23 - 2015-04-22 17:24:51 UTC
Customs Office ownership was never going to be a motivator. Hisec Planetary Interaction is a joke, and one can get better profits by doing it in lowsec or null. People who do use planets in hisec use them as manufactories for the tier 4/5 commodities.

Besides if I want to use a planet in hisec and don't want to pay high fees, I can just negotiate with the people who own the POCO for blue status and get a lower tax rate; or just hire a merc corp to blow it up so I can put down another.

Also, for a POCO to actually make some isk for that corp, it has to own a lot of them and the tax rate has to be set at a price people are willing to pay to use that planet.

So yeah, hisec POCOs are not a big conflict generator.



Maybe make it so that wardecs actually payout substantial isk to the winner, but in a way that can't be exploited; which I can't think of.

I do like the idea of a hisec iHub in each system that a corp can own and it increases their isk generation, but can only switch hands through a wardec. However, it would have to be implemented in a way that could not be abused. Main type of abuse in that system would be that a big alliance would go out and take them all, and then no one could take them back because that alliance was too big to take on. Kinda like the CFC in hisec. The hisec blue donut if you will.

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2015-04-22 20:05:19 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Lachesiss wrote:
*Ban alt reps*
This means any alt repping is slaughtered by concord. Not this flashy yellow crap. Alts would have to join the corps that are actually in the war.

*Ban fighting on the main trade hubs* Actually stuff it ban it system wide on main trade hubs and anybody at war cannot enter the trade hub system.

Bring back the 3d hologram naked chick in gallente stations. It would take there mind off aggression.


Ahh sod it make all of eve null and we can just kill each other everywhere.

Blimey these Mojito are strong *Hic*

Lol. I agree with reps and boosts forced in alliance/whomever assisted the war. As far as suspect games go I think that is another kettle of fish



I would like to see suspect games on hubs go away in highsec, thus forcing people to actually go out and work for kills and fleet fights in highsec wouldn't be a giant game of whackamole on station.

That's my personal bias. I would like to see the many people who do this all day forced to actually play the game. But I know it willnever happen.

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-04-22 20:27:13 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Customs Office ownership was never going to be a motivator. Hisec Planetary Interaction is a joke, and one can get better profits by doing it in lowsec or null. People who do use planets in hisec use them as manufactories for the tier 4/5 commodities.

Besides if I want to use a planet in hisec and don't want to pay high fees, I can just negotiate with the people who own the POCO for blue status and get a lower tax rate; or just hire a merc corp to blow it up so I can put down another.

Also, for a POCO to actually make some isk for that corp, it has to own a lot of them and the tax rate has to be set at a price people are willing to pay to use that planet.

So yeah, hisec POCOs are not a big conflict generator.



Maybe make it so that wardecs actually payout substantial isk to the winner, but in a way that can't be exploited; which I can't think of.

I do like the idea of a hisec iHub in each system that a corp can own and it increases their isk generation, but can only switch hands through a wardec. However, it would have to be implemented in a way that could not be abused. Main type of abuse in that system would be that a big alliance would go out and take them all, and then no one could take them back because that alliance was too big to take on. Kinda like the CFC in hisec. The hisec blue donut if you will.



This is a problem I've got at before. If you try to generate conflict by creating new and significant sources of ISK that are campable, the biggest blob is going to camp them while they farm the ISK.

I just don't see a way to fix wars so that you can make them unavoidable without breaking the game. If you make them impossible to dodge, it will be absolutely possible to wardec a player out of the game.



Danalee
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#26 - 2015-04-22 21:02:25 UTC
Please stop trolling with the premise that when you wardec someone he/she has no options at all.

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#27 - 2015-04-22 21:59:39 UTC
To anyone saying that neutral logi should be removed.

Sure, so long as it applies equally, that you can only rep someone in your corp or alliance. Not just in a war, but across the board.

"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.

Mobadder Thworst
Doomheim
#28 - 2015-04-22 22:21:23 UTC
Sorry I'm late, was over at the swimsuit competition. I have never felt so pretty!

