Fozzie-Sov failed in shaking up null - maybe dynamic security status would?

(Akil Thamir) #1

Fozzie-Sov was a good idea to shake up null sec but as we see now, after some interesting months it failed in the long term.

Power projektion was reduced and the territories big alliances controlled directly did shrink.
So far so good.
But the reaction was to simply blue everyone and now we have the same situation as before.
More entities involved but still boring !

So my proposal: give us dynamic security status in null sec.
The longer a system stays uncontested in the hand of one entity the higher the sec status gets.
So a system that has -1.0 when conquered by an alliance slowly changes over time until ist is -0.01 or something … including all “negative” effects that has on the alliances income from that system.
So less interesting anomalies, less interesting asteroid belts … maybe even affecting moon goo?

I know implementing that as is will open doors wide for abuse … this is not ment as a ready to implement proposal.
But in my opinion we need to implement some sort of mechanic in EVE that punishes people for living too safe in null for long periods of time and for having too many NIPs etc.

(Rivr Luzade) #2

So … I just use my alts in my renter alliance to make all my systems -1.0? That sounds like a very good suggestion.

(Akil Thamir) #3

Let me quote the part of my post you obviously did not read.

After all it is CCP’s job to work out the details on how to technically realize such thing without making abuse as you described it possible.

(Rivr Luzade) #4

I read that. But there is no way to work that out. You cannot go by standing because then you just use neutral alts of which any group size has tons and tons. You cannot use killboards to figure out participation because you can just use unrelated alts. You cannot use access lists to figure out alts because you can change them from one second to another.

That has nothing to do with “not ready for implementation”. It is not possible to make such a system exploit-proof.

(Lena Crews) #5

While I think driving conflict in null should be a goal, I tend to think this solution wouldn’t work (due to the inability to control using alts to control your sec-status).

My view is that for conflict to happen… there has to be some benefit for the aggressor. Especially the kind of tedious process of reinforcing citadels over several timers.

Right now we have asset safety… so there isn’t a huge financial benefit for killing someone else’s citadels in non-wh space. I think something that would give those who destroy a citadel a piece of what people pay to get their crap out of asset safety (which only happens if there’s no station or other citadels you can move your stuff to I think) might help spur aggression (at least from the “conquering systems” standpoint). The person’s paying that fee anyway… so it doesn’t hurt the person retrieving their assets. It only incentivizes the destroying of citadels.

But anyway… that’s a different idea. I’m not sure this one can be made so it’s not completely exploitable.

(Akil Thamir) #6

Fair points.

Yet my main request is “let us establish some sort of game mechanic that punishes blue donuts”.
And of course that can not only be based on standings because we would also need to punish equal agreements alliances make out of game.

The dynamic sec status simply was the first thing that came to mind.
If that is not possible to do maybe we can come up with something doable?
And what about the general principle? Do we agree in that we need to do more than fozzie-sov did to make or keep null sec an interesting place beyond making ISK?

(Rivr Luzade) #7

Finding that and finding a way to make it non-exploitable or at least only have really terribly arcane ways to exploit would get you the Nobel Prize for EVE game design. :smile:

A way to make it work would be a complete rework of EVE game mechanics to completely remove the necessity for alts (which has been suggested in the past by many people, so this is not an original idea of mine at all). Alts are the most prevalent reason why many things sound very good and even entertaining in theory but do not work out nearly as well in practice.

(Akil Thamir) #8
  • The more ore you harvest in a system the less belts respawn.
  • The more rats you kill in a system the less new anoms spawn.
  • Make resource distribution in the universe somehow random and change over time.
  • Force alliances to be small (in numbers) by making it impossible to hold large chuks of sov and drastically limit the number of players a certain chunk of space can sustain.
  • Force alliances to live a nomadic lifestyle constantly fighting over sparse resources throughout null sec.

Just throwing some ideas around :wink:

(Nevyn Auscent) #9

Your idea turns everyone into a couple of mega alliances that hold huge swathes of space. You can’t make it impossible to hold large chunks of Sov because people just use alts and holding corps to hold it, so all your proposal achieves is forcing people out of Null and null being so sparse it’s not worth roaming it to look for fights.

