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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:29:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Comstr
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.


Yes and ban all maelstroms cos they unfair too!! And ban logistics cos PL bringa too many! YARRRR!!ughYARRRR!!

Terheasa Heranah
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:32:00 - [182]
 

Ill reply with a much more in depth thought on 0.0 later but in the mean time I see everyone talking about dynamic moons and then changing true sec. One is absolute rubbish and the other is pure gold. I would like to see PI moon mining but, not a moon that *pops* a new type of moon goo, that's ridiculous. What a moon has it has, just put more variety of goo and in different amounts so that a two mineral moon becomes a four or five mineral moon but doesn't have enough of every type to keep reactions going all month long. And since we are talking about it in a PI sense, the tower becomes your customs port and can only do the second level of reactions, the first level of reactions would have to be done on the moon, further balancing how much you can get out of it by using powergrid as a limitation.

As for 0.0 true sec being dynamic, this is a really cool idea. Being able to effect the true sec of systems would add a whole new level to the game and the metric for it is already described in the backstory. Who does more pirating in 0.0 than the player? Simply make true sec dependant on number of kills and pods over a certain time period and give it a fast regen rate. That way it works much more like standings do. This also creates the need for large alliances to travel outside their domain to run anoms because under this mechanic, their own space would become rubish from them not killing anything in it. Boost what the industry IHubs give and suddenly you have a nice place for industrial, safer yes but still vulnerable. Miners mine at home, pve/pvpers work at the border of alliance space. Makes the industrialists a nice target for a BLOPS fleet.

More later

Grady Eltoren
Minmatar
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:33:00 - [183]
 

Epic blog. I love team BFF but this makes me love EVE and CCP much more. The groundwork and discussion you have laid out have some serious potential and show a great wisdom imho. Enlightment ='s Knowing that you know not.

My two cents though -

I really like the idea of making this more a game than second life (and a cruddy one at that) by helping ALL players to reduce the overhead involved with playing. Being a POS monkey or grinding the game for days (not hours) gets really old as you have mentioned in a round-a-bout way in your blog.
With that said...
You want EVE to maintain the struggle = ya know? Just lessen it.

I myself believe maybe we should make resources homogoneous in 0.0 and just let it's distance to HI-SEC be the thing to fight over. This would give industrial production a meaning more as you would be exporting goods instead of importing. The blance would be though that the TRUE SEC status of the closer systems give less bonuses or cannot even claim SOV. In other words - a large alliance would want to have a line of systems that go from deep 0.0 where it is rich to hi-sec where they can sell there wares. The map might need redesign as far as jump gates goes, but it would look more like a pie chart with the wedges being a solid color funnel to empire instead of an area where an alliance lives now being blotchy. PVP would increase as alliances seek to cut off the middle of the finger that another alliance uses to channel its wares into Empire from far out. You are vulnerable on all sides as well. Wormholes would become good gateways to deep 0.0 too where corps could brave the risk of logistics like they do with wormholes in order to get a foot hold out in the middle of no-where. Noob corps would stand a chance at taking the first tier out of 0.0 systems too because logistics and supplies would be easily available. This would seek to increase PVP as well as other alliances stage attacks on those first tier 0.0 systems that are more strategic to logistics than they are rich in resources. Again - the richer loot is farther out on the map and the inner 0.0 systems are not. Low sec would gain importance too as this may be a quiet way for alliances to sneak in their loot from o.o

Onosandor Ravenloff
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:38:00 - [184]
 

We need a range of targets with a range of importance (ie, biggest isn't always the most important) that a range of fleet sizes can realistically attack with success. The long wanted, but seldom (if ever) realized reality of small frigate gangs being able to significantly affect things in nullsec should be a goal. Seriously...how fun would that be?

Kaksakamasami
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:48:00 - [185]
 

Good thing it was all talked to death already.

Here are the solutions:

1. As someone said - small gang/solo 0.0 is dying out. Rejuvenating it has to top priority, because it's really small (you and few buddies) warfare that everything else builds on. To make it happen everything that utilizes HP buffer (be it POSes, station equipment, sov modules and even anchorables) has to go and switch to presence/task based system. Focus on sov taking/disrupting tasks that can be done by group of three people (and be countered by such group). That will make sure there is always something to do in EVE and natural willingness to gang up (and call reinforcements) will make sure that really small gang encounters will spiral into bigger fleetfights.

2. Sov taking:
It should focus on multiple simultanous tasks spread over several systems and locations within those systems. In this way, we:
-eliminate lag
-still have epic 1000 vs 1000 battles
-open a plethora of tactical options
-gives smaller, but smarter force a chance of win against big, dumb blob

3. Quick fix to 0.0 industry: Kill mineral compression and make all 0.0 ores equal in terms of isk/hour income (which means that strip mining 0.0 veld would literally drown you in tritanium, but logistical challenges on moving it would be to severe to make Jita exports reasonable). In this simple way we solve several problems at once:
-make PvPers and skilled PvE essential for each other survival
-force projection will need to establish industrial beachheads, which provide target rich environment for defenders and attackers and limits excessive roadtrips
-revitalize entire 0.0ssec industry
-make it easier for PvPers to acquire ships (because, everything will have to be sourced locally)
-balances super-capital manufacture (one would need to establish entire micro-ecosystem of builders, miners and defenders to start production, instead of just paying for freighter component delivery)

4. Lastly, a small, but important part of nullsec life - the cloaking devices. Change them form 'best module of every macroratter' into useful pvp tool. They should work like doomsdays - cause aggro, fireable one per hour and with duration limited to 10 minutes. On plus side - remove all penalties. Essentially, cloak should be 'brb wife aggro' module, with tactical usage in pvp (ambushes, counter espionage). You might expect that every pvp ship with free hislot will come with one fitted. It should be module that fosters player interaction, not makes it possible to avoid it. It seems like something irrelevant for grand scale of nullsec, but in reality it's small change with extremely profound effect on lives of all nullsec inhabitants.

LLoyd Thomson
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:55:00 - [186]
 

I'd like to see more wars which are worth fightig for Twisted Evil

It has become boring here Neutral

Dominick Owusu
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:56:00 - [187]
 

Edited by: Dominick Owusu on 03/08/2011 19:58:06
You mention Jump Bridges as one of the things that are cool/neat/awesome, but requiring fixes. I agree in relation to your goals for nullsec (to make it feel big) they tend to make nullsec seem smaller, but that's only because there's no visibility of the distance of a jump. This applies to regular stargates and to a lesser extent wormholes. It's the perception of distance that matters to making something feel big.

So you need ways to make the player perceive a large travel distance instead of feeling like they disappeared in one room and instantly reappeared 3 meters to the right in the next room.

Within solar systems this is very successfully accomplished by the warp tunnel animation, passing solar masses, the visible change in speed and the time spent in warp before arrival. Nothing like any of these features is found when using stargates, jumpbridges or wormholes.

I realize that since systems are, or often are on different nodes in your server network, you can't just duplicate the way in-system warping works. But even a simple client side animation with random stars going by that lasts for a period dictated by the distance traveled would work as a starting point.

Alternatively ships arriving in a new system could spawn gate-cloaked and already-in-warp, and land (still gate-cloaked) where they would have spawned as usual off the gate a few seconds later (again with time in warp matching distance between systems.)

Onchas
Posted - 2011.08.03 19:59:00 - [188]
 

Edited by: Onchas on 03/08/2011 20:15:50
A few random ideas:

Mining

Zastrow has a decent and well written post about mining in the CSM stuff. I had a very similar experience as he did.

Mining in 0.0 should go back to pre-Drone Regions standards as the most lucrative, non-chance based activity available to the individual player. (non-chance because faction loot, officer spawns that become market items are something that keep a lot of people ratting and anomaly hunting.)

Miners should see nothing but dollar signs in their eyes when they think of 0.0 belts (keep the belts, add more anomalies as well). Increasing mercoxit needs for all tech2 gear and make it part of mining the high-end minerals might be a way of starting to balance this out.

More mining means more things for roaming gangs to shoot.

