Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 21:01:00 -
[1]
A Living, Breathing, Dynamic Universe.
1: Empire Areas. In Empire we have 1.0 to .5 security generally. This is fixed.
I would like to security related to faction warfare performance and indigenous population figures.
The better the FW results, the higher the average security rating is that empires systems a bonus is also applied if the average population of pilots over a period of a week.
If the formula is balanced right, true Hi Sec will shrink a bit and there will be tracts of low sec areas between Hi Sec systems as a by product yet with lucrative agents/ores.
Concord response/population adjusts accordingly.
Jita would be almost perma 1.0 given the population as would nearby systems, the further afield the more chance of a system being low sec. There would potentially be swathes of low sec to get to another Empire/Trade Hub area.
Meaning Empire can alter, low sec can alter, high sec can alter.
2: Asteroid Belts/Moon Mining Similar to SWG resources, the mapping of ores changes each week, randomly. RP will be that a resource was overmined, new stuff is awaiting discovery. This would encourage Nomadic behaviour.
It would end resource hogging by the filthy rich as you would have to discover new areas and mine them as they change. Not sit on a big heap of gold. When areas change, PvP is generated as a result. Active corps/alliances stand a better chance than the inactive ones. Bloatcorp with 5000 members but 150 active will suffer against NEWcorp with 200 members (theoretically).
3: Sovereignty POSes would not count toward this. They are purely for moon mining/defense/hangar arrays. They would have listening posts too to allow a corporate/alliance system status window displaying non-allied pilots in system. Local, is of course, delayed and is no longer the intel tool it was.
Sovereignty instead would come from Alliance activity in the area over a period of time based on percentage level of alliance members logged in and undocked.
e.g. Bloat Alliance with a membership of 5000 but only 150 logged in and undocked with an average playtime that week of 7 hours would perform less well than New Alliance with a membership of 500 where 50 members who were logged in and undocked for an average playtime of 30 hours.
Tied to activity with a System/Constellation
EXAMPLE Membership - NOT COUNTED 150 logged in and undocked/not in PoS, played average 7 hrs = 1050 sov points 50 logged in and undocked/not in PoS, played average 30 hrs = 1500 sov points
Full Sovereignty will allow the building of an Outpost. Sov points would be calculated by accruing over a rolling 1 month period. The number of points to achieve sov needs to be set could be 6000 say.
Summary Adding Dynamism to Eve can correct a lot of wrongs and lead to a whole lot of PvP. The only reason people build a static Empire is because the game requires it.
More fun can be found by having a core "Empire base" and arranging logistics back to base from other areas, arranging war strikes, making new friends and enemies and having a corp rated on their activity level.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 22:03:00 -
[2]
Sec Status is not based on population.
Sec Status is based on Security/Law Enforcement.
You could roll through 2000 pilots in 0.0 or low sec and it wouldn't change a damn thing... its because there are 2000 pilots rolling through town : O P
Good intention... wrong way to go about it.
Not supported. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
|
sHERU
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 01:03:00 -
[3]
I like the idea of a changing world, imho eve is still WAY to static and could (read should) be more dynamic.
Planets and moons don't orbit, security status never changes... this could use some improvement.
So I support point 1.
But the other points... the need to be revised.
<lolmood> I smell a one man corp with 50 accounts in cloaked covert ops running 23/7 snagging away 0.0 space. </lolmood>
One final remark, this would have a serious impact on the way eve online runs. I doubt that for the moment it is even possible to implement this into eve.
|
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 07:23:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Sec Status is not based on population.
Sec Status is based on Security/Law Enforcement.
You could roll through 2000 pilots in 0.0 or low sec and it wouldn't change a damn thing... its because there are 2000 pilots rolling through town : O P
Good intention... wrong way to go about it.
Not supported.
I'm not talking about instantly changing sec status. I'm talking about sec status rising (much at the rate corp standings do) over a period of time to match the level of population. This is to help prevent parking accounts to raise sec level.
In Empire, that will preserve some hi sec areas for the players there. In 0.0 (as is currently) it will create a hi sec system where an alliance/corp bases itself.
Everything else will generally be in a state of flux.
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 13:38:00 -
[5]
People base on the edges of highsec, you would have a lot of people suddenly undocking in their expensive crap and dying because they dont know the new sec status system
which i think is totally awesome purely for greif purposes, I just dont think ccp would go with it.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1045803 VOTE FOR ME FOR CSM |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 14:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Astigmatic
Originally by: Drake Draconis Sec Status is not based on population.
Sec Status is based on Security/Law Enforcement.
You could roll through 2000 pilots in 0.0 or low sec and it wouldn't change a damn thing... its because there are 2000 pilots rolling through town : O P
Good intention... wrong way to go about it.
Not supported.
I'm not talking about instantly changing sec status. I'm talking about sec status rising (much at the rate corp standings do) over a period of time to match the level of population. This is to help prevent parking accounts to raise sec level.
In Empire, that will preserve some hi sec areas for the players there. In 0.0 (as is currently) it will create a hi sec system where an alliance/corp bases itself.
