open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Dominion--Storming the Gates
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 : last (11)

Author Topic

Gideon Kross
Caldari
Kross Industries Ltd
Posted - 2009.11.12 19:17:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Edited by: Aralis on 12/11/2009 19:08:57
I was thinking about how these changes could possibly work in the Eve universe. Why are we paying taxes to Concord? How do we put up structures that increase rat numbers etc.

Here is a suggestion to explain this and help to balance some things out.

Concord still partially patrol 0.0 and keep down the various rat Empires. By putting down military structures we are taking over some of Concords jobs - and because Concord are not patrolling there is an appropriate increase in rat numbers. We should then be paid by Concord for this - allowing alliance/corp income (whoever is paying the sov bill). This should take the form of a reduction in the sov bill for the system. At military upgrade 5 all sov costs should be zero - because Concord no longer come here at all and we are back to being genuinely independent - a proper nation with no wretched outside interference.

This would give some RP logic to this horror. It would help to generate some real alliance income/savings and a reason for them to encourage people to rat in their space.

(I'd still prefer you put it all on hold and did this properly from a real RP in game perspective that doesn't assault the sandbox.)


CONCORD was Never out there... DED was.
DED setup the gates (and maintained them). This is why even in the depths of 0.0 you get DED rated Complex Anomalies... They did the Exploration, and still maintain the gates (proprietary hardware/software), this is why the Upkeep is being paid to Them (DED)... Not CONCORD.

... Just say'n.
Cool

Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.12 19:22:00 - [272]
 

Edited by: Aralis on 12/11/2009 19:23:10
DED = Direct Enforcement Division (I think) of Concord.

Neither Concord nor DED or any such set up the gates. They were done by the various alliances in the old days. Mostly the Gallente and the Amarr. Maybe DED/Concord maintain them - who knows?

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.12 19:30:00 - [273]
 

Originally by: Tairon Usaro
Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 12/11/2009 09:19:15
i do not like the new mechanism because it lacks strategical depth.
As long as you can pick each and any system on the map for an attack this system is still far too volatile and will not server the purpose. this is a dead foal .....



To fix this, a simple addition to the placing rules of SBU (STOPS) would help

A) the first SBU in a system can only be placed on a gate if the system linked to this gate is either claim by the offending alliance or completely unclaimed
B.) other SBUs can placed once the first one is anchored


=> Player empires can only be attacked from the borderlines




your logic is flawed. First off for point A. this would completely kill the expansion as is because then in order to attack someone you would need the space next to you enemy claimed or open. All an alliance has to do then is get friendly alliances to surround their space and then they would have no worry of losing their sovereignty to war.

to point B. no point to this. mainly because if your going to attack someone you want to lay as many SBU as you need to threaten their system as quickly as you can. This is an actual rule in warfare, element of surprise grants initiative which in turn makes it easier for you to fight. the timers are there to allow the defenders to respond to an attack which should be enough of a span to rally and counter attack. it breaks the station ping pong people hated and still allows for a similar combat system for attacking systems.

ALSO, if you make it that you have to attack their borders then you completely kill practically all strategy in system warfare. I understand there is logistics involved in trench warfare but look at WWI. they spent months fighting for meters of land. IF you make it limited to attacking borders and not per say flanking your enemy and going after one of their core systems you take an element of warfare out that really makes it emergent and alive.

Originally by: Raphael Scoria
Edited by: Raphael Scoria on 12/11/2009 11:18:48
You bottled it on the first point by shrinking away from high payments.



No they didn't. they made it more accessible to claim space now. To make sure in keeping with you first point all they have to do is scale the cost of holding more space appropriately and it will work. simple math equation can do that.

Leumas Kharzim
Amarr
Intaki Armaments
Posted - 2009.11.12 19:32:00 - [274]
 

Edited by: Leumas Kharzim on 12/11/2009 20:04:39
Edited by: Leumas Kharzim on 12/11/2009 19:34:37
Originally by: Lolion Reglo
Originally by: Tairon Usaro
Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 12/11/2009 09:19:15
i do not like the new mechanism because it lacks strategical depth.
As long as you can pick each and any system on the map for an attack this system is still far too volatile and will not server the purpose. this is a dead foal .....



To fix this, a simple addition to the placing rules of SBU (STOPS) would help

A) the first SBU in a system can only be placed on a gate if the system linked to this gate is either claim by the offending alliance or completely unclaimed
B.) other SBUs can placed once the first one is anchored


=> Player empires can only be attacked from the borderlines




your logic is flawed. First off for point A. this would completely kill the expansion as is because then in order to attack someone you would need the space next to you enemy claimed or open. All an alliance has to do then is get friendly alliances to surround their space and then they would have no worry of losing their sovereignty to war.




So, what if it was designed so you could only contest a system if any of the bordering systems are not owned by the sovreign alliance? Or, in other words, you are unable to contest a system if all bordering systems are owned by the same alliance. This would still preserve a semblance of borders. If any bordering system is unowned, you may contest and potentially claim the system.

Larger alliances could still claim systems and put renters in place in bordering systems, but having friendly alliances sharing borders wouldn't help any (with regards to this mechanic).

Kernok
Posted - 2009.11.12 19:36:00 - [275]
 

if your going to make changes to the game at least make changes to IMPROVE the game and its gameplay

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2009.11.12 19:53:00 - [276]
 

Two easily implemented suggestions that I think most people would agree would be useful/nice:

1. Please can you allow Sovreign system holders the ability to create/edit an auto-post 'Message of the day" type post that is seen by pilots jumping into that Local. This would be very useful and allow individual alliances the ability to inform others of their Sovreign politics/policies like "NRDS/NBSI","No ratting","Contact X for mining rights... etc".

2. Please make the new structures have associated blueprints (or purchasable BPCs) rather than seeding them directly on the market. Two reasons for this are: i) Hauling structures to Deep 0.0 regularly (like SBUs) is a chore and stops real immersion into 0.0
ii) It would give 0.0 based Manufacturers a decent market and another incentive to produce something in 0.0 rather than resellers always ruling the roost.

I'm still reading the blog, but I wanted to suggest these simple additions before I forgot them!

Cheers, Vyk. *****Ideas Wink

Manuka
Posted - 2009.11.12 20:23:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Megan Maynard
So let me get this straight......



Unfortunately you got it twisted ...

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2009.11.12 20:30:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Megan Maynard
So let me get this straight......

1. CCP has added MORE bunkered up structures to spend hours on shooting. (More now with a 48 hour timer.)

2. You cannot shoot anything now unless you drop the equivilent of a large pos, in most cases more then one of them, into a system and anchor it.


Yeah, point #2 especially stands out. Let's look at the chart of prices for PVP content:

1. Factional warfare = free.
2. High-sec corporate war = 2 million/week
3. High-sec lliance war = 50 million/week
4. ???
5. 0.0 warfare = BILLIONS per month per system in upkeep, multiple BILLIONS in SBUs every single time you want to attack/harass somebody.

Clearly there's something in the middle price range that you're missing. This expansion is supposedly intended to attract more people to 0.0, but all I see it doing is shutting out small corporations and alliances entirely. When you have to lay out billions of ISK in large-POS-equivalent SBUs just to attack, you're definitely not going to take a chance at fighting anybody you aren't already sure you'll beat.

I like that CCP are doing away with POS warfare, but POS warfare had one advantage. Namely if only a couple of you are online, you still have the option of reinforcing your neighbor's POS in order to harass and afflict them. In other words, guerrilla tactics, war of attrition. In Dominion, pursuing the same kind of harassing tactics cost a billion ISK in POS towers.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.12 20:30:00 - [279]
 

Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 12/11/2009 20:32:38
Originally by: Leumas Kharzim


So, what if it was designed so you could only contest a system if any of the bordering systems are not owned by the sovreign alliance? Or, in other words, you are unable to contest a system if all bordering systems are owned by the same alliance. This would still preserve a semblance of borders. If any bordering system is unowned, you may contest and potentially claim the system.

Larger alliances could still claim systems and put renters in place in bordering systems, but having friendly alliances sharing borders wouldn't help any (with regards to this mechanic).


You are missing the point. IF when declaring war on an alliance you can only attack their borders then you have effectively limited the attackers choice to a hand full of systems. Currently you can attack any system in the universe and now you want them to make it so you can only attack their borders? Wars of attrition not only get old fast but aren't so much fun. But who knows you may be onto something. Grinding away at an enemy is more fun than hitting them with a left hook or flanking them to add some spice into the fight. Rolling Eyes I didn't know we wanted more grind in this release anyway. Laughing

But yes in a way you are right. ANYTHING they do would still preserve boarders because that is what sovereignty is. claiming space and making boarders. what were talking about is attacking their space. In now way should this NOT be volatile. War is volatile... such is life live with it. Twisted Evil keeping things open and emergent is the goal here, and quite honestly restricting where people can attack is not doing that.

Edit:
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Megan Maynard
So let me get this straight......
5. 0.0 warfare = BILLIONS per month per system in upkeep, multiple BILLIONS in SBUs every single time you want to attack/harass somebody.



uhhh guys... they already lowered the price of the gear. since you all seemed to have missed it these are the current sisi prices unless they changed since yesterday.

TCU: 1m ISK / day
Hub: 5m ISK / day
Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day
Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day
Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day
CSAA: 1m ISK / day

Nareg Maxence
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.12 21:15:00 - [280]
 

As I read the article, defenders can't put down SBU's to defend their system. As it would disrupt their own sovereignty, it would be counterproductive to the cause of defending. SBU's are for the aggressors.

Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.12 21:45:00 - [281]
 

Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Beeing deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gatecamp making it harder for you to regroup).

What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part.

This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested.

If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00

If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00

Seneram
Caldari
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.11.12 22:24:00 - [282]
 

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1213450&page=1 Sign this petition befor they lock this one (We reached over 300 signs on the old one then a mod locked it to quiet down the playersbase!!!) Read the current changes to the Titans they made recently aswell as motherships, And now they are also making it a all new POS warfare system??? SIGN IT! At show CCP that you disslike the expansion!!!

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.13 00:10:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Typhado3
Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup).

What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part.

This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested.

If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00

If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00



Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked.

This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k?Laughing

Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.13 02:24:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Lolion Reglo
Originally by: Typhado3
Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup).

What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part.

This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested.

If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00

If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00



Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked.

This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k?Laughing


Please argue with the idea instead of trying to insult the person.

The system I proposed still allows you to take systems in the middle of enemy space and lets you take chokepoints or points along a common route. All it does is add a cost to this of needing to put up and defend 1 or 2 extra SBU's. If you try and fight an enemy in the middle of their space it should be harder or else everyone will just choose to go straight for the middle and ignore the outsides till the enemy is gone cause it's far easier.

Kaydin Versailles
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2009.11.13 02:45:00 - [285]
 

Originally by: Typhado3
Originally by: Lolion Reglo
Originally by: Typhado3
Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup).

What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part.

This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested.

If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00

If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00



Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked.

This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k?Laughing


Please argue with the idea instead of trying to insult the person.

The system I proposed still allows you to take systems in the middle of enemy space and lets you take chokepoints or points along a common route. All it does is add a cost to this of needing to put up and defend 1 or 2 extra SBU's. If you try and fight an enemy in the middle of their space it should be harder or else everyone will just choose to go straight for the middle and ignore the outsides till the enemy is gone cause it's far easier.


That doesn't make any sense. It will already be harder, naturally, because you're going for the center of someone's territory. You have to go through more gates, where more of the enemy's people spend a lot of their time, to get to your objective. Then there's other, less obviously, but still blatantly obvious reasons such as how it takes more time to go through more gates, allowing the defender more time to assemble a fleet and protect itself and it will be harder to leave because the enemy may be covering your exits since it's within their space anyway.

Why, when the goal of your proposal is already reached naturally, would you suggest some artificial system that makes less sense?

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.13 02:59:00 - [286]
 

Originally by: Kaydin Versailles
Originally by: Typhado3
Originally by: Lolion Reglo
Originally by: Typhado3
Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup).

What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part.

This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested.

If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00

If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00



Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked.

This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k?Laughing


Please argue with the idea instead of trying to insult the person.

The system I proposed still allows you to take systems in the middle of enemy space and lets you take chokepoints or points along a common route. All it does is add a cost to this of needing to put up and defend 1 or 2 extra SBU's. If you try and fight an enemy in the middle of their space it should be harder or else everyone will just choose to go straight for the middle and ignore the outsides till the enemy is gone cause it's far easier.


That doesn't make any sense. It will already be harder, naturally, because you're going for the center of someone's territory. You have to go through more gates, where more of the enemy's people spend a lot of their time, to get to your objective. Then there's other, less obviously, but still blatantly obvious reasons such as how it takes more time to go through more gates, allowing the defender more time to assemble a fleet and protect itself and it will be harder to leave because the enemy may be covering your exits since it's within their space anyway.

Why, when the goal of your proposal is already reached naturally, would you suggest some artificial system that makes less sense?


basically what he said without the sarcasm that mine was laden with.

Resender
Posted - 2009.11.13 08:07:00 - [287]
 

I have a better question, how are we gonna get the hubs to 0.0.
From what I heard from people on the testserver there 750.000 cubic meters (that makes regular freighters the only ships that can ship it).

Which means we won't be able to get them up in 0.0 for a long time (making sov pretty much useless).

The prices are reasonable (if you compare to the cost of taking a system and you needed more then 3 or 4 large control towers).

Where CCP has frelled up is that they didn't think this expansion through enough (altough still better then what it would have been if EVE was an EA Games product).

Mortisia Manson
Posted - 2009.11.13 08:17:00 - [288]
 

One question.Why should anyone take the risk ,amount of time and money needed to conquer a enemy solarsystem when its upgrades are destroyed in the process ?
I meen why should someone do that if he can upgrade a system next door without taking any risk and
spending less isk?

Combinig both military and civil use to the infrastucture hub will definately eliminate options
for the military strategy too. Because its reducing warfare to a simple destruction derby in terms of infrastructure. (another isk sink?)

In warfare you should have following choices:

1. Limit the capability of the enemy to wage war through destroying Civil and military infrastructure.
2. Take advantage of the enemys civil infrastructure by taking over a solarsystem without destroying
civil upgrades.
3. Limit enemy iskflow by only destroying civil upgrades.










Manuka
Posted - 2009.11.13 08:43:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: Mortisia Manson
One question.Why should anyone take the risk ,amount of time and money needed to conquer a enemy solarsystem when its upgrades are destroyed in the process ?




This is partially wrong: The military and industrial index are kept when you capture a system. Look at it in the following way: You capture a city, its industry is kept, but you need a new bureaucracy set in place. Thatīs what your iHub and its upgrades are for.

Hjakona
Posted - 2009.11.13 08:48:00 - [290]
 

If the Infrastructure hub didnt haveto be Destroyed in the process of taking over the system then it would make the deal sweeter for the attacker and it would allso encourage defender to retake it.


Give the Infrastructure Hub a big Structure HP buffer. This would keep the option open for 'Scorched Earth' while still leaving the option open to save it.
It will be hard work to Repair Structure/Armor/Shield HP but it would be worth it for a valuable I-Hub.

This gives more options:
1# Attacker can attack a System in an attempt to take it over and live there using the existing I-Hub.
2# Attacker can attack a system just to destroy the enemy's ability to earn Isk and to force him to move away with no intentions of claming the system himself.
3# Defender can try and destroy the I-Hub to prevent the enemy from using for his own benefits (Scorched Earth), now the Attacker has to try and defend the I-Hub if he wants to keep itTwisted Evil.
4# Defender will have more reason to try and retake the Sov if the I-Hub is still there.

This would add more scenarios and possibilitys in the Sov warfare.

Its Interesting, when decribing Dust 514 at fanfest 09 then the Dust 'Marines' were described as a tool for taking over the planet without having to resort to destroying the planets 'Infrastructure' with Nukes.

It sounds to me that the only way of taking over Sov in a System in EVE will be to 'Nuke' the infrastructure.

Manuka
Posted - 2009.11.13 08:49:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: Kaydin Versailles
Originally by: Typhado3
Originally by: Lolion Reglo
Originally by: Typhado3
Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup).

What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part.

This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested.

If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00

If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00



Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked.

This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k?Laughing


Please argue with the idea instead of trying to insult the person.

The system I proposed still allows you to take systems in the middle of enemy space and lets you take chokepoints or points along a common route. All it does is add a cost to this of needing to put up and defend 1 or 2 extra SBU's. If you try and fight an enemy in the middle of their space it should be harder or else everyone will just choose to go straight for the middle and ignore the outsides till the enemy is gone cause it's far easier.


That doesn't make any sense. It will already be harder, naturally, because you're going for the center of someone's territory. You have to go through more gates, where more of the enemy's people spend a lot of their time, to get to your objective. Then there's other, less obviously, but still blatantly obvious reasons such as how it takes more time to go through more gates, allowing the defender more time to assemble a fleet and protect itself and it will be harder to leave because the enemy may be covering your exits since it's within their space anyway.

Why, when the goal of your proposal is already reached naturally, would you suggest some artificial system that makes less sense?


Additionally you have the possibility to attack the core of a country right now also in rl. You just put some airborne soldiers in a hercules and drop them over a enemy capital. I know this is not a really detailed comparison, but I hope you get the concept.

A basic concept in EVE is, that everybody can use the gates. So you can freely move within New Eden as long you meet a hostile force. As Kaydin said, if you manage to move your force to the center of the enemies space, it is fine. Keeping the ability, to strike your opponent right to his heart, in the game, should be number one priority.

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.11.13 10:20:00 - [292]
 

What I dislike especially at this expansion is the complete discarding of the sandbox approach. Oh CCP, why did you do that?

Take for example the TCU's. They are huge fat targets, but you cannot shoot them. Why not? We SHOULD be able to shoot and hit them. A sandbox approach would allow us to shoot at everything we see with some effect. The theme-park approach allows you to do only those things which the designers thought you should be allowed to do - and everything else is impossible. Same with the grinding and levelling for upgrades in the system. A sandbox approach would have automatically updated the space without the need to instally anything and smoothly would count every little effort into improvement of the system. Theme park, again, artificial and allows you only to do what the designers want you to do, grinding and levelling. I could go on like this. But the conclusion is clear: THE SANDBOX IS DEAD!


Also the sov changes of this expansion completely ignore in-game logic and consistency. As example, take again the TCU's. They are somehow magically immune to get locked (not sure about smartbombs though). The explanation on Sisi goes that some sort of miracle defence protocols disables the ship's capabilities to specifically lock this target. I didn't know that a target needs to agree to get locked ... And also several points to that idiotic explanation: a) if such protocols would exist, why don't have anyone else them? Bribing/threatening the manufacturers of those protocols shouldn't be difficult. Reverse engineering neither. b) Why can pod pilots who are semi-gods! control every aspect of the ship but are unable to do something simple as locking a huge target? c) why can't we just part a fake-target 1m away from the TCU, shot at the fake target and damage the TCU this way? -> It all makes NO sense.

A solution for making the sov system consistant would be that each gate powers the TCU to a certain degree (the power drawn from the gates and the space distortions there would make it possible for the TCU to have 99.9% resitances on shields and armor). If the enemy places power disruptors (the SBU's) at enough gates, the TCU would lack power and become vulnerable - unless the TCU can get backup power from the IHub and/or a station. In that case the IHub and station needs to be shot down and captured first too. Now, how difficult would it be to come up with such a story? It takes only A LITTLE EFFORT and the will to do so. IT IS NOT TO LATE! The story behind the TCUs, SBU and such can still be changed (with a little bit of game mechanic changes, 99.9% resistance instead of total immunity etc). Consider that, make it at least a little bit less horribly aritifical.



The long term goal of CCP is to make the best available sci-fi 'simulator' ever. It won't go anywhere if they fail at doing such a simple task as making their expansions consistent within their own game universe.

It all is just another sad thing. It shows to me that CCP has really lost its true spirit and goal. They seems to become just another mmo company, nothing special dreams and visions any more. Sad

Mithfindel
Zenko Incorporated
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:20:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: Aralis
(RP justification of the upgrades.)


The "gate tax" is a bit difficult to "explain", since if the system is not claimed, the gates seem to run perfectly well without any support. So, the best way to put the cost of the TCU and the infrastructure hub would be pretty close to "alliance taking over CONCORD duties", actually - not patrolling the place, since all DED (CONCORD's military arm) ever did in 0.0 was occasional raids. However, the TCU (cost: 6 million) does capture some of the ship telemetry that CONCORD usually uses in Empire. The upkeep is the cost of the personnel and fluid router operating costs. Note: If I understood correctly, the infrastructure hub is in the latest scheme free (cost transferred to the TCU). So, the I-hub is there just so that you can add things that actually do stuff to - which cost extra as more scanners and computers are installed.

And where the hand-waving all comes together: After the TCU has processed enough data from the capsuleer ships mining ore, killing (NPC) pirates etc., it is possible to install scanners and feedback links back to the player ships so that the capsuleer ships in the system can find otherwise hidden pirate outposts (more anomalies, more likely complexes) or hidden resources (gravimetric sites, gas sites etc.) with the help of the TCU.

Obvious hole in that hand wave is, of course, the fact that the TCU and infrahub upgrades "help" friend and foe alike, but that's where it all comes together: CONCORD sells the equipment and contracts the people running it. (After all, the upgrades are bought from CONCORD), and ultimately, CONCORD doesn't care about the alliances (as long as they don't come fighting CONCORD). This explanation still doesn't explain it all - for example, I fail to see what motivation CONCORD would have to help alliances with an average sec status of -10.0, but perhaps they still hate the NPC pirates more. (Win-win for CONCORD: the alliances pay it, and at least on the case of military upgrades, kill CONCORD's enemies.)

Finally, strategic upgrades... well, they just take time to get a license to install. And remember to fill form DOP-547389M in triplicate when you file the application to install level three strategic upgrades, right?

Mithfindel
Zenko Incorporated
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:38:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
(Long post about in-character inconsistencies in the system.)


Well, the most importantly, it needs to be a balanced mechanic. It needs to have reinforcement times (preferably a few) to avoid time zone based sovereignty ping pong. Much of the stuff could be hand waved as the other infrastructure reinforcing shields/armour on other infrastructure, so it becomes invulnerable. This explains TCUs pretty nice. (If SiSi has "you can't touch this" messages, I'd personally prefer just 99.99% resists with a good shield regeneration rate on the TCU.)

There are some, though, that are hard to explain. Most importantly the SBUs making the station vulnerable. The only possible explanation would be again falling back for CONCORD - if you think about it, CONCORD are pretty much the Big Brother for capsuleers, seeing all and reacting pretty quick, too. To accomplish that, they pretty much have wiretapped every pod. You could assume that the station invulnerability is there to protect the innocent civilians on board, transmitting an IFF signal, repeated by the jumpgates. SBUs block the repeaters and scramble the signal. Now, why the hell CONCORD would sell such devices in the first place - and anyway, since the new mechanic involves shooting armour instead of the old one (shooting shield overrides defenses) it actually has a higher chance of (imaginary) civilian casualties, which again doesn't make sense. Partial fix would be having the NPC pirates sell the SBUs, but that would perhaps favour too much the alliances holding the NPC regions.

However, the mechanic is still fiction-wise better than the old "I have had more starbases in the system for seven days, therefore my station is invulnerable" - something I wouldn't even try to explain in "realistic" terms. (Except by CONCORD governing civilian life and letting the station be captured by the sovereign alliance only.)

And oh, we're playing a space game with submarine physics.

Aion Amarra
Minmatar
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
Black Core Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.13 12:11:00 - [295]
 

Nyphur: I'm not sure about the CURRENT Sisi version, but I took down two outposts with Bato on Sisi two or three patches ago.

Back when we did that, the reinforcement timers always were 48H + whatever is needed to get to target time.

e.g.
1. outpost set to 13:00, it gets reinforced at 14:00 -> 2d 23h reinforcement timer.
2. outpost set to 15:00, it gets reinforced at 14:00 -> 2d 1h reinforcement timer.

Plus/minus the random variance, which at the moment(?) is +/- 1 hour, but was considerably larger back when we did it (more like +/- 4 hours).

Can anyone confirm/deny this is how it -still- works on Sisi? Shooting an outpost down with a single dread is more than arduous.

Manuka
Posted - 2009.11.13 12:21:00 - [296]
 

I think most 0.0 alliances give a crap about the role playing background of sovereignty. They are playing a game of power and influence. Where one block dominates the other one.

The question is now: How are you making this game fun? By shooting 30 POS in a system only to see that they are setup again the next day, and you have to shoot it again?

The suggested system seems to put more action into the game (meaning battles will be players vs players, not players vs pos) but also address the issues of timezones and EVE not being rl.

Kalexander
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:04:00 - [297]
 

Could an attacker place MORE than the 51% SBU's with the intention of mitigating the aspect of the defenders getting lucky and popping 1 of them (thus lowering them below the necessary amount of SBU's to contest.)?

Creating a buffer for their offensive more or less?

Gramtar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:45:00 - [298]
 

Originally by: Kalexander
Could an attacker place MORE than the 51% SBU's with the intention of mitigating the aspect of the defenders getting lucky and popping 1 of them (thus lowering them below the necessary amount of SBU's to contest.)?

Creating a buffer for their offensive more or less?


This is a great question. To add in the same vein:

1) Can you anchor more than one SBU at a gate? Is it a per gate limit or per alliance limit?
2) Can more than one SBU be online at a gate?
3) Do SBUs have the same hp/resist when anchored as online?
4) Is the ability to anchor/online tied to corporate roles, like Starbase Configuration Manager?
5) Is there a per-day limit on the number of SBUs an alliance may anchor?
6) Will the 5 per day limit per system on anchoring POS be removed when this goes live?

As the poster above notes, if there is no limit on SBUs per gate, it would probably be to an attacker's advantage to drop 3, 4, maybe even 5 SBUs on each gate. Certainly if you're attacked by more than one alliance, you would likely see multiple SBUs on each gate if they're serious about taking a system.

Hunter GlobaGateways
Caldari
The Edge Foundation
Zenith Affinity
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:02:00 - [299]
 

CCP just removed or deleted out about 120 pages of this thread

CSM wake the **** up.

Most people i talk to think its 100% wrong to have fundamental changes to their life put to them with no possibility to change any of it. This is called a democracy. Do the opposite of what the people want and you will lose your public support and their vote, or in this case, the money from 0.0 people. Or let's call it all of the endgame content related people in eve.

CSM did not get this stuff prior to it being proposed.

CCP, you are deleting your paying peoples feedback, while most of the end game gets treated right now, like a 3 year old kid that changes his mind 5 times a day.

Is this the way of a company I used to believe in?

I run a alliance that existed with its founding people intact since 2003. I can tell you this CCP, right now we are raging mad. the reason is, you have always listened to the people before, its why we always believed in you, you listened and acted on it, and for that, we continued to have faith in you. Right now, there is nothing to prove that you listen at all. Its not just this thread, its most of all you are doing with this patch.

The CSM did not get this stuff prior to anything, there was no vote, there where feedback from them and you failed to take note. Not only that, but the exact thread of opinions and user feedback that you need to run your company gets deleted.

Hint, you are doing it all fundamentally wrong right now. stop listening to the users and you will see bad press like you never seen before.

WAKE UP you owners and share holders of CCP Evil or Very Mad

Tierius Fro
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:09:00 - [300]
 

I have been following this thread for days, and do not believe any posts have been deleted.

They ARE listening to players, just not the ones who sit on mostly empty 0.0 systems, with a sovereignty mechanism that makes it easy to do so.


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 : 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