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


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Vanessa Vansen
Posted - 2011.08.17 18:41:00 - [91]
 

Starbases reworked

Ok, I opened another thread to cover the topic of reworking starbases and outposts.
It's basic idea is to build on something that let's you move from one side to the other,
i.e. from the smallest POS to the biggest outpost ... some things even with jump drives :D

To cut a long story short.
Select a hull/structure and than add the things that you want to have for your home.

Grady Eltoren
Minmatar
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Posted - 2011.08.17 19:19:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: Grady Eltoren on 17/08/2011 19:33:10
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: RAW23
I love the idea of small-holdings but I'm not really sure I understand quite what is intended by the term. Would it be possible to elaborate a bit more with some hypothetical examples?


Ok, gonna use this post to reference a whole bunch of other posts in this thread which I agree with Smile

The basic idea is that it should be viable for small groups of players to set up shop in quiet areas of nullsec without necessarily getting the approval of the big fish in the area (particularly if they're doing smart things like settling in space owned by an alliance in a different TZ). They'd have to keep out of the way of the "owners", but so long as they managed to do that it'd end up being far more hassle than it was worth, and cost much more than it would save, to evict them.

This requires, more than anything else, the ability to make a "safe base", which would ideally be something along the lines of a fully scalable modular starbase anchored somewhere in deepish space, where it couldn't be found unless you followed its owners home, provided it stayed small enough. This gives both a practical base of operations and a "homestead"ish feel - as you build up and customize your own little settlement, it becomes your home as well as your base.

Ideally this would also entail various tools to upgrade bits of the system in a way that again isn't really worth dealing with, maybe even down to the per-planet level (all the belts around this one planet are a bit better, or it spawns some extra anoms, or something).


Aren't we really talking about Worm Hole living here???

I run a SMALL corp. We struck out on our own into null (a new type of null) called "worm hole" space. You might have heard of it. : ) We lived there in relative safety and learned the ropes at a slower pace than null. It is fun. At first when it came out it was easy to run with 4 people up to a C4. Now that people are getting more serious about WH's and T3 you pretty much need to join an Alliance or build a cap ship and expand your numbers to about 8-10 people to watch your POS and "claim"...that or become nomadic. That is just what we did - join a small alliance.

Now POS's are hard to take down in WH's because even with RR Domi gangs, you have mass limitations that intruders have to deal with and random chances of being found, but it isn't impossible. IF you seek to make small holdings totaly invulnerable then I guess you need to invent some new sort of POS or mobile ship.

So anyways - I guess what I want to say is, I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE the idea of small holdings in game. But sub coming up with some complex crazy new stuff that will surely have exploits and mess up bigger things, why not JUST LEAVE SMALL HOLDINGS to WH's ..... You have access to 0.0 in them to run sites and do all the good stuff (barring you don't land in a Russian system where they will hunt you down like dogs.)

There is always renting as much as it can be a bunch of Politics BS...but it works somewhat. Why not Work some sort of treaty thing out with big power blocks so that small groups can move in (maybe become friends ) or maybe harrass. OR work out something to enable sites to be ninja run more easily instead of power block alliances having the easy button of warping in on you uninvited any time they see you in null sec local??

I had suggested getting rid of local in NULL (o.o) and making it an upgrade once a hi-sov is reached. This way AFK cloakers can't see you but you can see them in local. Then they can't wreck your day so easily unless they probe you down and this way ninja small holdings corps can make a go of it in o.o areas that aren't upgraded to high sov!!

MY TWO CENTS - YOURS?

EDIT: I saw the post about Accel-gate access to keep your small living (ninja) POS, ORCA, whatever, safe and I LIKE THIS. Someone had mentioned WH's and how Entraces do this and that is exactly what I am saying in essence.

Grady Eltoren
Minmatar
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Posted - 2011.08.17 19:37:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Grady Eltoren on 17/08/2011 19:37:24
One more thing - directly for Greyscale.

You mentioned AFK Cloakers as a problem. I have posted here and two other nullsec theory threads (mining and industry) about changing how local chat works in null. If you saw my posts then in various fleshed out versions I am wondering what your thoughts are. My theory solution addresses so many of the problems and ideas you are trying to do with null sec I am really wondering what you think.

Corazani
Posted - 2011.08.17 20:36:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Corazani on 17/08/2011 20:38:29
Originally by: Thur Barbek

Also for solo or small corps, there exists NPC 0.0. This space allows you to adjust and maybe get together with other small groups. From there your on the path to owning your own systems.



The problem with this sort of thing though is, in my experience, 0.0 NPC space is some of the most viciously pirated, camped, roamed through, and generally more dangerous space than any other random 0.0 system.

Just as a couple of examples from systems I'm familiar with, let's say... in the past week (Aug 10-Aug17th), using stats from the Battleclinic KB:
Serpentis Prime: 58 kills
PUIG-F: 3
J-LPX7: 0
8-YNBE: 3

And for the sake of utter randomness, a system I've never even visited to my knowledge, picked at random:
SLYP-5: 0

PUIG, J-L, and 8-Y were all reasonably common places to hang about the last time I checked, and even choice spots like B-7DFU (-1 Truesec, plenty of belts, dead end system, really nice little mining spot back in the day actually) haven't had any kills in the last week (though someone did get popped and podded on the 9th).

Smallholding as a concept really does appeal to me. I've spent time in deep 0.0. Less recently I more or less started my play time there actually, as I happened to fall in with a good crew of people right before they moved out there back during th GBC days. More recently (relatively speaking) I was up around Serpentis Prime under BLAST and then down with the Mavericks prior to the orgy of drama/violence that became the fall of IT.

I like 0.0, and I don't mind being a miner or the "Quick and safe up, some guy popped into local" kind of resident. What I don't like, as a miner/industrialist, is being treated like a slave (as seems to happen a lot under the larger alliances). Small(er) corps are generally faced with the choice between becoming hardcore PVP meat for the grinder, or sneered and spit upon serfs paying for the privilege of being abused.

As it stands, people try dipping their toes into 0.0 and come back emasculated and beaten with no taste for ever trying again. Letting people invest in an area, getting to know the ins and outs of it, and slowly expanding to know the other locals isn't just good for the "carebears;" it's good for 0.0. Smallholding might finally be the thing that breathes real life into 0.0.

It gives more people a reason to be there, to come to love their home and cherish what they built there. And to play the devil's advocate, it makes hunting them down and spanking them all the more satisfying, because those tears are now those of drifting, homeless orphans instead of isk-grubbing tourists.Twisted Evil

*edit for mis-quote

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.17 23:47:00 - [95]
 

OK, I have an idea I'd like to float that would tie into both smallholding and 'home,' but I'll post here.

The only problem with this is I'm not sure how you'll avoid making this 'smallholding' into a tool used to keep grunt incomes of your enemies permanently nerfed. It's going to be hard to rat/mine if there are groups of reds who 'live' in your ratting systems. I would imagine you'll have to tie this into local/intel changes somehow; a way that would still facilitate combat but make presence and location somewhat less obvious. It would also be a good time to make ratting viable in PvP fits, but that's another topic entirely.

With all that in mind:

Hideouts. Fill each system with a /dozens?/hundreds? of comets/giant asteroids/spacejunk and allow players to establish small bases buried into the rock for a relatively cheap price. They can only handle one person docking at a time, and require a password to successfully dock. They can't handle anything larger than a battle-cruiser/mining-barge, and their cargo-space for mods/additional ships is limited, but big enough to keep a solo player reasonably comfortable without punishing them.

To remove these from your space, they have to be scanned down and flown to, and then the comets further scanned for 'hideouts.' In order to destroy them, the surface has to be mined down before the hideout is target-able. You could then introduce salvaging the wrecked contents for players with the docking password if you think this is too easily griefed, but personally if you make them a pain in the ass to find (needle in a haystack) I think they'd be safe enough.

I think the concept itself is already leaning too far in favour of an attacker/invader, something you'll have to be careful of. Perhaps making hideouts not anchor-able in high-sov/capital systems or something would work.

paritybit
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2011.08.18 00:42:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: paritybit on 18/08/2011 00:45:30
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Yup. It doesn't need to be hugely effective security, it just needs to give you plenty of warning that the end is coming. I'd lean towards making it such that most alliances will just not bother (and yes AFK cloaking needs looking at), but in the event that they do decide to serve eviction notices, anything up to a week or two of warning gives the owner plenty of time to haul their **** out of the way and scarper. (I'd assume that the larger and more powerful the homestead became, the shorter the warning period would be.)


Don't underestimate the will of PvP alliances to undertake extremely boring, tiresome efforts to make another entity unhappy. The security/difficulty of dislodging a smallholding ought to be supplemented with equal parts ease of setting up a new smallholding, ease of evacuation (at least getting your stuff, not necessarily leaving a solar system) and making the smallholding owner useful to the space holders.

The joy of destroying a smallholding will be extremely diminished if the cost, both time and isk, is not terribly substantial.

Perhaps a smallholding (belonging to an entity that is not the space holder) could contribute to the numbers and quality of local NPC pirate activity (anomolies, belt rats), provide some benefit to the security of the space holder's sovereignty or simply spawn exotic dancers in the cargo holds of pilots in the sov-holding alliance.

Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.08.18 01:26:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: Jack Tronic on 18/08/2011 01:27:09
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 18/08/2011 01:26:18
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: RAW23
I love the idea of small-holdings but I'm not really sure I understand quite what is intended by the term. Would it be possible to elaborate a bit more with some hypothetical examples?


Ok, gonna use this post to reference a whole bunch of other posts in this thread which I agree with Smile

The basic idea is that it should be viable for small groups of players to set up shop in quiet areas of nullsec without necessarily getting the approval of the big fish in the area (particularly if they're doing smart things like settling in space owned by an alliance in a different TZ). They'd have to keep out of the way of the "owners", but so long as they managed to do that it'd end up being far more hassle than it was worth, and cost much more than it would save, to evict them.