Everything else will generally be in a state of flux.
Reread my post very slowly.
I didn't give a measurement of time... If I had... I would have said so.
2000 pilots squatting in a system for a day or 2 is just as easy as them rolling through town.
This mechanic will either be abused... or painfully slow. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Herschel Yamamoto for CSM!
|
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 18:11:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Reread my post very slowly.
I didn't give a measurement of time... If I had... I would have said so.
2000 pilots squatting in a system for a day or 2 is just as easy as them rolling through town.
This mechanic will either be abused... or painfully slow.
I suggest you reread my post, very slowly. I do give an indication of time. I give the comparison to corp standings. Yes, very slow. To help prevent exactly what you describe. Have you any alternative ideas to offer?
|
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 18:12:00 -
[8]
Originally by: mazzilliu People base on the edges of highsec, you would have a lot of people suddenly undocking in their expensive crap and dying because they dont know the new sec status system
which i think is totally awesome purely for greif purposes, I just dont think ccp would go with it.
It wouldn't be as sudden as that. Sec would creep up and creep down over a period of days/weeks.
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 18:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Astigmatic
Originally by: mazzilliu People base on the edges of highsec, you would have a lot of people suddenly undocking in their expensive crap and dying because they dont know the new sec status system
which i think is totally awesome purely for greif purposes, I just dont think ccp would go with it.
It wouldn't be as sudden as that. Sec would creep up and creep down over a period of days/weeks.
yes, but one day after downtime some .5 system somewhere will all of a sudden become .4 and people too scared to undock in lowsec will be 'trapped'
also if a .4 turns into a .5 outlaws really will be trapped.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1045803 VOTE FOR ME FOR CSM |
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 18:24:00 -
[10]
True. How about this then?
In a .5 system about to "turn" on the next DT, a trend arrow is displayed on the system sec rating info (top left of screen)?
|
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:10:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Astigmatic True. How about this then?
In a .5 system about to "turn" on the next DT, a trend arrow is displayed on the system sec rating info (top left of screen)?
people dont log in every single day, especially casual players in empire. also if youre in a station no sec rating shows unless you go through several menu items to look up your system.
the mazzilliu CSM campaign central <- girl <- hot <- pics |
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 20:52:00 -
[12]
Originally by: mazzilliu
people dont log in every single day, especially casual players in empire. also if youre in a station no sec rating shows unless you go through several menu items to look up your system.
Come on, think outside the box for a moment. It's quite safe.
CCP have stated they are looking for big ideas from the CSM. Not tweak this, not tweak that. Big ideas that alter lots of stuff about the game.
Don't make the mistake of smothering any potentially exciting change in the cloying material of current UI or minutia. It's CCP's responsibility to resolve those problems, not that of the playerbase.
If the UI had a big, unmissable box right in the centre of the screen displaying the sec rating with massive flashing neon arrows showing change direction and the change was so gradual and slow it took more than a day would you then be happy? Actually don't answer that, it doesn't matter.
What do you (people in general) think of the overall concept?
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 21:11:00 -
[13]
As much as I hate to admit this... I agree with Miss Alt Posts's Alot.
The idea sucks... and it would mess up the mechanic something fierce.
but your not open to arguments... your too busy pushing your idea. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 22:16:00 -
[14]
No, as much as I would like to see a more dynamic Eve Online, your idea is open to abuse and overall a bad idea.
Not much to say.
--Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
|
Anisa Schardl
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 16:09:00 -
[15]
Not supported. I wouldn't really care about the sec status stuff, but your moon minerals idea is terrible. Making them shift would force interruptions in the supply, which would cause the prices to spike even more. I don't really care if your tiny alliance doesn't have the manpower to take an R64. Get bigger, get a capfleet. Do not try to change the mechanics to suit yourself.
Say it with me. Supply and demand. You reduce supply, prices spike, and there are way more people out there whining about high T2 prices than there are whining about R64 lockdown.
|
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 17:55:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Drake Draconis As much as I hate to admit this... I agree with Miss Alt Posts's Alot.
The idea sucks... and it would mess up the mechanic something fierce.
but your not open to arguments... your too busy pushing your idea.
All I have seen so far is "this sucks" not really any informed argument as to why and possible alternatives. So until I do see reasoned arguments I will continue to push this idea, yes.
|
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 17:56:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker No, as much as I would like to see a more dynamic Eve Online, your idea is open to abuse and overall a bad idea.
Not much to say.
--Isaac
State how please and let's think of ways to combat it instead.
|
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 18:01:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Anisa Schardl I don't really care if your tiny alliance doesn't have the manpower to take an R64. Get bigger, get a capfleet. Do not try to change the mechanics to suit yourself
Massive, totally incorrect assumption there, don't fog the issue with unfounded comments.
Originally by: Anisa Schardl Making them [moon minerals] shift would force interruptions in the supply, which would cause the prices to spike even more.
I agree there may be fluctuations, but the supply would also be be largely freed from megablob control. Unless of course, the megablob are active then they can easily take locate and take control of the resources. Seems ok to me.
|
Dzil
Caldari Tritanium Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 18:14:00 -
[19]
Heh, I just realised you would have the classic mafia style "drop land values through crime, then buy out the lot" game going on.
