Sleyn Peade
Twilight Fleet
Privateer Alliance
   |
Posted - 2009.04.18 22:08:00 -
[1]
Problems in eve, how sad that we're limited to three things
1: Highsec ice fields
Aside from being macroheavens, another issue: Iceproducts mainly end up as POS/cap-fuel, and in eve right now, quite a lot of blobbing is going on. Gamemechanics have a large part in this, but it's also fueled by the massive supply of cheap macroed capship fuel.
We have a system in eve, where the macrofarming plague is feeding the blobmentality of eve.
I'm not known for my lack of an imagination, but even I can't come up with an example to describe how dumb that is.
Also there's no reason for the icebelts to be in highsec, they mainly supply cap/POS fuel, things mostly from lowsec or 0.0.
The market-effect would be: Safetyfixated macroers would switch to oremining, so in the end that'll switch the macroplague from fueling blobwarfare, to them driving down mineralprices and thus supplying the PvP'ing lot of us with cheaper ships. T2 prices would go up due to POSfuel becoming more expensive, but T1 prices would plummet equally, and isn't T1 supposed to be cheap and T2 expensive??
I don't understand why icebelts remain in highsec, I can only speculate that it's some form of CCP scheme, due to being afraid to loose macroer subscribers.
-->Remove highsec icebelts
2: "Highsec" POSs
Deathstars in places without capitals makes no sense, it being possible isn't the overall problem, however it being easy is. It's not "that" hard to get the standing for it.
-->What's really needed is for it to be more expensive, like a 10- or 20-doubling of the number of faction-charters needed
Also, WTF is with charters being needed for 0.4. 0.4 already has a built-in penalty in the sense that one can't moonmine there.
-->Remove charter-requirements in 0.4
3: The secstatus-system
A good idea, implemented poorly.
The secstatus-system should be quite simple: *RP on* In areas in partial or complete control by CONCORD, killing civilians makes you loose secstatus, and killing (NPC)pirates makes you gain secstatus. *RP off*
Enter CCP, managing to fail at implementing that.
A problem these days is highsecganking, the indirect problem is not the secstatus-loss, or its size, it's the fact that many of the people doing it live in 0.0 and can just go home, rat a bit, and the secstatus is back.
You can't loose secstatus in 0.0, *RP on* it's outside concord control *RP off*, so why is it possible to gain secstatus there?
Highsec should be a concord area, unless you're sent by concord to kill (NPC)pirates, it shouldn't award secstatusgains at all. Being on a mission for a random faction is fullfilling that corporations interest, not concords.
Lowsec is where secstatus's lost, and it should also be where it's gained.
-->Remove secstatusgains from mission-NPCs and from 0.0, and perhaps increase it in lowsec.
That'll also drive some people from highsec into lowsec, as well as annoying highsecgankers
The penalty size: The recent twist in making it dependant on secstatuslevel was not severe enough. In lowsec pirates refrain from thoughtless murder at times, that really ruins the atmosphere.
-->Double the secstatuspenalty in highsec, halve it in lowsec
Once people decide to pirate, it should stick, to a point at least.
-->One can't gain any secstatus the first 72 hours after losing any
A problem in lowsec, with pirates using POSs to base out from: Antipirates, with their secstatus being important, don't go knocking on POSs because of this.
-->Remove the secstatus-penalty for agressing/destroying POSs, pos-equipment, stargates, stations, stationsentries/gatesentries/billboards
This will also allow people to flag themselves withno secstatusloss. Two people who are not blinky and care about their secstatuses won't engage eachother, something rather strange in a PvPgame
3 examples of things in eve that make less sense than a swimmingpool full of inflatable dartboards.
|