~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 This is based on the, no longer valid, idea that Nullsec is the highest Risk space in EVE.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…
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… =]
Imagine how Risk Maps will look on Dotlan… =]
I like that. I really like that. Please post this to Features and Ideas forum for discussion.
ReplyDeleteI think this is actually a very elegant system and would likely lead to a lot more PvP content as well.
ReplyDeleteYou should definitely post it in features and ideas (although I suggest you clean to the wording so it's not so repetitive).
Thanx for the suggestion and advise..
ReplyDeleteOK... I bit...
ReplyDeletehttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4511416#post4511416
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.
ReplyDeleteOf 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.
ReplyDeleteYea, 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... =]
ReplyDeleteCCP 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.
Another fine piece of Work, great input tur, thanks :-)
ReplyDeleteWell... thanx man. but, ou know what they say... open mouth, and some ass will try and shove his foot innit.
ReplyDeleteI 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?