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 : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.21 17:24:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: Ines Tegator
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.


There have been 2-3 efforts in the past by major alliances of the time to establish a "safe" trading station for all in null sec before. It became impossible to police by the alliances; pirates came from all over. The biggest problem was, you cant act preemptively against the pirates. Only after they blew up a ship in the area could you blacklist them. Then you have to deal with somehow checking that list everytime a new person logs in or comes to that area, and get a group to defend. Whats the incentive for the defenders? not much. Finally, just because one constellation is "safe", people still are not going to be bringing freighters down through the unsafe parts.

As to the whole realm rallying to defend it, the player base of eve is way to fragmented for that to ever happen. Most people who stay in empire all the time, would never go to null sec just to defend. Most of the people in low/null sec would just see the trading outposts as free loot.

The best chance of this happening would be in NPC nullsec, as no one alliance would have direct control of the station. However, then the question is asked, how do you raise a fleet big enough in a small amount of time to defend against someone jumping in capital ships.

Hatch Nasty
Caldari
Mean and Nasty
Posted - 2011.08.21 17:50:00 - [152]
 

Personally, I like the idea of a Space Winnebago. I think it would be a good first step in solving the nomad/smallholding problem, with minimal refactoring of existing systems. I mean, basically it would just be a new ship with some altered mechanics. I think we already have a pretty decent template to work with in the Rorqual.

Create a ship with a good sized hanger, a decent sized ship maintenance bay, and module slots that allow you to add custom options (clone vat, small scale refinery, small scale factory, expanded docking bay, expanded hanger, etc.). Then add some kind of special deep space beacon probe that allows the ship to warp to a deep safe spot. At the safe spot the ship can be "deployed" - anchoring it into place, making it dockable for the owner, and allowing use of the included modules (much like one would "deploy" an RV at a campsite, folding out the wings for additional room and function).

While deployed, the ship would would have a normal (albeit, smaller) docking bay and hanger, and a personalized captain's quarters. When folded up and mobile, it would be piloted like any other ship, and it could be docked at a regular station.

Add-on modules could be bought for a deployed Space Winnebago in the same manner we currently do with PI (think, outbuildings and canopies on your parked camper). Maybe sentry guns, sensor arrays, factory units, or shops. Of course, when you pack up the Winnebago, these add-ons get destroyed or left behind if you can't fit them in the cargo.

Deploying at a deep safe spot, and giving the ship a small sig radius, good structure and shield, and maybe some kind of reinforced mechanic (enough to let you pack up and get out if you're sieged), Space Winnebago pilots would have a reasonable degree of safety while deployed in low and null, without being unfindable/untouchable for sov holders determined to clear their territory of squatters.

Small nomad/squatter corps could deploy their Space Winnebagos at a common location, creating camper parks in space. Each member's Winnebago might be specialized, so that the corp can cover a wider range of functionality. Shared corporate facilities like hangers and walkable meeting spaces would be add-on modules in the camper park, with access controlled by corporate roles.

If the devs added permanent terrain (belts, clouds, etc.) in deep space, these might make good locations to deploy a Space Winnebago or camper park. They would provide unique scenery, but might be especially useful if they offered some other benefit like reducing the ability to be scanned down or w-space effects that would make conditions unfavorable for an attacker. I can imagine multiple small corps grouping around such terrain features, working cooperatively to survive on the fringe, and forming loose alliances based on mutual interest and neighborhood defense.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.21 21:28:00 - [153]
 

Another chime in that's already been said. There was a post about mass effects limiting invasions into wormholes.

What about wormholes in a particular system leading to dead space area. You can always warp out of the dead space area, but the wormholes going into the deadspace area die off when too much mass goes through them.

Once inside the deadspace area, you can build to your heart's content the modular winnebago's/enhanced cargo containers/bunkers, etc.. that you want.

The deadspace area itself could (or maybe not) have some limited form of income/resources like small belts, rats, or whatnot.


banton
Posted - 2011.08.21 23:26:00 - [154]
 

Edited by: banton on 21/08/2011 23:31:03
well first there are things that never change.
Like CCP devs trying to get people out to 0 space. This has been true for as long as I have played the game.

While the current idea has merit, I really liked the Baron idea some pages back. Currently when an allience attacks, they take out everyone, small stake holders are either left to fend for themselves or asked to join in common defense AND pay rent.
I wonder if it would not be a good idea to allow these small renters to hide for a while and either when the new owner discovered them they can swear fedility to them. Something that may allow them to spy but not attack them for a period of time, so new Baron would have some comfort and if accepted not allow new Barron to attack for a period of time.
Call it a cooling off period. However, for this to work boting will have to be handled so the extra workers are needed. Plus a tax system will need to be in place to transfer to barron his Rent in a secure manner.

Sessym
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.21 23:51:00 - [155]
 

After so much comments I'm going to shamelessly link my blogpost on this topic Smile

It's good to see 'Smallholding' is a separate idea from the original small alliances, because we ( both CCP and the players) had a few years to learn that human nature works against that idea.

TL;DR of the blog post: What if you have allowed smaller entities to do some of the 'dirty work' for large alliances and in turn be paid? This of course need a structured way of sov. It could entice people to actually go out there and establish ops and make sov lords want to defend the services they are paying for.

Mea Luang
Posted - 2011.08.21 23:54:00 - [156]
 

A small holding is basically a corp with a pos infrastructure and no outpost of their own, etc.

This means all their belongings are in corporate hangars.

The rights management system with a few tabs that are all the same rights allocations means that people have a really hard time organizing among corp mates while keeping important high value items out of corp thieves hands.

Additionally you need to have many ship hangars and corp hangars to keep everything. This means that you have 6 or so corp hangars + 2 ship hangars -- but you can't name any of them! So you are busy clicking through the overview to find which is the right one.

How about we leave the game rules alone a bit (they're fine for now!) and start correcting low implementation cost but high value usability issues?

Ronin Nazuri
Posted - 2011.08.22 01:15:00 - [157]
 

Edited by: Ronin Nazuri on 22/08/2011 01:23:31
Originally by: Mea Luang
...How about we leave the game rules alone a bit (they're fine for now!) and start correcting low implementation cost but high value usability issues?


Some changes maybe, but "Small Holding" and 0.0 don't really mix. The big alliances will not tollerate it or just charge "rent" *cough* extortion *cough* to every "Small holding" corp they find in "their" space. Unless they basically re-work current EVE mechanics from the ground up, which sounds like a FUBAR waiting to happen (think SWG's NGE). I agree with the others, WH and maybe even low-sec are where CCP should look to make "small holding" viable.

Unless CCP just wants to give more renters/targets/victims to the big 0.0 alliances --as if they need the ISK. Rolling Eyes

If the big 0.0 alliances wanted more people out in their space, the alliances could make it happen today, no mechanics need to be changes. They do not want it thus it doesn't happen.

catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.08.22 09:00:00 - [158]
 

Edited by: catinboots on 22/08/2011 09:00:09
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).


Problem i have with this that the large alliance will never allow this and with the current sov mechanics it will never be viable , you either end up renting the space for ridicelous amounts of iskies and /or end up as easy and juicy target practice for the alliance pets you are renting from
Somehow the current sov mechanics don't favor the small holdings

Also a second point is , user friendly pos at the moment it is a small disaster

Juil
Gallente
Phoenix Industries Pty. Ltd.
Posted - 2011.08.22 11:26:00 - [159]
 

Part of what disturbs me the most here is every one is 'oh it should be like a pos'.. POS can mean Player Owned Station.. or Piece of *explicit* and really lets face it any one who's had to run a POS or worry about being bumped or a few hundred other things is more likely to be considering it the later rather then the former.

Homesteading should NOT be like current P.O.S's at all, forcing eery one to suddenly have to go get ice etc is basically putting a big block on them right from the start especially given if ice suddenly needed to be used by EVERY ONE the prices would likely start going up even higher then they currently are, which in turn = the 'little' guys suddenly can't afford to do this anyway.

The biggest problem with any of the current systems is that fact that they make eve feel like a job rather then a game.. I shouldn't have to spend 20 hours of a day online just to be certain that when i'm in Null space when i should be sleeping i'm not going to go 'pop'...


So in that regard I agree with people who say that Homesteading should = Player Created Deadspace Zones, you create a small zone that is yours you put down your pleasure hab or what ever.. it costs you a little isk to keep it anchored each week (hey look an ISK sink), not much for the base module.. but if you add extra stuff the 'rental' price goes up.. this can be claimed as paying the tech's to run your systems.. rather then paying a tax to Concord..

On top of this you could have it that a corporation could set up a deadspace (the cost coming from the corp wallet like station rentals do).

For the 'security' vs 'size' problem.. the base line module is extremely hard to scan down, ie you likely need REALLY good skills and a lot of effort.. but each item you put into your deadspace zone or add to your habitat etc slowly makes your little house easier to scan down and the more ppl who are in the area at any one time also increases the ability to scan it down..

This way you cuold have something that starts small and grows bigger until it reaches the point where it's no longer a 'homestead' but actually something that starts to impact the sov etc etc.. But you also make it so that it takes TIME and EFFORT to reach that point.. ie you can only online X amount of items within the zone per week.. this means a slow but steady build up..

But the big thing is that ANY of this would have to really be done at the same time as the entire current Sov system got changed and reset. Else no one really stands a chance of getting into null space in the first place.. cause if it ain't +'d in most places your debris.

Juil
Gallente
Phoenix Industries Pty. Ltd.
Posted - 2011.08.22 11:32:00 - [160]
 

the other advantage of what i put above is that it can serve as the bases for the larger sov system, maybe as the homestead gets larger and larger it goes from being scanable to showing up like Complex's do now.. by this stage it becomes part of a new sov mechanic where an alliance who say has corporate holdings like this in a system gains soverignty.. and then rather then having to sit and pew pew at a starbase to actually bring it down, you have to run the gauntlet of their deadspace 'home' to bring them down.... that way 'homesteading' serves as an Introduction to the larger gameplay as well.

Mea Luang
Posted - 2011.08.22 12:25:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Ronin Nazuri

If the big 0.0 alliances wanted more people out in their space, the alliances could make it happen today, no mechanics need to be changes. They do not want it thus it doesn't happen.


True - however I exist in a small holding, granted I also pay alliance dues. So maybe the "10m" bar is absurdly low as I pay 300m/m just to have the right to exist in my system.

TBH, they could allow small holdings etc by just expanding null sec out further. More systems would mean more space. If you expanded nullsec by 30x I don't think there are enough players in the game at present to hold it with major alliances.

The issue with nullsec is that it's simply too small. They scaled it based on their hardware and software constraints of several years ago. They've re engineered their stack several times and now they should be able to expand dramatically for lightly used or unused systems.


Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.22 13:13:00 - [162]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 22/08/2011 13:28:48
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 22/08/2011 13:26:45
I do love the ideas on the first pages about this "homestead", which would be an expansion to the idea of an anchored giant secure container in a safespot. Making it easily transportable and offering some sort of defense against probing would be important. Also the ability to dock ships to it so those wouldnt be lost to "abandonment" timers that make unanchored, non-pos:ed stuff pop in 2 hours. This is the main restriction currently, meaning you can only have ONE ship - the one you are currently flying - in there, even if you use a GSC for storing your ammo. POSes wouldnt really be the same, they are much more limited to where they can be anchored (moons) and require logistics for fueling. Repeated fuel-runs increase the chance of being detected massively.

Making the storage small-scale enough would propably lower the chances of it being used for hostile invasions.

Also one important part is removal of statistics of "NPC ships killed" from the starmap. Currently its too easy to find PVE hunting grounds via there.

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
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.



What??? So you think that items costing MULTIPLE HUNDRED BILLION isk are suitable for "small holding"? Could you possibly get any more detached from the design goals here?

Originally by: Ronin Nazuri


Some changes maybe, but "Small Holding" and 0.0 don't really mix. The big alliances will not tollerate it or just charge "rent" *cough* extortion *cough* to every "Small holding" corp they find in "their" space. Unless they basically re-work current EVE mechanics from the ground up, which sounds like a FUBAR waiting to happen (think SWG's NGE). I agree with the others, WH and maybe even low-sec are where CCP should look to make "small holding" viable.



It is a question of what they have to do to find it. Currently its way easy to probe out poses, or simply fly thru all the moons since you already know the pos will be at a moon. Nobody however will go to the lengths required to find single persons anchored GSC. Its not a threat. Think small enough. Thinking too big is the problem of a lot of discussion in these forums ensuring that only the large alliances get to benefit/suffer from it. And yet people complain about blobs while at the same time promoting blob mentality.

Kynric
Posted - 2011.08.22 17:07:00 - [163]
 

Edited by: Kynric on 22/08/2011 17:32:08
Edited by: Kynric on 22/08/2011 17:19:38
I think small holding is safest if it is smallest. It should not be indestructable, nor should it be permanent if untended as space would quickly be littered with them.

Something very simple like a glorified cargo container with a ship hanger and storage space about that of an orca, and a fitting service. Give it half the effective hp of a faction war bunker and make it despawn if it is not utilized for 2 weeks. When unanchored a size of 2,500 m^3 or so would make it easily moved by any industrial but not by combat ships.

No force fields, no firepower; its defense is that it is more trouble than its worth to take it down. The easiest way to be rid of it is to eliminate the people who utilize it.

It would make a very nice base for those who embrace the Thukker lifestyle.

Shin Dari
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.22 17:09:00 - [164]
 


Being hard to scan down isn't good enough. Discovering a smallholding should be based around a time element. The system should warn the player if the smallholding is going to be discovered, giving the player enough time to evacuate.

My solution would be to give smallholding hunters anchor-able security structures. They anchor the security structure, it would have a maximum effective sensor range. Should a smallholding be in range then the owner of that smallholding gets a warning email that his smallholding will be discovered in x amount of days. With x being depending on how large the smallholding is.

---

Other suggestions.
1. make the smallholding ship based, makes for a quick getaway and it would look better
2. The smallest small holding should at least fit 1 cruiser and 2 frigates

Mea Luang
Posted - 2011.08.22 17:14:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: Zey Nadar
Making it easily transportable and offering some sort of defense against probing would be important. Also the ability to dock ships to it so those wouldnt be lost to "abandonment" timers that make unanchored, non-pos:ed stuff pop in 2 hours. This is the main restriction currently, meaning you can only have ONE ship - the one you are currently flying - in there, even if you use a GSC for storing your ammo.



Yeah it would be nice to have a way to park ships without them being timer popped or easily probed out.

It would be really nice too if such game device could be used to manufacture T1 small items. Ie, it contains minor refining capabilities, ammo and small item manufacturing capacity, and storage space for docking ships and a *PERSONALLY OWNABLE* divisible hangar space. Remember, smallholdings in the frontiers were self sufficient for minor materials and had to either scale up or establish logistics for major equipment/finished goods of quality.

It could be a self-assembling package that fits into the hold of batlecruiser, must be deployed next to a can of veldspar, and when anchored/onlined it consumes the veldspar and deploys a *player* owned holding (not corporate!).

The POS would be for corporate joint ventures of a larger scale than the smallholding infrastructure. The next level above that is outpost & sov structures.

None the less, where exactly would you deploy this thing and not constantly be attacked by alliance holders? What area of space doesn't have sov established? Running around as a neut in an alliance territory no matter how well hidden your stuff is can't work.

Homesteading to me doesn't mean being able to hide yourself in the middle of an alliance controlled area. It's means moving on to new territory that's not been settled before.

Let's face it. Nullsec is not unsettled territory by any stretch. It's too small for the number of players that populate it.

Making it really huge would enable people to have areas to homestead. The idea of trying to make small holdings in a space where there isn't but 3-4 jumps between player owned outposts and full jump bridge infrastructure across all of nullsec space is silly.

Homesteading / smallholdings were an artifact of the american wild west where there was so much unoccupied land the gov't would give it away for free just to induce people to try it.

There's no such thing in eve right now.

Space is just too small.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.22 18:59:00 - [166]
 

There is one main sticking point as to why smallholding is not working as it should right now and that is because large allainces are holding huge blocks of space and charging rent to live there. Alliances have it in their head that keeping people out of their space is a bad thing and that they should be removed. after all why should they let others take what little resources are there intended for the alliance.

The main solution i see for this is somehow through game mechanics limiting the size of large allainces on the basis that being smaller is more proffitable than being huge. This will not only encourage them to shrink their boarder size but would open up the current space to new alliances. this was tried with dominion where there was a cost to holding space and i still believe it is a good concept. so first and foremost this should be implimented if you want to start seeing smaller groups being able to grab a piece of the pie instead of being serfs to a huge alliance.

Also i love the idea of homesteading but the main issue i see with trying to do that with the current map is that all systems have gates at this point... so its like all systems have a paved road leading to it. Going and setting up a base in these system would be akin to going camping in a national park. So i shall bring this idea to bear again. Why not have system out there with no gate present? This would net in the idea that the only way to access them would be via the occasional wormhole and with a homestead ship.

I know this isnt my idea but im going to try and flesh it out some. Say you have a Special scanner that can pick up the light from a distant sun in jump range of a jump gate. how hard to find these can be up to CCP, but i would imagine that they should be accessible not only from null and low sec but a few from high sec too. they can follow the same principle as wormholes in this regards. once you have the coordinates of the system you can have a special anchor-able item as a temporary jump gate. The first you can place in a dead space area in which ever system you are in and it would be small enough to not only avoid being scanned down but you could have the gate "cloak" when not used for say a period of a half hour, there by limiting the time it could be found. So now that the first is placed you can follow the jump gate through like a WH. The only difference is you need another structure of the same type to connect the system to have a jump gate system. once the gate is set up you can then jump in your homestead ship, a huge vessel that would act as an outpost but the difference is you fly it around. I don't think it should also have much of an upkeep either as if you did it would kill small operations for using it.

So you now have a BRAND NEW system to call home and a semi secret way to get to it. well the beauty of these system is because it doesnt have an official gate there is no local. therefore there is no way of knowing who is in the system. So setting up can still be done in a dead space pocket for even more added safty and this new space will allow for even greater exploration, mining, small combat, and other jobs. Heck liken it to the WH feature of Apocrapha and tie these systems to one of the other ancient races. can use sleeper AI and everything and create technology for new tech III material, like tech III frigs or even tech III equpiment and weapons, of which can be fitted on smaller ships and be like tech II weapons but when put up against Capitals is vastly more effective than normal weapons. After all emperes jamel got a new weapon from old terran tech so why not have this new area create new stronger weapons to make smaller ships viable against larger ships?

But i think if you want homesteading it should be on the basis of new systems that take effort to connect to... not systems that have WH or gates to.

Lady Zarrina
Posted - 2011.08.22 19:05:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Mea Luang

...
Space is just too small.

I agree more space would make homesteading easier. But, you definately do not want to create that ghost town feeling. This is a tough balancing act. Somehow I think they need to make better use of existing space. Somehow remove the incentive for big alliances to get bigger and rent out the crap no one wants. How to make this happen? Not sure, but I think depleting resources will help? And somehow encourage (not force) unclaimed systems.

Also, Somehow drastically increase costs to manage large corporations and alliances. If they want to be the big bully on the block, fine, but it should come with a cost. This will probably create more loose coalitions, which will be much more dynamic.

My experience in Eve (of course it will vary drastically for others):
Null-sec = slavery, WH = freedom, Empire = more freedom than null-sec. All I know is, as long as Null-sec = slavery, I have no interest.

Nessu's
Posted - 2011.08.22 22:03:00 - [168]
 

Some ideas
a) should not be single player (eve get's boring fast alone)
b) should not be more than 5 players
c) the small holding should be able to move around.

Should be a limit to how many can be in a system at once.
The sov holder might not care if there are a few in a system be once it reaches a certain point it would be come a problem.This would also help prevent Large alliances using them as a forward base. But sill allow enough that spies and small corps could setup shop.

What a small holder neads

1 docking ( subcap only)
2 fitting (repairing)
3 refining
4 1 or 2 slots for manufacturing ammo/fuel
5 Should have a max 100k holding between the players. players need to see how much space is left.
6 fuel
7 medical bay( only clones not jc) If they die they should not have to come all the way back


--- fuel idea----
fuel should be easy. something that can be mined from any system.
I kinda like the idea that fuel would be manufactured at the small holding.
So what i am thinking is that Fuel can be made in many different ways.
For example You could have it manufactured from minerals

Have all fuel power the small holding for the same length of time.
i.e
fuel made from ice would be the same as fuel made from minirals

but make the amount of fuel produced from manufacturing different based on what materials are used.
I.e 100m3 of minerals would make only a little fuel compared to what 100m3 of ice would produce.
So the small holder can pick and choose how he is going to fuel his holding.

---moving around------
small holders should be able to survive isolated. It's very risky to try to go from highsec to null and back again.
it's critical that from the one system they can get all they need to survive.



Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:19:00 - [169]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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'.


This is a good post.

Originally by: inexistin
What you described here could very well end up being anchorable staging bases for large alliances when invading space. Let's say each of these could house up to 30 players, no matter if they are online or offline (that is to say, they are each assigned to one "hangar" of the base). They could, for example, set up 10 of these staging structures all around the system they are currently focus on and make it so that their pressence there is easily maintained and relatively safe (if the structures cannot be traced that easily), whilst the defenders would have no viable option to remove the threat. The defenders will end up safe-ing up in either a POS or a station, too afraid to make any move since they know the enemies might appear on top of them at a moments notice.


Yup, that's one of the hurdles of this design - finding ways to do it such that this sort of thing doesn't happen.



Have you considered tying in the concept of 'small holdings' with that of 'influence (a term I prefer over 'sovereignty')?

By this I mean that smallholdings contribute to and reflect the 'influence' of the holding alliance? The basic principle being that if you attract more "serfs and peasants" around your Keep the greater a measure of your influence. Provide protection, a safe(r) environment in order to attract said serfs. In the same breath you create a nice population of serfs and peasants (and the fields they tend to) that conveniently enough are ripe for raiding by small determined gangs that can get under the radar or defence fleets.

C.

Ronin Nazuri
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:24:00 - [170]
 

Originally by: Lady Zarrina
... Somehow I think they need to make better use of existing space. Somehow remove the incentive for big alliances to get bigger and rent out the crap no one wants...

Also, Somehow drastically increase costs to manage large corporations and alliances. If they want to be the big bully on the block, fine, but it should come with a cost. This will probably create more loose coalitions, which will be much more dynamic.

My experience in Eve (of course it will vary drastically for others):
Null-sec = slavery, WH = freedom, Empire = more freedom than null-sec. All I know is, as long as Null-sec = slavery, I have no interest.


Dominion already showed that raising the costs of holding space will just make the Alliances charge more rent. Removing in-game alliance mechanics will just force them to use out-of-game tools.

The large alliances will exist no matter what and they aren't going to tolerate people in "their space" unless they extort ISK. Adding more systems will just compound the issue.

The issue isn't game-mechanics, it's player style and human mentality. Gate-camps, bubble traps, etc will ensure no-one gets out to "homestead" in deep 0.0 but those who are paying for the privileged. Small holdings will not work in 0.0, worm-holes are where CCP should look to encourage small-holdings.

Null-sec = slavery and no tweaks are going to change that. Unless CCP does a complete re-do of game mechanics, which would be total fail and likely destroy the game. Look at the ****-storm Incarna caused and times it by a thousand or more.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:46:00 - [171]
 

Edited by: X Gallentius on 22/08/2011 23:49:45
Originally by: Ronin Nazuri

The issue isn't game-mechanics, it's player style and human mentality. Gate-camps, bubble traps, etc will ensure no-one gets out to "homestead" in deep 0.0 but those who are paying for the privileged. Small holdings will not work in 0.0, worm-holes are where CCP should look to encourage small-holdings.

Null-sec = slavery and no tweaks are going to change that. Unless CCP does a complete re-do of game mechanics, which would be total fail and likely destroy the game. Look at the ****-storm Incarna caused and times it by a thousand or more.

Let them chase around a bunch of guys who can set up unscannable bases of operations anywhere. If they can do it, then good for them - at least they'll be actively enforcing their sovereignty instead of being afk somewhere else invading some other area of space.

Entrance systems to their borders would need to be camped 23/7 to keep the homesteaders out. Regular patrols of other systems within jump range of low/null/high sec would occur.

If they get bored and stop doing it, then slowly but surely the homesteaders will build up strength and resources.

Maybe they tolerate the homesteaders because the homesteaders are not a threat to their sovereignty and they're a PITA to get rid of?

Maybe the homesteaders are really like migrant workers who farm resources in empty systems and then return to high sec to cash in?

Perhaps they find a wormhole every now and then that leads them back to high sec for resupplies, but otherwise hardly ever leave an empty, desolate region of null sec?

etc...

Mea Luang
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:49:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: Lady Zarrina
Originally by: Mea Luang

...
Space is just too small.

I agree more space would make homesteading easier. But, you definately do not want to create that ghost town feeling. This is a tough balancing act. Somehow I think they need to make better use of existing space. Somehow remove the incentive for big alliances to get bigger and rent out the crap no one wants. How to make this happen? Not sure, but I think depleting resources will help? And somehow encourage (not force) unclaimed systems.

Also, Somehow drastically increase costs to manage large corporations and alliances. If they want to be the big bully on the block, fine, but it should come with a cost. This will probably create more loose coalitions, which will be much more dynamic.

My experience in Eve (of course it will vary drastically for others):
Null-sec = slavery, WH = freedom, Empire = more freedom than null-sec. All I know is, as long as Null-sec = slavery, I have no interest.


Nullsec *should* be a ghost town in most places with roudy towns in between and outlaws banditing on the beaten path, etc. The issue is that nullsec is too small for the number of players so you are constantly running into huge alliances or bandits in every corner.

It is just too small for the number of players. Only more space can make it free again.

Emiko P'eng
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:56:00 - [173]
 

Originally by: Shin Dari
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.

The maximum number of Modules on the Homestead is 8 out of the 13 available designs, which should bring the whole volume in at around 1,000,000m3 which is a lot smaller than an Orca which is 10,250,000 m3.

The main thing about my design is you have to select 8 out the 13 designs for your vessel. So you could end up with a Mining Support vessel, Pirate deep space repair & resupply base or just a one man bit of everything home from home.

I envisage that you would fit and or swap modules at a capital yard. While the spine itself could be built at almost any manufacturing facility that has a large enough hanger.

As for the fuel requirements this can be worked on, but as you cannot have all the modules on one spine. The overall fuel requirements will be a lot less than totalling all the fuel requirements for all 13 modules.

Plus the idea for separate tankage was if you wanted longer time out in the wilderness you should need more tanks, this hopefully would stop it becoming more powerful than a full POS which should always be a lot better. Also while the Homsteader is more manoeuvrable than a POS you should pay for this in poorer fuel economy as it cannot fit all the bells & whistles of a POS due to lack of space

Kane Molou
Posted - 2011.08.23 01:53:00 - [174]
 

Originally by: Emiko P'eng
Blah blah blah... POS blabh blabh POS Blabh POS due to lack of space


I've cut everything but the POS part because how Homesteading really interacts with POS when POS's are Inherently BROKEN at the moment = beyond me, even CCP has admitted their not happy with the current Player Owned Stations.. and lets face it those things are NOT stations.. POS's are more like ... stick a pole in the ground and build crap around it then a station.

That's why if you read the thread a lot of people seem to be advocating that homesteading form the bases of not just a new way of existing in space, but the stepping stone to the larger items of eve.

For those advocating that 'has to be groupped to be made'... No, that is wrong, in the dev blog it's said that Homesteading should be accessable to ANY ONE with a small amount of start up capital (10m I believe was thrown about).. Just because you find being groupped fun doesn't mean every one else does.. some people enjoy flying solo and they should NOT be penalized for it, which by the way the entire current system of eve.. does if your small then your useless which is in direct contradiction to the actual text where 1 man can bring down an entire nation on his own.. Of course there is also the problem that there is no public share market.. i could just imagine how half the big alliances would be forced to act if to raise capital they had to float their shares to the very people they look down on.

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.23 05:41:00 - [175]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 23/08/2011 05:59:49
Originally by: Cailais

Have you considered tying in the concept of 'small holdings' with that of 'influence (a term I prefer over 'sovereignty')?

By this I mean that smallholdings contribute to and reflect the 'influence' of the holding alliance? The basic principle being that if you attract more "serfs and peasants" around your Keep the greater a measure of your influence. Provide protection, a safe(r) environment in order to attract said serfs. In the same breath you create a nice population of serfs and peasants (and the fields they tend to) that conveniently enough are ripe for raiding by small determined gangs that can get under the radar or defence fleets.

C.


Technically the sov indexes already count that, as afaik they count ALL activity of specific type(ratting, mining) in an upgraded system, regardless who does it. But only those systems that are constantly populated by the alliance are going to have sov upgrades, and obviously you arent going to see much neutral ratters in other nullsec alliances sov space.. What you would suggest is extending the sov indexes or similar system to all systems, not just those that have sov upgrades.

Im pretty sure the moot point is still whether or not you allow non-alliance members or even blues in the system or not.

Personally I had in mind some kind of system that would allow neutral players to trade with the sov-holding alliance, even if it didn't necessarily happen docked at a station. Because right now nullsec doesnt see much neutral action (people coming from highsec to rat in null for example), because those people have no place to sell their loot/salvage and buy ammo for example. They cannot dock on the outposts that allow only blues, so they would have to fly 30-something jumps through nullsec and the perma-camped low/null-bottleneck systems to travel between the relatively quiet area of null and the place where they can sell their stuff(which is limited to the 400m3-ish cargohold of their ratting ship). It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to see thats not going to happen. NPC null stations are pretty few and far between. Those kind of homesteaders go to wormhole space instead. Its not a question of whether those people can 'fly under the radar' while in null, its about where they can dock/trade. If we want more neutral activity in null, this issue should be addressed.

Sure its all fine if alliance is willing to set somebody blue, but Eve actually has pretty limited space for blues/reds. Iirc its around one hundred entries, I could be mistaken, just pulled that number out of my head. I do know its too small. CVA for example had to make their own webapp and database for their massive list of reds. The insufficient size of blue/red list coupled with the fact that nullsec alliances are willing to set ONLY those of their allies who provide military support blue (edit: or renters), ensures that place like old CVA Providence doesn't really surface again. It takes a certain type of person to go to the lengths required to overcome CCP-imposed limitations. Thats the main reason for NBSI popularity, because you cannot set enough people red.

Elinor Telgar
Posted - 2011.08.23 07:02:00 - [176]
 

Edited by: Elinor Telgar on 23/08/2011 07:02:49
I love the idea of a small holder structure. I think it would be much more viable without local however. As it stands there is no way to keep a low profile, except if that means only operating when the people that hold sov in the area are offline.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that lots of 0.0 would still be more trouble than it's worth for the true small holder. If you have to travel 20-30 jumps to trade anything, I don't think many would consider it worth while.

The only way I can see the logistics being fixed would be to add new space with tiny highsec/lowsec colonies (or islands). They would act as trade hubs for people living in deep 0.0 and would allow traders have a long distance hauling role that could be very interesting.

catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.08.23 07:14:00 - [177]
 

I dont think those smallholdings will work, as mentioned before the nullsec alliances will not tolerate strangers in their space
It will just be a matter of time before theyfind a effective way to scan them down andkill them
Making them unscannable is not a balanced gamemechanic and will lead to abuse
My point is that those alliances are just to big and their pew pew only mentality doesn t help either

Tho i must admit the whole idea is nice , i don t think it will ever work with the current sov mechanics

Nullsec delenda est

Uhura Dennkhar
Posted - 2011.08.23 08:49:00 - [178]
 

Open jove Space with no capital ship allowed execpt industrial cap...

A kind of npc nullsec w/o capital ship.

Where you CAN rent a Space/moon directly to the jove of you meet the requirement ( no More than xx player in corp etc... ) and you pay the bills directly to jove empire.


Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.23 09:38:00 - [179]
 

Originally by: Zey Nadar
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 23/08/2011 05:59:49
Originally by: Cailais

Have you considered tying in the concept of 'small holdings' with that of 'influence (a term I prefer over 'sovereignty')?

By this I mean that smallholdings contribute to and reflect the 'influence' of the holding alliance? The basic principle being that if you attract more "serfs and peasants" around your Keep the greater a measure of your influence. Provide protection, a safe(r) environment in order to attract said serfs. In the same breath you create a nice population of serfs and peasants (and the fields they tend to) that conveniently enough are ripe for raiding by small determined gangs that can get under the radar or defence fleets.

C.


Technically the sov indexes already count that, as afaik they count ALL activity of specific type(ratting, mining) in an upgraded system, regardless who does it. But only those systems that are constantly populated by the alliance are going to have sov upgrades, and obviously you arent going to see much neutral ratters in other nullsec alliances sov space.. What you would suggest is extending the sov indexes or similar system to all systems, not just those that have sov upgrades.




Essentially this. What I would suggest is that Corporations could submit, through a largely automated UI, to become vassals of a given alliance - automatically setting them to a 'blue' status.

Alliances (through this UI) could set pre conditions for being accepted, and being expelled (e.g attack on Alliance vessel = expulsion from vassal status) - again an automated process.

I would go further to say that as an Alliance accrued more vassals, and those vassals contributed to 'GDP' in the form of activity in a system then the options (conditions) would expand. Think of it rather like a series of "Laws", the more Laws you are able to apply the more powerful your Alliance, but with that comes the question of applying those Laws and, potentially, upsetting the 'serfs' under you who could, conceivably, revolt.

C.

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.23 09:46:00 - [180]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 23/08/2011 09:52:13
Originally by: catinboots
I dont think those smallholdings will work, as mentioned before the nullsec alliances will not tolerate strangers in their space


Yeah, you know how harshly they deal with all those afk cloakers!

Originally by: Cailais

Essentially this. What I would suggest is that Corporations could submit, through a largely automated UI, to become vassals of a given alliance - automatically setting them to a 'blue' status.



Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : 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