Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 21:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, we have a big donut. It has progressively gotten bluer and bluer. People say this is a problem. I propose we increase sov bills as the size of the sov holder grows. Holding one system costs a trivial amount, Holding a region eats most of the income from the poorer regions, and holding multiple regions requires an extra source of income (like renters with small sov blocks in multiple sov entities). While this appears to mostly a cosmetic change in that the blocks can spawn new alliances at will and smaller blocks cannot, it does mean that it will become unprofitable to sprawl over vast stretches of unused systems.
Current system: 84,000,000 ISK per billing cycle per TCU Various other upgrades cost but only in the systems so upgraded.
Proposed system 8,400,000 (8.4M) ISK per TCU for the first TCU (8Mx (1.047^N) per TCU where N is the number of systems held. Break even point is 51, at which point an alliance should be able to bud a second alliance as pets or partners without issue. Above this 51 system soft cap, sov begins getting more expensive fast.
Examples For example Northern Associates holds 694 systems. COST PER TCU PER BULLING CYCLE would be 557,297,470.83T isk. Total cost per billing cycle for sov would be 386,764,444,752.69T isk
GSF holds 232 systems Cost per TCU per billing cycle would be 339.41B isk Total cost would be 78.74 T isk
That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2829
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 22:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
...You even admit yourself that this would just mean they split up into multiple small groups...
What would be the point in spending dev time on an idea even the one suggesting it (for the fiftieth time, incidentally) admits will achieve absolutely nothing? |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4110
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 22:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
It's been repeated so often: A cumulative cost will only be mitigated by creating dozens of meta alliances instead of one big. This solves nothing. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8028
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 22:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Why is it that the dumbest ideas always come from people crying about nullsec blocs?
Is "Grr Goons!" classifiable as a mental illness, or what? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 22:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:It's been repeated so often: A cumulative cost will only be mitigated by creating dozens of meta alliances instead of one big. This solves nothing. Increased chances for powermad small alliance heads, increased coase cost (organizational cost) for the truely massive coalitions. A small push towards entropy, rather than a hard boot. The sandbox is titled slightly, making the castles fall from internal forces rather than a bulldoxer's fiat. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2829
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 22:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Abrazzar wrote:It's been repeated so often: A cumulative cost will only be mitigated by creating dozens of meta alliances instead of one big. This solves nothing. Increased chances for powermad small alliance heads, increased coase cost (organizational cost) for the truely massive coalitions. A small push towards entropy, rather than a hard boot. The sandbox is titled slightly, making the castles fall from internal forces rather than a bulldoxer's fiat.
The heads will be the exact same people. The Mittanni will be CEO of Goonswarm 1-99 or however many it takes.
The costs will be as minimal as possible, since they'll all be split up.
Nothing changes, with the possible exception of a few unused systems going sovless, but anyone setting up in them will have fifty titans on them before the TCUs online. |
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
548
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 22:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
You want to break up the blue donut?
Leave them alone. Let those thousands of capital and supercapital pilots stew in null sec for a few months with nothing to do and see which part of the blue donut turns red first. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 22:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:You want to break up the blue donut?
Leave them alone. Let those thousands of capital and supercapital pilots stew in null sec for a few months with nothing to do and see which part of the blue donut turns red first. This would also make it harder to form a new big blue donut out of the wreckage of the old. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
268
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 23:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
The solution for the blue doughnut will be to increase the time it take to travel from one side of nul to the other. With the ease of travel that people can see through bridging you have a few effects...
1. Since you can reliably help a person halfway across the universe, you can have friends over there, and they will be blue. This is because you can reliably help them, and they can reliably help you in a timely fashion. 2. It becomes much easier to defend a much larger area of space because it takes a long time to grind sov in any location, and people can easily bounce between several different locations to defend their space.
