-The shear amount of isk/assets that already exist in eve in the power blocks have made it impossible for any smaller groups to ever challenge. This is a legacy issue and part of the reason why CCP initially looked at dust as a possbile isk sink for EvE.

Please don't use profanity in your comments.

Thanks

Edited my post beers, why time based? (point c)

Per beers request this is my veiw on District ownership and drone infestations.

if your district becomes infected, it enters the locked state and you lose any benefits from that district.

To regain control you must destroy the infestation. if you lose too many clones doing so, you lose the district.

you could contract out the removal if you want, but they would have to send clones, deal with losing clones in transit ect.

1 Sov must reward the individual merc, not simply a source of isk/resources for the corp/alliance (This is more of an fps player aspect)

2 effort to maintain districts should scale in a linear fashion with the number of districts controlled by a corp/alliance

3 Resources/isk should be utilize active mechanics when possible

4 The urge to fight/reward for fighting should out weigh benefits of blue donut fest

5 The resource model needs to be random, dynamic, and include existing and new resources(must be reason for eve pilots to care about dust)

I agree wholeheartedly. The only point that I'd like to make is that the cost of maintaining control of a district should not increase linearly with the number controlled. The cost should increase exponentially such that controlling larger areas becomes increasingly more difficult. The exponential curve would need to be tweaked by CCP to give a certain threshold maximum area controlled without too much fuss. Frankly, this is how SOV should be in Eve as well.

And yes, I realize that larger corps/alliances will split into smaller groups to exploit the nonlinear costs, but nevertheless, a nonlinear, exponential cost growth is the best way to encourage more dynamics and entry points for smaller groups.

i have no interests in punishing corps for being large

I don't think it's quite fair to say something is "broken" if it doesn't happen to work exactly the way YOU want it to work. Some of us actually enjoy the politics and metagame of managing larger groups and working together as large entities to rule over the less organized and less politically motivated. The idea that how a player interacts in New Eden isn't restricted by arbitrary game mechanics is one of it's main draws and what sets it apart.

So your guys are good at the shooting bits? That means you need to work to recruit guys who are good with the politics and metagame.

Just because You don't like those aspects doesn't mean that others don't find them "fun" and doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players who want forced restrictions to slow down the corps who actually have their **** together. If you're a small corp and that is holding back your ability to get things accomplished, then you need to up your game and grow your corp.

If you don't want to wade through the politics and the metagame, I fear you are playing the wrong game.

I do, on the other hand, agree that there needs to be incentives for even the largest corps to stay in the fight and keep waging war.

I assure you, Subdreddit (and the Dust 514 arm of TEST in general) will not be sitting on our hands, we're gonna be shooting people in the face.

I don't think it's quite fair to say something is "broken" if it doesn't happen to work exactly the way YOU want it to work. Some of us actually enjoy the politics and metagame of managing larger groups and working together as large entities to rule over the less organized and less politically motivated. The idea that how a player interacts in New Eden isn't restricted by arbitrary game mechanics is one of it's main draws and what sets it apart.

So your guys are good at the shooting bits? That means you need to work to recruit guys who are good with the politics and metagame.

Just because You don't like those aspects doesn't mean that others don't find them "fun" and doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players who want forced restrictions to slow down the corps who actually have their **** together. If you're a small corp and that is holding back your ability to get things accomplished, then you need to up your game and grow your corp.

If you don't want to wade through the politics and the metagame, I fear you are playing the wrong game.

I do, on the other hand, agree that there needs to be incentives for even the largest corps to stay in the fight and keep waging war.

I assure you, Subdreddit (and the Dust 514 arm of TEST in general) will not be sitting on our hands, we're gonna be shooting people in the face.

I'll forgive your ignorance as to the motivation for my concept. The Negative-Feedback alliance is employeed by Goons (as if anyone didn't know by now). So we have all the meta game, isk, politics, zerg force, and most importantly propaganda that we will ever need.

I have been in nullsec a long time and understand the mechanics of it way more then I ever wanted too. At the same time I have been a competative fps player on and off for about 15 years. I am just trying to find a way to bring the best parts of both together. If you actually read my idea it's a merc-centric design where effort and activity of mercs is rewardard. I dont want size to be a benefit or negative since the average fps clan/group/organization tends to be smaller.

Test picks up PRO while goons picked up IMPS. All that time on our couch and you didn't learn anything did you? SMH

Just because You don't like those aspects doesn't mean that others don't find them "fun" and doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players who want forced restrictions to slow down the corps who actually have their **** together. If you're a small corp and that is holding back your ability to get things accomplished, then you need to up your game and grow your corp.

