open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Soldarius
Caldari
Peek-A-Boo Bombers
Posted - 2011.03.27 09:50:00 - [781]
 

Edited by: Soldarius on 27/03/2011 09:50:16
So let me see if I get this right. CCP will concentrate sanctums and havens in lower true-sec systems.

The problem with this is that people who wish to finance their PvP through destroying little red crosses now must relocate in order to maintain their income level. No doubt many will simply quit nul and go back to losec for small-gang PvP, or back to missioning.

With less PvP, there will be less need for ships. Manufacturers will leave nulsec because there won't be any opportunities to make isk by building cool things and selling to players. With less things being built, there will be less need for raw materials. Miners will quit nul and go back to high sec.

A lot of nul is about to empty out. This change runs completely counter to CCP's stated goal of getting more people out to nul. Small alliances will not have the means to take space from alliances with better space.

"He who controls the spice, controls the universe."

Tech holding alliances will still have cash flow. This will have no direct influence on them. However, with their smaller partners unable to finance themselves in their current space, they will have to start spreading the wealth to members instead of buying more supers or dropping more station eggs. Otherwise, they will have to relocate or quit nul entirely.

System with good moons and/or lots of belts will become more valuable. Best true-sec systems will of course become more valuable. Because of the sudden decrease in total sanctums/havens and the wrecks they produce, salvage will become harder to acquire in nul. Rigs will get harder to find and thus more expensive. You know how much Large Trimarks or Shield Extenders cost these days? You can buy an entire battle ship for the cost of a set of Large Trimarks.

Without the personal income from sanctums and havens, players will need to rely on subsidies from the alliance in the form of more reimbursements. Big alliances without good true-sec may have to open up the alliance wallet and spread some moon-goo jew juice to their members instead of buying more supers or dropping more stations.

Or, they can return to mission running alts in hisec, meaning they won't be around to fight for and protect their nul-sec space. In which case, what's the point?

This won't do diddly to botters. They tend to belt rat.

Personally, it won't make much of a difference to me. I make most of my isk from hisec trading.

Edit: Oh snap! Top of page! Very Happy

Thermoss Devlin
Minmatar
StarFleet Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:08:00 - [782]
 

Well, if CCP can't listen to this then they cannot adhear to anything.


Moebbius
Caldari
COLD-Wing
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:13:00 - [783]
 

Not looking this idea at all.

You want more conflicts but how do you finance the ships when you dont have an income from sanctums/havens.
No income means no pvp ships means no conflicts

SirJoJo
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:22:00 - [784]
 

Edited by: SirJoJo on 27/03/2011 10:22:47
Originally by: Thermoss Devlin
Well, if CCP can't listen to this then they cannot adhear to anything.




NC dont represent all of EVE like it or not, your just the most loudly here because now all your pets space is not a goldmine anymore and you afraid they will look for other options

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:23:00 - [785]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 10:47:44
Originally by: UniqueOne

I have been very much against these changes for many of the reasons already stated (even though I rarely run anoms).

The changes could work, but would require other changes alongside them.

The real problem here is blobs and coalitions. All we need to do is look at recent history (IT saying screw it and dispanding basicaly because there was no point fighting against 2-3x your numbers - even when not fighting against the whole coalition). If IT was unable to defend against the blobs then what hope does anyone else have? This is what needs to be fixed in eve.

Remove the ability for such rediculous numbers and then changes like the ones proposed could actually work well. A 0.0 full of smaller alliances would make PVP a lot more fun, and give new alliances a chance to take on the established powers (to a point).

If it were my choice, I would remove NAPs and limit alliance sizes (or at lease make them both cost a lot to sustain after a point based on the number of players in the alliance/NAPs - The costs should be not ISK, but require large amounts of logistics to sustain - and should grow exponentially). I think something around 1000 or 1250 players should be the limit before alliances/NAPs are charged for the extra players. When you consider how many of those would be able to turn up to a particular fight it should keep the fights at a sustainable size. -- Also note that special cases may need to be added for alt characters on the same accounts, they probably should not be included in the totals as they can not be used at the same time anyway.

Fix things like this and then maybe people would be able to fight for systems. Right now there is no point.

Nobody enjoys lag blob "fights" (or more to the point lack of fights).

I live for the day when eve 0.0 becomes fun again. When newer alliances can compete on some level, and when lag is a thing of the past. It really doesnt require hardware changes, it doesnt require massive software changes, it just requires common sense and some reasonable limitations.



Just in addition - Why not limit the damage blobs can do to a single target. Make weapon damage affect the other incoming damage (some sort of spacial instability around the object), so the more people shooting at an object (value adjusted by the target's sig radius), the less each shot does. Force fleets to spread out and actually make use of squads. Primary targets should have been removed a long time ago to make for fun fights.

Seriously we may as well be robots or macros in PvP as things are right now.

In addition, make fleet/wing bonuses also work over region/constelation so the squads can spread out to various systems.

These changes would in most cases remove all lag from systems leaving lots of currently wasted server time for new shiny things... But best of all, large scale PvP would be more like small scale PvP and actually fun.

I would not shed a tear for the current powerblocks with this sort of balance. They have already had things too easy for too long by abusing server performance issues and current game mechanics.

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:50:00 - [786]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne
Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 09:50:41
I have been very much against these changes for many of the reasons already stated (even though I rarely run anoms).

The changes could work, but would require other changes alongside them.

The real problem here is blobs and coalitions. All we need to do is look at recent history (IT saying screw it and dispanding basicaly because there was no point fighting against 2-3x your numbers - even when not fighting against the whole coalition). If IT was unable to defend against the blobs then what hope does anyone else have? This is what needs to be fixed in eve.

Remove the ability for such rediculous numbers and then changes like the ones proposed could actually work well. A 0.0 full of smaller alliances would make PVP a lot more fun, and give new alliances a chance to take on the established powers (to a point).

If it were my choice, I would remove NAPs and limit alliance sizes (or at lease make them both cost a lot to sustain after a point based on the number of players in the alliance/NAPs - The costs should be not ISK, but require large amounts of logistics to sustain - and should grow exponentially). I think something around 1000 or 1250 players should be the limit before alliances/NAPs are charged for the extra players. When you consider how many of those would be able to turn up to a particular fight it should keep the fights at a sustainable size. -- Also note that special cases may need to be added for alt characters on the same accounts, they probably should not be included in the totals as they can not be used at the same time anyway.

Fix things like this and then maybe people would be able to fight for systems. Right now there is no point.

Nobody enjoys lag blob "fights" (or more to the point lack of fights).

I live for the day when eve 0.0 becomes fun again. When newer alliances can compete on some level, and when lag is a thing of the past. It really doesnt require hardware changes, it doesnt require massive software changes, it just requires common sense and some reasonable limitations.



IT could have mounted a defense, but they failed internally and made some really poor strategic choices--like putting most of their forces in a single station. They started losing when they got in a petty dispute with Evoke and did not look past a moon or two to support them as a buffer and ally. IT's CAP fleet with Evoke's HACS would have been a fearsome foe. Evoke aside, they had plenty of pilots, caps and supers, just not the will to fight. War is won with morale--in RL and in Eve--the best leaders, like The Mittani, understand this and wage war accordingly. Anyway I digress, but IT did not give up out of blob fear, they just did not care enough to undock.

The sandbox means that every style of play is valid. So if a set of players want to be part of a galactic empire like citizens of Rome, who are you to say they should not play that way? Further, limiting alliance size will not change a thing unless you mean to limit standings which would really screw the game up. You can't make rules against people being friends and working together through Jabber. Blobs can suck because of lag, but numbers are and should always be a valid strategy. I know its widely perceived to those who do not fight large fleet engagements that blobs are masses of zerg like chaos and raw skilless displays of power, but that is not true. Large fleets are formed according to long debated and studied doctrines and we even sometimes shoot our own blues if they show up in the wrong ship in addition to trolling them relentlessly. There is more; you have to then apply each doctrine according to its strengths and weakness, coordinated with Caps, and according the objectives on the field. Its art and science. Its organization, collaboration, and leadership at its highest level in the game. Its a big pile of sand in the box.

Seb

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:53:00 - [787]
 

Ignore the haters CCP these changes are good, allow me to explain.

1. Santum macro / bots will have a harder time to make ISK

2. For those of you who keep saying "dont nerf individual income, nerf moon goo", well moon goo SHOULD be used to help members, this will make alliances actually use that money

3. Renters will go from "yay risk free space" to "yay **** ISK space", causing them to get disgruntled questioning whether its worth protecting their masters or not

4. Systems where good expensive ships are will be obvious

5. People dont fight over santums and truesec, its over grudges and I guess moon goo, this however will make pets / renters question their space, meaning you WILL see more combat since there will be less numbers to protect.

6. Losing a supercap will mean something, since not everyone will be able to get the good santums

7. Alliances will have to actually reimburse members with the ISK they make on moon goo or else they risk having inactivity


This change is GOOD, dont listen to the NC / NC alts, they are aware this will encourage combat and thats the ONLY reason they are hating.

This way alliances can deal with grudges themselves (moon goo etc) however players will question whether its worth being 'friends' and logging on for CTAs Wink

Epic change!!

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:54:00 - [788]
 

Edited by: Mioelnir on 27/03/2011 11:06:54
Originally by: UniqueOne
Just in addition - Why not limit the damage blobs can do to a single target. Make weapon damage affect the other incoming damage (some sort of spacial instability around the object), so the more people shooting at an object (and adjust by the sig radius), the less each shot does. Force fleets to spread out and actually make use of squads. Primary targets should have been removed a long time ago to make for fun fights.

Currently, damage calculation is somewhat easy (idealised), since no gun needs to know about any other gun:

1.1) determine raw amount of damage the weapon does
2.1) modify damage by target's resistances
3.1) set target hp = old-hp - modified damage
4.1) blow ship up if hp <= 0

This changes with 'primary stacking'. One now needs additionally:
2.2) determine number of people currently shooting the target
2.3) modify damage accordingly

This is computationally insane for something that occurs as often in EVE as shooting something.
So, we apply a time/memory tradeoff optimization since a gun shoots more often than it is activated, and instead of recalculating 2.2) every time a gun shoots, we put in an attribute of the target that we can evaluate. So we have:

0.0) add additional counter attribute for every object in space
0.1) increment/decrement counter on module activation IF it is the first module of that player active on that ship
1.1) determine raw amount of damage the weapon does
2.1) modify damage by target's resistances
2.2) modify damage by number of people shooting the target
3.1) set target hp = old-hp - modified damage
4.1) blow ship up if hp <= 0
0.2) decrement counter on module deactivation, if the module was the last of that player active on the target

And now, still, we have an additional computation for every shot that is fired, more memory consumption for every object in space, plus more expensive set-up routines on module activation/deactivation that contain conditional jumps that we can't easily optimize out. And conditional jumps can kill the branch prediction/memory prefetch of the cpu, so instead of the 3 cycles the computation actually takes, this costs around 50 cycles until the CPU has set up all the caches again and start chewing away at full speed.

And as you have noticed, this is more efficient the more cycles a targeted module stays active, since the setup costs now is constant and we only save ourself the calculation if the gun actually shoots. But in a fleet fight with high alphas and properly applied focus fire, the amount of weapon activations per module activations aren't actually that high, even with the stacking in place.

It does not sound a lot, but with the scales of fleet fights in EVE in mind, this could easily drop the maximum number of players decently fighting on a reinforced node by a couple of hundred. And this in turn, does not benefit small entities.


Small forces rely on strategy, cohesion and teamplay more than anything else to overcome bigger forces. And for that, the one crucial metric is the responsiveness of the game. All your skillpoints, fittings and strategy amount to nil if your ship doesn't react. It is nice that you would take less damage if the node was working, but since it isn't, guess what, you die.

[Edit]
A good comparison of the pain this inflicts is actually the GCC mechanic in lowsec, where for every shot fired, a whole bunch of global attributes need to be checked and manipulated. This should create roughly the same order of magnitude in calculations.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 10:59:00 - [789]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 10:59:45
^^^ Reply to Seb post above...

I understand fully (and have been a part of) what you are saying, but it does not make it right. It also does not make it fun. The current blob methods of fighting create server lag and may as well be macros.

Can you honestly say that you like to be in a 1000+ man fleet shooting the same target as 995 of them waiting 2 minutes between module activations? How is this fun for anyone? It works, but it is not fun in the slightest.

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:00:00 - [790]
 

Oh and this feature is only a year old, whining about it makes no sense, all we saw in a year were more NAPs more blobs, more bots, besides friends stick together no matter what, so NC shouldnt be whining, even if their players have no ISK they will still be there LaughingLaughing

Moon Goo WILL NOW be used to fund the alliance, no longer will it be used for RMT and other ****

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:04:00 - [791]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 11:16:46
Originally by: Mioelnir
Edited by: Mioelnir on 27/03/2011 11:01:18
Currently, damage calculation is somewhat easy (idealised), since no gun needs to know about any other gun:

1.1) determine raw amount of damage the weapon does
2.1) modify damage by target's resistances
3.1) set target hp = old-hp - modified damage
4.1) blow ship up if hp <= 0

This changes with 'primary stacking'. One now needs additionally:
2.2) determine number of people currently shooting the target
2.3) modify damage accordingly

This is computationally insane for something that occurs as often in EVE as shooting something.
So, we apply a time/memory tradeoff optimization since a gun shoots more often than it is activated, and instead of recalculating 2.2) every time a gun shoots, we put in an attribute of the target that we can evaluate. So we have:

0.0) add additional counter attribute for every object in space
0.1) increment/decrement counter on module activation IF it is the first module of that player active on that ship
1.1) determine raw amount of damage the weapon does
2.1) modify damage by target's resistances
2.2) modify damage by number of people shooting the target
3.1) set target hp = old-hp - modified damage
4.1) blow ship up if hp <= 0
0.2) decrement counter on module deactivation, if the module was the last of that player active on the target

And now, still, we have an additional computation for every shot that is fired, more memory consumption for every object in space, plus more expensive set-up routines on module activation/deactivation that contain conditional jumps that we can't easily optimize out. And conditional jumps can kill the branch prediction/memory prefetch of the cpu, so instead of the 3 cycles the computation actually takes, this costs around 50 cycles until the CPU has set up all the caches again and start chewing away at full speed.

It does not sound a lot, but with the scales of fleet fights in EVE in mind, this could easily drop the maximum number of players decently fighting on a reinforced node by a couple of hundred. And this in turn, does not benefit small entities.

And as you have noticed, this is more efficient the more cycles a targeted module stays active, since the setup costs now is constant and we only save ourself the calculation if the gun actually shoots. But in a fleet fight with high alphas and properly applied focus fire, the amount of weapon activations per module activations aren't actually that high, even with the stacking in place.


Small forces rely on strategy, cohesion and teamplay more than anything else to overcome bigger forces. And for that, the one crucial metric is the responsiveness of the game. All your skillpoints, fittings and strategy amount to nil if your ship doesn't react. It is nice that you would take less damage if the node was working, but since it isn't, guess what, you die.


The idea was meant to be in combination with the text quoted above it. Please read that. Any extra cpu usage will easy be offset by the smaller numbers due to the other changes. You are correct in your analysis, but the idea is based on reduced starting numbers anyway.

Simple explanation:
1. Reduce numbers to non-critical cluster load levels. (I would expect a max of about 800-1000 players from 2 1250 player alliances/coalitions to be able to turn up at best)
2. Break up those numbers into smaller groups concentrating on multiple targets.
3. Enjoyment of the experience rather then mindless primary shooting.

Please, I would like to hear other better ways to achieve this.

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:15:00 - [792]
 

Yes, it works if only small numbers of players are involved.

But at the same time, it ensures that the node dies a horrible death if someone manages to rally a big number of players on grid, killing the node, denying the objective.

Now, which option will our fellow eve players use.....

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:18:00 - [793]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 11:28:59
Originally by: Mioelnir
Yes, it works if only small numbers of players are involved.

But at the same time, it ensures that the node dies a horrible death if someone manages to rally a big number of players on grid, killing the node, denying the objective.

Now, which option will our fellow eve players use.....


Currenty we all know the answer to that. It is what the original post was about - forcing reduction in those numbers to a non-critical level.

It is all about these 3 simple rules. How it is achieved needs to be debated.

Originally by: UniqueOne

Simple explanation:
1. Reduce numbers to non-critical cluster load levels. (I would expect a max of about 800-1000 players from 2 1250 player alliances/coalitions to be able to turn up at best)
2. Break up those numbers into smaller groups concentrating on multiple targets.
3. Enjoyment of the experience rather then mindless primary shooting.



Could attacking a system be done in a scripted way maybe? eg: FC needs to assign wings to targets and noone else can enter those grids.

I believe the goals could be achieved in a way everyone is happy with, but I think the method needs to be debated. We all want to make PvP fun.

NAILGRUNT
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:20:00 - [794]
 

who ever hired ccp greyscale needs to fire his ass and get someone who actually KNOWS what Eve 0.0 is about.

instead of pulling ideas out of thin air start fixing the damn game ccp

omgdutch2005
Gallente
Advanced Planetary Exports
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:26:00 - [795]
 

http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html

Sign the petition and stop this nonsense!

Boost the better true-sec systems not NERF the lesser systems, boosting will still make systems more wantable and you can have more persons in 1 system!, so you can pack more smaller allainces in a system/few systems!!!

http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html


sign now and make ccp change its mind!!!

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:30:00 - [796]
 

Edited by: Sebastian Hoch on 27/03/2011 11:44:28
Originally by: Kalle Demos
Ignore the haters CCP these changes are good, allow me to explain.

1. Santum macro / bots will have a harder time to make ISK
2. For those of you who keep saying "dont nerf individual income, nerf moon goo", well moon goo SHOULD be used to help members, this will make alliances actually use that money
3. Renters will go from "yay risk free space" to "yay **** ISK space", causing them to get disgruntled questioning whether its worth protecting their masters or not
4. Systems where good expensive ships are will be obvious
5. People dont fight over santums and truesec, its over grudges and I guess moon goo, this however will make pets / renters question their space, meaning you WILL see more combat since there will be less numbers to protect.
6. Losing a supercap will mean something, since not everyone will be able to get the good santums
7. Alliances will have to actually reimburse members with the ISK they make on moon goo or else they risk having inactivity

This change is GOOD, dont listen to the NC / NC alts, they are aware this will encourage combat and thats the ONLY reason they are hating.
This way alliances can deal with grudges themselves (moon goo etc) however players will question whether its worth being 'friends' and logging on for CTAs Wink



Wow where do I begin.

1. There are not enough sanctums now in our space for Bots. Our guys are on top of these things constantly and we notice that. I don't doubt that there are bots hitting anomalies somewhere, but not where pilots are living.

2. In the NC, it already is. Moon goo goes to ship reimbursements, sov and system upgrades. My last alliance actually taxed corporations for these fees. The books are out in the open to review, no isk gets skimmed for the leadership.

3. Well maybe, but this will come to a shock to you, but the NC does not rent--or rents very little. The 'guest' alliances receive just as much support or more than we give. The NC model is successful because it welcomes smaller alliances as junior partners with a path to full partnership if they can prove your worth. It is a much less exploitive than what you see in most power blocks and why people really mean it when the type "BFF".

4. Yes, and as others have pointed out, you can shut off an alliances ISK faucet with just a few cloaky pilots. In our space we have about four systems the produce sanctums and at any given time half of them are usually camped by a hot dropper. We can agree this will make life very convenient for griefers--or is the the "fun" part of Eve you where talking about?

5. This makes no sense at all. Less of what to protect? How does less of anything mean more PVP? This might make large alliances drive out some pets from better space, but it won't give pets the juice to successfully challenge a powerful established alliance.

6. Wow, just wow. If you can average 50 mil per hour in a sanctum, a nyx hull will take 300 hours of your time to earn. I don't know about but 300 hours of my time is worth a hell of a lot. That is equivalent of 7.5 40 hour work weeks, or $3000 at 10$ per hour. If you play 12 hours a week. Six hours rating, and six hours PVP, it will take every isk of one years worth of sanctum grinding today to get a Nyx. Oh, and then you have to fit that beast while you pay for your weekly PVP grind. {edit} Pax is right, people don't really rat themselves a super and this illustrates why.

7. My alliance already does, so do the blues around me. Sounds like some people are allowing themselves to be used--thats not the NC's fault. In fact thats really just a refined scam and we all know that the right of people to exercise their stupidity will never be interfered with by CCP.

sigh, it will always be worth being friends because the security that being part of a large coalition brings is worth more than anything that can be taken away. I am not a rude guy, but you don't know what your talking about.

Pax Ratlin
Gallente
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:31:00 - [797]
 

Originally by: Kalle Demos
1. Santum macro / bots will have a harder time to make ISK


Your using a minor inconsequential by-product of a change to a game mechanic to justify it.

Originally by: Kalle Demos
2. For those of you who keep saying "dont nerf individual income, nerf moon goo", well moon goo SHOULD be used to help members, this will make alliances actually use that money


Yes the leadership of all alliances are evil money grabbing powermongers and the moon IS made of cheese

Originally by: Kalle Demos
3. Renters will go from "yay risk free space" to "yay **** ISK Just because your too lazy to jump in a cloaky ship and go look for yourself and would rather just click a few buttons on Dotlan it dosn't mean we should destroy space", causing them to get disgruntled questioning whether its worth protecting their masters or not


People don't hold space to protect their masters, they rent space because they have no alternatives therefore this will simply cause smaller and medium sized allainces to be LESS likely to move out to 0.0.

Originally by: Kalle Demos
4. Systems where good expensive ships are will be obvious


Just because your too lazy to jump in a cloaky ship and go look for yourself like everyone else you want to destroy small and medium sized alliances ability to move out to 0.0?

Originally by: Kalle Demos
5. People dont fight over santums and truesec, its over grudges and I guess moon goo, this however will make pets / renters question their space, meaning you WILL see more combat since there will be less numbers to protect.


You'll see less combat because the richer alliances will get richer and the poorer alliances will get poorer and thus less likely to attack the power blocs

Originally by: Kalle Demos
6. Losing a supercap will mean something, since not everyone will be able to get the good santums


The fact you believe that Supercapitals are financed by Sanctum running pretty much says it all.

Originally by: Kalle Demos
7. Alliances will have to actually reimburse members with the ISK they make on moon goo or else they risk having inactivity


And all russians are belt ratting macro's and all chinese are RMT ice miners etc etc etc

Originally by: Kalle Demos

This change is GOOD, dont listen to the NC / NC alts, they are aware this will encourage combat and thats the ONLY reason they are hating.

This way alliances can deal with grudges themselves (moon goo etc) however players will question whether its worth being 'friends' and logging on for CTAs Wink

Epic change!!


Lets be honest the changes don't really effect the NC or it's renters, there pretty much too large for this to have a significant effect other than tripling the number of hi-sec mission running alts.

The real reason people hate this proposed change is because it fails to achieve it's stated aims on the most basic and fundemental levels.

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:39:00 - [798]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne
Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 10:59:45
^^^ Reply to Seb post above...

I understand fully (and have been a part of) what you are saying, but it does not make it right. It also does not make it fun. The current blob methods of fighting create server lag and may as well be macros.

Can you honestly say that you like to be in a 1000+ man fleet shooting the same target as 995 of them waiting 2 minutes between module activations? How is this fun for anyone? It works, but it is not fun in the slightest.


Well lag aside, which a entirely separate issue than what this thread is discussing, there must be something to like about being part of a large coalition, but almost everyone in Null sec is in one.

BTW, a 1000 pilot force would probably be split between at least four fleets each with their own doctrine and calling separate targets and have command and control coordinating the fleets. So yes, there is something interesting about these fights. Lag sucks, and its always there for the really big flights we also have a lot of fights with a lot of people in local without serious lag issues.

Seb

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:39:00 - [799]
 

CCP, never go full ******. You've gone full ******.

Devs who have no idea how to play the game should be fired.

Also if this idiotic game gets implemented I am going to petition the system I rat in because my alliance didn't fight so you could nerf our income. I will not stop petitioning until you change it or change the sec status of my system.

The only time this change will work is if there're lots of -1 systems, but there aren't. In the majority of the south east systems are absolutely worthless.

I just remembered something. The "We don't give a damn about the game" (18 months) full ****** comment earned you some really bad publicity. You've forgotten what that tastes like, time to remind you once again, as you just never, ever learn.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:45:00 - [800]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 11:52:24
Originally by: Sebastian Hoch
Originally by: UniqueOne
Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 10:59:45
^^^ Reply to Seb post above...

I understand fully (and have been a part of) what you are saying, but it does not make it right. It also does not make it fun. The current blob methods of fighting create server lag and may as well be macros.

Can you honestly say that you like to be in a 1000+ man fleet shooting the same target as 995 of them waiting 2 minutes between module activations? How is this fun for anyone? It works, but it is not fun in the slightest.


Well lag aside, which a entirely separate issue than what this thread is discussing, there must be something to like about being part of a large coalition, but almost everyone in Null sec is in one.

BTW, a 1000 pilot force would probably be split between at least four fleets each with their own doctrine and calling separate targets and have command and control coordinating the fleets. So yes, there is something interesting about these fights. Lag sucks, and its always there for the really big flights we also have a lot of fights with a lot of people in local without serious lag issues.

Seb


It is in some ways a separate issue, but it is also the reason the changes to anoms will not work. Without removing the blobs, the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks - making the proposed changes pointless.

You need to fix the cause before changing the symptoms.

NAP and Alliance mechanics needs a serious fix before all the other problems currently in eve can be fixed. Fix this problem and most of these other issues will fix themselves.

As it stands now, all these changes will do is make more people flock to the powerblocks making the underlying problem worse.

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:51:00 - [801]
 

Originally by: Pax Ratlin

Lets be honest the changes don't really effect the NC or it's renters, there pretty much too large for this to have a significant effect other than tripling the number of hi-sec mission running alts.




Then why are NC and 'random alts' the only one raging atm ;)

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:53:00 - [802]
 

Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 11:57:20
Quote:
It was mentioned by CCP that the data does not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features. The discussion focused on introducing new features versus improving existing ones. CCP stated that once Incarna and planetary interaction with its link to Dust are fully implemented, focus will probably shift far more towards improvement of existing features.


I would like to remind you all this is CCP we're talking about.

So, clueless devs, are you boosting system sec status across the board or do you want us to petition our systems for lack of sanctums.

Is this a stealth empire mission boost?

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:56:00 - [803]
 

This is the most ill thought out thing to come out of CCP in a very long time. Since when has an Alliance needed an excuse to invade his neighbour? We do it not because we covet their sanctums but because it's bloody good fun to be in epic battles. You're also going to re-create an inbalance where those in possession of the most valuable space will have greater resources with which to hold it therefore the consequences of this are likely to be the exact opposite to that which you intend.

Eric Xallen
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:58:00 - [804]
 

I understand, i think, what they are trying to do. CCP want to break up the alliances a bit, and make nullsec less blobby and more contested.

The problem is the way they go about it. People don't fight over sanctums, they fight over truesec already, over stations and tech moons and whatever else.

By killing sanctums in bad space, they are actively reducing the small alliances income with doing not much to the large alliances income, in effect, the direct opposite of what they are trying to do.

The two Big Blobs don't get their money from sanctums. NC's massive super blobs and lol just reimburse it isn't from sanctum ratting, its from tech moon imbalances which CCP refuses to address and didn't think about when they did it in the first place (or they did, and they were wrong, and haven't fixed it).

The DRF regions don't get their money from sanctums either.

Both alliances supplement their income from bots, which also don't use sanctums, they use decent nullsec system belts.

None of these sources of income, one a complete imbalance and the other questionably against the EULA are actually being targetted by CCP.

The only people they are actually punishing with sanctums are the individual players that are actually real players, not bots, and not alliances. NC and DRF already have their vast quantities of money and huge assets. Nerfing the middle-sized alliances income doesn't stop the blobs, in fact it forces people to join the rich alliances more than the others who now will be severely hampered in getting a solid income for any type of sov warfare.

The intent i think is good, but the execution is going to take out exactly the wrong people. It should definately be rethought, and a deeper analysis of the problem needs to be done.

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.27 11:58:00 - [805]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne


It is in some ways a separate issue, but it is also the reason the changes to anoms will not work. Without removing the blobs, the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks - making the proposed changes pointless.

You need to fix the cause before changing the symptoms.

NAP and Alliance mechanics needs a serious fix before all the other problems currently in eve can be fixed. Fix this problem and most of these other issues will fix themselves.


Dude, I am sorry your alliance failcascaded and you lost your space. Its your leadership's fault--not yours. Though please stop trying to rationalize that failure as something that needs to change in the game. Just go back and read what you just wrote:

" the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks"

How exactly does it make sense that weaker groups should get game mechanics, that are based on their weakness, that let them win over stronger groups?

Maybe sov should be based on how many ships you have destroyed in a particular system.... /sarcasm


UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:03:00 - [806]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 11:57:20
Quote:
It was mentioned by CCP that the data does not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features. The discussion focused on introducing new features versus improving existing ones. CCP stated that once Incarna and planetary interaction with its link to Dust are fully implemented, focus will probably shift far more towards improvement of existing features.


I would like to remind you all this is CCP we're talking about.

So, clueless devs, are you boosting system sec status across the board or do you want us to petition our systems for lack of sanctums.

Is this a stealth empire mission boost?


Nah missions are being nerfed too. So only powerblocks have any chance at all in eve in the future.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:08:00 - [807]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:08:24
Originally by: Sebastian Hoch
Originally by: UniqueOne


It is in some ways a separate issue, but it is also the reason the changes to anoms will not work. Without removing the blobs, the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks - making the proposed changes pointless.

You need to fix the cause before changing the symptoms.

NAP and Alliance mechanics needs a serious fix before all the other problems currently in eve can be fixed. Fix this problem and most of these other issues will fix themselves.


Dude, I am sorry your alliance failcascaded and you lost your space. Its your leadership's fault--not yours. Though please stop trying to rationalize that failure as something that needs to change in the game. Just go back and read what you just wrote:

" the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks"

How exactly does it make sense that weaker groups should get game mechanics, that are based on their weakness, that let them win over stronger groups?

Maybe sov should be based on how many ships you have destroyed in a particular system.... /sarcasm



Firstly, the powerblock still has the advantage with more players to choose from. Only tactics would give the smaller entity a chance to win. This would just remove the pointlessness.

Secondly, it doesnt stop the powerblocks from retaking the systems even if they loose them initially.

More (and more fun) fighting is what we all want here isnt it?

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:09:00 - [808]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne
I believe the goals could be achieved in a way everyone is happy with, but I think the method needs to be debated. We all want to make PvP fun.

Forcing these rules is very unsandboxy. Strong incentives would be a lot better.

Let's look at, for example, an iHub. Let's say it has a force-level of 150, which means its stats were designed so the structure is reasonably defendable by intelligent defenders against an attacking force of 150 without supercaps.

Now, if you attack with 750 people, you get a penalty of 5. If you succeed in destroying the iHub, and set up your own during the next 5 days, it takes 5 times as long as normal to online and for as long as you have sov in that system, it has 1/5th of the HP, and hostile SBUs online in 1/5th of the time with 5 times the HP.

But if you conquer it with 100 people, it onlines 33% faster, has 33% more HP and hostile SBUs have 33% less HP and online 33% longer.

There could be additional benefits for attacking two installations with less than the designed force at the same time. With a special balls of steel multiplier if you attack with less than 50% of the design parameters.

Similar things can be designed for the defending force, encouraging defense with between 100 and 120% (you are the defender after all) of the attacking force. Bring a thousand people to defend a cyno jammer? Lose 2 levels of strategic index. Oh, that will take the jammer down by itself? Well, then you bloody well better don't bring a thousand people.

And all this does not need to be real time. It would be entirely sufficient if that is computed from the stats of the fight 30 minutes afterwards.

These would be per system penalties, and CCP would need to monitor this, so you don't blob with your main alliance and then hand it over uncontested to you alt alliance. Getting caught doing this incurs then an alliance wide penalty of 10 for all systems of every involved alliance for 50 days.

As an alliance, you may chose to bring a gun to a knife-fight, but there will be consequences. And in some cases, those consequences may be worth it, but you cripple your infrastructure beyond help if you do it all the time. Your own infrastructure gets stronger from fighting small scale while your enemies' gets weaker by defending it large scale while if you have the numbers, always using twice the amount of people might be a sweetspot in tradeoff terms for you.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:15:00 - [809]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:28:02
Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:25:50
Originally by: Mioelnir
Originally by: UniqueOne
I believe the goals could be achieved in a way everyone is happy with, but I think the method needs to be debated. We all want to make PvP fun.

Forcing these rules is very unsandboxy. Strong incentives would be a lot better.

Let's look at, for example, an iHub. Let's say it has a force-level of 150, which means its stats were designed so the structure is reasonably defendable by intelligent defenders against an attacking force of 150 without supercaps.

Now, if you attack with 750 people, you get a penalty of 5. If you succeed in destroying the iHub, and set up your own during the next 5 days, it takes 5 times as long as normal to online and for as long as you have sov in that system, it has 1/5th of the HP, and hostile SBUs online in 1/5th of the time with 5 times the HP.

But if you conquer it with 100 people, it onlines 33% faster, has 33% more HP and hostile SBUs have 33% less HP and online 33% longer.

There could be additional benefits for attacking two installations with less than the designed force at the same time. With a special balls of steel multiplier if you attack with less than 50% of the design parameters.

Similar things can be designed for the defending force, encouraging defense with between 100 and 120% (you are the defender after all) of the attacking force. Bring a thousand people to defend a cyno jammer? Lose 2 levels of strategic index. Oh, that will take the jammer down by itself? Well, then you bloody well better don't bring a thousand people.

And all this does not need to be real time. It would be entirely sufficient if that is computed from the stats of the fight 30 minutes afterwards.

These would be per system penalties, and CCP would need to monitor this, so you don't blob with your main alliance and then hand it over uncontested to you alt alliance. Getting caught doing this incurs then an alliance wide penalty of 10 for all systems of every involved alliance for 50 days.

As an alliance, you may chose to bring a gun to a knife-fight, but there will be consequences. And in some cases, those consequences may be worth it, but you cripple your infrastructure beyond help if you do it all the time. Your own infrastructure gets stronger from fighting small scale while your enemies' gets weaker by defending it large scale while if you have the numbers, always using twice the amount of people might be a sweetspot in tradeoff terms for you.


A very interresting idea. I like it!

However, maybe putting up your own iHub should not be allowed for an ammount of time based on the size of the attacking force (over the base level) instead of a online time thing, but a bonus to online time of the defender putting another up? This could maybe also be used to remove the reinforced component to make swift/small attacks more viable. (and creating a nice new isk sink)

Also indexes should not be wiped between iHubs. They should decay at a faster rate while none is online though. This way if you blob it, your indexes decay before you can replace the iHub, but if you stay within the limits, you loose next to nothing.

I could see this causing systems to change hands a lot more, and much more fun fights. The only issue I can see is having blobs in surrounding systems as well. This sort of thing would need to be taken into account. maybe constellation-wide based attacker/defender stats? (or blues within bridge range?)

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:28:00 - [810]
 

Edited by: Mioelnir on 27/03/2011 12:33:43
Originally by: UniqueOne
A very interresting idea. I like it!

However, maybe putting up your own iHub should not be allowed for an ammount of time based on the size of the attacking force (over the base level) instead of a online time thing, but a bonus to online time of the defender putting another up? This could maybe also be used to remove the reinforced component to make swift/small attacks more viable. (and creating a nice new isk sink)

Also indexes should not be wiped between iHubs. They should decay at a faster rate while none is online though. This way if you blob it, your indexes decay before you can replace the iHub, but if you stay within the limits, you loose next to nothing.

I could see this causing systems to change hands a lot more, and much more fun fights. The only issue I can see is having blobs in surrounding systems as well. This sort of thing would need to be taken into account. maybe constellation-wide based attacker/defender stats?


Obviously there would need to be a lot of implementation details that need to be fleshed out beyond the basic parameters I scratched upon.

It would leave a coalition of three alliances that can field 500 people each the option to sacrifice for example strategic index 5 for 3 (the old sov level that doesn't decay) to blob the hell out of your enemy every once in a while, but would keep a coalition of three small alliances that can only field 100 people each competitive in the long run. If you only need to call upon 50-70 people as support, such a small alliance is as viable an ally as one that brings 500.


Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 ... : last (118)

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