hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 354 of 376 FirstFirst ... 254304344351352353354355356357364 ... LastLast
Results 7,061 to 7,080 of 7516

Thread: The Shitposting Thread

  1. #7061
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,344
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPilot View Post
    Seems everyone is dancing around the edge of suggesting a server wipe.
    I'd rather suggest a "new territories" style solution, but even if CCP would be interrested into creating EVE II, at best we'd be splitting the server.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  2. #7062
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,924
    IMO what Eve has needed for a long time now is some dynamic world based PVE that can in turn affect how PVP plays out.
    Basically 3 things:

    1) No docking rights in NPC 0.0 under a certain level of negative faction
    2) All of 0.0 under a constant incursion of sorts by its resident NPC faction.
    3) Removing static TrueSec and making it reflective of the status of the NPC incursions

    In essence player organizations should be attempting to carve out their chunk of 0.0 from the cold dead hands of the NPC factions, and the NPC factions should be attempting to stop this from happening. As a player organization pushes back the incursion & solidifies its hold on an area the true sec of the area will increase; which in turn diminishes the quality & availability of NPC's and Ores.

    Probably a terrible idea that will kill the game but there it is

  3. #7063
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,344
    Here's an example of "good" mapping https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comment..._insufficient/
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  4. #7064
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    IMO what Eve has needed for a long time now is some dynamic world based PVE that can in turn affect how PVP plays out.
    Basically 3 things:

    1) No docking rights in NPC 0.0 under a certain level of negative faction...
    2) All of 0.0 under a constant incursion of sorts by its resident NPC faction.
    3) Removing static TrueSec and making it reflective of the status of the NPC incursions

    In essence player organizations should be attempting to carve out their chunk of 0.0 from the cold dead hands of the NPC factions, and the NPC factions should be attempting to stop this from happening. As a player organization pushes back the incursion & solidifies its hold on an area the true sec of the area will increase; which in turn diminishes the quality & availability of NPC's and Ores.

    Probably a terrible idea that will kill the game but there it is
    Kind of fucks over those people who actually live in NPC 0.0 and don't give a shit about sov. Ran a few hisec missions before you graduated? So sorry, Gallente Citizen, no living in Fountain or Syndicate for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  5. #7065

    Join Date
    July 2, 2014
    Location
    CAS
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    What if all ores simply disappeared from Delve, or at least turned into low-yield Veld.
    And at the same time, exceedingly rich ores were discovered in, say, Vale or Omist or Black Rise or wherever.

    Is it a good thing to turn Eve into a game of traveling locusts? Conversely, is it a good thing for the players to have locations the call 'home?"
    Neither Vale nor Omist are uninhabited. You're asking CCP to literally and blatantly pick sides, and run the risk that the inhabitants of Delve might simply choose to invade Crowfall rather than Omist.
    Exactly. It would be pretty boring and uneventful to "invade" an uninhabited region. And yes, a group leaving the game because their formerly rich territory is no longer rich might happen, but if so what's the loss? Simply less ore hitting the market. It's not like they were driving any significant conflict.
    What would be the loss? Seems like CCP might lose a lot of money if they followed your example of specifically targetting a group of players, That would be quite a loss to their wallets, and indeed to any pretence of credibility when it comes to being impartial custodians of the sandbox.

    Additionally, the mechanic isn't great, because

    (i) It's pure loss. There's no "silver lining" to the cloud, if you like: the inhabitants of your chosen region are simply being punished for happening to live there, the end.

    (ii) There's no interactivity, nothing you can do about it or engage with. It's just a straight up mechanical change for no real reason other than to poke the beehive to make them swarm.

    (iii) There's nothing that makes it any easier or more advantageous to take another region, not to mention the obvious suspicion that "even if we bother to take Vale, CCP will just nerf that too".
    I wasn't clear, for which I apologize, but I wasn't suggesting CCP deliberately and manually target specific regions and groups. I was suggesting imagining a dynamic, changing system of wealth variation in regions/constellations, modeling real-world droughts, famines, dust bowls, over-fishing and gold rushes. The sort of things that drive real-world conflict.