If you don't want to wade through the politics and the metagame, I fear you are playing the wrong game.

I get your point, I was simply trying to provide a counterpoint that didn't seem to have been addressed yet in the thread. It was looking a bit circlejerky.

I'm going to jump in here again, and mention that you've sorta contradicted yourself here. I am in a small corp. No, I don't want to be in a large corp. Currently, nullsec in Eve has very little room for a corp like mine, which means that when you say "...doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players...", currently Eve in nullsec very much benefits mostly those players of very large corps/alliances. I don't have a problem with that BTW, other than to say that it'd be nice if there was a little more room in Eve (and maybe Dust) for us little corps to hide.

But, telling another player to not suggest crafting the game to better suit them, is kinda saying that you want the game crafted to make your playstyle dominant.

There should be a middle ground.

I'll forgive your ignorance as to the motivation for my concept. The Negative-Feedback alliance is employeed by Goons (as if anyone didn't know by now). So we have all the meta game, isk, politics, zerg force, and most importantly propaganda that we will ever need.

I have been in nullsec a long time and understand the mechanics of it way more then I ever wanted too. At the same time I have been a competative fps player on and off for about 15 years. I am just trying to find a way to bring the best parts of both together. If you actually read my idea it's a merc-centric design where effort and activity of mercs is rewardard. I dont want size to be a benefit or negative since the average fps clan/group/organization tends to be smaller.

Test picks up PRO while goons picked up IMPS. All that time on our couch and you didn't learn anything did you? SMH

Alright, here is a continuation of what was discussed on IRC:

For those unaware, the question posed is, what does this system do for those corps that don't want land themselves, in particular, but still want to happily blow up and take the stuff of another corp?

There is the option of merc'ing out, yes. But no one is going to hire a no-name corp on faith alone, and there's always the chance that such a proposition does not suit some, or possibly even rankles to consider. There is also still the meta-game to keep in mind as well.

To put this in perspective, an example:

Player 1 is a CEO for X-Corp. X-Corp is relatively unknown, overall. One of the members of X-Corp gets into a troll/flame war on the forums with another player from Y-Corp. Player 1 decides "The hell with that" and decides to systematically destroy Y-Corp. He doesn't want their districts or land. He and X-Corp just want to smash Y-Corp.

There are several problems with the current system though (as clone counts, etc are not accounted for in the proposal, I will use the Dev-described system where applicable):

1) X-Corp, while having good players, is mostly unknown. So they will either depend on some other Corp being charitable and hiring them in order to earn enough coin to engage another corp in battle (buying clones, equipment, etc). This raises the question; how do they earn the currency prior to engaging in war in a self-sufficient manner?

2) A corp that maintains a district is going to, by virtue of district ownership, have a pool of clones to send in to battle. With the current system X-Corp would only have what they could purchase from the NPC's (one time) available to them. Attacking in this state, even victoriously, would be operating at a loss. This would make this style of game-play untenable.

3) Assuming the prior two problems are solved, and they are able to attack the district successfully and repeatedly until Y-Corp is removed from it; what do they do with it? As previously stated, they don't want to deal with the care, feeding and upkeep of a district.

This also brings to mind another question at the tail end: Were the system to support such a corp, how would another corp go about attacking them in kind? Or would the others be forced to resort to politicking and other meta-means to try and assault them?

I agree wholeheartedly. The only point that I'd like to make is that the cost of maintaining control of a district should not increase linearly with the number controlled. The cost should increase exponentially such that controlling larger areas becomes increasingly more difficult. The exponential curve would need to be tweaked by CCP to give a certain threshold maximum area controlled without too much fuss. Frankly, this is how SOV should be in Eve as well.

And yes, I realize that larger corps/alliances will split into smaller groups to exploit the nonlinear costs, but nevertheless, a nonlinear, exponential cost growth is the best way to encourage more dynamics and entry points for smaller groups.

First I agree with the preface problems I have played eve and know the dull and drull of no fighting.

I agree with the goals of the idea mostly. With the major exception of exponentially increasing costs of control. This is a partial factor in NAP fests as its all different faces of the same dice. The effort should be static per territory. Thus larger corps need more 'crop hands' to make use of all they currently have or get more folks to help out with new territory.

Having said all this, I don't want to further hijack Free Beers' thread with my tweak to his idea.

Rewarding EVE pilots shouldn't happen. They shouldn't need an extra incentive to help their alliance hold sov. Besides which, they're most likely going to be dropping OBs from battleships, BCs or destroyers, and are very unlikely to be able to have much cargo space available to hold any loot.

Any and all loot should go to the DUST mercs. And yes, I play EVE too.

Agreed re: not punishing large alliances. The "punishments" would come from the metagame, e.g. organising the alliance, maintaining hold on all the planets you want, and making sure spies don't infiltrate the alliance and do a BoB on you.

Alliances need their power, but if a small corp beats a large alliance, it should be able to hurt it pretty bad, or the smaller alliance should be rewarded bonus.

Agreed re: not punishing large alliances. The "punishments" would come from the metagame, e.g. organising the alliance, maintaining hold on all the planets you want, and making sure spies don't infiltrate the alliance and do a BoB on you.

Fine, it's your idea, but this is part of the nullsec problem in Eve. It's too easy for large alliances (note not corps) to just cordon off large sections of space and build static boundaries. Also, i wouldn't consider this a punishment, just a less than linear benefit. The real world works this way too (not that it matters much for a game) but larger populations become much more difficult to control than a linear curve would allow for.

Anyway, I'll defer to your judgement as it's your idea and thread. Also, I do support your idea in general, and even without my stipulation, I think it sounds better than what I've heard from CCP.

Pilliage mechanic (aka telc takes your stuff): The idea is that if a corp attacks a district and wins the battle they have the option to continue seige or pillage and leave. If you select pilliage and leave you get loot (isk/bpc/whatever)

This is intended to be district raiding.

*Your standing against that corp goes down (good thing if you hate them)
*Your corps sec status with that district(and npc gear corp) goes negative (you can start as low as -1.00)
*If you control districts near by your sec status will take a hit (well, they know people who you just pilliaged)

Now I haven't thought of the rest of the pieces to it yet, will add more

i really like the pillage idea
sometimes u dont really WANT the district but just to fck around in someone back yard and grief them
would also encourage more fights as ppl know they wont necessarily have to look to defend another district if they end up claiming it instead just select the pillage option and get paid

of course its a good idea, telc came up with it.

I'm just waiting on CCP foxyfour to post his list of excuses on why risk514 will be so awesome

pfft not all telc ideas are good, he plays darkfall after all and bad games like defiance

It's impossible to distinguish a small entity that is part of a meta-corp/alliance, versus one that is part of an in-game corp/alliance.

Thus all the kind of artificial limits put on in-game size of corp/alliance or territory will just mean those large entities will split up in-game.

Update-

New mechanic "resistance fund": There are always parts of the civilian population that loathe the merc group that is in charge of the district. There could be a group of district manage skills to lessen the impact of this

-purpose is to increase the value of the district over the long term to make it too good to pass up


- resistance factor
*A small percent of resrouces are siphoned from the merc corp in charge. Its stored indefinitely untill a new corp has taken over the district with a .60 sec status

thoughts?

---

Update: Per Brilliant effing Idea by Mith in IRC

The resistance fund can have isk put into it by other hostile actors (corps/mercs/pilots). Also its similar to the bounty system in eve. This is absolutely beautiful meta game idea.
----------------------

really like...

Essentially, take 5% / 7% / 10% from the profit (per day they are in control) that a corporation makes on a district and store it in a "takeover fund" so that whomever comes in and takes over the district will be rewarded with this "takeover fund".

This will provide incentive to attack, especially when these funds get to be really large numbers...

To me (a novice) this seems like it would be a "quicker" solution and would not take as many man hours to program as some of the loftier ideas shared thus far...

Excellent line of thought and something CCP should bring up whenever wormhole dust is considered. You are absolutely spot on about the scaling issues here. In EVE, you need the ability to defend in central large fights where the capital numbers escalate such that alliances can be crushed. If you have that power you can take as much space as you dare, the risk is that competition teams up on you if you over expand.

The mechanics you describe sound meaningful, they resemble wormhole space. Nullsec is a war of identity, alliances making a name for themselves and players gaining recognition and power by their efforts. Wormholes are about holding as big a fortress as you can farm, and the cultivation takes time but rewards are in personal wealth.

Thus, CCP save this draft for the future. PC works with current mechanics because it's a game of power and alliances. Wormhole PC could use this kind of personal reward mechanic.

Beren i am working on a real scenario to answer you questions.

That's not quick enough Free Beers! I'm declaring your scenario as sad right now. I'm already disappointed. Its broken and you need to fix it, you should feel bad.

Just kidding...no but really...I'm waiting.... I will carefully read it and analyze it as a bitter Eve carebear who completely understands the minds of elite FPS players...

So how about we revisit this now that it took less than a month for most to realize that PC is bad (even if some of you nerds asked for it)