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

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.20 18:18:00 - [91]
 

Just do what you first claimed you were going to with Dominion.

- Make it easier, and faster, to challenge and claim unoccupied/unused systems. Ideally, any system that doesn't have enough people using it who can defend it, should be fair game to anyone who will use it.

- Make it so expensive to own a vast number of systems that it won't be done just to have a bigger blob on some map, by people who have no intention of ever using most of the space.

There's no need to over-complicate things here.

Mindnut
Posted - 2011.08.20 18:23:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: Mindnut on 21/08/2011 15:05:39

Annother thought...

To help you visualize this simply undock from station, hold ALT, click on the station and picture this...

You've just assumed control of the outpost (from within the station)
The UI is no different from the ship UI. You have a carrier-like drone bay and a bunch of fighters at your disposal. You have great stats further modified by the sev. lvl of the system. You can enter the fitting screen and access mods in your corp hangar.

You have 24 fitting slots available but...
All 24 slots act as HIGH SLOTS with additional rules:

1. In LOW slots you can only fit medum-size modules.
- Medium turrets, heavy launchers
- Medum: Nosferatu/Neutralizer/Remote Armor Repper/Shield Transporter/Energy Transfer

2. In MEDIUM slots you can only fit large-size modules.
- Large turrets, cruise/siege launchers
- Heavy/Large: Nosferatu/Neutralizer/Remote Armor Repper/Shield Transporter/Energy Transfer

3. In HIGH slots you can only fit Capital-size modules
- Capital turrets, Citadel launchers, DDD
- Capital: Remote Armor Repper/Shield Transporter/Energy Transfer

There is a range of outposts to choose from:

- Outpost - More powerfull then a Titan
- Capital outpost - 5x as powerful as the regular outpost. Has built-in facilities. Allowed one per alliance.
- Mobile (nomadic) outpost - has a built-in jumpdrive

And if you need to log, relinquish control and don't worry cause these things have best AI available in New Eden =)

The reason behind this idea is that "if" we could anchor defences by the station it wouldn't exactly solve the "yawn-we're-shooting-structures-again" problem. Anchorable defences can be destroyed and you end up spending hours trying to pop a defenceless outpost or in the current situation the facilities.

A fitted outpost would keep fighting the whole time it's being assulted. It could provide logistics to the defending team and actively take part in the fight whether it's controled by a player or the AI.

Mindnut
Posted - 2011.08.20 18:29:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Mindnut on 20/08/2011 18:29:43
Originally by: Lolion Reglo
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.


That's pretty much what I had in mind =)
Moving the Capital outpost would deffinitely be important since expanding sov. may require different distribution of key systems.

Narisa Bithon
Caldari
The Motley Crew Reborn
Posted - 2011.08.20 21:43:00 - [94]
 

moon mining should be made more like PI but made on a corp level so moon installations can be managed by those with the appropriate roles.

to be more realistic moons should have a mix of many types of moon goo not just one or 2 types.

this would give a better spread of materials and could also be linked with Dust 514 where ground troops can fight for moons with R64 moon goo in it.

PanKrolik
Posted - 2011.08.21 06:07:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: PanKrolik on 21/08/2011 06:09:54
Maybe change moon mining to use PI with a twist.

1. Moon mining arrays are outside pos shields. Propably best solution would be for it to have high resistances when pos is online but low when its not. Soo incaping the moon miner without large fleet or few supers would not be a viable solution.
2. Moon mining arrays have cycle timers related to mining intensity. Long cycles will provide more minerals at low intensity.
3. Moon goo can be stolen. If you use a hacking module on a harvester it will start a hacking cycle. Once virus was uploaded you wont have to sit on pos geting shot by the guns. Owner will be notified. Trick is that hacking has a limited duration soo it must overlap with end of cycle and also has a kick in timer soo you cant show up 5m before end of cycle not giving owner time to defend his property. When cycle ends and miner is hacked you will have 5m window of oportunity to steal goo from miner. If you dont then remaining goo is transfered to the silo and new cycle starts. Owner also can show up early and use codebreaker to upload a counter virus. It will also have a short timer but will not provide a notify to the attacker.
4. Moon miners must be anchored away from other pos mods to prevent abusing mods as obstacles making thief acces impossible.

Intensity is a value how fast minerals are depleted. Once moon is depleted you need to fire a new probe on it and after it gets results you will have to set up the extraction heads. It could have another twist that it might require time for deposits to regenerate. Soo you can mine at low intensity at a price of longer cycles and higer risk of some nasty guys stealing your moon goo. You can also mine at hi intensity short cycles and run out of goo quickly.

Vil Mahona
Posted - 2011.08.22 06:07:00 - [96]
 

Few ideas on SOV.

1: Force the alliances to claim compact areas. What I mean by this is that an alliance can't claim a system in a 2nd constellation till they have claimed every system in their 1st constellation. Only once you full hold 1st, then you can start to claim a 2nd. and of course this means no 3rd constellation till they fully claim the 2nd and so forth.

2: SOV costs go up as you claim more and more systems. Your 1st constellation should be cheap but gets very expensive real fast once you go beyond that point. Would include an alliance size modifier of maybe 1 constellation per 1000 members so a big alliance with lots of members can hold more constellations without the SOV cost multiplier hitting them too hard.(maybe even a behind the scene's mechanic that looks at activity so the hours of play by the alliance members is looked at an then the membership count for SOV costs is modified by the activity.)

3: Re-Do moon mining, move it to the PI format done by the players. remove that as being Alliance/Corp assets and turn it into a member asset. Restrict operational command centers to alliance members only. course anyone can put a CC in an unclaimed system. once the system is claimed then the non alliance members CC's will go dormant. Also make the moons do a generic set of materials than then have to be processed to get to the Rare materials so there is no longer any bottlenecks in any of the materials other than the time/cost for processing. maybe even require some of the PI materials to be added into get to the Rare's.

4: for sure get away from shooting structures. Like the ideas that SOV is tied to activity so it's a Use it or Lose it deal.

5: To encourage Alliances to be balanced make it so that the good ratting upgrades can't be operational unless the industrial is at equal level. Gives the ratters a reason to protect the miners as if the afk cloaky disrupts the mining ops long enough then the extra anoms for the ratters goes away with the industrial level drop. May need to adjust the required mining amounts for keeping a system at level 5. plus if all this mining is now going on that should then cause more production in 0.0 on the industry side. goes well with my ideas in the mining thread.

6: taking space from someone should require constant presence and pressure to be applied to the SOV holder and have to grind your way forward if you really want to push them off the map. Again the idea of activity as a counter in SOV.

enough for now.

Resender
Posted - 2011.08.22 10:21:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: Resender on 22/08/2011 10:21:40
Make an end to the 'I can bring more supercaps then you' contests.
I'm my opinion the overuse of titans and supercarriers aka motherships has made it hard for any small alliance to compete without being steam rolled.

Narisa Bithon
Caldari
The Motley Crew Reborn
Posted - 2011.08.22 11:57:00 - [98]
 

i personally would like to see supers removed from the game. reimburse any player with the skill points invested and isk value of the ship+mods

Agente
Posted - 2011.08.22 13:56:00 - [99]
 

Lets change to an activity mechanic, using the existing one. First we need independent industry and military level for every alliance with activity in a system.
-To get sovereignty:
--Raise the industry or military level of the system up to 3.0
--Plant iHub
--Pay the bills
-To remove sovereignty:
--Raise industry or military above the actual owner => Vulnerability
--Kill iHub
--Place your iHub
-Considerations:
--Ideally, the amount of “points” to raise the level are limited so alliances having activity in a system are competing against each other to get the greatest amount.
--Although level has decimals, they are not visible so you don’t exactly know when the system will be vulnerable.
--If the level of a system falls under 3 => Vulnerable
--Limit the amount of level that can be earn in an hour/day so it is impossible to get to level three in less than several days, no matter the size of the fleet.
--While there is an iHub, sovereignty bills are paid, even if you don’t have sovereignty (remove your trash).

Just some ideas to begin with.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.22 14:09:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: Newt Rondanse on 22/08/2011 14:12:09
Wow, just look at all the suggestions for a variation on same-old same-old sovereignty mechanics.

How about this:
The most active alliance in an unaligned system as measured by the one-week moving average of all activities (killing things, mining, manufacturing) has sovereignty of the system.

Sovereignty gives you a basic tax on all activities in system (say 1% of everything that happens in system, no matter who does it). Sovereignty should also allow the placement of gate guns to help enforce "civil behavior" (as defined by the sovereign).

Systems can have more than one outpost, anyone can plant an outpost (limited by the number of outposts they can plant, of course). Outposts should also be allowed to have guns planted to help enforce "civil behavior" (as defined by the outpost owner)

--Transitions

Status: Sovereign
Sovereignty transition takes a minimum of 2 weeks. When a new alliance becomes most active, sovereignty goes to "threatened".

Status: Threatened (sovereignty maintained)
1. After a week if the same alliance is still most active it goes to "contested" and nobody holds sovereignty.
2.If the sovereign alliance has regained most active status it goes back to normal sovereignty.
3. If a third-party alliance is now most active the status remains "threatened"

Status: Contested (no sovereignty applies)
After a week in contested status, whichever alliance has been most active in-system over that week gains sovereignty.


Advantages:
No timezone ping-pong.
Rewards for sovereignty are based on overall activity (not just allied activity).
No passive space control.
Players get plenty of warning of sovereignty changeovers.

Disadvantages:
No passive space control.
Disrupts current harvesting mechanism for moon-goo.

Possible variation:
Include activity levels in neighboring systems when determining activity levels. This makes it easier to hold multiple systems and encourages continuity of sovereign areas.

Suggested non-sovereignty changes:
Create an alternate method for harvesting moon go. Perhaps an Outpost module?

Outpost ownership should be transferable by trade as well as by force (so as to avoid disrupting system markets in circumstances where an amicable deal can be reached).

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.22 17:38:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Takashi Halamoto
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


How would it be abused? It would make systems a lot more strategic, that is for sure, and make covert ops and black ops much more useful in null sec.

No need to make the same in highsec 'just for consistency'. Come up with any explanation you like, but locking people out of empire space serves no real positive purpose.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.22 18:35:00 - [102]
 

Not sure if people reading this thread look at others, but just in case: My idea of how an influence sov system could work.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1567776

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.22 19:51:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Not sure if people reading this thread look at others, but just in case: My idea of how an influence sov system could work.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1567776


the reason why your idea will not work is for the same reason why no one can get into null sec as it is now. If you tie sov gains and activity to pvp then the most active alliance can theoretically gain control of the entirety of null sec. i know you said pve and mining in there as well and the whole dust idea but the main point you are trying to stress in gains via PvP. After all not many people are going to mine in several systems when one has everything they need and then some. Also, pitting time against a player for controlling space wouldn't work either. saying that their control over a system is based upon how much they use it is like saying that because the united states hasn't had anyone using part of the west because it is a desert means it is no longer their land. it just doesn't make sense.
hour means that no matter how much an alliance kills people it will only change 1%. that's counter productive especially if you tie it to PvP. what you would be doing is if you wished to gain Sov all you need is a few kills an hour and then can go dock up as not to lose ships to lose the sov you'd gain. it would also mean you would need to kill the equivalent of 10% a day augmented with however much you are able to mine, kill rats to hold onto space. Basically your whole idea creates a system that is more complicated than it needs to be and is so counter intuitive that it kills itself before it can even start. you would more than likely see a mass exodus to high sec and swaths of empty REGIONS because of the sheer effort it would take to even hold space.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.22 20:41:00 - [104]
 

It seems to me that most of those objections can be addressed by changing the numbers: How much is lost per day, how much can be gained per hour, how much is gained by various activities, whats needed to actually get sov and keep it.

That just leaves the complexity issue. But my system is not that complex given what else is already in this game. I think a incursion style bar at the screen top left showing how all the alliances are doing in the current system would help players understand how it all works.

Bloody2k
Gallente
ZERO T0LERANCE
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:11:00 - [105]
 

There should be an enforced limit of the capture systems. It should simply be not only
interesting but also have disadvantages for an alliance.

Example:

1. Capture of two constellations ---> without penalty
2. Capture of three constellations ---> moderate penalty
3. Capture of four and more constellations ---> heavy penalty

Maybee it can be made dependencies by the number of accounts/alliance.
Or certain bonis, every systems have to make it great or unable to fit for claim
(or uninteresting because of some penalty)

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.23 00:15:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Bloody2k
There should be an enforced limit of the capture systems. It should simply be not only
interesting but also have disadvantages for an alliance.

Example:

1. Capture of two constellations ---> without penalty
2. Capture of three constellations ---> moderate penalty
3. Capture of four and more constellations ---> heavy penalty

Maybee it can be made dependencies by the number of accounts/alliance.
Or certain bonis, every systems have to make it great or unable to fit for claim
(or uninteresting because of some penalty)

Individual systems should be supporting enough people that two constellations would be sufficient for what currently passes for a major alliance.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.23 07:22:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Individual systems should be supporting enough people that two constellations would be sufficient for what currently passes for a major alliance.

Even a "small" alliance of ~1000 people would be living like fish in a barrel with the average 5 systems per constellation .. 100+ per system .. just sayin' Smile

Twin-barbed maintenance system as mentioned earlier (at least two people liked the idea!!!111 Laughing) with more meat:
- Designate Capital (must be station system).
- Sovereignty wars are constellation wide, and defender has some say in which system is "up first" if entire constellation is claimed.
- Capital system provides defensive bonuses scaled by how much of constellation is controlled, but can theoretically be attacked at any time (after the point above is considered).
- Capital Constellation is free of charge, allows for additional anchored bridges and has substantial manufacturing/harvesting boons built-in.
- Systems in additional constellations in region costs twice what is currently the case.
- Cost for systems in second region is quintupled (5).
- Cost for systems in third region is multiplied by ten (10).
- Etc.
- All consumption is negatively affected by LY distance from capital (fuel, manufac.mineral etc.)
- Sovereignty upgrade that decreases the additional costs associated with size/distance are available at the expense of some critical upgrade like bridge or jammers and such.
- Throw in crippling fuel requirements for cross-region jumping or some other force projection nerf to make the island empires nigh impossible to maintain.

There you have it: The Roman Empire in space.
Small highly productive core with lots of Farms and Fields in outlying provinces and vulnerable 'foreign' holdings.
Benefits the small/organized while still allowing for the big with long arms .. super-bloat empires that we know today would be nigh impossible without massive slave armies to pay the bills.

Elzon1
Caldari
Shadow Boys Corp
Bloodbound.
Posted - 2011.08.23 08:20:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Lolion Reglo
Originally by: Vincent Athena
Not sure if people reading this thread look at others, but just in case: My idea of how an influence sov system could work.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1567776


the reason why your idea will not work is for the same reason why no one can get into null sec as it is now. If you tie sov gains and activity to pvp then the most active alliance can theoretically gain control of the entirety of null sec. i know you said pve and mining in there as well and the whole dust idea but the main point you are trying to stress in gains via PvP. After all not many people are going to mine in several systems when one has everything they need and then some. Also, pitting time against a player for controlling space wouldn't work either. saying that their control over a system is based upon how much they use it is like saying that because the united states hasn't had anyone using part of the west because it is a desert means it is no longer their land. it just doesn't make sense.
hour means that no matter how much an alliance kills people it will only change 1%. that's counter productive especially if you tie it to PvP. what you would be doing is if you wished to gain Sov all you need is a few kills an hour and then can go dock up as not to lose ships to lose the sov you'd gain. it would also mean you would need to kill the equivalent of 10% a day augmented with however much you are able to mine, kill rats to hold onto space. Basically your whole idea creates a system that is more complicated than it needs to be and is so counter intuitive that it kills itself before it can even start. you would more than likely see a mass exodus to high sec and swaths of empty REGIONS because of the sheer effort it would take to even hold space.


"If you tie sov gains and activity to pvp then the most active alliance can theoretically gain control of the entirety of null sec."

Like it already works Laughing

"saying that their control over a system is based upon how much they use it is like saying that because the united states hasn't had anyone using part of the west because it is a desert means it is no longer their land."

Well, lets say someone else WAS using it and defending it. Lets also say the united states didn't have the resources to effectively take that space back. So therefore, since the united states wasn't using that space someone else did and will take the time to defend it if necessary. Makes sense doesn't it?

As for the guy's idea...

"The idea here is Sov is claimed by activity."

I liked that part, but not really the rest.

I like the idea of sov being based upon how effective one is at suppressing the NPC menace in the system. If you want to challenge sov itself you must begin ratting in the owner's space in order to begin challenging his claim. After the challenge begins there would be a time (perhaps a week) in which the two entities can compete with one another over who will own sov. If you don't want to rat then just shoot the enemy when they are ratting or take out their means of staying in the system (most likely their POS). If the owner isn't very interested in keeping his space then all you have to do is challenge his claim (killing some of the rats and declaring the challenge) and kill enough rats to be over his effective activity level over a week.

In addition to taking sov with this there should also be another advantage then simply saying "this system is mine". Lets say if one owns sov then they are the only ones to be collecting bounties on rats in their system.