    I. Regarding players leaving - would there be more leaving due to their wealth generation being reduced, or more leaving due to no big combat/war content? (Keep in mind that we're discussing a group that only recently moved to the other side of the map.)

    II. There's a boring static nature to EVE right now. Region A is what it is and it never changes. Having to evaluate the map, find new sources of wealth, determine how to wrest that wealth from the current owner, that's a big driver of new interactions.

    III. Indeed, how a region can be captured definitely needs to be looked at.

  6. #7066
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    20,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post

    I wasn't clear, for which I apologize, but I wasn't suggesting CCP deliberately and manually target specific regions and groups. I was suggesting imagining a dynamic, changing system of wealth variation in regions/constellations, modeling real-world droughts, famines, dust bowls, over-fishing and gold rushes. The sort of things that drive real-world conflict.

    I. Regarding players leaving - would there be more leaving due to their wealth generation being reduced, or more leaving due to no big combat/war content? (Keep in mind that we're discussing a group that only recently moved to the other side of the map.)

    II. There's a boring static nature to EVE right now. Region A is what it is and it never changes. Having to evaluate the map, find new sources of wealth, determine how to wrest that wealth from the current owner, that's a big driver of new interactions.

    III. Indeed, how a region can be captured definitely needs to be looked at.
    Of all the things.

  7. #7067
    Super Everator Global Moderator Virtuozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    "Space weather" is a nice sounding idea, but what will actually happen is that holes will get rolled until we get the weather we like.

    Fun thing, weather is one core variable for behavioural effects of entropy which is responsible for more shit, drama, theatre, fun, fame and glory than anything humans have come up with by themselves in their history.

    Don't discount our reactions to some intangible force outside of ourselves. Yes, this gives choices. But that is the entire point here, we can choose, but we cannot control. Ask any military strategist, ask any socio-economic analyst, this is something we do not think much of, but it affects everything plus it is what is known as a chaos agent.

    Heck, even air pressure affects people's moods, let CCP find mechanical / physics equivalents and see what humans do :P


    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    " Right now EVE's simply mapped & milked to status quo. "

    This, I think, is the real problem. The 'adventure' in the early years of EVE was to a non-trivial extent, the process of mapping, (and indeed, the mapping of process). Now anyone can google up the optimal process for anything, even including a skillplan that they can directly copy into their skillqueue.

    I've been saying for really quite a long time that EVE needs a PvE revolution. It's OK for an inensively developed and upgraded system to have lots of anoms. But one "anom" should never be the same as another.
    Exactly. And this rubs both ways. CCP became allergic to it, got traumatised by it (not overall, but in the tight and high spots). Players just the same, just from different angles. Humans are very energy conservative creatures.

    Now if the goal of the emergent dynamic is to let everything end up as Peaceful & Happy Ponies Online, let what there is now cycle for another decade and it'll keep following the real world developmental patterns of decreasing collective violence and scales of destructive effects. If the goal is to have fun with shit burning and people enjoying building it up again to repeat the process, then something very crucial has to change in how both CCP and its customers approach it.

    Now I will agree that there is big bill of accountability for customers right there. One easiest paid by quickly removing the fattest and egotistical immortal cows in the background. Beyond that, you're talking about derivative behavioural effects. Who controls circumstances? CCP. So yes, players make choices, but as the adventures are over and every proces has been mapped, and conditions are entirely mechanical, the only one to instigate potential of change is CCP. Besides, it *is* them who write the code.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post

    I wasn't clear, for which I apologize, but I wasn't suggesting CCP deliberately and manually target specific regions and groups. I was suggesting imagining a dynamic, changing system of wealth variation in regions/constellations, modeling real-world droughts, famines, dust bowls, over-fishing and gold rushes. The sort of things that drive real-world conflict.
    Exactly. No well runs dry. Everything has been mapped. Every proces is known copypasta. Every do and don't is ingrained. New Eden has no Nature, only nurture. No entropy, every dependancy of the butterfly is known and calculable.