So, by either increasing the size of nulsec, or by making it so it takes longer to travel around nulsec (Both essentially have the same effect in this regard), it allows more room for the smaller entities to live in nul, because you won't always be immediately crushed by the large coalitions because it will force them to decide if they want to invest a much larger amount of time to deploy a force. And by deploying this force to another location, they leave the other side of their sov open for attack. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
494
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 03:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
You posted your thread about an hour after I posted mine: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=359534&find=unread
In my thread I address many of the issues people have with your post. Limiting the number of sovereign systems has to come with some limit on strategic mobility. In my thread I suggest limiting jump bridges to allow only corporation members to use them. One could impose similar controls on use of cynosural fields or Titan bridges.
Edit - or you could come up with some other force that makes people not simply split into numerous little holding corporations. I am not particularly wedded to either of my suggestions, but I think they could be part of the solution. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 06:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:You posted your thread about an hour after I posted mine: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=359534&find=unreadIn my thread I address many of the issues people have with your post. Limiting the number of sovereign systems has to come with some limit on strategic mobility. In my thread I suggest limiting jump bridges to allow only corporation members to use them. One could impose similar controls on use of cynosural fields or Titan bridges. Edit - or you could come up with some other force that makes people not simply split into numerous little holding corporations. I am not particularly wedded to either of my suggestions, but I think they could be part of the solution. I think a combination of these and an encouragement to build up the worth of core space in a significant way is the ultimate solution. Making it so truesec values are 20-30% variation in income between bands, and the upgrades are harder to keep up but much more worth it to keep up, while deploying caps takes longer (cost is not a good balancing factor for capitals, as most fuel is alliance cost) is what seems like the best set of changes to encourage a 3-5 major power null with a few smaller sub-blocks, which gives interesting fights and reasonable opportunity to metagame. There are more proposals comming from me.
Summary of what will be in the full set of suggestions: Slight decrease to capital jump range for combat capitals (armor and shield generators are massy, and jump frieghters should have more reach even if just as a QOL, but not enough to entirely avoid the engagement envelopes of other capitals) Hard timer at 1.2-1.3 times current jump times with full cap fits. Jump drives need to cool off and cycle back up! Space is hard to bend. Stepping to 10 levels of sov upgrades, with cool new things starting around level 7, with peristent cost added to T.
That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
331
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 04:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:You want to break up the blue donut?
Leave them alone. Let those thousands of capital and supercapital pilots stew in null sec for a few months with nothing to do and see which part of the blue donut turns red first.
I believe they currently entertain themselves by ganking in highsec so that's not an answer either.
See the problem as mittani astutely assessed is that at this point in the game the barrier to entry for sov null is so high that noone gets in without paying curtsy to the existing oligarchs. The only way this can change is by as you said internal forcea breaking apart but as we saw with the collapse of GENTS it doesn't really change much. Lowsec seems to be getting made more attractive lately and I wonder if it's being designed by ccp as a pressure release for null blocs to relieve themselves of bored dissidents without having them awox and **** on the way out.
Next up? What else can possibly be done to null? Player made gates? Is that really the answer? Changing jump fuel costs to be affected by ship size is prudent first. Amongst a great many other suggestions as well. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Anthar Thebess
598
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 07:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
You are right, people will be splitting their big sov holdings to smaller. THere is already thread about what can be done in this matter: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=356024&find=unread
Just to summarize : - people have many changes how to fix current situation. Some ideas are the same for last years. - nothing will change for next 17 months , at least - those thin changes will be CCP approach , not what player wants - again. - current situation will be getting worst for next months - CCP want to pull industry people to game , as they will be producing , selling , buying , producing , using shiny UI hoping that someday , when they reactivate their account again , there will be enough people to buy this stuff from them. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
458
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 11:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Bohneik Itohn wrote:You want to break up the blue donut?
Leave them alone. Let those thousands of capital and supercapital pilots stew in null sec for a few months with nothing to do and see which part of the blue donut turns red first. This would also make it harder to form a new big blue donut out of the wreckage of the old.
Not really. The blobs are well versed in attaching crews without setting up what I will call "true blue" status. All they have to do find a way to make sure they don't get friendly fire action.
If/when they hire mercs they do no bring in them into the fold. When temp alliances are made, alliance in the sense 2 crews with a common enemy say lets not be NBSI till our deal is done and join forces, neither party gives true blue status. Example: when BL and SB worked on the trap to pop the space turd for that night I am sure diplo's on both sides made sure BL was not shooting SB and vice versa. In such a way SB was not in BL (or vice versa) was put in place I am sure (someone correct if wrong, ofc).
How does this work?
One Hint: it takes someone with rights to assign a pretty color to an organization. A pretty color that means do not shoot these peeps.
There are many shades of blue. Example: we were wiping up space after old residents failscaded. One of the corps got with our alliance diplo's and a deal was struck. For 1 week they were not shootable but not allies/bff's/etc. How did this magical trick work.....diplo's assigned a very fain shade of blue based on standing. Not true blue...more like a baby blue. End result...our alliance made some isk, said crew had a week to evac not getting shot at (by us anyway).
All this idea is removing easy mailing, in eve anyway. Decent crew should have own forums up and bulk mailing can run off that if needed. Comms not an issue also. Voice or chat....most crews I ran in had 3rd party for this. Server admin not an idiot and getting a mixed crew in comms not that hard.
Okay..I will give you one more. You removed fleet by standing and such. I have been on merc assisted ops. Just means FC has to invite by hand to keep fleet security. Few minutes more of work and voila...goons (since it can't be a blob thread without saying their name) still has a massive cap fleet up like before.
Tl;DR....lots of coding worked around easily to be right back at SSDD when done. |
Bohneik Itohn
Universal Freelance CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
557
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 18:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Bohneik Itohn wrote:You want to break up the blue donut?
Leave them alone. Let those thousands of capital and supercapital pilots stew in null sec for a few months with nothing to do and see which part of the blue donut turns red first. I believe they currently entertain themselves by ganking in highsec so that's not an answer either. See the problem as mittani astutely assessed is that at this point in the game the barrier to entry for sov null is so high that noone gets in without paying curtsy to the existing oligarchs. The only way this can change is by as you said internal forcea breaking apart but as we saw with the collapse of GENTS it doesn't really change much. Lowsec seems to be getting made more attractive lately and I wonder if it's being designed by ccp as a pressure release for null blocs to relieve themselves of bored dissidents without having them awox and **** on the way out. Next up? What else can possibly be done to null? Player made gates? Is that really the answer? Changing jump fuel costs to be affected by ship size is prudent first. Amongst a great many other suggestions as well.
Let them plex their capital accounts for 4 or 5 months without forming up a single fleet with those characters. They'll find a way to make it worth their while to keep up the maintenance or else they'll drop the accounts.
Yes those accounts are largely maintained by sov passive income. However Players still have to devote time to maintaining them, and logistics players will start to get really ******* bored of running logistics for corps and alliances that're never logged in to help with the task.
People will get bored, and they will either start letting extra accounts drop so they can spend more time doing the interesting things in Eve or they will find a way to make things interesting for those accounts again. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
169
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 22:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
If you used multiple variables instead of one you could probably pull off what you are trying to do.
Let X = Number of accounts in 'Big Alliance'
Let Y = increase the cost of holding more SOV space based on the number of SOV spaces already held by 'Big Alliance'.
Let Z = some other aspect of holding SOV space, etc. etc.....
Do calculus looking for the relationship that hopefully can do as many of the following as possible:
1. Always encourages an alliance to gain more accounts.
2. Introduce a growth tax that increases at a decreasing rate with respect to the number of accounts in 'Big Alliance'.
3. Still encourages gobbling up your neighbors real estate.
4. Encourages the holding alliance to actually use the real estate they have in a productive fashion.
5. etc, etc, etc....
I have no idea how many variables you could successfully introduce or even if this mathematical modelling would produce any result that was deemed valuable but it is probably one of your best bets for finding a solution as close to the one you are asking for as possible.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 08:48:00 -
[17] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:If you used multiple variables instead of one you could probably pull off what you are trying to do.
Let X = Number of accounts in 'Big Alliance'
Let Y = increase the cost of holding more SOV space based on the number of SOV spaces already held by 'Big Alliance'.
Let Z = some other aspect of holding SOV space, etc. etc.....
Do calculus looking for the relationship that hopefully can do as many of the following as possible:
1. Always encourages an alliance to gain more accounts.
2. Introduce a growth tax that increases at a decreasing rate with respect to the number of accounts in 'Big Alliance'.
3. Still encourages gobbling up your neighbors real estate.
4. Encourages the holding alliance to actually use the real estate they have in a productive fashion.
5. etc, etc, etc....
I have no idea how many variables you could successfully introduce or even if this mathematical modelling would produce any result that was deemed valuable but it is probably one of your best bets for finding a solution as close to the one you are asking for as possible.
I have a 17 line equation, but sov cost should be simple. It's a defined bill that recurs. Shouldn't take getting out a calculator to know if you make rent this month. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
169
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 22:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:So, we have a big donut. It has progressively gotten bluer and bluer. People say this is a problem. I propose we increase sov bills as the size of the sov holder grows. Holding one system costs a trivial amount, Holding a region eats most of the income from the poorer regions, and holding multiple regions requires an extra source of income (like renters with small sov blocks in multiple sov entities). While this appears to mostly a cosmetic change in that the blocks can spawn new alliances at will and smaller blocks cannot, it does mean that it will become unprofitable to sprawl over vast stretches of unused systems.
Current system: 84,000,000 ISK per billing cycle per TCU Various other upgrades cost but only in the systems so upgraded.
Proposed system 8,400,000 (8.4M) ISK per TCU for the first TCU (8Mx (1.047^N) per TCU where N is the number of systems held. Break even point is 51, at which point an alliance should be able to bud a second alliance as pets or partners without issue. Above this 51 system soft cap, sov begins getting more expensive fast.
Examples For example Northern Associates holds 694 systems. COST PER TCU PER BULLING CYCLE would be 557,297,470.83T isk. Total cost per billing cycle for sov would be 386,764,444,752.69T isk
GSF holds 232 systems Cost per TCU per billing cycle would be 339.41B isk Total cost would be 78.74 T isk
1. Some mathematically inclined person will surely make a spreadsheet online to do the mathematics for the CEO whether that math is your solution or mine. If we get CCP to make relevant variables available to 3rd party applications the CEO would get easy answers to growth decisions.
2. I was unclear when I said you only used one variable, what I meant to imply was that your variables all push the CEO to make cooperative smaller alliances and so they can basically be thought of as just the single variable "X".
3. multivariable calculus or vector analysis can be used to search for a mathematical model that:
a. Always encourages alliances to gain more members. b. Discourages the taking of new SOV space when the current number of SOV spaces held surpasses some point. c. Any other variables that CCP and the player base feel are important goals for CEOs to strive for to maximize their alliances success, while at the same time encouraging a more engaging nullsec.
Again, I will make it clear that I don't know if any such model can be found but it would be the answer to what you want to achieve if such a model could be created.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
105
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 00:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
the problem with sov was the change from logistics control to financial control. Before the current system, sov was maintained by a 51% control of moons in a system, with all the logistics that entails (fuel, ammo, defense ). Now it's, drop a structure and forget about it till its attacked (TCU, SBU require no fuel or on site maintenance). You want to return a semblance of a limit, add a logistical factor to the TCU/SBU maintenance. require something that is consumed and has to be logistically delivered to reduce the space to a point that people are interested in keeping up the space. This will add conflict as you can interdict the delivery, or prevent the upkeep of the sbu's
The second factor is super proliferation in nullsec blocks. only the blocks that control nullsec can build supers, so only the blocks that control space can have supers. change the requirements to allow lowsec and non sov nullsec to build as well and the choke hold will start to break and conflict will return. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |