These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Entropy, Incentives & Gate Fees

Author
Bad Pennyy
Abraxas Rising
#1 - 2016-09-08 07:39:17 UTC
I would like to propose adding in high sec gate fees set to a sliding scale based on racial and security standings as a way to offset the lack of parity between non-gank vs gank play styles in high sec. I am not lamenting the pvp playstyle but the lack of parity between playstyles as it plays out in high sec.

Sliding gate fees would attach penalties or incentives that essentially associate a cost for ganking (ie, gate fees to get into high sec and use it as a sandbox) without nerfing the gank playstyle. The cost is associated with movement or access to high sec space.

The basic idea here we understand entropy in Eve terms in terms of lost assets. There is no real entropy for ganking because it makes assumptions about how the role of space, movement and access are associated with standings.

A gate fee is a proxy for risk here because the ganker has to ante up,up front for a chance to hit the jackpot. Right now, there is no real buy in and no real loss relative to the other players in the game. The higher sec/standing pilot (e.g. a hauler) while still at a disadvantage in gank situations has the initiative of greater movement as expressed in lower fees.

Low standings / Low Sec status should be an expensive movement proposition in high sec if high sec is to have value. How does decision making change if suddenly it costs a fleet 20m in gate fees to enter, exit or loiter in high sec areas? One effect might be that of time to raise standings to lower fees.

I think there other ultimately more elegant solutions from a playstyle perspective but the gate fee logic seems already present in the game.
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#2 - 2016-09-08 09:26:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Sitting Bull Lakota
-.-
Black Pedro
Mine.
#3 - 2016-09-08 09:41:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Bad Pennyy wrote:
I would like to propose adding in high sec gate fees set to a sliding scale based on racial and security standings as a way to offset the lack of parity between non-gank vs gank play styles in high sec. I am not lamenting the pvp playstyle but the lack of parity between playstyles as it plays out in high sec.
You know, this is a much larger nerf to non-gankers than it would ever be to gankers. Not only do more negative sec-status players end up that way from actions that take place in lowsec than in highsec, there are several orders of magnitude more non-ganking characters taking gates in highsec than ganking characters. Even if your sliding scale only made neutral characters pay a small fee, the total taken from non-ganking characters would far, far exceed the amount taken from ganking characters.

Balancing things based on ISK is generally a terrible idea. It locks new players out of content while allowing established players to still do whatever they want. The last thing CCP wants is a new player to go try faction warfare (or highsec ganking) and end up completely locked out from highsec and all their assets there because they can't pay a gate toll.

While the highsec piracy mechanics are perhaps too predictable, they are definitely not without cost both in time and assets (i.e. your entropy) and with no guarantee of success. Certainly much less guarantee than running a mission or mining which rewards the player almost 100% of the time a defined amount with zero upfront cost. I see no issue with a lack of parity in playstyles, but even if there was comparing scripted PvE encounters to player-controlled PvP encounters like ganking is like comparing apples and oranges and CCP would be foolish to try to balance them as such.

If CCP thinks ganking doesn't cost enough, it would be much simpler just to increase the CONCORD response time forcing more or more costly ships to be used. So, -1 to nerf ganking thread #4823.
Bad Pennyy
Abraxas Rising
#4 - 2016-09-08 10:04:31 UTC
You raise a noteworthy point. But I think there is another benefit to this. gate fees combined with a re-energized use of standings could increase game play by re-valuing how "space" is conceived of in game play.

The concept of "space" in Eve is under-utilized. Gate fees are simple(r) fix regarding this undervaluation. Setting aside WH, it is not unreasonable to conceive of "space" in an almost linear fashion as the distance between Jita and valuable moon goos. FW mechanics value space but the monolithic market nature of Jita is unusually artificial for the implied market functionality that exists within the game.

Associating a cost with movement which is combined with standings might actually change "opportunity cost" decision-making and create more player-to-player opportunities by decentralizing the singular Jita market into regional markets. Trader playstyle might become a more engaging experience.

Also, a player might have incentives to purchase or build something in a regional market because the cost to acquire it is less overall. We make decisions like this in real life when we factor in transportation or shipping costs into a purchase. Market forces would eventually extend to players otherwise locked out of content and the incentive to explore WH would also increase. If we extend this idea into 0.0 or FW, sov holders might be able to set fees and FW entities might enjoy some similar benefit. A similar dynamic can be seen with JF fuel costs, but in this case, the cost is not fuel but taxes associated with standings.

The game already has skills related to distance like remote order management that has an implied valuation of space but to move in high sec costs nothing but time. Areas like border zones between regions might become interesting game play opportunities because they might serve as perimeter hubs with fast access to other markets. Movement and "space" acquires value. Standings acquire additional (and I'd argue, originally intended) value.

Also, the cost to say haulers would be reflected in higher market prices which would likely drive market decentralization (eventually). An isk sink like this turns into real revenue for CCP or causes isk to leave game. In this light, creating many locales of communities within systems may not be a bad thing because content opportunities become localized.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#5 - 2016-09-08 10:21:42 UTC
Bad Pennyy wrote:
Associating a cost with movement which is combined with standings might actually change "opportunity cost" decision-making and create more player-to-player opportunities by decentralizing the singular Jita market into regional markets. Trader playstyle might become a more engaging experience.
Then your proposal is premature. Perhaps, when we know more about how the player-owned stargates are going to work there may be room for this. Implementing fees on NPC gates to give room for cheaper, player-run gates much like CCP just did for markets maybe something to consider. You still have the problem of locking out travel for the poorest and newest players though, which unlike increased market fees, makes the game unplayable.

I am not sure that gate fees are going to ever be a thing for basic NPC gates but perhaps access based on player-set standings and tolls could be a thing and allow "super-highway" shortcuts in places by player-owned stargates. I am not sure how you balance this to not just make all travel meaningless, but maybe a stargate that shaves one or two jumps off the run from Jita to Amarr would be worth something to haulers (and gankers).

If you want to drive market decentralization, I would think increasing trading taxes based on activity much like the way industry costs are calculated would be the way to go rather than targeting the ability to travel itself.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6 - 2016-09-08 10:30:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Gankers stay in well travelled systems. They don't use gates nearly as much as haulers do.

Do you know what else encourages selling at a local market? Ganking! The more dangerous it is to move goods the more people are encouraged to trade locally rather than travelling through the ganker camped bottlenecks between markets.

You dont need costs for movement, just stop nerfing ganking. That way whether I'm rich or poor, noob or vet, i can reduce my costs/risks by being smart and working with other players.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Bad Pennyy
Abraxas Rising
#7 - 2016-09-08 10:33:51 UTC
"perhaps access based on player-set standings and tolls could be a thing and allow "super-highway" shortcuts in places by player-owned stargates."

that's a great idea.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#8 - 2016-09-08 10:45:00 UTC
Bad Pennyy wrote:

A gate fee is a proxy for risk here because the ganker has to ante up,up front for a chance to hit the jackpot. Right now, there is no real buy in and no real loss relative to the other players in the game. The higher sec/standing pilot (e.g. a hauler) while still at a disadvantage in gank situations has the initiative of greater movement as expressed in lower fees.



umm, pure haulers really don't have standing or sec status. They haul....they don't run level 4's till they puke to boost these real high most times.


And let talk about these...will faction and sec status weigh equally. You are aware FW trashes sec status I will assume. But it maxes out faction standing. So will our newly retired general from FW who is also yellow as hell sec wise be given a lower fee in his factions space?



And some gankers don't even jump systems. I will assume Niarja is as fun as it has been for several years. Someone please corrective if not. No burning desire to hit the system to check after a break lol. Station clone there, back up ships there. They don't have to leave it because if like the past people feed them easy kills.
Bad Pennyy
Abraxas Rising
#9 - 2016-09-08 10:58:46 UTC
These are good points. To recap, I am essentially making a critique about the lack of parity in high sec encounters and the undervaluation of "space". Add to this, I would love to see the trader as a player career grow.

I think "high sec" should be redesignated as "specially abled" space because it provides incentives to make it less secure. I will gladly use my JF into certain areas of 0.0 before I will use my freighter. Doing away with the notion of high sec (ie, stop nerfing ganking) could have a distributive effect. However, I am not convinced that a hyper-capitalistic model should be articulated strictly on the desire to avoid violence. Exploring for diverse markets and using skills associated with trade skills is appealing.

And, there was a time when standings had value. IIRC, CCP nerfed these when changing how industry/manufacturing/POS requirements changed in response to distributing player populations on the server for China (I may be foggy on those details now). This change to incorporate the use of system cost indices seems to have had some effect. I speculate that players are willing to pay the increased index fees precisely to avoid travel.

But, regarding the FW exit standings, under my original proposal, a low state standing would be mitigated by a more robust market in a player's FW state. For high sec, I would make actual low security status pilots pay through the nose. But, as has been pointed out, not every ganker travels. But eventually if you want to travel with that toon you need your wallet to have isk.

The gate fee seems like a reasonable answer for a combination of these concerns. True, it's provisional but what proposal in Eve isn't? Predicting player behavior is like trying to herd cats.
voetius
Grundrisse
#10 - 2016-09-08 11:14:53 UTC

Balancing travelling around isk is a bit dubious. I played a single-player space game a decade ago, it was an Elite knock off that had fees for buying fuel whenever you wanted to make a trip. This seemed cool at first but rapidly became a bit tedious and I ended up hitting the tick box that said, just do it and don't ask me. So I'm with Black Pedro on this.

There are a couple of other problems as well. E.g.

- people with negative wallets would not be able to travel at all and even if they had jump clones they would be locked to a single system

- it hurts newer players, and has no effect on older, established players

- I doubt it would change much with suicide ganking as the gankers would just base themselves in choke points like Uedama, Niarja and the Balle - Hek pipe. And could use jump clones to move around, at least, once a day.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#11 - 2016-09-08 11:29:35 UTC
if you want to make things harder for gankers then do it you already have all the tools the game doesn't need to do it for you
Bad Pennyy
Abraxas Rising
#12 - 2016-09-08 11:38:28 UTC
voetius wrote:


There are a couple of other problems as well. E.g.

- people with negative wallets would not be able to travel at all and even if they had jump clones they would be locked to a single system

- it hurts newer players, and has no effect on older, established players

- I doubt it would change much with suicide ganking as the gankers would just base themselves in choke points like Uedama, Niarja and the Balle - Hek pipe. And could use jump clones to move around, at least, once a day.


These are fair points. I see the inability to travel with a zero wallet as a net positive. Even new players have relatively localized access to an isk faucet. Existing skills and new ones could tie into this decision point.

Several posts have mentioned the concern with new player access. I understand the concern, but I think it is overstated. How far does a genuinely new player travel before he has isk? Also, most new players rarely have a terrible sec status. State standings may be another issue, but, again this can be addressed in the math, or even irrelevant if a new player is in his home state. I would understand security status to be an exponential multiplier of fees, but not state standings.

The potential for a change in ganker locations might be in the decentralization of the Jita market hub. The upshot here is that this does not call for a change in actual gank mechanics (bumping, etc..). Or, put another way, the opportunity to gank from these fixed locales might decrease as markets distribute and additional trade hubs/routes carry more traffic. The use of citadels meshes nicely here to break up the monopoly of Jita into numerous fiefdoms.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#13 - 2016-09-08 16:35:50 UTC
Bad Pennyy wrote:
You raise a noteworthy point. But I think there is another benefit to this. gate fees combined with a re-energized use of standings could increase game play by re-valuing how "space" is conceived of in game play.


Implicit to this is the idea that standings are a good mechanic.

Standings as they are right now are literally one the most revolting anachronisms left in EvE from the bad old days of hilariously grindy MMOs and MUDs. A dinosaur left in the game that needs to yield to a new era. An artificial barrier to content creation for the purpose of speed bumping characters.

Standings are the reason FW is a bad idea for new players, when in fact FW should be a great opening to various aspects of the game...if it didn't permanently scar your character. Hence, FW is left to be a game of alts, or very (completely) dedicated characters. The moment they fix this, FW would be so amazing!

The grind up is slow, the grind down is often arbitrary and confusing, and for the longest time it glued player actions to rigid and defined NPC interactions. Think about the bad old days when you had to have standings of 8+ to make jump clones. Think about what a better world we live in now when players can control station taxes and jump clones. Yeah, I don't miss the old world when player access to things was essentially ransomed by PvE.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

SurrenderMonkey
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2016-09-08 17:34:52 UTC
Bad Pennyy wrote:
I would like to propose adding in high sec gate fees set to a sliding scale based on racial and security standings as a way to offset the lack of parity between non-gank vs gank play styles in high sec. I am not lamenting the pvp playstyle but the lack of parity between playstyles as it plays out in high sec.


Please quantify this alleged "lack of parity".

We'll wait.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Bad Pennyy
Abraxas Rising
#15 - 2016-09-08 19:01:51 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:


Implicit to this is the idea that standings are a good mechanic.

Standings as they are right now are literally one the most revolting anachronisms left in EvE



You have a point and I sloppily conflated the notion of standings and security status. I essentially agree with you but think standings are confounding now because other dynamics are unduly constrained (Jita as the Amazon-Walmart of Eve) and/or the rewards associated with standings are less valuable now than they once were. Space becomes more "flat" if it only serves to separate Jita from where one plays. But, gate fees change this and also provide an economic variable that would distribute markets. A similar dynamic is achieved with JF access to null areas. Here there is a cost associated with movement and access.

Sec status as it interplays with "high sec" is misleading or achieves the opposite goal of making this type of space less secure, and ganking playstyles have discerned the min/max play strategies. Simply doing away with high security (and I'm not saying make it equal null) removes the penalties to pro-actively attack gankers while they compose their fleets and move. The risks for each playstyle become similar, but each playstyle assumes the risk in a different way - gankers still have a strategic gain because they can decide to engage/disengage, but now they have to pay for advantage (assuming the other points noted by othere weren't a factor).

While I have not called for a change in the high sec gank dynamic, I am proposing to associate a cost with it that makes this pvp encounter similar to other pvp decisions in that there is a real cost associated with potential gains. As it stands now, the isk loss with lost ships and penalty hits are trivial. Gate fees develop a cost. The net gain would be a greater valuation of space too.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#16 - 2016-09-08 19:18:12 UTC
Bad Pennyy wrote:
As it stands now, the isk loss with lost ships and penalty hits are trivial.


Yeah, but there's the opportunity cost of finding someone lazy or silly enough to get ganked. If there were no easy targets, there would be significantly less ganking. Freighters aren't ganked, rather, freighters let themselves be ganked. It is almost impossible to lose a freighter and especially a JF in Hi Sec unless you are hilariously ignorant. Gankers are already throttled in the pace of their destruction of how many silly people they can find and be patient for, and that should be the only determinant of gank-feasibility. Same is true for any T1 industrial and any mining barge.

Try playing as the antagonist for a few weeks. You may appreciate how much safety you are taking for granted, and how many no-no's one has to break to get ganked.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?