    Fucksake, we can't even create a proper demographical crisis. We can't have some asshat director who insists on doing everything X way resulting in a centralisation process because yields of resource Y go down the drain. We can't even have fucking refugees anymore (which once upon a time EVE did have). We can't even risk geo-economical catastrophy. We can't even fuck up with milking our members for death and taxes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    I. Regarding players leaving - would there be more leaving due to their wealth generation being reduced, or more leaving due to no big combat/war content? (Keep in mind that we're discussing a group that only recently moved to the other side of the map.)
    Replacing the old with the young is not a bad thing. It's why the real world keeps going. Immortality combined with economics of scale and prerunner advantages piling up as a transfer & control mechanism of both knowledge and wealth allows by definition only status quo to persist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    II. There's a boring static nature to EVE right now. Region A is what it is and it never changes. Having to evaluate the map, find new sources of wealth, determine how to wrest that wealth from the current owner, that's a big driver of new interactions.
    That's cause there is no Nature. Keep in mind, this is seperate from the amount of space. In truth, for the given population and the never ending supply there really is too much space.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    III. Indeed, how a region can be captured definitely needs to be looked at.
    That's a normal cycle of game development tbfh. Once people write the manual for what is, you should have shit in place for what comes next. ST:O, or something else - that's basically the choice CCP has to make. But no worries, they're doing VR.
    J'ai violé votre vaisseau spatial. C'était amusant....!

    EVE once was about internet spaceships. Then those became serious business.
    Now all that is left is serious business, and spaceships are docked for two years till after the Dust of Incarna
    .

  8. #7068
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    IMO what Eve has needed for a long time now is some dynamic world based PVE that can in turn affect how PVP plays out.
    Basically 3 things:

    1) No docking rights in NPC 0.0 under a certain level of negative faction...
    2) All of 0.0 under a constant incursion of sorts by its resident NPC faction.
    3) Removing static TrueSec and making it reflective of the status of the NPC incursions

    In essence player organizations should be attempting to carve out their chunk of 0.0 from the cold dead hands of the NPC factions, and the NPC factions should be attempting to stop this from happening. As a player organization pushes back the incursion & solidifies its hold on an area the true sec of the area will increase; which in turn diminishes the quality & availability of NPC's and Ores.

    Probably a terrible idea that will kill the game but there it is
    Kind of fucks over those people who actually live in NPC 0.0 and don't give a shit about sov. Ran a few hisec missions before you graduated? So sorry, Gallente Citizen, no living in Fountain or Syndicate for you.
    That's why I suggested making a cut off at *some point*; besides they have made it so you can unfuck your various empire faction standings so there is no reason that couldn't be done for the pirate factions as well.

  9. #7069
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    What if all ores simply disappeared from Delve, or at least turned into low-yield Veld.
    And at the same time, exceedingly rich ores were discovered in, say, Vale or Omist or Black Rise or wherever.

    Is it a good thing to turn Eve into a game of traveling locusts? Conversely, is it a good thing for the players to have locations the call 'home?"
    Neither Vale nor Omist are uninhabited. You're asking CCP to literally and blatantly pick sides, and run the risk that the inhabitants of Delve might simply choose to invade Crowfall rather than Omist.
    Exactly. It would be pretty boring and uneventful to "invade" an uninhabited region. And yes, a group leaving the game because their formerly rich territory is no longer rich might happen, but if so what's the loss? Simply less ore hitting the market. It's not like they were driving any significant conflict.
    What would be the loss? Seems like CCP might lose a lot of money if they followed your example of specifically targetting a group of players, That would be quite a loss to their wallets, and indeed to any pretence of credibility when it comes to being impartial custodians of the sandbox.

    Additionally, the mechanic isn't great, because

    (i) It's pure loss. There's no "silver lining" to the cloud, if you like: the inhabitants of your chosen region are simply being punished for happening to live there, the end.

    (ii) There's no interactivity, nothing you can do about it or engage with. It's just a straight up mechanical change for no real reason other than to poke the beehive to make them swarm.

    (iii) There's nothing that makes it any easier or more advantageous to take another region, not to mention the obvious suspicion that "even if we bother to take Vale, CCP will just nerf that too".
    I wasn't clear, for which I apologize, but I wasn't suggesting CCP deliberately and manually target specific regions and groups. I was suggesting imagining a dynamic, changing system of wealth variation in regions/constellations, modeling real-world droughts, famines, dust bowls, over-fishing and gold rushes. The sort of things that drive real-world conflict.

    I. Regarding players leaving - would there be more leaving due to their wealth generation being reduced, or more leaving due to no big combat/war content? (Keep in mind that we're discussing a group that only recently moved to the other side of the map.)

    II. There's a boring static nature to EVE right now. Region A is what it is and it never changes. Having to evaluate the map, find new sources of wealth, determine how to wrest that wealth from the current owner, that's a big driver of new interactions.

    III. Indeed, how a region can be captured definitely needs to be looked at.
    OK let's call the mechanic the plague of locusts. How exactly it operates to reduce the economic value of space doesn't matter too much, we'll just assert that it does. The two avenues of wealth generation are mineral extraction (ore and moon) and ratting/plexing. when a region is hit by locusts, and depending on the exact type of locusts your get, either or perhaps both of these avenues are hindered or blocked.

    When a region is hit by a plague of locusts, there needs to be some kind of compensatory mechanism that facilitates offensive campaigning - a carrot to complement the stick, if you like. Again, the exact mechanism doesn't matter, whether it be something like Locust Commander Rats dropping one-use 24-hour wormhole stabilisers*, temporary unmapped smuggler gates appearing, Jump Fatigue boosters, huge multi-isotope ice anomalies, some combination of those or something else or whatever.

    Remember that moving even a fraction of the entire assets of a previously entrenched alliance is a very large undertaking. Remember also that the alliance membership - the actual individual players - will have invested very very large sums in the infrastructure of their space.

    In short, the nature of the catastrophe should also offer opportunity.


    I 100% agree with you on the static nature of the terrain. There should absolutely be more variation, and it should be unpredictable variation as well. Even if it's just something as basic as removing the absolutely deterministic benefits of upgrading space EG: instead of upgrading a system of a given trusec to military V giving exactly this many hubs and that many havens and however many sanctums, we could have it that upgrading to V offers lets say, 50 chances at a sanctum, with the chance increasing in a predetermined way. So instead of saying "this system will generate 7 sanctums", you say this system gets 50 possible sanctums with a 14% chance each. The median outcome is 7. But maybe you get 8. Or 10. Maybe you get really lucky and get 31. Suddenly you have a system that's an absolute goldmine for ratters, great for you! But your enemies also note this and maybe try and drive the ratting activity down to drop the index back to IV. Eventually you get it back to V, but that means a new roll of the RNG, and oh dear, this time you only got 8 sanctums. Maybe you should have fought a little harder to protect your goldmine...?

    *Why, after all, should entrenched W-space groups not have to endure a little weather too?
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  10. #7070
    Super Ponerator Global Moderator Evelgrivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    11,830
    This space weather idea just sounds stupid, and flagrantly ignores the fact that there isn't a single component of the game design around sovereignty that doesn't reward entrenchment; what's more, the design punishes players for picking up and moving on. We definitively know from experience that players react to personal inconvenience that they can't readily act against by logging off - and often times, never logging back in.

    It's safe to assume CCP doesn't have the resources to rewrite sovereingty for the upteenth time. A better expenditure of resources would be to figure out how to reward paying other empires a visit, without a design meant to evict them.
    Last edited by Evelgrivion; July 8 2017 at 10:36:48 PM.

  11. #7071

    Join Date
    July 2, 2014
    Location
    CAS
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    OK let's call the mechanic the plague of locusts. How exactly it operates to reduce the economic value of space doesn't matter too much, we'll just assert that it does. The two avenues of wealth generation are mineral extraction (ore and moon) and ratting/plexing. when a region is hit by locusts, and depending on the exact type of locusts your get, either or perhaps both of these avenues are hindered or blocked.

    When a region is hit by a plague of locusts, there needs to be some kind of compensatory mechanism that facilitates offensive campaigning - a carrot to complement the stick, if you like. Again, the exact mechanism doesn't matter, whether it be something like Locust Commander Rats dropping one-use 24-hour wormhole stabilisers*, temporary unmapped smuggler gates appearing, Jump Fatigue boosters, huge multi-isotope ice anomalies, some combination of those or something else or whatever.

    Remember that moving even a fraction of the entire assets of a previously entrenched alliance is a very large undertaking. Remember also that the alliance membership - the actual individual players - will have invested very very large sums in the infrastructure of their space.

    In short, the nature of the catastrophe should also offer opportunity.


    I 100% agree with you on the static nature of the terrain. There should absolutely be more variation, and it should be unpredictable variation as well. Even if it's just something as basic as removing the absolutely deterministic benefits of upgrading space EG: instead of upgrading a system of a given trusec to military V giving exactly this many hubs and that many havens and however many sanctums, we could have it that upgrading to V offers lets say, 50 chances at a sanctum, with the chance increasing in a predetermined way. So instead of saying "this system will generate 7 sanctums", you say this system gets 50 possible sanctums with a 14% chance each. The median outcome is 7. But maybe you get 8. Or 10. Maybe you get really lucky and get 31. Suddenly you have a system that's an absolute goldmine for ratters, great for you! But your enemies also note this and maybe try and drive the ratting activity down to drop the index back to IV. Eventually you get it back to V, but that means a new roll of the RNG, and oh dear, this time you only got 8 sanctums. Maybe you should have fought a little harder to protect your goldmine...?

    *Why, after all, should entrenched W-space groups not have to endure a little weather too?
    Funny enough, in my original post I called the players the locusts. Due to these booms and busts incentivizing moving around the map from region to region.

    Regarding your second paragraph - when one region starts producing less and less wealth (due to a locust invasion, or asteroids and rats being over-farmed and spawning fewer and fewer, stellar novas, or whatever) there certainly should be increased income opportunities - the 'gold rushes' I posted about above - perhaps in the form of Commander Rats, or increasing quantity of high-value asteroids, or whatever - but just to be clear this should no happen in regions currently experiencing ecological/economic collapses.

    You bring up a good point, one that I wondered about earlier, regarding turning EVE into a game of nomads due to these changes vs a game where people can declare a 'home.' On one hand it would promote a game of conflict, but on the other it could hurt the game by making it pointless because at the end of the day (or campaign) nothing really matters. Then again, the most popular games seem to be MOBAs like DotA and LoL, which have zero permanence from match to match so perhaps the ability to settle in to and 'own' a region of space for long periods of time shouldn't be a priority.

    But then again, there's another big difference between EVE and MOBAs in that in MOBAs, everybody is given all their tools at the beginning of the match, where with EVE you have to spend a lot of time and effort - often uninteresting effort - to gather resources to acquire the tools of war. If constantly moving in order to 'follow the bison herds' means that resources cannot effectively be gathered, we're back at this issue of 'what's the point of playing EVE?"

    I don't think that somebody else's territory having a variable wealth source would drive any impulse to mess with that group's territory simply to drive down the average wealth generation - groups that have to fortitude to engage content for content's sake will mess with it regardless of whether there are 8 Sanctums or 31 Sanctums, so long as there's at least 1 Sanctum with a Nyx or VNI in it (and those sorts of attacks don't care about lowing the target's income stream, they just care about getting good fights) and no group interested in wealth will bother looking to other areas if their current income level suits them.
    Last edited by Eli Stan; July 8 2017 at 10:42:02 PM. Reason: arrgh

  12. #7072

    Join Date
    July 2, 2014
    Location
    CAS
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelgrivion View Post
    A better expenditure of resources would be to figure out how to reward paying other empires a visit, without a design meant to evict them.
    Like...?

