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

Havak Kouvo
Posted - 2011.08.17 01:18:00 - [61]
 

Make owning systems progressively expensive (with no leveling off on increase), but make attacking those systems require more commitment (assuming at least a competent defense).

Separate iHubs and Outposts from sov (element the huge EHP requirement). However, keep the current mechanic that to there are timers if sov is held by the defenders. Reduce EHP of enemy outposts and iHubs within the system.

Make each strategic index level require another TCU. If no replacement TCU is put up in 24 hours, the index drops and resets the timer for that sov level. Limit destruction of TCUs to two within 24 hours. An invulnerable timer is placed on remaining TCUs for 24 hours and no new TCUs can be placed during the lockdown. Each new TCU increases the price of that system.

Evira Alivar
Posted - 2011.08.17 02:09:00 - [62]
 

One of the problems that i see with the current sov mechanics is the following:
Alliances claim space for themselves and they have no interest in letting anyone in there. Basically, if you cross the border of an alliance without beeing member of one of their allies, you will be shot down.

It would be interesting if alliances had a reason to allow players to pass through their space or even stay there as long as they are not agressive. This would mean more traffic in nullsec. More traffic means that enemy ships or mercenarys that work for the enemy have a much better chance to slip through and cause trouble. It would also make gathering intel on the visitors more important. It would also limit the space you can control by not only having to control the borders, you would also need to have a security force in almost every system.

How could that be done?
Give people a reason to allow trading in their stations. a flourishing tradehub should not only seed the market well, i should also give a reward to the corp/alliance holding it.
Give alliances/corps a reason to allow neutrals to do industry and pve in their space.

both can be achived by giving the sov holder the tools to collect "taxes" for trading, bounties, pi export, all the things where the money sink taxes are in place already. Most if not all nations on earth allow traders and workers to enter their ground and do their job. They tax them and they benefit from the work done.

The downside for an alliance letting so much people into their space and open their stations to them is that they need to be on constant watch for trouble. Additionally, if the sov structures are replaced by something that small gangs can interfere with, this problem becomes even more pressing. You could hold a small space with a large force and allow people in there that pay you taxes or a large space with closed borders.

The taxing should also be done by structures that can be easily interfered with. like hacking an "bounty observation array" wich would allow you to dodge the taxes until someone notices what you are doing.

If someone tries to establish a tradhub to benefit from the transaction taxes there, he will also have an interest in keeping traderoutes safe, either by diplomacy or by force. The alliance blocking a chocking point and playing the closed borders game will cause conflicts.

Having players that are interested in opening trade routes and attracting people will also cause more traffic through other areas, giving more targets to pirates roaming the various pipes.

In general, i would try to think of mechanics that make opening the own space a valid decision, with benefits and drawbacks. This would also make sov less absolute. If you allow industry structures of other players in your space, you will benefit but also have the risk that they start a rebellion at some point and use their combined force to take over. Here again, intel will be a crucial point.

Those a just thoughts, and i am not sure that those mechanics would not be abused. on the other hand, at the current state of the game, corps can already collect taxes on bounties and mission rewards. And they can force players to either pay a monthly rent or get off their space. So implementing those mechanics would only make the whole thing more generic and allow out of corp people to be taxed in sov space.

Along with the need to enforce security, it could be interesting to have an automatic bounty based on standing set up by a sov holder. He has to pay those bountys out of the own wallet, but placing a bounty based on size and standing on the heads of troublemakers could attract mercenarys to enforce law in such systems. Another bunch of neutrals that have to be observed. They are usefull but they are dangerous too as they are pvpers. And again, intel will be crucial to set the standings according to the crimes that may be comitted. And those bountys would make the whole taxing thing less one sided.

Kunnilar
The-Forsaken
The Forsaken.
Posted - 2011.08.17 04:03:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Grytok
Edited by: Grytok on 15/08/2011 15:11:32
We've made suggestions of how to improve 0.0 for how long now? Ever since Red Moon Rising I guess.

My take at it would look like this...

1. remove jumpbridges -> travelling large distances should take time -> reduces the area you can control
2. remove jumpfreighters -> maintenance should involve work -> the bigger the area the more hauling-OPs are required
3. destructable Outposts -> building of Outposts is really cheap actually -> a homebase should be built up and not conquered
4. revamp motherships -> turn motherships into mobile cloningfacilities and remove their massive damage
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
6. revamp system-sovereignity -> sovereignity should be based on player-activity not lifeless structures -> shooting NPCs, mining, etc should be the only thing that turns a system -> more activity unlocks better content (better explorations, mission-agents on player-built outposts)
7. POS -> POS should be the little men outposts -> more modular system to make it a real mini-outpost
8. no free intel -> setting up a POS should not send a Mail to anyone -> players should actively patrol their areas

All this would turn the 0.0-thingy into something that requires more player-activities and it would reduce the areas a single alliance/corp can claim and control.
The unlocked content based on activity would require more active gameplay in more centralized areas. Think of it this way... the amount nd strength of NPCs grows bigger, as they sure want to take their space back.
The removal of fast travel and transport (jumpbridges/jumpfreighters) would make it way harder to maintain large chunks of space.
In combination with the possibility to destroy outposts this would turn 0.0 into a real investment again, as alliances/corps would only take the sapce that is really required leaving room for smaller entities to make for a living in 0.0.



This

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.08.17 06:37:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Evira Alivar
One of the problems that i see with the current sov mechanics is the following:
Alliances claim space for themselves and they have no interest in letting anyone in there. Basically, if you cross the border of an alliance without beeing member of one of their allies, you will be shot down.

It would be interesting if alliances had a reason to allow players to pass through their space or even stay there as long as they are not agressive.

I completely agree with the entire post. I would love to see NRDS or at least some weaker variant of it become a viable option again. And/or formalize renting agreements.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.08.17 06:45:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
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.



I will reply because your post is not an idiotic whine or troll, but what I believe just a result of misinformation. You don't actually need an alliance to run a mining/reacting tower. You only need one person to empty the silos every few days, and one JF or freighter pilot to fuel it once a month. Technically there is nothing preventing corps and alliances to run their moon program in the way you describe - in fact, I know corps who do just this.

The major barrier however is the complete lack of security in anything related to POSes. The moment you want to give someone rights to empty the silos at one reaction tower, you also implicitly need to give him the rights to shut down, empty and disassemble every single reaction, supercapital building, or infrastructure POS belonging to your corp. Thus the job of running reactions - although a very simple one, talking about the amount of work and skill needed - is very often kept only to the highest ranks in a corp or alliance.

More granular POS roles (at the very least a per-tower role system) and/or a reworking of the reactor mechanics (say, allowing a person to transfer goo from a silo to a CHA, but not to their cargo hold), would definitely go a long way towards this.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.17 07:45:00 - [66]
 

I would like to know more about the proposed TZ fixes here. Or the problems.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.17 08:16:00 - [67]
 

i agree with mr FCON, granular roles, for example just an ability to split pos's and or stations into one of 5 groups would help, then a corp can allow someone roles to work on Group 1 towers and Group 4 towers, while keeping more sensitive assets seperate and safe in Group 2 and 3,

Stations and ihubs should not be part of the sov flip, thus bringing up the interesting idea of a blitzkrieg approach where you can try to flip as many enemy systems as possible but then risk the enemy having forts (outposts) behind your lines,

also to encourage say rolling fronts maybe what ever activity or combat or whatever mechanic was brought in instead (i like the pilots active in space affects sov) is made easier to take an enemy system if you control one or more adjacent, its shouldnt be impossible to take a beach head deep in enemy territory but apart from specific goals it should be prefferable to roll slowly forward,

as for the encouraging neuts, what with the prevalence of out of alliance bait / cynos etc unless the system massivly incentivised to the detriment of highsec (bad) most alliances especially those in active hostilities would probably say to hell with it and just lock their space anyway, also hubs and trade depend on acess, noone is going to visit a trade hub in Omist or Branch if they arnt blue no matter what you do so it would only benefit the near null population

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.17 08:23:00 - [68]
 

As for system 'ownnership' ie a feeling that players have that a system is 'their territory' I propose that holding sov should allow players to control the stargate in terms of who can use it. Public, corp only, alliance only, or standings based. That means interlopers can't casually come into the system. Right, but covert ops and black ops should be able to hack the out-system gates to allow access, and any hacks should be logged and track-able, so that the system owners know who have hacked their gates to gain entry, perhaps by way of mail to the stargate maintainer corp role. Same goes for leaving the via the in-system gate (needs to be hacked), which should make covert ops folk need to be more stealthy about their business. ie, easy to hack the out-gate, but once in, if the in-gate is guarded, good luck getting out! Time to go afk cloak for a while and play the waiting game.

The point of this is that people today have an inherent NBSI mentality because everyone now lives in homes with NO DOORS, NO LOCKS, and NO GATES (no pun intended). If you were a guard at Fort Knox, and you didn't have a gate or any doors, and anyone can just waltz in, you would probably shoot first and ask questions later too.

Now if you allow people to put a door up, and set some locks and security this may make them feel a little safer. (Have the guard watching for stargate hacks 23/7, and you won't be surprised by anything. (though catching cloaker even if you know he's there is out of scope of this discussion)

Not to mention, if you commit a force and cyno in a fleet, if you lose your black ops or covert ops in the fight, have no cyno lighters, your fleet is stuck in system until some friendly can hack the gate for your fleet to retreat, or you can just win sovereignty of the system by force.

Sorta just a raw idea. No doubt full of holes right now, but thought I would toss that out there for discussion.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.17 08:33:00 - [69]
 

no the ability to lock gates makes null too safe, and goes against the whole risk vs reward,

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.17 13:02:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Takashi Halamoto
no the ability to lock gates makes null too safe, and goes against the whole risk vs reward,

Additionally, it would have to be ported to highsec just to keep the game world consistent.

Bad standing with Caldari? I'm sorry, you can't jump to Jita. At all.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.17 13:13:00 - [71]
 

the only, and i mean only way it might work is if you could utterly lock down a system (take a bow clear skies 3)

but it would need to be monsterously expensive in strontium or moon goo or both to the point of yeah you could lock a system, no cynos, no gates for a day maybe two but it would be tens of billions an hour pouring away


even then i DO NOT think it should be possible to isolate a system, its too abusable

Flem'berk
Posted - 2011.08.17 13:35:00 - [72]
 

Remove the current I control one TZ now my system is perma safe. It kills of smaller alliance that can harass in other TZ it also reduces social mingling of people with different nationalities.

Allow attackers to deploy their own cyno-jammers so defends canít just drop 100 supers on the sbuís without any warning in there TZ.

Changes to sov bills, make them increase the more that an entity owns eg: 1 system cost 1, 2 systems cost 2, 3 systems cost 4 ect. However if the player owns all 5 systems with in the same constellation they receive a discount. A similar discount could be put on regions. This is to try and rebalance entities just claiming the few station systems then leaving the rest of the region empty.

Increase the number of ways to take sov. Keep the sbu system (with some changes). Add in some other methods so that attackers can try different tactics and defenders have to invest to cover the different methods. (Would need some more benfits for investing but the point remains the current system could be made more dynamic.)

Mindnut
Posted - 2011.08.17 14:39:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Mindnut on 17/08/2011 14:55:31
Originally by: Thur Barbek

If stations were made destructible, most of the work planned in the devblogs to get more people into 0.0 would be undone. Who wants to move all their stuff into a 0.0 station that can be destroyed. Major assets would be stored in the closest NPC station in the neighboring region. Consequently, the big alliances would shove all the little corps out of NPC space to protect their assets.



Not necessarily...
CCP can add a mechanism that will move assets to a designated by player or random high sec station, just like it's done with med clone. This way risk of losing assets is left out of the equasion.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1565838&page=2#33

Mindnut
Posted - 2011.08.17 15:35:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Mindnut on 17/08/2011 15:37:52
I think that a CAPITAL SYSTEM with extra bonuses would be nice to have. If an alliance claims space under sov. it should have the possibility to create a capital system which will be harder to take over by the attacker. Maybe add defences by the gates/stations.
Anything to raise a chance of survival for new alliances entering 0.0 would be good.

"internal - system security"

The Capital system would be (just an example on a 0-5 scale) "5" with max bonuses possible and very hard to take over. The further the influence of an alliance spreads the lower the security level and bonuses... Lowest security systems would be very easy to take over by others but the closer to the capital system the harder the job. Adjacent systems could then be upgraded from "0" to "4" but next system after that will never be higher then "3".

As for the bonuses. Why not boost most stats on structures as well as ships?
A fewer ships in a "5" sec system would stand a chance to a bigger fleet attacking them.
If you look at RL ppl feel more comfortable and safe in their own neighbourhood. It all changes when you enter someone elses home area.

This way a small alliance with only 3 systems at sec "5" and 2x "4" will have an easier job protecting their space then a big alliance with a lot of "0" or "1" security systems
The big guys would ofc also have their "home" space with high sec but any system beyond that would be harder to keep under sov.

I thought about this over night and to me it seems like a good idea...

An alliance would have to buy and anchor a "Capital Outpost" to create a Capital System.
A capital outpost would be an extended verion of an outpost allowing:

1. fitting of turrets/launchers and ewar structures (available CPU/powergrid just like on the pos's) in the vicinity of that station as well as near stargates.
2. control of the defences from within the station. A fleet commander would be able to stay inside the station and cordinate defence operations from safety (has an overview and can switch wiew to any stagate or structure in the system).
3. primary attack setting of all defence structures...

Let's say we anchor 4 small laser turrets and 4 large laser turrets by the gate. A primary attack setting would allow to program these weapons to attack a speciffic type of ship. I.E. small turrets can be programed to attack interceptos. If there are no interceptors in the attacking fleet lasers will attack any frigate size ship. If there are none - focus on a larger ship class.

I think that this mechanism would not only add more dynamics to the game but also give the defenders an advantage they don't really have atm.

Jareck Hunter
Rubicon Legion
Posted - 2011.08.18 12:43:00 - [75]
 

Edited by: Jareck Hunter on 18/08/2011 12:48:08
Well, in my opinion the problem with the actuall and the last sov system where the massive amount of EHP that had to be destroyed, when you wanted to claim sov.

So if you want to take sov you need a massive fleet or else it will take hours, hours of boringly shooting one struckture, often without an enemy showing.

So here is my idea, move away from the concept of damage = sov and more the direction of "when i want to own the space, i have to be there".

Well how to archieve this?
I think, the simplest solution to this would be if you make TCUs hackable.

How would it work?
Move TCU to planets and away from moons and POS.
Then one ship with a hacking device moves in range of the TCU and has to hack it permanetly for 5-15 minutes (maybe based on hacking skill), the owner of the TCU gets a message. If the hacking is succesfull, the first RF-cycle is entered, like it is now.

When the first cycle is over, the attacker has 1 hour time, to hack it again and start the last RF cycle. The defender can also start hacking it and when succesfull the RF Mode is over.

If you can hack it again after the 2. cylce, the system and all it's assets (outposts, IHub... everything besides POS) belongs to you.

With this system, a fleet of 100 ships can attack 100 systems at the same time and a massive blob would be the baddest way to defend yourself, it would be more usefull if you split up you forces into smaller gangs and hunt down the attackers. It would also be more usefull if you live in the systems you own, so you can respond fast if someone is attacking your TCU.

Bigger entitys could only hold the space they can defend permanently and small groups have a chance to hold small areas, cause they can take it back easily when the big blobs are needed on the other side of theyr empire. Cause of the fact that nothing gets destroyed during sov changes, smaller entitys are able to invest money into theyr space, cause they know they can take it back easily after some time.

It would also be a easy way to provoke fights with the residents, if you start hacking theyr TCU's, when they just wanna stay docked.

One negative effect of this system could be that entire regions could change sov in 2 days or that systems near empire are under permanent attack and so, would lower the value of these regions. Sov-Ping-Pong would be back. It would also make it more difficult for alliances to attack someone on the other side of the map with all theyr members, but i'm not sure if this is good or bad.

Another "problem" could be POS, cause you would still need bigger fleets to kill them or defend your own. So Moons would still be controlled by the bigger ones, if they can handle the logistics and defense. I'm not sure if it really is a problem, cause with POS big fleets still have a role in the game, but are not needed for everything.

Hope you like this idea.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.18 13:52:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Newt Rondanse on 18/08/2011 16:10:06
Edited by: Newt Rondanse on 18/08/2011 13:54:02
After thinking about it, and looking at empire space, it seems to me that "sovereignty" needs to be a matter not of space control, but of gate control.

Allow anchoring of POS-(like) defensive modules at gates and stations.

Obviously if it is a station you own you should be able to plant modules around it. Say a base of 4 Large POS guns for a base outpost. Add a "defense" module to the outpost and you can anchor more. Enough to make a proper deathstar.

Gates is where the "sovereignty" mechanic comes in.

If the most active corp/alliance in a system has total activity above a certain threshold, they get access to the gate controls (maybe some hacking is necessary also). Once they have that access they can plant gate guns. Gate guns would, of course, target whoever the controlling entity told them to, much like POS guns now (though I would hope for an improved interface).

To transfer gate control, an entity that meets the base activity requirements needs to hack into the gate to transfer control after clearing out the existing gate guns.

Note that this system doesn't say anything about who can plant outposts, make use of system resources, or anything else. It also doesn't give the "sov holder" any particular advantage besides the ability to keep slow enemy traffic out of their systems.

As for how to give people rewards for tolerating others in "their space"?
The entity controlling the gates gets a cut of all transactions at all outposts in the system. If gate control is split, the tax is split proportionally.

The more people, the more activity, the more isk.

-adding-
Logic: CCP wants more players in nullsec, the way to do that while allowing any sort of sovereignty at all is to make the rewards for sovereignty dependent on the number of active players in your system.

Reward sovereigns for the activities of players that may not even be in their alliance, even ones that might be red to them, instead of rewarding them for holding the space with the capability to hold more space.

That is how you make a sovereignty system that encourages people into nullsec.

Mindnut
Posted - 2011.08.18 15:51:00 - [77]
 

Additionally to my previous post...

There always has been an issue with local channel, and I know CCP isn't going to get rid of it anytime soon.
Heavily populated systems whether it's in npc regions or under sov. don't really encourage ppl to mine/rat in that system. Putting aside intel channels - the longer the local list the harder it is to spot your enemy. On top of that, if that characters name starts with "Z" it has an advantage over a character starting with "A".

I think that there should be an automated system detecting ememy/neutral presence. Every player in the system should get a warning when hostile ships enter that system. Number of hostile ships should also be displayed on the screen somewhere.

Aura - Warning, hostile ship presence detected.

Annother way to solve this problem would be adding a filter to the local channel. Let it show only neutral/hostile players on the list.

I know that this would have a major effect on the current gameplay. Fast roaming gangs and soloers would deffinitely have a harder job trying to surprise anybody, but at least it would be fair to both sides as well as to "Abraham" who pops up at the top of the list as soon as he shows up in the local channel.

If you can't remove the local channel and add a D.scanner that won't be spammed then why not make the system automated?

I'm sure I'm not the first one to raise this issue and that it probably shouldn't be here in this thread, but I think it's still important.

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.18 18:32:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Bloodpetal on 18/08/2011 18:57:11


I'm going to represent the types of decisions that the Nomadic Invasion idea I put forth on the last page provides instead of "shooting structures".

Invaders = Alliance seeking space.
Holders = Alliance holding that space.


Invaders decide they want space.

Invaders make value assessment for accomplishing that - how do they want to do it.
They decide to use Nomadic Ship conquest (Other options should exist)
They decide that they are going to invade a unused and weakly held and unpopulated part of Holders space.

Invaders choose system and move in.

In order to take the sovereignty over they have to live and operate in there daily, setup smallholdings/POS, all things contributing to the idea that there is investment by the players and are actually operating here - providing that content and telling players Hey, Use it Or Lose It will naturally make their alliance want people to go and run content in their "empire" or it will eventually fall off. This will become a natural way for empires to grow and shrink. Just because they don't use it doesn't mean they lose it immediately, but it does mean someone else can take it easily.


Holders notice the Invaders and attempt to attack the system being invaded.

In order for the holders to remove the ship, they have to decide what tactics they want to use to force them out...
Harassment of members trying to operate in that system to take control
Moving their own members in there to maintain de-facto control by investing in the area instead.
Attacking the Nomadic ship (should be high deterrent to this with the nomadic ship having a reasonable chance of surviving in order to not make this the obvious answer every time.)

Depending on their tactic of defense/attack on those invaders, they either succeed or fail to defend their space. SOV switches and the invaders now are able to setup some better defenses and establish their control.

Or, Invaders are forced to leave, they move their Nomad ship out and head to another space to try and take over some space for their alliance.

---

Major Challenges :

Making the decision tree interesting enough, not only in terms of mechanics decisions, but also in terms of administrative and political decisions. Not every decision should be purely a game mechanics choice. Provide options through game mechanics that make other solutions viable.


How aggressive can you be with that Nomadic ship? - it can be a tool for conquest - but you don't want it to turn into a tool for harassing an alliance senselessly. Let's say you attempt to invade the heaviest population Holder space, there should be a greater chance to lose that ship for being so aggressive, but leave the option open. Maybe the more invested the system is the less likely the Nomad ship can escape.


Promoting people to actually use the system to go in and do content in that system and around it to hold space. I think many alliances are clearly over-sized and many have collapsed after the # of members was clearly a fraction of their original size, but it took a long time to actually identify that and dismantle it just because a few people could afford it. Getting people to need members to play and invest in the system to hold it will naturally lead to more appropriately sized alliance dynasties, rather than these massive chunks of space held by noone and paid for easily.


This leads to the sensation of how "big" a system is. I think the modifications to the Local Channel system that have been discussed will help. Removing that sensation that everyone knows who everyone is in local will now make that space seem "Bigger", rather than only as large as the local view. People will not feel safer, but it will make it feel like you can move around a system a little more incognito.


I really am writing a lot on this, filled the max character

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.18 18:50:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Bloodpetal on 18/08/2011 18:51:30
On Moons

As was pointed out, the POS moon prices are way out of whack.

I think that's a strong contributing factor to why people DO grow so big and CAN grow so big on the map, but never really have that many people playing out there. Moon Minerals need a review on how they're acquired - and how much of an advantage they provide.

1 x64 Moon can easily fund a large portion of infrastructure, to the point that it's worth getting 800 people together and stomp a few groups to earn it.


But, do you want those highly valuable moons to be that kind of tool for an Alliance? Can a small alliance hold a 64? Or should that only be for the big guys? And at that point, and given this idea of de-facto control, how do you balance that out?

Will massive null sec alliances now become systems dotted and sitting right above x64 moons, heavily defended and populated? Leaving the space in between to be used and operated by others?

----

On System Population

How can you maintain that system with a higher population?

Providing tools like this : Exploration Site Brokering which allow pilots to coordinate and sell each other information and allow one person to provide content for another person faster by having down part of the content already, and then sell it to another.

You guys don't want to make it easy for people to find instant content in 0.0, and I totally agree, but not everyone wants to spend 1 hour to probe down a site only to find they can't do it, and they make no money on it.

Remove the sensation of "it's too much work for me" and make it into, "it's something we can conquer together."

Incursions is a beautiful example of this.


Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.18 18:53:00 - [80]
 

Seriously, the whole point of the big whiteboard is "how do we get more people out into nullsec".

1. Reward sovereignty holders primarily for activity in their systems.
2. Keep these rewards for activity by neutral and even hostile players.
3. Do away with "restrictions of space" due solely to sovereignty, like the PI and outpost placement rules.

Make it a competition among the people who want to take and keep nullsec empires to see who can make their space the most fun for people to play in.

Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.08.19 02:04:00 - [81]
 

I think a lot of the major problems have been touched by the design goals indicated in the dev blog.

I believe the biggest issue is the fact that you have this extremely tedious mechanic for claiming sov tied to a system that has nothing to do with the actual use of the space. Space can either be defended or conquered simply by using overwhelming numbers over the course of a few days. Once the space is taken by a large entity, it is far too difficult for a small force or entity to take the space away from them - even if the space is practically unused by the controlling alliance. With jump bridges (both Titan and POS) and the ability for massive capship fleets to move many regions in a few jumps - it is easy for a large alliance to drop a massive force on top of any invader shortly after being attacked. I think moving away from POSs was a step in the right direction, but while it's nice that, technically, you can challenge sov without having to contend with Deathstar POS setups - the practical reality is that you simply switched from shooting structures with automated defenses to shooting structures without defenses (aside from raw hitpoints).

For whatever reason, large alliances like to occupy as much space as possible, even they are not fully utilizing that space. Part of it is to create a buffer around their primary home space, part of it is to eliminate neighboring threats, part of it is likely an ego trip and part of it is because they may have nothing better to do. Another reason is to take control of space and then rent it out to other people. Yes, you have to use the space to install certain upgrades - but those upgrades only relate to the specific activity you need to engage in to unlock them. If an alliance is not using a system for ratting or mining - they don't care if they cannot upgrade the ratting and mining.

When the most recent sov changes were being bandied about, it seemed like there was talk of tying the actual determination of sov to the actual use of the systems - like ratting and mining. Unfortunately that principle was abandoned - maybe because the POS system was so broken CCP wanted to rush out a change as quickly as possible. Instead, use of the system only effects upgrades you install AFTER you gain sov - which again, makes sov warfare basically the same as before since it is just about shooting structures. Hopefully we are finally on the path where the sov mechanics will actually be tied to use instead of simply who is willing to grind sov and who has the biggest fleet.

Personally, I think sov should be tied to metrics for ratting, mining, exploring, PvP and generally occupying the space. Obviously they need to calibrated so that they cannot be gamed. So for PvP, it should be simply to have someone's control of sov to be weakened if they lose ships - but if you give them sov for destroying ships, you might run into gaming of that system. Someone could bring in a thousand tech1 cruisers, fully insured, with an alt alliance and then just let the main alliance blow them all up to game the numbers. I think another interesting system might be to have special modules (or perhaps use the pre-existing hacking module) that give you credit for sov the longer you use them on things like the stargates or the outpost, almost like you are harvesting sov. That will give players something active to do that is not simply ratting or mining to affect sov - something that can be broken up by defenders or invaders.

In regards to the time zone proofing - well you only need time zone proofing when sov is tied to shooting arbitrary structures. If you tie sov to cumulative use of the systems over a sustained period of time - you don't have to worry about a giant blob showing up during an off timezone. There may be some issues if people figure out ways to game sov so that they are able to dramatically effect sov during the hours the current owners are asleep.

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.19 06:52:00 - [82]
 


I think supporting a few types of conquest would be a strong improvement to the "Decisions" focus. Currently there is only 1 correct Game Mechanics way to take SOV. No matter how much you harass, destroy, wrangle your enemy, at the end of the day you HAVE TO shoot the TCU down, etc. Short of a political/economic play to gain space, that's the only choice you have.

Support multiple types of conquest to improve the decision making from the very first step of the whole process.


Brain storming list of new systems to think about ::

Siege Conquest (Current System)

Nomadic Conquest - As represented above, combination of a few below.

Denial Conquest - Locking up/destroying other ships from using that
space.

Investment Conquest - You put more assets/money into a location, it switches to you.

Population Conquest - Having more people in that system on daily average wins you that system.


---

I keep wanting to look at old sci fi books/movies and also at ancient history as to how conquest really happened.

What made you 'in control'.

A big part of it was all about population and people that already lived there. As leaders, you had to usurp the other leaders. The general populace generally didn't have much say in the matter unless they revolted and killed a few key people. Part of the reason for that is that a big part of conquest wasn't only for the space but also for the population.


This requires an established 'native' population to begin with, which is a bit rare in 0.0 since they all belong to corps that all move out/etc together.

So, let's look at it from the perspective of what exactly are you "conquesting" when you take a system.

You're conquesting for your own space, for an outpost, for the ability to base out of 0.0, etc.

Is there a way to establish local 0.0 populations without requiring them to be politically "linked" with the sovereignty holders specifically. An issue with this is the general NBSI policy in 0.0 alliances.


Let's look at CVA space. They ran NRDS for a long time and had a local population independent of the sov holders. The operation was a big success in general during its primary operation, and it was unique for what it did. When that space was lost, the territory became typical 0.0 space, where noone could really do anything except the SOV holders.

Imagine for a moment, instead of blowing them up, the new owners had kept it NRDS, used the local population to generate more revenue, etc, and that way had been able to "Take" over the population there, but simply switch it to their benefit and profit.

What were the barriers to that decision other than socio-political ones of the new SOV owners.

Well, for one was that the Standings list of CVA was grossly large from self-policing, and that they had to operate a self-run standings page that basically was used by known allies to "Synch" with CVA standings. So, letting Alliances/Corps synchronize their standings if they're not in the same organization would help that kind of policy.

Next, was the amount of players that could use that space to successful benefit. To most NBSI corporations, the amount of content in any given system is going to be limited. Even the most well-developed system in todays system manages 4-5 sites that are considered "Good content" - and they're for solo players. SO out of 1,000 player alliances, each system only supports 5 people?

That needs to be increased drastically. You need to support the populations out in Null Sec on the order of the number of people that can be supported in major trade hubs and mission hubs. Otherwise you will never get anywhere near a well-populated Null sec.

So, if you can make it so that the local population stays regardless of the "conquistadors", depending on their policies - that there is a vested interest for the local population to simply submit to the new ownership rather than fight it - you are a step closer to "true sovereignty" over SOMETHING - that being a population.


Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.19 07:10:00 - [83]
 



Another problem with the CVA NRDS free-trade stations, and a big reason for needing a large standings list, was to deny ships the ability to dock at outposts.

Docking games are a problem at Free ports, because you can camp the station to little danger to yourself and to great harassment to the local population.

Docking games in general are pretty stupid and should be fixed/made more difficult anyways.


Nonetheless, that is another reason and deterrent to having more open outposts and free-trade outposts and why most alliances run closed outposts. The system forces them to do so or otherwise you end up with whole fleets playing docking games with the local population. By denying them access to the station, enemy fleets/pirates are not able to use those as a haven, and thus that's the mode of operation.\

Fixing docking games would make some things more feasible.

One way to target null sec for the docking games issue is to allow station owners to set their own "timer for aggression" when docking. The owners settings on the timer could be set to 10 minutes for denial on aggression when you're in the system, so ships can't simply dock up to hide.

Would this help us see more open trade posts? I think it's very likely to contribute to the small changes that would promote it. The current atmosphere that the game mechanics create is that of exclusion and denial to the general populace of EVE that makes it difficult to operate in there.

Promoting an atmosphere of open-ness, along with all the dangers, will add to the sensation of adventure and entrepreneurial-ism you want to see in null sec.


This means giving people more options to police themselves and resolving problems that lead to this culture many years ago. I'm sure the first people that took SOV didn't want to deny everyone access to it (and they didn't in fact, because U'K setup Unity as a free trade post). But, after the challenges that faced the system back then were observed and learned from - it became obvious to SOV holders that it was safer and more secure to deny open access to 0.0 rather than to promote it - and that atmosphere continues today and will probably continue for a while even if you make changes to game mechanics to promote a more open atmosphere (but not a less dangerous one).

Mindnut
Posted - 2011.08.19 16:13:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Bloodpetal


Investment Conquest - You put more assets/money into a location, it switches to you.

Population Conquest - Having more people in that system on daily average wins you that system.


Both of these systems don't make any sense to me...

Investment Conquest - Rich alliances would have a far too great advantage over the new alliances in 0.0

Population Conquest - Once again the big guy wins over the new and smaller alliance. Big guy can simply get most of his pilots to fly into your system and stay there for a few days. They kill anything that flies out of the station, do plexes, rat and log off in space.


Mindnut
Posted - 2011.08.19 17:33:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Mindnut on 19/08/2011 18:10:07

Reading throught this thread made me realize that TZ issues make any good conquest system fall appart. In RL war and conquest isn't something you can take a break from. It's a 24/7 thing.

I was just thinking, what if we were forced to form alliances that consist of people from different timezones. Would that be sooo bad?

When one corp sleeps the other is on guard. Key systems wouldn't become overcrouded so easily.

A perfect conquest system is the one closest to RL.

1. Sov. is gained when an outpost is anchored - lost when it's destroyed.
Additionaly - when an outpost is destroyed all assets are exported and not lost (lowering risk should bring more people out to 0.0). Losing assets that are in space is more then enough (risk vs. reward)

2. Allow anchoring of ONE Capital outpost (with great bonuses) per Alliance and multiple outposts in general. We'd be able to create one unique system that is far different from any other system under sov. - a HOME.
Allow to anchor defences on stagates and outposts. Each alliance should be able to create a heavily defended/fortified system that would give then an advantage when protecting and increase survival.
- cynojammers
- defences
- ewar structures
- multiple JB's
This would be a very big help to small/new alliances. The less space you have the easier it would be to protect it.

3. Key systems should be upgraded to give bonuses to ratting/mining/PVP. As you move away from the Capital system the lower the bonuses. Big alliances would use the resources faster and that would give them the incentive to expand. Expanding would mean having lower bonuses or no bonuses at all when one expands far out, but that's ok if you have numbers.

4. Expanding sov. has effect on the key systems allowing additional bonuses to be applied. This could be done so that a small roaming gang would still be able to get through to the capital and cause damage but at the same time it would lower the possibility for a big fleet to come and destroy the capital. Space would have to be taken over gradualy and in small steps.

This would simply force people to create alliances that are formed with corps from different TZs, but it would also allow to use a conquest system that is dynamic and as close to RL as possible.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 03:33:00 - [86]
 

There is nothing wrong with conquest and claiming space. but there are a few points i think that need to be addressed for this to work with smaller scale alliances to also flourish.

Size should increase cost exponentially. - Im not saying if you own 4 systems you'd break your bank, but as you get closer to owning a region sized swath of land you better have deep pockets and even deeper income. Ideally i want to see an alliance holding 2 or 3 different constellations with slightly smaller sized alliances than there are today. not only would this enable people to be able to protect their land better but also enable them to develop their space to support the number of people they have, instead on relying on a large size to support them.

The higher the number of people in the alliance the more land they can grab. - this follows along the lines as above but makes large alliances have certain numbers to keep the costs of holding certain number of systems at a reasonable level. This allows the alliance to still maintain the land space they have but once they are big enough there is no longer the cost reduction to holding more space. Example. say an alliance has 100 players in it. they can hold 3 systems at this price. lets say they recruit more corps in. now they are up to 300 players, but still own those 3 systems. well the cost of holding that space drops because of the more players. but now the players are complaining its getting crowded and they cant make as much isk. So now the alliance looks more at expanding to support its size. They take on more systems till they own a constellation. Cost of owning the space goes up again. so they recruit more. price drops again and the crowding complaint is heard again. eventually they are an 1000 man alliance, holding 3 constellations, and are a power bloc in the region. This is where the cost reduction drops off. and actually reverses but only a little. it costs more to hold a large amount of space now. more members don't reduce its cost now and the more they grab the more they pay in upkeep. yes this sounds like an external control to limit size but its so if they try and grab too much they run a higher risk of collapsing on themselves.

Treaties. - The alternative to HUGE alliances in a span of a few regions. Since the cost of owning more than a few constellations is expensive, you have a few choices to make with your neighbors.

NON AGGRESSION PACT - would consist of an alliance stating they will not go to open war with another alliance unless the pact is withdrawn and 24 to 48 hours has passed. This will not negate combat... but will not allow a concord sanctioned war between them. this also stops both parties from trying to claim Sov in systems the other owns. This creates a form of peace certain alliances have the promotes trade and friendship.

Mutual Defensive Pact - If you get War Dec'd we will be war Dec'd as well and help you. This will allow alliances to help defend each others space and is a step up above a non aggression pact. stills allow fighting but again cant claim each others sov.

Trade agreements - Creates NPC ships that will buy items you put for sale in your outposts and flys them over to the other alliance outpost to be purchased and vis versa. This creates a local economy but only if the alliances are in agreement on it. These NPC's can also be shot down by roaming gangs but typically if i have seen correctly they only appear in front of stations anyway.

Mutual Declaration of War - Simple enough... alliance A and B hate alliance C... so they both are bound in a treaty to attack him for the duration of at least one war dec cycle.

This i believe adds a layer to territory and conquest that will make the game deeper and more interesting and also blend well with making a home that more people will live and fight there.

Sigarni Green
Posted - 2011.08.20 06:06:00 - [87]
 

Escalations in 0.0 I think in park contribute to why there are so many large alliances and coalitions. Getting an escalation can be great but always having to then travel 6-10 jumps to go and complete the escalation with a fairly good chance of getting nothing worth it does not help. I would imagine when they were originally created the thought was so that players would have to fly into hostile space to make it riskier for a possible great reward. (considering the ships required to do most of the escalations it is not worth the risk to go into hostile territory. forming a fleet to go it is not worth it as you would need a very good drop to equal the isk per toon from anomaly grinding)
The player base got around this by making friends and creating massive areas of space where you will fly 10+ jumps in any direction whilst remaining in blue space.
Having nullsec developed to a point where 500 player alliance with average 50 players online all day can make sufficient isk in a single constellation would lead to a breakdown in overly large coalitions. This would mean more pvp on smaller scale with reduced lag.