I think the problem with wars right now is that they are too impersonal. The high costs have destroyed the small local war dec vender.
Those people who used to provide that excellent service and personal interaction had to get jobs with large impersonal merc corporations who only know you are a flashie.

A local 3 person corp just can't make a go at it anymore with costs and structure being what it is..

Those small corps made it possible for targets and aggressors to really get to know each other and have fights.

The small local war dec corps were fun and much easier to defeat. I think they were good content.

I can lament the death of can flipping now, if you want to see tears. Tragedy, it's just tragedy...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#29 - 2015-04-22 22:28:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
To anyone saying that neutral logi should be removed.

Sure, so long as it applies equally, that you can only rep someone in your corp or alliance. Not just in a war, but across the board.
lol, why? That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#30 - 2015-04-22 22:30:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Lucas Kell wrote:
lol, why?


Because if you're going to make heavy handed mechanics like Concording people who rep others, then it should apply equally.

Quote:

That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.


Good. If people are going to propose ideas that are so blatantly one sided, they should have it pointed at them, so it exposes what a goddamned awful idea it really is. If you aren't willing to yourself deal with something you want inflicted on others, then it's wrong, simple as that.

You forgot that it destroys the incursion communities as well, by the way.

"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.

Valkin Mordirc
#31 - 2015-04-22 22:39:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
To anyone saying that neutral logi should be removed.

Sure, so long as it applies equally, that you can only rep someone in your corp or alliance. Not just in a war, but across the board.
lol, why? That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.



Because if you rep somebody in highsec that is in alliance you get a suspect flag.

So as the system stands it encourages neutral logi.
#DeleteTheWeak
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#32 - 2015-04-22 22:48:15 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
lol, why?
Because if you're going to make heavy handed mechanics like Concording people who rep others, then it should apply equally.
Quote:
That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.
Good. If people are going to propose ideas that are so blatantly one sided, they should have it pointed at them, so it exposes what a goddamned awful idea it really is. If you aren't willing to yourself deal with something you want inflicted on others, then it's wrong, simple as that.

You forgot that it destroys the incursion communities as well, by the way.
How is it one sided? Tbh, the people that are usually complaining about neutral logi are people on your side of the fence. Personally I couldn't care less since I'm not going to fight, and I imagine most of the people you hate in this thread wouldn't either.

Serious question, is there anything you don't complain about? You seem to hate everything these days.

Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
lol, why? That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.
Because if you rep somebody in highsec that is in alliance you get a suspect flag.

So as the system stands it encourages neutral logi.
Under what circumstances do you get flagged? In a war? If that's the case it sounds broken, since if your alliance is in a war, you're in it together.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#33 - 2015-04-23 00:01:52 UTC
Things I feel should change:


1) Surrender is presently meaningless for small corps, they can reform without cost.
- Suggested fix: Add benefits for significant membership tenure in a corp. Perhaps the removal of the 11% NPC corp tax should apply only once you've been in a corp a week, and long term membership (30+ days) might give you +3% incursion LP rewards or something like that

2) The defender entities have no incentive to actively resist
- Suggested fix: Instead of just deleting the ISK that's paid to declare war, have the defender be able to claim it by killing the aggressors (using the exact mechanic used for bounties)

3) A minority of newbies don't understand what a wardec means
- Suggested fix: CEOs that don't inform new players of the danger of a war should be hunted by the playerbase until they stop forming corps, as these people are terrible for the game.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#34 - 2015-04-23 00:35:31 UTC
Like I said before crimewatch was ever implemented:

There is no real tactical advantage gained by logistics being neutral. A fleet that was not able to win an engagement in which neutral logistics were used would not have been any more capable of winning if the logistics were not neutral. The only advantage that was ever gained by logistics being neutral was and still is the element of surprise. What people are complaining about when they complain about neutral logistics is local chat not giving them accurate intelligence about enemy numbers.

