Pages: [1] :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Paeniteo
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 16:10:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Paeniteo on 29/03/2008 16:25:49 Bear with me here... I haven't put a whole heap of thought into this. Do you want a mechanism in 0.0 PvP which makes you stop and think to yourself, "what do I get out of killing this guy"?
An example of how ordered and objective PvP in 0.0 could be:
Quote: Small taxes could be put on systems under Alliance control, and therefore having more people in their systems generates capital. People are then attracted to these systems for their rare ores and spawns which more than make up for the tax. It is then in their best interests for alliances to protect the inhabitants of their systems and foster migration and economic growth through good relations and fair treatment of their 'people', as well as providing some level of protection.
Thus, not every nublet in a shuttle who strays into 0.0 is ganked on sight for absolutely no benefit to anyone. Control of systems in 0.0 could become a political game where the influence of an alliance is not governed by just its mass and inside income, but by the number of people outside of that alliance who support it or would benefit from that alliance being in power: just like the elections, but with more explosions.
When systems are in contest between two or more alliances, it would be important for each alliance to make clear to the population exactly what benefits there would be to having them in control in order to gain the people's support. Then players could decide who they want in power and choose not to resist, or assist their favorite alliance in the invasion or defense of said systems.
Alliances primary goal would be to shoot each other, but to avoid casualties of neutral inhabitants of a system as they will generate important revenue once a takeover is complete.
Then once control of a system has been established, sentry guns can be set up by alliances at gates and stations, and that alliances' standings towards an individual, corporation or other alliance would act as the security status for that system. I.e. sentries would fire on people who have -10 standings to the alliance in control, and they would be flagged to all in local as a criminal.
You're effectively taking out three pigs with one stone: completely pointless ganking, a lack of economy in 0.0, and you have something resembling factional warfare which makes politics a more prominent element in PvP. BUT - contest over systems will get hot between alliances, and pirates will seek out and take advantage of systems who's security has been weakened by war. Bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed.
Do you think 0.0 should have a 'system', or do you like it how it is? Should there be more reasons to move into 0.0 if you're not part of an alliance?
|

N1fty
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 16:11:00 -
[2]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=channel&channelID=3523
For your convenience I have pasted the link where IDEAS go.
Thanks.
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia I usually close my eyes and just beg, out loud added with a lot of squealing.
I swear it helps.
|

Paeniteo
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 16:13:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Paeniteo on 29/03/2008 16:16:46 Yeah thanks but general discussion is better for the main question in the topic. Do people like 0.0 how it is, or would they prefer something like this. I'm not pitching the idea to CCP. Edited title to reflect this, whoops.
|

Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 16:24:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Paeniteo Edited by: Paeniteo on 29/03/2008 16:19:32 Bear with me here... I haven't put a whole heap of thought into this.
Try again when you have.
Alliances operate a standing system. If you want to fly around in someone else's space without getting shot at, then try using diplomacy and ask their permission first.
|

Paeniteo
Synthetic Frontiers Blue Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 16:28:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Paeniteo on 29/03/2008 16:34:31 Actually I didn't say what I wanted. I'm just trying to give an example of a more systematic 0.0 to contrast what we currently have, you know, since there's so much discussion about incentives to move out of high sec.
I'm also guessing since you said I didn't want to be shot at that you didn't read much past the first paragraph.
|

Rod Blaine
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 16:45:00 -
[6]
0.0 is very systematic already.
it's just a game mechanic, but social interaction that governs it.
it's a better system too.
[center] Old blog |

Ophenbach
|
Posted - 2008.03.29 18:43:00 -
[7]
What the hell is a "lockplx"? ----- Ophenbach
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |