Get rid of insurance payouts for ships above T1 BS. If you can afford to go out pew pewing in your golem or smartbombing in a rorqual, you dont need insurance. Leave that safety net for the nubs hugging Jita.
How's that eve saying go? "Dont fly what you can't afford to replace."
Insurance should simply not be given if your ship was self destructed or the final blow came from CONCORD (maybe only high sec concord).
Solves about 3 problems as far as I can tell.
My idea is this: Change sovereignty in 0.0 into an activity based system. The core code needed is already in place, I think (someone mentioned a certain activity is needed to maintain the infrastructure boosts post-dominion, true?) so in theory the change wouldn't be so drastic. Basically, the more mining and ratting in a system, the higher your sov level (or whatever) would go. This would:
- Limit the space able to be held by any alliance to what can be sustained by it's population, or it's renters.
- Provides motivation for spaceholding alliances to woo and seduce empire carebears into 0.0 with offers of protection and decent space, setting up a symbiotic relationship between play types normally at odds. This si good because it enhances the social aspects of the game, without removing much of the harshness of the universe (the relationship is still a buisness one, and there's still the risk of getting gang-raped by a wandering enemy gang)
- Installs a motivation for the spaceholding alliance to protect it's now seduced carebears, potentially tempting more bears to 0.0 (they can do their thing and bear it up, while being protected by the pvp alliance who's sov they're paying to use)
-Removes most of the motivations to conduct immobile, immense, blob-on-blob violence (not counting POS removal and Cap ship fights prolly)
-Allows small gangs to accomplish a reasonable goal (disruption of Ratting/Mining, slowing or stopping sov rate gain) which should provide motivation for the mythical ~goodfight~ between smallish gangs.
If we add things like POS's that modify the Sov gain rate (allowing for those masochists who LIKE sieging things to also enjoy a tangible benefit to their prefered gameplay), gate guns that fire on those hostile to the established Alliance, maybe even NPC gate/belt/station guards (allowing the holding alliance to FEEL like they actually own the space they own, even if said defences would be little more then a minor niggle to invading gangs) we get something that feels like a real difference is made by an alliance taking and holding space, and making their mark on the galaxy.
And kills suicide ganking.Originally Posted by Mvtaylor
Not Dead, Just Sleeping
This solves nothing and removes the only saving grace hisec has, suicide ganking. No.
It really doesn't kill suicide ganking. It just means you have to attack things that are more valuable rather than the current situation where if you make 10mil you've probably more than broken even...
If you kill the profitability of suicide ganking in 98% of the cases its possible to achieve it, then you've effectively killed suicide ganking.
This is why CCP needs, if they nerf insurance, to change the way concord functions such that suicide ganking is comparatively easier to achieve in response to reduced profitability by:
Increasing concord spawn times.
Increasing the time concord takes to kill you and removing their jamming ability.
Making Concord a summon on demand service as opposed to an automatic one- making afk and macros prey and removing the ABSOLUTE protection concord represents.
Not Dead, Just Sleeping
I agree with you on that point, there does need to be a balance between poor noobs losing all of their assets they chuck in a t1 haulers before slapping it on autopilot to their mission hub and high sec granting complete immunity. It just seems a bit ridiculous you can gank things of such low value and still break even / make a profit. If insurance was nerfed then slower death and removal of jamming from concord would probably be the best option to even it out. You can get some pretty impressive alpha / dps out of a full gank hurricane and that would still only cost you ~35M to lose, tops.
Why shouldn't it be profitable to gank low value targets?
The problem insurance poses is that its a static value and the minerals market isn't.
Not Dead, Just Sleeping
kills meaningless ganking for the sake of ganking, probably. If you're in it for the cash then you need to pick what you gank carefully.
but once again, if you can't afford to do it without the safety net of insurance then it isnt for you.
You believe killing someone purely for the enjoyment of doing so should be an alien concept in Empire?
Not Dead, Just Sleeping
You can still kill people for enjoyment just you'd just have to lose more money doing it. I mean it's currently... what.... under a mil for a gank destroyer... 5 mil for a battlecruiser and 10 mil for a battleship?
I'm fairly sure that I profited off of insurance alone when I was jihading in a Brutix.
Lol CCP Promised a fully upgraded system will support 250 People Ratting/Mining [it comes close mining, lol, maybe 20 ratting] consistently.
What would yall think of 0.0 Outposts being able to "Establish" NPC Corp Offices in their Outposts [1-3 max] which would be along the lines of current Null Upgrades.
I.e. "Agent Prospection Array 1" [2 Lvl 1, Quality x Agent] "Agent Prospection Array 2" [1 Lvl 2 Quality x Agent] "Agent Prospection Array 3" [1 Lvl 2, 1 Lvl 3 Quality x Agent] "Agent Prospection Array 4" [1 Lvl 3, 1 Lvl 4 Quality x Agent] "Agent Prospection Array 5" [1 Lvl 4 Quality x Agent] - Rough Draft, something like that.
Ninjaedit: Wow, didn't notice this was 3 weeks old =P
Just what the game needs, content that's locked to the sov holder and blues. Great idea on paper, but it would not benefit the game to get more people to null-sec.
Little by little, one goes a long way
Formerly the artist known as Serj, Ykatni, Acobar, Intravenous deMilo and about fifty other mains/alts the last few years.
No more character sales when I ragequit, seriously....
two words: Space. Whales.
THE GREATEST POSTER
Well they're asking about agents =P We have NPC Sov & Agents in Nullsec Already + Cosmos which tbqfh is as far as it will currently be going in my opinion
I think there should be a range of T1 prefitted ships.
The idea would be that they would they reduce stockpiles of redundant items, allow streamlined logistics for smaller groups and players, make it easier to get back into a fight if you lose your ship (you know what it does and you don't have to fiddle with a lack of the right item), and make a small contribution to the reduction of server lag ( because each ship in a fleet can have different fits). The ship would be T1, look different to normal ships, have locked in items that could not be removed and would follow a basic theme such as ranged, close, tackler etc. Disposable items would not be part of the package.
It would also help new players to get a feel for fitting and flying ships, after they got used to flying a pre-fit they could then experiment from a position of experience.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Not to mention the people crashing nodes and bringing the DB server to it's knees when making copies of said insta's.
Thats actually a darn good idea.
Also I'd like to see Moon mining changed to represent a more "real world" simulation by probing for "veins" of ore which expire after being mined out. This would force another probe to find another ore type - with it being probability based dependant on the sec status of the region. Hisec - lots of low end moon mins, losec - higher chance of r32s, NPC 0.0 - hi chance of r32 + some chance of r64, sov 0.0 higher chance of rare moon mins per probe shot. Obviously once probed that would be the default result for a period of X, with low end moon goo having longer veins, and hi end goo with shorter in general.
That'd certianly mix it up alot and add new interest to the whole affair rather than the current system of known static targets.
This is truly the answer. However there will be those who will still stay in empire because thats what their used to and could care less about an increase in income.
Yes, lets make it even fucking easier to make money in eve.
I'd like to add "Oh and then deflate isk as much as possible" but I don't know of any way to really do that.
In game inflation, as I have already said. Make their savings worthless.
Hmm...I'm torn. On one hand that would really screw over poor characters, corporations, and alliances. On the other hand, that would really screw over the rich characters, corporations, and alliances.
Make stations destructable. So people could have the good feeling if they wake up every night for 4 days to gain sov there, they can blow all the billions of stuff the enemy had stored there.
With cost of 25bil per outpost i dont see why that shouldnt be possible, as titans worth 60bil can be blown up without problems.
Prolly would cause too much tears though.
It would also be nice if you don't actually want the station there. It might be that a future occupant of Delve or Providence doesn't want the headaches of a station in every system, either because that's too much to defend, or too much to administer, or whatever.Make stations destructable. So people could have the good feeling if they wake up every night for 4 days to gain sov there, they can blow all the billions of stuff the enemy had stored there
With cost of 25bil per outpost i dont see why that shouldnt be possible, as titans worth 60bil can be blown up without problems.
Prolly would cause too much tears though.
So you want to deflate ISK through inflation?
How would you go about creating this inflation in game? You would have to do so by greatly increasing the ISK inputs across the board unless you wanted to completely screw over portions of the player base who are not making money via the particular ISK faucets that you chose to boost. Also, destroying the value of veteran players' savings is not a sound business idea for CCP.
I like what CCP is doing by drastically reducing M0 mod drops, though I wish they weren't going to replace that ISK input with tags or whatever. I'd like to see ship insurance eliminated as it will remove a major ISK faucet (thereby causing deflation) and eliminate the market distortions that it creates.
The original post was pretty good, since then the ideas have been going downhill. (No WTZ? lol are you serious? - not because it wouldn't be cool but I actually remember nearly breaking my client every time I needed a new set on a new character)
The only way you'll get alliances to settle with less is when CCP finally increases resource density. Much like people have stated, one of CCP's first dev blogs about system upgrades mentioned a fully upgraded system having the resources to keep a couple hundred pilots busy. During the discussion it devolved to less than a hundred to what you have no, a system only keeping a dozen pilots busy. Couple that with the great moon-goo nerf, and you have what there is today. Alliances like ATLAS controlling 4 regions..etc etc.
