open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals feedback: Movement and logistics
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.15 10:51:00 - [1]
 

This set of threads exist to collect feedback for the separate parts of the devblog "Nullsec Development: Design Goals", which can be found here.


This thread is about: MOVEMENT AND LOGISTICS


Please read the blog and give specific feedback on this area of the blog. The more precise, reasoned and comprehensive you can be, the better we can utilize your feedback Smile

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:12:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 15/08/2011 12:22:54
Quote:
Weak spot for big groups

Logistics should be a weakness for larger organizations of players. It should avoid being tedious, but it should remain a major point of concern as size increases, and be one of the primary drawbacks of growing beyond a certain size.

Bigger ships/fleets travel slower

As the amount of power your fleet can deploy increases, its mobility should decrease. Small, flimsy fleets should always maintain a mobility advantage over big, dangerous ones. This ensures that a wider range of fleet compositions and sizes remain valuable, catering to more preferences and playstyles. It also makes fleet composition more a case of selecting the right tools, and less of just dumping the whole toolbox onto the floor, encouraging players to innovate tactically and strategically.


How about a home system that each alliance with sovereignty has to select with a few benefits and every jump away from it your logistics and movement goes slower and slower.

Maybe the home system cannot be taken without taking an adyacent system first, that way alliances have to think about putting home system in the center, well protected, or move it to make an assault, leaving it and the opposite border more unprotected.

I'm thinking about something like limiting the number of jumps per day that a capital ship can make when you are going away from your home system, allowing capitals to return quickly in retreat or to defend home but limiting the offensive projection and maybe forcing at last smaller territory.


John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:20:00 - [3]
 

  • Bigger ships/fleets travel slower

Quote:
As the amount of power your fleet can deploy increases, its mobility should decrease. Small, flimsy fleets should always maintain a mobility advantage over big, dangerous ones. This ensures that a wider range of fleet compositions and sizes remain valuable, catering to more preferences and playstyles. It also makes fleet composition more a case of selecting the right tools, and less of just dumping the whole toolbox onto the floor, encouraging players to innovate tactically and strategically.

Big fleets consisting of big ships already move slower. Big ships are slower to align and slower to warp than smaller ships so I'm not sure where you're going with this. You should also remember that bigger ships don't necessarily mean more powerful fleets. There's many examples where T2 and T3 Cruiser fleets have destroyed T1 BS fleets so I think this is fairly balanced as it stands now. What you're doing is repeating the mistakes of the past. Less stick, more Carrot. Incentivise us to use smaller ships and smaller fleets rather than punishing us for using large fleets with large ships.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:26:00 - [4]
 

Numbers in the order they appear in blog.

1 and 2: Crude way of slowing down monster blob movement is to let gates have a capacitor of sorts and let jumping drain a portion of it .. un-Eve like though.

3: I highly recommend you find someone who has played Civ4 and ask them about 'maintenance'.
Would fit Eve like a glove with a bit of modifications if you ask me .. added cost (ISK + Resource consumption) the larger (#constellation and distance) one gets.
Throw in sovereignty upgrades (conflicting with other options) that removes some of the added expense (think courthouses in Civ4) and expansion becomes more than just Smash'n'Grab.

4: If a maintenance system was adopted, you'd need a "capital" system from which to calculate it. Benefits of staying small and developing could be ability to have a more extensive JB network in capital constellation/region (S/C) .. negative modifiers applied when/if sovereignty is claimed outside of capital S/C.

5. Freighter convoys should be a huge part of it. Prevent them from being able to use Titan bridges and the rest will fall into place .. Titan's can still be used just not for bulk transport.
Depends very much on the industry section though, major changes to logistics should only be made after self-sufficiency is made possible

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:30:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: John McCreedy
  • Bigger ships/fleets travel slower

Quote:
As the amount of power your fleet can deploy increases, its mobility should decrease. Small, flimsy fleets should always maintain a mobility advantage over big, dangerous ones. This ensures that a wider range of fleet compositions and sizes remain valuable, catering to more preferences and playstyles. It also makes fleet composition more a case of selecting the right tools, and less of just dumping the whole toolbox onto the floor, encouraging players to innovate tactically and strategically.

Big fleets consisting of big ships already move slower. Big ships are slower to align and slower to warp than smaller ships so I'm not sure where you're going with this. You should also remember that bigger ships don't necessarily mean more powerful fleets. There's many examples where T2 and T3 Cruiser fleets have destroyed T1 BS fleets so I think this is fairly balanced as it stands now. What you're doing is repeating the mistakes of the past. Less stick, more Carrot. Incentivise us to use smaller ships and smaller fleets rather than punishing us for using large fleets with large ships.
It's not about movement in battle, is about movement around the map, having big capitals wherever they want in trivial amount of time for big battles. Big assaults that move the big ships (capitals) should take a few days and leave other borders unprotected by those capitals in medium to big territories.

St0n3r0d1um
AtlantiA French Corp
Yulai Federation
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:58:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus

How about a home system that each alliance with sovereignty has to select with a few benefits and every jump away from it your logistics and movement goes slower and slower.

Maybe the home system cannot be taken without taking an adyacent system first, that way alliances have to think about putting home system in the center, well protected, or move it to make an assault, leaving it and the opposite border more unprotected.

I'm thinking about something like limiting the number of jumps per day that a capital ship can make when you are going away from your home system, allowing capitals to return quickly in retreat or to defend home but limiting the offensive projection and maybe forcing at last smaller territory.



I support Krathos in his idea ! The biggest alliance will be forced to have a well organized territory, and if you add that with the idea of Hirana, you could have a system of limiting the deplacement of the bigs fleet by drain a portion of capacitor or anything else, like a bill, that increase as far as you get from your home system :D

Ugleb
Minmatar
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:09:00 - [7]
 

Quote:
Bigger ships/fleets travel slower

As the amount of power your fleet can deploy increases, its mobility should decrease. Small, flimsy fleets should always maintain a mobility advantage over big, dangerous ones.


I just had an idea to further hamstring moving large heavy fleets across multiple regions rapidly. It may be terrible, I may be a genius. Who knows?

Jump Bridges, and Titan jump portals, are non-permanent structures/devices that essentially act as stargates, flinging ships across light years. What if, as well as the fuel cost, there were a time based restriction somehow based on mass or volume?

Simply put, for the more and larger stuff that tries to fit through a jump bridge/portal, the longer it takes. The first few ships might jump instantly, then the next few take say 5 seconds to jump, then the next lot 10 seconds, then 15 seconds and so on. So if you try to jump 10 frigates, its fast. But try to jump 50 battleships and it takes time for the bridge to process them all.

By that method moving a large fleet in big ships across 'short cuts' like a bridge network will take notably longer than moving a small light roaming gang.

This may or may not be a good thing for black ops gangs, it might give a reason to bring more than one black ops BS pilot along.

In fiction terms, such mechanics would represent the advantage of star gates over 'non-permanent' methods.

Quote:
Should be easier with investment

It should be possible to ease the logistical burden within a given area of space by investing in that area.


Reduced jump bridge fuel burning? Reduced jump drive fuel burning (no clue how it would make 'sense' tbh)?

Quote:
Moving large volumes should be a group effort

High-volume shipments should be a special occasion, and as much as possible we should encourage them to be a group activity. These tend to be high-value shipments also, and bringing players together to appreciate and protect the value created, and put them in a position where they're likely to interact with other groups, is a positive thing.


If it will be easier for null sec dwellers to be less reliant on empire supplies, then maybe the ability to carry supplies long distance with ease could be re-adjusted. Jump range or cargo capacity reductions?

(Hate mail anticipated) Razz

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:38:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim on 15/08/2011 13:41:28
- Supercaps get reduced base jump range!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- Dreadnaughts get improved jump range to match carriers!

- Extended bridge range for titans to project smaller subcap fleets

- Bridge fuel changes for titans to make sending battleships fleets much more costly than sending frigates/cruisers/battlecruiser gangs (this might already be the case but as im not a titan pilot im not sure)

--------------------

- Cyno spin ups are NEEDED, this is a big one and has been said MANY TIMES BEFORE... Linked to cap and mass... so a cyno generator ship would need to activate and build up enough mass to allow the necessary ships through, a carrier could build up in say 5 minute enough for a fleet of dreads and carriers to jump through, but would require first a few guardians to jump through to feed it cap to keep building the cyno large enough, Frigates could only generate cynos big enough for say a titan to bridge in a recon or something small like that, ships like recons would have bonuses to cyno generation time so would black ops.... But the point is if you want to bridge in or jump in supercaps there risk and time for locals to react to stop an impending 30 capitals from jumping in....

Its f**king stupid that a single frigate right now can be a gateway for 100 supercaps *cough* drf *cough*

Nomad III
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:47:00 - [9]
 

With all those ideas logistics is getting just tedious and nothing else. What should be the advantage for the players?

Reicine Ceer
Rodents of Unusual Size
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:01:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Reicine Ceer on 15/08/2011 14:06:27
Logistics:

From the blog;

"People like to do one-stop shopping, and will "go to Jita" for everything unless doing so is comparatively very inconvenient.
See: moon mineral distribution, high-strength booster resource distribution, neither of which achieved much in the way of the nullsec-to-nullsec trade that they hoped to encourage"

My friend and i got drunk and had a long chat about EVE because we're boring and sad. Anyway, what came out of this was the notion of a trading train.

This'd probably be a total pain, and may require CCP's direct involvement at every point, but here goes;

A titan, or similarly stupidly-huge station-sized ship would fly in a ring around nullsec. It'd be surrounded by two fleets - the first of which would be npc, ranging from all sizes (think, "can take on anything"), but also consisting of those trader caravans you see leaving and docking stations in hi-sec.
The second fleet would be a reward-driven (see: LP, items, buffs, etc) fleet of actual players that would escort the massive trading vessel through nullsec, defending it from any have-a-go heroes that may wish to risk their ship and pod for phat lewt dropped by the npc fleet as they move to and from the ship, doing a bit of npc-trading with any npc stations (immersion!).

What would happen is every day, or however fast depending on what works, this huge caravan would provide a mobile shopping platform, sort of a 'Jita 4-4 with engines'. Players can dock, (maybe even log?) inside, using the ship as a marketplace for allsorts of stuff, from faction mods, ammo, drugs and boosters to slaves and full-on contracts of complete ship setups. No matter your sec status or factional standings, you can trade. Imagine a futuristic, moving Tortuga.

This would circle New Eden's most dangerous areas, providing a sort of storyline-style event to be a part of, along with the opportunity to do a fair amount of trading. I envisage an npc-style 'buyer' that would also pay around 20-30% under the Jita market value of any module, giving players the option to sell stuff quickly for cash rather than finding no buyers, and just keeping stuff.

Every cycle, the trading vessel would park alongside Jita's main station, and goods would be taken on and off, revitalising the market periodically with new and interesting/exotic items from "the outer rim" that players might not otherwise be able to get hold of, and vise versa

Further, i liked the idea that while players can safely trade and do all that stuff inside/on-grid with the Tortuga vessel would and can fight with each other, however fairness and 'security' would be involved, meaning that if two players warped to it (Tortuga would look like a warpable object on the overview, meaning you wouldn't have to scan it down and such) and decided to attack each other, then fine and well. However, if they fight within, say, 100km of Tortuga, its defence force would be liable to attack the attacker, effectively insisting on "a bubble of peaceful trade".

Visually, it'd be stunning of course, and i'd very much like to see massive trade billboards built into the side of the vessel, advertising in realtime its wares. It wouldn't represent a single faction in aesthetics, either. I quite like the idea of a "last, best hope for peace" (cough babylon 5 cough) being constructed with every major race offering components and design plans that reflect their working together. Maybe even some sort of Jovian-sponsored thingie too, just to show their approval?

Note that i do not think this should be indestructible, at all. However, should Tortuga be destroyed, i think that Tortuga II would then always avoid that area of space, until the alliance that WAS governing it is disbanded or leaves. This'd be somewhat more realistic and quite cool.

Anyways, you get the idea. There's a huge amount more in my head about this :D As with everything EVE, it has so much potential!

Dragonzchilde
Minmatar
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:12:00 - [11]
 

remove all jump bridges. Eve didn't use to have them and 0.0 was just fine and a lot harder. Big alliances usually have the manpower to escort their freighters through 0.0 whereas small groups don't have it and generally don't need it.

small gang warfare doesn't need large asset requirements so those groups can live out of anchored cans in space and travel light

remove jump freighters altogether

put a dread jump drive up to par with that of a carrier

leave titans as they are jump bridge wise. Alliances that don't want to escort their freighters will need to spread their titans carefully, making them vulnerable and also slows down force projection

Siena Petrucis
Caldari
Jelly Kings
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:14:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
It's not about movement in battle, is about movement around the map, having big capitals wherever they want in trivial amount of time for big battles. Big assaults that move the big ships (capitals) should take a few days and leave other borders unprotected by those capitals in medium to big territories.


Full Ack. If you look at today's military, you know where the big players intend to hit next - just look where their war ships are moving. And they move slowly.

In Eve, I'd propose to introduce a 2 jumps per 24h limit for capital ships. The 2 jumps are needed so you can jump into a battle and back. Or if you are daring, you can use your 2 jumps for double distance covered, but then you can't get out of the target system any more.

Works nicely together with the intel part of the blog ... if you can see that the enemy is moving his caps into your direction, then you know he is up to something.

ThisIsntMyMain
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:39:00 - [13]
 

Picking a "home" system makes the map too static - It encourages alliances to stay in one place. We really don't need to go back 6 months to a static north with too many carebears and no combat. Alliances that choose not to have a fixed base of operations should not have an unfair handicap or advantage.

The idea should be to slow down large fleet movements without stopping a small fleet getting where it needs to go. It shouldn't be hard, how about ...

Jump Portals .....
* Mass limits on Titan Bridges. You can bridge lots of frigates or a couple of dozen BS. Take your pick.
* It takes energy to jump a ship from A to B. That means that there should be a variable fuel requirement for a portal. It takes more fuel to jump a BS than a frigate.
* It takes time to bend space. The more ships that hit jump, the longer it takes. You can either all jump at once and take x mins to get there or jump 1 at a time and arrive there immediately but have to wait for your mates. Yes, I know - this will make you a sitting duck jumping into a fleet that already loaded grid.


Fleet Size ...

*Getting Fleets to warp is like herding cats - The bigger the fleet, the longer it takes to get into warp i.e. agility penalty.
*Getting everyone to shoot the primary is like herding cats - the bigger the fleet the longer the lock time. i.e a scan res penalty.

This makes it better to use 2 smaller fleets than one larger. These fleets cannot warp to the same scout, cannot use the same fleet warp, don't get bonuses from the same mindlinks and will end up at different places on the grid during a battle. Deciding the ideal fleet size becomes a more tactical decision and requires better player skills.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:43:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Dragonzchilde
remove all jump bridges. Eve didn't use to have them and 0.0 was just fine and a lot harder. Big alliances usually have the manpower to escort their freighters through 0.0 whereas small groups don't have it and generally don't need it.

small gang warfare doesn't need large asset requirements so those groups can live out of anchored cans in space and travel light

remove jump freighters altogether

put a dread jump drive up to par with that of a carrier

leave titans as they are jump bridge wise. Alliances that don't want to escort their freighters will need to spread their titans carefully, making them vulnerable and also slows down force projection



You're joking right? Jump freighters aren't broken - they're vulnerable as hell and can easily be lost to the slightest error. They have less than half the cargo capacity of a T1 freighter. You're basically saying that subcapital force projection should be nerfed while buffing capital force projection.

Gemma Magiliska
Posted - 2011.08.15 15:00:00 - [15]
 

Speaking from the POV of a logistics (in terms of POS infrastructure maintenance) person:

1. Allow corp 'headquarters' systems in nullsec to install a cyno beacon which can extend jump range when jumping to and from that system by an amount (depending on upgrade level installed). maybe a 3% increase in distance per level of upgrade.

2. Introduce a new ship to replace the Rorq as a POS fueller, which has a special POS fuel bay which you can store "fuel pellets + HW/LO" in, in a similar capacity (POS fuel duration?) to a Rorqual, but with more reasonable training prerequisites.


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.15 16:20:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: John McCreedy
  • Bigger ships/fleets travel slower

Quote:
As the amount of power your fleet can deploy increases, its mobility should decrease. Small, flimsy fleets should always maintain a mobility advantage over big, dangerous ones. This ensures that a wider range of fleet compositions and sizes remain valuable, catering to more preferences and playstyles. It also makes fleet composition more a case of selecting the right tools, and less of just dumping the whole toolbox onto the floor, encouraging players to innovate tactically and strategically.

Big fleets consisting of big ships already move slower. Big ships are slower to align and slower to warp than smaller ships so I'm not sure where you're going with this. You should also remember that bigger ships don't necessarily mean more powerful fleets. There's many examples where T2 and T3 Cruiser fleets have destroyed T1 BS fleets so I think this is fairly balanced as it stands now. What you're doing is repeating the mistakes of the past. Less stick, more Carrot. Incentivise us to use smaller ships and smaller fleets rather than punishing us for using large fleets with large ships.


