Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
676
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 17:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Seeing this post about making player station in null destructable:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=330013&find=unread
Gave me this idea.
While I appreciate that there are issues with destroying stations, there is also an issue with allowing the ever increasing numbers of them. So I suggest as a first step making a disadvantage for putting up a stations in the first place, beyond simple economics. That disadvantage should be true sec status.
What makes one system in null sec more valuable than others? The ores and rats that reside there. In 'reality' what would change that? The number of people farming those resources. Thus plant a station in a null sec system and more people are going to go there. Ores are going to mine out, yellow belly pirate NPCs are going to move somewhere easier.
So my suggestion: Simple! Plant a station and the true sec status starts coming up. And it keeps coming up each month or so until some predefined max is reached. Plant two stations in the system and that max is raised higher. Not only that but adjacent systems are also affected, not so much, but a proportion. Meanwhile everytime a system has it's true sec lifted, there is a balancing down trend in another system elsewhere, again with a minimum limit starting with systems without stations and furtherest away from station systems. I'll leave CCP to work out the exact mechanics.
Pressure will then rise, not just to limit expansion but actually remove or relocate existing stations. That's for another suggestion though, lets keep this one simple as the first step. CTRL-Q - Minmatar FW - Low Sec PvP - Euro TZ - New Player Friendly Contact: Major Trant In game channel: FeO Public Recruitment thread: CTRL-Q |
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
500
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 18:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why do you want to make it harder to live in 0.0? |
EvEa Deva
Forum Alt Retort
474
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 18:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Would be funny to watch renters get all mad |
Batelle
HOMELE55
2257
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 18:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
why should investing in space make it worse? "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
267
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 18:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Very odd suggestion.
So if I secure some nullsec space and drop in a station, given enough time concorde will show up and start shooting me if I continue to defend my space?
How does this help? |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
677
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 19:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
I never actually considered the renters plight... which in itself I consider a sick joke.
So another +1 reason to do this. Anything that helps to break up the big blue doughnut.
But seriously, you pick out an area which is currently the most lawless and desolate, where all the NPC Officers like to chill out. You slap in an outpost, move hundreds of people in and stays lawless and desolate. You make it all cosy and it stays the most lucrative space to farm, that isn't right. Put money making aside and consider this idea from a game improving PoV CTRL-Q - Minmatar FW - Low Sec PvP - Euro TZ - New Player Friendly Contact: Major Trant In game channel: FeO Public Recruitment thread: CTRL-Q |
Batelle
HOMELE55
2262
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 19:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:I never actually considered the renters plight... which in itself I consider a sick joke.
So another +1 reason to do this. Anything that helps to break up the big blue doughnut.
you should definitely take some more of your poorly-thought-out ideas and post them in additional threads here in F&I. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3708
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 20:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Quick thoughts:
POS's: These are fairly well balanced. GÖª Require moderate investment. GÖª Provide limited protection of assets: Items in the POS may be bumped out, may be stolen, etc. GÖª Provide limited functionality: Specifically, they have limited storage, as well as limited S&I too. GÖª Require routine fueling to operate. GÖª May be destroyed moderately easily, with a 100% loss of assets. GÖª These are potential conflict drivers for medium to larger groups (15 or more players).
Stations: These are NOT well balanced. GÖª Requires a large amount of investment by players (but isk is a pisspoor balancing factor) GÖª These kind of require upkeep, albeit extremely limited upkeep (isk for Sov Bill). GÖª Unlimited personal storage. Personal storage is 100% safe from theft and loss. GÖª Unlimited corp storage for multiple corps, with much easier-to-configure control over corp hangars. GÖª Loss of Station ownership results in a loss of access to station assets only. GÖª Station conquering mechanics require a major amount of firepower, and have several user defined RF windows as opposed to stront levels. GÖª Station conquering mechanics add several RF timers to the Sov conquest mechanics, making it much harder to flip a system. GÖª Stations offer free Jump clones, free repair, free S&I, instant refine at near perfect, and more. GÖª These are potential conflict drivers, but ONLY for large groups (50 or more). Whoever balanced these was stuck on the "only 2 or 3 will exist in the game" because of isk cost mentality, and obviously did a PISSPOOR job of it.
With the Ops suggestion, it adds another drawback: Your system's Sec Status gets worse. GÖª How much sec status loss would really help limit the deployment of these vastly superior structures? Only an extreme increase, like 0.3 sec status points, would make much of a difference.
GÖª How would this alter the current landscape? Considering you can't remove a planted station, and many regions have already been heavily seeded with stations, this would be terrible for many existing groups. Frankly, I think this is unacceptable.
To be honest, I think the Ops idea doesn't work out well. I would much rather have nullsec stations become vulnerable to flipping outside of the Sov system than create this drawback, which hits the wrong aspects of the station. The station is simply not vulnerable enough, and your proposal does nothing to address this.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
277
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 21:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Quote:GÖª How would this alter the current landscape? Considering you can't remove a planted station, and many regions have already been heavily seeded with stations, this would be terrible for many existing groups. Frankly, I think this is unacceptable.
Providence? All of Providence is 0.0, only very few systems are -0.2, and ProviBlock does very well in these systems. |
Anhenka
Daktaklakpak. Red Coat Conspiracy
389
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 23:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Quote:GÖª How would this alter the current landscape? Considering you can't remove a planted station, and many regions have already been heavily seeded with stations, this would be terrible for many existing groups. Frankly, I think this is unacceptable. Providence? All of Providence is 0.0, only very few systems are -0.2, and ProviBlock does very well in these systems.
Only if your standards are really really low.
|
|
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
27
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 23:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Posting in a stealth nerf Providence thread? |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
100
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 00:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
I like the idea of tying together sov and station ownership. Atm it's what, 4 timers to flip both station and system. Making the station = ihub makes sense if only in reducing grind.
The max refine is a station upgrade for minnie stations only that costs billions and needs freightering in, for the agony guy who posted above. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2582
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 00:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
But you can neither destory stations, nor build more than one in a system.
As was already asked, why do you want it to be harder to live in 0.0? you can already make better money in highsec incursions, this would just push ratting income below highsec mission income... |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
677
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
The aim of this suggestion isn't to make life harder (although it may for some), but to discourage stagnation, encourage movement and dispersion of the blob.
Currently we have this situation where the best systems have an outpost planted and people converge on the alliance controlling that system and the system itself. NIPS and NAPS are encouraged as is the renting system.
I think things should be more fluid, resources should run out or diminish in overworked systems, people should need to constantly move around and fight for the newly discovered resources. The most lucrative systems should be the ones that are the most dangerous, without a nearby bolt hole. People wanting to challenge the dominate alliance in the area should have more options than just outblobbing them. Make it viable for conflict to occur in systems where the dominate alliance is at it's weakest. Encourage people to push out from the central home system, by making the best riches spawn further and further away.
Now this proposal is not the solution to all problems, just one step in the right direction. Another would be to make moons run out of goo and have the resource re-spawn on another moon. It is poor game design that all the important moons are known, static and controlled by a few leet blobs. The discovery of newly spawned moon resources and their extraction, should be a viable mini profession, with the opportunity to ninja run it under the nose of the incumbent alliance, as well as the opportunity to create friction between supposedly friendly corps/alliances as to who has the right to extract each new resource found.
I wasn't aware that only one Outpost can be constructed per system (thanks Danika). Ultimately as things stand we will eventually reach the stage where every system in null sec has an Outpost. That doesn't sound very attractive to me. For null to keep it's frontier feel, we need a method to reduce the desire to continually build more outposts and also remove some of the existing outposts as their usefulness diminishes. Now openingly destroying them is fraught with problem as discussed in that other thread I linked in the OP. But would it be possible to allow a station to become uneconomic to continue running and thus allow the owner to decommission the outpost, recovering a portion of the investment. At which point the outpost becomes a ruined or mothballed outpost, station lockout and services fail, along with it's influence on the surrounding area, but assets can still be recovered? Ships can dock, without restriction and remove items from personal and corp hangers but nothing else. Before anyone rubbishes that idea, why is that more unrealistic that the current situation where an alliance can conquer an outpost, but not pillage their enemies personal and corp hangers?
I don't want to get into too many details on the latter, if I try to wrap up too many suggestions in one, all we'll get is a big row. So as I said, little steps first, start with moving the resources and give a reason to restrict the overall number of outposts. Ideas for how to remove/move the outpost will follow in due course.
@ Notorious Fellon. The max improvement in true sec, would still be to a level of null, it wouldn't improve into low sec. But it may be necessary to adjust the level of resources available at each level. CTRL-Q - Minmatar FW - Low Sec PvP - Euro TZ - New Player Friendly Contact: Major Trant In game channel: FeO Public Recruitment thread: CTRL-Q |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2582
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Riiiiiight.
But all your idea ACTUALLY does is force alliances to take even more space, so they can be sure they have the good stuff.
And force every single moon to be scanned down every couple of weeks. Which is fun for nobody.
And force people to keep less than one carrier load of ships in nullsec total, since they'll be moving frequently. Which is fun for nobody.
And, essentially, make nullsec life not worth the effort. Why bother competing for the resources of a handful of ever shifting systems when I can just move to highsec and make more ISK running incursions, or comparable ISK blitzing level 4 missions? Or go to lowsec for mad FW ISK, or even to WH space (Which is the ACTUAL frontier space) if I'm feeling hardcore?
I'm not sure you actually understand how nullsec works. You want it to be impossible for an alliance to actually make any money, for an individual to make a living, or for fleet PVP to even exist. Have you ever actually lived there? |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |