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 : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:28:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: Tradik
Generally, I think the direction in this post seems to be for the better. The issue, I think, is specifics. Generalities tend to sound good, because everyone can interpret them to mean whatever they like. So I'm personally going to reserve judgement until we see something specific.

That being said, my personal pet peeve is the current sov structure mechanics. As someone who helped organize the clearing of fountain and delve after IT fell, I can tell you that, even with supers, its a pain in the arse as it stands. During fountain, we had 20 to 30 supercarriers going for 6~ hours a day for two weeks, to clear out the region. We could drop and reinforce an ihub before we had the capacitor to jump again. I remember one night, we flipped 6 outposts in one op, and ref'd or killed another half dozen I-hubs. Even so, when you're hitting all of the sov structures in an entire region, it takes a while.

On the other hand, in Delve we only had a few supers on any given op, and some we couldn't even use our supers, because there were superior Super fleets in range, waiting to hot drop, so it took us, on average, an hour or so to flip a single station. The fast ones in delve went down in two siege cycles. The really slow ones, when we only had a 60~ man subcap fleet, would take 30~ minutes per reinforcement cycle (more for the final station shoot).

I think there are two issues with the current sov mechanics - the pure HP on everything, and the clean up after a failcascade. I kind of actually like the current reinforcement mechanics - its the HP thats a pain. If it were more like, for example, a Point Capture mechanic in an FPS, where you had to hold the grid of the outpost/i-hub for a given timeframe (5, 10, 15 mins), then you'd be able to to do a whole lot of it with a relatively small force, which would both remove the incentive to massively blob sov structures, and make cleaning up after a failcascade a lot easier. You could SBU a region, and go sit a frigate or two at each ihub/outpost for the 5-10 minutes required to save it.

This would also have the added benefit for encouraging combat on the outpost/i-hub grids, when there is actually an active defender. If keeping X pilots within y range of the ihub for z time, while the opfor tries to push them off, then you've got a very strong incentive to stay on grid and fight. This would also discourage people just bringing massive, unsupported cap fleets, because a more maneuverable subcap fleet could remain on grid, while dodging the capitals weapons.

You'd need to make it a relatively short range - say 150-200km - so someone sitting at a bounce point wouldn't count to the sov mechanic, but someone at a reasonable sniper range would. Cloaked ships would, obviously, not count.

I think it'd actually be closer to a King-of-the-Hill mechanic. 30 seconds uncontested on grid causes the timer to activate, from the point 5 minutes to ref the target.

The problem would be the defender's victory condition. At the moment its kill the SBUs, but that's another HP grind. Possibly make them KotH mechanics as well. Attackers need to guard them for x time, and defenders can deactivate them (before the system is vulnerable) by holding the grid for y time. Once the sov structures become vulnerable, then the KotH mechanic swaps to them.

Anyhoo, I think it'd be a pretty good mechanic, both in terms of encouraging combat, and making sieging less of a hassle.


I usually wouldn't quote the whole thing, but this time I just had to...it's THAT good. These are some brilliant ideas and I hope CCP takes heed of your advice.

Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:37:00 - [152]
 

Please Team BFF, what feedback would you require that the thousands of posts you have already received on this subject have not already pointed out?

You KNOW the issues of nullsec
You KNOW the pain of those both in and out of alliances that occupy nullsec
You KNOW the extent of the frustration that your existing environment is causing

YOU ALREADY KNOW!!!

Feedback??????? YOU ALREADY HAVE IT!

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:38:00 - [153]
 

I appreciate that the Epic Stories are important, but I hope that CCP remembers that the most popular Epic Stories have a small cast (1-7 main protagonists and antagonists).

Make individual systems able to support more activity, make it easy to establish a small holding (1 or 2 systems) and *exponentially* more difficult/expensive to hold more space. That alone will make nullsec bigger and allow for a more varied political geography.

mkint
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:39:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: J Kunjeh
Originally by: Tradik
Generally, I think the direction in this post seems to be for the better. The issue, I think, is specifics. Generalities tend to sound good, because everyone can interpret them to mean whatever they like. So I'm personally going to reserve judgement until we see something specific.

That being said, my personal pet peeve is the current sov structure mechanics. As someone who helped organize the clearing of fountain and delve after IT fell, I can tell you that, even with supers, its a pain in the arse as it stands. During fountain, we had 20 to 30 supercarriers going for 6~ hours a day for two weeks, to clear out the region. We could drop and reinforce an ihub before we had the capacitor to jump again. I remember one night, we flipped 6 outposts in one op, and ref'd or killed another half dozen I-hubs. Even so, when you're hitting all of the sov structures in an entire region, it takes a while.

On the other hand, in Delve we only had a few supers on any given op, and some we couldn't even use our supers, because there were superior Super fleets in range, waiting to hot drop, so it took us, on average, an hour or so to flip a single station. The fast ones in delve went down in two siege cycles. The really slow ones, when we only had a 60~ man subcap fleet, would take 30~ minutes per reinforcement cycle (more for the final station shoot).

I think there are two issues with the current sov mechanics - the pure HP on everything, and the clean up after a failcascade. I kind of actually like the current reinforcement mechanics - its the HP thats a pain. If it were more like, for example, a Point Capture mechanic in an FPS, where you had to hold the grid of the outpost/i-hub for a given timeframe (5, 10, 15 mins), then you'd be able to to do a whole lot of it with a relatively small force, which would both remove the incentive to massively blob sov structures, and make cleaning up after a failcascade a lot easier. You could SBU a region, and go sit a frigate or two at each ihub/outpost for the 5-10 minutes required to save it.

This would also have the added benefit for encouraging combat on the outpost/i-hub grids, when there is actually an active defender. If keeping X pilots within y range of the ihub for z time, while the opfor tries to push them off, then you've got a very strong incentive to stay on grid and fight. This would also discourage people just bringing massive, unsupported cap fleets, because a more maneuverable subcap fleet could remain on grid, while dodging the capitals weapons.

You'd need to make it a relatively short range - say 150-200km - so someone sitting at a bounce point wouldn't count to the sov mechanic, but someone at a reasonable sniper range would. Cloaked ships would, obviously, not count.

I think it'd actually be closer to a King-of-the-Hill mechanic. 30 seconds uncontested on grid causes the timer to activate, from the point 5 minutes to ref the target.

The problem would be the defender's victory condition. At the moment its kill the SBUs, but that's another HP grind. Possibly make them KotH mechanics as well. Attackers need to guard them for x time, and defenders can deactivate them (before the system is vulnerable) by holding the grid for y time. Once the sov structures become vulnerable, then the KotH mechanic swaps to them.

Anyhoo, I think it'd be a pretty good mechanic, both in terms of encouraging combat, and making sieging less of a hassle.


I usually wouldn't quote the whole thing, but this time I just had to...it's THAT good. These are some brilliant ideas and I hope CCP takes heed of your advice.

How would this not encourage blobbing? I can see how it would discourage super-caps (maybe a little) but it seems like it would still be "whoever brings most ships wins." Especially for outpost defense, where the defenders can set med clones and use rookie ships.

VaMei
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:40:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Walextheone
How do you define 0.0, are you excluding wormhole space or just not focusing on it?


I think this is an important point. There are 3 major catagories of null-sec, and each of them has their own unique playstyle and considerations.

eg. a large deathstar POS in Sov 0.0 is just another bowling pin for a supercap fleet to knock down, but in a C1 it's nearly an impregnable fortress.

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:40:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
ome manner of destructible, degradable or wreckable outposts is very much something we'd like to implement in future, for a variety of reasons, yes.


Now you're talking! Maybe SOV could be a hybrid of what you're saying above, and the King of the Hill type suggestions made in this thread? Still have the "station bashing" mean something, but with far less HP (quantity over HP) and have it tied together with territory control.

Koraeth
Amarr
Paxton Industries
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:47:00 - [157]
 

I think one thing that's being over-looked in 0.0, is what does it give you over empire space?
(material items)

Right now, Moon goo (which is an alliance profit mechanic, lets face it) is the only thing you can't get in empire. High-end Ores? Nope, wormholes. Isk? Nope, got missions in empire, anoms in 0.0 (lets not go into the debate between which one is better).

What's missing is something that you can procure or produce in 0.0 that needs to be exported to high-sec for profit. Something the average player can get his hands on.

How it's obtained is a different matter, but something in 0.0 that's not obtainable in High-Sec that drives people into 0.0 to obtain it.


Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:53:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Following blogs will be more specific. And no, nullsec people should not have to go to Jita.


Strictly speaking, they don't have to at the moment, but there are overwhelmingly good reasons to do so. This goes for pretty much anything you can't produce by yourself (or as a corp / alliance) in the quanitities you need.

In particular, consider the complex and lengthy supply chains needed to produce Tech 2+ goods, which are staples of 0.0 existence. Worse, some of these have no T1 counterparts (e.g. covert ops cloaks, interdictors, T3 cruisers).

If you don't want nullsec residents to 'have to' go to Jita, it follows that at least one of the following will need to be implemented:

  • Make the supply chains simpler / shorter (at least for people in nullsec, e.g. via alchemy-style blueprints that can only be used in nullsec facilities)

  • Make it so hard to import things that people don't bother.

  • Make all materials so abundant in every region of nullsec that it becomes quicker and cheaper for people to build everything themselves (or trade within nullsec) than to travel to Jita


DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:53:00 - [159]
 

Hi. For the record I don't like the way you guys solicit feedback when you haven't posted anything concrete to discuss. This thread will end up 60 pages of people's personal gripes that may or may not have anything to do with actually making 0.0 what it is supposed to be. The majority don't even know what 0.0 is supposed to be like.

Here's my feedback on what is wrong with 0.0:

1. It's optional.
2. It's not scary.
3. It's not relevant.

The reasons why:

1. You don't need to risk your chances in 0.0 to advance in the game at a comfortable pace.
2. The losses seem big on paper, but are not hard to recover from - and even less difficult when distributed across an entire alliance.
3. Nothing that changes in 0.0, politically or militarily, has any real impact on the lives of players in Empire.

You can talk about sovereignty and capitals and resource harvesting if you want. All of those areas have some bull**** game mechanics that need sorting. But none of it will make 0.0 better because 0.0 has lost its ability to create player driven events and stories that matter to the game. Events still happen on a daily basis, but they only matter to the people who are directly involved. And usually, those people are willing participants.

If you want to take the biggest step towards making EVE feel like EVE and 0.0 feel like 0.0, you only need to do one thing:

Stop making it easy for people who spend their time playing alone in a completely safe environment get everything they want at the rate they want. I can't stress this enough.

It does not matter that you make more money in null sec over high sec, people make it "fast enough" in high sec that they have zero incentive to work in teams (read: form actual corporations and not just social groups) and zero incentive to take on risks (attempting 0.0 before they are prepared)

To put it even more bluntly, you have to make serious and fundamental changes to what agent missions are in EVE.


1. Agent missions ignore resource scarcity and player competition by making the payouts the same whether five, fifty or five hundred people are in a system doing jobs for one agent. If supply scales perfectly with demand, you CONTROL THE SUPPLY. Put missions into a job pool and let players bid over them. The crowded areas would suck for a reason. The lowsec systems nobody goes to would start to look good again.

2. Agent missions let you mine with your guns. Expand the social skills of EVE and let people invest heavily into agent running as a career option. Give those people advantages in finding work and getting payment. For everyone else, it shouldn't be any more viable than strip mining asteroid belts with low/mediocre industry skills.

3. Create consequence. People who's standing goes up with a certain faction should be automatically included into factional warfare. Otherwise, FW remains irrelevant and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Conversely, give people with high FW standing discounts on office rentals, taxes and station services on their 'home turf' and penalties in 'enemy turf'.

4. Sorry, pirate battleship NPCs should not be in high sec. That is ****ing ridiculous and has been since it was introduced. Whether you balance the rewards for the lack of risk in high sec is meaningless, you remove one of the key reasons for them to try 0.0: more challenging PVE.

level 1 and 2 - high sec
level 3 - 40% high sec, 60% low sec
level 4 - low sec only

5. Remove the 'pure isk' payouts that agent missions create. Let them buy ships, modules and other things via the LP store and sell it on the market if they want isk. The net result shouldn't be too different (assuming they have the appropriate levels in the new social skills). But at least this way we're not pumping the game with ISK.

When you've done that to agents, you can start talking about problems in corp mechanics, sov, ships, etc.

If you don't, your changes create short term interest/butthurt and long term nothing.

Enthral
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:55:00 - [160]
 

You guys nerfed jump bridges, but I think by doing so you proved you really don't understand why people hold sovereignty, and why they fight the way they do. Jump bridges was the seed to "fixing" nullsec, and you folks nerfed it to do what? Encourage gate camping in nullsec?!

You want to turn nullsec on its head? All gates in nullsec are controlled by the alliance which holds sovereignty after they anchor constellation gate controllers. The can be hacked. Instantly blackops ships become the most popular ships in nullsec, and hacking specialists become a must for any invading force. Jump bridge networks are more robust, but are unique structures independent of a POS controlled by jump bridge hubs which lead to jump bridge nodes. Automated fuel distribution hubs will automatically fuel any POS or other structure which requires fuel within a certain number of lightyears. These can be destroyed outright with some effort, or hacked by a small team to reduce their effectiveness, or even redirect fuel. Attackers now have strategic goals.

Cynojammers are anchored near stars, but can only jam capital ships. Jump detectors can tell you what systems enemies are in, but can be counteracted by a new module which can shield your ships signature. BlackOps will have a serious built-in bonus for this. More strategic goals.

You don't want big fleets all over, you need to stop making 0.0 mechanics all about big fleets. You need to add non-arbitrary strategic goals. Give the defenders the ability to lock down, secure, and create a very convenient infrastructure. Give attackers the ability to pick apart, outright destroy, or covertly disrupt this infrastructure. Make large fleets impractical for most of these tasks--not arbitrarily, but because it only makes the most sense to send in small highly directed strike teams.

The POS should be relegated to a purely industrial and scientific role. It should not play a major factor in any alliance warfare, except as perhaps a means for small strike teams to disrupt industrial income.

You need to throw away everything about how POS, sovereignty and alliances work in 0.0 and start fresh, with an eye to making small strike teams the most logical way to harass, disrupt, and ultimately prepare for the major fleet engagement(s) during the primary invasion.

Sir Vela
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:58:00 - [161]
 

Disclaimer: I'm an honorable gentleman from low-sec, I don't really know what 0.0 is like and what people do there.

That said, from what I've been reading it seems that 0.0 is very similar to high-sec in at least one aspect: ISK seems to come mainly from PvE.

Wouldn't it make sense to have some mechanism to get "free" ISK as a result of holding sov (eg. your planets' inhabitants paying taxes) instead of grinding anomalies / running missions?

You could make this somewhat dynamic, i.e. introduce mechanisms for your enemies to reduce your income (siege planets, raid them (DUST anyone?), making tax income depend on activity in the system and on how long you've been holding sov etc.) which would not only make it interesting to expand to further areas but also to hold sov. in a "worthless" system and, more importantly, to annoy your enemies. You could enter foreign systems in a small fleet and "upset" their population which would reduce the tax income.

This might make small-scale PvP in null-sec more interesting because with many small fleets (instead of few large ones) you can significantly reduce your opponent's (tax) income without the need to actually conquer his systems.

Then again, I might be wrong. Just my .02 ISK.

Comstr
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.03 18:58:00 - [162]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave


I completely disagree. There's less safety but also higher profits. As mentioned though, it doesn't cater to anyone. If you want to run level 4s in Motsu over anomalies, that's certainly your choice.


Why yes, I'll just get my Titan and start doing them.

Which can cyno out at a moments notice.

Which can do anomalies with ease.

Which I monopolise and prevent anyone else from using.


Meanwhile, the agents in Empire scale with the amount of players.

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:05:00 - [163]
 

honestly was praying for blog #2 than this one lol, as this is more outline than action plans, was hoping to hear more about the repurposing of blackops and destroyers in nullsec...

wanted to here about new modules say pos guns for outposts with the needed upgrades... how about talk about modular pos's and modular stations... all things that really need to be timelined and talked about

really want to see more "sandcastle building" i mean give us smaller objectives that small fleets can deal damage to big parties... or things like the ability to upgrade systems to deal with cloaky ***s? (enhanced intel upgrades, system wide decloak pings by directors with cooldown was one thing suggested with a system upgrade, system security thats expensive but would actually deter red-attacks on home systems say auto-bubbling gate modules with pos guns around gate, but that are expensive as **** to maintain that they'd only be useful in home systems, just an idea).... i just like the idea of owning space and being able to develop it ...

honestly as it is owning space is nice, corps ahve there POS's (that currently suck see modular pos posts)... alliances have there outposts (see modular outposts + wreckable outposts) ... but it still doesn't feel like you've "upgraded" your sandcastle, sure you can get more sanctums, but what about more visual upgrades to said system, defensive... offensive... etc

Leskit
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:05:00 - [164]
 

I will take this opportunity to put forth a few ideas for CCP Greyscale and the other devs (and BFF members) to ponder, and hopefully take to heart. I know their orders come from higher above, so some of it may be in vain, but at least it will be said.

This could be considered Iteration on existing content. NO FREAKING WAYExclamationQuestionArrowExclamationQuestionRazzugh
finally!
It could also be considered "bug fixing" ok, that's good too!
I applaud your desire to make 0.0 more fluid, dynamic, and fun, as well as trying to "see the forest, not the trees."

However, There are a few things in your post that i'm afraid some people may take as "evidence" for nerfing other parts of space in comparison to 0.0 ugh
Two quotes will help illuminate my thoughts:
Quote:
•EVE turned up to 11

sure, cool. I hated 0.0 politics and management, but it's a huge reason people play eve, period. It's also a good place to pvp when i'm bored in a wh.
Quote:
•Keep a careful eye on economic balance
◦Nullsec moneymaking activities should be generally competitive with one another, and therefore pay out more than equivalent activities elsewhere
I respectfully request that you be more definitive with this statement: All of Eve? Known space only?

At the recent CSM summit, it was made aware that some of the members didn't know WH's were 0.0 and they had ABC ores (yes, I know this is a 0.0 blog, but please humor me, I think you'll find it's fairly reasonable). Back with the Dominion expansion, there were several blogs on "risk vs. reward" and wh's are in some ways more, some ways less risky than 0.0.
  • There is no local channel. Everything instantly becomes more dangerous because knowledge is power, as well as protection. If a system is larger than dscan range, you won't know if someone popped into system, or if they're cloaked. You can't have supercaps in wh's-this makes them safer...somewhat (it would also break wh's imo)

  • You don't know where or when you'll connect to another system. You might get 4 empty holes, or null sec/occupied C6's, etc. Preperation for a new threat every day, instead of watching intel channels and local, knowing what time your arch nemesis' playtime is.
    That succinctly makes wh's more dangerous vs. 0.0 imo (which is always subject to interpretation. It's an opinion, after all)
    • The profit of lower class wh's (1-3) is in the Grav belts; the ratting is horrible, however, this gives smaller/less experienced/lower skillpoint corps time to make some isk, and get used to wh's before moving to something better, or leaving.

    • wh's are also different from 0.0 because while it's harder to "make it safe," the income is steady, depending on how many people are online, and how often you run cites/mine/ etc.

    • Null sec has officer/faction spawns and ded complexes which can make 5-60 minutes of work extremely profitable (if rather rare), but make steady income harder. This makes the profit inline with the risk I believe. There are no faction/officers in wh's and i'm totally fine with that. Most 0.0 profit things can be done alone, whereas unless you're running 4+ accounts, you need many people to make money in wh's. Group efforts should be more profitable, yes?


The last thing I will say is only tangentially related to wh's.
5 years is a long time. Wouldn't it be better to slow down expansions, and make each one better, and more inclusive? You may not be able to change this (e.g. cog in the machine), but I think it would make a lot of players significantly happier with eve if they got complete expansions, not just partial content all the time. Yes, I know of the problems had with releasing a lot of content at once (bug problems), so release it all over the course of 1-4 weeks, instead of over 6 months, and never getting to a lot of things at all.

Thanks for listening!

Shasz
Angels of Anarchy
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:07:00 - [165]
 

My thoughts and brainstorms:

Observations:

- Huge laggy blob wars aren't that fun. Ignoring the lag part, at some point in fleet size you reach the point where your fleet is big enough to alpha one of the other team straight off the field. The battle just quickly reduces itself to the point where that no longer happens, and then can become strategic again.

- Huge laggy blob wars are fought over sov assets and usually planned ahead by someone.

- Bigger (fleets) is always better, despite the drawbacks and organizational challenges. Sov structures have craptons of EHP, and the more you bring, the faster it dies. The longer it takes, the more likely you are to get attacked.


Solutions? and brainstorming...

- Fewer EHP on sov structures, many more of them, and tie them together somehow so that a 300 man fleet is more efficiently used in 3x 100 man fleets doing 3 things. Players like maxing efficiency, even if it means training more FCs.

- Use hacking or some_new_skill to defeat/takeover sov structures. Make the job of the fleet to protect the guys putting up or taking out the sov instead of blowing it up. That could be a time-driven skill rather than DPS-driven, and maybe it takes 3 hacks over a 48 hour period to cover all the timezone players? Something along those lines. Basically take DPS out of the mechanic, make DPS only a ship vs. ship thing.

- Make sov structures / outposts something only a dread can destroy? Gives dreads purpose again.

- Tie outpost defense shields to small moon-based generators with indiginous plucky little teddy bears with sharp sticks.

- Fix the CTRL key! (sorry that one slipped in - first rule of brainstorming is don't erase anything though!)

Eh, that's enough for now I guess. It's already a wall of text.

Comstr
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:07:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Specifically with the "random moon movement" thing, I'd also be concerned that some little corp will have claimed a dead-end constellation in the middle of nowhere and developed it, only to have a major moon appear, followed by a big alliance who turfs them out to get at the moon.


This is why you fail.

Those little corps don't exist. If they do exist, a big alliance will deploy supercaps right now, because they can. This situation exists right now in pirate 0.0 held space such as Syndicate. At least if the moons did move, that small non-existent corp you are referring to, might get a chance to own it for some time. Right now that non-existent corp will NEVER own it. Ever.

I see your idea's do not list the true, obvious, fastest, easiest and wanted solution - ban all supercaps. The fact that you're not even considering it shows much.

dgastuffz
Caldari
Hell's Revenge
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:07:00 - [167]
 

so forget about high sec forget about low sec / FW all Resurses are gone to 0.0 for years now awesomeShocked

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:09:00 - [168]
 

Also something i'd like to see, why the hell hasn't the sansha tried attacking soverignty in nullsec? seriously have sansha drop into DRF/-A-/Goon home systems with supercaps and reinforce there station and then wormhole out that would be insane!


Leskit
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:09:00 - [169]
 

I would like to add a disclaimer to my previous post: That is looking at the value of a WH in it's class, not its statics. Some/a lot of corps simply can't run c4's or c5's (i know, strange concept).

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:14:00 - [170]
 

Originally by: Shasz

- Fewer EHP on sov structures, many more of them, and tie them together somehow so that a 300 man fleet is more efficiently used in 3x 100 man fleets doing 3 things. Players like maxing efficiency, even if it means training more FCs.

- Use hacking or some_new_skill to defeat/takeover sov structures. Make the job of the fleet to protect the guys putting up or taking out the sov instead of blowing it up. That could be a time-driven skill rather than DPS-driven, and maybe it takes 3 hacks over a 48 hour period to cover all the timezone players? Something along those lines. Basically take DPS out of the mechanic, make DPS only a ship vs. ship thing.

- Make sov structures / outposts something only a dread can destroy? Gives dreads purpose again.

- Tie outpost defense shields to small moon-based generators with indiginous plucky little teddy bears with sharp sticks.

- Fix the CTRL key! (sorry that one slipped in - first rule of brainstorming is don't erase anything though!)

Eh, that's enough for now I guess. It's already a wall of text.


i like all of those, EXCEPT THE HACKING, i agree that hacking needs a proper profession, perhaps make gates need to be hacked to also take soverignty or something, and lots of small objectives and maybe 1-2 big objectives to capture a system....

More like say.....

Incursions but with objectives in the same systems... pop the small ones to unlock the bigger ones, 20-30 shield generators 1000km from soverignty modules for small fleets to atack? prior to dropping dreads on the stations/ihub etc.

sbu's after onlined, require the gate to be hacked to interface with the SBU :S

Zagdul
Gallente
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:15:00 - [171]
 

Edited by: Zagdul on 03/08/2011 19:25:30



I was there, in fleet the other day with a few friends and we all started brain storming on ways we'd enjoy sov and the ability to make it less focused on structures and more focused on pvp.

What we came up with were player driven incursions.

You have alot of the code written and to implement it would be pretty cool.

Basically, we've got acceleration gates already that limit ship size. Now when an attacking force launches an incursion, they do so by planting the acceleration gates in systems which deploy a dead-space "flag" that needs to be defended or destroyed.

Each level of the player driven incursion allows for an attacking force to implement larger acceleration gates which would escalate an engagement.

Sov is now defended on a sliding scale (similar to incursions) where disruption happens, not to the level of incursions, but it's something that a defending force definitely wants to take part in and enjoys doing it.

This benefits everyone in null sec in that, when you defend the initial stages of an invasion, smaller alliances who are skilled with small gang warfare can do so and it benefits them.

In terms of resources such as moon-goo and the likes. This will still create reasons and things to fight over so I don't forsee stagnation happening. Rather, making player driven incursions on a sliding scale of who dominates a system and comes out more powerful in the end.

Things like defending the accelleration gates to make sure your fleet can get through to fight for the flag.

Less blob as you'd put a "size" limit (similar to wormholes) on the defending and attacking gates. These structures can be used in a manner like POS's where there's a password which a specific role is necessary to change (config starbase etc.) which keeps in line with the whole fun espionage of EVE.


Possibilities are limitless with this and I truely feel it would create a better nullsec for all.

Kirkland Langue
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:17:00 - [172]
 

Edited by: Kirkland Langue on 03/08/2011 19:22:12
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Agree with all of these, except the player-activity-sov one, not least because it conflicts with the point about not having to spend ages clearing up after you've won. If you've been ratting and mining and stuff and scored lots of "sov points", and then I come along and camp you into your stations until you all jumpclone back to empire and never come back, why should I then have to grind mining and ratting until I've scored enough points to actually claim your stations? Again, not dead-set against it, I just don't see a strong argument in favor.


Well when I was referring to player activity - I was NOT referring to mining and ratting. Those activities can be done with Bots so I oppose them being used to determine SOV.

The example I gave, using PI to determine SOV, is much closer to what I mean - something where the Players determine where SOV is held. The Alliance leadership might decide where fleets are willing to defend, but it is Active Players who would build the SOV structures on Planets, and keep them fueled.

During the POS spam era - a single player could, in theory, hold SOV in 100% of space just by flying around fueling all of the POSes. The effect of such a system is that a large alliance becomes beholden to a small number of Logistics Leadership people. The same can be said of post-DOM sov where SOV bills are paid from the Holding corp's wallet, but only a handful of people have access to it.

If the "SOV Structure" on PI were used - you would count up the number of these structures adding to each alliance that is contesting a System - and whoever "wins" has SOV. Winning might be having the most, or maybe 50% of total points, or maybe exceeding any other alliance by some quantity - various ways to measure winning, or introducing degrees of winning.. but the point is - Players Decide where the SOV is. Points do not accumulate - they just equal the number of these structures, similar to the old POS rules.

Then to measure that the players are actually "active" - you introduce a fuel requirement to the Sov Structures. This also provides a means by which an attacking force can go after your sov - camp the planets, where the fuel is loaded, and stop fuel shipments. Players aren't going to maintain SOV structures on PI colonies, if they can't reach the system - and they aren't likely to do it, even if they can reach the system, if they've effectively been kicked out. SOV would flip as players take down their PI colonies (to build elsewhere as they still only have up to 6 colonies each) or stop fueling the structures.. or even leave the alliance, meaning that the structure no longer contributes to the alliance that used to live there.


This is how SOV should be decided - not big fleets that grind through structures for a week and tear down years of building, with no intention of actually remaining.

Kay Rizen
Minmatar
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:19:00 - [173]
 

Edited by: Kay Rizen on 03/08/2011 19:21:00
10-25 on 10-25 fleet combat in 0.0 is the absolute most fun in this game. Your individual setups and strategies matter, and you can drink and have a good time without losing 800 ships to a bad warp call. Find a way to inspire small gang warfare in 0.0 even for min/maxers who are currently farming nyxes.

Oh and even though "Nullsec should feel big and uneven", making money in the worst 0.0 space (yea I live in Pure Blind) should always be better than "want[ing] to look back" and run level 4 missions in empire, so we can fund our small fleet combat without jump cloning.

Solhild
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:21:00 - [174]
 

Edited by: Solhild on 03/08/2011 19:27:36
Oops. Double post.

Solhild
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:24:00 - [175]
 

For decent ideas about null sec, read the epic in F&I by Doctor Invictus.

Svalinn
SOMER Blink
Cognitive Development
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:24:00 - [176]
 

I think that the blog has covered the issues facing 0.0 both from a CCP and a player perspective rather well, which is a break from the recent... things they have said and done. Please don't let us down on this.


I think that starting from the ground up is a good way of doing things. But I feel you would need to go back to more basic levels, and actually compare 0.0 to empire. Both empire and 0.0 have common features such as belts, NPCs in belts and sites, planets, but there's actually very little difference, just a straight forward increasing of the rat level. Besides bubbles, 0.0 doesn't really feel different enough, especially with cloaky T3s that can move with almost absolute impunity. I think the mechanics should be changed, but to do this, you should look at true security, how it is distributed, and look at how it can affect systems.

True Security
True sec has a mild influence on the quality of NPC rats and relative ores, but that is generally all it does. What might be a better idea is that true security and the inherent isolation from empire restrictions should have an influence on industrial processes and science research, so that lower true security values should increase refining efficiency, better invention, decrease research and production time, and should also have an passive effect on the defense of a system so that systems with very negative true security statuses are harder to take than systems which have very weakly negative true security statuses.

But what about 0.0 that boarders empire and so has relatively poor security statuses? Ideally, you want areas near Empire to be 0.0 areas of flux and transition, where it is easy to gain a foothold, easy to lose it and difficult to hold it. Industry is possible and they should have pre-nerf ratting capabilities, but the real advantages should be seen much deeper into 0.0. Instead, boarder 0.0 should be fast and furious, easy for the new alliance to break into and a dream for the roaming person or small gang.

Areas deeper into 0.0 should be like the wide open ocean. There are islands, good places to land and build, but relatively few of them. Better defended, harder to take, but much much greater prizes for those who hold them. These islands should have the capability to be more than self sufficient, and provide the needs of the areas around, with the right investment and management.


The Wild 0.0
At this time, it's basically Empire space without guns and concord. There's nothing there that makes it different - you can see everyone in local, every celestial, every planet. It's... boring.

- Remove local from 0.0, make it an instrastructure dependant item.
- Remove asteroid belts from lists and overview - find them with probes or short range scanners. Basically, when you jump into a 0.0 system that hasn't been claimed, you shouldn't expect to see everything inside it.
- Introduce different environmental effects similar to wormhole space, system dependent but weaker than W-space. Make certain systems more dangerous, at the cost of cutting time off of a journey. Or make some valuable systems more dangerous, increase the risk and reward


I think generally, you guys need to bite the bullet. Don't worry too much about the scale of the changes as much as the necessity of what is needed. 0.0 needs a shakeup, and many aren't going to like it simply because they're used to it. Yup, 0.0 is broken, and people are used to it! It looks like you guys understand that now, so keep us informed, keep an open mind, and don't be afraid...

... to rock the boat. :)


Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:26:00 - [177]
 

For the moment I will just make one general and one specific comment.

General:

I'm sure you realize this, but I want to emphasize this, when determining resource/industrial capability for the various area's of NULL you should already have in place similar general thoughts in mind for Low and High sec.

You do not want to finish your design of Null and then realize that some of the resources you strategically placed in Null would have been better off being a Low sec exclusive.

Specific:

This comment I do not necessarily agree with...

Quote:
The interests of players and their leaders should align


I can see value in having area's that have very valuable resources that benefit at the corp/alliance level (moo goo), but that are a bit barren when it comes to generating income for the general population (rats). Of course, this could be reversed as well.

I say this because these factors could be used to make some of the more valuable area's for a corp/alliance to control also one of the most difficult to populate with enough sufficiently motivated pilots to hold.

This means that certain organizational style would flourish in this area's, while others would consistantly whither and die (or at least eventually be forced to relocate).

Conflict of interest, even internally, can be a good thing if properly handled.

Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:26:00 - [178]
 

Originally by: Koraeth
I think one thing that's being over-looked in 0.0, is what does it give you over empire space?
(material items)

Right now, Moon goo (which is an alliance profit mechanic, lets face it) is the only thing you can't get in empire. High-end Ores? Nope, wormholes. Isk? Nope, got missions in empire, anoms in 0.0 (lets not go into the debate between which one is better).

What's missing is something that you can procure or produce in 0.0 that needs to be exported to high-sec for profit. Something the average player can get his hands on.

How it's obtained is a different matter, but something in 0.0 that's not obtainable in High-Sec that drives people into 0.0 to obtain it.




Officer and deadspace items, also faction items to some degree.



John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:27:00 - [179]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Gogela
This is very exciting.

I moved out of nullsec a few years ago. I make WAY more isk in empire and low sec than I ever did in 0.0... but when I lived in 0.0 I did have more fun. The only thing keeping me out is the ISK I make elsewhere and the fact that small alliances don't have a foothold. I've been in several corps and alliances (in the distant past) and the smaller groups were always more fun... just a few pods trying to break a piece off for themselves (FYI if you are new to the game I can't recommend the corp "Demon Womb" enough...). Good times.

I'll leave some 'usefull' feedback later when I have time to think about it and write, but in the meantime I just want to say this is a good start and I like where you head is at CCP.


Yes, ISK generation is a big issue that we need to tackle in a more systemic manner. We've totally aware that people of all playstyles need to be able to make money in nullsec if we want them to consider living there.


I'm holding an internal discussion on this within my corp. so as to pool the best ideas to post (I'm also encouraging our Alliance to do the same) but on this specific issue, from a player level, there doesn't just need to be a way to make more money in null sec than Empire, there needs to be more ways to make money in null sec. There should be opportunities to make money through means other than grinding rats be they from belts, anoms, wormholes or incursions, opportunities that are exclusive to nullsec.

Sneaky Neko
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:27:00 - [180]
 

I would love to see destructible outposts. I find the idea of permanent structures to be odd, it presents an upper bound on the number of outposts that can ever be built in EVE. I know that there is still loads of null-sec space available for outposts but EVE will eventually reach some point of saturation and the entire mechanic of building outposts will become useless.

I also think it's rather odd that a tower needs fuel to run while this massive outpost structure can continue on indefinitely after it's been set up.


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : 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