| Author |
Topic |
Dorvil Barranis |
Posted - 2008.05.01 01:13:00 - [ 661]
Gerome,
It is still PVP that determines who can operate in an area and earn SP. Although I agree it is more abstracted, but that is where much of the advantage is. There are still tangible objectives, just many more of them, so that it is not necessary to lag out the server to threaten or claim Sov. |
Carl Marcus
Gallente
Construction Cabal
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive |
Posted - 2008.05.01 01:23:00 - [ 662]
Well i believe in K.I.S.S. keep it simple sir. Lots of creative ideas in here but wow i can imagine the time involved..look just remove reinforce mode from all pos's..that'll cut significantly the time it takes to siege em . |
Gerome Doutrande |
Posted - 2008.05.01 05:07:00 - [ 663]
I understand what you are trying to do Dorvil, and the ideas that I have about endgame in Eve would work towards some of the same goals that you have with the point system. I'll write something up about how I would like the endgame mechanics to be.
In the meantime you could entertain yourself with some of the following questions if you like:
- How would you deal with "flavor of the patch" activities where players focus on the things that maximize sov. points per hour? Diminishing point gains per activity may help with this.
- If I understand it correctly you are trying to increase the importance of pursueing/disrupting "regular PvE activities" (mining, NPCing) as part of your point system. I think that currently these activities are so easy to disrupt (basically by having a few cloaked "threat ships" sitting AFK in a system) that they more often than not would not play any role when system sovereignity is contested because they are so easy to disrupt. Am I overlooking something regarding this? |
Dorvil Barranis |
Posted - 2008.05.01 12:34:00 - [ 664]
I like the idea of diminishing point gains, particularly with POSes. Your first tower gets you more then your second, etc. System would have to be such that you aren't obligated to get a large, a medium, and a small in order to max out the POS SP, so perhaps the diminishing returns starts with the second largest POS and moves down. Also this make sure that putting a small POS in a system with large POSes doesn't hurt the SP income of the large POSes.
Yes, PVE activities are easy to disrupt, but I also think that something needs to be done to avoid allowing a cloaked afk ship to stay in the system, such as a slow method of probing out non-cloak spec'ed ships.
Fort those advocating eliminating reinforced mode, it will be impossible to have any security in deep 0.0. Oh boy, I just lost a fleet of reserve ships because we were attacked while my alliance was at work? Doesn't sound fun to me. Taking the economic buildings outside of the forcefield will allow POSes to be more vulnerable, without forcing you to have all your assets exposed. |
Thera Romana |
Posted - 2008.05.01 14:47:00 - [ 665]
I like the infrastructure hits concept. My posts had been about making more infrastructure that would be able to be destroyed, but I like the concept of taking current infrastructure items outside of pos shields.
I dont know if I would make it so all where outside shields but possible make the room inside the shields limited so you have to choose what you protect with everthing else being vulnerable to attack.
Add more purpose to bombers with being able to do surgical strikes, sort of a get in fire a bomb or two and have to leave or get obliterated by turrets.
What about mines for asteroid belts, as a harrassment against mining infrastructure. Laying of mines through out the belt that would have to be destroyed before mining could resume safely. This same notion might be able to be applied to stations and gates as well. |
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Nulli Secunda |
Posted - 2008.05.04 18:43:00 - [ 666]
The problem I have with the new sovereignty idea is that it seems too easy to grief the hell out of an alliance. It just seems way too easy to throw an alliance sovereignty into question so that the defending alliance will pretty much have to constantly gate camp in order to hold onto their territory. Currently, in order to threaten an alliance's sovereignty an invading alliance has to put a fair amount of effort into it. Assembling capital ships, locking down a system, putting those capital ships on the line reinforcing POSes. It takes a huge amount of logistics and a fair amount of risk to invade. If any medium sized gang can throw the sovereignty into question then it will just turn into griefing where a small alliance just constantly hammers a bigger one until they go crazy. Or a big alliance just blobs the hell out of everyone. Not to mention they will just keep doing it during the alliance's off hours so that they cannot even muster the forces to drive the attackers off. So what if the defender can adjust the timer to their primetime? It would be about the psychological warfare of throwing the sovereignty into challenge every other day and constantly forcing the defenders to turn out. It will quickly get more tedious then even POS warfare and make it equally unfun for the defenders. Stop underestimating how many alliances out there thrive on griefing others.
I never quite understand how you Devs constantly fool yourselves into thinking you've figured out a way to combat blobbing (you introduced blobs and remote ECM with ZERO effect on blobbing). If a system has five entryways and the attackers only need to control three, they'll put 100 guys on three gates. The defenders can also blob and just move from one gate to the next. So what if the invaders can just move to another gate? The defenders' blob can just move to that gate too, and the invaders will have to keep running and never be able to run up the timer. By the way, this whole "running up a timer" and "achieving objectives" sounds a bit too much like other MMOs that introduce excessively complicated mechanics in order to rigidly control how pvp and conquest mechanics are carried out. By imposing similarly complicated systems I am afraid you guys are moving beyond the sandbox principle of the game. I mean seriously, look how ridiculously complicated you are making this proposed system? Points allocated for each ship and ship type? Timers? Multi-tiered achievements? Simultaneous goals? You really want to move EVE towards the conquest systems other MMOs use, like PotBS or LOTRO monster play?
Another thing to note is that if you do completely abandon POSes claiming sovereignty you need to fix dreadnoughts too, and you need to make sure you do it AT THE SAME TIME. You will **** off a huge amount of your players if you make dreadnoughts completely obsolete. And don't give me any crap about how you can still use them to strike at an alliances logistics. MOST 0.0 alliances do not live out of POSes, they live out of stations. It may be useful to attack an enemy alliance's moon mining POSes, but that use will not be enough to satisfy the thousands of players who spent MONTHS training the skills necessary to fly dreadnoughts just to have it turned into a tool only useful for logistical warfare. Dreadnoughts will need to be combat capable so that they would have a significant roll in gate defense in order to not **** off all your older players. Throwing out POS sovereignty and then claiming that dreadnought changes will be coming soon(tm) will not pass muster either. |
Dr Cedric
Caldari
Orbital Industry and Research. |
Posted - 2008.05.04 23:46:00 - [ 667]
So... clearly since this thing is 23 pages long I haven't read everything....
Having said that, here is an idea:
POS are all over 0.0 now. With these proposed changes, it seems that all these "Death Star" POS will just be a total waste. I don't think that all of those POS owners will be happy about that. So..what to do about it?
Change the modules. Currently POS guns and launchers are anchored outside to forcefield of the POS they are located at. SInce it seems with this new mechanic, stargates will be the deciding factor, and these stargates have been placed out of the control of the player, then it seems proper to allow the alliance/corps to place anchorable modules at the stargate. Warp disruption batteries, Neut/Nos Batteries, ECM batteries, guns, launchers...the whole lot! This makes defending the gate a much more...interesting proposition!
Now, since these modules are outside of the POS forcefield, and probably AU's away from any other controlling structure, there needs to be some kind of 'command center' to facilitate all these guns and modules being around. This is where the fun starts, and where my real idea comes into play.
This command center can have several different 'levels' available, depending on how much of the place you hold. For example, if you hold all the systems in your constellation, then you can install and 'upgraded' command center, it allows more cpu/power to be used to anchor these gate defenses. It also allows for 'monitoring' of more space. They are also huge investments meant for the alliance level of use.
So, Command Center is anchored 200km off of gate. Now what. You dock at the command center, either with your ship sitting outside, or directly from your pod. You obviously need a skill...in comes the Starbase defense management (I think thats the name...) skill, the one that requires anchoring to lvl 5. Obviously, region, constellation and system 'sovereignty' is an important thing for an alliance, therefore, it is important that said alliance can control these structures with only moderate hurdles to overcome. My proposition: lower the requirements to Anchoring lvl 4, and make more types of starbase structure control skills, for example, 'ECM Starbase Control, Artillery Starbase Control, Citadel Torpedo Starbase control...etc etc.' These would have logical skill requirements as well as anchoring IV (like you'd need Large XXX spec lvl IV to control large guns, Med XXX spec IV for the med guns...electronic warfare and sensor dampening, energy emmesion systems...blah blah). This makes gate camping a totally different idea.
Your command structure (standard edition...for system control) can hold 10 or 20 (or however many the CCP guru's come up with) pod pilots. The enemy coming in doesn't know how many pilots are manning the guns so they bring their full power to the gate. They want to take over this gate so they can use it for their supply runs to take over the whole region...and this is step number one.
So, they come in shooting, blasting away at all the guns and stuff, or focussing straight at the command center (new capital mod comes to mind....Focussed RF blast...disrupts command center operations...hmmm). They need to either blow up the command center and place their own (and then start taking control of any gate defenses left over....more on that) OR they need to find an unmanned command center and start hacking the system.
FINALLY, a REASON to train Hacking....a reason to have more than the T1 version of the Hacking module!!! And another ship type comes to mind dedicated to command center hacking! Or perhaps the attackers can take over the command center even with pod pilots in it and a command center integrity skill vs command center hacking comes into play...lots of options.
More to come |
Dr Cedric
Caldari
Orbital Industry and Research. |
Posted - 2008.05.05 00:10:00 - [ 668]
The second part: So the enemy has either disabled, taken over, or destroyed the defender's command center. They install their own command center now and start trying to take over the remaining gate defenses. Again hacking or skill in the specific structure comes in to play. Now, the attacker has to take over all the stargates in the system to gain system control and the ability to anchor an upgraded command structure of their own. They take over the system in this example and then place their upgraded command center, now on to the constellation...this whole process happens again for each system and stargate, but once the constellation is taken over, the next level upgraded command structure...lets name it the Constellation Command Center. These are anchorable at only the inside stargate of the systems bordering other constellations. Again it happens for the other constellations...heading toward total regional ownership. Lets assume, that the campaign for region X has been successful for our attackers. They are moving like a tide...now what? All the constellations in the region are controlled, all the constellation exits have the Constellation Command center (CCC yay, an acronym!), and now...the Captial Command and Control Center (CCCC..maybe a different name is in order) So what does this get you? You get real time data on al pilots in each system. You get real time data on jump ins and exits. You get ship type and character names for every non-allied jump in to your regional border systems You get real time data on cyno fields. You get real good stuff in other words. This is a huge task, to take over and hold an entire region. So, the defender who had all this stuff...what happened to them. They had all this intel at their disposal, but shear numbers or lack of activity or numbers to support it, they lost it one by one. They had lots of real time data at the region level, but were not paying attention to the system and constellation data they were getting from their smaller command centers. They forgot to look at the system jump in data each standard command center was giving. They forgot to look at the ship types and character names each constellation command center was giving. And most of all, they spread themselves thin... They didn't have enough people to support their extensive network! So, summary of steps to do to take over space. Stargate command center at each gate in a system. System Command center once all gates are controlled. Constellation command center once all systems are controlled by a system command center Regional command center once all the other stuff has been put in place. Summary of steps to take for attacker to disrupt/take over other's space Enter system, and take over Stargate Command Center (disables System command structures) Take over all system gates and place their own System Command center Take over all systems in constellation....then region. Huge ISK sinks, that are difficult to defend and keep updated. Not good at keeping out roaming hostiles, but important for repelling possible incursions. Good for setting up small goals for attackers, good for setting up goals for defenders to move toward. Good for making more skill for people to pay for the time to train  . One more post coming! |
Dr Cedric
Caldari
Orbital Industry and Research. |
Posted - 2008.05.05 00:20:00 - [ 669]
Edited by: Dr Cedric on 06/05/2008 17:36:43
Edited by: Dr Cedric on 06/05/2008 17:32:18
So...now what about all those POS that had the guns sitting at them...what are they for now?
Well, I'm glad you asked...I have an idea about that one too:
Now, you have lots of grid and cpu left to do other stuff. Cyno jammers, they should take up more grid/cpu. Still important for the invading forces to try and bust up a cyno jammer. You also can dedicate POS resources remotely to the command centers...or perhaps they have to be anchored to 'microwave transmit" the grid and cpu the command center/structures. A more robust jump bridge network can be created, but if you want to move between constellations, you need to own both constellations and have the Constellation command structure up and running.
Assuming that the constellations are owned by having a System command center in each system, your jump network can still operate, assuming you don't let your system command centers get blown up/taken over. Just the structure being there itself allows your jump network to operate...(that and the POS that holds the jumpbridge....another target)
So, POS are still necessary, but now we have a structure in place to take ownership, in a real way, of outer space. I hope this was constructive. Please give feedback and if you like it, tell the devs to make it happen!
Ced
Addendum:
One other thing to note. I know the Devs are trying to break up 'the blob' during warfare, and it seems that my idea so far does little to change that. Perhaps on addition to the system is that when you control a gate, system, constellation or region gate, you get to set the timer. At each system, constellation and region gate, your system, constellation or region command center gives you the option of setting entry restrictions, time wise. So if a group of 200 attackers wanted to enter your system, there would be a few seconds (enough for the defenders to pick off one by one...) delay. At constellation and region gates, these delays could be increased. If you have a persistent attacker (or a really good BS tank) you can absorb some damage while your other members jump in. Or, you can enter the system through different points. Obviously, this advantage would come at a cost to the defenders too (more POS resources or a timer limit on the defending forces as well...)
As for smaller targets, to give small gangs more options, the devs could develop a system where a certain amount of damage given to the command center (which means that now your command center needs to be located at a planet or some such place, maybe even in the middle of nowhere...give those cov-ops pilots a job) will disable one or more of the logistical advantages that these command centers offer. As well, the whole idea of hacking the command centers is still available for these types of missions.
Anyhoo...if I have any more additions I'll add them. |
Dorvil Barranis |
Posted - 2008.05.05 05:03:00 - [ 670]
I'd like to point out that one advantage of my SP suggestion is it still maintains the usefulness of the current established POSes that people have spent billions of isk on, and that it will not be easy for a small gang to "flip" sov when a different alliance is not online. The ability to adjust SP for POSes, gate control, and other activities means it can be fine tuned to prevent making "sov griefing" easy, but still allow it to be possible. |
Corphus |
Posted - 2008.05.05 17:51:00 - [ 671]
|
Belidonna |
Posted - 2008.05.05 21:30:00 - [ 672]
Interesting idea but I think that the points system is the superior idea put forward so far. In my opinion it has: - Ease of balancing
- Incites a wide range of behaviors
- Makes use of all skills
- Requires no ship changes
- Requires no new "hard" elements outside of the creation of the point engine and reporting system (which should leverage some existing code)
- Promotes 0.0
- Levels out system traffic
[*]Can be used for alliance "pruning"
The only solution for blob warfare is quite possibly a wicked nerf to fleet fighting, which I dont think the devs want to do. Power is in numbers. That simple logic drives the behavior. You can only stop it by removing the reward. With the points system you have a way to control how much active SP the system is collecting by active fighters. Throw in reduced benefit or even penalties for fighting in huge numbers and you solve that problem quickly. Will there be *****ing? Yes. I understand the devs draw to fleet warfare. You want there to be big supreme battles in space because thats how everyone imagines it. Until the system can take the pressure (game mechanics and hardware) probably best to scale back. Force players to engage in more diverse activities and spread out for benefit. Obviously the complexity is one thing going against the point system. When has eve ever strayed from that? |
Conrad Rock
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.05.07 14:25:00 - [ 673]
Will you be reshuffling the regions' system layout a bit so as to not give certain regions an incredible advantage? |
Dorvil Barranis |
Posted - 2008.05.08 03:37:00 - [ 674]
Not sure which sov system that question is in reference to. If it is the SP system, some regions will work a bit differently, but wouldn't that be of equal advantage to anybody trying for sov there? |
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.05.08 09:11:00 - [ 675]
Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 08/05/2008 09:11:58Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 08/05/2008 09:11:19 Originally by: Aldyn
Edited by: Aldyn on 17/04/2008 20:12:37
Edited by: Aldyn on 17/04/2008 20:11:54
I'd like to throw my support behind Dorvil's posted ideas, they are found here:
Post 613
and here:
Post 614
I would like to second this, i like the idear of tieng alliance over all activeties into the sov system, to make the industrialist and the pvp'er more dependable on eachother On the subject of killing ships for SovPoints (SP) i think a attacking force killing the inhabitens of a system properly shouldnt get points from killing the ships (counting as sov points) but insted have it work the other way around, where the defenders loss points. Adding all the resources from the system and regions togher as sov points would go really well with the consept of this [Post:547] post... |
Gort
Minmatar
Federation of Freedom Fighters
En Garde |
Posted - 2008.05.08 20:46:00 - [ 676]
Edited by: Gort on 09/05/2008 19:39:09
Sovereignty should be based on "presence" in a given system. A POS is merely one element of presence. Another element might be, for example, the existence of piloted ships in the system over time (they live there), as well as the occurrence of certain activities (killing rats might have a certain level of impact, killing the ship killing the rats might have substantially more.) The bottom line is that sovereignty is based on continuing control, and control is based on meaningful presence in a given territory.
After controlling presence has been established in a system, it should have significant continuing effect in that system (unless countered by the active presence of another element), only waning over a considerable amount of time has passed. ("It's been so long we don't even remember what those guys looked like.")
What are the benefits of sov? Well, in some systems it might be full control of docking rights. In others, it might be simply better terms for station services, better missions from the agents, better bounties -- arrange it as you like. The first principle is that sov is worth something to have. The second principle is that it doesn't take the Bank of Gibralter to get it, just the willingness to go out somewhere and pitch your tent. Even if the system used to be BobSwarm's, if they left it, you can move in and at least be a squatter for starters. Frontier brushwars will thrive, in lieu of required POS camp-o-ramas.
Then the fun begins. Jukes forever.
Just saying....
G
Edit: principle vice principal |
Travis Shireen
Gallente
Purple Lotus Society
Silent Requiem |
Posted - 2008.05.09 04:46:00 - [ 677]
Check my signatue for a lengthy description of how to deal with Sovrignty changes for NPC's. It could be a basic blueprint for non faction, PVP lowsec soverignty changes as well with some hevy modifications.
Create a basic tally system of points (No need to trac from whom thy came from, just for which corp) based on in space PVP battles. Logistics points can be garnished from Player Controlled positions (For the base totals) and at the end of every period (Possibly 2 weeks or so) Soverignty could change hands that way. Or something similar. Just an idea. |
Esiel
Renegade Serenity |
Posted - 2008.05.10 23:14:00 - [ 678]
If the goal is to reduce blob warfare then only real solution is to have objectives that limit the amount of ships that can be committed to a battle ahead of time.
The best way to do this is to make your points of control have these limits in place. To do this would require a very different way of gaining sov and removing that control.
To start with you will need a new structure that provides transportation to an area that limits what can be there. I am going to call them Gate Stations. These are basically a new version of acceleration gates. And because I still very much like the idea of using planets I would only allow them to be built next to planets. This removes POS's from the picture altogether
Now how this will work.
An alliance wishes to gain a system, to do this they must build a Large Gate Station. This will take 12 hour to do. (I know this will mean that blob warfare can and will be still there, but only at the building of a GS.) The station will have 2 parts to it, an interior section and an exterior section. The exterior has no ability to mount defensive armaments and there is no way to block cyno from forming near it. The interior has a core that does allow a limited amount of defensive guns to be mounted around it.
After the station is built, it provides a jump to a deadspace pocket, however only a certain amount of attackers can enter it. Much like a tournament it isn't the number of ships but mass? Or whatever formula used to decided this limit. For a large GS I would make it 20 CSV* (explained at the end of my idea). Now the attackers must attack the Core of the pocket. Once the Core is breached it becomes unstable.
Now there are 2 scenarios than can take place at this point, first and probably most often the attackers breach the core and no defenders show up. At this point there is no need to stay unless they wish to. The core remains unstable for 36 hours and if left it will collapse and the GS falls in on itself. (And if you are still in the deadspace pocket at that time, your ship, pod and everything you brought with you is destroyed. Thou you will be given every opportunity to get out, warning blaring at you telling you about your death to come) Within this 36 hour period the defenders can come in and repair the core, this requires a package of special nano drones that can be launched from any ship able to launch a missile. The drones are smaller than a document so a frigate could take a large enough quantity to repair it, thou it would take forever to do.
The second scenario is where the fun begins, where 2 fleets meet and duke it out. Some time during an attack on a core, or a repair mission on a core the two fleets meet. 2 mins after the first of the second fleet to enter the GS the gate shuts down and no more ships may enter for 120 hrs. (Sorry guys no reinforcements so plan ahead) After the battle is over either the attackers have destabilized the core or the defenders have won and can repair the core.
|
Esiel
Renegade Serenity |
Posted - 2008.05.10 23:15:00 - [ 679]
Once a Large GS has been built your corp/alliance has sov over that system. Another advantage of having a large GS is that you can now build medium and small GS’s around the other planets. The advantage of this is that as long as there is any GS left in the system you will be able to maintain sov. Because of the instability created by having too many of them you can only build a max of 1 LGS 2 MGS’s and 3SGS’s (remember they also have to be built by planets so if you only have 4 planets in a system that limits it as well)
The major difference between the different gates is the CS* volume that can be inside at a time, as pointed out a LGS can hold 20 CSV while a MGS would only be able to support 10 CSV and a SGS would have 5 CSV volume max. This will provide much larger opportunities for smaller ships to become involved and much more strategy when it comes to destroying and maintaining sov. Does an attack decided to go for all the GS’s at the same time or some at a time. Basically this addresses all the problems that CCP has requested but I would love some feedback on what people think of this.
OH and here are some numbers for you
CSV – stands for Capital Ship Volume
A titan = 3 CSV
A Carrier or Dreadnaught = 1 CSV
3 BS’s = 1 CSV
4 Command Ships/BC = 1 CSV
2 Cruisers = 1 CS (or 8 for a CSV)
3 Frigates = 1 Cruiser (or 24 for a CSV)
|
Esiel
Renegade Serenity |
Posted - 2008.05.10 23:41:00 - [ 680]
Oh I forgot one of the more important features of the GS - you can't block warp, jumps or cyno fields. This means that if you do any fighting outside of one it is going to be superfical as there is nothing that keeps people from fleeing. (This does not apply inside the deadspace pocket, you can jam away to your hearts content) |
Dorvil Barranis |
Posted - 2008.05.11 05:49:00 - [ 681]
Esiel,
Seems too much like instanced fighting to me. It is hard to have the same suspension of reality with controlled, balanced engagements. Numbers are important, and there is advantages that should be available to larger forces, just not requiring all larger forces to be on the same grid in one fight. |
Esiel
Renegade Serenity |
Posted - 2008.05.11 06:14:00 - [ 682]
I totaly understand and agree, however I was not shooting for that effect. The idea is to remove blob warfare, the moment you do that you are removing reality. Look at any major war in the world where both sides are roughly equal in technology. You get blob battles of huge perportions (D-day anyone) The only reason that has disapeared in modern war is the fact that one side is so vastly superior to the other when it comes to technology. With this imbalance it has created a whole new strategy in how to fight a war. So if you want reality, you need to keep the blob effect or let one side have a large tech advantage.
So to try and limit the blob effect you have to create something that will feel a bit controled. There just isn't another way to do it. |
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 14:44:00 - [ 683]
Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 11/05/2008 15:24:49Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 11/05/2008 14:47:23 Originally by: Dorvil Barranis
...
Sovereignty Points: A point value would be tied to the various activities that influence sovereignty. This will also allow the system to be dynamic, and subject to periodic tweaks, without having to be completely revised to be adjusted. If you have more then 51% of the sovereignty points (SP) within a system, you hold sovereignty on the system, and get your alliances name on the system. Systems without a clear majority are considered contested. Holding sovereignty of all systems in a constellation give you constellation sovereignty, and all constellations within a region gives you regional sovereignty. The SP you have are reduced by a percentage each downtime, possibly cut in half, and the sovereignty percentages are adjusted. The purpose of reduction is to prevent an alliance that has held a system for a year of having an overwhelming number of SP that a new comer could never compete with. Any alliance with any percentage of sovereignty will be able to view the current percentages of control, and what has scored points for those percentages. This information is only available after each downtime, so that it cannot be used to immediately reveal threats to sovereignty.
...
 What if the only thing POS's did was to negate the effect of this percentage reduction?  See it would be perfect, POS's would be used to maintain sov cause they reduced the amount of SP you lost at every DT (should properly be based on system size vs. total coverage like 1 moon 1 point less reduction, small POS 1 point, medium POS 2 points and Large POS 3 points - if your points equals the solar systems point counts amount of moons the sov holders would achieve a maximum reduction in the sov degeneration of the system not 100% but lets say 50%). See this way it would make sence for a alliance to maintain Sov by deploying towers in a solar system. But it wouldn't help a attacking force to POS's spam a solar system. The only time it would make sence for a alliance to drop POS's in a hostile system was if they in some way wore aiming for a prolonged conflict.  POS's would still have a actual effect on sov, but we would see tactics like POS spamming to take sov become a obselete method of wafare. This would result in less POS engagements, which are one of the most lag infested parts of Sov wafare. Combine this with a system where a solar system can only ever have one alliance Sov points attached to it. To take a system you would have to reduce the hostiles points to 0 or somthing similar. The system of reducing sov points would be the same as earning sov points, but with the advantage that there would be a clear separation between when a system belonged to one alliance over another. This last thing however does not conform with RL where a army can take a peace of land. With in that territory can still reside people who feel aligned towards the old government and there fore still count sov points for the prior territorial powers.EDIT: SP system should have difrent kinds of SP, there are points in a way that some count more then other, kind of like the more you split up your fleet and the more sov activeties you engage in at the same time the more points you get cause you have a bigger presence in the solar system. However this system favors Blob wafare or the kind of brute force attack that we have become accustom to this past years. Thus some restrictions needs to be put in place, i would say that such restrictions would be based on the terrain. Small terrain favors small fleets and big favors fleets, thus small groups of people can chose to dig into systems with a small terrain - At least this way you might be able to choose your battles to make them fall out in your favor.  |
oingo
Gallente
Pedestrian Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 16:46:00 - [ 684]
KISS
Pos's maintaining sov is good (low lvl sov). The wealthier ur alliance is, the more it should be able to hold.
Get rid of reinforce mode. Let a surprise attack actually mean a surprise attack and not look who was here we can kill them in 24 hours.
Beef up pos defence. Have it so all pos's in a system work with one another. Let there be fighter drone bays and other pos's in a system can release them to defend one anothers pos's. This should help balance the no reinforce but still give the attackers the ability to kill a pos.
Give systems the ability to anchor a few weapons at gates and stations.
make having an outpost in a constelation a requirement for hi level sov. That will increase the warfare and fun factor too. Right now alliance's can pos spam a region and put up cyno jammers. Only allow cyno jammers in a constellation if there are 2 outpost present. Same with jump bridges (1 outpost?). No out post in a constellation, no jump bridge!
my .02 cents |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation |
Posted - 2008.05.11 17:19:00 - [ 685]
Are you Devs still reading this? (Any comment on my suggestions ?! Read them on page 19 or 20  ) |
Nathvas |
Posted - 2008.05.12 05:44:00 - [ 686]
only one problem I see with your SP plan. AFK cloakers. All you need to do is get 10-20 with ships with cloaks on them. Move to somebody elses sov, safe up and cloak. Thats it. If something like that is implamented, there will have to be a way to scan down AFK cloakers. |
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.05.12 11:08:00 - [ 687]
Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 12/05/2008 11:39:08Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 12/05/2008 11:08:54 Originally by: Nathvas
only one problem I see with your SP plan. AFK cloakers. All you need to do is get 10-20 with ships with cloaks on them. Move to somebody elses sov, safe up and cloak. Thats it. If something like that is implamented, there will have to be a way to scan down AFK cloakers.
Cloaked ships dont count SP - Problem solved. One thing though its not my idear i just indorse the original idear described here[Post:613] and here[Post:614] |
Dorvil Barranis |
Posted - 2008.05.12 12:36:00 - [ 688]
I'm not sure what the afk cloakers would do, since they are not influencing sov, beyond disrupting activity from other players. However I do think there should be a way to slowly probe down afk cloakers, in a slow method that anyone doing a scan every 5 minutes or so could avoid. Cloak ships shouldn't count towards capturing a gate.
I don't know if KISS has ever been a guiding principle of EvE, but spreading out the SOV objectives as much as possible should help reduce the blob.
I don't like the idea of eliminating reinforced mode. People can lose a LOT of assets because they were at work. That is not fun.
As to POSes reducing the reduction, well, I don't know if that would be significantly different. There is still incentive to spam POSes if you are trying to take sov yourself, as the gains you make will last longer. |
Cemial |
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:48:00 - [ 689]
Edited by: Cemial on 12/05/2008 18:00:08
POS warfare could be changed to force both sides to spread their ships around many different grids.
How? Changing the way POS shields work. What I propose is make POS shields dependant on six structures, call them Shield generators, that jointly produce shields that make the POS’s Control Tower INVULNERABLE.
Those POS shield generators will be outside the POS’s grid, spread in six different directions (top, bottom, front, back, left, right) at 1000 kms or as far as you need in order to have them in separate grids.
The shield of the POS can ONLY be taken down if you control SIMULTANEOUSLY four of the six shield generators, forcing attackers and defenders to spread among the different points.
The control thing must be something that takes time, so that attackers have to defend those shield generators that they have already controlled at the same time they attack, and also, defenders become attackers since they can try to recover them if attackers neglect them. It forces the fight to spread sort of evenly among the different shield generators.
Shield generators should be indestructible, in other words, be protected by the same kind of invulnerability shield that they project around the Control Tower, so that destroying them one by one to take the shield down is not an option. Otherwise the only reasonable approach to taking a POS down would be focusing your forces on destroying a single generator at a time, and that is what we want to avoid. We want to Spread the fight.
Shield generators have to be hacked in order to contaminate the shield and provoke it to fail. To do it you need four ships activating simultaneously a module on the generators for a certain amount of time. For how long? That is something that will have to be carefully tuned because that is the key to whether the defenders will concentrate all their forces in a single point to try to kill one of those four ships or will have to defend the remaining two shield generators at the same time they attack one of those under the control of the attacker. My suggestion is that 15 seconds of simultaneous contamination is enough so that if the defenders try to hit the attacker with all their ships, the attacker can sneak a small force and hack one of the two shield generators that remained under the control of the defenders. But at the same time it is long enough to give a chance to the defenders to counter it by killing the hacking ships with stealth attacks (Bombers cloaked 25 kms away, Force recons, Titan DD…).
Once the shield is taken down, the POS goes into reinforced mode and starts eating strontium, but it can still be used as a safe spot. The forced field projected by a POS after the shield fails is at the same time a shield jammer, so that a new shield can not be generated until the POS goes out of reinforced. This is important because whoever reactivates the shield generators (at least four of them again) after the POS gets out of reinforced will have control over the tower and everything that is attached to it. Plain and simple. Why? well if the Control Tower can or has to be destroyed to be replaced, then we haven’t solved anything. It will become a focal point of the fight and an excuse for fleets to mass around and provoke lag. If you want to save your assets, try to evacuate them while the POS is in reinforced.
POS guns would obviously have to be deployed around the shield generators as well as or instead of around Control towers.
[Continues on next post]
|
Cemial |
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:50:00 - [ 690]
Edited by: Cemial on 12/05/2008 17:55:22
At the moment, jumpgates are bottlenecks because they have a single entry point and a single exit point so they too tend to be places were fleet concentrate in single points.
Imagine that the faction that controls a side of the gate is at war with its neighbour and decides to shut down its side of the gate. The link is broken in both directions. The attacking faction wants to jump into the system and could try to force a jump without the support and coordination of the other side. This means that the jump is not going to be as predictable, that is, they are going to make an “Assault Jump”. The problem with those Assault Jumps is that they are not very accurate, and your ship will randomly land on one of the six Exit Points around the destination jumpgate. Each of those Exit Points will be next to the Jumpgate but far enough to be on different grids. They should be fixed points where you can deploy bubbles so that they can be camped/defended.
At this point the bottleneck has one entry point and six exit points. The logic choice for the defenders could perhaps try to camp the other side of the gate with all their forces, so we need to split that single entry point in six.
Since the jumpgate has been forced to shut down, but the natural conditions to open wormholes remain, the attacking side could deploy a maximum of six “Assault Jump Brigde Generators” coupled to the existing Jumpgate in six different grid points around the gate but on different grids, and from any of them make Assault Jumps.
The attacking force is going to be split into 6 random gangs, chances are that a fleet jumping simultaneously will be split in six similar sized fleets. If defenders decide to concentrate their forces on one of those six entry points, 5 sixths of the enemy fleet are going to get in the system unchecked. And that, for the attacker, is in any case much better than jumping into a lagfest.
If we want a simplification of the POS warfare and we don’t want to make it dependant on the number of moons in a system, we can make Sovereignty place holder POSes to be only deployable around planets, as many said before.
If we want to simplify it further then we could focus the fight on controlling the Cenit and Nadir points of the star in the middle of the system which are the only places where the sovereignty resides. Forget about Cynojammers, make the Cenit a war station where you can deploy system defences that can shoot capital ships anywhere in the system but need to be manned and the Nadir the actual Sovereignty holder that has to be taken as if a said POS.
The way to take the System defence weapons could be the same described earlier for POSs, something that can be achieved with sub-capital ships. Also it could be disabled by killing Sensor Array Systems that appear on deadspace signatures and can be scanned. There could be a maximum of say six of them at any given time in the system (to spread the fight) , and so they can be scanned and destroyed by small attacking forces if undefended or scanned and patrolled by the defenders. Every time one of those Sensor Arrays is destroyed a new one appears somewhere else to be scanned, up to a maximum of… 100? A function of how long the system has been held with sov 4? A function of the sovereignty level? When all have been destroyed the system defences stop working.
In my opinion, gates should be just instrumental for those who control the system but not Sovereignty holders on its own. What I mean is, if you want to increase the control a faction has on the jumpgates at its borders, then fine by me, but don’t make sovereignty lay on the gate, it should lay at the throne below the crown and next to the big guns.
|
|
All Channels
Features and Ideas Discussion