Yup, and this is something that in an ideal world would extend to capitals, too. How that would work we're not sure yet.

Originally by: Gemma Magiliska
Speaking from the POV of a logistics (in terms of POS infrastructure maintenance) person:

1. Allow corp 'headquarters' systems in nullsec to install a cyno beacon which can extend jump range when jumping to and from that system by an amount (depending on upgrade level installed). maybe a 3% increase in distance per level of upgrade.

2. Introduce a new ship to replace the Rorq as a POS fueller, which has a special POS fuel bay which you can store "fuel pellets + HW/LO" in, in a similar capacity (POS fuel duration?) to a Rorqual, but with more reasonable training prerequisites.




Would sticking a fuel bay on the Orca do the trick?

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.15 16:37:00 - [17]
 

Shameless Plug :

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1565324


I really don't think inverting null and high sec is an option or a reality - but taking world forming into consideration, making certain regions be more viable for trade opportunities by null sec centralization can make that "asymmetry" of value.

Consider some spaces of null-sec are very valuable logistically, but very poor industrially, and you can end up with people holding up logistical central points, but requiring other areas to bring in materials and resources to make use of those logistically valuable locations.


This would promote free-trade outposts for profiteering (taxes, etc) - and create positions for centralization.

Perhaps that would translate into allowing more public forms of system improvements.


Maybe not only a Cyno Jammer, but also a Bubble Jammer to stop warp bubbles in systems. This can go on to add other tools for people who want to promote an open space policy - public jump bridges and so forth.

I don't see why a group can't provide the comforts of Hi Sec in Null Sec to a certain degree. If the Empires can do it, why can't we? Of course, these comforts come at a cost and a vulnerability. That Bubble Jammer can be taken down and now your trade hub is shut down until you re-establish control.


I guess that's the main thing I would say has been defining null sec development in EVE, ways to DEFEND your space, so that's what people do. Give people the tools to OPEN THEIR space and they will do that too.

Build it and they will come.


Think about it!

Bombay Door
Posted - 2011.08.15 16:58:00 - [18]
 

Regarding Logistics,
As it stands, the current industrial ships have mechanics in place that makes it easy to circumvent the goals outlined in this section.
There should be a industrial ship re balance with specific look into jump freighters.

Jump Freighter re balance suggestion. Use fuel cost to limit capabilities of jump freighters while still allowing small organizations the use for re-supply in low-null sec space. Paired with an ice re balance, Using mass as a multiplier when figuring jump fuel costs would allow the ship to still be useful while giving it the ability to erode profit margins if used too much by block alliances.

Also, The issue of Large gun and carrier production as a way to compress minerals for transport for null-sec production needs to be addressed.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:18:00 - [19]
 

Having a JF character, I'm suggesting this with wincing eyes and at arms length from the keyboard.

Make cynos not deployable in docking range of stations.

Exponentially increases the risk of logistics- import/export is now no longer a solo affair, most likely requires a cap fleet. This could hamstring new players though, but there are always blockade runners.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:45:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Having a JF character, I'm suggesting this with wincing eyes and at arms length from the keyboard.

Make cynos not deployable in docking range of stations.

Exponentially increases the risk of logistics- import/export is now no longer a solo affair, most likely requires a cap fleet. This could hamstring new players though, but there are always blockade runners.
<brainfart>
…or what about: can't light cynos on the same grid as a station or POS. Twisted Evil

That would slow down the arrival of caps on the field as well, unless the battle takes place in a belt or in some exploration pocket.
</brainfart>

Dragonzchilde
Minmatar
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:52:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Andski
Originally by: Dragonzchilde
remove all jump bridges. Eve didn't use to have them and 0.0 was just fine and a lot harder. Big alliances usually have the manpower to escort their freighters through 0.0 whereas small groups don't have it and generally don't need it.

small gang warfare doesn't need large asset requirements so those groups can live out of anchored cans in space and travel light

remove jump freighters altogether

put a dread jump drive up to par with that of a carrier

leave titans as they are jump bridge wise. Alliances that don't want to escort their freighters will need to spread their titans carefully, making them vulnerable and also slows down force projection



You're joking right? Jump freighters aren't broken - they're vulnerable as hell and can easily be lost to the slightest error. They have less than half the cargo capacity of a T1 freighter. You're basically saying that subcapital force projection should be nerfed while buffing capital force projection.


i don't see any logic in your thoughts nor in your deductions. Being a goon has something to do with it prolly

Andre Vauban
Gallente
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:59:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Having a JF character, I'm suggesting this with wincing eyes and at arms length from the keyboard.

Make cynos not deployable in docking range of stations.

Exponentially increases the risk of logistics- import/export is now no longer a solo affair, most likely requires a cap fleet. This could hamstring new players though, but there are always blockade runners.


No. This hurts the small alliances/corps, but not the big ones. The small guys are now screwed, because they must cyno into a POS where they are extremely vulnerable to a massive SC hotdrop gank. The large alliances are not nearly as vulnerable because the ganker must consider that their target has a SC fleet to fight back with and won't just do it for the lulz killmail.

The whole point of this is how to make logistics grow more difficult with size, not make it more difficult for the low end.


Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:12:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Dragonzchilde
Originally by: Andski
Originally by: Dragonzchilde
remove all jump bridges. Eve didn't use to have them and 0.0 was just fine and a lot harder. Big alliances usually have the manpower to escort their freighters through 0.0 whereas small groups don't have it and generally don't need it.

small gang warfare doesn't need large asset requirements so those groups can live out of anchored cans in space and travel light

remove jump freighters altogether

put a dread jump drive up to par with that of a carrier

leave titans as they are jump bridge wise. Alliances that don't want to escort their freighters will need to spread their titans carefully, making them vulnerable and also slows down force projection



You're joking right? Jump freighters aren't broken - they're vulnerable as hell and can easily be lost to the slightest error. They have less than half the cargo capacity of a T1 freighter. You're basically saying that subcapital force projection should be nerfed while buffing capital force projection.


i don't see any logic in your thoughts nor in your deductions. Being a goon has something to do with it prolly


thank you for that valued contribution

clearly, the fact that I belong to GSF must mean that I'm part of some ~hivemind~ and that I don't think for myself

Koraeth
Amarr
Paxton Industries
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:48:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: John McCreedy
  • Bigger ships/fleets travel slower

Quote:
As the amount of power your fleet can deploy increases, its mobility should decrease. Small, flimsy fleets should always maintain a mobility advantage over big, dangerous ones. This ensures that a wider range of fleet compositions and sizes remain valuable, catering to more preferences and playstyles. It also makes fleet composition more a case of selecting the right tools, and less of just dumping the whole toolbox onto the floor, encouraging players to innovate tactically and strategically.

Big fleets consisting of big ships already move slower. Big ships are slower to align and slower to warp than smaller ships so I'm not sure where you're going with this. You should also remember that bigger ships don't necessarily mean more powerful fleets. There's many examples where T2 and T3 Cruiser fleets have destroyed T1 BS fleets so I think this is fairly balanced as it stands now. What you're doing is repeating the mistakes of the past. Less stick, more Carrot. Incentivise us to use smaller ships and smaller fleets rather than punishing us for using large fleets with large ships.


Yup, and this is something that in an ideal world would extend to capitals, too. How that would work we're not sure yet.

Originally by: Gemma Magiliska
Speaking from the POV of a logistics (in terms of POS infrastructure maintenance) person:

1. Allow corp 'headquarters' systems in nullsec to install a cyno beacon which can extend jump range when jumping to and from that system by an amount (depending on upgrade level installed). maybe a 3% increase in distance per level of upgrade.

2. Introduce a new ship to replace the Rorq as a POS fueller, which has a special POS fuel bay which you can store "fuel pellets + HW/LO" in, in a similar capacity (POS fuel duration?) to a Rorqual, but with more reasonable training prerequisites.




Would sticking a fuel bay on the Orca do the trick?


Hell no, that's all we need is Orca's in 0.0.
If you're fueling POS's in different systems, you don't want to be flying through gates to get to the POS to fuel it. Instead, you get a cyno alt at the POS and jump your rorqual there to top it off. (or JF I suppose...)

Since you're in 0.0 anyway, you already have Rorquals for mining/compressing. Orca's are for high-sec

Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:55:00 - [25]
 

We need to bring back convoys. We need to stop people from just skipping over entire regions... but if we removed "jumping" how would caps get anywhere? This is a really easy problem IMHO (conceptually, of course).
  • Limit jumping to one system.
    All jump ships. Including portals. No exceptions.

  • Introduce different classes of gates.
    One for sub-caps, another for sub-caps and carriers/dreads/freighters, and another for supercaps.

Look, I know full well this is a huge mechanic, but if you are serious about real changes and real fixes I think this would do a lot. Before everybody flames me for this, I just ask that you really think about all the problems this solves and all the new emergent gameplay it would make possible.
  • Logistics start to matter a lot more game-wide. Freighters service the major trade hubs, and smaller haulers get their own markets to service (the determined jump freighter pilot could also benefit). All haulers and market-types in the game could benefit from this. As nullsec'ers develop their gate systems their space inherently becomes more valuable as resources stay the same but access barriers are lowered.
  • It'll slow the flow of supercap and cap fleets at different rates depending on the positioning of said gates. It would introduce strategic advantages to favoring fleets of smaller ship classes. It does exactly what you say you want to do.
  • It could provide a way for players to literally re-shape eve... and explain certain immersive elements, by allowing players to build their own gate systems in nearby (now w/i jump range) star systems
  • Wormholes actually become much more valuable logistical shortcuts.
  • We could introduce player owned gates! Players could build their own gate systems to support their own logistics in their space. The often talked about profession of gate hacking to allow neutral and red passage would become a new viable profession!
  • LET THE PLAYERS BUILD THE GATE SYSTEMS. Different gate-types might have different ranges. We might even have a gate-type that only allows shuttles but has a huge range (for scouting) as an example. The possibilities of this would be numerous.
  • Gate campers would have to make some tough calls. Maybe the bigger the gate the bigger the gate guns...
  • Smugglers and contract couriers would have to make some choices too... what are they taking where are they going would have a bigger effect on price

Making those 2 changes, though controversial, would literally address (and rock) every bullet point on this topic in your dev blog in the most elegant way, create a whole new batch of interesting professions, and add a lot more strategic depth with regards to logistics and everything that can happen along the way to the game. I know it may be tempting to just screw with ship statistics to achieve your/our goals on null sec because it is easier... but I ask that you really think about this. If null sec gets a half-assed patch we'll be back at square one like with Dominion or the anomaly changes. Thanks.

IdeaVery Happy

Takashi Kaeda
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:08:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Gogela
We need to bring back convoys. We need to stop people from just skipping over entire regions... but if we removed "jumping" how would caps get anywhere? This is a really easy problem IMHO (conceptually, of course).
  • Limit jumping to one system.
    All jump ships. Including portals. No exceptions.

  • Introduce different classes of gates.
    One for sub-caps, another for sub-caps and carriers/dreads/freighters, and another for supercaps.

Look, I know full well this is a huge mechanic, but if you are serious about real changes and real fixes I think this would do a lot. Before everybody flames me for this, I just ask that you really think about all the problems this solves and all the new emergent gameplay it would make possible.
  • Logistics start to matter a lot more game-wide. Freighters service the major trade hubs, and smaller haulers get their own markets to service (the determined jump freighter pilot could also benefit). All haulers and market-types in the game could benefit from this. As nullsec'ers develop their gate systems their space inherently becomes more valuable as resources stay the same but access barriers are lowered.
  • It'll slow the flow of supercap and cap fleets at different rates depending on the positioning of said gates. It would introduce strategic advantages to favoring fleets of smaller ship classes. It does exactly what you say you want to do.
  • It could provide a way for players to literally re-shape eve... and explain certain immersive elements, by allowing players to build their own gate systems in nearby (now w/i jump range) star systems
  • Wormholes actually become much more valuable logistical shortcuts.
  • We could introduce player owned gates! Players could build their own gate systems to support their own logistics in their space. The often talked about profession of gate hacking to allow neutral and red passage would become a new viable profession!
  • LET THE PLAYERS BUILD THE GATE SYSTEMS. Different gate-types might have different ranges. We might even have a gate-type that only allows shuttles but has a huge range (for scouting) as an example. The possibilities of this would be numerous.
  • Gate campers would have to make some tough calls. Maybe the bigger the gate the bigger the gate guns...
  • Smugglers and contract couriers would have to make some choices too... what are they taking where are they going would have a bigger effect on price

Making those 2 changes, though controversial, would literally address (and rock) every bullet point on this topic in your dev blog in the most elegant way, create a whole new batch of interesting professions, and add a lot more strategic depth with regards to logistics and everything that can happen along the way to the game. I know it may be tempting to just screw with ship statistics to achieve your/our goals on null sec because it is easier... but I ask that you really think about this. If null sec gets a half-assed patch we'll be back at square one like with Dominion or the anomaly changes. Thanks.

IdeaVery Happy



This is an example of why players who have little experience in nullsec/EVE-in-general should not make mechanic suggestions. This would be terrible.

Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Posted - 2011.08.15 19:15:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Gogela on 16/08/2011 00:20:43
Originally by: Takashi Kaeda
This is an example of why players who have little experience in nullsec/EVE-in-general should not make mechanic suggestions. This would be terrible.


Wow. That's really insightful. An ignorant jab and a baseless statement. Care to elaborate? Try substantiating your dis with an actual argument.

You know... I hate to be a Debbie downer, but lets talk for a moment about all the drawbacks implicit in the dev blog about changing null sec:

Logistics need to be a pain in the ass. No more teleporting fleets and equipment around the map. Yah that would make alliance heads annoyed, and traders and so on... but if we want to slow things down than things are going to slow down. We're talking about changing the way the game is. Some of the players cry and complain about null sec being broken and than when CCP wants to change something they cry and complain about change. That's pretty hypocritical.

Supercap owners are going to feel the burn. Period. They were already talking about another nerf... and being always stuck in a supercap yah it'll suck when your mobility is limited. However that's exactly what the dev blog is implying is going to happen.

Empire will be poorer. It's safe to assume that if null sec gets richer / more attractive, high sec will, in relative terms, get poorer. Dur. I've already seen the tear thread on that...

Alliances holding huge blocks of space will be holding smaller blocks of space in the future. Again, if that doesn't happen than the changes, whatever they end up being, will have had no effect.

Look... toes are going to get stepped on here. I started in EvE around 6 years ago in Fountain. It was fun... but since than I really have no reason at all to go there. There just isn't compelling game play for me. I still have goals in EvE... and I am achieving them at a far faster pace than I ever thought I would, but all the action for small gangs and big ISK is in Empire and low sec. I don't even know why people bother with null sec when there is WH space anymore... I'm looking forward to seeing that change. But in order for things to change, the game needs to change. ...can't be clearer than that.

If you have better ideas great... let's hear them. If not save your tears for someone who gives a snip.

Inipinipocoloco
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:02:00 - [28]
 

its not really complicated ^^

just wreck away all those JBs for ever !

fleets cant just hop 2 constellations in 2 mins, alliances have to split forces to defend large areas, the bigger the slower, as the deep nullsec gets more isolated it becomes more a home for ppl - not a working place(.> see HOME etc)

nullsec is full of ritches but it can not go on that nullsec logistic is easier than highsec, only through the veins of easy peasy logistics ccp allows hulking nullsec alliances occupy massive areas (without using them whatsoever) to exist at all

so u want eve become better ? go and kill JBs - u will stand in awe when u see all the good that comes from it

ThisIsntMyMain
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:06:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Gogela
We need to bring back convoys. We need to stop people from just skipping over entire regions... but if we removed "jumping" how would caps get anywhere? This is a really easy problem IMHO (conceptually, of course).
[list]
  • Limit jumping to one system.
    All jump ships. Including portals. No exceptions.


  • More stuff



    Its a crap idea because it nerfs 0.0 so hard that logistics go from too easy to utterly impossible. Its such a bad idea that it makes you look like you've never actually flown a carrier or any other jump drive.

    Is that the counter argument you were looking for ?

    Just because 0.0 sov and warfare is broken doesn't mean we need to redesign every single bit of it from the ground up. We need to BALANCE things properly.

    Obsidian Hawk
    RONA Corporation
    RONA Directorate
    Posted - 2011.08.15 22:10:00 - [30]
     

    Well I agree with several of the above posters on the idea of a capital system.

    Look at sid meyer's civilization as an example. you have a capital city and everything is great and perfect there, but as you travel outward things get less and less fun and perfect. So lets use this to a benefit for ideas.

    So in the case of jump bridges, while they now have a universal cost for size and what not, why not make the cost of fuel based on distance from the capital and the mass of the ship?

    Say jumping out of the capital system would cost amount X. which represents the base whole amount.

    Now say you were ummmm 10 light years out from the capital system. it will be cost + x% to activate bridges. The extra cost would burn the fuel faster and would make it harder for large power blocks to defend their outlying systems.


    Pages: [1] 2 3 4

    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