Just an idea but here goes.
R64 moons are owned by most of the big alliances who charge high prices or tax to get let you mine them.
If moons changed so that they act like Pi extractors
If u mine the same moon al the time it depletes to 0
Then other moons that are not being mined rise in minerals over time and change type etc form 16 to 64 or in reverse etc.
So that the big corps can’t sell you a moon as such.
But we would have to scan for new moons that mabe we could find a gem of a moon every now and again.
My main point is how to break up the big alliances hold on moons etc. Most of the moons in my area are rented out or owned by some super rich dude. And being stuck in a blue donut we can hardly blow the station up
1 Like
Then go do it.
If you really want that R64 income, then go create content. They are conflict drivers after all. No need to change that.
1 Like
That would just be feeding the null-bloc blue donut. You can’t create content against having a thousand super-caps dropped on you. Well, you would create content for them at least.
Null-sec has had rubbish game design since after the first few years of the game.
1 Like
I disagree, to the extent that there are no shortcuts.
To take an R64 moon would take a lot of effort, well before getting to the conflict part.
Take a crap alliance like SiCo. As bad as they are, they are now the largest alliance in the game at 32K members (most of whom are not active, because the leadership is so bad).
How terrible they are aside, their growth shows that it’s still totally possible for newer players to grow corps and alliances that can rival the established groups.
It just needs people not as terrible as SiCo leadership.
We don’t need to be changing mechanics to pander to weak new players that just want stuff handed to them on a platter like the OP. The ability to take R64 moons already exists and if the OP wants that income bad enough, then he needs to get organised so he can take them.
1 Like
Agreed. I can’t speak with much detail on Null Sec since it’s an area of the game I’ve never tried out myself. The mechanics of it (or what I’ve read of them) have just never appealed to me from the get-go.
That said, what I’ve read and heard from others, have said that it was a good fight at the start, the whole “Bob betrayed, rise of the Goonswarm, Great Northern War” days and the next few years (for some historical perspective check posts like Eve Evolved: A New Nullsec).
As I understand it (from the outside) the issue with Nullsec became that once Sov was achieved and major alliances inhabiting them, they’re very difficult to dislodge without massive internal turmoil or betrayal. Which leads to a fairly stagnant Null, blue donuts, renters and mass farming of resources and ISK without much risk. I guess Fozzie Sov was meant to address some of this but as is often the case with CCP, the cure was reportedly worse than the disease.
CCP appears recently to be trying to make Null more dynamic in some ways, although TBH these don’t appear to have achieved much except to moderately inconvenience nullbears.
I’ve got no problem with Null being owned and farmed by the blocs who put such massive effort into dominating them, but it seems clear that it’s an area that could use less outright domination and more tug-of-war struggles for control or resources.
I have an inkling feeling CCP is going to introduce a whole lot more chaos sometime soonish (in eve terms so could be 2 years), including nul/sov stuff. They seem to have gone back to a more old school version of CCP which is both cool as scary. I can’t wait.
We don’t, but we also shouldn’t be locking access to content away behind the requirement to be able to field thousands of players. Entrenchment is generally bad for player satisfaction. CCP has historically understood this to an extent, which is why they introduced game mechanics like invention and alchemy.
The real problem with null-sec, as an effect of all the rewards and financial opportunities it has, is that there’s just too many of those rewards available. Abundance causes entrenchment by eliminating the need to fight over resources. Null-bloc dominated CSM generations have ensured that null-sec balancing was pushed in this direction over the years. The game is utterly lacking in game mechanics that exponentially increase administrative costs in line with increased group sizes, and it shows.
Hopefully so, although I hope they can come up with some good chaos. In the “Chaos Era” talks Hilmar mentioned something along the lines of “it would be cool if players got the rug pulled out from under their feet every month or so”. Personally I don’t think that’s good business.
A whole lot of “yeah let loose the dogs of war!” types cheered when Blackout came along, saying how awesome and content-producing it would be. But that didn’t achieve any lasting good that I could perceive, although it did do some significant harm.
I think something like what Destiny’s pointing out here should be introduced (and I’ve posted on a similar idea before). There should be some limiting factor to the size of space you can hold and exploit. Not to prevent or break up the huge blocs (which is a different pro/con topic), but to make “poking the bear” a valid exercise.
For instance, what if you needed to engage in a significant amount of regular activity to maintain Sov, and what if a stealthed opposition force could in effect pull a border raid and set up a clandestine station that would siphon the results of that activity over to their own sov state? (Sorry it’s vague, I don’t know sov mechanics)
Or what if, as the OP says, R64 moons only occurred in some sort of border zone between sovs that could be affected but not fully controlled by the bordering empires? Or some other similar mechanic that caused an ongoing state of probes, raids, and skirmishes rather than needing full-on mass alliance wars to have any effect.
