Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well the tax penalty for NPC/Social Corps would also encompass LP so even blitzing L3's isn't going to have the same rewards



Not get some of this ISK back. Earn more. Alot of the more risk adverse players will join the social corps where ganking and suspect baiting are your only real threats in High-Sec. I revised the original idea of social corps. they would remain as current with no bonus/penalties. The trade off for not being wardeccable is also not able to own a structure. You will always lose stuff in eve. It's what makes the game fun is risking real time investments. Does anybody actively dispute that?

With current changes to nullsec 0.0 renting empires are about to become a whole lot more frequented I think. At least your enemies are red and blinky (depending on overview settings) in your local window. A vigilant player can avoid them and an active corp could perhaps counter them especially if the large corps I see growing from these changes recruit PvPer's.

Nobody is attacking you don't take this personally mate. You want changes. I'm proposing some that don't turn High-Sec into Disneyland. Eve is gritty. Eve is harsh. It makes Eve fun.

I look forward to hearing from you after clarifying my stance for you

Next


As far as POCO's go I personally have owned 3. They made their ISK back in less then 2 months. After that it was all profit and content. But perhaps POCO's need to be looked at in this new proposal. I'll have a think on it. Otherwise they get captured using the entosis link as individual entities. hmm. any ideas on how to improve POCO's inside of this proposal?

I was thinking that the way that wardecs would pay out would be that if
Scenario A You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you. You pay 750mil isk for the war. Marmite pays 750mil isk to assist. You win. War ends. You get 375mil back and the constellation. Marmite get 375mil back and you pay them their fee.

Scenario B You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you. You pay 750mil isk for the war. Marmite pays 750mil isk to assist. You lose . War ends. Your enemy gets 750mil ISK in winnings and you and Marmite get gif trolled in local for the next 2 weeks till you can try again.

Scenario C You hold the Aulari Constellation and Bear 2 declares war on you. You Hire Marmite to assist and defend your hard fought for and won lands. Marmite assists you the defender for 750mil isk. You win. War ends. Marmite gets back their 375mil and you get the (offensive investment)/2.

Scenario D You hold the Aulari Constellation and Bear 2 declares war on you. You Hire Marmite to assist and defend your hard fought for and won lands. Marmite assists you the defender for 750mil isk. You lose . War ends. You lose your constellation bonus. You must seek out a new home and your home system is the only 1 in which you generate your 15% bonus (or whatever the bonus is). (Defender assist ISK)/2 goes to the victor.

War is Gritty. War is Harsh. War is Expensive but has great reward potential. Sounds very eve to me
Also while CFC( or whatever they want to call themselves these days) could certainly try and abuse this I think the value of the assist should scale with the amount of people in the assisting alliance. This will limit the blue donuts as its not going to be profitable to attempt this

I enjoy PvP. I don't enjoy having to dodge linked, instalocking hub campers.

You want ******* pvp content? Make it enough of a fair fight that it's actually fun for both sides. Not a hard concept. You can bleat all you want about how hard and scary the game's supposed to be, no fair fights etc. That doesn't change the fact that people don't want to fight you because it's either hopeless, or insanely boring because you hide. You want CCP to force people to play clay pigeons for you because nobody is stupid or lifeless enough to play your game.

I watched some corp try to dunk DF on the Dodixie undock a few weeks ago and I swear I didn't know there were that many Nestors in the whole game. I mean, really?

I came for the spaceships. Could care less about your hard scary universe that's only scary when you play without a half dozen alts and your pet blob.

Not empty quoting.

Missed this one. Nah the thread can move to wherever once the people who regularly discuss these issues are done. The other forums tend to lose the point quite quickly. Here we are on page 3 with what a half dozen snide remarks and as many useless posts. I'd say even if it degenerated into a troll fest now it was successful. Its a topic that has been a passion of mine for a year now. I look forward to veers feedback if it's constrictive/ positive even if it's contradictive. I'd also like to see some average sized corps that op in highsec/lowsec post their feelings on this too. If anyone knows any hit them up on how they would feel about this?

This thread again.

On the topic of making wars more meaningful, I shall repost this:

Instead of structures providing a set bonus for the deploying corp or alliance though, how about structures leech bonus from a collective pool for each system?

Imagine for a moment that each system offers a 30% bonus to mission profits or mining through the deployment of structures. If one corp deploys the structure they receive the 30% bonus for that activity. If a second corp deploys the structure, each corp receives only a 15% bonus for that activity. Three structures, 10% each.

This would promote either cooperation between the corps (forming one larger corp) or competition between them (kill the other corp's structures to get your full bonus). Systems like Osmon and ice systems would be a proper warzone.

To prevent abuse we would add an industrial index to the equation. There are two ways to prevent abuse using that.
1) You need to have a certain amount of industrial activity in the system before you can deploy the structure.
or
2) The structures start with leeching 0% bonus from the system pool and only gain bonus through industrial activity.

The numbers are arbitrary of course but you get the picture. The idea is to have the presence of structures affect not only the deploying corp, but also the other corps that utilize the system. This creates conflict.




This might be the most common complaint I see from PVE players when changes to highsec corps are being discussed. These "losses" are part of a balancing act. If you choose to take more risk for a given activity it should be delivering higher rewards. They could instead create the balance by boosting rewards for higher risk income but it's the same result. You still get a % less than the rest.


That's the point. It's not supposed to help risk averse and/or lazy pilots make more ISK. It's supposed to give a reason to more aggressive, less lazy and more skilled pilots to take on the risk of wardec and the tedium of structure management. If you aren't up for the task that's fine. Take the lower reward and be happy knowing that should you one day decide to change your mind, the rewards are waiting.




This with one caveat. Get some of the ISK back, not earn more. The last thing EVE needs is more ISK in highsec in any form.


The problem with this is the ISK amounts are impossible to balance. You will find the defenders are better off dropping corp / using alts to continue making (less) ISK unimpeded. Take a look at four defenders fighting for a reward of 500m (125m each). All they have to do is PVE for a couple hours to earn that. If we up it to 1b, it now costs a base fee of 1b just for the attacker to declare war. The reward is still a mere 250m for each of the four defenders. Against any of the main mercenary groups four pilots wouldn't cut it though. Now you have twelve, and the reward is less than 100m each.

An alternative idea from a previous thread was each war declared spawns a war structure. The defenders have the opportunity to attack the structure, reinforce it and then destroy it. If they succeed the war ends and cannot be re-declared for a period of time. This gives defenders a clear reason to fight in wars. It also helps limit the amount of wardecs that can be successfully deployed by one group without having to use ISK or mechanics as the limiter. The other side to this is that huge alliances would be able to easily deflect wardecs. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.

We certainly couldn't have our yearly riot. =(



I'm working but Imma give this a thought sense it seems to be a treading idea. Right I think it's fine, it provides a centralized area for pvp.

So yeah. Give me like two hours and I'll have something to say on it.

Those wouldn't have been in the same alliance though right? Do you just mean allies in a war can't rep each other?

This is actually incorrect. If you were in corp a and I was logi in corp b and we were both in alliance 1 I would not go suspect for repping you against alliance 2 should we be at war. However if you had a limited engagement with random s and I repped you I would.

Now if you were ally 1 I was ally 2 and we both had SEPARATE wars with ally 3 I would go suspect repping you.

Now if we had a war where I assisted you I'm not sure to be honest. I have witnessed assists rep pocos and Post's without going suspect yet I have gone suspect for repping allies before

Ok that makes a bit more sense

1) remove PvP in low- and 0.0-sec in favor of high-sec?
2) remove high-sec incursions (which are mostly used by 0.0-seccers alts)?

Totally supporting this idea.

Kaarous to CSM!