Wednesday, April 23, 2014

CONCORD, now The Consolidated Nullsec Cooperation and Renter Command…


~or, “Risk vs Reward is Broken.”

[Empyrean Empires Part 2]

In my previous post, I stated that due to the strengths, capabilities and agreements the Large Nullsec Coalitions have made Nullsec “safer” for their members than any Hisec system and how the latest changes are all aimed directly at enhancing Nullsec. This is based on the, no longer valid, idea that Nullsec is the highest Risk space in EVE.

What I realized during the writing of that post is that the Large Nullsec Coalitions are, for all intents and purposes, the CONCORD of Nullsec, and this fact has BROKEN the Risk vs Reward balance in EVE Online.

As I am a strong proponent of, “If ya dunt like it, do YOU have a better idea?” Well, yes actually, I do.

Reward should equal Risk, but ‘Risk’ no longer equals the ‘System Security Status’… so what should it equal? Why… the real risk of course.

I know the argument FOR changes that enhance Nullsec income is the “Risk vs Reward Philosophy”. This is one of the foundation principles in EVE, the higher the risk, the greater the reward and that Nullsec was originally designed to be the ‘highest risk’ space in the game, IE no CONCORD or any other game mechanics against any form of aggression. And that used to be true, until the advent of the Coalitions.

The Coalitions are groups of Alliances that have formed cooperatives similar to how Corps can create Alliances… only Coalitions are not a built in the code game mechanic, they are meta-agreements made outside of the game client that define ingame Rules of Conduct between the member players, corps and Alliances in a Coalition.

The System Security Level is based on CONCORD's response and consequences to unprovoked/unpaid for aggression. In Hisec CONCORD responds to aggression with deadly force on a decreasing time scale with a Sec Stat hit (reduction in your personal Security Status). In Lowsec there is no CONCORD fleet response but there are gate and station guns and you take a Sec Stat hit, and in addition in High and Lowsec several very powerful aggression modules, IE Smartbombs, Bubbles, HICs, etc. are to varying degrees restricted by game mechanics. Nullsec however, was designed to be truly lawless space, no CONCORD at all, no consequences for aggressive acts, and ALL aggression mods allowed.

So, ‘Risk’ was defined by ‘System Security Level’, IE the consequences of CONCORD’s responses to aggression.

But… we now have a Nullsec that is owned and operated by Coalitions that make Sov Nullsec far far SAFER (less real risk) for Industry/Mining/Ratting than Hi, Lo and most especially, Negsec (W-Space)... The power that the Coalitions have, Jump Freighter services, Jump Bridges, Power Projection, sheer Manpower and the internal rules and external agreements they have ensure far safer gameplay for all these activities than anywhere in the rest of the game.

You see In High and Lowsec, the consequences of CONCORD are in response to unprovoked aggression… In Coalition run Sov Nullsec, the Coalitions are proactive… not responsive. If you don’t believe me, jump into Sov Nullsec with 50, or 20 or even 10 of your friends in fleet and see what happens… CONCORD waits until ‘after’ you have broken a law, in Sov Nullsec, just entering their space is breaking their law. I find it telling that all those who argue that null is soo much more dangerous than the rest of the game always avoid these particular and embarrassing little facts.

All of this has brought into existence an emergent effect CCP did not foresee… With the consolidation of Large Coalitions of Alliances in Nullsec, the actual Risk Level of a system is no longer tied to the original System Security Status of a system.

Hence as WE the players have once again changed how the game actually works, I propose that CCP needs to rebalance Risk vs Reward such that…

The “Risk Level” of a given system needs to be separated from the arbitrary “Security Status” of that system. So where does Risk come from? Why, from the Players of course.

“Security” is about CONCORD and game mechanics… and it should continue to be based on the current game mechanics for PvP, Crimewatch, CONCORD, etc. This defines the consequences for unprovoked (or unpaid for) PvP for whatever space you are in…

“Risk” however, is about the threat posed by the Players… and it should be based on number of/value of ships/pods/destroyed 'over time' on a per system basis. Over time is the key here...

The System Risk Level would be assessed based on a combination of short term, IE 24/48 hr kills and long term, IE 30/60 day kills. This defines the Actual Risk Level one will have to plan for based on the historical threat of player interaction, PvP, Wardecs, ganks, etc. for whatever space you are in…

Long Term vs Short Term effects to Risk Level; A system's overall Risk Level would be determined from the 30/60 day kills so that Great Wars, Burn Jita and Hulkageddon type events, IE short term/high kill rate events, would cause a shorter term smaller increase in the Risk Level, and these would then drop back quickly to the Risk Level reflected in the longer term overall Risk Level.

Now here is where I make the nullbears scream UNFAIR!!!!

Income levels, for Industry/Mining/Ratting/etc. should be based on the ‘Risk Level’, not the ‘Security Level’ of a given system. Potential Income should be based on the ACTUAL Risk from Player Interaction in any given system regardless of System Security Status.

Hence as things stand now Jita would likely become the Highest Risk system at Sec Stat 0.8 / Risk Lev -1.0 and huge areas of Null would be Sec Stat 0.0 / Risk Lev +1.0. Thus Income levels and potential would be reflected in the ACTUAL Risk one assumes plying those trades and activities in areas where the players themselves create greater and lesser actual inherent risk through their actions. We would have one more way in which we actually affect the space we play in, or own. Not just by creating risk, but also by mitigating risk… the way the Nullsec Coalitions do today in Sov Null.

Imagine how Risk Maps will look on Dotlan… =]


Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky  =/|)=

9 comments:

  1. I like that. I really like that. Please post this to Features and Ideas forum for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this is actually a very elegant system and would likely lead to a lot more PvP content as well.

    You should definitely post it in features and ideas (although I suggest you clean to the wording so it's not so repetitive).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanx for the suggestion and advise..

    ReplyDelete
  4. OK... I bit...
    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4511416#post4511416

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent post. Well thought out problem = solution equation. Seldom do I see a problem statement with a provided viable solution. Of course you will get the “shout down” as this game changing alteration will directly impact the entrenched coalition’s control system. And as you are already aware they do not take kindly to anyone encroaching on their “right” to dictate to CCP concerning game mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Of course I will just have to have my corp members all undock in a throw away ship and let me shoot them. "EVERYONE" in corp owes me 10 ship deaths per month or you're getting kicked. My intent for the previous 2 sentences is only to point out that there are some technical parts of your solution that remain to be worked out, not that your solution isnt an extremely viable one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yea, I am really starting to worry more and more that the Coalitions really might have their hooks a bit too deep into CCP... But, never say never right? It aint over till it's over. and Thanx... once the idea took hold the whole thing kinda wrote itself... good internal logic is just logical... Can't speak to it's practicality, but that's for the code heads, I'm just a Big Picture guy... =]

    CCP would,of course, have to count things like FacWar in Plexes as a lower Risk factor, as that is consensual PvP on the basis that "If ya dunt want PvP, dunt join the Navy fool..." and of course, intercorp PvP would be factored out or very low as well, it's intercorp... and yes, that means CCP would have to look at things like Awoxing to see if it is statistically significant over all... but I personally doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another fine piece of Work, great input tur, thanks :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well... thanx man. but, ou know what they say... open mouth, and some ass will try and shove his foot innit.
    I rarely, hell almost never post on the EVE Forums... but I did and put this up and... well, not as good a reception there so far... oh well, it's EVE huh?

    ReplyDelete

I have opened my blog to Anonymous Users... I hope I will not come to regret this. Please identify yourself when posting and read my Blog Disclaimer and Comment Policy.

All posts on my blog are moderated by me. I will post em as soon as I see um...
Tur