All of which we’ve seen in abundance is recent years.
Goons were almost completely dislodged from all of their sov just recently, except for some poor decisions of their enemy. We are only 2 years on from the greatest deception in EVE history, with the Judge jumping to Goons and completely destroying an alliance.
Blue donuts come and go (and null for the most part isn’t as stagnant as people want to believe - it certainly isn’t pre-2014 levels of stagnation).
Regardless of what people individually think of nullsec (R64 moons are in lowsec also), the game needs conflict drivers and R64 moons are a good conflict driver for the top end content.
If CCP just gives new players all of the content, where does that leave the game but constantly churning new players? There needs to be content for all sections of the game. R64s are part of that for established groups.
Somehow, this thread has gone from a suggestion about taking R64 content away from big groups and handing it to new/weak players, to grrr CSM, grrr nullsec, grrr large alliances.
All those things are fine to discuss, but just sticking to the topic of the OP, it’s a bad suggestion. The game doesn’t need that sort of rebalance and destruction of a significant conflict driver.
1 Like
Where did you get that part from? Nothing in the OP hints at catering to weak/new players. It just seems to be an idea for dynamic redistribution of resources based on utilization rates. In fact that’s exactly like how wormhole sites and k-space anomalies/complexes function (not counting the sov-space space modification fuckery).
If you want anything just handed to you through a mechanic that has almost 0 risk (eg. PI), then that is a weak player. PI is also something accessible to anyone, from a 1-day old character up.
Changing R64s to be PI based, hands it to weak/new players because that is what PI provides.
3 Likes
How is it 0 risk? You still have to get the products out, and this would be in dangerous space.
Note that I’m not saying it should be changed in this particular manner, just that the risk would still be there.
Leave the donut and blow them up. If you can’t then just cloaky camp, kill miners, ninja mine them out, etc until it is worthless for them to hold the moon.
Over the past decade or so, CCP has added literally every mechanic possible to ensure none of this can be done in any practical manner:
- You can’t blow them up because of unbeatable super-capital umbrellas
- You can’t cloaky-camp because they effectively removed AFK-cloaking
- You can’t kill the miners because they can use the invulnerability core and wait for help to arrive
- You can’t ninja-mine them out because of intelligence networks, and the blackout experiment failing
Every possible game mechanic artificially inflates difficulty in favor of entrenched superpowers, and it’s impossible to do anything unless you’re another superpower of a similar size, but then if you are, it makes much greater financial sense to form NAPs and alliances because that results in more stability and greater profits from system index maintenance and lack of war losses.
Black Rise has an R64 moon 2 jumps from highsec.
Aridia has several R64 moons within a couple of jumps of highsec.
Genesis has at least 1 system with an R64 moon that adjoins directly to highsec.
There are R64 moons in almost all lowsec regions, many of them on top of the 3 examples above, have direct connections to highsec or are within a couple of jumps.
Even with the larger number of R64s in nullsec, there are several that have direct connections to lowsec and even several within 2-3 jumps of highsec.
The risk to move PI in and out of those areas is not significant (almost 0 risk).
For the moons that exist deeper in sov space, how does the OP’s suggestion help break up big alliances (and why should CCP even want to do that)?
1 Like
Don’t forget the game mechanics that allowed such a large group to just bottle up in a single constellation (really one system) for over a year and remain completely invulnerable
No, we need to change the game mechanics thay allow ^^^ to happen in the first place.
Sure, but that is related to other issues, not R64 moons.
Upwell structure spam, factional upwell structures and capital proliferation are bad for the game in my view (although cheap capitals makes for big fights, while helping to entrench big groups, so it’s a bit of a double edged sword). They deserve their own threads on whether that helped/hinder conflict in the last war.
Yep, I agree.
Actually it directly relates to moons.
If we had better game mechanics surrounding Sov and structure vulnerability access to moons would change which in turn would create content.
That is of course working on the “premise” CCP actually “want” people to fight and things to blow up.
So many things have been added to and changed within the game in the last few years, I now doubt that “premise”
info taken from ; https://imperium.news/eve-mining/advanced-mining/#adm_table
The Industry index also decays at 1% an hour, so there is a certain amount of mining per day that is required to maintain any index level.
//
A zero yield moon would be bad for many components.
Are they? I never noticed.
What if I told you that you could mine those moons anyway, and not pay a dime?