  13. #7073
    Super Ponerator Global Moderator Evelgrivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    11,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelgrivion View Post
    A better expenditure of resources would be to figure out how to reward paying other empires a visit, without a design meant to evict them.
    Like...?
    I'm honestly still working that out myself. If you could take a solar system's PVE capacity and run away with it for yourself, the dynamic of nullsec PVE and conflict drivers would change quite a bit.

  14. #7074

    Join Date
    July 2, 2014
    Location
    CAS
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelgrivion View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelgrivion View Post
    A better expenditure of resources would be to figure out how to reward paying other empires a visit, without a design meant to evict them.
    Like...?
    I'm honestly still working that out myself. If you could take a solar system's PVE capacity and run away with it for yourself, the dynamic of nullsec PVE and conflict drivers would change quite a bit.
    But then the problem is why bother with running away with somebody else's pve capacity when your own systems already have plenty of pve capacity?

  15. #7075
    Super Ponerator Global Moderator Evelgrivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    11,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelgrivion View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Evelgrivion View Post
    A better expenditure of resources would be to figure out how to reward paying other empires a visit, without a design meant to evict them.
    Like...?
    I'm honestly still working that out myself. If you could take a solar system's PVE capacity and run away with it for yourself, the dynamic of nullsec PVE and conflict drivers would change quite a bit.
    But then the problem is why bother with running away with somebody else's pve capacity when your own systems already have plenty of pve capacity?
    Indeed. The base amount of "freebie" PVE content the game offers would need to be curtailed dramatically, and getting it back up to the current level would require some sort of robbery mechanic where you steal it from other systems.

  16. #7076

    Join Date
    March 9, 2016
    Posts
    45
    They tried similar with ESS and moon siphons.

    That avenue of development look to be completely aborted now.

    This, I think, is the real problem. The 'adventure' in the early years of EVE was to a non-trivial extent, the process of mapping, (and indeed, the mapping of process). Now anyone can google up the optimal process for anything, even including a skillplan that they can directly copy into their skillqueue.
    This is an overlooked point, and why further re balancing will continue to disappoint. Like the old santa guy in the Matrix said - "its the 8th time doing this...we've become exceedingly efficient at it".
    Last edited by PhoenixPilot; July 9 2017 at 10:40:57 AM.

  17. #7077
    Fara's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,669
    The underlying problem is when they made every space more valuable by adding flat +anoms in every security space. They probably wanted to enable small groups of just holding 1system somewhere and be fine and not put too much of a damp on big blobs with phoebe jumpranges.
    It would be more interesting if there were less anoms in any space, thus forcing bigger groups to try to gain more territory, creating frontiers and periphery space with phoebe jumpranges that would give opportunity for BL like groups to farm C team blobs. This dynamic of needing to gain more space vs it's effort to hold more space should be accented.
    This together with entosising being pretty tedious and not promoting fights just doesn't add to the list of why one attacks the other tbh.

    Also, the more ratting happens in an area (i.e angel, serpentis w/e), the less pirates there should be. This too, could limit how many nerds you can cramp in tiny amounts of space these days. Probably needs more refining, but I feel this is the direction of where it has to go to incentivize conflict apart from just massively fixing the shithole that are citadels. It's also fairly cheap (i.e likely) for CCP to do.


    Doesn't really impact 100 guys, but impacts 30k guys. In any case, since CCP is unlikely to increase its spending on eve by a few houndred k$ a year thats about the best we can hope for.
    Last edited by Fara; July 9 2017 at 11:04:34 AM.

