open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Changes to remove the sprawl in 0.0
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.02.12 07:12:00 - [1]
 

I want to propose a series of changes to 0.0 mechanics that I think will reduce the sprawl that is currently happening where few massive alliances hold all of the power over huge swaths of space making 0.0 seem very crowded.

Please read the "whys" and if you still feel the need to flame me, go right ahead.

1. Remove Jump Bridges

  • They allow alliances to project their influence over huge areas of space by controlling three or four key systems.

  • People who say this problem only exists in the north are wrong; I've been in several large alliances and they've all had massive JB networks such that you are never more than 7-8 jumps from everywhere


2. Reduce the Range of the Titan Bridge to 3-5 AU and reduce the ozone cost

  • This allows Titans to keep the ability to force project a large fleet into the middle of the battlefield but prevents it from being used as the new JB


3. Add a "Lock On" Time for Capital Ships to Jump to a Cyno

  • Jump Freighters - 1-2 seconds per LY

  • Carriers 1-3 seconds per LY

  • Dreadnoughts 5-6 seconds per LY

  • Supercapitals 9-10 seconds per LY

  • Another nerf to force projection as a cyno pilot may not last long enough for the capital fleet to jump to it without a support fleet.

  • Force Recon ships would get a bonus 50% reduction in navicomputer reconfiguration required for a capital ship to jump to a cyno lit by this ship

  • This is also a general nerf in throw away cyno alts in a T1 ship



I think the above changes would significantly reduce the amount of space alliances would hold as well as putting a strain on large NAP trains covering large areas of space as it would be more difficult for alliances to traverse the galaxy to assist their allies.

Comments?

Suiginryou Hitaiga
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.12 07:15:00 - [2]
 

Yes, it might work (though I'd object against cyno nerf). But I think that's what ccp likes 0.0 to be - a seemingly lawless regions held by neck by few superpowers.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.02.12 07:43:00 - [3]
 

I'm not so sure; they stated that the changes made to sov warefare in dominion were to reduce the stranglehold the large power-blocks had on 0.0

It was a good start but didnt quite go far enough; one more thought I just had

4. Change the way the Cost of Sov is Calculated

  • Military Index = M

  • Industry Index = I

  • Strategic Index = S

  • Cost of a system is 42,000,000 / (1+M+(I*1.5)+(S/2))

  • Basically meaning Sov is now 7 times more expensive, but it's actually cheaper if youre using the system.

  • at Sov 5 the system would cost 12,000,000 per day

  • at Sov 2 and Military Index 3 the system would cost 8,400,000

  • at Sov 5 and Military Index 5 the system would cost just under 5,000,000

  • at Sov 5 and Industry Index 3 the system would cost 5,250,000

  • Again a nerf to sprawl as it costs a lot to expand, and expanding is prohibitively expensive if you cant defend the system in order to make use of it.


Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.12 10:07:00 - [4]
 

So your idea like every other dumb pubbie who has never set foot in 0.0 is to nerf all movement.

Since you've clearly never been to tenerifis or Period Basis I hope your ideas become true exactly as you envision them. I hope you enjoy jumping through 45 hostile gates to get logistics to your back end home systems.

oh and the ****** lock on to cyno system, joy no more hotdrops.Thats just what PVP needs, more security for the defender in the domination world.You've clearly never even owned or flown a capital ship then and had to deal with waiting for your cap to recharge or been on a combat hotdrop where you gotta make it in before the cyno ship pops.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.12 10:30:00 - [5]
 

Complete removal of bridges is not an option. There has to be some benefit to blobbing on the weekends.
Restricting the number of possible bridges, limiting to industrial traffic or my favourite.

Problem is that status quo in regards to bridges and sovereignty, leaves zero room for anything but the blob. That is what any change should aim to resolve.
Originally by: Zxmagus
So your idea like every other dumb pubbie who has never set foot in 0.0 is to nerf all movement....

I was under the impression that IQ/level-of-evolution dropped when one moved to null, there is certainly more than enough evidence to back it up .. everything from primal behaviour to degradation of language Very Happy

Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
Black Sun Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.12 10:32:00 - [6]
 

I'm sorry I don't like the idea of removing or reducing these things just because you don't like players building defenses.

I think black ops should be more focused on things like this and less focused on skirmishes. and I'm all for longer jump freighter jumps.

One mans sprawl is another mans wilderness.

Kepakh
Posted - 2011.02.12 11:37:00 - [7]
 

Proposal reminds me of Speed nerf a lot...both very dumb though.

Fast mobility is natural counter to blobs. Once speed was removed from game, blobing naturally increased. Now you remove the Jump bridges and nerf the jump distance... You really must hate the game.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.12 13:27:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Huh?

So in your world, blobs didn't exist in earnest until after Quantum Rise and the great speed rebalance?

If speed counters blobs, what happens when the blob acquires speed as is the case with bridges?

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2011.02.12 15:24:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 12/02/2011 15:25:40
Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 12/02/2011 15:25:23
It must go along with huge boost towards 0.0 industry.

Alliances should be self sufficient.

More slots to made stuff, super super super densne veldspar, all kinds of salvage.


Kepakh
Posted - 2011.02.12 17:27:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

If speed counters blobs, what happens when the blob acquires speed as is the case with bridges?


You don't really have any idea what you talk about, do you? :)

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2011.02.12 20:50:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Proposal reminds me of Speed nerf a lot...both very dumb though.

Fast mobility is natural counter to blobs. Once speed was removed from game, blobing naturally increased. Now you remove the Jump bridges and nerf the jump distance... You really must hate the game.
Proof? Explanation? Arguments?
Or is the word of a forum alt supposed to be convincing enough?

As a matter of fact 0.0 existed before jump bridges and easy logistics, and 0.0 was probably more interesting then.
Apart from that I doubt that speed is a counter to blobs. It helps evading them. But it doesn't help fighting them. And of course the blob can use speed as well..

SSN 609
Amarr
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.02.12 22:09:00 - [12]
 

Why not just reduce the EHP of JBs. That way you could seriously incap an entire supply train easier, without making normal logistics hell. If you could incap a JB point using a small fleet of say 20 BS + 5 Logys in a reasonable amount of time, you could seriously use some great tactics, and would force the defenders to protect vital transportation spots.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.02.12 22:13:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Zxmagus
So your idea like every other dumb pubbie who has never set foot in 0.0 is to nerf all movement.


If you had done any looking into my character, you would know there's no credence to your argument; additionally I didnt nerf jump freighters . . . in fact in lieu of these changes they may be up for a slight buff

Originally by: Zxmagus
Since you've clearly never been to tenerifis or Period Basis I hope your ideas become true exactly as you envision them. I hope you enjoy jumping through 45 hostile gates to get logistics to your back end home systems.


As far back in Eve as I can remember, people who have owned Period Basis have been blue with BoB/IT so those are hardly hostile gates. When you were there the Goons owned both Delve and Querious as well.

As for the last 2 years, Tenerifis has been owned by -A- who also owned catch; before that, it was owned by goons who, as you well know because you were there, were napped by the GSF all the way back to scalding pass.

Besides, I have two words for you, Jump Freighter if your alliance cant handle the logistics, perhaps you shouldnt own so much space (which btw is the point of the OP)

Originally by: Zxmagus
oh and the ****** lock on to cyno system, joy no more hotdrops.Thats just what PVP needs, more security for the defender in the domination world.


You can still hot drop, you just cant warp in, light cyno, jump to cyno, and DD the target all before I can get your T1 frigate locked.

First you say Im making owning space harder, now you say im making it easier . . . make up your mind.

Originally by: Zxmagus
You've clearly never even owned or flown a capital ship then and had to deal with waiting for your cap to recharge or been on a combat hotdrop where you gotta make it in before the cyno ship pops.


For the record, Ive done both of those things, but if youre needed on a hot drop and you're still waiting for your cap to recharge, perhaps you should have thought the hot drop through a bit more Rolling Eyes

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.02.12 22:17:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: SSN 609
Why not just reduce the EHP of JBs. That way you could seriously incap an entire supply train easier, without making normal logistics hell. If you could incap a JB point using a small fleet of say 20 BS + 5 Logys in a reasonable amount of time, you could seriously use some great tactics, and would force the defenders to protect vital transportation spots.


20 BS + 5 Logys can already incap a JB in 10 minutes or so; the problem is the defending POS will make them a group of 25 pods in around 5 minutes

Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.12 22:58:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Sigras

As far back in Eve as I can remember, people who have owned Period Basis have been blue with BoB/IT so those are hardly hostile gates. When you were there the Goons owned both Delve and Querious as well.

As for the last 2 years, Tenerifis has been owned by -A- who also owned catch; before that, it was owned by goons who, as you well know because you were there, were napped by the GSF all the way back to scalding pass.


So your idea to remove naps and sprawl is entirely dependent on naps and sprawl being there?


Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.02.12 23:37:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Zxmagus
Originally by: Sigras

As far back in Eve as I can remember, people who have owned Period Basis have been blue with BoB/IT so those are hardly hostile gates. When you were there the Goons owned both Delve and Querious as well.

As for the last 2 years, Tenerifis has been owned by -A- who also owned catch; before that, it was owned by goons who, as you well know because you were there, were napped by the GSF all the way back to scalding pass.


So your idea to remove naps and sprawl is entirely dependent on naps and sprawl being there?




I dont believe I ever said that I have a problem with NAPs, the problem is sprawl. I want 0.0 to be less about large alliances holding large swaths of space they dont use and more about people fighting over the space they actually use.

For instance, Red Alliance is 1986 people and they hold space in Etherium Reach, Insmother, Scalding Pass and Immensea. Now you're naive if you think they actually use all of that space, they just hold it because they can have a JB network to move rapidly from one end of their space to the other with little/no effort.

Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.13 00:00:00 - [17]
 

because they own insmother they have to own scalding pass and living in insmother with out JB would be pretty damn annoying and removing them would deincentivize owning an outer region. Maybe a young empire alliance would try and own it but the hellish logistics of it would probably end up making them abandon the area after loosing a lot of money.

Oh yeah red alliance also holds another 2000 members in their renter alliance filling up more of that space.

Kepakh
Posted - 2011.02.13 00:17:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Sigras

they just hold it because they can have a JB network to move rapidly from one end of their space to the other with little/no effort.


0.0 will always be about large power blocks because that isn't affected by game mechanics, it is just natural process.

It isn't a problem of Jump bridges that there are missing tools for management of your own space, it isn't a problem of Jump bridges that sov system is dull, it isn't a problem of Jump bridges that there are no objectives apart from large scale warfare.


Jump bridges are definitely positive asset for 0.0 space and jump bridge networks swings both ways, if I can project my force onto large distances so can do all of my enemies.

How about improving the other side of the coin jump bridges represent? Oh wait, I know...swinging the nerf bat is so much easier...

raney ilara
Posted - 2011.02.13 00:20:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: raney ilara on 13/02/2011 00:20:14

Quote:
As a matter of fact 0.0 existed before jump bridges and easy logistics, and 0.0 was probably more interesting then.


I disagree; back then 0.0 was no less sprawling... and not anymore interesting.

The answer to some peoples irritation with "sprawl" is turnover (war). The only places I have seen that could be called sprawl-free at any time in the past have been in newly introduced regions and low sec.



 

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