This requires, more than anything else, the ability to make a "safe base", which would ideally be something along the lines of a fully scalable modular starbase anchored somewhere in deepish space, where it couldn't be found unless you followed its owners home, provided it stayed small enough. This gives both a practical base of operations and a "homestead"ish feel - as you build up and customize your own little settlement, it becomes your home as well as your base.

Ideally this would also entail various tools to upgrade bits of the system in a way that again isn't really worth dealing with, maybe even down to the per-planet level (all the belts around this one planet are a bit better, or it spawns some extra anoms, or something).


How do you imagine these "safe bases" applying to wspace? I feel the concept would make it "too safe" to have in wspace, reducing risk greatly preventing cloakies to sneak up and spy on you without probing and alerting everyone in system.

If there would be no desire to prevent them from being anchored in wspace, then there should at least be a limit at how many things can "dock", so you can't store capitals, battleships and the works at such a place.

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.18 01:27:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Corazani
Edited by: Corazani on 17/08/2011 20:38:29
Originally by: Thur Barbek

Also for solo or small corps, there exists NPC 0.0. This space allows you to adjust and maybe get together with other small groups. From there your on the path to owning your own systems.



The problem with this sort of thing though is, in my experience, 0.0 NPC space is some of the most viciously pirated, camped, roamed through, and generally more dangerous space than any other random 0.0 system.

Just as a couple of examples from systems I'm familiar with, let's say... in the past week (Aug 10-Aug17th), using stats from the Battleclinic KB:
Serpentis Prime: 58 kills
PUIG-F: 3
J-LPX7: 0
8-YNBE: 3



If you can't survive 0.0 pvp in a region where you can dock, how is a alliance going to invade space where they cant even dock. The reason a lot of 0.0 has no kills is because there are not a large number of borders. With 1/2 the map being one super alliance, the number of contested borders between alliances has decreased. Pick some contested systems and you'll see the big pvp numbers. Another reason NPC 0.0 is a bit more occupied atm is because the NC just collapsed and 1/2 their corps moved to NPC 0.0.

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2011.08.18 05:36:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Holy One
You could really look in to creating some kind of symbiosis between 'homesteaders' and 'sov' holders. If you conceptualize nullsec as a kind of psuedo-fuedal enterprise then 'trade' should more or less be the lifeblood. This economic drive should in no small part contribute. Make it the exception not the norm to encourage the growth of private enterprise in sov space.

Rather than encouraging isolationism (although not excluding it) you should be trying to find a way for independent enterprise to 'fill in' some of the logistics and resource harvesting/conversion holes in the current sov model. Merchants looters and ghosts, amirite?

Imagine if it wasn't the norm for alliances to gather resources; it wasn't the norm for them to produce t1 and t2 stuff themselves; it wasn't the norm for them to do their own logistics (in the main) etc.

Resource gathering, t1, t2 production, mineral harvesting and refining and critically logistics should all have a thriving independent slant. Give people a reason to take their operations in to null sec sov space and give sov holders a massive incentive to become 'barons' rather than 'grinders'.

As for providing somewhere for people to dock, refit, repair, clone etc. that's a no-brainer. Its frankly astonishing to me that you have only recently twigged the reason most of sov null is empty is because there's no practical advantage to being there if you aren't able to utilize the local 'services' or avoid the local 'blob'.

Isn't part of this on the players?

Players govern their alliances & corporations and how they interact with each other. I agree there are in-game mechanics & tools lacking to enable your idea, but player organization leadership policy decisions (like NBSI) play into the lack of non-alliance/pet member activities in alliance null-sec space just as much, if not more.

If the policy of an alliance is that only the alliance & allies can dock at a station/outpost and the alliance does not become allies with small entities, then the small entity cannot provide goods & services to the alliance.

What is preventing PvP corp(s) from being the defender of an area of space and offering to defend a system's sovereignty in exchange for a percentage of an industry corps' Starbase fuel savings, profit, etc?

What motivation does a large alliance have for evicting a small corporation today, when the small corporation is not interfering in the sov claiming alliances operations? Target availability & PvP opportunities?

Pure mechanical changes & "cheaper" safety systems are not going to change player behavior on their own. Player leaders have to make those decisions for their organizations.

Even if sov holding alliances were CONCORD shoot-on-sight in highsec, it would likely only result in alt logistics characters fulfilling roles that actual CCP envisions other player's fulfilling.

This may actually be more about defining what CCP really wants a player alliance to be (a big corporation? a megacorporation? a faction?) and what mechanics are needed to drive that vision.

Ding Charvez
Posted - 2011.08.18 09:49:00 - [100]
 

I realy like the Idea of an "normadic" Outpost / Base to explore 00 on your own / with a small group of guys.

Tent-approache

The basic idea is to have a cheap / small Outpost from where you can start your day.
imho you should be able to transport your Tent + fuel for some days in a cloaky hauler, perhaps even in a SB
(or a new ship class).

I was thinking about 3 sizes
small for 1-2 person
med up to 5 persons
large up to 10 persons


unload => ancore => default value: only the guy who anchord it has access.
If you want other people to use your outpost you have to give them access up to 10 guys.


Features:
Storage room: 20.000 / 60.000 / 100.000 m^3
Fitting service: Yes.
ship Hangar 1 cloaky hauler + 1 BC + 1 Cruiser / 1 cloaky haule + 3 BC + 5 Cruiser / 1 cloaky haule + 6 BC + 12 Cruiser
Docking: Yes but only up to BC-size.
Repair: No. if you want repairs, grap a repper or nanopaste
Medic: No.
Industry: No (perhaps different classes of tents, but since I'm not in industry, I didn't thought about that at all tbh.)

HP:
Structure + Armor like a Tier 3 BS (Resis: 60% - 99% on Structure and between 55% and 80% on Armor)
Shield 10 times a Tier 3 BS (Resis 55% - 80%)
(med structure: 3-5 times and large structure: 8-10 times)

Fuel:
Fuel Bay should be large enough to store fuel for 15-30 days. (Fuel hauling is annoying)
Fuel consumtion: should be less than 200 m^3 per day, so you can get 50 days of fuel with 1 trip of a cloaky hauler (Fuel hauling is annoying!)
Fuel cost: A POS cost about 150 mil a month and offer a lot, so i would say 5-10 mil a month max.

shouldn't appear on overview / d-scan if you are not on the same grid but could be scaned down with probes.

it should have 3-5 reinforcement timers which should sum up to 1 week or so, so the defenders get a chance to grap
there **** and leave, perhaps even to unanchore the structure (but since it should cost 10-15 mil, who cares).

1st reinforcement timer should be reached with 5 BC / BS / SB in less than 5 mins.
So nothing worth dropping a dread or SC on and no real grinding.
You can reinforce it with a small roaming gang without to much effort.

Effects on Sov/ Sec what ever: none. You are living in a tent, you can go ratting, you can spy, explore / pvp.
Location: if you want to set up a Tent you need to scan a good location down. e.g. hidden Asteroid belts / left outposts
/ gas clouds something like that. Or as someone else said: use a (new class of) scanning probe and create a "DSS".
In that case I would create a "Barrier" which is twice the time as the greatest distance of celestrials in that system with the sun as a center.
(so if you have the greates distance between two stargates which is 100 au. you can not create a DSS more than 200 au from the sun away.)


fenistil
Posted - 2011.08.18 10:01:00 - [101]
 

Congratulations to CCP!

Damn good idea! :)


Ideas for smallholding:


The ones with adventure in heart will take CCP upon their offer to give us some way to do smallholding.
My thoughts:
It shouldn't be another way to claim sov. It should be a way to make it possible for people to do ninja operations next to the big guy.
A pilot in 0.0 space needs a number of thing to be able to do what he wants:
  1. Be able to change ships without the fear of getting it scanned down while he is offline

  2. Be able to refit that ship

  3. At least manufacture ammo, so the most basics of the industry

  4. Be able to do logistics - what good does 150m3 faction loot does to them if they can't get it out of there safely?

  5. Have a place where they can retreat if in trouble that provides proper hiding place


I imagine a good approach would be to introduce a new deepspace structure. A modular one, similar to outposts. You build it up, you can get to it, change fits, store ships in your hangars (not necessarily dock up). The initial investment shouldn't be too much, say only 20-50mill. The size of the structure shouldn't be more than 8000m3 so that a crane or transport ship could handle it. Or less if we want to enable say a tengu to be able to bring it to system with covert reconfiguration and interdiction nullifier.

Making it modular could mean that if your corp is into mining in that space, let there be an ore hangar where they can store the ore, maybe let them even refine it.
Let the structure have a very limited amount of manufacturing slots (2-3) available so that ammo could be built.

The ability to create corp contracts would be nice from this structure too.

Since the scientists of New Eden had a lot of time to study wormholes, they have devised a new way to artificially generate wormholes the endpoint of which can be with relative safety be predicted (within a system). The WH generators would have limitations such as the maximum range of the endpoint must be in 10yl. And since that WH generator could be installed on these deadspace structures, logistics will become a lot easier. These directed WHs will have a maximum amount of mass they let through before they collapse. Say 10BS worth and will not allow anything larger pass through. Once they collapse, the generator will need a certain amount of time, say 12 hours to regenerate the wormhole.
Scanning down these wormholes couldbe the indicators that would let the sov holding alliance know about the presence of ninja operators. The WH's would be generated say 1000-1200KMs from the structure. Since I don't think the structure should be scannable or visible on DS, I believe a WH would be the best indication that there is something going on. 1000km is enough so that the DS structure wouldn't show up on grid but close enough for a few ceptors to find the structure by extending the grid to a 1000-1200km radius. I believe that in about 15 minutes a few ceptors would be able to find the structure.

Since this whole idea goes for ninja operations, I'd imagine it'd be best if the structure couldn't be scanned down and wouldn't show up on the DS. If neutrals are not in system let noone know that it's even there. However this would mean large alliances could contest other's space without their knowledge, attack from within. Therefore there should be a limit to how many people such a structre can sustain.


fenistil
Posted - 2011.08.18 10:17:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: fenistil on 18/08/2011 10:25:57
Further thoughts on WH generator:

Since it's obvious that it would become an essential part of sov warefare, disrupting enemy operations by easily moving N ships into a system almost undetected, I suggest the following limitations to it so that it wouldn't replace jump bridges or titan bridges but to support ninja corps/alliances:
  1. Alliances with sov shouldn't be able to use it

  2. Have it limited to 1 per solar system

  3. Be expensive, more expensive than JBs or titan bridges to operate

  4. Be able to turn the generator on and off and thus make use of it only when necessary

  5. Limit the maximum amount of mass that can pass through it to 500million (4 plated abaddons - sufficient for smaller ships) thus limiting the power it can be used to affect sov warefare

  6. Limit the maximum amount of mass that can pass through it at once to 200million (an orca wouldn't fit through - if you want one, build it in space)

  7. Entrance from the structure should be scanned down (being only 1000-1200km) that is a matter of minutes

  8. Since the owner of the starbase structure would have the ability to direct the WH in 1 general direction, let there be some randomity in where the exit of the WH would be. Say within the solar system anywhere. Exit could be scanned down too

  9. Let the regeneration of the WH be around 12 hours (after collapse) so that doing logistics for high value items would be easier but wouldn't replace JBs or Titan bridges for moving fleets

  10. Limit the WH natural regeneration to 0. Once there is a WH let there be one, but once it's gone, it has to be regenerated.

  11. One corporation can have 1 of these generators or exits in 1 system. So if the corp was to live on the furthest out pocket of a 0.0 region, they'd have to set up 2 or 3 of these to get to lowsec. But since there can only be 1 generator or exit in a system, they'd have to travel to another system to move around. (possibility to disrupt logistics and to give some extra indication to sov holders that there is a ninja operation going on in those systems - scan down WHs, chk where they lead - ransom etc...) Similar to how JBs work now.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.18 10:47:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Grady Eltoren
Edited by: Grady Eltoren on 17/08/2011 19:37:24
One more thing - directly for Greyscale.

You mentioned AFK Cloakers as a problem. I have posted here and two other nullsec theory threads (mining and industry) about changing how local chat works in null. If you saw my posts then in various fleshed out versions I am wondering what your thoughts are. My theory solution addresses so many of the problems and ideas you are trying to do with null sec I am really wondering what you think.


To be totally honest I'm not looking at specific solutions right now. We've got a lot to do atm so I'm concentrating on discussion of the high-level goals we're trying to pin down, and just skimming most of the more specific stuff. When we get to looking at implementing fixes, then we'll be asking for this sort of stuff.

Originally by: paritybit
Edited by: paritybit on 18/08/2011 00:45:30
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Yup. It doesn't need to be hugely effective security, it just needs to give you plenty of warning that the end is coming. I'd lean towards making it such that most alliances will just not bother (and yes AFK cloaking needs looking at), but in the event that they do decide to serve eviction notices, anything up to a week or two of warning gives the owner plenty of time to haul their **** out of the way and scarper. (I'd assume that the larger and more powerful the homestead became, the shorter the warning period would be.)


Don't underestimate the will of PvP alliances to undertake extremely boring, tiresome efforts to make another entity unhappy. The security/difficulty of dislodging a smallholding ought to be supplemented with equal parts ease of setting up a new smallholding, ease of evacuation (at least getting your stuff, not necessarily leaving a solar system) and making the smallholding owner useful to the space holders.

The joy of destroying a smallholding will be extremely diminished if the cost, both time and isk, is not terribly substantial.

Perhaps a smallholding (belonging to an entity that is not the space holder) could contribute to the numbers and quality of local NPC pirate activity (anomolies, belt rats), provide some benefit to the security of the space holder's sovereignty or simply spawn exotic dancers in the cargo holds of pilots in the sov-holding alliance.


Yup, fair.

Shasz
Angels of Anarchy
Posted - 2011.08.18 12:46:00 - [104]
 

Brainstorm thought:

Make the smallholding folks subject to taxation of the local sov holder.

Suddenly their presence by conquering empires is desirable. Just the presence of lots of stakeholders might make it a system you want to own. You'd actually have sovereignty over something other than deadspace.

Conversely, the new sov holders could drive out the locals through over-taxation. Set the rate too high and nobody would want to live or rat there.

The tax could affect whatever fee it takes to maintain the small holding or acceleration gates, it could affect bounties / missions in the system. Specifics can be worked out...

Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Posted - 2011.08.18 12:49:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Messoroz on 18/08/2011 12:50:42
Originally by: Vanessa Vansen
Starbases reworked

Ok, I opened another thread to cover the topic of reworking starbases and outposts.
It's basic idea is to build on something that let's you move from one side to the other,
i.e. from the smallest POS to the biggest outpost ... some things even with jump drives :D

To cut a long story short.
Select a hull/structure and than add the things that you want to have for your home.


The only reason play EVE after Incarna is due to POSes, I never have to log into stations, I can just sit in my force field floating and spinning. Man, the day they remove force fields from POSes is probably the day many other people living in wspace quit :/ It just changes mechanics so much, as you won't get camped by cloaky dreads and recons for one. There is also a constant need for being "undocked" and being aware of your surrondings, checking dscan, warping around,etc. I really don't want to see wspace stiffed on this :/

Corazani
Posted - 2011.08.18 13:43:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Shasz
Brainstorm thought:
Conversely, the new sov holders could drive out the locals through over-taxation. Set the rate too high and nobody would want to live or rat there.

The tax could affect whatever fee it takes to maintain the small holding or acceleration gates, it could affect bounties / missions in the system. Specifics can be worked out...


The problem with that sort of thing however, is that it would essentially come down to being a tick box or the like somewhere, and most alliances would simply put it to 100% to discourage squatters.

However: if it was somehow tied to the use indexes of a system, that could make it very interesting indeed. High use systems would be harder to stay hidden/unnoticed in, and would therefore "cost" more due to the increased costs of smuggling, the right payoffs, etc... to keep hidden. Possibly even scale it directly with the highest use ratings, or to the individual indices within the sov system?

IE: each point of index maintained in a system translates to a 6.6% (100/15) tax rate on "unaffiliated" squatters. This would quickly translate into 30-60% tax rates in well held/ratted systems, and even further if they have a local mining group. Keeps the smallholders from coming and trying to mooch the products of actually held/worked sov space, and encourages them to find and stick to the fringes.

Grady Eltoren
Minmatar
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Posted - 2011.08.18 13:51:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Grady Eltoren
Edited by: Grady Eltoren on 17/08/2011 19:37:24
One more thing - directly for Greyscale.

You mentioned AFK Cloakers as a problem. I have posted here and two other nullsec theory threads (mining and industry) about changing how local chat works in null. If you saw my posts then in various fleshed out versions I am wondering what your thoughts are. My theory solution addresses so many of the problems and ideas you are trying to do with null sec I am really wondering what you think.


To be totally honest I'm not looking at specific solutions right now. We've got a lot to do atm so I'm concentrating on discussion of the high-level goals we're trying to pin down, and just skimming most of the more specific stuff. When we get to looking at implementing fixes, then we'll be asking for this sort of stuff.




Well two thoughts on that -

First, the devil is in the details. In other words, the best laid plans in theory can come crumbling down due to a poorly designed machine. All it takes is one shoe thrown in to stop the press. So I just caution that as much as you don't want to get into technical - you need to consider it. I have seen you respond to technical details in other threads that would become linch pins so that is why I bring this stuff up. I hope that makes sense.

Second, I may not be around for the even more detailed implementation discussion due to RL so I offer it now.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.18 14:30:00 - [108]
 

I do not quite understand what CCP means by "small holding", maybe they can explain? Is it

A hidden base in someone else's sov space
A hidden base in unclaimed space
A small amount of space, say just one system, claimed by a small alliance?

Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
Posted - 2011.08.18 15:22:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
I do not quite understand what CCP means by "small holding", maybe they can explain? Is it

A hidden base in someone else's sov space
A hidden base in unclaimed space
A small amount of space, say just one system, claimed by a small alliance?


At its most basic it seems be to a pilot's personal starbase, possibly shareable with corp or friends, that is very difficult to detect unless you park next to it AFK throwing off a nice signature to lock onto. Greyscale says being able to dock is key and most of us agree. It is designed for null sec but currently not limited to where it can be anchored.

All other functionality seems to be undecided at this point.

For those that don't want to dock: WTF? This is supposed to be a full sic-fi simulator, not world of tanks in space. We finally get both spaceships and walking avatars. Don't look at today's Incarna functionality as the end all, be all of walking. It was a STRESS TEST, which it clearly succeeded on the stress part.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.18 16:01:00 - [110]
 

OK, so a small holding is not about a small amount of sov, but a hidden base. But is it about hiding my base in someone else's sov space, or unclaimed space? Lets consider:

If I can set up in someone else's sov, then big alliances will use this to plant spies all over each others territory. Sounds like a bad idea.

So what if its limited to unclaimed space? Then the big fish will try and claim everything to keep out the small holders. How to prevent that? Maybe make getting sov and keeping it based on activity. An incursion-like influence thing. An alliance's influence would grow with mining, ratting and ship kills, but will decay away in a few days, losing them sov, if they abandon a system. And will drop even faster if someone else is ratting, mining, or killing ships in that system.

Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
Posted - 2011.08.18 16:21:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
If I can set up in someone else's sov, then big alliances will use this to plant spies all over each others territory. Sounds like a bad idea.


I think this is one of the big questions. What RP mechanic would prevent a pilot to establish their home in alliance space not belong to them? What prevents someone from anchoring a firebase starbase in another alliance's space? Currently you can only establish a planetary colony on a planet not covered by sovereignty. I get the impression that they are considering making sovereignty not quite as all powerful though to increase the stress of actually locking down a system.

AFK cloaking spies to gather intel and hotdrop on your enemy are a fact of life. Smallholdings will only help that by allowing for a cache of supplies that is easier to use than anchoring some GSC. They want to push alliance holdings to be smaller and for smaller but more frequent fights. Will smallholdings in enemy space help or hurt that?

I haven't spent enough time in an alliance to suggest either way. What I do know is that alliances currently hold and defend fairly large swathes of under utilized space and I'm more than happy to attempt to make use of it. Maybe even make friends with the locals and eventually join up with them.

Dwindlehop
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2011.08.18 16:28:00 - [112]
 

Smallholding should be a factor in the spawning of anomalies, along with other factors like truesec. The value of a system should be related to the quantity and effort of pilots in space, calling that system home, not mechanical sovereignty level.

Also, smallholding facilities should inspire the occupants to defend it, if the odds are favorable. The game design goal is to build the sort of grassroots corps/alliances one finds in Molden Heath, or sometimes in the S-U constellation of Syndicate, where disparate individuals are brought together by their spatial locality and common security needs. First, smallholders are lured to 0.0 by the promise of the wealth a smallholding can provide. Once there, they make friends and enemies. Some will be far more powerful, but others will be on the equivalent power scale, providing the smallholder with his first taste of PVP. Successful smallholders will form defense leagues against the small-time pirates and rogues who would spend time bothering a smallholder. There's your gateway to the larger nullsec experience.

El 1974
Posted - 2011.08.18 17:51:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: El 1974 on 18/08/2011 17:51:54
Im not so much in favor of changes like a new deepspace structure. It will take too much coding and time to implement and will have (unintended) impact on other parts of the game. Keep it simple. Im thinking more like a special Corporate Hangar Array or a Giant Secure Container. In stead of having defences it should be possible to hide (cloak) it from directional scanners. That way players in fact create scansites for others with highly variable rewards (salvage, loot, ammo). A simple toy to play with in the sanbox.

Access to a local market to buy ammo and sell loot could be beneficial. I cant help but think that the inhabitants of local planets might produce that same ammo for their own needs and would like to reprocess the low value loot or ores. Perhaps you can even rent a hangar at the planet to store your stuff or trade your items with your Dust Char for safekeeping. Planets... I hope we get more info soon about what will happen there so we can get a better picture of what we are discussing.

I dont agree that docking is essential. You can go offline in a safespot. Being undetectable/invulnerable while afk is undesireable.

Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
Posted - 2011.08.18 18:18:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: El 1974
It will take too much coding and time to implement and will have (unintended) impact on other parts of the game. Keep it simple.


I wouldn't aim too low. This is part of a 5 year plan and things will get smashed down into something they feel is manageable, and then again when they run out of time. These crazy viking types like to plan big. If you had a personal/small corp starbase just for yourself that you could call home. What would you like to see?

We already have GSCs and cloaking devices but they don't feel like home. More like camping out in a military zone.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.18 22:54:00 - [115]
 

How about:

You can put a small holding anywhere, but you can also mount on it a "station cloak" What that does is cloak the grid: all the ships and the station. Think of mission spaces: The NPCs and their stations cannot be seen on the overview, d-scan or with probes. Give us players the same option.

How do you find such a station? Fly into its grid and there it is. If you are the owner, I hope you remembered to BM.

Now, if its sov space, and that space has been held of a bit (or if we use an influence system for sov, the alliance's influence is high enough) the sov holder can turn on a station cloak jammer.

Now the small holders will know when the end is coming: Sov has been claimed in their system and the sov holder is doing stuff in system raising their influence. And existing sov holders do not have to worry about invading squatters: Just run a station cloak jammer.

One big take away: Small holding and Sovereignty are linked, they need to work together.

Emiko P'eng
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.19 00:20:00 - [116]
 

My pennies worth is similar to a number that have been posted already!

A Homestead Ship
  • It will have 8 modules, each module being 100,000m3
  • The 'Spine'/'Frame' without modules can use jumpgates and would be similar to an Iteron Mark V for game mechanics
  • The empty spine will have a 10,000m3 Hanger & 10,000m3 Cargobay & 20,000m3 Fuel tank
  • Once fitted with any modules it would be to big for a jumpgate and would be considered as an Orca for game mechanics
  • To use any modules other than the Jump Drive, Habit or Hanger it would have to be anchored like a POS
  • It will be allowed into High Sec but would need Faction Certificates like a POS to be able to anchor
  • Modules without their own fuel tanks will use the spines reactors at a similar rate to similar POS modules
The Available modules would be:
  • Jump Drive 5 Light Year capacity and comes with a 10,000m3 Fuel Tank (Max 1 module)
  • Hanger 80,000m3 with 20,000m3 Cargo Storage (No ore allowed)(Spine & Repair Module would add to hanger size)(Max 4 modules)
  • Repair Bay 20,000m3 (But Hangers & Spine Hanger would add to capacity if fitted) (Max 1 module)
  • Ore Refiner 30% efficiency. Comes with 10,000m3 Ore hold (To operate it would need a Script for the particular ore being processed)(Using 2 modules would boost efficiency to 50% or allow 2 types of ore to be processed at 30%)(Max 2 Modules)
  • Ore Hold 100,000m3 (Max 1 module)
  • Shield Generator comes with 70,000m3 Fuel tank (It will have 2 modes. 1)Homestead owner logged in, then the shield uses 1m3 fuel to deflect 10 points of damage. If Homesteader is in a corp then corp members can access the modules with password 2)Homesteader Logged out, the shield is in invulnerable mode 10,000m3 use per 24 hours, corp members cannot access modules from outside (Max 1 module)
  • Shield fuel tank a further 100,000m3 (Max 1 module)
  • Habit allows a maximum of 5 other pilots to live on board & has 50,000m3 Corp cargohold (No Ore) (ie. Able to log in & out from Homestead. Owner already can log in & out)(Players who log in while Owner is logged out can swap ships in hanger, use allocated hold space & leave, but cannot return or use any of the modules)(Max of 2 modules)
  • Jump Clone Bay allows 5 Jump Clones also comes with further 50,000m3 Corp cargo hold (Only usable when anchored & owner logged in)(Max 1 module)
  • Drone Module comes with 10,000m3 bay, 5000 Mbit/sec bandwidth & has the ability to repair drones in its drone bay even without the repair module fitted (Max 1 module)
  • Tier One Manufacturing Module comes with 50,000m3 hanger (maximum size of item that can be constructed equals total hanger volume in ship)(Max 1 Module)
  • Laboratory with 30 slots usable for any type of research + another 50,000m3 hanger space (max 1 module)
  • Subspace Manipulation Generator this module can either be used as a jump portal generator or it can allow the ship to jump a maximum of 100AU from a system without the need of a portal or bookmark at the other end. (If it has a Jump Drive) It has a 50,000m3 tank (In game terms, it can hold open a bookmarkable Jump Drive termination point for owner, habitat or corp users, doing so uses 7,200m3 of fuel per hour (2m3 per second). If used for 100AU un-mapped jump it will use 10,000m3 itself to make the initial jump. After it arrives it can either tap into the system Jump gates and allow the Owner, Habitat or corp users to jump to & from the ship exiting or entering at one of the system Jumpgates this uses 100m3 per ship per jump or it can manually boost the owners, habitat or corp users ships so they can jump to & from the system without the need for a jumpgate this uses 500m3 per jump per ship (If owner is logged out it will automatically allow one jump to a Jumpgate per player)(max of 1 module)

Dex Ironmind
Posted - 2011.08.19 01:44:00 - [117]
 

Why not tie the concept of small holding into the concept of EMPIRE building. Is not NULL all about claiming a piece of space for your own.

Stations could take on four basic forms - Private (individually owned stations), Corp, Alliance, EMPIRE

Make them modular so that one can be the start for the next. This allows folks to build. Instead of a sovereignty type arrangement, make it a simple matter of building an EMPIRE. Full up stations (like in EMPIRE). Make the small holdings critical to EMPIRE. Without the "Small Holdings", it is impossible to advance your EMPIRE. Tax, markets, etc. all belong to the EMPIRE. The real key is that Anything EMPIRE needs to be destructible, which would be a great roll for SUPERCAPS/TITANS.

Of course, these stations should be usable in LOW, HI and WH, but EMPIRE is for NULL (the wild untaimed country). To keep it so there are chances for smaller corps and groups and individual to claim a piece of the NULL pie without the current big alliances taking things over, make it so their claim to EMPIRE is rooted solely in the loyalty of their small holdings. If the EMPIRE holder is a POSER, does not take care of his own, then his own can rise up against him or swing loyalties.

Couple this with a limited dispersal of key resources into the various regions of NULL and LOW and you give the EMPIRES somethings to fight over! Also make it so the number of small holdings that move into space draw some NPC type characters (Agents and such) to NULL so that the small holders have something else to do out there besides PVP.

Just a thought...
Dex was here. Cool

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.19 07:14:00 - [118]
 



I think the smallholdings idea should fit into the general concept of a more open 0.0 space - that these people need to be viewed as a "local population" for the sov holders to use if they're aware of their presence. This means that those SOV holders have incentive to make money and profit from those individuals by providing them services as well.

To the alliances that are very hostile to such possibilities, then yes - the smallholdings can provide for covert hide outs and such to hide from the big bad nasty. But for alliances that want to promote a local population, it should provide a means for these homesteaders the chance to be part of the sov system as well.



Shin Dari
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.19 11:36:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Emiko P'eng
My pennies worth is similar to a number that have been posted already!

A Homestead Ship
You do see the logistical problem of moving so many huge modules? Or are the modules ships themselves?

Also you seem to get a massive fuel problem.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:00:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Bloodpetal


I think the smallholdings idea should fit into the general concept of a more open 0.0 space - that these people need to be viewed as a "local population" for the sov holders to use if they're aware of their presence. This means that those SOV holders have incentive to make money and profit from those individuals by providing them services as well.

To the alliances that are very hostile to such possibilities, then yes - the smallholdings can provide for covert hide outs and such to hide from the big bad nasty. But for alliances that want to promote a local population, it should provide a means for these homesteaders the chance to be part of the sov system as well.




For nullsec, smallholding and sov are intimately intertwined.

From what I have seen of the other discussions it is the key relationship that if worked out properly will make the whole mess click together.

Even the most basic smallholdings could make nullsec mining work for more people, the more capable concepts include the full range of production capabilities.

The trick is to make sovereignty reward allowing smallholders.

For instance: what if every active, independent entity with a smallholding in one of your systems reduced the sov cost for that system by 10%?


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

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