It sounds interesting, in a way, but if .5 can flip to .4, more needs to be done about graduating that line down. Currently there is too massive a difference between concord being guaranteed to show up, vs guaranteed not to show up. Grey that line, and dynamic shifts would be more acceptible.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 19:53:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Astigmatic
Originally by: Drake Draconis As much as I hate to admit this... I agree with Miss Alt Posts's Alot.
The idea sucks... and it would mess up the mechanic something fierce.
but your not open to arguments... your too busy pushing your idea.
All I have seen so far is "this sucks" not really any informed argument as to why and possible alternatives. So until I do see reasoned arguments I will continue to push this idea, yes.
We can make all the informed arguments we want.... your hearing aid would still be turned down. It's not our fault your blinded by your self imposed brilliance. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
|
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 20:56:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
We can make all the informed arguments we want.... your hearing aid would still be turned down. It's not our fault your blinded by your self imposed brilliance.
Lol, quite funny but only 1/10 and totally incorrect. So come on, any tweaks to this? Major or minor? Anything that can make Eve dynamic? Limit only to security at first and let the big boys sit on the pots of gold or maybe another idea for moon/belt resources?
|
Astigmatic
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 21:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Dzil Heh, I just realised you would have the classic mafia style "drop land values through crime, then buy out the lot" game going on.
It sounds interesting, in a way, but if .5 can flip to .4, more needs to be done about graduating that line down. Currently there is too massive a difference between concord being guaranteed to show up, vs guaranteed not to show up. Grey that line, and dynamic shifts would be more acceptible.
Hmm. Interesting idea and thanks for pointing that out. Yes I think another poster covered that too and you are right, it's an issue that needs addressing somehow. I'm pretty much stumped though...
Unless the idea of fluctuating sec ratings is limited by range to current areas classed as low sec/hi sec/0.0. Would that work or would that make the whole exercise pointless?
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 21:44:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Astigmatic 1: Empire Areas. In Empire we have 1.0 to .5 security generally. This is fixed.
I would like to security related to faction warfare performance and indigenous population figures.
The better the FW results, the higher the average security rating is that empires systems a bonus is also applied if the average population of pilots over a period of a week.
If the formula is balanced right, true Hi Sec will shrink a bit and there will be tracts of low sec areas between Hi Sec systems as a by product yet with lucrative agents/ores.
Concord response/population adjusts accordingly.
Jita would be almost perma 1.0 given the population as would nearby systems, the further afield the more chance of a system being low sec. There would potentially be swathes of low sec to get to another Empire/Trade Hub area.
Meaning Empire can alter, low sec can alter, high sec can alter.
I actually kinda like this idea, but I'm sure it would be a major technical untertaking. It would need to be balanced very carefully, both in terms of how slowly system sec changes occur and how large population shifts have to be to alter system sec. It's a very radical idea, but I think worth talking about. I worry about ways such a change might make the game less dynamic, however - high traffic could permanently eliminate low-sec choke points, for instance. I'd be curious about CCP's opinion.
Originally by: Astigmatic 2: Asteroid Belts/Moon Mining Similar to SWG resources, the mapping of ores changes each week, randomly. RP will be that a resource was overmined, new stuff is awaiting discovery. This would encourage Nomadic behaviour.
It would end resource hogging by the filthy rich as you would have to discover new areas and mine them as they change. Not sit on a big heap of gold. When areas change, PvP is generated as a result. Active corps/alliances stand a better chance than the inactive ones. Bloatcorp with 5000 members but 150 active will suffer against NEWcorp with 200 members (theoretically).
Also an interesting idea. Again, would need to be very carefully balanced.
Originally by: Astigmatic 3: Sovereignty...
This is the one area where I disagree with you. Sovereignty is a very touchy subject, one that CCP's already thinking about, and I think there are other, more elegant suggestions on the table for changing how it's structured. I'm a fan of the model where sovereignty is maintained by control of gates, for instance, but there are a lot of ideas out there, and CCP's already going to do whatever CCP's going to do about it.
I'm giving you a thumbs up anyway overall; some creative ideas here.
I was almost afraid that Drake and I were going to agree on everything after the last couple weeks. Guess not. =P --------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Max Torps
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 22:46:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Max Torps on 30/04/2009 22:48:22
1: Empire Areas. I'm with Tesseract on this. A good idea. Needs careful implementation. Commentary needed from CCP too. Needs work.
2: Asteroid Belts/Moon Mining I think that would work for asteroid belts. Mixing and matching those is a good idea. I remain unconvinced for moon mining though.
3: Sovereignty. As Tesseract d'Urberville mentioned, if there is something on the table from CCP - maybe your suggestion won't be needed.It needs more thought anyway imho.
Overall, interesting out of the box thinking and worthy of more discussion. I support some elements of this as stated, giving you an overall thumbs up.
|
slave10011001
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 21:06:00 -
[25]
Moon idea is bad. Really bad. I mean really bad. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |