EVE Search - [PROPOSAL] System True-Sec Status

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[PROPOSAL] System True-Sec Status

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kittamaru Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:40:00 - [1] Edited by: Kittamaru on 25/03/2011 19:54:45 This is in regards to the latest Dev Blog, about how systems will be losing their sanctums and havens and such. You can read the blog here: Dev Blog My proposal is pretty simple: Why not make it so active corporations that hold sovereignty can LOWER the True-Sec of their systems over time? This would allow for better spawn, both in belts and via scanned anomalies. Maybe cap the maximum change at, say .5? So you can take a 0.0 true-sec system to -0.5, and a -0.5 to a -1.0, so on and so forth. Now, the catch - if someone comes in and kicks you out and claims your space, they get your upgrades. They still have to MAINTAIN them, but they do NOT have to start from scratch. This accomplishes a few things: 1) ACTIVE space becomes more valuable 2) INACTIVE space becomes less valuable 3) This would entice alliances to fight over the less-valuable space as now they can MAKE it more valuable. 4) The truly crap 0.0 systems now can be made semi-valuable. 5) Upgraded/Improved systems now become GIANT targets for hostiles to come take over. BOOM, more conflict AND better 0.0 - everyone is happy! EDIT - yes, I do realize this would also affect Faction and Officer spawns and (potentially) even the Ore that spawns in the belts. That is the point. Now, I'm not saying this should be a simple 2 or 3 day process for these upgrades - make them take weeks or even months per level (or make them take longer at each level even). I wouldn't be opposed to it taking over a year to get to the 5th level upgrades - makes them all that much more valuable and worth taking over
Narthon Deveral	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:01:00 - [2] I like it. All space should have value.
ShamR0ck	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:09:00 - [3] I'm all for it! The whole idea behind the dominion sov changes was to get more ppl, corps and alliances to igrate to nullsec. With proposed changes, a whole lot of alliances will retreat to highsec again. I second the idea that hard work should make up for the bad realsec of the systems! Sham
Haulerz	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:39:00 - [4] 1 and 2, totally agree. I only fear great lag battles as it is these days with more than ...well, not many...in systems when fighting. But i like the idea, thumbs up.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:53:00 - [5] Not supported. You should have to fight for better space, not turtle up with your 50k friends and wait for your space to improve to avoid conflict.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:14:00 - [6] I think your suggestion is WAY overboard!!! A 0.5 change borders on ridiculous, and eventually negates the desired effect of making some space more valuable than other space. Why would your suggestion create conflict? If you can turn a -.2 system into a -.7 system, almost all of nullsec becomes highly profitable.
Feawin Gallente Northstar Cabal	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:25:00 - [7] Thumbs up for this idea.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:52:00 - [8] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 25/03/2011 23:52:00 It actually revert to the same point CCP is trying change . All equal space that is upgraded over time. Just not gonna happen
Kittamaru Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:26:00 - [9] Better than making 0.0 virtually devoid of life...
Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:42:00 - [10] Edited by: Vertisce Soritenshi on 26/03/2011 03:46:37 Um...ok...I think this is a good idea but I am not sure if you made a mistake in your post or not. -1.0 is as low as it goes. To allow upgrades to change sec status by as much as -0.5 is just too much. I am thinking you maybe meant -0.05 since you said "and so on" after -1.0. I think its a decent idea but maybe it should be more like a max change of -0.1 sec status. Make it so that anything 0.0 - 0.1 spawn no Sanctums or Havens but using the max upgrade of the sec status could make those systems spawn 1 Sanctum and 1 Haven and go up from there by 1 for each Sanct and Haven for each -0.1 sec status. If a system has a truesec status of -1.0 as a few do make that system spawn a max of 11 fully upgraded as a bonus. Heck I would say for each level of military make a sec status change of -0.05 for a total of -0.25 in sec status change. This would give a system of -0.01 the sec status to have the 2 Sancts and 2 Havens. NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!
Kittamaru Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:31:00 - [11] Obviously it would cap at -1.0 :) However, re-thinking things, I'm thinking the maximum change should be .25, which would be .05 / level, yes,
Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:47:00 - [12] In that case...supported! Oh and please support my "No Boobies Left Behind" initiative. In my sig... =P. NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!
Kittamaru Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:15:00 - [13] nods First post edited to reflect changed values :)
EOH Minigin Eve Online Hold'Em ISK Six	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:54:00 - [14] i dont understand how the most basic tenants of economics can escape you... supply and demand. pricing is sometimes determined by intersecting supply and demand on a pretty simple graph. it looks something like an X. what this means is that the "price" or what people are ready to do for it, is dependant both on how much of it there is and how many people want it. if everyone wants it, the price will go up, but if literally everywhere has it the "price" will drop. the most horrifying thing about your ridiculous argument is you think sanctums are yours by right. well they friggin arnt. sanctums are such a stupid mechanic to begin with, and theres other ways to make isk. like oh... say... belt ratting. which people have entirely stopped doing since sanctums popped up. grow up and realise the game is not yours to say whats fair and what isnt. or tomorrow i will post a longwinded post about how i should be given a ship that can grind 400m isk an hour anywhere any time, with literally no risk to me at all ever... wait. what is it you asked for again? WANNA PLAY POKER IN EVE FOR ISK???? www.eohpoker.com
Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:02:00 - [15] Originally by: EOH Minigin i dont understand how the most basic tenants of economics can escape you... supply and demand. pricing is sometimes determined by intersecting supply and demand on a pretty simple graph. it looks something like an X. what this means is that the "price" or what people are ready to do for it, is dependant both on how much of it there is and how many people want it. if everyone wants it, the price will go up, but if literally everywhere has it the "price" will drop. the most horrifying thing about your ridiculous argument is you think sanctums are yours by right. well they friggin arnt. sanctums are such a stupid mechanic to begin with, and theres other ways to make isk. like oh... say... belt ratting. which people have entirely stopped doing since sanctums popped up. grow up and realise the game is not yours to say whats fair and what isnt. or tomorrow i will post a longwinded post about how i should be given a ship that can grind 400m isk an hour anywhere any time, with literally no risk to me at all ever... wait. what is it you asked for again? You are obviously completely missing the point. If it wasn't 1 in the morning I would explain to you how you know a lot less about economics and supply and demand than you think you do. As it is...I am too tired and I just want to sleep so I can wake up and see the backlash of this dev blog during the fanfest tomorrow. NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari draketrain Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:08:00 - [16] Horrible idea. There should be some unchangeable "geographical" traits which give reason for place x to be better than place y, not matter what you do. This causes conflicts. However, the way they're trying to achieve this in dev blog does not work, and most likely even hurts the small alliances more than helps. There is certain threshold of income you need to achieve to make some territory worth of living in. The way they're nerfing anomalies makes just some places worthless for those who rely on anomalies for income. It's better to move to hi sec and do level 4's in raven etc. If there's large power blocks in eve it isn't because of anomalies. They existed before them, like blob warfare.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:50:00 - [17] Sounds like you want all space to be bot space, what else would be able to keep up activity to maintain such a massive boost in potential income? Better to introduce an advanced plex-generator to allow for spawning based on next security band. Downside could be that it interferes with bridges and jammers so holder has to choose.
EOH Minigin Eve Online Hold'Em ISK Six	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:09:00 - [18] Edited by: EOH Minigin on 26/03/2011 08:11:36 Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi You are obviously completely missing the point. If it wasn't 1 in the morning I would explain to you how you know a lot less about economics and supply and demand than you think you do. As it is...I am too tired and I just want to sleep so I can wake up and see the backlash of this dev blog during the fanfest tomorrow. dear wikipedia, what happens when the supply curve shifts? well im glad you asked minigin!!! Supply curve shifts Main article: Supply (economics) An outward (rightward) shift in supply reduces the equilibrium price but increases the equilibrium quantity When the suppliers' unit input costs change, or when technological progress occurs, the supply curve shifts. For example, assume that someone invents a better way of growing wheat so that the cost of growing a given quantity of wheat decreases. Otherwise stated, producers will be willing to supply more wheat at every price and this shifts the supply curve S1 outward, to S2ùan increase in supply. This increase in supply causes the equilibrium price to decrease from P1 to P2. The equilibrium quantity increases from Q1 to Q2 as consumers move along the demand curve to the new lower price. As a result of a supply curve shift, the price and the quantity move in opposite directions. If the quantity supplied decreases, the opposite happens. If the supply curve starts at S2, and shifts leftward to S1, the equilibrium price will increase and the equilibrium quantity will decrease as consumers move along the demand curve to the new higher price and associated lower quantity demanded. The quantity demanded at each price is the same as before the supply shift, reflecting the fact that the demand curve has not shifted. But due to the change (shift) in supply, the equilibrium quantity and price have changed. The movement of the supply curve in response to a change in a non-price determinant of supply is caused by a change in the y-intercept, the constant term of the supply equation. The supply curve shifts up and down the y axis as non-price determinants of demand change. but what does that mean if im ******ed???? well you see, this means that if ccp made it more rare to find space with sanctums, the equilibrium price will go up. this means the people ready to do more will have to as opposed to pay the current equilibrium price. this will create the conflict desired in 0.0. so go, rest your head on your pillow, and wait for backlash by the little children who refused to take their meds. WANNA PLAY POKER IN EVE FOR ISK???? www.eohpoker.com
bbtop Triangular Initiative STR8NGE BREW	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:53:00 - [19] Supported, CCP wth were you thinking when you announced this blog? it already takes long enough to get the money to PVP with. Unless this was a way for you to boost PLEX sales the idea was not well thought out.
Willowb	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:55:00 - [20] Supported 100%. CCP wtf?
Sloothy	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:58:00 - [21] Edited by: Sloothy on 26/03/2011 11:58:52 Well I'm all for things being different across space but - I agree completely with this assessment. The only problem is that CCP is very hypocritical on their "different space is better argument" example: When CCP nerfed bombing hordes. They say different space is okay. So the players there made their space better with game mechanics in place. By CCP's argument in the latest dev blog other alliances would go "WOW D.R. is worth more now - we should try and take that space" instead people complained that they were able to make more isk/hour (not that much more honestly) Therefore CCP nerfed it... making space the worse than anyone else. So in reality this is CCP motto on this....."We like to make space unequal and we get to pick and choose whom's space is worth less" I really have a problem with the statement of essentially worthless space will give new alliances a foothold? A foothold into space they cannot afford to hold? CCP seems to have problems with the MEGA Alliances controlling much of 0.0. - fair enough. If they wanted to fix that they would make it so you can upgrade awesome things because of sov... example gate guns ... guns for outposts... and then make having sov in system really damn expensive. Then huge alliances could not and would not survive. That simple. But in reality they don t want to get rid of the big alliances - thats why they dont do that - because most of their base of game fans are in those alliances.
Cassus Temon	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:04:00 - [22] Originally by: Sloothy Edited by: Sloothy on 26/03/2011 11:58:52 Well I'm all for things being different across space but - I agree completely with this assessment. The only problem is that CCP is very hypocritical on their "different space is better argument" example: When CCP nerfed bombing hordes. They say different space is okay. So the players there made their space better with game mechanics in place. By CCP's argument in the latest dev blog other alliances would go "WOW D.R. is worth more now - we should try and take that space" instead people complained that they were able to make more isk/hour (not that much more honestly) Therefore CCP nerfed it... making space the worse than anyone else. So in reality this is CCP motto on this....."We like to make space unequal and we get to pick and choose whom's space is worth less" I really have a problem with the statement of essentially worthless space will give new alliances a foothold? A foothold into space they cannot afford to hold? CCP seems to have problems with the MEGA Alliances controlling much of 0.0. - fair enough. If they wanted to fix that they would make it so you can upgrade awesome things because of sov... example gate guns ... guns for outposts... and then make having sov in system really damn expensive. Then huge alliances could not and would not survive. That simple. But in reality they don t want to get rid of the big alliances - thats why they dont do that - because most of their base of game fans are in those alliances. I'm afraid your logic is a little skewed. Why don't you go to a Nullsec Chart/Map of Alliance Control; then add up all the numbers, as shown in-game, for Each Alliance membership. Now compare those numbers; against the total players in game. Unfortunately, this does not allow for Alternate Highsec Accounts; so multiply the original number by 3.5, and check again. I think I might do this myself; given I'm curious about the actual numbers. Just because an Alliance Blobs 3500 ships; doesn't make it the largest playerbase. Nullsec is virtually empty, and mostly unused; save for travel purposes, to and from valuable systems.
Kittamaru Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:21:00 - [23] Here's the problem with the "supply and demand" theory Mini... If your space is worth, say, 1 billion isk a week... and it ends up costing you 6 billion isk a month in overall costs (replacing PvP ships and fittings, fuel costs, sov costs, et al), would you bother to keep that space? Long answer short - HELL NO. Short answer long - OH GOD NO. In other words - if they make 0.0 LESS profitable than high-sec missions, where are people going to go? Answer - high sec missions. The "demand" for good 0.0 is fine as it is... that's why so many people fight over it already... and why so many people group up to defend it.
Cassus Temon	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:11:00 - [24] Despite the tedious nature of the process; I did, somehow, manage to get through it, without having a stroke. ..well.. maybe one. Currently, there are 38 Alliances; which control the vast majority of Nullsec. These Alliances, have 73198 total members; of which, most of us know from experience, roughly 50-70% are Alt's. That aside, let's assume, these are all different players, on active accounts. ..yea right We'll take my original number, and modify it somewhat; as the number of player's to have more than 3 accounts; is rather less, than those who will have 1 or 2. So, we'll make it 2.5; which is more realistic. Our Calculation: 731982.5 = 182995 This means that, at most; Nullsec'rs account for 182995 active players in EVE. I'm not sure of current numbers; but, I would assume, that's somewhat less than 50% Now, when we account for the fact that 50-70% of Alliance members, are likely alternate character's, on same or different accounts; then we realize our true number, is closer to this: (731980.43)*2.5 = 78687.85, or 78788 Actual Accounts; or, roughly, 31475 actual players. Still impressive, but not nearly; the number of people, we'd like to see playing EVE.
Kittamaru Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:27:00 - [25] nods Sadly I know a few people with 8+ accounts... 0_o yeah...
EOH Minigin Eve Online Hold'Em ISK Six	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:07:00 - [26] i drink regular coke and pepsi, so if the price of regular coke and pepsi rose past the price i am willing to pay, i would then buy no frills soft drink. other people would still buy coke and pepsi and even tear out each others eyes for them. sure not everyone will buy no frills, but the fact that you dont want to, does not mean economics does not work. WANNA PLAY POKER IN EVE FOR ISK???? www.eohpoker.com
Sasha Citrine	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:50:00 - [27] I approve of the OP as of this post. It will still encourage conflict without making all the time people spend on things not wasted when taken over etc etc
Dulcia Anduin	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:45:00 - [28] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat Not supported. You should have to fight for better space, not turtle up with your 50k friends and wait for your space to improve to avoid conflict. This. It's really cute the NC believe it has a right to reign over most of 0.0 and that any game changes to dispute that rule are retarted, but this whole idea of everyone getting valuable space is exactly what CCP wants to get rid of. If you aren't living in 0.0 for conflict (and by that I don't mean grid-loading 1000man blobs) over resources, you've completely missed the memo on what 0.0 was all about. Get back to highsec where you can pile up isk all day long if that's your goal. The rest of us in 0.0 just want good fights with fewer blobs and that's exactly what CCP is trying to deliver by breaking up your little girls club.
StyphonUK Caldari Fearless Bandits	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:46:00 - [29] Edited by: StyphonUK on 28/03/2011 09:46:53 Horrible idea. Why bother going to take someone else's good sector when you can just defend your own and wait for it to upgrade at much lower cost in lost ships? This would remove intensives to fight over territory, not increase them. Your logic is flawed.
Spin Spin Sugar	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:39:00 - [30] No. People active in a nul sec system should have a civilising affect on it. Popping all those rats and installing order should improve the sec to high sec status (safe space). It certainly is not any riskier. Basically, fight for good spots. Crap space should remain crap space in relation to good space. Otherwise people have zero incentive to move and seek out better systems.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.