Sov & True-Sec

You guys have true-sec status messed up.

All null sec should default to -1.0 space (or at least < -0.5), but as you add more infrastructure - stations, jump bridges, CSMAs, etc. that should auto-raise the true sec to something closer to -0.1 or even 0.0, decreasing the quality of standard ratting and anomalies.

Stations ought to be the big thing that raises truesec.

HOWEVER, station managers ought to be able to "install" mission agents (maybe 1-2% of bounties as a tax). This would give an advantage to living in station systems. I envision a 0.0 Motsu in some places where big carebear alliances live.

The agent ought to of some political entity hostile to those pirates that inhabit that 0.0 space (eg. Caldari in Guristas, a pirate faction hostile to Guristas)

Pirate Faction

Killing pirates of a certain faction already hurts you with that faction. But that should result it that faction getting angry at you. Angry enough that when you go into their 0.0 Pirate faction space they shoot at you, they don't let you dock, they don't let you use certain services. Maybe even angry enough that they put a bounty on your head collectable by one of their + standing player pilots.)

So, if you live in, say, space with Serpentis rats that you farm for a month, you shouldn't be able to saunter into Serpentis space and expect to dock up.

This gives people a reason to want to live in Serpentis space. I don't have space to explain, but it also makes it more viable as a jumping-off point into invading 0.0 player space since those living in 0.0 player space will likely have made enemies with the pirate faction that owns the 0.0 space.

Just a random thing to toss in here: more faction high-meta mission awards and LP stuff should be implemented. New players who haven't had time to skill all the way up should be able to get gear that is not affected by the T2 specialization skills that comes a bit closer to what tech2 can do in terms of performance.

The availability and price balance of Pirate and Navy faction ships and mods have really improved the game in my opinion. There's got to be a way of making some of that gear exclusive to the 0.0 pirate faction stations and missions.


Super Capitals

Titans are stupid. Get rid of them. Nothing about titans ever made the game better (Titan bridges being the only arguable exception). Auto-melt them down into super carriers or capital components and rebate the skills to those who trained for them. Super carriers are still kinda uber but more reasonable from a skills and money perspective.

This suggestion probably has people in my Alliance planning my assassination, so as a compromise let me get rid of them.

A 1 billion isk torpedo (4 types, and counter racial - Thermal to kill Caldari, Kinetic to kill Gallentee etc) that I can sling under a 3.5-5 bil Tech3 special purpose Battleship (Stealth Bomber upgrade without the stealth) that lets me insta-pop a super cap would be a nice start.

Also:
o Super capitals and titans should be warp scramable by towers and ship points.

o Make faction tower force field bubbles bigger. It's getting crowded in there with supers; also makes faction towers more awesome

mxzf
Minmatar
Shovel Bros
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:01:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
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.


This. I think that nullsec would benefit greatly from a logarithmic increase in costs from holding territory. It shouldn't be hard for a small alliance to own a system or two, but it should be a massive undertaking for an alliance to hold 50 systems (especially if they're not using very many of them).

Possibly make the costs relative to the number of active players you have in the system in proportion to your alliance's total population. I'm not entirely sure how that would work out, but there should be some mechanic granting small alliances a boost when they're trying to get a foothold of a few systems as opposed to a massive powerblock just grabbing systems because they can.

Astomichi
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:09:00 - [190]
 

Edited by: Astomichi on 03/08/2011 20:10:04
The cause of majority of these "problems" with current 0.0 mechanics (ie. those things which currently go against the principles you've outlined here), can be shown to rest firmly with CCP's ineffective enforcement of anti-botting rules.

Too many supercaps? That's because you left the botting coalitions to do their thing in peace for years while they built them.

The failure of your past efforts to refocus 0.0 alliances' income on "active" vs. "passive"? With bots, everything becomes passive. (Also, active income in 0.0 isn't competitive with hisec without bots so that's additional incentive.)

The death of small-gang hunting? When you replace all the people who used to just "hang out" in a section of space and rat/mine/live with bots, you simultaneously remove the roaming group's targets and the space-holding group's incentive to form a fleet to combat the roamers. If you have unkillable bots, there's no reason to fight small gangs - it's far more effective to bore them into not even coming my anymore (see: the whole of dronelands).

Blobs? Bots encourage these in two ways.
a) In the smaller case, many people with just one or two alts will bot with those to provide their personal isk. Endemically, they lose interest in PvP itself after a month or two due to the lack of consequences for them. All that's left is an interest in the overarching politics of EvE, so they only log in for the CTAs, and the skew is increased towards the blob.
b) In the more damaging (and common) case, one or a few people run an army of bots, and using the massive income fund a "toy" alliance for themselves. This creates an unnaturally high concentration of people whose needs are mostly (through alliance ship replacement programs etc) supplied by botting and whose actions are thus tied to the ambitions of the bot-masters running the alliance. Botters only real need in EvE is more space to bot in, so they'll use their personal blob to get it, and you end up with EvE's current political state.


0.0's mechanics do need to be looked at, but until the botting issue is really resolves, all your changes will just be spitting in the wind.

Oh, and CCP Hairwave? U Mad? I'd would've expected more artful trolling from you than what I've seen so far.

Killerhound
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:11:00 - [191]
 

I am very disapointed with the blog in a whole.

It is well known since Dominion Nerf, that 0.0 offers no particular reason to go beside moongoo. Holding sovereignity has become blatantly useless. It is even considered a high risk. Strong powers like the DRF can easily wipe out any claim to a region and the major conflicts around it are just to bring fun to member, not to gain any form of advantage.

The cost are horrible for the necessary conditions to hold and everytime you get the feeling "I am at home" CCP comes and nerfs income, conditions or logistic.

Beside I am truly shocked. Any design process, especially the one in software design, is using a lot of time. Usually it all starts with a cycle that has an inception phase, a design phase, a phase containing prototyping, beta testing, Bug fixing and deployment. Those steps are always iterating. Its a horrible investment since the outcome is always very uncertain. Now I see this blog and ask myself, how is this gonna work if the winter Expansion is about 0.0 and inception phase is only about to be completed.

Logistic is btw no big deal since jump freighter. Material is being produced in High Sec / Low Sec or even bought there and is easily transporter at very low cost / risk to necessair system. Nerfing this will render 0.0 more useless, doing something to compensate will just be useless. It would be the same thinking as for the Refining Array.

Only way is to introduce material uniform distribution. Everything that is build should have components that can only be found in 0.0. Make EVE dependent of 0.0.


Ugleb
Minmatar
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:14:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: Tradik

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.


Just a thought, but what about some sort of hacking? Call it 'synchronising systems' with the stargate and so on. Might be interesting to make it more about specialists, and be an in road for dedicated mini profession ships.

Trevonity
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:30:00 - [193]
 

tl;dr

distribute defences across a series of small controlled pockets in a system. lower the EHP of structures and then allow players to build and customize their defences as they please. Succesfully defending or conquering a system requires a dominance with both numbers and skill of individual pilots as well as a variety of ships.
-------------------

I didn't have a chance to read all the posts so if someone already suggested this or something similar then sorry, didn't see it.

With regards to the shooting stationary structures with lots of EHP being very boring why not instead break defences into a network instead of a single massive structure? For instance the corp/alliance holding a system might have to anchor a central defence location at which the key sov structure would have to be located and maybe their is some sort of deadspace generator with an acceleration gate that's locked. Throughout the system their are various gate control areas that have to be either activated/destroyed to unlock the primary accelaration gate. So if someone wants to capture the system they have to do many small things that may be short (if their is little resistance) or long (if the defenders are well organized). Also by adding acceleration gates like that it may be possible to restrict ship types and numbers, that way its not all blob warefare and their would occasionally be fights on level ground, or more level ground that is as the side with the most people can hold out longer and probably win. There could be 2 gates leading into a pocket and the defenders and attackers each warp in from different areas. Some of these defensive locations could only allow frigates, some frigs and cruisers and so on. Also the defenders would have the ability to upgrade these locations by perhaps anchoring various sentry guns/drones to defend it, maybe even a module that semi-cloaks it forcing pilots to probe it out rather than a beacon they warp to. Perhaps making them very dynamic (as in the defenders could repair one location while the attackers are taking down another) so that its more than just a simple objectives list. Oh and all structures that had to be destroyed would have more reasonable levels of EHP, such that once someone wins its not a long slog to blow the thing up. Also the central location would be the most heavily defended but probably allow as many or as few ships as the pilots have available.

Finally maybe make the option for some of these networks to be more than just a single gate, maybe they could be upgraded to contain multiple rooms. I realize this is probably starting to sound somewhat similar to missions but their is no bounties or reward from some agent. You win you get the system. Also as all of this is set up by the player's the sandbox increases its ability to self-generate content as players are effectively able to build missions for other players and try to make them difficult to assault.

Anyways thats my idea but its coming from someone with extremely little experience of 0.0 so take it as you will.

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:32:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: Comstr
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.



Seconding this. Greyscale, you are basing some of your decisions on things that do not exist. Please do us all a favor and leave your prejudices at the door. Its a "I am right and the world is wrong" attitude. Is there anyone here who thinks small corp owning a good moon in nullsec can actually happen? Other than you Greyscale?

ps. Since you dont actually need sovereignty to mine moons, what was that example meant to be about?

Ironic that you mention large alliance coming in and getting the space while you yourself just did the exact same thing nerfing nullsec not long ago. You pretty much ensured that those "small corps" move back to highsec.

The devblog is nice and a step in right direction. Maybe it appears so because its about sweeping generalizations, but at least the "lessons learned" part shows that you have understood something. Now we just need to hold on to these ideas for few years and hopefully we get some improvements. That requires understanding where the problems stem from however, and remembering that everything affects everything else.

There are lot of good ideas and insights in this thread already.

Vanessa Vansen
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:38:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Jekyl Eraser

...
Your implants shouldn't be destroyed so easily by bubbles. Bubbles slows every 0.0 resident skill training.
...



Just a quick idea an how that could be integrated ...

"Due to the latest results in T3 research, your POD is not fitted with an interdiction nullifier"

Pro:
- when you're in a pod bubbles can't stop you any longer
- a good interceptor could still catch you
Neg:
- when you're in a pod bubbles can't stop you any longer

Yes, I don't have an opinion on that thing, just wanted to post an idea how it could be integrated.

Inipinipocoloco
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:41:00 - [196]
 

Edited by: Inipinipocoloco on 03/08/2011 20:43:06
maybe the concept of nullsec needs a new basic ressource upon which the income generated for nullsec corps/alliances is founded

such a aspect could be brought to us by incarna, the feature that turns pods into people

the vast, dangerous lowsec areas are surely not void of life. there are to be colonies maybe even completly inhabiteted solar systems.

inhabited by what ? well it does not matter if u call them dirtcrawlers or citizens

but these entities could make the cash flow, they could be influenced by "ruling player associations" to generate more "tax-income", reduce build times, whatever and all..

this interaction player - ressouce could be handled by political tasks player vs occupied npc inhabitants in form of missions, complexes or PI like interactions

this "inhabitants" could also be connected to the sov warfare which could add "political goal" to sov warfare, to get away from boring posh bashing

and in fact i think there are much more possibilies out there



Whiteknight03
WESAYSO Industries
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:46:00 - [197]
 

Will improvements to wormhole life be included in this?

Also: One of the main complaints seems to be getting into nullsec sovereignty fun as a small group. Perhaps this could tie into reducing lag by reducing the bring more ships mentality.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:49:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Zey Nadar
Originally by: Comstr
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.



Seconding this. Greyscale, you are basing some of your decisions on things that do not exist. Please do us all a favor and leave your prejudices at the door. Its a "I am right and the world is wrong" attitude. Is there anyone here who thinks small corp owning a good moon in nullsec can actually happen? Other than you Greyscale?

ps. Since you dont actually need sovereignty to mine moons, what was that example meant to be about?

Ironic that you mention large alliance coming in and getting the space while you yourself just did the exact same thing nerfing nullsec not long ago. You pretty much ensured that those "small corps" move back to highsec.

The devblog is nice and a step in right direction. Maybe it appears so because its about sweeping generalizations, but at least the "lessons learned" part shows that you have understood something. Now we just need to hold on to these ideas for few years and hopefully we get some improvements. That requires understanding where the problems stem from however, and remembering that everything affects everything else.

There are lot of good ideas and insights in this thread already.

The whole T2 manufacturing chain is poorly designed. It relies heavily on ice road trucker activities, which are tedious. It is also why null is so heavily tied to empire market hubs. The whole T2 manufacturing system needs a rework. This whole:
Quote:
The interests of players and their leaders should align

thing is a good reason to do away with the moon-based source of T2 minerals. Shift it to something that a gang of ships does (scanning something down, blowing something up, etc) where there is vulnerability, active income, group play, etc. The less POSs are needed, the fewer there will be littering space, the more fun players will have.

Dr Cedric
Caldari
Orbital Industry and Research.
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:50:00 - [199]
 

In my experience playing eve since 2005, some of my biggest frustrations have been in null sec. I've lived there for a year, then back to high sec, then back and forth. In my experience, there are several hurdles that should be looked at. I'll try to be succinct and explain clearly.

1) You "must" be in a large corp/alliance to "own" space. The mechanics of owning space requires a large commitment of time and resources. Yes, this should be necessary to make your mark (i.e. plant an outpost), but at the same time, solo, or small groups have no interest in null sec because they can't DO anything there except try to join the already large groups there.

Fix: Centralize resources to allow large groups to support themselves, and make more null sec space to allow small groups to create a home. Possible make killing POS's only about removing "squatters" from space you'd like your larger group to occupy.

2) Safety in numbers
In my last excursion to 0.0, the "home base" system was usually filled with at least 30 "blues." And almost always one "AFK" cloaked person, either waiting to ambush (read: Hot drop 50 Capitals) or just trying to disrupt activities. Honestly, if a corp/alliance has worked long and hard enough to plant an Outpost, organize their members, gain sovereignty etc etc, then it should be HARD for the opposition to usurp that situation. A single AFK cloaker should not be able to disrupt operations. Yes, a group of players should be able to enter a system and start shooting people, but I should feel confident enough in the "safety" of my home base to not dock up the moment one red enters the system.

3) Static structures blow!
POSes are a pain for almost every player. At this point, the only reason to have a POS is to extract Moon goo, or because you don't have an outpost to dock in. The prior shouldn't need a POS, the latter should. Moon mining and other T2 resource gathering activities should more resemble Planetary interaction. This would create the opportunity to make Dreadnaughts useful (to bombard the moon/planet command centers), would reduce the need for POS's in general, and make the POS's out there useful and a real tactical target.

4. Capitals, Capitals everywhere.
I'm sure this will be one of the more talked about topics on this thread. Something has to be done with capitals. At this point, they are about as difficult to come by as a shell on the beach. If I wanted, I could by how ever many PLEX, trade them for ISK and BOOM...I've got a Wyvern. If cost doesn't make an effect on how much they are used, maybe a different principle could: bigger is not better. Everyone knows that in sub-capital ship comparisons, there is a rock-paper-scissor effect. No one ship is "better" than the others, or at least ship class. Right now, super carriers are hands down, the best ship as far as fleet warfare is concerned. There is no glaring weak point in their design, and there is always a tactical advantage to bringing them. This advantage needs to be eliminated, and capitals need to fall into the rock-paper-scissor model.

Thats my two cents, take it as you will!

Ced

Elojs
Gallente
Corp 42
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:51:00 - [200]
 

The biggest thought I've been left with in my admittedly brief time in nullsec was the disproportionate power wielded by the superblob alliances that were there. The huge fleets they field because no one around is bigger make them feel invulnerable to effective attacks by smaller groups. Safety in numbers and all that.

I'd like to see those superblob alliances forced to look over their shoulders as they bully their way around nullsec. Force projection of 500-1000 pilots should leave the rear areas very vulnerable to attack from small groups who can essentially leave swaths of destruction in the wake of their passing for the huge fleet to discover when it returns.

Also, how about the idea that an alliance above a certain size becoming a target of interest for some huge superblob of an NPC empire bombing the snot out of them to whittle down the size of the competition? I mean, realistically, wouldn't the Amarr or Caldari be interested in reducing the external threat of some humongous nullsec alliance? Particularly since Incursion, strong invading groups from nullsec regions should be a credible threat to be addressed by the NPC empires.

This would address the no one should feel absolutely safe in nullsec point, I would think.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:57:00 - [201]
 

one thing i want to see is more team work in 0.0 for logistics. like wya back in the day before jump bridges and jump freighters.

next - make different cynos for different types of ships. such as cyno 1 for carriers and dreads, and cyno 2 for moms and cyno 3 for titans / titan bridges.

nerf ehp of super caps

make dreads useful again hp buff, or change siege module to add more survivability.

communication nodes. - sov 0.0 shouldnt have local, but you can get local if you build communication arrays in the system.
basic - gives regional chat
beta - constellation
standard - delayed local
improved - instant local.

industrial improvements
give us mining barges with some survivability for 0.0 space maybe tank some belt rats or excavate faster.

Empire owned sentries, you know for the 0.0 gates, have to have a high sov level can be used as an early warning system.

eh just tossing stuff out there.

Kheraxis
Posted - 2011.08.03 20:59:00 - [202]
 

One thing I thought would be interesting to see would be a hybrid of the incursion sites, sleeper anomolies, and ihub effects. Have the ihubs create their anomoly spawns as normal, but as your ihub level increases you get incursion-style sites that require a gang to run. Payouts for all sites would be site-based rather than bounty-based, you need to complete the site for the payout, and the payout for that 'level' of site varies with the number of people in the gang running it. A site would have a recommended number of people, and up to that number all receive the same payout. More people means less payout per person. Sure you could solo your level 2 anomoly in your SC, but you would get the exact same payout that you would if you were in a 10 man gang. But running that anomoly in a 10 man gang the payout would be 10x that amount, spread among the members. A level 3 anomoly might be similar to a vanguard site, level 4 an assault site, level 5 a HQ site. 50 people blowing through HQ sites could potentially make bank for themselves and their alliance, but it would take organization and cooperation to make that happen.

Vincent Jarjadian
Posted - 2011.08.03 21:04:00 - [203]
 

Nullsec moneymaking activities should be generally competitive with one another, and therefore pay out more than equivalent activities elsewhere.

LVL4s are profitable....

Bring back the original anomalies in all 0.0 systems... and then incorporate the current system making them even better... IE more havens/sanctums... anomalies higher than these maybe for large groups or small groups of carriers

(this will also mean more caps dying which can only be a good thing)

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.08.03 21:12:00 - [204]
 

I'm having some ideas towards how to make smaller alliances survive in nullsec, and different specializations.

How about an ability to "tune" your space in different directions? Something like you can tune it towards industry giving you nice belts and highly increased resists on all structures, but limiting your ability to field warships.

Or tuning towards a "small" alliance, gives you the bonus of blocking off all your space from caps, but limiting your number of members/(cap)ships/systems in some way.

Or you tune against shield fleets, making armor fleets weaker and vice versa.

Tune towards PvP makes your ships stronger but your infrastructure weaker and limiting industrial activity.

Block your space from capitals but make structures that were previously only destroyable hackable as well.

So essentially you "rig" your space, making yourself stronger at something, but paying a price for it in some other area Wink
I think this would give both smaller alliances and other specialized/non-PvP alliances survivability. It also gives "back-doors" into your space, make different tactics possible and required.

This already exists in some fashion as the effects you find in some wormhole systems.

OR...

If this is all too restrictive and mechanics-forced, why not add a few new nullsec systems with effects in them that cater to the smaller or more specialized alliances? Like incubator areas. For example blocking cap ships or war ships above a certain size. Or giving bonuses to mining lasers, refining, invention or production. Anything that blocks a larger pvp-centric alliance from just steamrolling the area at will.

Elojs
Gallente
Corp 42
Posted - 2011.08.03 21:20:00 - [205]
 

Another thought... How about the largest alliances having a portion of their financial data available via the API? Things like income, estimated expenses based on structures, etc. Some of this can already be estimated, simply by some fairly straightforward formulas using information from the API, and Dotlan. A bit more in the way of public information could apply some downward pressure on the prices these bullies demand of their rental clients for permission to operate.

Just a thought...

JC Ferguson
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2011.08.03 21:27:00 - [206]
 

tl;dr Team BFF is no longer working on 'little things'. It's working on stuff to help out the big botting rmting alliances like goons (and it's just a huge coincidence that both the CSM chair and the lead developer for this crap are both goons.)

5 years is the new 18 months.

Feed Syndication
Posted - 2011.08.03 21:30:00 - [207]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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.

Originally by: Eve
Your alliance can anchor a total of 5 control towers in this solar system each day and you cannot anchor any more.

Please try again tomorrow when the space-time continuum has finished realigning itself.


Smile

Darth Sith
Genbuku.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.08.03 21:36:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: Feed Syndication
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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.

Originally by: Eve
Your alliance can anchor a total of 5 control towers in this solar system each day and you cannot anchor any more.

Please try again tomorrow when the space-time continuum has finished realigning itself.


Smile


^^ This

Please spend some time actually getting to know what your working on before you go and start turning buttons and twisting knobs back at the mothership.

It has been 5 towers per alliance per day for what seems like an eternity to stop the pos spam wars.


Yulinki Atavuli
Minmatar
Caldari Investment and Security Industries
Innovia Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.03 21:42:00 - [209]
 

alot of people have said they want local gone or delayed in 0.0.

i would also like to suggest a deploy-able structure for 0.0 that adds local back for that one system. so you then have the option to use it for whatever reasons you may have.

Mark Ettier
Posted - 2011.08.03 21:42:00 - [210]
 

I've lived in high sec, low sec, and null sec space. I hate missions and mine, industry, react, and trade for my isk.

Null sec is the most fun I've had in eve.
-Holding our space (attacking ANY neutral / red that enters) is fun. Any roamer should realize that there is an entire alliance waiting for them to come so we can squash the intruder. Your presence disrupts us from making isk to replace pvp ships. You will be greeted by a hot drop / superior numbers. If you remove the hot drop... we'll still swarm to you. Don't be so surprised, you'd do the same thing.
-Timers lead to epic battles. Epic battles are fun, no-shows and structure grinding are not fun.
-Most of the increased income of 0.0 goes to replace the ship that just popped. Seeing lvl4 missions generate similar incomes is frustrating, because 0.0 life is using that isk to replace ships/mods which are imported from Empire.
-We have had several people leave 0.0 life because wallets went red due to pvp and lower or equal lvl4 income
(PVP = isk sink, no net gain compared to empire space = frustration -> leave for empire)
-mining just sucks. I need 4 accounts mining to equal 2 account ratting. Does this even make sense? (Arkonor mining high end sanctum(similar) ratting)
-If you dork around with alliance / corp / SOV mechanics too much. We WILL figure out what mechanism makes the most isk and we'll simply adjust the eve mechanic to fit our social structure.
-0.0 isk is used to support life in 0.0 through taxes. JB, sov costs, Super production, etc is done primarily through taxes. The average member looks at income post tax.(as they should). A 10% higher income than Lvl4 will equal much less net for a 0.0 pilot. (Again, replacing pvp ships)
-If something takes more effort to make isk, it should make more isk than the easier method (Drone Regions vs. bounty space / T2 vs T1 production / )

-People will always band together for mutual protection. Eve is a harsh place. i don't see how current mechanics give an advantage for NRDS over NBSI. NBSI is a much safer policy for the same benefit. That neutral trader can be a spy, can be a ganker, or could be an actual trader. I do not see how letting in a 'trader' or someone looking to make isk in our fought for space is remotely in my alliance's best interest.


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