  18. #7078
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Eli Stan View Post
    I don't think that somebody else's territory having a variable wealth source would drive any impulse to mess with that group's territory simply to drive down the average wealth generation - groups that have to fortitude to engage content for content's sake will mess with it regardless of whether there are 8 Sanctums or 31 Sanctums, so long as there's at least 1 Sanctum with a Nyx or VNI in it (and those sorts of attacks don't care about lowing the target's income stream, they just care about getting good fights) and no group interested in wealth will bother looking to other areas if their current income level suits them.
    It was just a very basic illustrative example, it's probably not even a good mechanic suggestion per se, but the point isn't that your 31-sanctum system a more attractive target for attackers (although it probably would attract more attention), it's that it's worth defending by the owners. At the moment there's no real incentive to defend a system for the value of the system itself. 1 system is identical* in value to any other of the same trusec. And if your index drops, you can repair it and definitely know that you've not lost anything. In short, the optimum strategy is to dock up and wait for any attackers to get bored. That's exactly what we need to start getting away from - making not fighting a zero-cost option.

    *Back in the day when there were static plexes, those absolutely were worth defending, and at least 1 war was fought over one that I know of, and they were probably at least a factor in others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  19. #7079
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Fara View Post
    The underlying problem is when they made every space more valuable by adding flat +anoms in every security space. They probably wanted to enable small groups of just holding 1system somewhere and be fine and not put too much of a damp on big blobs with phoebe jumpranges.
    It would be more interesting if there were less anoms in any space, thus forcing bigger groups to try to gain more territory, creating frontiers and periphery space with phoebe jumpranges that would give opportunity for BL like groups to farm C team blobs. This dynamic of needing to gain more space vs it's effort to hold more space should be accented.
    This together with entosising being pretty tedious and not promoting fights just doesn't add to the list of why one attacks the other tbh.

    Also, the more ratting happens in an area (i.e angel, serpentis w/e), the less pirates there should be. This too, could limit how many nerds you can cramp in tiny amounts of space these days. Probably needs more refining, but I feel this is the direction of where it has to go to incentivize conflict apart from just massively fixing the shithole that are citadels. It's also fairly cheap (i.e likely) for CCP to do.


    Doesn't really impact 100 guys, but impacts 30k guys. In any case, since CCP is unlikely to increase its spending on eve by a few houndred k$ a year thats about the best we can hope for.
    A interesting refinement to your "ratting = fewer rats" concept might be to balance it across regions. That is, there will be a finite number of (for example) Guristas anoms spawned, or maybe they take longer to spawn. If your valued allies in Branch are farming the sanctums intensively, then that means there will be fewer spawning in Deklein. Suddenly your valued allies are literally taking the food from your plate. Now you are strongly incentivised to stop them ratting. Even if you decide to suck it up and keep them blue, you're also not really incentivized to help them chase away roamers, or even report them.

    Given the average EVE player's usual response to any "tragedy of the commons" suituation - "well fuck those guys, I'm getting mine", the most inhabited regions will soon see the quality of their ratting space decline to whatever the lowest level we set is. At that point, we will see Dekelin alliances realising that even if they don't want to take space in Branch, it would be a great idea if no one else held space there either (no sov = no upgrades = only belt-ratting and plexing, greatly reducing the number of rats that can be "stolen"). But the flip side of that is, no sov also means no entosis fuckery for any new aggressive group that wants to move in and try their chances against those jerks in Deklein. It also means that the Deklein guys don't get any structure notifications.

    In addition, if you combine that mechanism with the one above (the random number of anom chances in a system) the hypothetical 31-sanctum system does become an extremely attractive target for your neighbours, because every rat you're farming there is one they can't have themselves (or have to wait longer for). And it's even more worth defending because if there's now a scarcity situation where sanctums take say 15 mins to respawn, well, even with a 15 min wait you can still support a decent number of ratters with those 31 sanctums.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  20. #7080

    Join Date
    December 15, 2012
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPilot View Post
    Seems everyone is dancing around the edge of suggesting a server wipe.
    that would be the literal end of EVE

    don't be retarded

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •