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

El 1974
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:14:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Rees Noturana
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.


I'm not willing to wait 5 years until they have devised a plan. They have other plans for the near future that will consume most of their coding time, so they have time to discuss nullsec before adding significant amounts of code. To get something done soon rather than in five years it must be simple.

El 1974
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:20:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
... 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.


This is interesting. We already have mission sites that now dissapear when left alone. If we could somehow make these sites permanent (e.g. by hacking the acceleration gate) we could anchor a few containers and use them as a (semi)permanent residence. Perhaps we could even hack some of the Large Collidable Objects that could give certain advantages, like an ore processor, warehouse or repair station.

Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:26:00 - [123]
 

First off, lemme say, I'd LOVE this idea. having a nice home-away-from-home somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

The biggest issues I see with this is how do you manage the costs for the setup, it's benefits, the ease of deployment/relocation, and the ease of forcible removal, as well as the entry barrier and the clutter factor.

Cluttering
If building/setting up of such a place is cheap and unlimited, how are you going to stop people/alliances from setting up say 10000 of these in a system?

The best awnser to that is to create a skill that allows you to set up 1 of these per level or something like that. This would allow for these homesteads to be relatively cheap, and not cause there to be thousands of them all over the galaxy.

Deployment/relocation/removal

A homestead like this should be easy to deploy and relocate, unlike how POSses are a huge Pain in the ass right now. Especially if you're talking about a
small corp or even individual setting up shop somewhere, hauling thousands of m3 of modules and whatnot through enemy/unoccipied territory is a definite nono if you just want a small holding. On the other hand, you want people to be able to expand their home as well, so different sizes of homesteads would be a good idea.
Starting with a small 1 person 'tent' which allows for you to dock up somewhere, to leave some ammo, refit, a couple of extra ships, some modules.
This would be enough for a single person.
Have it cost a bit of fuel as upkeep, a stront bay for a reinforcement timer, enough hitpoints so it takes more than a single battleship to send it to reinforce, possibly give it the possibility of anchoring some POS guns around it as defense. No forcefields and such, so it can't be used as a place where to dock up a supercap, and don't allow anything bigger than a BS to dock. It's main defense would be that it doesn't show up on D-Scan, and must be probed down. Depending on the skill of the owner, this could be easy or hard.
A good idea might also be to allow for sov upgrades to make it easier to scan these places down, so if someone sets up shop in an enemy developed system, they would be easy to find, but if they set up their place in a quiet unoccupied system, finding them would be hard.

The current intel tools showing jumps and kills in a system and such should be removed really, so someone who sets up shop somewhere isn't visible at a glance. But that's another matter.

Once you get to a small corp, they will need more. a place to dock up their ships, small time manufacturing(ammo, drones, modules maybe, drugs?), store their booty, both individually and as a corp. Again, the best defense in this case would be 'hard to find' ( no local? ) by having it only be found by scanning it down, and once found, a reinforce timer
mechanism to let the corp know 'it's over, time to move'.

A cool idea here would be a corporate deadspace pocket. The entry point would/accel gate would be the place where the enemy would lay their siege. Maybe something like a module which can be placed there that begins hacking the gate for their use. Once the hacking is done, they have entry into the pocket.
This would allow for the same 'it's over' timer, and give the defenders a time to pack their things and leave.
A second timer inside the pocket on the various structures would also be a good idea, as well as a 'backdoor' for the defenders to enter, so once the enemy is inside the pocket, they can't be camped to death on the entry point.


Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:32:00 - [124]
 


Inside the pocket, there would be room to put up stuff, maybe equal to a small POS for the corp itself, and room for members to pitch their 'tent' mentioned above. a central 'hub' where corp members can all dock, with more room than a tent for each individual, and a (limited) corporate hangar. additional things could be added to the whole thing by adding more modules, so a big operation could house manufacturing bays, silo's, reactors, labs, and whatnot you'd find in a POS. Though it would be much better suited to have this stuff just being anchored, and then once that's done, available to a docked person.
Another module might be one that makes it harder to find the place, while every module added to the pile would make it easier to find the whole place.

The amount of stuff in the pocket would ofcourse have some limit. IMHO the best idea for that would be to give each hub in the pocket ( corp and tents ), an amount of CPU to put stuff up. and some kinds of modules to generate power ( solar power, free but limited, nuclear power, requiring PI ( EU ), Fusion Power ( requiring heavy water in addition to EU ), etc. ) which require CPU. This way, the setup would be totally modular in what people want to put inside the pocket. With every module added increasing the pocket's signature, thus making it easier to find the place.

At alliance level, this concept could then be expanded by having an alliance hub like the corp up, but with the ability to set up accel gates in the pocket leading to corp hubs with the corp member tents.



Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:47:00 - [125]
 

Inside a pocket, the player tents shouldn't be allowed to add guns ofc. so you can't put down 10000 tents in the alliance pocket and a zillion guns so nobody can blow the place up. Also the guns would not be 'mannable' as is the case in a POS, but simply be a little extra edge for the defenders should they decide to try and put up a fight.

Public vs Private
Entry into the pocket could also be arranged via a password on the gate, like POS passwords. This way, a corp/alliance could put up a semi-public place where their friends can hang out as well. Maybe also the ability to add a nice lounge for people to hang out in inside the hub. Though the amount of people able to dock would always be limited. ( corp members that pitched their tent can dock there and then go to the main hub, others would have to dock up in a docking bay, without the regular services, except the ability to stow their single ship/refit/repair it, no hangar bay space for anything else, but would have the ability to enter the lounge.

Inside this lounge, there could then be added a small sales point, where the owning corp/alliance can sell some wares ( booster, ammo, etc. but not ships )

Another interesting module would be the 'subspace beacon' which would put the place 'on the map' so to speak, like the current static plexes, giving people a celestial beacon that will guide them to the entry point.

In all, this would allow an emerging corp/alliance to start out with a few tents, and slowly build their empire from there, culminating possibly in the construction of a starbase. Everything up to that being done in the deadspace pocket(s).




Andrea Roche
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:54:00 - [126]
 

I think we got to be very carefull on what we do here...
We want to add some special place that for the most part will be safe but it will not by any means will replace POS as POS encourages battle.

I dont think it should be allowed to store ships.
Maybe ship items and refit modules but thats it. It should be like living off a ancored can but with refiting ability and some
personalisation like a placard or logo or somthing of the sort.

This would encourage militia style warefare. But you got to limit this somehow otherwise they will be everyhere in huge quantities in null sec. They would have to be unscanable unless you scan the ship thats too long siting at the "base" uncloaked.

Militia warefare is usually done by having a camp near the front lins at borders. So they should be placed probably at very low "0.0 space" or very low "empire low sec space".
This is more realistic use of it in militia style warefare.

Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.19 14:02:00 - [127]
 

As long as it can be found( via probing for instance ), it will be a place where you can fight. Having it a little more off the grid than a POS would encourage people to take a little more risk and go out there. A POS is a major commitment, while a single 'tent' as I mentioned would be relatively cheap
( and limited, but easily relocated ).

Not being able to stow some spare ships would make it impossible for someone out there to do much, unless they're flying a T3 and have spare modules in their 'refit can'.

Kotami
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.19 14:02:00 - [128]
 

Any smallholding solution should include manufacturing capacity to some degree to accommodate private industrialists in 0.0. It's unlikely empire industrialists will relocate to 0.0 in significant numbers unless they have means to produce without joining a sov alliance.

There has to be a balance here. The smallholding initiative should give them access to the tools to get setup and running independently at least on a small-medium scale. From there the operation can grow organically. They can choose to continue their operation at the maximum production capacity that smallholding would allow, or they can choose to join a corp/alliance that appreciates their contributions and therefore increase their capacity. Or they might form their own alliance with other smallholders that could eventually grow into a small sovereignty.

The bottom line is, smallholding should encourage players\corps of all types to establish a presence in 0.0. Then they should start having to make choices about their future in terms of growing their capacity or maintaining what they have. There are many degrees of "success" but achieving any of them should never make the player feel as if they had no choice but to do XYZ.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.19 15:05:00 - [129]
 

Just reviewed the Outpost stats and rules.

Outposts actually look like the right tool for the job of smallholding, possibly combined with an anchorable capital ship class for the nomadic lifestyle.

The main issues are:
1. New deployment rules are needed to allow for non-sovereign outpost deployment
2. The number of outposts a corporation can own needs to be limited (possibly by the CEO's aggregate management skills).
3. The current deployment rules have outposts competing with POS's for moon-goo slots.
4. A fair reward mechanism needs to be in place to encourage sov holders in allowing third party outposts in their systems.

Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
Posted - 2011.08.19 15:26:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: El 1974
I'm not willing to wait 5 years until they have devised a plan. They have other plans for the near future that will consume most of their coding time, so they have time to discuss nullsec before adding significant amounts of code. To get something done soon rather than in five years it must be simple.


Bad wording on my part: 5-year roadmap. Phase one is the winter expansion. Phase 10 is winter 2016. It's not like we won't see anything until phase 10.

This type of brainstorming is typical for any form of creative development. What pops out the other end rarely matches most of the ideas that are generated at the beginning. CCP is drawing upon their large and creative user base to see what we are interested in. Hundreds of people providing input beats a small team doing the same. I think it's a fantastic opportunity to be part of the initial creative process and I thank CCP for it.

All I'm saying is let's not ask for tweaks to GSC for smallholdings when we can aim a bit higher.

Rees Noturana
Red Rock Mining Company
Posted - 2011.08.19 15:36:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: Rees Noturana on 19/08/2011 15:37:01
Originally by: Xearal
Inside the pocket, there would be room to put up stuff, maybe equal to a small POS for the corp itself, and room for members to pitch their 'tent' mentioned above. a central 'hub' where corp members can all dock, with more room than a tent for each individual, and a (limited) corporate hangar. additional things could be added to the whole thing by adding more modules, so a big operation could house manufacturing bays, silo's, reactors, labs, and whatnot you'd find in a POS. Though it would be much better suited to have this stuff just being anchored, and then once that's done, available to a docked person.



I like the idea of a corporate sized deadspace providing the full Starbase 2.0 with individual dwellings surrounding it. All sorts of interaction between the starbase and the dwellings could occur. Maybe the dwellings can draw from the increased power grid and cpu of a central tower which would allow or increase the capabilities of individually owned lab and factory slots.

In return normal dwellings not in a corp deadspace pocket would be very limited. This would encourage members to all pitch their tent within the corporate area.

Caldari Citizen20090217
Posted - 2011.08.19 15:49:00 - [132]
 

Liking the deadspace idea.

Some random suggestions, some better than others:

- passworded accel gate. Possible role for hacking to gain access?

- Accel gate has mass limits/max ship size like wormholes, which recharge over time. This prevents blobbing by attackers and prevents the defenders cramming in an invasion force.

- smuggler stargates: fuel using, mass limited, jumps limited buildable gates that allow jumps to another systems deadspace. Underground smuggler net ftw :)

- accel gates to player deadspace hidden in plain sight: as part of anomalies which normally occur but given the right passkey jump you to the player deadspace instead of the anomaly site.

- Local's all-seeing eye needs to be fixed for any smallholding to have any reasonable chance of success.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.19 16:20:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: X Gallentius on 19/08/2011 17:30:34
Forward Base (Enhanced Secure Cargo Containers).
1. Unprobable containers.
2. Are dissolved if not used for a certain period of time.
3. Your ship can be probed down, so your forward base is at risk if you are using it.

Features.
1. Features of regular containers: Password protected, Store loot.
2. Ship fitting services (This would also allow you to put on shield, armor, hull reppers to repair, put more drones into bay)
3. Optional: Ship hangar to store unused ships.
4. Optional: Ship repair services.
5. Optional: Single factory slot to produce items needed to re-fit ships. Maybe have different types of Enhanced Cargo Containers all with a different feature.

Regular POS: Research, mining, safe spot, scannable, more easily organized for efficient use. Use these when you're ready to defend yourself.

Forward Base: Not scannable, allows you to have a cheap base of operations. PITA to use if you are doing large scale stuff. Try doing batch processes from several containers. It is likely a PITA.

XG's opinion: If any proposed idea is scannable, then it is dead. Small alliances, corps, players, need an unscannable base of operations that allows them the ability to refit and repair to succeed.

Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.08.19 17:49:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217

- Accel gate has mass limits/max ship size like wormholes, which recharge over time. This prevents blobbing by attackers and prevents the defenders cramming in an invasion force.



Nope, not how wormholes work, wormholes don't recharge and they never prevent a 1bil capital ship from jumping when theres only 100mil in mass left. :P

Andrea Roche
Posted - 2011.08.19 17:58:00 - [135]
 

Edited by: Andrea Roche on 19/08/2011 17:59:58
Originally by: X Gallentius
Edited by: X Gallentius on 19/08/2011 17:30:34
Forward Base (Enhanced Secure Cargo Containers).
1. Unprobable containers.
2. Are dissolved if not used for a certain period of time.
3. Your ship can be probed down, so your forward base is at risk if you are using it.

Features.
1. Features of regular containers: Password protected, Store loot.
2. Ship fitting services (This would also allow you to put on shield, armor, hull reppers to repair, put more drones into bay)
3. Optional: Ship hangar to store unused ships.
4. Optional: Ship repair services.
5. Optional: Single factory slot to produce items needed to re-fit ships. Maybe have different types of Enhanced Cargo Containers all with a different feature.

Regular POS: Research, mining, safe spot, scannable, more easily organized for efficient use. Use these when you're ready to defend yourself.

Forward Base: Not scannable, allows you to have a cheap base of operations. PITA to use if you are doing large scale stuff. Try doing batch processes from several containers. It is likely a PITA.

XG's opinion: If any proposed idea is scannable, then it is dead. Small alliances, corps, players, need an unscannable base of operations that allows them the ability to refit and repair to succeed.


I am not sure about the features thought.. the ability to construct and chang into a different ship i think is a tad too much.
I think the minimum like refit and somecargo to hold some other items for fitting. Maybe a ship repair but, if you have a ship fitting service, you can actually refit and repair your hull, armor and shields with different fittings. After all is like trench. Dont expect to have a shower in a trench ;). Otherwise its too much a like a POS.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:42:00 - [136]
 

The key feature is that your base is 100% safe if nobody is using it.

Personally, I would go with all of the optional features since that would allow a small corp or alliance to build up infrastructure over time until they are ready to claim space.

Even if an alliance would use the forward base for guerrilla ops, that'd be great too. More potential pew. [ Perhaps reduce the ability to put up certain modules based on the Sovereignty level of the system you're in? ]

The hassle factor is there too. Things become more burdensome as the forward base gets larger. Anyways, YMMV.

HarmoniusRex
Posted - 2011.08.19 22:24:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: X Gallentius
The key feature is that your base is 100% safe if nobody is using it.

Personally, I would go with all of the optional features since that would allow a small corp or alliance to build up infrastructure over time until they are ready to claim space.

Even if an alliance would use the forward base for guerrilla ops, that'd be great too. More potential pew. [ Perhaps reduce the ability to put up certain modules based on the Sovereignty level of the system you're in? ]

The hassle factor is there too. Things become more burdensome as the forward base gets larger. Anyways, YMMV.


One important note here. Costs should scale with what the user is actually *doing*, not what they have set up. Maybe it costs fuel to run a manufacturing array or a refining module, but if the user "goes dark" for a few weeks or a few months and doesn't manufacture anything, the structures should still be there when he comes back. Maybe degraded a bit, damage that could be repaired with a remote repair module or nanopaste, but not destroyed by neglect. By other players, sure, not by neglect.

On the other hand, if he's turning out a million rounds of ammunition a day, he should be spending effort hauling materials to support that at reduced efficiency. Manufacturing that can be done in a *personal* base needs to be enough to support an individual's ships and ammunition needs, not be a large-scale industrial operation feeding into market sales. (See smallholdings for that, where a couple players in a small corp get together and support a small station of some kind).

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.19 23:52:00 - [138]
 

Edited by: X Gallentius on 19/08/2011 23:52:13
You could limit manufacturing to one slot of production per can, or possibly reduce efficiency of production time/minerals to an appropriate level. Also, there ought to be a refining can as well so that T1 crap loot can be converted to items. My guess is that limiting the number of slots per manufacturing module to one would be enough to make large scale production of items a PITA.

My experience (yours may differ) is that T1 crap loot in NPC 0.0 is enough to support cruiser production, and T1 crap loot from low sec is enough to support frigates and dessie production. BCs and above are difficult to produce from T1 crap loot (for a single player who is ratting). You'd likely have to ship in minerals or have a team of ratters focus their efforts.






Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.20 02:51:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217
Liking the deadspace idea.
- smuggler stargates: fuel using, mass limited, jumps limited buildable gates that allow jumps to another systems deadspace. Underground smuggler net ftw :)
- Local's all-seeing eye needs to be fixed for any smallholding to have any reasonable chance of success.



I definitely would like to underwrite the second statement, if it is as easy to find a group that is active in a system like it is now, a small corp would be found in less than a week. IMHO, the only way people should be able to know that someone's doing stuff in 'their' backyard is by going out there and looking for it. Giving more meaning to roams, not just fly around hoping to find someone to kill, but also to patrol the backyard to find and kick out the illegal setlers.

Anyway, I like the idea of a smuggler gate. Maybe make it something like the POS jump bridge, however, instead of a regular cyno, it's a covert cyno beacon, thus allowing only covert ships to make use of it. This would facilitate sneaking in and out of the hidden lair on fuel/resupply runs and exporting booty, but not allow people to move massive amounts of things through it.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 03:10:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 20/08/2011 17:19:37
A good idea i have for small holding of space are along these lines.

Create a new class of structure. - Small groups cant get space effectively because they either don't own space, and POS's are a pain in the ass to maintain at times, especially large POSes. So to combat this kind of like how the orca bridged the gap between small scale mining and Huge scale mining Create a Bunker! This bunker total cost wise would be [Edit]middle of the road betwen a Large POS and an outpost[/Edit] can be placed via a transport ship or larger, and be a dockable structure. there would be a limit to capabilities as well. after all its not an outpost, its a Bunker! Limited manufacturing, research, and other functions of an outpost. basically its a step up above a POS but not as cart blanch as a outpost in abilities.

Have the Bunkers have substantially lower maintenance costs. - This allows new alliances or corps even to focus more on maintaining a system and building the quality of it than supplying a POS. But it still needs some sort of fuel because it isn't self sustainable as a full sized outpost. [Edit] And if it isn't maintained, because it doesn't have a shield like a POS, it will decay until it is removed from the effects of space.[/Edit] This will also make investing in space with a bunker a better investment than trying to set up a POS first.

Limit the number of bunkers per system and make it null sec [Edit]and wormhole space[/Edit] only. - obviously if you make a bunker better than a POS people will flock more to this than a POS for their needs, therefore make it a null sec only structure. this makes sure your not building bunkers in low sec [Edit] Just like how the faction NPC's wont let you build an outpost in their space. it will also make customizing wormholes easier and make them more active too[/Edit]. also limit the number to about 3 or 4 per [Edit]Alliance[/Edit] so a small alliance can fortify their space so they cant be wiped out as easy, but doesn't for others from not building in the same area.

Have them follow the same kind of mechanics as POSes. - give them reinforcement timers like POSes. that way they're wont pop quickly and its like a bonified outpost but will substantially less HP.

Once an outpost is placed in a system the bunkers should be [Edit] Denoted to a defensive roll[/Edit]. - That way the new outpost takes in the majority of the work but an outpost can still provide some semblance of a bonus to the alliances ships in that system. like a home turf bonus when in a fleet. that way both new and old alliances can use it but the roll changes. for example upon the outpost being placed, the bunker turns into a Purely defensive structure. Providing the bonus and allowing repairs in the structure. At this point as well it loses its [Edit]industry abilities after all jobs are completed and lose its[/Edit] reinforcement timer and can be killed quickly.

But the main idea im trying to get at here is a small alliance needs to be able to set up at least a system to call their own with the facilities to defend it on the same level as a larger alliance. So this bunker would be a great measure to enable them to do just that.

Ivan Wulfgur
Posted - 2011.08.20 05:07:00 - [141]
 

Your can with services/bunker idea is an interesting one, however one of your points I think would not work out as desired:

Originally by: Lolion Reglo

Limit the number of bunkers per system and make it null sec only. - obviously if you make a bunker better than a POS people will flock more to this than a POS for their needs, therefore make it a null sec only structure. this makes sure your not building bunkers in low sec. also limit the number to about 3 or 4 per system so a small alliance can fortify their space so they cant be wiped out as easy.



By limiting the number in a system people would block you from having one them by anchoring their own bunkers which they have no intention of using. If you make the limit by corp they will just have alts each drop a bunker.

Also, the null-exclusive aspect of your idea is a little annoying. The way the game works should be as consistent as possible throughout space unless there is a storyline reason why something shouldnt work. Having an improved can that just doesnt anchor in low or wormhole space does not make sense. Concord of course gives you a reason to ban anything from high sec but once you leave their holding I cant see anything magical about null that would make it work while not functioning in low or w-space.

Keep it simple and perhaps make it perishible (despawns after x days untended or something like that) and I think you have a winner. If it is not perishible space will of course get filled with pointless trash much like the abandoned POS structures throughout high sec. It kind of makes sense that players could put down a something at any old bookmark they have in much the same way that npc's plant facilities which are scattered throughout space.

GizzyBoy
Posted - 2011.08.20 06:51:00 - [142]
 

ultimately i think these should be able to be anchored anywhere, hi low & null, with the most basic market for items, and potentially even contracts.

in high sec it should use the appropriate high sec faction key as used by pos.
im not sure if gates are good or some sort of straight pos shield.

Some form of public beacon is optional. and perhaps it uses token amounts of pi materials
as a fuel.

perhaps instead of unlimited ship space you have something like 750km3 per user,
with some form of hard limit on users?

750 lets you have one bs and some small ships or a small range of bc's.

Corp theft would be the next problem, Some one unachoring the site and everything popping out, with the unanchoree swiping everything up. perhaps some form of npc mechanic to shift people good's /pods from the spot to the nearest station
(possible exploit to move goods to hs)

I still don't see how your "safe spot" isn't going to get annihilated in enemy territory, regardless of gates or bubbles.

if your in enemy space and your only way to make isk, is to do the same things they do (ratting & exploration) then your long term viability isn't so hot..



Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr
Divine Power.
Atlas.
Posted - 2011.08.20 07:13:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: Nicolo da''Vicenza on 20/08/2011 07:15:25



I like the idea of an anchorable, destructible mini-station that has limits to how much cargo and people it can hold. Useable in any zerosec space, including NPC and WH space. Packed up easily if under siege but with a long cooldown timer before you can deploy it again to prevent abuse, it could add stuff like a small frontier market (maybe only showing on system, not regional market in the case of NPC dwellers who don't want to advertise their presence that much), contract functionality and a compact WiS environment for w-space inhabitants, while not taking away the sense of solitude one feels in wormhole systems.

Andrea Roche
Posted - 2011.08.20 12:38:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: GizzyBoy

perhaps instead of unlimited ship space you have something like 750km3 per user,
with some form of hard limit on users?

750 lets you have one bs and some small ships or a small range of bc's.

Corp theft would be the next problem, Some one unachoring the site and everything popping out, with the unanchoree swiping everything up. perhaps some form of npc mechanic to shift people good's /pods from the spot to the nearest station
(possible exploit to move goods to hs)




The limit per person quickly is gonna get abused by people with alts. Now you not have 2 ships but 4 or more.

Corp/Alliance theft althought luckely for me has not been a problem yet but my allies have had things disapear from them
I personally think that thevery althoguth anoying is good for the game over all exprince.

We hav got to b very carefull about this anchored strcutures cos people are gonna try and abuse it perhaps even by anchoring them near a POS like a death star just like they do with cans outside pos...

Ad'Hakim Tahous
Posted - 2011.08.20 16:07:00 - [145]
 

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).


Hello Greyscale: A lovely concept that seems comparable to life in w-space. If this is put in-game along with enhancements to assorted mechanics of life in 0.0 it seems viable.

I would respectfully offer a caution: Enhancing aspects of life in 0.0 =/= nerfing those aspects elsewhere in-game! There is one aspect of life in 0.0 that is not within CCP's control; the monopolistic behaviour of many, many alliances and their leaders. Making 0.0 more lucrative may only make those leaders wealthier while providing microscopic real-time benefits to those you wish would move to 0.0

Laughing If you would approach these enhancements with an eye to insuring that "... the Spice must flow..." I believe you need to build in mechanics that allow players to make their ISK by working around the big Alliances.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 17:20:00 - [146]
 

Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 20/08/2011 17:20:52
Originally by: Ivan Wulfgur
Your can with services/bunker idea is an interesting one, however one of your points I think would not work out as desired:

Originally by: Lolion Reglo

Limit the number of bunkers per system and make it null sec only. - obviously if you make a bunker better than a POS people will flock more to this than a POS for their needs, therefore make it a null sec only structure. this makes sure your not building bunkers in low sec. also limit the number to about 3 or 4 per system so a small alliance can fortify their space so they cant be wiped out as easy.



Also, the null-exclusive aspect of your idea is a little annoying. The way the game works should be as consistent as possible throughout space unless there is a storyline reason why something shouldn't work. Having an improved can that just doesn't anchor in low or wormhole space does not make sense. Concord of course gives you a reason to ban anything from high sec but once you leave their holding I cant see anything magical about null that would make it work while not functioning in low or w-space.

Keep it simple and perhaps make it perishable (despawns after x days untended or something like that) and I think you have a winner. If it is not perishable space will of course get filled with pointless trash much like the abandoned POS structures throughout high sec. It kind of makes sense that players could put down a something at any old bookmark they have in much the same way that npc's plant facilities which are scattered throughout space.


I updated my post to reflect that an alliance can only place 4 in a system... leaving room for others to place their 4, and so on and so forth. your right in that it should be a limit per alliance and not per system. and if we do it alliance size then it negates alt use too.

I change my post to reflect that it should be decayable if left unattended, but i still think it should be null sec only... or at least not in low sec. i went ahead and said we can do it for W space too but i think that would need balanced in some way. perhaps it would draw fire from sleepers or something in that they are large enough for them to see on their scanners, and poses are small enough they cant.

They should have a TOTAL m3 limit too... not a limit per player. if you want a higher limit get an outpost. also... corp theft is a reality that should still be left in. its up to you to screen your players you let in before you give them access to admin stuff of your corp. DOnt make a mechanic that destroys that. its a players job... not the games.

This would act like a POS guys... you cant anchor more than one POS at a moon after all... same goes for this... cant anchor a bunker near a POS or a moon or another Bunker.

Ultimatly the only way small holding will work is if there is a higher incentive to hold smaller amounts of space as oposed to large ones. i.e. the cost of holding more space should be exponentially higher than holding smaller size. call it CONCORD is getting anxious at the idea of huge alliances out in null sec posibly attacking high sec and creating chaos. so if they try to own more than a set number of systems (like 3 constelations or so) concord will charge more and more till you start losing claim to systems. But for smallholding to take place you need corps and allainces the ability to have a few systems of their own.

[gramer and small text edit]

Ikonz
Caldari
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.08.20 20:56:00 - [147]
 

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).


I LOVE this. I would attempt a move to nullsec if this was implemented.

Ines Tegator
Posted - 2011.08.21 06:58:00 - [148]
 

This reminds me of my days back in Shadowbane. In a game designed to pit player empires against one another, it was surprising to watch how "trade cities" developed. It was very simple, a landholder charging rent to place a store and then opening the city to all. What was surprising what the support that developed behind them. When some ambitious alliance decided they wanted that plot of land, it was not unheard of for the entire realm to rally and defend the little trade city. Not because they had invested in it, but simply because it had gained value as a meeting place.

Some mechanism that allows players to invest individually or in small groups, and then network that investment with others would be excellent. It scales quickly, then poorly at larger levels because of the coordination required. EVE is not as simple as placing a building with a vendor in it though, and I'm personally at a loss of detailed ideas. Perhaps a mini-station, where only certain commodities can be traded, or a planetary based trade network that's more limited than station trade but gets the job done in it's own messy, inneficient way. These mini hubs should improve with investment. Regardless, interaction and networking with other smallholders will probably be essential, and has the added benefit of organically growing into larger empires and suffering drawbacks of overscaling by it's nature.

Draahk Chimera
Interstellar eXodus
Posted - 2011.08.21 11:31:00 - [149]
 

I dont know if this is realistic but I am dreaming out loud.

* Corporate owned acceleration gate: 2500m3, 1h anchor time, creates a small deadpace pocket outside of the actual starsystem (beyond the furthest planet), this pocket is extremely hard to probe down. The gate has only 15.000 hp but is invonurable if something is anchored in the deadspace pocket. Can be set to allow certain ship classes (anything sub cap) by a simple checkbox menu. Can be set up to allow anchoring inside the deadspace pocket to: Self Only or Corp. Structures that are normally allowed to be anchored in normal space (such as Giant Secure Can) is not allowed in the deadspace pocket.
* Player owned ship maintance garage: 1000m3, 15 min anchor time, creates a micro-outpost with a limited (1mil m3) ship maintance bay and a limited cargo bay (10.000m3), fitting and a CQ. Can only be used by the guy that anchored it. Has 15mil hp (shield), 5mil (armor) and 5mil(structure) + a 36 hour reinforcement timer between shield and armor. Each garage increases sig radius of the deadspace pocket making it slightly easier to probe.
* Corporate owned storage facility: 5000m3, 30 min anchor time, 100.000m3 cargo space. Corp hangars just as in a carrier or titan. Each tab accissible by roles as per usual. 25mil hp (shield) 10mil (armor), 10mil (structure) and a 36 hour reinforcement timer between shield and armor. Increases sig radius of the deadspace pocket more then a garage does.
* Corporate owned manufacturing facility: 10.000m3, 30 min anchor time. 5 factory slots accessible by corp members. 30mil hp (shield) 10mil (armor), 10mil (structure) and a 36 hour reinforcement timer between shield and armor. Increases sig radius of the deadspace pocket more then a storage does.
* New skill: Deadspace anchoring, 14X Training time, Memory and Charisma. Requires Anchoring III. Each level allows the anchoring of 1 of the above modules.

As you can see this type of Small Holding sticks with the premises of A/ Being a bit of a hazzle to set up and it gets harder the larger the Holding (increasing size in structures). B/ Limits the number of structures (because of the skill), while still being accessible to the solo guy (14X is like 3-4 hours to lvl II = one Gate and one Garage). C/ Makes it harder to stay hidden with the increase of sig radius to number of structures ratio. D/ Only allows corp not alliance, alliances should build outposts or live in NPC stations. E/ Is a quite a bit of a hazzle to find and destroy for any large alliance in the area, also gives 36 hours to gtfo if the local alliance is persistent.

Goose Sokarad
Posted - 2011.08.21 14:12:00 - [150]
 

These bases to build them you could get bpc of them to drop in exploration sites and depending what faction bpc you got would decide what bonuses would get.


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