• DoY
  • Agent
  • Offline

Topic: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

f.e. let it take 1 protection token each time you signing in and return it after you win

Have a productive day, Runner
  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

I like this idea a lot. There isn't really an "Issue" so much but there could be in the future.
With so much uncertainty around whether someone is going to so much as turn up for the event it would be nice if registering for the intrusion was more than just registering for NIC.

Sadly the best method I can think of would be to greatly increase the cost of registering. Then all that NIC gets put into a "Pot". For each SAP you capture you get 1/3 of the Intrusion pot.

Rather than limit the amount NIC can be in an Intrusion pot and only giving a fraction of it to the winner of the outpost it would make much more sense to award NIC per SAP taken/defended.

E.g. Corporation A owns an outpost. Two corporations register for the outpost at 10 million NIC each. The pot stands at 20 million NIC. Corporation B and C take one SAP each and Corporation A fails to capture the last one but luckily the SAP times out. Corporation B and C get to keep the SAP until it is taken during another intrusion and are award 6.66 million NIC each. The remaining 6.66 Million remains in the Intrusion Pot for the next time. Each time the pot can grow the less SAP are taken. If too many people register for one outpost and don't turn up or aren't able to capture it (Meaning there was a 'good' PVP engagement) the corporation could use an alt corporation and release all of the NIC during an easy Intrusion time. (Register with an alt corporation and take all the SAPs back, much like you can now.)

Who wants to throw free NIC at another corporation? It's fun and if you've got enough NIC not to care then so be it but it would improve the current situations. Missing one or two events wouldn't be that expensive but making it a reoccurring theme would be costly.

The Game
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

Yes please, the negligible commitment currently in place is not nearly enough.

Edit: Troll removed - DEV Calvin
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

Alexander wrote:

Two corporations register for the outpost at 10 million NIC each. The pot stands at 20 million NIC. Corporation B and C take one SAP each and Corporation A fails to capture the last one but luckily the SAP times out. Corporation B and C get to keep the SAP until it is taken during another intrusion and are award 6.66 million NIC each. The remaining 6.66 Million remains in the Intrusion Pot for the next time.

What if no one shows up except the defender?

I think the real issue with signing up and not going is that the 'stress' it causes to the defenders.

The tactic is to sign up for an alarm-clock time for the defender, and than not show up. Even at 5M that is a repeatable and sustainable strategy until the defender burns out and the attacker can show up uncontested.

The 'pot' should go to who ever holds the station at the end of the intrusion, so even if no one shows to attack, the corp can distribute the NIC to everyone that showed up.

"We just signed up for PVP and didn't want the outpost" should be discouraged; or the cost of 'forcing' people out of bed should be much higher.

  • DoY
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

xactly. attackers should pay to defenders if they're not shown up

Have a productive day, Runner
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

actually the pot was designed that way, but it seems to be broken for some time now.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear
  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

Annihilator wrote:

actually the pot was designed that way, but it seems to be broken for some time now.

I thought so too. The idea of giving NIC per SAP winner would mean the defenders would always show up and if no one else did the defender at least gets some money for their time.

The Game
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

This all rolls back around to needing more NIC sinks for large corporations, so that 1M or 2M NIC actually means something, or set the fee based on the average income of the outpost.

I still like the idea of taxing corporate wallets, not per transaction, but based on the average monthly balance; with a min tax free base (like 100M or xM per member with an EP skill mod). Keep the NIC moving, store it in hard assets or distribute profits to players.

  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

volume based fees on corporation storages and limited private storages - a moneysink i want to see very badly.

also increasing maintainence costs for holding more then one outpost. It cant be that you can capture an outpost and get the share of NIC for every transaction in that outpost, when youre not even there.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

Arga wrote:

This all rolls back around to needing more NIC sinks for large corporations, so that 1M or 2M NIC actually means something, or set the fee based on the average income of the outpost.

I still like the idea of taxing corporate wallets, not per transaction, but based on the average monthly balance; with a min tax free base (like 100M or xM per member with an EP skill mod). Keep the NIC moving, store it in hard assets or distribute profits to players.

Unless you can tax assets also this won't be an effective way to stop the rich from being richer..

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

I don't have a problem with rich getting richer, the idea of taxes on the wallet is to keep the NIC moving in the economy. If the corp spent the money on ore, that's OK because the NIC is with the miner that is using it to buy other stuff; even if its just a spare Termis in inventory some producer got that NIC.

The idea isn't to penalize a corp for making profit, just for hording the profit.

Technically, I suppose this would have to apply to individual wallets too, or CEO's would just move 1Billion NIC out of the corp into their own wallet. But again, the tax is only there to keep the NIC moving, so if players are spending NIC they wouldn't even notice the tax.

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Additionbal penalties for not shown up on intrusion

Annihilator wrote:

volume based fees on corporation storages and limited private storages - a moneysink i want to see very badly.

also increasing maintainence costs for holding more then one outpost. It cant be that you can capture an outpost and get the share of NIC for every transaction in that outpost, when youre not even there.

Big sinks need big facuets, a 'horder' tax doesn't turn into a sink unless the NIC stops moving.

THere should be costs associated with owning outposts though, and if the population and intrusions were working properly, that would be the defensive costs. But when no one is even trying to take them, the outposts become a big imbalance... unless there just isn't anyone using them either, in which case I guess they don't really make much NIC.