I feel one major oversight with the Sov system is that corporations cannot claim sov. I think this is just another design flaw that puts players and corporations on the path to larger bloc's because they are forced to join/rent-from/create a larger entity to develop a section of 0.0.
I wholeheartedly agree with changing L4 missions but not as drastically. Any L4 mission that is held in highsec should have it's rewards reduced by 25%. L5 missions and agents should not be found in highsec. L5 Q-20 to Q10 agents should be located in lowsec within 1-2 jumps of empire. L5 Q10-Q20 agents should be located within 1-2 jumps of a 0.0 entry (I realize that these will probably overlap with the current map but an effort should be made to put these agents deeper into less "safe" space and farther away from said "safe" space). There should be no isk/tag compensation from removing meta 0 loot from the drop tables. This should be the start of increasing the value of the ISK. I can't tell you how badly CCP needs to allow Alliances/Corps to attract agents to their area of space.
I would love to see lowsec space expanded and the trusec of that lowsec space decrease as you get farther from empire, NOT the random trusec shit that it is now (the same for 0.0, the further away you get from empire, the lower the truesec).
Mining needs a serious revamp. I do agree that the "deep space" mining ships (aka exhumers) are far to week for their pricetag and their description. Rorquals should be required on grid to give bonuses and their siege cycle time dropped to about 2 minutes. Super high densities of Veld and other rocks should be introduced into 0.0 anoms in upgraded systems only.
As for sov changes, I really think some emphasis needs to be returned to POS warfare (DO NOT PANIC, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT 50 POS'S PER SYSTEM). I keep thinking of ways to try to simplify the assault of a system and still maintain some semblance of a defensible station system.
Some ideas I keep coming back to are (some may be the same as it is now):
- iHUB needs to be a POS mod that gives bonuses to the tower it's deployed on, maybe something like +10% shields/pg/cpu so that you can have some type of super-death star. This allows someone to ninja-RI for good timers and such.
- iHUB is the sole array that allows you to claim sov.
- iHUBs are not small enough in volume to fit 2-3 in a JF, upgrades should remain the same(??).
- All station services are dropped to 750,000-1,000,000 hp and are always vulnerable to attack.
- Station HP is dropped by 50% and has no resists.
- First station timer is set like a POS RI timer.
- Second station timer is set like it is currently set.
- iHUB anchor/unachor times are increased to 2 hour.
- iHUB online time is increased to 4 hours. (total to get an iHUB up and running, 6 hours)
- If the iHUB is in the process of onlining and the POS that contains it is then RI'd, the iHUB returns to an "offline" state and may be unanchored.
- iHUB POS bonuses are only active if the iHUB is online. iHUB remains online if it was successfully onlined prior to a POS being RI'd and will continue to be active while the POS is RI'd.
- iHUB may not be anchored if there are any active SBU's in the system.
- Station ownership has absolutely no bearing on sovereignty.
- TCU's are fucking gay, trash them.
- SBU's still function the same but are not necessarily NEEDED for a station system siege. They are multi-purpose.
- Anchoring SBU's on 51%, or more, of the gates suspends all upgrades. Yes, that's right, suspends all upgrades and their benefits. So yes, cyno jammers, captial production arrays and jump bridges would stop functioning or pause and anoms would stop spawning. The arrays wouldn't go offline, just stop functioning. (So basically, if the SBU's were destroyed, the arrays would start working again without having to roll around the system onlining and re-linking everything.)
- Anchor and online times are swapped so that it's 3(?) hours to anchor and 1 minute to online. Once the SBU's shields drop below 50% it begins to take structure damage.
- SBU is more vulnerable during it's anchoring stage and only has 50% of it's total armor. Once it hits the "onlining" stage, it's HP goes to what it is now.
- Each SBU that is successfully onlined in the system decreases the anchor time of the next by 50%. This allows for an easier "return to siege" if a required SBU is destroyed during a siege.
- Station is target-able when there is an iHUB onlined in system but is invulnerable to damage.
So lets say you want to take a station system. Since the iHUB is at a POS, SBU's are not required to assault that POS, nor are they required to kill the iHUB (so keep that in mind). You can, if you choose, go through the current motions by dropping an SBU first - then sieging the POS and then the station.
