open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New dev blog: Nullsec Development: Rules and Guidelines
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Harold Tuphlos
Posted - 2011.08.05 03:14:00 - [391]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale


Originally by: Bubanni
As long as you dont make stations destroyable so everyone inside lose all their assets...


That's one of the tricky bits that's been holding it back Smile




Actually, people losing their stuff in stations as they are destroyed is a VERY good thing. It provides a way to seriously hurt the owners and users of that station. This means that they must defend it or lose their stuff and possibly give some of it to the attackers. It gives third parties interest to come help defend in the case of current outposts, as they could lose their left behind items. (Small interest, but for example, I would be tempted to take a sb out to defend 6vdt rather than lose the fit ratting cane I left out there) This creates a situation were the defenders may be more numerous than the attackers would expect. Also and more importantly, nothing in eve should be safe, except noobie systems.

Agun
Posted - 2011.08.05 03:25:00 - [392]
 

Also the timers make the whole system so drawn out you have plenty of time to pull out if you need to. More pew pew involved, clear the people camping the station so yer people can get their stuff out! Can't be bothered to do that? Your stuff is now gone (or now spoils of war)

Sapharen
Posted - 2011.08.05 03:55:00 - [393]
 

Originally by: Koraeth
High-end Ores? Nope, wormholes.


Wormholes are NOT highsec. They're disconnected nullsec, without anything static beyond planets. No agents, no stargates, and no asteroid belts. Can you scan down and do some mining of ABC? Sure. But You Have To Scan It Down And It Has To Have Spawned. Sheesh.

W-Space is what unsettled nullsec SHOULD be. Everything that null-K is and null-W isn't should be due to character activity. If a player didn't build that jumpbridge or outpost, there should be a clear sign of what NPC did.

Gevlin
Minmatar
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.05 04:01:00 - [394]
 

I would like to see players to be able to modify the main battle field from adjacent systems or near by systems. Much like the idea of off field artillery, dangerous at a distance but vulnerable at close range.
Providing a target for a smaller skirmish group out side of the main combat system.

CAPITAL COMMAND SHIP
How about a Capital Command ship – similar stats of a Rorqual but in In Siege mode it provides bonus for their race much like a rorqual does for Mining bonus
The Bonus can be given to friendly units with in X Jumps or X Light years catch –
While Boosting with bonus the Capital Command Ship can't be in the effect of a force field. Or may even need to be adjacent to a gate to push the bonuses though the gate.
Bonus can't be provided in home system otherwise it would over load ships receiving the bonuses

ROCKET ARTILLERY
A multi ship combo of a Battle Ship and Frigate
Battle ship – with a weak platted haul and little fire power beyond the the Mega Missile.
Frigate – with Homing laser

Battle ship launches mega missile though a gate a frigate equipped with a taging laser that the Mega Missile would lock on to to hit structure or capital target.

Might simply use a black ops, hull and cover ops ship.... an option might be to covert cyno in a mega to be used with the Covert ops ship.

NPC GENERATOR (hive ship)
A ship with the stats of a jump freighter will spawn NPCs to battle your foes in an adjacent system.
(-You have served your time in the Service of the Caldari Faction Navy, now you have charge of you own Caldari Militia! -)
To be able to go into Siege mode and to be summon NPC's of a faction. The player needs to have a faction of 8 or better to summon the NPC's of that region.



Vendictus Prime
Posted - 2011.08.05 04:36:00 - [395]
 

Edited by: Vendictus Prime on 05/08/2011 04:41:03
Edited by: Vendictus Prime on 05/08/2011 04:37:30
First let me say i am nowhere near able to fly caps , but I have been in fleets with them in low and Null sec. So, my experience is limited but regarding Super Caps( Super Carriers and Titans ) Moms need obvious fixing and Titan blobs seem grotesquely imbalanced.

How would limiting the number of Super carriers and Titans allowed in a given system, based on your corps and alliances work? To be more specific, you can only have X in a system from each corp and alliance, and no more. reduce their dps, increase their EHP ( make them harder for large groups of smaller ships to kill them ), make them unable to lock anything smaller than battleships, only able to engage targets of their own class ( ie Caps and Supers). This makes the use of smaller ship fleet battles more of a requirement, does not produce the lag caused by too many Supers in local together and eliminates Supercap blobing. Possibly even more of fleet support rolls ( Super Command class of ship ) and mainly for POS and structure attacking. Looking at modern Navies, they don't bring a fleet of carriers to a fight, they bring 1 usually and they act as the command and control center for the fleet and then the smaller ships would do most of the fighting. The fighters are also fleet support dps but not the main source of it.

Just some ideas, not perfect but maybe a foundation to expand on.

handige harrie
Posted - 2011.08.05 04:46:00 - [396]
 

Originally by: Harold Tuphlos
Originally by: CCP Greyscale


Originally by: Bubanni
As long as you dont make stations destroyable so everyone inside lose all their assets...


That's one of the tricky bits that's been holding it back Smile




Actually, people losing their stuff in stations as they are destroyed is a VERY good thing. It provides a way to seriously hurt the owners and users of that station. This means that they must defend it or lose their stuff and possibly give some of it to the attackers. It gives third parties interest to come help defend in the case of current outposts, as they could lose their left behind items. (Small interest, but for example, I would be tempted to take a sb out to defend 6vdt rather than lose the fit ratting cane I left out there) This creates a situation were the defenders may be more numerous than the attackers would expect. Also and more importantly, nothing in eve should be safe, except noobie systems.


It is however a real bad idea once you start to think that CCP wants industrial players out in null sec with billions in BPOs and not yet used materials, stored in stations. Not to mention that now every station slated for destruction will be camped by fleets 24/7 for the time it takes to reach the stations impeding doom. Making the evacuation of trapped assets impossible.
Also worth noting is that smaller entities just starting out in null sec will now have 0% chance to hold a station of any kind in which they can organize themselves, as large blocs can just come 'round the corner, garner a fleet of 500 ships and destroy their station. Because in EVE, if they can, they will. No matter how hard or long it takes. So while destruction sounds spectacular, it really has too much negative sides to work out well.
I see more in the shutting down of stations, in which the station becomes useless and can't be docked in. But parties that capture the solar system the station is in, can restore it to it's former glory by copious amounts of PI and some other mats. This gives the best of both worlds. It causes people to lose acces to their hard earned assets trapped in the now defunct station (without a way to sell them off), as well as give reasons for conflict, as they can get their stuff back, if they try hard enough.

Maverick Ice
Posted - 2011.08.05 04:50:00 - [397]
 

Sorry if some of this is posted elsewhere by others...too much to read.

Starbases for moon goo: Too much tedium. Moon mining should be done in the same vein as PI, but in a way that can be disabled by small squads. Be able to place guns that have ability to shoot blob busting weapons, while lacking the ability to focus easily on smaller groups (OR, have the ability to focus easily on smaller groups, while having minimal affect on blobs)...this will require scouting and/or hacking the command center, or DUST interaction to determine which setup exists.

PI should require fuels that are gleaned exclusively from Ice fields....having a higher cost/day to fuel more powergrid/cpu...but maybe having that limited maybe only by how much fuel you can provide. Extractors could have a m³/cycle that scales with the type of goo mined (moons could have several more than 1-4 types, based on scarcity on the moon)...likewise, types of moon goo should have more diversity in volume/unit....more rare could have higher volume/unit like 'roids.

A single moon might have Technetium in minuscule amounts, but still be there, while having nearly infinite amounts of the gases, especially if it has an atmosphere....while still having Titanium, et.al. Whereas another, higher value moon, might have higher amounts of Technetium, while surprisingly little of the gases, etc.

Starbase industry modules, should have very low efficiency, compared to station modules. If you desire to have an efficient production center in nullsec, put up an outpost...

Outposts: remove the limitation of 1 per system, finally, please, after you make them destructible, at least in such a way that none of the modules, except fitting, work...e.g. no medical, insurance, repair, etc., until major repairs (station parts are brought in to replace them and repair bills paid) are performed. Also, module efficiency could be turned down in highsec...say all 35% refinery or lower, except for special agents in training systems that work exclusively for newbies...and labs/factories could have time multipliers as high as 1.25/1.5 in highsec and 1.5/2.0 for starbase industry modules. This would indeed make nullsec more valuable and attractive to industry. Once the preferred industry moves out to nullsec, the materials and goods will follow them.

Open all of highsec/lowsec for moon mining via PI, or in this case MI. Overmining would have degraded the profitability, while still allowing everyone to participate at some level.

More to come after I think about this...

Karsus Malkadier
Posted - 2011.08.05 05:18:00 - [398]
 

I'm not an industrialist or nullsec player, so this may be pointless, but there was a comment earlier about a nullsec only blueprint type that got me thinking.
Howabout making Blueprint copies into a prohibited item (like other contraband items, complete with sec status loss) in Highsec? No self respecting NPC Megacorp would allow anyone, especially a Capsuleer who has no connection with them to copy their hard earned work. I imagine this would have the effect of making low and nullsec way more enticing for manufacturing types.

Fire Eriwerif
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.08.05 05:39:00 - [399]
 

Originally by: Innominate
Edited by: Innominate on 03/08/2011 15:23:48
tl;dr: A list of 0.0 related platitudes that have been obvious to players for the last five years.

Quote:

See: Jump bridges, cyno jammers, Sov 4, AoE doomsdays, titans in general, supercarrier boost...



This list does not bode well for the future of 0.0. Lumping jump bridges and cyno jammers in with AoE doomsdays and steamroller supercapitals misses the point by such a margin I don't even know what to think.

Jump bridges are the best thing CCP had ever done for EVERYONE living in 0.0, the nerf has done nothing to impede major blob activities, has even helped force projection, but has made 0.0 infinitely more difficult for the individual line member.


This exactly

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.05 06:25:00 - [400]
 

Travel Mechanics ...

Shepard Book
Posted - 2011.08.05 06:31:00 - [401]
 

Originally by: CCP Guard
Team BFF have their sights on nullsec iteration and in his new blog, CCP Greyscale gives some insight into the preparation that's taken place, and shares the design guidelines that will guide them safely through 0.0.

Many of you have strong ideas of your own about what nullsec should be, and the team wants your feedback. So as always...leave your comments right here.

DE version
RU version



I understand why this had to be done first... I am looking forward to the meat and potatoes blog about this though.Wink

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.08.05 06:35:00 - [402]
 

When reading the devblog first I was like CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, then I was like: This looks like an insurance, when controversial changes are implemented CCP can point to this devblog/thread and claim "you all agreed to the principles".

Karsus Malkadier
Posted - 2011.08.05 06:56:00 - [403]
 

An interesting idea to do with the local channel could be to encrypt it. All people in local would show up as the grey cutout (like my character does) and have no name, just an ID number (like signals do when probing). Around space in every system would be a bunch of Comm stations that can be hacked to decrypt the name and picture of a person in local. Stations and other big things could have an Incarna part that's the same but allows you to decrypt more people at a time.

Bloodhands
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.05 07:11:00 - [404]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Nonnori Ikkala
Edited by: Nonnori Ikkala on 03/08/2011 15:09:51
Looks pretty cool to this newbie, hope to see the concrete information down the road. Though--what in heaven's name is the "one-per-corp-per-system-per-day starbase rule"?


It is (AFAIK) impossible for a single corporation to anchor more than one starbase in a given system on a given day (probably downtime-to-downtime). This is a relic of the old sov system, where the person with the most starbases was given sov, and some alliances found it very effective to set up 30 towers in one night.


Its 5 per alliance per downtime. A corporation can anchor 4 towers and before it anchors its 5th, another corporation in the same alliance anchors 1 hitting the 5 per downtime quota (very annoying).

This was put in place during Max 1 when BOB (then BOBR, BOB, IT and now Raiden.?) started invading Tribute as the RAWR POS Directors (me and a few overworked others) fortified defenses by anchoring and onlining dozens of large control towers in possible invasion systems per day. (I think e-o got about 40 large hirr towers in the course of 3 hours) It was good, and needed at the time. Not so much any longer.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: J'Rela
On the dev blog though, especially "lessons learned," more things to ponder:

There is a difference between boring and tedious. Mining is boring. Jumping is boring. PvE is mostly boring (and when it's not you're doing it wrong.) The bulk of PvP combat is boring as hell (PvP has two modes, looking for targets and engaging targets. The first mode is incredibly boring and consumes most of the time.) EVE is not a fun game. It hasn't been since well before release and it probably shouldn't ever be.

Boredom is a counter for immaturity. If you want nothing in your life but excitement, it won't be very interesting or, indeed, very long. EVE isn't really a game. It's an MMO, so it's my life in space-ships. It shouldn't all be fun and games.

Tedium is any task that requires attention but not thought. Moving cargo into a can while mining is this. The vast majority of time spent deploying a POS is this. PI is this. Dear gods, is PI ever this. Moving from Point A to Point B, even in nullsec, is usually this.

So the lesson here is that boredom is okay, and even desirable in some cases (see: Sov mechanics, POSs) but that tedium is not. In point of fact, efforts to make tasks less boring often make them more tedious. Please, in the future, avoid artificial difficulty and unnecessary tedium even at the expense of increased boredom. Your players will thank you.



This is a really good point. I like this post.


That was actually really spot on, while POS work is boring, the only thing tedious about it is onlining and anchoring. If a queue system for anchoring, or even just onlining was put into place the tedium would be elevated any your are left with a job for people who put in time, effort and invest money to get a return relatively proportionate to the work load.


Player (corporation) Owned Starbases (POSs) are a carrier choice for a corporation's members allowing corporations to set down roots. To do it right on a mid-large scale with out burning people out you have to have an actual team

haulers to get the goods in and out of your centralized area of operation,
marketeers to sell product and buy fuels,
stockers to supply fuels to individual systems and return with product,
fuelers keep towers fueled and emptying silos once every 2-3 weeks
Reaction personnel (the crazy ones)

This could easily be 30 people in a 200 person (not toon) corp overseeing 100 POSs with current mechanics.

Removing the professions degrade eve as a game. You could however make moon resources more like PI on a corporate level but destroyable only by dreadnaughts and titans. This would remove many POSs and give capitals a target of its own. Leave industry reaction in POSs however as a visible target.

Erik Finnegan
Gallente
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
Posted - 2011.08.05 07:19:00 - [405]
 

Originally by: Shepard Book
I understand why this had to be done first... I am looking forward to the meat and potatoes blog about this though.

That is just my problem : starting at this point of a highlevel discussion ( much of which is true for EVE as a whole ) for an existing game feature is difficult to chew through.

Did CCP not have design goals of this magnitude before for nullsec ? Good then, that they built them now.

There was a very early post...
Originally by: Tippia
Yes, fighting over resources is one way of creating conflict, but what about fights over the the tools of fighting? This game kind of lacks a fog of war and methods to create, combat, and take advantage of this kind of intel.

...and I share the design idea.

Also : make mining null-sec compatible. Give it an appropriately grim and adamant layer, but make it attractive for the "simple" people, the miners. The miners I am talking to in high-sec cannot see how they fit in. They feel unwanted. However, an increased populace, an increased range of play-styles, I think, will be beneficial to player-interaction happening in nullsec.

Nomad III
Posted - 2011.08.05 07:24:00 - [406]
 

The hole thread is about how do I make 0.0 as miserable as possible.


  • more boring work because of logistics

  • enforce PVP pilots to produce something in 0.0, because Jita is evil

  • getting rid of epeen symbols like Titans and SC

  • forcing player to grind more, because of lesser rewards for NPC

  • make player owned items destroyable in stations, so they can't store they stuff there incl. BPO's

  • PVP is evil, carebearing and and industrialists are the new kings



I want to make PVP and not play for logistics or production.

But it's worse when I read

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The approach we're favoring currently is more making each region have at least one "good thing", but no region to have all the goodies.


What does it mean when it comes to T2 production in 0.0? Jita is evil but we will enforced to produce all in 0.0 and trading with hostiles to get moon goo? Trading is limited to neutral systems in Highsec (==Jita), because of the limited mechanics. Haha CCP isn't knowing his own game.



Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.05 07:37:00 - [407]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 05/08/2011 07:43:16
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 05/08/2011 07:41:10
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Essentially, because it violates "Nullsec features should always maximize the amount of valuable options available to the player, and minimize the number of mandatory tasks they must complete". The sort of system you're describing would "work" just fine, but it turns nullsec warfare into something roughly akin to an extended game of TF2, where everyone knows exactly what you have to do to win, and every battle plays out in the same way.


Again, your current system is already pretty much like that, with a large number of obligatory tasks involved in attacking someones sovereignty. You have to do it by the book, dropping SBUs and reinforcing ihubs , stations and the like. Theres very little room for variety in there. Extremely few ways of attacking someones logistics or isk-making in actuality for example, therefore we are reduced to attacking their sovereignty. I really hope you go forward with "less rules for sov" approach. Also there are pretty few actually working fleet compositions. If everybody could fly every ship, the fleets would be even more homogenous.

Quote:

I'd personally rather go down the road of finding a way to handle sov with fewer rules, and leave it more up to players how they go about winning. For me, EVE gets more interesting the more the players are making real decisions about what to do next.


Thats what I would like, but you need to introduce more 'tools' for players to do different things. There are many mechanics that simply aren't used because using them would require players to trust each other instead of the system mediating the interaction.

Nullsec trade particularly ONLY happens blue-to-blue or nullsec-to-highsec, because of lack of neutral ground where outsiders could do trade. There arent enough NPC stations for it. This is one of defining reasons for the "one-stop shop to Jita" phenomenom. The outposts only allow blues to dock in practise, with current system the players inherent distrust toward each other prevents nullsec trade from happening. This also makes sure that trade can succeed only within large alliances/coalitions, and encourages large NAP-fests in its small part.

On the other hand, dockable NPC stations everywhere in null would create a huge security risk for the alliances. So, what if you could introduce NPC trade outposts in space that you couldnt dock at, but you could unload/load cargo and set up sell/buy orders, kind of like planet custom depots open for everyone to trade in?

ps. Just remember that there are two main things that limit player interaction:
1.) Players would have to trust each other
2.) Players would have to be online more than they can (destructible stations for example wouldnt be a problem if people wouldnt have RL reasons for being offline for extended periods of time. The need for persistency creates the need of indestructible 'safe' storage)

Nomad III
Posted - 2011.08.05 07:52:00 - [408]
 

Originally by: Zey Nadar
The outposts only allow blues to dock in practise, with current system the players inherent distrust toward each other prevents nullsec trade from happening. This also makes sure that trade can succeed only within large alliances/coalitions, and encourages large NAP-fests in its small part.

On the other hand, dockable NPC stations everywhere in null would create a huge security risk for the alliances.


Even if you introduce neutral trading stations, Many would harass neutral traders all the day because they are easy and juicy targets. All you need is bubbling a station or some fast tacklers. CCP has designed a game mechanic that the party with more power is always the winner, if the party isn't stupid.

All the ideas here around destructable stations and logistics for 0.0 ignoring the fact, that the game mechanics are designed according to the most brutal capitalistic rules. I like it until now.



Sepporith
Posted - 2011.08.05 07:53:00 - [409]
 

More random brainstorming:

Small gangs should have small objectives and minor impact.

Right now if we roam a ratting system, ratters dock/pos/cloak. We wait a bit, then leave.

We had military advantage in the zone, yet were not able to enforce any real impact.

So.. make the system upgrades targetable in some way.

Now.. small gang jumps in. Ratters pos/dock/cloak. Small gang spends x mins shooting the upgrade mod, it goes into micro-reinforced for y mins during that time PVE sites are frozen. On the x min timer, if shot again, it gets frozen for 2x mins, then repeat for a longer timer again.

Timing needs carefully considered ofc.

The idea is that a pvp gang can really disrupt ratters. The timers give defenders a chance to form a defence fleet, on a mini timer, to create a goodfite. If a mod is defended from reinforced it cant be attacked again for x hours/days whatever. Small gangs can roam around enemy space and disrupt their affairs and create fights. The optimal size for these gangs can be tuned by upgrade mod hit points and the timers. Enough hp to require more than 1 dude in a bomber to do much, and the timer effect on ratters would be too minor to bother sending in 200 supercaps to hit the upgrades.

An alternative is that mod upgrades can be 'hacked' by small gangs instead of attacked. This results in the small gang getting a percentage of the bounties in the enemy system. Win for the small gang, very annoying for the ratters, but doesnt actually stop them ratting :)

Teirna
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:03:00 - [410]
 

re: scaling PVE encounters

>> No, no, no!
>> Please not. This is a horrible, ugly idea. Completely artificial and immersion breaking.

>Can you explain your reasoning here further? This isn't a reaction I was expecting.

It smacks of a WOW style solution. One of the great things about games like EQ for pvp minded players was that some content required power. Some goals should only be achievable by those with the power to achieve them (numbers and gear wise).

If implemented badly this would allow an 'all content for all!' type deal which would break the feel of the game. 20 high sp characters in t3 ships should be able to achieve more than 10 low sp characters in t1 battleships, both in PVP and PVE.

There should be plenty for the smaller group to do, but it should be bridge content to the 'better' stuff.

OFC, a potential compromise is that the 'good' stuff is in nullsec requiring sov. This by definition requires a capable force to control the region to start with (which may be where you are heading anyway).


Snorre Sturlasson
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:03:00 - [411]
 

Edited by: Snorre Sturlasson on 05/08/2011 08:04:13
Originally by: Sepporith
More random brainstorming:

An alternative is that mod upgrades can be 'hacked' by small gangs instead of attacked. This results in the small gang getting a percentage of the bounties in the enemy system. Win for the small gang, very annoying for the ratters, but doesnt actually stop them ratting :)



You are able to harrass ratters today, if aren't a noob. It's needing only a well fitted bomber. What do you want to cure with your ideas?

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:14:00 - [412]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 05/08/2011 08:22:54
Originally by: Nomad III
Originally by: Zey Nadar
The outposts only allow blues to dock in practise, with current system the players inherent distrust toward each other prevents nullsec trade from happening. This also makes sure that trade can succeed only within large alliances/coalitions, and encourages large NAP-fests in its small part.

On the other hand, dockable NPC stations everywhere in null would create a huge security risk for the alliances.


Even if you introduce neutral trading stations, Many would harass neutral traders all the day because they are easy and juicy targets. All you need is bubbling a station or some fast tacklers. CCP has designed a game mechanic that the party with more power is always the winner, if the party isn't stupid.

All the ideas here around destructable stations and logistics for 0.0 ignoring the fact, that the game mechanics are designed according to the most brutal capitalistic rules. I like it until now.



Did you even read my entire post before you answered? Rolling Eyes Particularly the sentence that you cut off from the quote.

I can guarantee getting into the hostile space is not the problem, the problem is being unable to dock and therefore the whole trip being for nothing. Hell, you can haul stuff using blackops bridges and blockade runners.. Since docking is a security risk, introduce possibility to trade(sell/buy orders, unloading/pickingup cargo) without docking..

Nomad III
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:24:00 - [413]
 

Edited by: Nomad III on 05/08/2011 08:28:02
Originally by: Zey Nadar

Did you even read my entire post before you answered? Rolling Eyes Particularly the sentence that you cut off from the quote.

I can guarantee getting into the hostile space is not the problem, the problem is being unable to dock and therefore the whole trip being for nothing. Hell, you can haul stuff using blackops bridges and blockade runners..


Trading outpost like the PI docks isn't the solution. I'll garantee, as long as neutrals taking a trip into "our" space, there will be at least one that is trying to kill him. Hauling for 0.0 with blackop bridges has not the nessescary capacity and it's to expensive. So the Jump Freighter is the best solution. But neutral trading is impossible and will be impossible forever as long as EVE is dark and harsh.


Sepporith
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:34:00 - [414]
 

Edited by: Sepporith on 05/08/2011 08:35:38
Originally by: Snorre Sturlasson
Edited by: Snorre Sturlasson on 05/08/2011 08:04:13
Originally by: Sepporith
More random brainstorming:

An alternative is that mod upgrades can be 'hacked' by small gangs instead of attacked. This results in the small gang getting a percentage of the bounties in the enemy system. Win for the small gang, very annoying for the ratters, but doesnt actually stop them ratting :)



You are able to harrass ratters today, if aren't a noob. It's needing only a well fitted bomber. What do you want to cure with your ideas?


To create objectives for small gangs, and create small gang fights.

For that bomber to shut down ratting in a system (or two), he has to sit there in those systems doing nothing. Most ratters will just wait for him to leave. By the time a defence fleet arrives he either leaves , or he has already gone = no fight for anyone.

With a system like this a small gang should shut down ratting in an area, potentially for a time after they have left the area and so more likley to draw a defence fleet. The timers create a 'window' for the defence/further attack and so increase the chances of a small gang fight.

Nothing to stop a solo pvper shutting down ratting by camping a system too!

EDIT: In line with CCP's thinking and to answer the question directly:
Q: What's the problem that this would cure?
A: Small gang fights are often hard to find & its hard for small gangs to have any impact in nullsec





Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:41:00 - [415]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale


Originally by: Bubanni
As long as you dont make stations destroyable so everyone inside lose all their assets...


That's one of the tricky bits that's been holding it back Smile




if i may interject an idea, instead of a station being destroyed and a person losing its assets, make the station and follow the same logic as a titan carcase. The station will always be there but if a person ever wants to get at the assets again, then a HUGE repair job is needed, along the lines of similar materials needed to build it to repair it. that way the assets arent lost but arent accessable until its repaired. That and people wont be able to dock except the owners, (which is still limited to say a freighter to haul the contents to repair the station) or if anyone logs in and are still in station they can stay there, or once they undock they cant redock untill the systems are back online. this will make for a more dynamic and realistic version of seige warfare. i.e. if you attack it you better have the resources to bring it back up to working condition later.

Snorre Sturlasson
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:41:00 - [416]
 

Originally by: Sepporith
Edited by: Sepporith on 05/08/2011 08:35:38
Originally by: Snorre Sturlasson
Edited by: Snorre Sturlasson on 05/08/2011 08:04:13
Originally by: Sepporith
More random brainstorming:

An alternative is that mod upgrades can be 'hacked' by small gangs instead of attacked. This results in the small gang getting a percentage of the bounties in the enemy system. Win for the small gang, very annoying for the ratters, but doesnt actually stop them ratting :)



You are able to harrass ratters today, if aren't a noob. It's needing only a well fitted bomber. What do you want to cure with your ideas?


To create objectives for small gangs, and create small gang fights.

For that bomber to shut down ratting in a system (or two), he has to sit there in those systems doing nothing. Most ratters will just wait for him to leave. By the time a defence fleet arrives he either leaves , or he has already gone = no fight for anyone.

With a system like this a small gang should shut down ratting in an area, potentially for a time after they have left the area and so more likley to draw a defence fleet. The timers create a 'window' for the defence/further attack and so increase the chances of a small gang fight.

Nothing to stop a solo pvper shutting down ratting by camping a system too!

EDIT: In line with CCP's thinking and to answer the question directly:
Q: What's the problem that this would cure?
A: Small gang fights are often hard to find & its hard for small gangs to have any impact in nullsec



1) I don't agree, because the game mechanics are in favour for the more powerful (blob) and your are focussed only on ratters. That can't be the cure for a mechanic that is in favor for the big blob.

2) I you haven't patience to gank ratters with a bomber, you are wrong in 0.0. 0.0 isn't about easy ganking like in Niarja.


Sepporith
Posted - 2011.08.05 08:50:00 - [417]
 

1) They key is to have objectives that a small offencive gang can achieve that have an impact but not so much that its worth forming a massive CTA blog to counter.

A small gang cannot capture a station system, they will get blobbed as you said. However an alliance is not likley to call for a 400 man ally-blob CTA just because 2-3 popular ratting systems have been shut down for an hour. They are whoever likley to form an ad-hoc kitchen sink defence fleet to go find a fight. They are also much more likley to do this if there's a fight timer (as opposed to the current mechanic of chasing the enemy gang all over the place).

2) I do not believe 0.0 should be all about being patient. EVE should not be 95% waiting 5% action. Although that 5% action is usually great, its a poor ratio. A small gang should be able to create 3-4 micro timers quite quickly and then have a chance at getting fights from some of those timers. A higher fight to wait ratio is what most pvpers want I would think!

Note, the essence of my suggestions are not about the mechanics I described. Its ideas around what kind of objectives could be set for small gangs that encourage small gang fights. Even if your bomber pilot scored a few ratter kills, thats often less fun and less exciting than a small gang vs small gang fight. Any changes made should of course not stop your solo bomber from ganking ratters as that should also be viable :)



Snorre Sturlasson
Posted - 2011.08.05 09:00:00 - [418]
 

Even with your timers, you wont get more good fights with some rare exceptions. Because the majority of the renters don't have expirience and don't fight because they don't know how to be effective in fight.

There are to challenges:

1) Big blobbers will have always success if you aren't able to answer with a blob of a similar size.

2) Most 0.0 entities (even the smaller ones) aren't interested to educate pilots, because they are able to hire them. So you have always a majority of bad pilots and a small group of better pilots. If you are looking for the better ones, it's likely you will be blobbed.


Erik Finnegan
Gallente
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
Posted - 2011.08.05 09:08:00 - [419]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
•Maximize "can", minimize "must"


Does Incarna's you must go to the CQ ring a bell ?

Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.05 09:45:00 - [420]
 

Reposting someting i posted elsewhere on this topic:

Simply, there is nothing in the sovreignty system that allows someone to defend in depth, to fall back to regroup, to bolster the defence by sacrificing ground. It really doesn't matter where in your space the first blow comes, if both sides throw everything into the mix, and the defender goes down (with all the defensive benefits they can muster), it wont take long before they realise how completely the writing is on the wall. Personally, I love a pitched backed-up-against-the-wall defence, but I'm clearly not in the majority. Any defending force will leak members after that first defeat, while the attackers will just be bolstered by victory (both in moral, and by bandwagoners hopping on); all this ensuring the second 'big battle' goes the same way as the first.

I have no idea how it would be possible to do (hence why i usually keep my trap shut on such discussions), but there has to be a better way than all-or-nothing. I find it a little pathetic to look at the influence map and see blocks of colour, taking up large chunks of space, vanish overnight because the defender knows after the first battle that its over, and walks away rather than put up a pitched defence. At the moment there is no reason or incentive to take only a portion of someones space; if your going to try and take a bit, you might as well take it all - both because you know you can, and theres no disadvantage to taking a region even if you have no intention of living in it.

The best example I can think of is the AAA/Initiative to-and-fro last year (its a good example to use since I've literally only once flown through that area of space, there are guys i like in both groups, and I had absolutely no dog in that fight). In both AAA's fall, and then their driving out of Init, there was fierce fighting for the first region, then when that was clearly decided, the other 2/3 regions were handed over without a murmur, since there was no point bothering.

Something about that is just intrinsically wrong. In a way, it no longer matters how much space you own; a constellation, a region, or three regions. If you lose that first constellation you hand over the keys to whatever space you had anyway, so everyone might as well just hold sov in a single station system for all it matters. Holding tracts of space should matter, and taking tracts of space should be commesuratly more difficult that just in number of weekends the supcaps are grinding abandoned structures for.

I think Supercaps are part of the problem... but I don't mean in their power, I mean in their importance. At the moment, people hold sov to get Supercaps (folks like PL excluded), rather than get Supercaps to win sov. Its a small distinction, but it means people value their Supers more than they value their home. That's like me valuing my car more than my house (and my car isn't flash enough for that...). I think thats what needs to be changed when any nerf comes around - people should want to sacrifice caps to save (and to take) sov, while at the moment, even on the alliance level (Atlas, MM, IT have all done it in the last year) people are sacrificing their sov to save their Supers, often quite literally bartering the transfer of space to allow the completion of Super builds. I can understand joe-carebear doing a midnight flit with his ratting Super, but on the alliance level, sacrificing supers to preserve your sov for another month, another 3 months, should be a sensible choice, when at the moment it is not.



Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (22)

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