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


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:07:00 - [31]
 

The super valuable moons are the reason for alliances to take a lot of space... Make Technetium plenty availabe with some of the other moon materials and spread the most expensive moons some more and maybe you will see newer alliances being able to compete better while at the same time more settled alliances will be easier to push around.

Havak Kouvo
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:14:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Edited by: Furb Killer on 15/08/2011 14:05:18
Originally by: Siena Petrucis
Concerning "Descriptive ownership"

I am fully with you. Drop the sov concept. Instead, allow players to anchor POSes or other offensive/defensive structures (e.g. sentries) at key locations in 0.0 - gates, stations, ice belts, whatever. If your alliance/corp can keep these structures alive, it obviously has control over its space, and it also has the benefit of a tactical advantage. No TCU needed for that.

Problem is who owns the stations? Right now the main reason you need sov is to secure your station ownership, with JBs quite a bit behind and cyno jammers really far behind that (yes sov level is important to get cyno jammers up, but by far the main important reason people want those cyno jammers up is to protect stations, and to a lesser extent jump bridges).

But while a solution is required for that, I fully agree sov should describe who is from the day to day situation in control of that system. Then timezones also dont matter that much, in the unlikely event that in US TZ one entity lives in a system and in the euro TZ another (hostile) entity lives there it is simply a matter which entity lives there most of the time.

Quote:
Unused 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward -1.0 making them valuable.
Heavily used 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward 0.0 making them less valuable.


So promoting empty wastelands instead of groups that actually use their space? No.


You don't need son to control stations. Stations were largely separated from sov before Dominion. It was mainly only contacted when you had a capital system, which they got rid of. The reason for son was for structures such as Capital Assembly Arrays, cyno jammers, and other structures that CCP wanted to limit to alliances who held space for a minimum amount of time.

I would change capturing/destroying iHubs and Stations to a special timer that started when you anchored certain structures, instead of shooting it endlessly. Keep the TCU and SBU mechanic. Give POS's the sleeper AI, so if there is not a gunner, it would be more entertaining than just keeping a few logistics to counteract the stupid gun cycling. Make it so towers are easier to take out if all the guns are incapacitated (i.e. lower ehp).

Also bring back sanctums in all level 5 military systems, and just increase the number of those with lower security levels. Make it so that the strategic level of a system is partially dependent on the strategic level of those around it.

Make the "sov tax" geometrically more expensive as you increase the number of systems, upgrades, and stations/upgrades that the alliance holds. (Also the sov tax for stations is applied regardless if the same alliance owns the system or not).

Separate stations from sov, but still make them harder to take if sov is held.

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:18:00 - [33]
 

I'm not sure if this was viewed when I posted it in the last Dev Blog comments section, and I'm glad they are rolling with a section-by-section forum breakdown to consolidate ideas/rage.

I came up with a king-of-the-hill idea that would allow small Alliances to get their foot in the door and give them some home-field advantage as soon as they are established, and this make them more difficult to simply wipe off the map when a bigger Alliance doesn't want them there anymore.

Also, my idea makes it so each system is important to the Sov holders, as certain perks of holding space only carry over if there is direct connections between systems.

And, the Sov mechanic is far more likely to cause ship on ship combat instead of ship on structure combat, since the capturing mechanic is based off ship involvement in a specific area of space, where every ship counts.

Callie L'Aliel
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:46:00 - [34]
 

Quote:
Grunts involved throughout
Corp and alliance leadership are very important to the game because they often do a lot of work to make sure that thousands of other players are having a good time. We should be careful not to put the cart before the horse, though. Wherever possible we should make sure that interesting tools and decisions are being given to all rather than just the few leaders. If a feature is trying to make the often-thankless job of leadership easier, it should be aimed at the leaders. If it's trying to add something new and interesting to the game, it should be aimed at the "grunts".

Perhaps some API improvements that would allow a corp CEO to give the API a XML page with a sort of "auto accept list", so that players that are already accepted into a corp/alliances out of game API to be automatically accepted into the corp. This would support an alliance building out of game infrastructure, further strengthening teamwork within the alliance, and could possibly tie into Eve-Gate, for those without the financial ability to host their own stuff. This would also prevent burnout of the overworked HR drones that big alliances such as mine experience, whose job is to look through a spreadsheet and hit the accept button. From what I've seen, most alliances that would benefit from this the most already have some sort of system in place that would easily tie into this. This could lead to other API improvements that would give smart players a tool to make their own alliance leadership easier.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
(not least because letting players thrash out their own tools is a very efficient way to discover what's actually needed, rather than what seems like it might be neat)



Ardamalis
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.15 20:49:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Ardamalis on 15/08/2011 20:49:49

I once suggested this as a new 0.0 sov system: http://eve-search.com/thread/1486833/page/1#3

Received quite a bit a positive feedback.

I'll make a 2nd draft and edit it in this post later. It'll take me some time.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.15 21:38:00 - [36]
 

I think if you are looking at 'descriptive ownership' you should consider that 'ownership' need not be an absolute. For example rather than describe System X as owned by Y (with a HP beacon or similar) the boundaries of ownership might be blurred.

I appreciate this is a rather odd concept so I will try and provide a simple example using 2 values.

Value 1 is 'kills in system' - military might for want of a better term.
Value 2 is 'gross domestic product' - output through industry in terms of raw production.

A system might be 'owned' by one entity (player, corp alliance) through Value 1 and simultaneously 'owned' by another entity through Value 2.

These entities may, or may not, be allied and share a common cause of course. Each entity would receive its 'reward' in kind. The entity with predominance through manufacture (GDP) might receive preferential benefits to mining yield, reprocessing or tax rates (for example).

Now if you considered multiple 'Values' or measures of success players could compete specifically on those terms or through co-operation on all terms.

C.


Evil Incarnate
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:06:00 - [37]
 

My thoughts to fix 0.0 are below to help remove id hope 10% over a year of the old isk in 0.0 from years of broken mechanics.

Double the number of R64 & R32 moons spread across nullsec so moon goo is not worth x100000 anything else in the game. 10+b a month per moon is just stupid by anyone's means. T2 should not have this stupid bottleneck making these mega-alliances trillions of isk so they can replace anything in the game on a whim. 0.0 already has the best of everything in the game. Best Ore, NPC's (loot), PI, Wormholes etc...

Increase the price of Cyno Jammers to x10 current price.

Increase the price of Jump Bridges x10 current price

Make Titan jump bridges use 250m worth of ICE to use.

Make Super Carriers use 100m worth of ICE to jump.


Inipinipocoloco
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:11:00 - [38]
 

link sovereignity on 3 foundations

-industry lvl
-military lvl
-local !

indu lvl and military lvl we already have just connect to sov in a way that a alliance cannot hold sov where it does not defend (military lvl), where it does not work (indu lvl) and where it does not live ! (local)

to do this turn "local chat" into a "beacon" thingy that has fuelcosts or upkeep whatever that count ppl in local and their time in local and converts that into the same mechanics as indu/milit lvls

so finally 0.0 sec allies/corps are forced to get ppl into nullsec to live in their sys if they wanna keep their local as it is now

areas forsaken by their current sov holders turn into a "light" variant of WH space without local, utterly lawless and in the end loose their sov after a certain period of time/neglection

this way ccp could reach their goal of geting highsec peeps into null - for the better of all

just do it !

Elistar XI
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:50:00 - [39]
 

Let me introduce to you, THE WEATHER FORECAST!

Period: .................1/9/2001-15/9/2002
Region: ................ Fountain
Constellations: ......... Phoenix, Manticore, and Minotaur

Starting today we will experience strong solar winds reaching their peak power on Tuesday and fading by the end of the week. These winds result in an increased speed for capsuleer ships by 30% but on the other hand their shields hitpoints will suffer a penalty of 20% at the peak of the winds.

In the following week the winds will pass leaving an ionized atmosphere that will increase the shield resistances by 15% and affect Plasma based weapons -such as blasters- increasing their range by 100%, unfortunately it affects artillery weapons and mitigates their fall off by 40%.

Hopefully things will return to normal in 2 weeks period.

End of Report.
-------------
Report 2 summary:

Region X, constellations a,b,c will have an -insert sci fi- storm in 5 hours, completely stripping ships from shields for YZ number of hours.

End.
-------------


Players have been asking for environmental effects for years, and CCP wants them as well but isn't sure how to implement them. the above extract from my imagination might provide a concept.

A Dynamic environment will have a huge impact on warfare and will make it a lot more interesting.

Just like our planet has varied weather in different seasons, so can the universe in EVE. different regions will have different effects from whatever your lore comes up with.

Some effects can be predicted in advance, and some will catch people by surprise. so a storm of -insert something- might be only forecast-ed 1 day in advance or come completely by surprise -though that might leave some FCs cursing at CCP.

The reason I mention by constellations not regions is to make more room for strategic decisions by retreating or attacking different constellations depending on fleet composition.

A reasonable forecast could have a huge impact timing and fleet compositions.

I hope this idea gets somewhere.

Korvin
Gallente
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:00:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Korvin on 16/08/2011 03:03:44
Quote:
Reward investment with value, control

At these scales, investments should scale in two directions. The first is investing to increase the value of your space. This sort of thing pays for itself if you can hold the space long enough for it to pay off. The second is to increase your influence/control over your space, including existing objects like stargates and map statistics and so on. This does not pay for itself directly, but increases security and so on so that value investments have a chance to pay off. Both types of investment are necessary in order to build a good environment for players to really put down roots and develop areas of space, which increases the gameplay value for residents and raiders alike, and means there's more on the line when a big war rolls around, making it more emotionally intense.

We never learn. Rolling Eyes

What is the best way to hold your space longer to return your investments? Right, get as many positive standings as possible to get a big-big blob.

Will starter entities of the same size (lets say grouped in empire or NPC 0.0) catch up the existing rich space holders with the disadvantage over their income? Obvious? No?



If you ask me, the value of the space should drop over the time, since alliance is already strong enough to hold it, got the infrastructure ready, defences mastered ets.
Investments should be needed to sustain the value of the space, not to improve it.

Give your system a rest, or pay a toll for a short time boost. Lets say anchor a pleasure garden full of exotic dancers to make belt rats risk to return even with your presence. Put a crate with drone parts to summon new rogue drones ets. And yes, those boosters should be a good target for small enemy roaming fleets, with a loot dropped from them as a reward for not killing their owners. (mind volume of structures and loot to be easy replaceable/lootable)

Pirokobo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:33:00 - [41]
 

Quote:
Mechanical ownership of an area should be something that's awarded to the organization which already has de-facto control of that area, rather than something that's fought over as a necessary precondition of de-facto control.


During the ping-pong era two or more entities both had de-facto control... during their respective timezones. Taking mechanical control is a prerequisite for de-facto control because it allowed one side to force the other to have somewhere else to call home.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:40:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Newt Rondanse on 16/08/2011 02:47:37
Originally by: Pirokobo
Quote:
Mechanical ownership of an area should be something that's awarded to the organization which already has de-facto control of that area, rather than something that's fought over as a necessary precondition of de-facto control.


During the ping-pong era two or more entities both had de-facto control... during their respective timezones. Taking mechanical control is a prerequisite for de-facto control because it allowed one side to force the other to have somewhere else to call home.

Mechanical control of an area is exactly what leads to large empires as well.

Anything that allows passive denial of space allows a group to control more space, and if control of space provides the same resource that is consumed in passive control of space then it allows them to control even more space until they hit their organizational limit or the edge of another group doing the same thing.

Passive denial of space, mechanical sovereignty, only leads to the current situation. It leads nowhere else.

No passive DOS mechanic means that if you want absolute control of a system you have to actively maintain it, and the more groups there are that think they can carve a piece out of nullsec for themselves the smaller the holdable space for any given empire.

That is the condition that it sounds like CCP intends to aim for, and the only way there is to leave mechanical sovereignty behind.

Pirokobo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:29:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/08/2011 03:31:49
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
No passive DOS mechanic means that if you want absolute control of a system you have to actively maintain it, and the more groups there are that think they can carve a piece out of nullsec for themselves the smaller the holdable space for any given empire.


No passive DOS mechanic means ping pong for every timezone bound alliance. Your space is yours when you are in your surge time. 18 hours of the day, your undock is camped by three hurricanes and a saber.

The only alliances to survive will be those with effective Aus-Rus-Euro-NA tz coverage or coalition pacts to provide it.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:50:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Pirokobo
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/08/2011 03:31:49
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
No passive DOS mechanic means that if you want absolute control of a system you have to actively maintain it, and the more groups there are that think they can carve a piece out of nullsec for themselves the smaller the holdable space for any given empire.


No passive DOS mechanic means ping pong for every timezone bound alliance. Your space is yours when you are in your surge time. 18 hours of the day, your undock is camped by three hurricanes and a saber.

The only alliances to survive will be those with effective Aus-Rus-Euro-NA tz coverage or coalition pacts to provide it.

If the activity timer runs on even increments of 24 hr periods, then timezones don't matter.

Do you deny that passive denial of space mechanics inevitably lead to large empires?

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:41:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Evil Incarnate
My thoughts to fix 0.0 are below to help remove id hope 10% over a year of the old isk in 0.0 from years of broken mechanics.

Double the number of R64 & R32 moons spread across nullsec so moon goo is not worth x100000 anything else in the game. 10+b a month per moon is just stupid by anyone's means. T2 should not have this stupid bottleneck making these mega-alliances trillions of isk so they can replace anything in the game on a whim. 0.0 already has the best of everything in the game. Best Ore, NPC's (loot), PI, Wormholes etc...




Are you aware that some alliances just stockpile moon goo and release set amounts to keep the price high? Giving them a larger stockpile wouldn't help anything.

Hansipoo
Posted - 2011.08.16 07:18:00 - [46]
 

How come when an alliance takes over a station, it's in perfect condition and they can use it like nothing ever happened? Maybe a route to address this issue and some of the other ones (cost/investment) would be that the alliance taking over needs to put in some resources to bring it back up to full operation after they just spent the last week pounding it with bullets the size of cruisers. Balance the necessary resources at your leisure. I could see that there's a certain limit to what nanites can do with a station that's had 50% of it's structural integrity blown away. In those cases, common sense says that you would need to add in some materials to work with to replace what got vaporized or flung off into space.

Same could go for ships maybe? (again I find that a lot of the issues with conquest will bleed over to investment,conflict, and mining/industry areas of your core ideas) "Congrats on getting your Aeon out before it went down, the bad news is that it took 50% structure damage, so repairs will be complicated and may need additional resources." Going to have to replace a few capital armor plates on that baby, and it looks like the jump drive needs a partial overhaul since that titan really did a number on the navigation section. Looks like your Dread is down a gun slot until we fix the turret hardpoint. Sure they still fly, but not at 100% effectiveness until the investment is made to fully repair.

Maybe the repairs are cheap this time. Maybe the player or alliance decides the ship is totaled, scraps it, and just builds new. That's the nature of war. Stuff gets broken and doesn't work like it used to, so you either spend money to fix it or buy a new one if you can afford it (both should be viable options depending on circumstances). This would mean that while ships may be powerful and hard to kill, they are still vulnerable and an enemy that doesn't destroy the ship still accomplishes something by necessitating an expensive repair that will take more than sitting in a pos waiting for the repair module to cycle 1000 times, or just docking up and hitting "repair all." Note that this is resource-based and not necessarily time-based, since just waiting for your module to cycle is about as exciting as structure shooting. Repairs, though expensive, are fast and you're back in action fast, assuming the needed resources are on-hand.

Large territory-holding organizations rely on their fleet of big, bad lolwtf dps ships to hold onto or capture space. It would be good if taking territory and holding it had a cost beyond just blowing things up, but that even partial destruction of a large and expensive ship amounts to a partial victory. This is where decisions come into play as well. Being smart and avoiding excessive damage is nearly as important as not dying and barely making it out of the fight.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.16 08:08:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Pirokobo
... The only alliances to survive will be those with effective Aus-Rus-Euro-NA tz coverage or coalition pacts to provide it.

Does such a construct even exist today? Smile

Back when I dabbled in null (pre-QR), alliances had a preferred Tz but either large off-tz contingents or permanent allies who could provide cover.
Add 2-3 timer 'refinements' and alliances are now almost entirely "pure" and only bother with off-tz allies for the initial smash'n'grab phase .. and even that is not needed with proper planning.

Eve sets itself apart from all comers with the 'One Server', most/all other games have servers split regionally or even nationally so the issue does not really exist elsewhere.
Why should mechanics encourage xenophobia? Allow it for sure, but outright encourage it as it does now?

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.16 08:13:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 16/08/2011 08:15:35
funky double post forum day.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:18:00 - [49]
 

i like the analogies of rome, so an idea

Capitals + Administration,

Make it that any alliance holding sov may designate a system their 'capital' it must have a station present under their control,

An alliance that has no capital gets utterly hammered on sov bills, i mean it becomes a nightmare in costs very fast,

An alliance that has a capital has NO sov bill for the capital system, and a sliding scale of cost based on number of Gate jumps between the capital and the system, so the surrounding systems are cheap, the constellation more expensive and so on up to the point where beyond a region or two the cost again becomes absurd,

This helps control vast alliance assets, it should be prohibitive in the extreme to hold either 3+ regions as a single alliance or space scattered across eve,

in return the benefit is that a Capital is automatically shifted a chunk closer to -1.0 trusec, and the systems in the capital constellation are likewise bumped towards the lucrative with either cheaper or more investment oppertunities in the capital system/constellation,

i also think yes Stations and their conquest should be important but not part of the actual sov process but a side element, perhaps keep current double timer but divorced from the sov flip itself

i do not think stations should be destructible because at that point its too much risk vs rewards especailly to non prime TZ people to loose their clones/assets/etc and goes against having a home, also the lone superblock would then conquer all null in a month, yes pos's are a similar risk but they are a limited gamble not a your very survival in null gamble,

i also like the idea of sov being either gained / lost or affected by people in space and active, if a group run and hide in station when ever a gang comes through if they do not respond at all that should negativly affect them and create an incentive to watch the borders, however it cant just devolve into station/gate camping, thats not fun for anyone,

for smaller scale sov stuff perhaps have infrastructure upgrades themselves targetable ie the pirate array 1-5 are each subs on the ihub and targetable, they can only be incapped, a small gang can incap one or two in say 10-20min, and if nothing is done by the defender it auto repairs to full after a day or so but can be repped up immediatly if needed,

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:39:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Takashi Halamoto on 16/08/2011 10:59:40
also to address certain issues -local etc

Microupgrades, not big tens of millions upgrades but tiny ones, each has a nice function but isnt a long slog to take down

Change local so it only shows your own alliance by default, plus anyone that speaks in it,
then at your TCU or ihub or gate but not a pos, you can float nearby the
Coalition Coordination Relay, now all blues appear in local but the CCR can be incapped / destroyed without resorting to mega blob,
at your gates you can mount
Traffic Monitoring Relays, these should be destroyable/incappable in 10-20min by a gang of 10-20, it pings reds into local that enter through the gate its next to,
Quantum Visibility Generator - either system wide or within X AU's prevents cloaking for everyone,
and so on, none of them should be massivly expensive, none should require too much effort to disable or destroy

none of these should be anchored near pos guns

now there is a tactical concern if you mount TMR's at your border you will be able to monitor red fleets entering your space if they are making a run at speed for a target in your space, but if they commit a small gang to punch a hole in the border you know where they will probably cross the line but you dont know what backup is behind them thus creating a demand for scouts and intel, meanwhile send out a roaming gang an hour before your planned assault to punch a hole or three in the enemy border monitors then fly a large bs fleet through the spot,

Lunce
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.16 10:10:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
It strikes me that if they make sov related to various activity measures instead of a binary condition enforced structurally, that as long as the measure of activity for sovereignty is in full 24 hr increments the TZ issue gets washed out.



This!!!

It's a simple and elegant solution.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:01:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Lunce
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
It strikes me that if they make sov related to various activity measures instead of a binary condition enforced structurally, that as long as the measure of activity for sovereignty is in full 24 hr increments the TZ issue gets washed out.



This!!!

It's a simple and elegant solution.


if not the sole method used this should be 30% or more of the method used to make occupancy and activity matter

Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.08.16 13:13:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 13:13:33
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 13:12:56
Quote:

1. remove jumpbridges -> travelling large distances should take time -> reduces the area you can control



Won't change much at all, pretty sure the DRF blob isn't using a jump bridge through empire to get from the north to Providence.
Quote:

2. remove jumpfreighters -> maintenance should involve work -> the bigger the area the more hauling-OPs are required


Nerfing the only means for lowsec market hubs to exist and wspace logistics that are already risky having to light SHOOTATME cynos in low or sov null on wormholes.

Quote:

4. revamp motherships -> turn motherships into mobile cloningfacilities and remove their massive damage


That's why they renamed motherships to supercarriers silly.

Quote:

5. revamp titans -> turn titans into huge shiphangars (100 battleships should fit inthere) -> in combination with motherships this will be your mobile base for attacking others


Won't happen, the corp permission systems are broken as is, having players access it on the fly will just lead to so many lols, especially since it cannot handle alliance access properly
Quote:

8. no free intel -> setting up a POS should not send a Mail to anyone -> players should actively patrol their areas



Uh, it doesn't?

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:03:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 16/08/2011 15:03:29
One thing I really dislike about the current territorial mechanics is the complete inability to set up a defensive perimeter. An example explains this the best: in the DRF attack on Vale and Tribute earlier this year, the DRF only took out four or five key system in each region, and could completely ignore everything else. Right now, there is nothing you can do to stop someone to just walk right through your space and hit your capitol on the first day of a war.

I would like to see a system where taking a single system would be slightly faster, but you would have to take them systematically. For example (and I know this example has its flaws), make it so that if all neighbors of a system are owned by the same alliance, this system is invulnerable to sov attacks. This means you have to gradually conquer space, not just snipe the key centers and then, long after the war is over, grind through all the other timers for a month unopposed.

Another idea is to be able to upgrade a system or a constellation for better defenses. For example, more HP on the structures, or an additional reinforcement timer, something along those lines. However, these upgrades should make it impossible to upgrade the system economically.

The idea I'm going for is to be able to over a long period of time to create a real fortress spanning multiple systems or even constellations, which would require a very significant commitment of assets, people, and time to conquer. It would also introduce a strategic aspect to warfare, as holding or attacking different systems might be more or less difficult.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:18:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 16/08/2011 15:03:29
One thing I really dislike about the current territorial mechanics is the complete inability to set up a defensive perimeter.

That's space combat for you.

Actually, that's modern combat. The only reason modern land combat allows for defensive perimeters at all is not everyone has the airpower to bypass them, and logistics are at least an order of magnitude cheaper to maintain if you have a well defended land/sea route.

In the absence of mechanical enforcement of sovereignty, the DRF attack would have had an impact similar to attacks on industrial centers during WW II. These attacks bypassed the defensive perimeters and did massive damage, but were not able to take and hold territory behind those perimeters.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:45:00 - [56]
 

Not sure if CCP has caught on yet, but big alliances exist to hold moon goo passive income sites. A large chunk of the problem in null seems to be the disconnect between what is good for the members and what is good for alliances. Easy fix is to change the way moon goo is harvested to being a small gang operation, let alliances tax, allow more taxation options (sales tax, reprocessing tax, docking tax, etc), then money flows up and thus everyone in an alliance is unified on objectives. This also will dramatically kill the sprawl, as the big alliances don't have to have a POS in systems all over multiple regions to tap the moon goo.

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.16 18:38:00 - [57]
 

To me, the focus should really be on making smaller Alliances more viable overall in the Sov mechanic.

The major way to accomplish this is to allow advantages that can leverage the numbers of smaller groups versus larger groups.

It should not scale up, and the bigger you get the more vulnerable you get to owning that large tract of space.

Making that inverse ratio is the real challenge there.


You have 2 parts to determining how people will react...

The perception of deterrents being applied to that space and the perception of value to overcome that deterrent.


There are a few types of deterrents :

Militarized Population (Alliance)
Established Defenses
Environmental Challenges
Logistical Challenges
Others?

There are many types of Value that I don't think I need to go over.

If the value of that space is going to be greater than the deterrents that the alliance can put up, then they'll take it over.


A great example of this is Providence. CVA's providence from the last Sov system was disassembled easily even though the value of that space wasn't that high in itself. Thus, players will simply do it, to do it if they have the power.

Recently, however, Ewoks/Evoke left the area because of the reduction in Sanctums and CVA basically walked back into the area to establish control.

The value of Providence went down, and the hassle of defending it was gone.


Now, apply that to a smaller alliance who wants to hold (not rent) one or two systems.


A few deterrents to moving out there are going to be the local militarized population, the number of people there and so on. Also, the proximity you can be to another person is also to be determined. If you're going to be 1 or 2 jumps from a bigger alliance, politics can handle so much to get you in safely, but why can't you establish yourself without getting blown away by setting up even right next to one of their sov systems without diplomacy? Should it be easy? No. But it should be viable to some degree on a small scale.

This will lead to more systems being used. Alliances will want to project power a couple systems away from where they are as a buffer, and that makes sense, but it also turns parts of space that could be used into unused space.

Giving smaller groups the ability to fill that space will help null sec hold a higher population.


A good step for this was reducing the jump bridge functionality. Making logistics harder for larger organizations makes it harder to project that power, this in theory could promote a small alliance to simply hold 2 systems to jump bridge between and be able to defend those 2 systems more easily than a larger organization can/will for a bigger group.


A tactic that may not have been considered is the ability to devalue your space. It might sound strange, but for a small alliance, making your space a smaller target might actually be a viable short term plan to long term success. If the big boys aren't interested in your space because you "burned" it, then maybe you might actually have a chance to make it. Of course there is always the random, "We want to blow you up factor".


I don't like this idea as presented, but more in concept. If we give a certain number of "improvement" points to an Alliance once it claims sovereignty. Those points can grow as you gain more space, but proportionally not enough to spread out across multiple systems the same as if you had only a handful.

Those points can be used for various enhancements and defenses, and so a small Alliance starting in a small amount of space can apply those points in a more "dense" area to add more deterrents.

Meanwhile, the larger you get, the less points you can put in the same amount of space.

This also takes the focus of Sov away from the solar system and applies it on the "Empire" scale. As I wrote somewhere else, to me the landscape of EVE isn't 1 system, it's all the connections and interactions between them.

TLDR ;
More + to small alliances for less space.







Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.16 19:04:00 - [58]
 


New Tools :

Bubble Jamming - Stopping Warp bubbles adds an element of safety and ease of function that mimics high sec enough that people are willing to undock and try and get away, and provides a tactical asset that can be dismantled. Not every system will want this, and it can be both a good and bad thing for the owner. No bubbles makes it easier for small gangs to attack your system, but also makes it easier for your locals to operate without fear of bubbles.


Deployably Mobile Cyno Jammers - Partial chance of success, 100KM range. Temporary and easily removed, but able to stop cynos in specific locations without requiring a full cyno block on the system. It still allows Capitals to come in at different locations in a system, but just not in the most tactically advantageous location.


Resource Specialization - The Ability to specialize your system on a specific resource. i.e. Causing Hydrogen Ice to appear in Helium Ice Regions. Increasing Hacking sites for T2 inventions for a specific race not local to your area. This would lead to very specific areas being specialized in a specific way and in a very limited way, but creates trade interests due to its unique nature.


Create Structures that represent switches that affect your system defenses at large...

Example : Resistance Structures - these provide a resistance bonus to Sov structures, they're not that hard to take down, but will make taking down a sovereignty building exponentially easier. This sounds like its adding more "shoot structures", but the effect should be by creating switches that represent a larger solar system defensive network, you are creating less structure shooting at one structure, that if you want to go down that tactical path it can lead to a faster victory and less structure shooting, but maybe expose you to different defenses and provide different opportunities for the defenders to rally.

If you have to move between 3 locations to attack, the defender can more easily choose where to defend, than having to warp into a kill zone on the TCU or Outpost.


To get away from Structures totally as a focus, then there has to be a point of contention for sov ownership. You say you want de-facto control of an area to be given to the people there already - so in theory someone can move into an area and simply take it over with never fighting for it if the owners never bother to defend. This can lead to situations where a "peaceful" take over can happen and the owner never realize it, he might not even see it as an act of aggression against their sovereignty, leading to more nuanced political play.

The issue is, how does this work all together? To some extend the old POS system was KINDA like this. You didnt HAVE to take over a system by blowing up the other owners' POS, you just needed more. This leads to the natural human nature to just claim them all and operate a headache of a POS network, but it's more secure (refer to Home) than the option of letting someone just walk in and take it overnight and you're none the wiser.

The emphasis really here is on more people and more people out there, which equates to more null sec activities and more opportunities for null sec. This all wraps back into the idea that you need more than 20 location objects in a solar system to entertain 100 people. Smallholdings, exploration and even incursions come together to provide this.


Continuing this in a post below... (I'm sure you're hating how much I'm writing... lol)

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.16 19:16:00 - [59]
 


Looking at everything in all these discussions, what I say you really have to look at is a unified system that works as follows:

Alliance with Sov Dreams buys Nomadic Ship X, that meets the challenges and needs of a nomadic 'colony' ship of their chosen style depending on Race.

The Alliance moves into an area that they can start to operate from
and starts to "claim" sovereignty with the nomad ship, operating from the area and starting to invest into the region. This leads to de-facto control. Over time, the sovereignty switches.


Let's say that they decide to move into an area that is already owned by someone. The current SOV owners can start to raid and attack the nomads in that solar system trying to take it over. The nomad ship should have a high level of security in itself so it's a long term investment, and it should be able to escape if necessary, if the nomads want to leave, but not be invulnerable. But meanwhile, this Nomadic vessel can support and seed the defense of the "Attacking force". This kind of switches the role of the defender and the attacker typically viewed in the SOV Warfare mechanic.

The attacker is actually defending, and the defenders are actually attacking. This somewhat happens now with the SBU system. The difference is that by having to essentially "hole up" into the system to defend it, you can take it over. They can run activities in that system to invest and build, and defend when they need to defend. They can be forced out by some method, or just by continual harassment if they clearly can't take the system over.

Now, this shouldn't be the only way that a Sov claimer can take over space, but can be an important part of the equation. For example, this shouldn't be able to happen in a major "capital" system that is very well developed by the Sov Owners. In that case, it should be treated more like a "fortification" scenario, where the attacking Mongol Tribes can't just walk into the Fortified Castle and bunker up and hope they take the area over. Those fortified systems should be special and well-established and require further steps to claim.

Currently, i'd say that each sovereignty system is fortified by requiring the TCU to claim sovereignty. Switching that over so that Sov can be claimed without a fortification structure, but require money and investment to fortify as per the current system.


So you have a couple types of SOV then

Fortified Sov, which you pay for to develop and hold
Unfortified Sov which costs you little to actually hold, takes longer to invest in, but is more vulnerable to loss by de-facto Nomadic invasion.


The system would interact in a more organic way, I'd say, with this Nomadic perception. Make a T2 Super Carrier called a Mothership (cough), same assets- different skin- an order of magnitude more expensive, not really fit for combat and not a tool for escalation, but a tool for conquest - make it pretty difficult to actually destroy and have a siege mode for defenses, it can be "deployed" and used as a mini-outpost during conquest modes, but can be forced out of an area.


I know it's all far-fetched and I don't expect to see this happen tomorrow. I'm quite aware of the technical limitations and possibilities. But it's a brain-storming.


So, make the "Attackers" The "Defenders" in a case like this, and make them invest that time to actually claim the sov, that makes claiming Sov a bigger investment for the Attacker as much as the Defender, but not in a way that is only time consuming and not providing content, but in a way that provides content and interaction with each other - by having to interact.

Combined with the thoughts on large fleet combat, meaning just bringing 800 people doesn't win you the fight, and the thoughts on Smallholdings being viable... you can just move a Nomadic Mothership into an unfortified system, have your members setup smallholdings to begin to claim the area, and eventually look to fortify it and pay for it.

Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.08.16 19:18:00 - [60]
 

I have a whole thread up on this. There are two versions. One introduces planet/moon/belt -based colonies to the game, and a whole series of new, player-centered economies. The other modifies outposts to get the same basic effect, although with probably less radical changes to the game as a whole.

Some common elements to both versions:

1) A new sovereignty pricing system: Sovereignty pricing works more like a market. A new resource, troops, has cyclical maintenance costs associated with ownership. Troops get stationed aboard sovereignty structures (outposts) and are used to attack or defend during sovereignty contests. The more value a system has, the more people will have to invest in troops to defend against attackers. This is more efficient and 'accurate' than the current system.

2) New conquest system: Troop on troop fights create a new kind of sovereignty timer, which is set by the defender but not easily game-able. This takes the 'shoot the floating box' out of sovereignty contests. An alternate route to disrupting sovereignty, which involves shooting outposts, is introduced in one of the variants.

3) Revised index system: The Dominion index system is given an overhaul, creating an incentive structure that encourages in-system activity and promotes small-gang warfare as a means of disrupting economic activity.

4) Revised upgrade system: Sovereignty holders can 'save' upgrade credits derived from the indexes in their system, allowing them to purchase a wide array of system upgrades (e.g., nullsec agents, belt content and yield upgrades, outpost upgrades, etc).

5) Lower the scale of sovereignty: Rather than the smallest claimable unit of space being individual star systems, each planet, moon, and belt becomes its own claimable unit. This vastly increases the amount of claimable space available to new entrants to nullsec.

6) Revised cyno-system and player-built stargates: Basically adds more of a 'terrain' effect to using cynos. This implies that there will be places where hot-dropping is highly unlikely due to costs. Player-created cyno-disruption can affect multiple systems.

7) Hierarchical sovereignty structure: A revamped sovereignty system creates incentives for sov-holders to be in constant conflict with their immediate neighbors. The incentives encourage players to claim more space than their immediate neighbors (or to negotiate vassalage treaties with them).


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

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