I think it is pretty clear that I have an idea. You are trying to shut it down.
I could easily go on at length about the details. I will if you want me to.
1 Like
That is the pointâŚ
How it works, and what âcontrolâ means with regards to the system, Fac-po and i think npc agents you said as well.
Ok, first I will talk about Concord, Faction, and my proposed faction (Alliance) police service. Right now there are 2 of these at work, there is no reason that an Alliance which has established a fortress of an entire region could not have a police force of their own.
This carries with it an implication which I have not yet spoken. It is a relative security status held towards the entity owning the space. Right now you have a sec status that would be replaced by your status towards the owning faction (PC or NPC) as well as your status towards CONCORD which would only be in effect if you were operating at low status inside a CONCORD protected area. It may be that high sec empires only could receive CONCORD. That is probably fitting.
WIth respect to faction agents maybe you could attract agents which you are a highly rated affiliate. Or you could be the agents yourself. Maybe you can delegate the task of fueling jump bridges to allies and pay them a bit for their trouble.
Come on get real, theyâre not gonna break up. Theyâre already set up with an established infrastructure. What CCP needs to do is implement more space with diminishing resources in Sov. And have the diminish speed based upon the size of the controlling Alliance. That would keep the existing Alliances from expanding further and allow new Alliances a chance to get established.
And enough with the Bot / RMT hype crap, Jeez you people just donât know when to stop.
The idea of reducing the yield in heavily farmed areas and increasing them (a lot) in untouched areas is a good idea. Thanks for sharing!
1 Like
What youâre describing here sounds a lot like pets.
Pets are npcâs that work for a player. They are never going to be a good idea because they always takeover the jobs of players and are always to the advantage of bigger richer groups.
For example, it sounds like you want npcâs to respond to invaders in the system. If thatâs true, then why arenât we expecting the players to defend their own systems? Thatâs a players responsibility or activity (i.e. content) being taken away.
On top of that, if Iâm an invader i have to worry about both the defence fleet of players as well as any npcâs that will also fight me. And these npcâs are unlimited in number?
This just raises the bar for attacking systems which works in favour of big groups that own loads of space like Goons and works against smaller groups trying to find content.
So pets (npc hirlings) are both damaging to small group players and anti-content. They can never work.
To be honest i really hoped that citadels would have the option to get security agents and maybe even an lp store. Like a service module, call it âa shady barâ thatâd be upgraded by rigs and/or sec status.
Nevermind.
We can definitely do this already via in game tools like chat and contracts.
After reading through I still fail to see how you explain this will increase the playerbase. I dont see anything that helps new player retention.
Which way is north?
Why?
If we assume a 21k average PCU, which is about right for the last 3 months and divide it by the 7500 systems available to players, thatâs an average of less than 3 players per system; in reality the number of players per system is actually much lower when you take into account the population of the trade hubs and the nullsec entities home systems.
More systems would simply mean more empty systems.
Any sort of empire system where you would get faction police would need to be at the Alliance level. Coalitions would work via standings.
I donât get why everyone is infatuated with the idea of less space creates more fights. It seems to me that accommodating 1 player per system is viable if there is 1000,000 systems. And if the average is 3 then adding each system should add about 3 people to the party. Not too shabby.
Ever heard of the âscatteringâ in Dune? Create a vast amount of space and let people create their own little empires from scratch. With enough systems the growth rate might just be exponential.
The point I am trying to make is that things are stagnant because nothing has changed. Adding more systems = more growth in the paying playerbase.
1 Like
Because, outside of pointless âIâm bored letâs meet up and fightâ nonsense, fights are driven by shortages. Less space = less resources = more need to take your neighborâs space to get more ISK. If there is too much space then thereâs no shortage, everyone can just take their own corner of the map and farm all they want. Why fight to take your neighborâs stuff when thereâs an abundance of empty space you can take for free?
Create a vast amount of space and let people create their own little empires from scratch.
Except thereâs no need to create any kind of meaningful empire because thereâs no opposition to overcome and no sense of accomplishment for succeeding in the face of adversity. You just end up with a bunch of unsatisfying âempiresâ farming their own PvE sites and ignoring each otherâs existence. And then the game dies because PvE farming is boring.
With enough systems the growth rate might just be exponential.
Youâre assuming there are enough potential customers out there to drive that kind of growth, a claim I am extremely skeptical of. And the kind of player that is drawn in by the promise of empty space to set up meaningless PvE farming is the kind of person that EVE doesnât want.
Funny, you keep posting the same thing over and over again like itâs the gospel truth yet nothing in it even is remotely correct. Especially since thereâs already an overabundant amount of resources available for current Sov Alliance holders. There hasnât been any really big wars fought over territory for a long time now because all the Alliances are firmly established in their secure fortified areas. If CCP added new space there would be a big âLand Rushâ race to colonize it which in turn would create more wars.
The reason this game has gone stagnate with a constant loss of players is due to people like you who vehemently oppose any change to the current status quo.
Yes, which is exactly the problem! An overabundance of resources removes the need to fight a war over territory because you can just hide in your fortified area and still have plenty of resources. Removing space/resources removes the overabundance and means that if you want to have the maximum ISK/week that your members can create you need to conquer more space for them to use.
If CCP added new space there would be a big âLand Rushâ race to colonize it which in turn would create more wars.
And this contradicts what you just said! If thereâs already an overabundance of resources then where is the incentive to fight a war over the new space? The current alliances already have more resources than they can exploit with their current player bases so even if they win the war they canât do anything with the new space.
The reason this game has gone stagnate with a constant loss of players is due to people like you who vehemently oppose any change to the current status quo.
I donât oppose any change to the status quo. I oppose terrible ideas like yours.
Jeez, you really are short sighted. It will allow new Alliances a chance to claim Sov and hopefully get established. It also provides the older existing Alliances an incentive to fight to keep others from claiming it, thus creating more wars.
Anyway, youâre just plain obstinate and yes, you do oppose any proposed changes to the current status quo or you wouldnât be conducting this one man very vocal crusade against this idea. By the way, check your facts before posting your BS drivel, Iâm not the OP of this thread.
Which does not create conflict.
Why, why should they care? If there is infinite space, there is no incentive to fight for space.
A land rush âmightâ (I think unlikely) make for some short term fighting but long term it will reduce fighting even more.
1 Like
Wow, pull your head out dude. Jeez, the conflict driver Iâm talking about is a form of Anti-Access / Area Denial Warfare.
But hey, youâre just like the other poster, clearly you guys donât want the current status quo in-game to be disturbed since you constantly oppose any idea for change without even a second thought.
Anyway, Iâve been on this Merry-Go-Round with you before and Iâm definitely not doing it again. I will say this, youâd make a great Sov Alliance leader, letting potential enemy forces come right in and occupy territory all around youâŚ
But it doesnât matter, they arenât going to attack you because there is no reason for them to attack you. If they need more space they just expand into a new empty region, itâs less effort.
You might get the odd roam⌠Except that roaming will now be spread out over 10 times the space, so people wonât want to roam because itâs so boring.
So there is no point to any of the warfare beyond lols, and thus conflict decreases.
Heh, obviously you have no clue about Military Tactics. I definitely donât share your viewpoint and more importantly, you and the other poster have failed to even bring up one good reason of why this idea wouldnât work.
Anyway, done wasting my time talking to obstinate people who are so closed minded they canât even think outside of the box.
You might want to look in a mirror about obstinate people.
Just because you donât like an explanation doesnât mean you can pretend it doesnât exist.
Thinking outside the box A: Doesnât make it an automatically good idea, and B: âJust add more spaceâ is not outside the box.