(Old Pervert) #10

Also known as:

What exactly was “your” idea, if you don’t contribute anything of value to it?

(Frostys Virpio) #11

CCP want us to build empire and you literally propose to either make it not work or at least punish people for working toward it.

(Lena Crews) #12

I still say the issue causing the “blue donut” comes from the fact that as an aggressor, the only thing you gain by kicking someone out of their system is the use of that system.

All of the solutions seem to be having the systems that people already have become less valueable so that you’ll want to take someone else’s system away.

The biggest cause (in my opinion) of people wanting to milk their own systems as opposed to going and blowing up other people’s stuff… is you don’t get anyo of their stuff if you go and blow it up. You control the system… but that’s it. You don’t even get to deny them the use of their stuff like you would if they had it in an outpost… because asset safety causes it to go to the nearest null-sec station.

There’s a 15% fee for using asset safety to transport your crap. I do wonder if this could be solved by simply allowing those who destroy a structure to split 1/3rd of that 15% that’s already taken from the loser. This could only apply if it costs the person isk to use asset safety now. That produces a financial incentive to blow up citadels in areas without stations… and that alone may be enough to put dents in the blue donut.

(Frostys Virpio) #13

Deadzoning a station was pretty damn rare and with effort, you could always either get your stuff out or firesale it remotely.

I’m not against the idea of giving some of the move fee to the citadel killer but have fun dealing with who gets it when there are many killers.

(Lena Crews) #14

Is it that hard to deal with?

Count number of pilots on kill mail.
Divide payment from asset safety by that amount… and give each pilot their share.

Might get more pilots to show up for station-bashing too with that method.

(Nevyn Auscent) #15

Asset safety when?
It doesn’t cost them when the station goes bang. It costs them when they actually press the button. That could be months or even years later.
Also now you just made sure everyone shoots one cycle at their own citadel with a rookie ship when they are loosing just so they get part of the payout.

(Old Pervert) #16

I have in the past advocated that asset safety needs to go… if your citadels become loot pinatas, a lot more people will be tempted to go shoot them. Subject to loot fairy whims of course. You’ll also be much more tempted to defend them.

Since they have their reinforcement windows which are supposed to be when you’re able to defend them, “I couldn’t log on” is a flimsy excuse at best.

Same with pocos. Anything in a poco when it goes pop should, again subject to the loot fairy, become accessible. I know I’ve left stuff in poco hangars on many occasions when I just didn’t feel like flying over and grabbing it.

(Frostys Virpio) #17

If citadels become loot piniata, people will base off NPC null/low sec station. The amount of people who fail to grasp this fact is ridiculous.

(Old Pervert) #18

If sov null people want to try and cram in with low and npc null people and everyone share the space, that would be an excellent conflict driver.

Even in my home pocket we have super pilots bitching about having to share space (and sites) with non-super pilots.

There simply isn’t enough room for everyone in non-sov space.

(Frostys Virpio) #19

Null sec alliance would still own and use space in null. The stager would move so you can’t loot trillions worth of asset.

Asset safety existed in one form or another ever since they introduced outpost. It’s literally a selling point for CCP to be able to tell you that your stuff will still be there if you come back after going “■■■■ EVE” for a while. Shitting all over this is not gonna happen no matter if you debate and discuss until chicken get teeth. It’s already as much as a dead-horse as cloaky camping except it’s a bit newer so there might still be leftover from the horse still. But not for long!!

(Old Pervert) #20

Oh I do agree this horse has been beaten time and time again. I certainly see why they use asset safety. The exact reasons you mention.

Ultimately, though, if you say “■■■■ Eve” and ragequit for a while, that’s your mistake. If you decide to take an organized break, take 15 minutes to create courier contracts to safer locations.

I’d be totally fine with asset safety being a high/lowsec only thing, with nullsec offering no asset safety and WHs being unchanged (as there is already no asset safety). I’d be fine with asset safety for unanchor events as well. But in the event it dies, it should most definitely drop, even if only in null/Jspace.

In situations where the staging system can move, yes, it absolutely can. Invariably though, you can bet someone forgot or didn’t have time to move out of the old one… now you as the attacker get more than the gift of slitting your own wrists for popping a structure that they were using for something.