- You siege the POS which contains the iHUB.
- You drop SBU's to make the station vulnerable for attack.
- You siege the station and successfully complete the phase 1 of the station RI and your 'alarm clock' siege has given you a good timer.
- You return and kill the iHUB and the POS containing it.
- You are able to successfully RI the station for the second time but this time the owners get their favorable timer because that second timer is set as it is set now, by time - with a 2-3 hour varriance, ofc.
- You come back and are then able to capture the station.
How could this have gone different?
- If your SBU count drops below 51% of covered gates, the station becomes invulnerable (unless the iHUB is still active) and you will have to re-anchor another SBU to attack the station. Here is the kicker, if there is no iHUB in system and there are not the required % of SBU's active, the station isn't targetable by anyone. This means it cannot be repaired until an iHUB is active in the system again. The defenders will have to make the decision to either wait the 3 hours to re-SBU the system (making it vulnerable again) or waiting the 6 hours for another iHUB to online (allowing for an attacker re-group to RI that POS and stopping the iHUB from reactivating thus allowing for the defenders to get their defensive arrays back online).
- The station will not repair itself over time, it has no shield recharge thus the progress of the attacker is not lost right away.
- If the defenders are able to, one way or another, make the station targetable, they will need to repair it.
It's really fucking late for me now so I'm sure I missed some stuff or contradicted myself on the sov shit.
THE IDEA is to give smaller entities some tactics to disrupt larger entities by:
-Suspending iHUB/upgrade benefits by onlining SBU's (also giving SBU's a dual purpose).
-Drastically dropping station service HP's allowing for small to mid-sized fleets to cause some grief.
All the while maintaining good defensive bonuses for stations and sovereignty by:
-Increasing the defensibility of the single POS that maintains your sovereignty (the one that has the iHUB in it).
-Allowing for that final station timer to be set as it is now (fire and forget timer).
And also removing the retarded mechanic that effectively halts a system siege by killing an SBU by:
-Forcing a defender to either re-SBU their own system or spending the time to re-arm/anchor a new POS to get a new iHUB online thus allowing them to repair the station and allowing the attacker some time to regroup and continue the station.
-Speeding up the anchoring time of SBU's the more that are still online in system.
I realize that no system is going to be perfect but the current one needs some serious tweeking.
HOWEVER this game will continue to be mostly shit for us NullSec'ers until they fix the lag.
As for neutral RR pilots in highsec?
If you get involved in a highsec war and you aren't in gang before the yellow text aggression timer starts and you may not aid them until that timer has lapsed.
No, just raise the prices on everything.So you want to deflate ISK through inflation?
How would you go about creating this inflation in game? You would have to do so by greatly increasing the ISK inputs across the board unless you wanted to completely screw over portions of the player base who are not making money via the particular ISK faucets that you chose to boost. Also, destroying the value of veteran players' savings is not a sound business idea for CCP.
I like what CCP is doing by drastically reducing M0 mod drops, though I wish they weren't going to replace that ISK input with tags or whatever. I'd like to see ship insurance eliminated as it will remove a major ISK faucet (thereby causing deflation) and eliminate the market distortions that it creates.
Thinking more on it, CONCORD could do a currency redenomination that not only fixes the "isk being worthless" problem that has existed for awhile but also is staggered so that people with less isk aren't hit as hard.
Sort of like the recent North Korean redenomination which only allowed people to turn in a certain amount of money. Thinking on this you could do it so that the first billion isk from a person's account is converted at a 1:1 ratio, the next 9 billion at a 5:1 ratio, etc. Is it blatantly hurting the rich? Yeah, but thats what ya gotta do.
Space Communism?
It is sort of funny that I take most of my ideas from groups that I dislike. I guess its just easiest to eat soup with a hammer.
I agree with a lot of your ideas, but I think you are a bit off the mark when talking about WTZ.
We agree that they added WTZ because of the detrimental effect all the bookmarks was having on their database. You imply that just adding a bubble effect would make these "zero on gate" bookmarks useless, thus solving the database issue without allowing WTZ.
However what would happen is everyone would then need a set of bookmarks at 200km to every gate instead of 0. You would have the same effect on the database, and people would still effectively be bypassing your "enforced warp to 10" mechanic by scouting every gate they want to use before warping to it.
It will end with people selling "Full set of 200km gate bookmarks for Curse" etc. And lots of people buying them in case they ever find themselves in the area.
As far as we know, the devs already considered this during the original change. Saw the same thing happening with scout bookmarks, and decided WTZ was necessary on that basis.
OTOH, they are Eve devs, maybe they didnt.
No WTZ is a horrible idea.
Find a better way to encourage pvp which doesn't effect everyone, tia.
Here's one, they did huge damage with the amount of overkill implemented in the "Privateers" wardec changes. Switching it from an exponential system to one that just adds a steadily increasing charge for more war decs would make it a lot easier for empire based PVP corps to have more targets. Maybe have a skill that, when trained by the CEO/corp creator and upgraded or whatever (sorry, I never ran a corp and thus don't know much of the mechanics behind it,) allows the corp to make additional wardecs before the fees go up? I mean lets just admit it now that the war dec system has as much to do with actual Eve conflicts as the HRC does with actual human rights. One way or another the wardec system is laughably broken and needs to be changed.
Also, as much as I hate to admit it Jihading or suiciding shouldn't result in insurance payouts.
imo they should change it so that it is more difficult to perform cookie-cutter gank bs suicides on industrials, but give organised ganks (like 20 bs vs one freighter) an easier time because of the extra effort.
The wardec mechanics need a complete overhaul.
The trouble with removing insurance payouts for suicide ganks is you end up killing Suicide Ganking.
YES, its still possible to do it. But it would make all the idiots that bum around in T1 haulers with less than 100m in cargo safe from any interference and they form the majority of targets in Empire that are worth shooting at unless you have 20+ other guys on standby.
As a knock on effect Highsec becomes even safer...
Not Dead, Just Sleeping
Not if you overhaul the wardec system to support more decs. Which is absolutely one of the easiest and most beneficial changes that can be made to high sec.
10% increase on sov cost per blue standing. 10% increase in production/refine/lab cost per standing. Cap noob corps to lvl3 missions. LVL 4 missions only possible in a player created corporation. Decrease war dec cost. Decrease hisec mission payout & loot table. Boost lowsec missions / loot tables / ores. Make 0.0 missions highest income missions best loot tables. Create special veldspar for 0.0 that yields 3-4 times more than the same amount in empire. Risk vs Reward scale needs to be severely balanced. Numbers should have a penalty versus innovation and skill.
What is needed is more Dec's AND the actual mechanics being changed. Just increasing the active Dec number is pointless because there is no limit to the number of shell corps that can be use to avoid them. The only use for wardecs in EmMpire at the moment is pre-arranged fights for training, griefing a corp full of nobodies that dont know any better or forcing a corp to take down its towers in a 24 hour window; or turn them into Jam stars you need a huge BS blob to crack in any sort of reasonable time.
CCP will never change the wardec system into something that means the 'victims' cant avoid or exploit their way out of PvP.
What the game needs is a wardec system whereby you cant jump corp after the dec goes live (nor can the attackers) with inbuilt surrender mechanics where surrendering actually costs the victim something and where early termination of the wardec penalizes the agressor.
Not Dead, Just Sleeping
simple solution: permadeath. if you don't agree you're not as hardcore as me and should go play _different_game_
THE GREATEST POSTER
Eh.... EVE should come with a special keyboard with a dongle that means its the only way to play the game and that somehow requires electrodes being wired to various parts of your body. When you get podded you get shocked. Perma death is for wannabees.
(I'm still waiting for gaming mice that punish people for being shot)
Not Dead, Just Sleeping
this x10000
good, let's go from this.
EVE should come with a button that kills your RL friends every time you get podded AND the guy who killed you gets your insurance isk.
THE GREATEST POSTER
It would NOT kill suicide ganking at all, people will just be more particular about their ganks and not ganking everything that might give them a 30m payout.
BINGO!
Sorry, but every time i discuss this someone always makes that exact point.
People will only suicide gank what it is profitable to gank. Nerf insurance and suddenly you have a tiny, tiny fraction of the targets that were once profitable to gank.
Suicide ganking will be all but dead.
Emphasis on 'that might'. It seems you are thinking about random killings, because the ganker loses so little he can afford to kill 10 random haulers (FYI people dont actually do this, unless you count someome smartbombing gates for fun and grief and that's other objectives entirely) and the odds are one might drop something that makes him a profit yes?not ganking everything that might give them a 30m payout.
If you nerf insurance you will prevent that. Thousands of carebears will continue on their merry way unmolested.
However, the profession of suicide ganking for profit will be hit. Hard. It WILL be all but dead.
Do you think Suicide ganking in and of itself is somehow wrong and shouldn't be allowed?
Not Dead, Just Sleeping
no, he's saying that nerfing insurance is a greater good.
THE GREATEST POSTER
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks