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

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:14:00 - [31]
 

Just a bit of brainstorming here on stuff I experienced over the last 4 years in nullsec that I think should be thought of (and could think of right now):


  1. The equipment uncertainty

  2. The average grunt will have all the tools, except at the instant you actually look because you need him to. Then he won't.
    The core truth of nullsec from which everything else can be derived.

  3. And suddenly... stuff

  4. Every working 0.0 entity has, on some scale, logistics wizards in the background. They mostly like to stay in the background. Being able to keep them in the background is also a strategic advantage of supply line safety. This should weigh in against more overt types of logistics.
    Their value (as players) means they are mostly in charge of vital stuff. Losing one of them is not as immediate, but often more crippling, than losing an FC.

  5. Sutlers

  6. Players with access to better logistics capabilities will often boost their income or fund their entire pvp by selling prefit ships to comrades or working delivery contracts for them. Well known staging areas are also often supplied by third parties with all kinds of stuff. These are player created professions that enrich EVE and should be protected. Delivering goods to a warzone should not require that I am able to repel the parties waging war. Being able to do so could be beneficial though.

  7. Now you see it. Now you don't

  8. I think I've seen the last noticeable amounts of nullsec freighter runs in the early days of Revelations. When one hand was still enough to count all titan bridges and travel in general was a lot slower. But even back then, regardless of whether one chose to web the freighters and hope to get through unseen, or bubble and secure the entire route - the freighters themselves were protected by logging them off.
    There is an entire profession (suicide ganking) living off the fact, that it is inherently impossible to protect a single ship through group effort while the ship is logged in, undocked and moving. This is, bluntly, bad design.

  9. There is only so much to go around...

  10. The age-old issue of every mining fleet. Having 10 people bored protecting them means 10 players not doing anything useful and/or earning ISK, thus making a viable activity for those directly doing it ineffective for the group. If the value of an activity is not directly influenced by the amount of players involved, we will find a way to streamline it down to the absolute required minimum. In case of hauling stuff, usually 1. Having the "escort" do other stuff is often effective enough to compensate occasional hauling losses.

  11. Associative volumes

  12. The needed volume of supplies an entity requires scales with its size. But it also scales with activity, so unless a big entity has requirements that are not shared with small entities (like... ships), everything creating a weakspot for the large entity will create a proportionally larger weakspot for the smaller one ("punishing them for actually playing the game").

  13. Eve law of free markets

  14. The amount of hostile market manipulation rises with the amount of stuff available.
    Everyone without outpost access can buy and resell stuff. While in general this is good, there are entities ingame which you do not want to challenge to a size comparison when it comes to wallet depth. These manipulations also tend to decrease confidence in local markets. Supply line confidence is huge for long term nullsec commitments. A grunt will only be disappointed by the local market (and get shouted at by the FC) so many times until he starts ignoring it (and get stuff in Jita). Alliance contracts do not scale well beyond low volume premium items (7/14days vs 90 days, click-orgy).

  15. Frames of reference

  16. A single 400 vs 400 fight burns through more supplies than some corps need per year, but are "daily business" for those involved. What is "high volume"?

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:29:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Andski on 15/08/2011 22:30:08
Originally by: Mioelnir
lots of awesome words


Dude. +1. I agree with every last word. Well put.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:35:00 - [33]
 

Quote:
Good reasons to trade Any investable activity (ie, one where we want people to consider settling down and developing some space to do it) should have clear reasons and opportunities to trade with nearby nullsec regions to increase efficiency. This needs to be balanced with other mechanics such that simply conquering five regions is not the clearly optimal solution, while remaining a viable option.


As mentioned in the industry thread and in the previous devblog's feedback thread: Personal Industrial Arrays can be a way to have diversity in nullsec player/corporation/alliance composition. Those alliances that want to focus on PvP will be able to hire true industrial corporations/alliances that will do all the industry work for them. The possibilities are endless - like having two separate entities hired to do your industry so that you'll eliminate overpricing due to monopoly and no competition. Even a whole new kind of alliances can be created.

Think about an alliance that does only industry and trade. That alliance can populate some area and build a station or two which can be a Free-For-All market hub. PvP alliances in the area that don't want/like to do industry could use such stations as neutral trading posts full with supplies. Player driven police to guard the system, player defined rules of engagement in the trading alliance's systems, collaboration or war between different industrial alliances that are near each other and all other kinds of dynamic player driven content will be available because we'll have player owned stations that are accessible to many alliances that are red to each other, but have an interest to have a neutral industrial/trading entity in the area. If that industrial alliance does not have enough resources to cover the supply, they will search for players/corporations/other alliances to fill the demand. And all that will be possible just because simple members (grunts) have the ability to profit directly from industry and their own effort while having corporate infrastructure and community as a backbone (not having the corporation as a bureaucratic obstacle that will force them out of industry the moment they set their foot in nullsec).

Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:56:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Gogela on 16/08/2011 01:43:31
Originally by: ThisIsntMyMain
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.


    It's better... but hardly thoughtful. Actually, I've flown every non-supercap ship and make regular rounds in Jump Freighters. I actually have them all so I'm vested. ...but I disagree that it makes travel impossible. Capital-size jump gates could be tweaked based on a variety of criteria. In this way, CCP could directly control the flow of fleets, and actually alter that flow in a meaningful and straight forward way henceforth. Gate jump range is all that would need to be tweaked... it sounds to me like you just don't like seeing blobs of caps dominating everything all the time going away. In remote undeveloped regions of null yes, caps would be painfully slow to move around. Maybe that's a good thing, and will allow other play-styles to thrive in their relative absence... but we all know whatever is done the major alliances are pretty smart about how they do things. They would develop their own intra-eve logistics lines to get to resources or connect their empires. They are terribly efficient at it and have a zillion man-hours at their disposal to get it done. Maybe we could extend the jump range a bit to a few systems... but not much. Essentially such a fundamental change in how large fleets move will in like kind fundamentally shift the roll of caps. It's that last bit I think you are struggling so hard to wrap your head around...

    "...because it nerfs 0.0 so hard..." <-- there's your problem right there. 0.0 does not equal caps. There was 0.0 before caps. I'm not saying caps don't play a very fun and interesting roll... they do. ...but I think a reduced roll is needed if there is to be a "balance" as you so strategically put it. Right now there roll is to WTFpwn blob around unhindered until they find another WTFpwn blob to fight. It's the ultimate tele-porting gang of tanks. I want some more diversity. I want space to be REALLY big. atm it is not... in terms of cap blobs the galaxy may as well be one star system.

    Originally by: Andski
    Originally by: Mioelnir
    lots of awesome words


    Dude. +1. I agree with every last word. Well put.

    +2


    Idea

    Debir Achen
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.08.16 01:46:00 - [35]
     

    What I'd like to see with "ownership" is increasing value in inviting other people INTO your owned systems, rather than keeping them out. One way to do this would be placement of "automated trade hubs" - outposts that work like hi-sec trade hubs except that the controller gets to keep the sales tax (and pays upkeep from it).

    Mioelnir
    Minmatar
    Cataclysm Enterprises
    Ev0ke
    Posted - 2011.08.16 02:36:00 - [36]
     

    Pondering a bit about my points 4 and 5.... since they slightly contradict each other.

    Defending a ship in eve is hard, because nearly everything can be destroyed, which is good. We want to keep pixel explosions. What makes it actually hard is that you can always directly attack the intended target and given enough DPS/volley, it will go down. A sniper that directly headshots the target between its defenders of sorts. Without the need to engage the defenders to force an opening for the sniper to take the shot.

    Something like this would feel much more immersive I think:
    1. convert fleet from regular mode to defender mode. For defender fleets, the following rules apply:

      • every squad must contain at least 8 pilots

      • a squad may contain a maximum of 20% designated scouts (existing fleet role)

      • a squad may contain a maximum of 20% protected ships (new fleet role)

      • the following ship classes may contribute up to 1 protected ship per squad: industrial, transport ship, freighter, jump freighter, industrial command ship, capital industrial ship

      • the following ship classes may contribute up to 2 protected ships per squad: mining barge, exhumer

      • all non-scout, non-capsule members of the fleet have to be on the same grid

      • at least 50% of all non-scout, non-protected fleet members have to be in something other than capsules

      • if the fleet has 3 or more squads, wing commanders may also be protected ships (possible classes as above)

      • if the fleet has 2 or more wings, the fleet commander may also be a protected ship (possible classes as above)


    2. if the conditions of ALL rules are met the following bonus applies:

      • protected ships gain EM/THM/KIN/EXP shield, armor and hull resistances of 100/100/100/100.

      • everything else works as normal (scram, web, neut, bubble etc)

    3. if the condition of ANY ONE rule is no longer met:

      • resistance bonus for ships designated as protected no longer applies

    4. possible additional effects defender fleets could trigger in asteroid belts:

      • special, not stacking-penalized bonus to mining yield if there are at least 2 squads (low/nullsec)

      • more/better beltrats, faster respawns (lowsec)

      • replacement of regular beltrats with an incursion style force that can be taken on by pvp fits (low/nullsec)

      A combination of these could arguably move protecting from tedious to worthwhile. Low/Nullsec miner also do not fit the semi-afk nature of highsec miner


    This forces the aggresging party to engage the defender and either blow them up (50% rule), or break cohesion (on grid rule etc) to make the juicy targets vulnerable while having to keeping them on the field during the attack. No ignoring of the escort.

    On the side of the defender-fleet, haulers can be protected but have to stay on grid, or designated scouts (= unprotected) but can warp to a POS. Bonus rorquals have to actually be in the belt.

    A roaming gang, warping into 10 exhumers with a rorqual, protected by 40 ships fending off 30 npcs in a 0.0 belt would be an awesome sight to behold I think. Or a fleet of 30 actually escorting 3 freighters to Jita during empire war, making a real supply run.

    Downsides:
    • all the fleet status checks would probably melt the sol nodes, especially if turned on "accidentally" in a 1200+ inhabitants system

    • there are probably at least 2 loopholes I have not thought of (besides the invulnerable capital shield transporter rorqual which i find funny)

    Mara Rinn
    Posted - 2011.08.16 02:42:00 - [37]
     

    Edited by: Mara Rinn on 01/09/2011 11:45:42
    Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
    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.


    Logistics can't help but be tedious. Shove a load of tritanium in your freighter, ship it to your nullsec manufacturing facility. That's tedious. But not as tedious as manufacturing 425mm rail guns, loading them into your freighter, heading to nullsec, reprocessing the guns, ship the minerals to the manufacturing facility. Of course we then get to the issue of running many freighter-loads of uncompressed tritanium. Perhaps that could be addressed by manufacturing specific "tritanium containment compartments" which are advanced Planck Singularity Containment Fields that allow many times the external volume of a specific molecular structure to be stored within: this box might be 100k m3, but allow the transport of 400k m3 of tritanium. The box is unstable and is destroyed when unpacked, much like shrink wrapping on a courier contract.

    Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
    Bigger ships/fleets travel slower


    Makes sense to me.

    Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
    Good reasons to trade


    Relative scarcity of resources is a good reason to trade. Not having stuff you need, while your neighbour or the guy over there in Rens does have the stuff you need, is a good reason to trade.

    There will be no reason to trade if nullsec is "99% self sufficient".

    Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
    Should be easier with investment


    It should be possible to upgrade a system to allow multiple jump bridges or have cyno jammers that are fast-cycling. Such upgrades would be mutually exclusive to facilities such as capital assembly arrays. Thus one system might be upgraded as a "trade hub" with a fast cycling cyno jammer, a logistic support outpost (large hangar space to accommodate many materials being sold) and stargates upgraded to allow higher rate of tonnage per hour.

    Stargates should be up- or down-gradable, so that smallholders can limit the types of ships they will end up fighting, while larger alliances can boost their gates to allow for faster movement of larger fleets. Gate up/down grade is achieved through items similar to SBU that are anchored on-grid with stargates, impacting the volume/size of traffic that can come through to this side of the gate. This could be asymmetrical - a gate that is downgraded at one side but upgraded at the other will allow more/larger ships through in one direction - like a road that is one lane in one direction, two lanes in the other.

    Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
    Moving large volumes should be a group effort


    Implement line of sight for combat. This allows fleets to be deployed specifically as meat shields for freighters. This should be possible with the time dilation project. Sure, fights take longer, but it also means our slow human minds can take the kind of action our augmented capsuleer selves should be able to. Just like "bullet time" in some computer games, this will allow pilots to pull "heroic" manoeuvres such as putting their battleship in the path of a doomsday device to save a carrier.

    In fact, adding "bullet time" as a purchasable upgrade for a system might allow a defender to turn a fight to their advantage. Such a system would allow those with the appropriate role to slow down the simulator clock for an entire star system simulation for a few seconds per hour, as a multiplier on top of time dilation.

    Thur Barbek
    Posted - 2011.08.16 05:32:00 - [38]
     

    Edited by: Thur Barbek on 16/08/2011 05:32:45
    Originally by: Mara Rinn


    In fact, adding "bullet time" as a purchasable upgrade for a system might allow a defender to turn a fight to their advantage. Such a system would allow those with the appropriate role to slow down the simulator clock for an entire star system simulation for a few seconds per hour, as a multiplier on top of time dilation.



    They are called missiles...

    And a battleship can otherships from firing on it's friends. Its called EWAR. Obviously not on capitals, but we all know they are unbalanced anyway atm. Just make the DD a huge torpedo (no aoe) and problem solved.

    Callipygian Provocateur
    Posted - 2011.08.16 06:37:00 - [39]
     

    Stargates should be bottlenecks. As should jump-bridges and -portals.

    My suggestion for the mechanic to do so is two fold:
    First, have stargates use nearly the same mechanics as acceleration gates. Thus, the bigger the ship, the longer it takes to jump (as well as increasing strategy for getting through a gate). However, instead of simply sending the ship into warp, the gate sends it into warp through the magic tunnel (or wormhole, if you prefer) warp gates create between themselves. Also, giving these tunnels a length and an accompanying graphic would sure be a neat replacement for the loading bar as well as increasing immersion and further emphasizing warp speed. Of course, this would require changing the 'exit' mechanic of stargates (something I've never liked, anyway); I propose exiting warp at full speed some distance away from the gate. Furthermore, I'd love to see ships actually go through stargates by setting the warp-in point a bit 'behind' the gate and having ships tractored to the gate entrance before being shot through them.

    Secondly, limit gates to operating on one ship at a time, creating a queue for additional ships. There should be some sort of visual indication of the order of the queue, like a tractor beam of sorts, indicating at least the ship currently being accelerated as well as the 'on deck'. This would allow pilots to align and accelerate if they wish to expedite the process (or to do the opposite). Furthermore, I think additional ships should be prioritized by least mass. Thus, smaller ships would sent through before larger ones.

    Jump-bridges and -portals would function similarly. These changes would further allow for new tactics and strategies for fleets and solo pilots alike (though leaving Jita in a full freighter might suck hard core). They would reward logistical management of fleets and enable them to travel faster with proper effort, while slowing down fleet travel in general by 'naturally' penalizing blobs.

    Also, jump drives should 'wind up' so that the heavier the ship, the longer a cyno must be lit before it can jump.

    tl;dr: Make ships queue to use gate/bridges, penalizing fatties.

    Yeep
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    Posted - 2011.08.16 08:26:00 - [40]
     

    Originally by: Callipygian Provocateur

    Secondly, limit gates to operating on one ship at a time, creating a queue for additional ships.


    This is literally the worst idea ever posted on eve-o. Congratulations.

    Andski
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    Posted - 2011.08.16 09:52:00 - [41]
     

    Originally by: Thur Barbek
    Just make the DD a huge torpedo (no aoe) and problem solved.


    AoE doomsdays have been removed since Dominion.

    glepp
    Posted - 2011.08.16 12:39:00 - [42]
     

    The larger your fleet, the slower it warps. 250 people = quarter warp speed.

    Fixes manouverability issue of large v small fleet and means decisions matter more.

    Captain Black Jack
    Posted - 2011.08.16 12:51:00 - [43]
     

    Originally by: glepp
    The larger your fleet, the slower it warps. 250 people = quarter warp speed.

    Fixes manouverability issue of large v small fleet and means decisions matter more.


    Players would just create a smaller fleets to avoide the penalties.


    glepp
    Posted - 2011.08.16 12:55:00 - [44]
     

    Edited by: glepp on 16/08/2011 12:57:18
    Edited by: glepp on 16/08/2011 12:55:35
    Originally by: Captain Black Jack
    Originally by: glepp
    The larger your fleet, the slower it warps. 250 people = quarter warp speed.

    Fixes manouverability issue of large v small fleet and means decisions matter more.


    Players would just create a smaller fleets to avoide the penalties.



    Which adds more impracticality with bonuses, moving, warping and target calling.


    Big = slow. Sure, you can work around it, but that's a major hassle.

    Captain Black Jack
    Posted - 2011.08.16 13:09:00 - [45]
     

    Spaceship Sailors



    Purpose
    • to reduce the size of fleets over the course of a battle


    Means of achievement
    • Reducing the numbers of sailors on a spaceship, will reduce the strength of the spaceship, which will force the spaceship to leave battlefield.


    Motto
    • Space is a dangerouse place, no spaceship is safe there


    Doctor Invictus
    Gallente
    Industry and Investments
    Posted - 2011.08.16 17:07:00 - [46]
     

    As per the most up-to-date version of my nullsec proposal (link goes directly to most relevant section)


    Revamp of Cyno-Tech and Player-Built Stargates (summary)

    Allow players to build destructible stargates in nullsec, linked to the scale of sovereignty they hold. This will allow them to customize transit routes within their own space.

    Introduce a kind of 'terrain' to nullsec, which either facilitates or works against activating cynos (decreasing or increasing the base fuel costs needed to complete a jump). In effect, there will be 'mountains' and 'valleys', where cyno transit is difficult or easy (respectively). Outpost-linked modules could influence these factors. While a system would never be completely 'jammed', player actions could make transit through some areas financially impractical. Variations of said modules would allow the effect to act across a single system, or over multiple light years, possibly affecting neighboring (enemy) systems with the equivalent of cyno-jamming.

    Ugleb
    Minmatar
    Sarz'na Khumatari
    Ushra'Khan
    Posted - 2011.08.16 17:31:00 - [47]
     

    Edited by: Ugleb on 16/08/2011 17:32:23
    Originally by: Captain Black Jack
    Spaceship Sailors



    Purpose
    • to reduce the size of fleets over the course of a battle


    Means of achievement
    • Reducing the numbers of sailors on a spaceship, will reduce the strength of the spaceship, which will force the spaceship to leave battlefield.


    Motto
    • Space is a dangerouse place, no spaceship is safe there




    I think the issue is more about the size of the fleets being brought to the start of the battle (and the ease of covering the distances they are travelling to be there), rather than in making them go home faster. Once the shooting starts stuff tends to explode quickly enough as it is.

    Not that I'm against the idea of crew, I just don't think its a null sec specific issue.

    SamTheTrader
    Posted - 2011.08.16 18:48:00 - [48]
     

    Not sure in which category this would belong, but i suggest to remove ship insurance payments for all ships being destroyed in 0.0 (including w-space) and reduced in lowsec.

    Benefits:
    - less isk introduced into the game
    - might be an isk sink, if someone insure his/her ship and gets blown up in dangerous space with that ship
    - roleplaying: which company would insure ships in such space?

    people make enough isk in that space they should get some for their shis being blown up. this space is meant to be dangerous. noobs wouldn't go there by accident and loosing their only ship/all their isk ...

    AA10
    Posted - 2011.08.17 01:16:00 - [49]
     

    Why don't implement very obvious idea? Let's make things close to real world: nothing could exist forever... Each ship should have certain term of life for its "internal" parts like "warp drive" and "jump drive". Each warp to certain distance deteriorates it, each jump deteriorates it even more, etc. Bigger ship - bigger deterioration. And very important point: no way to repair. If "warp drive" is broken, ship cannot move, etc. If developers choose reasonable values, supercap blobs would go away very fast. :)

    Pubbie Scum
    Posted - 2011.08.17 04:37:00 - [50]
     

    Why do cruisers warp at the same or similar speeds as a battleship? There's a place you can start. An easy way to make moving smaller ships around less painful would be to play with warp speeds on ships. It will definitely make moving fat battleships around much more of a hassle and allow faster gangs to get away easier. The fleet warp mechanic already slows warp speed down to the slowest ship in the fleet, and it isn't really viable to bring battleships on a roam full of frigates because of align times.

    Moving around large fleets has always been difficult because you will always have stragglers and people going too far ahead. At the same time, it is easier to keep a leash on a smaller fleet's movements. Lag used to be a huge component in moving around large fleets through gates, but with lag issues slowly disappearing it is much less of a problem.

    Increasing inter-regional trade would be difficult due to political situations and such. This can be done with 0.0 only ice mining, and T2 production with regional types of moongoo.

    The best investment mechanic in regards to logistics would be jump bridge networks! They help make going through (usually) empty regions much easier for the entity that owns it, as well as providing a tactical advantage for the defender. Or scheduled titan bridges for fleets. Or faction towers that have less fuel requirement.

    If you wish to have freighter ops again, you need to nerf the amount of space a jump freighter can carry, and increase the cost of a titan bridge so that it isn't viable to bridge a freighter across large areas of space, or just not allow freighters/capital ships to go through a jump or titan bridge. Instead of bridging freighters from lowsec full of compressed minerals for supercapitals, it should be viable to drag all of those minerals in one go across the universe over an hour or two through low and null sec. This does make it more tedious, but it adds an element of risk/reward. Increasing titan bridge fuel cost would also make it more costly or difficult to move very large fleets around.

    Tippia
    Caldari
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    Posted - 2011.08.17 05:33:00 - [51]
     

    Originally by: Pubbie scum
    Why do cruisers warp at the same or similar speeds as a battleship?
    Not all do. It's rather inconsistent depending on which type of cruiser you're talking about.

    But perhaps more importantly than that, it doesn't really matter because top warp speed is so rarely a factor. You need 100+ AU jumps before it really starts to make a difference as most of the time is spent on accelerating up to and decelerating down from that top warp speed, so the main difference in warping around tends to come down to the aligning phase instead.

    That said, yes, all cruisers should be given the same, faster, warp speed, but the key thing to make such a change worth-while is to also make warp speed matter more, and that apparently requires them to fiddle with the flight physics models in ways that no-one at CCP really understands any more… Razz

    Aeon Flux Phantom
    Posted - 2011.08.17 06:22:00 - [52]
     

    My feeling is that supers should reflect the old Navy Fleets of WW2 as in you had a small number of very large, very expensive but very powerful Warships that required a large number of smaller support ships to protect them and provide supplies.

    So in turn dramatically increase both the material costs and fuel consumption for dreads, carriers, SC's and Titans accordingly.

    You know when the cost of ships no longer become an issue when you see people ratting in carriers openly in null.

    If you dramatically increase the material costs people would think a lot more carefully about deploying them, also if they required a lot more jump fuel where they required support ships to carry the extra fuel for them on long trips then you would have to give serious consideration to your fleet logistics.

    Just imagine the prospects that if you fleet is ambushed and your support ships are destroyed but you manage to escape in your Titan / SC as soon as you run out of jump fuel you would be stuck in that system until help arrived.

    Like I said, just look at any WW2 footage of Naval Fleets and you will see what I mean.

    Captain Black Jack
    Posted - 2011.08.17 11:15:00 - [53]
     

    Originally by: Aeon Flux Phantom

    Like I said, just look at any WW2 footage of Naval Fleets and you will see what I mean.


    Interesteting idea.
    • Super Capitals would need a crew to fly there ships
    .

    Heres some ideas i came up with while thinking about it:


    How to get the crew:

    ArrowYou would need to hold space in 0.0 sector.
    ArrowThrough Planetary Interaction you would need to populate that sector of space with colonists.
    ArrowA portion of colonists would be available for enlistment to serve on Super-Cap ships.



    How to reduce the number of Super-Cap ships beeing deployed by the Alliance

    ArrowThe colonised systems would be a subject to beeing targeted by enemies of the Alliance holding this space, reducing there population. (Example, Orbital bombardment of Cities)



    How to prevent Capital ships from taking part in Planetary defense

    Arrow Planerary gravity is to strong for the Capital Ships to enter orbit of the planet.


    What effects this will have?
    Arrow Would increase the value of all Space in 0.0 Sector, not just thouse that have specials moons on them.
    Arrow Would increase the interest in Alliance warefare. The more space you hold the stronger is your Alliance.
    Arrow Would give more meaning to Allinace Warefare. Now you will be fighting to protect your NPC population.
    Arrow Would add realistic feeling to the game.

    Krathos Morpheus
    Legion Infernal
    Posted - 2011.08.17 11:21:00 - [54]
     

    Originally by: ThisIsntMyMain
    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.
    You didn't understand how it works, you can change the home system (or deployment system) as many times as you want. Cooldowns between 48 hours and one week, whatever is balanced. You need to evaluate the risks and rewards.

    Whoever wants to remain static will do so just as it is NOW, whoever wants to move around will do just like now.

    Alliances do not choose to have a home system, alliances choose to hold space or not.

    Having one more valuable system per alliance will encourage more alliances on null sec to reap the benefits, maybe breaking down big alliances a bit.

    Gogela
    Freeport Exploration
    Posted - 2011.08.17 17:10:00 - [55]
     

    Man... I still really think the problem is jumping. It's just teleporting... it doesn't make sense in the story or the mechanics of the game... and it reduces the concept of logistics to a mere afterthought.

    If Jumping exists, any other nerf is meaningless. We'll find a way around it. Remember when you could load up a dread with cargo expanders and cargo rigs and you could effectively field a mini-jump freighter with gigantic tank?

    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    Important Internet Spaceship League
    Posted - 2011.08.18 09:54:00 - [56]
     

    In regards of logistics I find it funny that you want the industry in 0.0 to blossom and yet it is easier to haul out the finished ships & modules than the materials themself.
    And mining the materials on site will cost more in lost ratting profit than buying them in empire (mining doesnt really give enough profit).

    Pinky

    fenistil
    Posted - 2011.08.18 12:25:00 - [57]
     

    If and when smallholding will be introduced to EVE, logistics to those smallholding corps will be a problem. Flying 30 jump through neutral or red 0.0 will mean you are picked up by some intel channel and they will know that you are doing something here and there. As well even with the best blockade runners, cloaky ships you will get cought no matter how good your scouting is. Getting cought isn't as much of a trouble as disrupting the supply lines of those 10-20 people doing the ninja operations next to the big guy.

    So if you need to move say 10k ammo into your space or you want to move your loot out of your base of operations you'll have a huge amount of difficulties.
    The question remains: how do you transport back and forth between your base of operations and a market hub to resupply? Blocked runners or cloaky t3 isn't an option here since they are way too easy to catch or are very limited in the m3 they can transport.

    The solutions could involve using currently available methods:
    - use a carrier or JF to transport goods
    - try and find a WH leading closer to lowsec/highsec
    - take the chances with blockade runners

    Problems with these methods above include: ninja corps will most likely be composed of newer players who dare into the unknown. Thus they'd have limited SP/ISK resources therefore a carrier with jump drive callibration 5 or a JF isn't an option due to the billions of ISK investment and the amount of skills one need to train.
    WHs are complely chance based. What if you fuel runs out in 3 days (if you need any) and 3 of your blockade runners have already been cought? Are you done?

    Since SmallHolding is for people not willing to participate in major sov warefare but for those willing to explore 0.0 and enjoy themselves as adventurers with limited resources (dev blog mentions 10-15mill investment - JF is 5bill+), they'll need a cost effective way to deliver.
    An idea that could possibly solve that is to extend the abilities of 1 ship class. Say let it be the transport ships.
    These transport ships should be able to somehow move items in and out of the system with the base of operations. (Wormhole generator? see smallholding thread)

    Bob Niac
    Gallente
    freelancers inc
    Imperial 0rder
    Posted - 2011.08.18 15:06:00 - [58]
     

    tl;dr: Jump bridges are dead! Long live Jump Bridges!

    Transition JBs over the the jump portal mechanic. That or add a Portal array. You can use it to go to any lit cyno gen (tower only?) in the the area. This means you are jumping into a un-jammed system with great potential for hilarity to ensue, but have more flexibility to where you can go. less POSes to worry about in theory, and more un-jammed systems.

    Bilaz
    Minmatar
    Fremen Sietch
    DarkSide.
    Posted - 2011.08.18 16:38:00 - [59]
     

    about trade - market needs attention. atm everyone with skills can trade on my station - even if he is forbidden to dock. that allows to harm me. making some form of internal market to, for instance, trade only inside station and better yet with friendlies and external market to allow trade between regions - and gather/give items thru planet customs.
    that would make trade between hostile groups and wont let them harras internal markets without spies. neutral parties would be able to trade everywhere (if they would be able to safely get in and out Twisted Evil) they want.
    point is to have more life in 0.0 we must have more means to interact with (potentially) hostile players (now we can chat? scam and kill each other)

    i think its worth mentioning that while having regions sitting far from empire is somehow good and may provoke creation of self-sufficient markets (if t2 creation in 0.0 would be easier and mass logistic from jita - harder) - that also making them very far from other 0.0 regions - making life there boring and uneventfull. By creating some way to decrease distance between such fringe territories may solve that. i mean - ok eve is huge - but that feeling i get from looking on map - not flying fo hours from esoteria to dron-regions thru gazilion empty systems.

    investment to make logistic safe is not so great idea. one can invest to make is easier or faster - but make it safe and you strip anyone hostile to owner of space from 1 reason to appear in that space.
    before jb and jump freighters appeared i remember routes to empire being alive - armed convoys breaking thru gate camps, lonely pilots and gangs flying in all directions. now - nothing like that. jb are safe way to travel and people living further from empire depend on ones having jb to empire exit.
    So I think at least part of player created shortcuts should be accessible by everyone - reason behind this is that having everything you need home - one wont need to safely move ship from empire. and safe mass logistics moving goods from and to empire should be mass effort - thus its safety should depend not on amount of money one can invest in space - but how good one can control its space.
    and if there is a safe way to travel - its only natural to make it slower than dangerous one, or at least cost a lot - not like jb, titan bridges and jf - all in one package at minimal cost with minimal effort Sad. still boring as hell tho.

    John McCreedy
    Caldari
    Eve Defence Force
    Posted - 2011.08.18 22:13:00 - [60]
     

    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.


    Thanks for the reply Smile

    The problem with Super Carriers is the same problem for a lot of ships in Eve. They lack a specific role. The ships that are most use are those with a specific role where as those without are bearly ever used. The thing about Super Carriers is that where as all the other ships with tightly defined roles are pretty rubbish outside of that role, Supers excel at most things. They're a Jack of all trades, master of all. Super Carriers should be made to be Super Capital Killers that are lousy at killing anything smaller than a Capital Ship. That will stop the proliferation of entire fleets of them.

    The key thing to keep in mind is that no one wants to spend 15bn ISK on a useless ship and nerfing them to the point they're back to how they where before Fighter Bombers where introduced, rather than tighter defining their role will simply result in the market for them grinding to a halt which will have a knock on effect for the wider Eve economy. You should also remember that not all Super Carriers are made equal.


    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