open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals feedback: Smallholding
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Arganato
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:52:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Tippia
It also requires something being discussed in another thread: the ability to stay under the radar. Right now, that big fish can just open up the map and check the stats section to see that a very suspicious amount of people are in that system and that a ridiculously large amount of NPCs have been murdered in what's supposed to be an empty part of space.

Unless that information (or at least its ease of access) is gone, the larger alliance will soon come-a-stomping.


I agree. As of today you can read a lot of information out of the statistics on the map (I use it all the time to look for gate camps). For a small corp basically hiding in 0.0 this would be disastrous. You should have to actually come to the system to find out something's going on.

I really like the idea of a "garage"-style base anchor-able in deep-space, especially if its somewhat easy to move around if you are discovered. The problem that is left, as I see it, is how hard to find it should be, and how easy to destroy it should be, if found (pretty easy, I guess).

To have to follow them home sounds like a cool idea, but its not really supported by the current game mechanics, as you cant follow someone in warp (you can only guess at where they warp)

Another cool idea mentioned somewhere is to use deadspace pockets with player made (?) acceleration gates (as far as I understood it at least).
This would add to the "hidden base" feel, and also make space feel bigger :)

Gempei
Caldari
Siberian Khatru.
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:55:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Gempei on 15/08/2011 18:01:25
some ideas...

Nomade Mini-starbase:

Small version:
- launch for player > anchor
- player can not dock inside starbase
- using fuel for cloaking (maybe from PI)
- can by used only in decloaking mode
- destroyable with couple bs, but high ehp
- cargo 100k m3
- ship hangar (3-4 frigates, 2 cruiser, 1-2 bc)
- services:
> fiting service
> refining (ore > minerals)
> reprocesing (moduls from loot > minerals)
> few manufacturing slots (ammo bpc > ammo)
> repair (need more fuel?) or fit armor and hull rep :)

Medium version:
- boost small version for 10-15 players

Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:07:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Vincent Jarjadian
If you could maybe edit Small POSs to use little or no fuel and be anchored anywhere... these could serve as the smallholdings.


Please, don't reuse small POS. Starbases have needed to be redone for quite some time and this is the perfect opportunity.

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:33:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Vincent Jarjadian
If you could maybe edit Small POSs to use little or no fuel and be anchored anywhere... these could serve as the smallholdings. Anchored in safespots or deep safes... moderately difficult to scan down... Maybe the more items you put on it the easier it is to scan down...

Since small POSs are basically no use anyway for larger entities they probably wouldnt be missed... but a small corp or a few indivituals could easily use one.

Only thing to watch out for... is stopping big alliances using these deep safe POSs to bring in and safe up their massive fleets.


Almost every moon mining pos is a small pos...

Holy One
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:08:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Holy One on 15/08/2011 19:19:42
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: RAW23
I love the idea of small-holdings but I'm not really sure I understand quite what is intended by the term. Would it be possible to elaborate a bit more with some hypothetical examples?


Ok, gonna use this post to reference a whole bunch of other posts in this thread which I agree with Smile

The basic idea is that it should be viable for small groups of players to set up shop in quiet areas of nullsec without necessarily getting the approval of the big fish in the area (particularly if they're doing smart things like settling in space owned by an alliance in a different TZ). They'd have to keep out of the way of the "owners", but so long as they managed to do that it'd end up being far more hassle than it was worth, and cost much more than it would save, to evict them.

This requires, more than anything else, the ability to make a "safe base", which would ideally be something along the lines of a fully scalable modular starbase anchored somewhere in deepish space, where it couldn't be found unless you followed its owners home, provided it stayed small enough. This gives both a practical base of operations and a "homestead"ish feel - as you build up and customize your own little settlement, it becomes your home as well as your base.

Ideally this would also entail various tools to upgrade bits of the system in a way that again isn't really worth dealing with, maybe even down to the per-planet level (all the belts around this one planet are a bit better, or it spawns some extra anoms, or something).


You could really look in to creating some kind of symbiosis between 'homesteaders' and 'sov' holders. If you conceptualize nullsec as a kind of psuedo-fuedal enterprise then 'trade' should more or less be the lifeblood. This economic drive should in no small part contribute. Make it the exception not the norm to encourage the growth of private enterprise in sov space.

Rather than encouraging isolationism (although not excluding it) you should be trying to find a way for independent enterprise to 'fill in' some of the logistics and resource harvesting/conversion holes in the current sov model. Merchants looters and ghosts, amirite?

Imagine if it wasn't the norm for alliances to gather resources; it wasn't the norm for them to produce t1 and t2 stuff themselves; it wasn't the norm for them to do their own logistics (in the main) etc.

Resource gathering, t1, t2 production, mineral harvesting and refining and critically logistics should all have a thriving independent slant. Give people a reason to take their operations in to null sec sov space and give sov holders a massive incentive to become 'barons' rather than 'grinders'.

As for providing somewhere for people to dock, refit, repair, clone etc. that's a no-brainer. Its frankly astonishing to me that you have only recently twigged the reason most of sov null is empty is because there's no practical advantage to being there if you aren't able to utilize the local 'services' or avoid the local 'blob'.

Myxx
Atropos Group
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:12:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Myxx on 15/08/2011 19:12:54
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: RAW23
I love the idea of small-holdings but I'm not really sure I understand quite what is intended by the term. Would it be possible to elaborate a bit more with some hypothetical examples?


Ok, gonna use this post to reference a whole bunch of other posts in this thread which I agree with Smile

The basic idea is that it should be viable for small groups of players to set up shop in quiet areas of nullsec without necessarily getting the approval of the big fish in the area (particularly if they're doing smart things like settling in space owned by an alliance in a different TZ). They'd have to keep out of the way of the "owners", but so long as they managed to do that it'd end up being far more hassle than it was worth, and cost much more than it would save, to evict them.

This requires, more than anything else, the ability to make a "safe base", which would ideally be something along the lines of a fully scalable modular starbase anchored somewhere in deepish space, where it couldn't be found unless you followed its owners home, provided it stayed small enough. This gives both a practical base of operations and a "homestead"ish feel - as you build up and customize your own little settlement, it becomes your home as well as your base.

Ideally this would also entail various tools to upgrade bits of the system in a way that again isn't really worth dealing with, maybe even down to the per-planet level (all the belts around this one planet are a bit better, or it spawns some extra anoms, or something).


extending smallholdings to lowsec would also work, if this is your vision. let us occupy deadspace areas, let us detatch ourselves from starbases/stations as best we can - not entirely - but for example, id like to open a bar in a deadspace pocket for me and my friends to hang out in in lowsec.

let me transform bookmarked areas in my holding. let me place my flag, as it were, and say 'THIS BE MINE, THERE ARE MANY AREAS IN SPACE, BUT THIS ONE IS MINE!'

don't restrict it to areas around celestials/moons/planets if at all possible. don't limit them per system, either, if possible.

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:18:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim on 15/08/2011 19:20:36
- small modular POS that is hard to scan down, with ability for corp members to dock, repair ships, update clones etc.. basically your own mini station, that sucks fuel...

- Modular POS however once you add a docking ring (ships outside moored to the ring), ship repair, clone facilities, basic market for in-pos sales/trading, ability to anchor many weapons, hardeners etc...

- Downside of expanding with more and more modules is that your sig radius starts to baloon, your POS starts becoming much easier to find eventually showing up... from a pod sized pos, to a cruiser, bs, large pos, ded space sight style findeable by basic system scan, and finally showing up on overview when way over sized...

So basically the more awesome your pos gets the more fuel its burning every day, but in addition the more station like the pos is getting in deep space, the more visible and open to attack its getting, till eventually you've overbuild and should really be looking to deploy a station or conquer a station, because honestly someone now sees your "Epic Pos" in overview with its 500m EHP and guns and market etc, and is gonna come ***** slap your pos, especially if this was your corps first pos that you started hidden away in some neutrals back yard nullsec space that he wasnt using :D

Oh ya... and theres also the other problem with this balooning yes its sucking fuel, and its a base for your guys to dock and be safe, with an expanding POS Shield that grows as modules are added (that gets harder to completely bubble as it grows)... theres a problem for attackers.... is that pos showing up on overview because Corporation X has made a nice big awesome corp base... or is it a death star out in deep space thats surrounded by 500 pos guns lol

SkyMeetFire
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:42:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: SkyMeetFire on 15/08/2011 19:42:53
Edited by: SkyMeetFire on 15/08/2011 19:42:20
What about a ship/structure hybrid?

Imagine something that is a bit larger then a carrier, but not quite a supercarrier. Specifically a CAPITAL class ship (not supercap, so it can be built in non-sov systems). Ship has no slots equipment slots like a freighter, but has a carrier class tank (same EHP as an average carrier, perhaps with a structure tank w/even resists). You can move the ship via cynos, and once in its destination system, it can enter an anchored state in deep space (perhaps 1AU away from any celestial). In anchor, it is invulnerable, but burns a fuel constantly. At that point it acts sorta like a reinforced pos - access rights are manageable in the same way as a POS, a small shielded region, and has a set SMA and corp accessible cargohold. It stays in the reinforced state until it is unanchored or runs out of fuel, BUT refueling can also only be done in an anchored state. This leaves a critical vulnerably to the ship that well informed enemies can attack it, besides of course when its on the move. This would allow for Nomads and Small groups to hole up in a system while still giving more maneuverability then a POS.

Ideally the ship would also be customizable via the T3 style module system. Perhaps you could build the ship and have a 'basic' subsystem that give the ship lower but generic stats, suitable for many tasks but not particularly great at any. Then you can switch out 'higher end' subsytems that give the ship more capabilities, but require some specialization. For example - if you want to make the ship a Nomad mining outpost, you can give it a subsystem that gives it a ore storage bay, or perhaps even giving your corp/alliance members perma mining boosts (that are significantly lower then a dedicated ship). For PvP outposts you could do something like a larger SMA or a small defensive system to discourage people camping it.

Finally, you'd have to make the ship such that you're discouraged from using it rather then other ships to fulfill certain roles, but excels at a mobile base. Say it can hold more ships then a carrier or more cargo then a JF, but has shorter jump range and higher fuel costs then either of these ships, making it more economical to move assets via either of those rather then this new ship.

Oddly enough there is a perfect name for such a vessal already exsistant within EVEs history - the Mothership.

Thoughts? Flames?

inexistin
Rubbish and Garbage Removal
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:02:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: RAW23
I love the idea of small-holdings but I'm not really sure I understand quite what is intended by the term. Would it be possible to elaborate a bit more with some hypothetical examples?


Ok, gonna use this post to reference a whole bunch of other posts in this thread which I agree with Smile

The basic idea is that it should be viable for small groups of players to set up shop in quiet areas of nullsec without necessarily getting the approval of the big fish in the area (particularly if they're doing smart things like settling in space owned by an alliance in a different TZ). They'd have to keep out of the way of the "owners", but so long as they managed to do that it'd end up being far more hassle than it was worth, and cost much more than it would save, to evict them.

This requires, more than anything else, the ability to make a "safe base", which would ideally be something along the lines of a fully scalable modular starbase anchored somewhere in deepish space, where it couldn't be found unless you followed its owners home, provided it stayed small enough. This gives both a practical base of operations and a "homestead"ish feel - as you build up and customize your own little settlement, it becomes your home as well as your base.

Ideally this would also entail various tools to upgrade bits of the system in a way that again isn't really worth dealing with, maybe even down to the per-planet level (all the belts around this one planet are a bit better, or it spawns some extra anoms, or something).


What you described here could very well end up being anchorable staging bases for large alliances when invading space. Let's say each of these could house up to 30 players, no matter if they are online or offline (that is to say, they are each assigned to one "hangar" of the base). They could, for example, set up 10 of these staging structures all around the system they are currently focus on and make it so that their pressence there is easily maintained and relatively safe (if the structures cannot be traced that easily), whilst the defenders would have no viable option to remove the threat. The defenders will end up safe-ing up in either a POS or a station, too afraid to make any move since they know the enemies might appear on top of them at a moments notice.

Learath
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:04:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: RAW23
I love the idea of small-holdings but I'm not really sure I understand quite what is intended by the term. Would it be possible to elaborate a bit more with some hypothetical examples?


Ok, gonna use this post to reference a whole bunch of other posts in this thread which I agree with Smile

The basic idea is that it should be viable for small groups of players to set up shop in quiet areas of nullsec without necessarily getting the approval of the big fish in the area (particularly if they're doing smart things like settling in space owned by an alliance in a different TZ). They'd have to keep out of the way of the "owners", but so long as they managed to do that it'd end up being far more hassle than it was worth, and cost much more than it would save, to evict them.

This requires, more than anything else, the ability to make a "safe base", which would ideally be something along the lines of a fully scalable modular starbase anchored somewhere in deepish space, where it couldn't be found unless you followed its owners home, provided it stayed small enough. This gives both a practical base of operations and a "homestead"ish feel - as you build up and customize your own little settlement, it becomes your home as well as your base.

Ideally this would also entail various tools to upgrade bits of the system in a way that again isn't really worth dealing with, maybe even down to the per-planet level (all the belts around this one planet are a bit better, or it spawns some extra anoms, or something).


Love the idea, not sure how to make it work. I think this is a much better approach, more of a carrot instead of a whip (**** HS mining, **** HS ice, **** HS indy, **** **** ****).

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:35:00 - [41]
 

I think this idea would be better accomplished with pockets of 0.0 space.

example Constellation X is attached to this low sec area of Amarr, but constellation X is a dead end 0.0 and does not attach to larger parts of 0.0 where all the big boys are.

looser translation - make these areas outside of the jump range of super caps but within the jump range of normal caps.

Arguement - but big 0.0 boys will just take it over and entrench themselves in it.

Counter point - attach it to low sec in a way that it would be outside the range of titan bridge / pos jump bridges

Arguement - well what if they want to leave and expand

Counter point - well they can stop being lazy and jump and store their crap in low sec then move to the main 0.0 space, but the idea of pockets is relatively save 0.0 to function in w/o having to deal with roaming gangs of 500 ship super cap blobs or Tom Brokovs.

Also the low sec connectors coudl be adjusted in a way that if they built super caps they would be able to jump them out, but im trying to put out an idea for small alliances to have 0.0 w/o having to deal with the roaming 100 super cap blobs.


Anyway this is just ideas. they require a lot of work but could be fun to have those 0.0 pockets, that no one wants but small alliances.

Zelphinine
Posted - 2011.08.15 21:53:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Zelphinine on 15/08/2011 21:55:00
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The basic idea is that it should be viable for small groups of players to set up shop in quiet areas of nullsec without necessarily getting the approval of the big fish in the area (particularly if they're doing smart things like settling in space owned by an alliance in a different TZ). They'd have to keep out of the way of the "owners", but so long as they managed to do that it'd end up being far more hassle than it was worth, and cost much more than it would save, to evict them.
As a concept, this is extremely cool and what EVE should be. However.

I think you're underestimating the hatred nullsec dwellers have of AFK cloakers - which these people more or less will be, or will be used for. I am quite sure that even if it nets them nothing, people with dreadnoughts and carriers will be quite happy to blow the snot out of hidden stations. Or failing that, form a fleet up and go pound it with battleships.

You've created a zero-sum sandbox. Why do you expect your sov owners to let other people live in their space if there's any possible way of attacking them? As for the people living out there, talk about ridiculous risk for questionable long-term rewards.

Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:28:00 - [43]
 

Expecting pilots to have hidden homes in someone's back yard invites us to bring up the question of w-space style delayed local in 0.0 again.

Being invisible in local would allow the adventurous ones to be occasionally seen on scanners but once we are safely passed out on our couches we can live in peace unless someone gets lucky with some long range probes. Of course all the advantages to implementing delayed local have been discussed before but the more I think about it, the more I think that this is the only way 0.0 hidden bases will work.

There will be a couch, right?

Nikkov
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:11:00 - [44]
 

I don,t like the idea of
"Smallholding"
This idea of " cheap, Predictable security" does not fit well with the "unforgiving" mechanics of the game.

0.0 has always been "end game" material... and the team effort, isk and time invested in it sets it apart from any other mmo. And that drive, that lust of accomplishing this difficult task, is what keeps me coming back to EvE after 8 years...

Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:17:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Nikkov
I don,t like the idea of
"Smallholding"
This idea of " cheap, Predictable security" does not fit well with the "unforgiving" mechanics of the game.

0.0 has always been "end game" material... and the team effort, isk and time invested in it sets it apart from any other mmo. And that drive, that lust of accomplishing this difficult task, is what keeps me coming back to EvE after 8 years...


It has to be predictable enough that a solo player can survive longer than a few days or it'll quickly die off. Once discovered the locals could make using the spider hole a living hell and you'll have to pack as much as you can and move on. But if I'm a casual player and only log a few times a week it should be safe enough for me to at least log in and determine if its safe enough to keep using or time to go and squat in someone else's backyard.

The risk will be using it enough without being followed home and once its found how much do I have to abandon because the entrance is bubbled and watched.

Most solo pilot homes won't be a big risk to the local sov holder. But they sure as hell will be tracking down any belong to spies and gankers.

Saikoyu
Amarr
Rho Dynamics
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:21:00 - [46]
 

Honestly this is the only part that made me even slightly interested, as I don't have any desire to PvP (on purpose, not opposed to someone cornering me in a dark alley so to speak), and have no desire to play into the power games of the major alliances. However I see no real way to make it so that the big alliances can't take it over, unless you completely break the game somehow, which I hope that you don't.

However, I have to ask why this huge focus on null sec? And why is null sec the only end-game? Or even why does this idea about smallholding have to be in null sec? I guess I am saying that in a sandbox game where one can do anything, shouldn't there be equal support (please note I said support, not equal isk making) for whatever you (the player) want to be the end game? I mean, the people in null sec have their end game, and I am sure that it could be fine tuned, but instead of making null sec the end game for everyone (and only pleasing some, like the old saying), why not make many end games?

For instance, this idea of small holding, with a few characters making a decent amount of isk among themselves with something they own. Personally I would say this belongs in high or low sec, places where you don't need numbers to survive already. This makes less breaking of the game and gives people who like small a end-game they can roll with. And if they want to be big, then they move on to null sec, but that is their choice, not this everything in null sec is better stuff.

As I see it, null sec is for building empires and for fighting among those empires, something it already does. Fix those parts of it, empires raiding each other, politics, empires being self sufficient, etc. But put anything that doesn't involve grand scales somewhere else, because it doesn't fit there. Smallholding is a small project, and should take place in a smaller setting, may I suggest lowsec? There you can still get your blowing things up, but it will be more personal and more suited to the scale.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:49:00 - [47]
 

It occurs to me that smallholding is the key to the whole mess.

If there is no passive denial of space associated with sov, a lot of the problems with nullsec go *poof*, and you can't have smallholding and passive denial of space sov.

Myxx
Atropos Group
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:50:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Myxx on 16/08/2011 04:52:04
Originally by: Saikoyu
Honestly this is the only part that made me even slightly interested, as I don't have any desire to PvP (on purpose, not opposed to someone cornering me in a dark alley so to speak), and have no desire to play into the power games of the major alliances. However I see no real way to make it so that the big alliances can't take it over, unless you completely break the game somehow, which I hope that you don't.

However, I have to ask why this huge focus on null sec? And why is null sec the only end-game? Or even why does this idea about smallholding have to be in null sec? I guess I am saying that in a sandbox game where one can do anything, shouldn't there be equal support (please note I said support, not equal isk making) for whatever you (the player) want to be the end game? I mean, the people in null sec have their end game, and I am sure that it could be fine tuned, but instead of making null sec the end game for everyone (and only pleasing some, like the old saying), why not make many end games?

For instance, this idea of small holding, with a few characters making a decent amount of isk among themselves with something they own. Personally I would say this belongs in high or low sec, places where you don't need numbers to survive already. This makes less breaking of the game and gives people who like small a end-game they can roll with. And if they want to be big, then they move on to null sec, but that is their choice, not this everything in null sec is better stuff.

As I see it, null sec is for building empires and for fighting among those empires, something it already does. Fix those parts of it, empires raiding each other, politics, empires being self sufficient, etc. But put anything that doesn't involve grand scales somewhere else, because it doesn't fit there. Smallholding is a small project, and should take place in a smaller setting, may I suggest lowsec? There you can still get your blowing things up, but it will be more personal and more suited to the scale.



it occurs to me that they could do this for high, low and nullsec. im not sure theres a valid game design reason for it to be relegated to nullsec only. just straight up add it to the game for all three areas, variations in size and whats allowed there for each.

Plutonian
Gallente
Intransigent
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:00:00 - [49]
 

If players are to 'hide' you will have to expand the workable size of the solar systems.

Have you given thought to opening up bookmark coordinates to player manipulation? (Example: in space I open up a small navigation window which a.) displays my current coordinates and b.) allows me to change the coordinates and initiate a warp to that location.)

This would create places to hide (since the Eve solar systems are damn big) and make it time consuming to 'root out' intruders in your territory.

Combined with a small, primitive docking facility, it would allow the evolution of hidden pirate bases which, if ships can be tracked to them, can be eliminated by the sov owners. An interesting concept.

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:37:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Plutonian
If players are to 'hide' you will have to expand the workable size of the solar systems.

Have you given thought to opening up bookmark coordinates to player manipulation? (Example: in space I open up a small navigation window which a.) displays my current coordinates and b.) allows me to change the coordinates and initiate a warp to that location.)

This would create places to hide (since the Eve solar systems are damn big) and make it time consuming to 'root out' intruders in your territory.

Combined with a small, primitive docking facility, it would allow the evolution of hidden pirate bases which, if ships can be tracked to them, can be eliminated by the sov owners. An interesting concept.


There are several ways to get a bookmark in the middle of nowhere. They are called safespots, anyone who has ever lived in 0.0 knows about them.

Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
Posted - 2011.08.16 07:13:00 - [51]
 

I really would like to have a little hideout in 0.0 somewhere without being in the way of the mayor players.

A bit of storage, a single production line for ammo / drones, a fitting service. That would all that is needed.

Maybe it could have a little force field, that upon shoooting it would start to decay, and after a week it would be gone.

What I find even a better idea is the space pocket thing. With an accerleration gate like in some missions and a size limit for ships this could be even more cosy ugh


catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.08.16 07:30:00 - [52]
 

Here is my opinion
Kill all large alliances they are breaking the game and the player immersion

It should be impossible for any alliance to hold more than 20 systems really
In my opinion you will create many more opportunities in nullsec and limit the monopoly of the various moon goo and high end minerals
Yes you will still have large poweblocs and the blob will still exsist but instead of 200 super caps on each side you will only have. 20
You will encourage small gang warfare and solo hunting

But like it stands now all those big alliances are just too big and powerfull and breaking the game

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:31:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: catinboots
Here is my opinion
Kill all large alliances they are breaking the game and the player immersion

It should be impossible for any alliance to hold more than 20 systems really
In my opinion you will create many more opportunities in nullsec and limit the monopoly of the various moon goo and high end minerals
Yes you will still have large poweblocs and the blob will still exsist but instead of 200 super caps on each side you will only have. 20
You will encourage small gang warfare and solo hunting

But like it stands now all those big alliances are just too big and powerfull and breaking the game


except at that point your limiting what players can do and people will get annoyed and leave, the reason alliances exist is because people started doing it without mechanics and CCP said let them have what they want, so alliances came to be,

people found ways to have blue standings and red, CCP said okay and let people have it and added the standings mechanic,

if CCP reverse this historic trend of helping emergent behaviour it would harm the game as a whole, i think the smaller fish should have a chance to survive alongside the big, but i dont hold with killing all big fish

besides you cant ban big alliances, you say no more than 300 in an alliance no more than 20 systems, Razor (for example) splits into for example 4 alliances who all set each other blue and call themselves the Razor Coalition who could in theory have up to 1200 members and 80 systems,

artificially trying to break up the big blocks will never work,
but we dont need to the Northern Coalition fell, it took a while, it took effort but it was beaten, in time the DRF will probably fall/fracture as well, you just have to work for it

Bilaz
Minmatar
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:34:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Bilaz on 16/08/2011 11:35:36
i dont think thats such a good idea to make something special for small entities. never worked in past (yes, i wont forget or forgive station services as a target for "small roamings")

Instead it may be a good idea to make life of small entites more comfortable within borders of sov system. for instance make owners declare when they would need all the good stuff sov gives them - say from 5 to 8 on mondays and from 10 to 12 on sundays. all other times it would be quite hard to do something bad with their stuff. but from 5 to 8 on mondays they would have to be active and willing to defend becouse they risk that good stuff would be disabled/rampaged by something small or destroed by something big. and if for smaller entities something big is scary, for something big small hostiles disrupting stuff may be reason to be compact - thus leaving space for something small.
Plus i cant see any decent owner who would allow some mices eat his cheese while he is sleeping. and now one can safely run hostile anomalies while owners (who pay for sov and such) rest, while having some hidden poses to refit and store stuff.

Coming further down the road one may see station only having sov and owner half of day - (at other times operating at 10% with no cloning and such) or even having couple of owners with quite different tz but some friendly bonds.

Susiqueta Muir
Disturbed Blood Astrometrics
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:41:00 - [55]
 

The more I'm reading about the smallholding/mobile starbase idea, the more I am liking it. I've lived out in NPC 0.0, 0.0 and all over the place and am currently holed up in a C1 WH which is great, but I do feel that the ability to move around (without having to rip down all the POS setup, haul it to highsec, go find another WH and setup all over again is too much of a hassle.

The idea of having a small moveable baseship which could cruise around pockets of 0.0, slowly upgrading over time and building up to a possible outpost level (would this allow us to change from the "Station Egg" method of outpost building?) sounds great.

A Capital class ship that can deploy as a permanent structure and could then be moved caravan style across systems would fill a large gap for small corps looking to break into Both 0.0 and lowsec and could be tailored for multiple roles (T3 style) depending on what modules are swapped in. Also, I love the idea of being able to head off into the wide black yonder and can see how this setup would work for deeper WH operations. I can envisage a situation where a WH corp sets up shop in a small system, then builds itself a WH exploration baseship before packing up all it's resources and heading off deeper and deeper for more risk/rewards.

The fundamental question over system ownership and sov. mechanics could also benefit from this. Rather than having the current TCU's, outposts and other stuff to determine who owns a system, base this on population and active base ship count? the ships/bases should be set as either public or private (visible/invisible) and would appear on the system overview if public. If public, the ship appears as part of the local market etc, and will add to the sov. total for the alliance who owns it (this will suppliment all the current control methods, not totally replace) and the size of the base (up to fully deployed and therfore fixed "Outpost") will add varying degrees of control bonus.

If a base is set to "Private" then it will only appear on the overview for the corp/alliance who owns it and it will give no bonuses to Sov whilst in this state. It can't join the market externally ("Station only") though can be probed down with the right kind of equipment.

The bases can move around using Cyno's and possibly another mechanism that will allow either gate travel or potentially exploiting WH's (ie. using up a WH all in one go to allow the ship to pass through any type, closing it behind it so these things can't travel in fleets).

I can forsee lots of opportunities to use these, i.e. alliance A wants to take a starsystem from Alliance B. they either light up a Cyno in system (with all the inherant risks and move their ships in) or their scanning teams track down connecting WH's over time and sneak the bases into the systems. Then all at once they could (as long as they haven't been previously detected) can all "Go public" and pull control away from alliance B as they outnumber them in system.

Lots of ways to play with these...:)

SM.

Stormaxe Titanothere
Posted - 2011.08.16 13:05:00 - [56]
 

You have a great goal, and you have highlighted a significant problem in POS management and placement in low sec. There are a number of changes that could be made to solve the issue of low threshold of entry into low and null sec.

1. Small and medium POS fuel should be greatly reduced (overall less than 10 mil/month for small and 20 for medium)
2. For small POS the Reinforced fuel should last 4 times longer, and give occupants a chance to unload and unpack
3. For medium POS Strontium should last twice a long, and again give owners a chance to get out with what they have.
4. Deployment of small and medium POS should be much faster than large POS's to allow for almost a ninja setup
5. size of small and medium POS in cargo should be reduced to allow for easier transport and escape.
6. Physical size of the shield should be reduced as well to limit the size ships that can use it. It should be reduced below where a super cap, or perhaps any cap could fit.
7. You should be able to anchor such small and med POS's other places than a single location around a moon. Certainly far enough away from other stations to prevent constant contact but isolated locations that can be scanned out. Perhaps something like a Lagrange point, which you can have several in systems with planets.
8. Some level of station cloaking or protection against scanning, that while active limits productivity.

These mods would allow a cheaper and somewhat secure way to infiltrate null sec, with some level of success possible, versus what we have today which is a guarantee of loss of a major investment in time and money to put up even a small pos only to have it destroyed almost instantly in null sec controlled space.

Shin Dari
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.16 13:18:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Shin Dari on 16/08/2011 13:21:26
What about a subterranean base (moon or planet)? The big guys can always find them by launching 'probes' to the surface, quantity depending upon the surface area. However being a hard to detect it will take these surface probes a week to find you, but you will be warned that they have landed on the surface giving you enough time to leave. If you don't leave on time, then their dreads will come and destroy your base.

(edit: being on a planet or moon we could hand-wave fuel requirements away. But the capabilities need to be very limited.)

As for sov changing/dependent mobile starbases (hive ships), I think that sounds more like 'largeholdings', but should be considered.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.08.16 14:10:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The basic idea is that it should be viable for small groups of players to set up shop in quiet areas of nullsec without necessarily getting the approval of the big fish in the area (particularly if they're doing smart things like settling in space owned by an alliance in a different TZ). They'd have to keep out of the way of the "owners", but so long as they managed to do that it'd end up being far more hassle than it was worth, and cost much more than it would save, to evict them.


I really really don't think the above, especially the bolded bit, is viable at all.

Very simple reason: how can you as a sov holder tell that the squatters next door aren't actually alts of a hostile alliance with an itchy cyno trigger finger? It's hard to imagine that the cost of "evicting" a 10 man corp from your space would be greater than the risk of losing a JF or a capital to a hotdrop.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.16 14:12:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Holy One
You could really look in to creating some kind of symbiosis between 'homesteaders' and 'sov' holders. If you conceptualize nullsec as a kind of psuedo-fuedal enterprise then 'trade' should more or less be the lifeblood. This economic drive should in no small part contribute. Make it the exception not the norm to encourage the growth of private enterprise in sov space.

Rather than encouraging isolationism (although not excluding it) you should be trying to find a way for independent enterprise to 'fill in' some of the logistics and resource harvesting/conversion holes in the current sov model. Merchants looters and ghosts, amirite?

Imagine if it wasn't the norm for alliances to gather resources; it wasn't the norm for them to produce t1 and t2 stuff themselves; it wasn't the norm for them to do their own logistics (in the main) etc.

Resource gathering, t1, t2 production, mineral harvesting and refining and critically logistics should all have a thriving independent slant. Give people a reason to take their operations in to null sec sov space and give sov holders a massive incentive to become 'barons' rather than 'grinders'.

As for providing somewhere for people to dock, refit, repair, clone etc. that's a no-brainer. Its frankly astonishing to me that you have only recently twigged the reason most of sov null is empty is because there's no practical advantage to being there if you aren't able to utilize the local 'services' or avoid the local 'blob'.


This is a good post.

Originally by: inexistin
What you described here could very well end up being anchorable staging bases for large alliances when invading space. Let's say each of these could house up to 30 players, no matter if they are online or offline (that is to say, they are each assigned to one "hangar" of the base). They could, for example, set up 10 of these staging structures all around the system they are currently focus on and make it so that their pressence there is easily maintained and relatively safe (if the structures cannot be traced that easily), whilst the defenders would have no viable option to remove the threat. The defenders will end up safe-ing up in either a POS or a station, too afraid to make any move since they know the enemies might appear on top of them at a moments notice.


Yup, that's one of the hurdles of this design - finding ways to do it such that this sort of thing doesn't happen.

Originally by: Rees Noturana
It has to be predictable enough that a solo player can survive longer than a few days or it'll quickly die off. Once discovered the locals could make using the spider hole a living hell and you'll have to pack as much as you can and move on. But if I'm a casual player and only log a few times a week it should be safe enough for me to at least log in and determine if its safe enough to keep using or time to go and squat in someone else's backyard.

The risk will be using it enough without being followed home and once its found how much do I have to abandon because the entrance is bubbled and watched.

Most solo pilot homes won't be a big risk to the local sov holder. But they sure as hell will be tracking down any belong to spies and gankers.


Yup. It doesn't need to be hugely effective security, it just needs to give you plenty of warning that the end is coming. I'd lean towards making it such that most alliances will just not bother (and yes AFK cloaking needs looking at), but in the event that they do decide to serve eviction notices, anything up to a week or two of warning gives the owner plenty of time to haul their **** out of the way and scarper. (I'd assume that the larger and more powerful the homestead became, the shorter the warning period would be.)

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.16 14:14:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Myxx
it occurs to me that they could do this for high, low and nullsec. im not sure theres a valid game design reason for it to be relegated to nullsec only. just straight up add it to the game for all three areas, variations in size and whats allowed there for each.


None whatsoever, and we'd probably enable it globally. There are various other things in this plan which will find use in other areas of the game too, we're just focusing on the nullsec advantages for the purposes of this document Smile



Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only