These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Resource Scarcity in EVE Online - Can It Be Done?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#121 - 2012-04-23 03:18:20 UTC
betoli wrote:
McRoll wrote:
I like the variable resource degradation approach. CCP kinda has implemented that in PI already, when you mine at the same spots on a planet for an amount of time, the yield decreases. It should be the same way with everything in Eve, for example when many capsuleers fly their missions in system x, the rat amount and their bounties should decrease and/or a new mission is avaiable only after x amount of time has passed. This forces players to either distrubute more equally around New Eden or to compete harder for resources.

The resources shouldnt deplete completely however.


This sort of.

One might imagine that concord has a fixed budget per system for bounties. The budget is topped up every hour. Each rat rather than having a fixed bounty has a weight (F) on a scale 1-100, and the payout is available budget * constant * F

Compute the budget and constant from the current ratting rates and payouts for each system. Without population migration this should maintain - roughly - the status quo of isk income for each player.

Compared to the starting values;
If the system is under ratted, then the budget will grow, and the system becomes more profitable per player per rat
If the system is over ratted, then the budget will deplete, and the system becomes less profitable per player per rat

You can then tune the budget (creating a cap on the isk faucet) and the constant to drive competition as desired....






At least for bounties, I'm starting to really like the idea of a fixed annual budget from CONCORD. As more rats are killed of a specific faction, bounties decrease and so does the chance to encounter them in missions/plexes/anomalies. Other areas would be more lucrative, but all in all, the total isk generated would be the same.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#122 - 2012-04-23 03:37:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
CONCORD having to deal with fiscal responsibilities to a greater extent than most modern western democratic governments, while acting as of a universal police for all of relevant known space ...

Sounds good. So it's up to ratters to eat up CONCORD's non-negociable debt ceiling and thus nerf incusions by a player-driven mechanic. Perfect!

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#123 - 2012-04-23 23:26:35 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
CONCORD having to deal with fiscal responsibilities to a greater extent than most modern western democratic governments, while acting as of a universal police for all of relevant known space ...

Sounds good. So it's up to ratters to eat up CONCORD's non-negociable debt ceiling and thus nerf incusions by a player-driven mechanic. Perfect!


Loll and why not? That's exactly what the system will do if any area is farmed to a much greater extent than intended. Of course you can never implement such a game-changing system without re-balancing other areas of the game, but progress often requires us to change how we do certain things.

Take a car design for example. If you want your car to go faster, you can't just give it a bigger engine without adjusting your tires to make it turn as effectively.

Now back to EVE - I believe most of us want more incentive to PVP or explore new PVE content. Those that don't will naturally settle in areas which are less affected while others will constantly chase the most lucrative hotspots. Done properly, it's is a win-win for all involved.