Since people genuinely don't understand crimewatch or the system it replaced it was never the case that you could not shoot neutral logistics, ever since highsec war was a thing (2004?) you've been able to shoot at the people remotely assisting your war targets. Largely the perception to the contrary was caused by people not from highsec having their overview states not set up to show players as being flagged with aggression. Right up until inferno I routinely heard it from fairly high profile players from Nullsec, lowsec and wormhole space that they believed it impossible to shoot neutral logistics even though it was totally untrue.

This is not to mention that what qualifies as per the game mechanics "neutral logistics" extends well beyond some dude and his Onerios alt. People who ally into wars are "neutral" to the defender in the war. Everyone in the game is "neutral" to another player that has a limited engagement timer for any reason whatsoever. Being at war and having a PVP timer (not even a suspect flag or limited engagement timer) makes every person not in your alliance "neutral" to you.

Crimewatch was a horribly designed system filled with flaws. These flaws are generally considered to be intended and it's trivial to use them to your advantage when you know how to. People who are familiar with those mechanics and encounter them frequently aren't the people who are screwed over by them, the people who aren't dedicated highsec PVPers are.
Mobadder Thworst
Doomheim
#35 - 2015-04-23 00:36:34 UTC
I acknowledge that wars( in my opinion far more than can flipping or mission baiting) have the ability to wash out newbros.

Here is the scenario (in old rules).
1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp
2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands.
3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.


I agree this mechanic comes at a cost and needs changed. However, the new dynamics destroy the interpersonal interactions outright.

I think an alternate solution would be to create some low level options to let noobs entertain themselves at limited risk while at war.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#36 - 2015-04-23 00:40:19 UTC
Mobadder Thworst wrote:

Here is the scenario (in old rules).
1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp
2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands.
3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.

Except at that point in time you could only declare 3 wars at any given time, so that particular use of wars was fairly unlikely. It was also more likely that the person declaring war wouldn't be a 200 man alliance.
Mobadder Thworst
Doomheim
#37 - 2015-04-23 00:56:02 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Mobadder Thworst wrote:

Here is the scenario (in old rules).
1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp
2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands.
3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.

Except at that point in time you could only declare 3 wars at any given time, so that particular use of wars was fairly unlikely. It was also more likely that the person declaring war wouldn't be a 200 man alliance.



... I wasn't writing fiction here. This is a bad example of norm, perhaps; but I still think it's the dock orders for a week at a time that wash players out.

I loved the old rules, but for all the crying about every kind of griefing... The only thing I know of that washes out players is weeks of no play.

The targets decided to dock, but guys like me supported it with war decs.

I just think instead of breaking all the grief and pvp mechanics, they should have just found a way for noobs to entertain themselves or buy out of war decs or some such.

The problem is weeks of no play.

I think the current war dec and grief watch mechanics are worse than the costs of the old system.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#38 - 2015-04-23 01:12:25 UTC
The whole war system is poorly designed and ineffective. It tries to force highsec PvE players to engage in ship to ship combat, which they have no interest in doing. The game should be about enabling fun, not forcing folks to do what they detest. The only long term solution is to get rid of nonconsensual wardeccs in highsec.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#39 - 2015-04-23 01:35:24 UTC
It's not universally the case that players who spend time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#40 - 2015-04-23 01:35:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Noragen Neirfallas
Solecist Project wrote:
until inevitably the goons come and take it away ...
... and that will happen.

I'm confused by this statement. I'm not sure how goons would take this away as they would be unable to take any of these structures in my proposal. Goons were unable/unwilling to hold POCO's in High-Sec let alone try and hold random PvE boosting structures

March rabbit wrote:

- we already have it in 0.0. Did it make PvE players fight? Or it made overall more fights?

Yes. Being in a renter alliance when I moved to Null-Sec people affecting our income would often drag out a fight. Messing with the ESS? you would have 20 people suddenly in battle cruisers and logi boats. I find no better motivator then profit. There will always be exceptions but I found on a whole with one person keen to lead the fight that everybody else with a stake in it would follow
March rabbit wrote:

- (thanks to Sol for reminding) we already have Customs Offices in high-sec. Did they make PvE players engage in PvP?
And Customs Offices are "ownership + bonuses" in refined form.

Again yes. Some of the best High-Sec fights I've had brought to me by bears involved the taking of their POCO's or POS's. Messing with someones income is a powerful tool. Hell if they are good enough sports about it you don't even bother killing the structure unless you actually wanted it to start with.
March rabbit wrote:

- you mentioned 'PvErs against PvErs' but where are PvPers then? You said 'they will assist'. Lol.
They will wardec anyone around knowing that targets have no choices.

My proposed changes would see an end to one group having the ability to be in many wars at once. One offensive and perhaps 5-10 assists. Lets take the number of 5 for this and use Marmite as our example. Marmite as a whole disbands with the new system into Marmite 1-6.
Marmite 1 Decs Bear A. Marmite 2-6 assist Marmite 1.
Marmite 2 Decs Bear B. Marmite 1+3-6 assist Marmite 2 etc.
At most Marmite can have 6 wars in its current state. This means A picking targets very carefully. B the inability to dec the same target for another 2 weeks by any of those parties. With this in mind Marmite could Dec Bear A for 1 week of every 3 at the very most. I don't condone Dec Dodging but I also feel choice in this game is everything so my proposal was that you would be stuck in a NPC corp for 1 week if you drop during a war or the cool down for a war. This would mean if a group was 'Cyclic deccing' that you could predict the next round of wars and preemptively drop if they were not focused on taking your 'Constellation/Alliance/Corporate Structure' and instead focused on harassment. Not to mention Bear A for not having their Structure taken they would get all/some (haven't worked on these details yet) of the ISK for being successful

All of these changes do not affect the NPC/Social Corp proposal
Let's compare pros and cons here:
Corporation:
+ (small) bonuses to mission rewards and mining (in constellation or in one system?)

10% increased income from LP/ISK and Mining is quite the benefit to be fair. Make it 15%? I'm not a numbers guy. What would motivate and yet not be unbalanced?
+ 'ownership' of piece of space
Ownership=Vanity. At the end of the day that will motivate some Smile
- creation payment
That one off creation payment is negligible. A group of friends starting out in the game could pool that together in a few days of playing and it would mean something to them. Those who can afford it with no hassle wont be affected. It also encourages you financially to hold on to your in game identity.
- management hurdle (minimal number of players, etc...)
If you can't keep 10 players in yoru corp (including ALT's) the Social Corp proposal is the idea for you
- wardecs (constant if you try to own good place) and losses
Yes the other groups will want your space if you own better space. Welcome to eve online I hope you enjoy your stay here Big smile. On a serious note this falls under the Risk/Reward category. Is painting a giant bullseye on your corp really worth controlling the Osmon Constellation?
- freedom
- you cannot leave the corp - with constant wars you will have everything from 'killright' to 'personal wardec'. And wars will be constant

Covered earlier but TLDR you can always drop corp you just can't join another for a week
- you cannot take vacation or go to cinema with wife/kids - your corp needs meatshild to defend that structure
This is the classic NS arguement atm. Long story short if people are contesting you owning that prime highsec strip and you can't defend it for a few hours while at war (which wont be constant) do you deserve to live there? perhaps another more deserving group will indeed take it over and you will have to suffice for second best. Also if it really is that much better you can hire protection or recruit a more PvP focused corp into your alliance. Hell this could see PvP focus and PvE focus blending instead of being 2 different beasts
- you cannot just move to other end of universe - you will lose bonuses from that structure you need to have and defend
Correct. Should you not get more from living with your corp mates and working that area. Bring in a slight bonus based on living there that lines up with the proposed nullsec changes
- you cannot use good fits for PvE - you always need to be ready for PvP so you lose PvE efficiency
nobody in nullsec or lowsec runs fits based on efficiency? This will not change anymore then it is now. People currently run fits based on efficiency and not PvP while at war and still do ok. I'm not sure how these proposed changes would affect this at all?

To be continued

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