Making people self sufficient in smaller localities would make sov warfare more interesting instead of the normal basic analysis we have 500 men in fleet they have 700 and 20 more supers than we do. Fleet stand down, If the value of a single constellation is high enough it will be better developed and also more ardently defended. The most isk in 0.0 comes from Plexes and their escalations, stop sending people into the back of beyond as it does not enhance gameplay. In only encourages large sov holding conglomorates where you can find a lot of empty space.

Sigarni Green
Posted - 2011.08.20 06:25:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Mindnut
Edited by: Mindnut on 17/08/2011 15:37:52
I think that a CAPITAL SYSTEM with extra bonuses would be nice to have. If an alliance claims space under sov. it should have the possibility to create a capital system which will be harder to take over by the attacker. Maybe add defences by the gates/stations.
Anything to raise a chance of survival for new alliances entering 0.0 would be good.

"internal - system security"
The largest Problem with this would be thoe hoard of small alliances that would be established. a 2000 man alliance will simply create 5-10 alliances and set up several capital systems and set standing so it is still owned by an umbrella alliance with improved defences in key logistic locations. The small guys will still be screwed.
The trick would be to make it so that you can get so much out of a constallation or two that it would be unneccesary to take all the space. Balance the money not by moons but by player activity. If an alliance can keep all of its members funded in 10 systems with isk to spare why would they controll 40 systems if their gain is minimal above the 10 systems the members are using?
The Capital system would be (just an example on a 0-5 scale) "5" with max bonuses possible and very hard to take over. The further the influence of an alliance spreads the lower the security level and bonuses... Lowest security systems would be very easy to take over by others but the closer to the capital system the harder the job. Adjacent systems could then be upgraded from "0" to "4" but next system after that will never be higher then "3".

As for the bonuses. Why not boost most stats on structures as well as ships?
A fewer ships in a "5" sec system would stand a chance to a bigger fleet attacking them.
If you look at RL ppl feel more comfortable and safe in their own neighbourhood. It all changes when you enter someone elses home area.

This way a small alliance with only 3 systems at sec "5" and 2x "4" will have an easier job protecting their space then a big alliance with a lot of "0" or "1" security systems
The big guys would ofc also have their "home" space with high sec but any system beyond that would be harder to keep under sov.

I thought about this over night and to me it seems like a good idea...

An alliance would have to buy and anchor a "Capital Outpost" to create a Capital System.
A capital outpost would be an extended verion of an outpost allowing:

1. fitting of turrets/launchers and ewar structures (available CPU/powergrid just like on the pos's) in the vicinity of that station as well as near stargates.
2. control of the defences from within the station. A fleet commander would be able to stay inside the station and cordinate defence operations from safety (has an overview and can switch wiew to any stagate or structure in the system).
3. primary attack setting of all defence structures...

Let's say we anchor 4 small laser turrets and 4 large laser turrets by the gate. A primary attack setting would allow to program these weapons to attack a speciffic type of ship. I.E. small turrets can be programed to attack interceptos. If there are no interceptors in the attacking fleet lasers will attack any frigate size ship. If there are none - focus on a larger ship class.

I think that this mechanism would not only add more dynamics to the game but also give the defenders an advantage they don't really have atm.

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.20 11:10:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Thur Barbek on 20/08/2011 11:12:49
Another idea for sov mechanics might be to reuse some incursion code and have sov effects. Then enemies could slowly take over sov by killing the locals and their stuff. There could be a bar like in incursions that gives certain buffs to the sov holders. To balance this out, the zero effects zone would be in the middle of the bar and if enemy players started killing and destroying stuff in the system, the bar could go into the negative buffs. The IHUB or equivalent could still be the key.

This would be more realistic, as in RL war, defenders have the home advantage. But if the enemy gets in and pillages and destroys enough stuff, the land becomes useless and less desirable for the current owners. The IHUB could represent the main base or camp for that land. If this falls the system falls.

Also could apply to contstallaion as a whole instead of individual systems.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 17:38:00 - [90]
 

Continuation from my previous post 86

Create A Capital System A home base, operations center, the mother land, cradle of civilization... what ever you want to call it. This will have the ability to be upgraded to a deffensive level V. what does this mean? i have no clue, but i dont think this should base on how much a system can get improved in terms of industry or ratting. Deffensivly it should be the highest cause its your capital. But as you go out further from your capital the deffensive structures that can be created and improvements made drop because the total deffensive level drop by distance. I.E. imedatly surounding the capital its a IV rating... 2 jumps out is a 3 rating, 3 jumps a 2, 4 jumps a 1 and 5 jumps or more outside of a capital is a 0, meaning no deffensive improvements can be made.

Allow the repositioning of a Capital System. This is IMPERATIVE to allow changes in control in space. Moving the capital should take time... say a 24 hour cooldown before the title can be removed and a week before systems start to naturally lose their deffensive level ratings. Of course if you establish another capital before then than any system still within the proper range keeps its original rating or is dropped according to its new distance from the capital.

Possibly denote deffensive rating based upon Light Years than Jumps. This enables space to be held basid upon how far LY wise you are away and makes for a more dynamic rating.

Scale Defensive structures via Level.

Level I
Deffensive Bunkers

Level II
Gate Turets
Station Turets

Level III
Cyno Jammers

Level IV
Anti Cloaking devices
25% bonus to defneders
Level V
35% Bonus to defenders

These can be changed via what is balanceable but its a starting point.


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