I don't think stations should be a part of sov, they should be a seperate entity. And no arbitrary days to wait until you can install infrastructure (jump bridge, cyno jammer, etc.) it should be possible immediately after claiming sov.

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.23 10:29:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 23/08/2011 10:38:22
Technically the sov system is sort of ok currently, whats not ok is how you conquer/lose sovereignty. Too much shooting static structures involved.

On the plus side, with the alliance infrastructure being so large and involving many structures, makes conquering it a timeconsuming process and also gives the alliance members a sense of longevity, persistence and feeling of power. However, the problem is that conquering every single system under the alliances sovereignty involves shooting the very same structures all along.

I propose: Make an sov-holding alliance have a central system, home system, the only place where they need to install the big sov structures like ihub. Possibly make them even bigger than they are currently. Beyond that system, the spread and width of the 'empire' would be decided more by player activity, or possibly much smaller structures conquerable by small-size pvp gangs, bit of like in faction warfare I think (although Ive never tried it so I dont know for sure what its like). Meaning that the 'border' of the empire would be in flux much more than it is currently. Also we could utilize what I call the "minesweeper" system layout, mentioned elsewhere in this forum, where a systems sov level would be decided by the number of systems under alliance control that surround it. Ensuring that the 'home system' would be in the heart of the 'empire'.

1

121

12321 and so on.

Some sort of requirement of player activity to uphold the sovereignty would provide a 'soft cap' to the size of some alliance spaces. Also the problem that enhances the size of the current null empires is the fact that sovereignty remains in place unless SOMEONE ELSE does something about it. You dont really need to be very active to uphold it. I think it would be best that the entire sovereignty would be tied to activity like current sov indexes. (would also create a much bigger need for renter alliances allowing more people in null)

I dont know what would be the best type and scale of player activity needed, but that warrants discussion.

Also there would be less financial requirements, or at least I hope so, for small alliances, since you dont need the TCU or ihub in every system. Technically the current sov system does have its good points, but its still about going to Jita to buy SBUs, haul them to the space you intend to invade, anchor them, and THEN there might be pvp when you guard them. Still need a blockade runner for it too. Logistics logistics logistics. It would be better if you didnt have to go to Jita to invade someones space. (You propably dont have to, but I just wanted to show that logistics are involved even in this). The stuff needed in sov should spawn automatically according to player actions imo, except for the big stuff needed for the home system.

In my opinion it would make the null more lively if an alliances space would "shrink" when they are not very active or strong, automatically creating nonclaimed space for some small alliance to claim without actually going through the trouble of 'invading' the larger alliance.

ps. I agree that stations/outposts should be separate from the sovereignty, it should be possible to claim a system without claiming the outpost, and taking it later at your leisure.

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2011.08.23 12:26:00 - [110]
 

Territory could actually be divided into two parts.

Control of the space AND control of the planets and moons.

CCP claim to want to integrate DUST into the world of Eve; well I can't believe you not planned and designed the DUST planet "conquering" to also have some kind of input to Eve Sovereignty.

CCP claim to want to improve industry in null sec, well I can't believe you dont consider a system where Planetary Interaction also has an impact (and if affected by) Sovereignty.

The control of space is the part everyone is talking about, but you should also be talking about control of the planetary and lunar resources and how they input/affect Sov.

Since planets are supposed to be populated by billions in some cases, does it make sense that 1 structure floating above their planet in space changes their allegiance?

Consider that part of territorial conquest. It would serve you well CCP especially for linking Eve with DUST.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.23 13:31:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Individual systems should be supporting enough people that two constellations would be sufficient for what currently passes for a major alliance.

Even a "small" alliance of ~1000 people would be living like fish in a barrel with the average 5 systems per constellation .. 100+ per system .. just sayin' Smile


That's why none of these threads can really stand alone.

The mere concept of smallholding implies much more usable space (and many more people) per system.

Look at it this way: why can certain highsec systems support dozens of active players on-line at a time?

Heck, the major trade hubs rarely have less than a hundred on-line, and many of those are doing things in space because they are also mission hubs (which is how they became trade hubs in the first place).

How do we set up nullsec so that there can be major nullsec trade hubs of similar scale? Because that appears to be the ultimate design goal here.

Thinking in the current sovereignty box and making assumptions about population density based on current figures instead of target figures is definitely not going to move the needle in that direction.

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.23 15:35:00 - [112]
 





I had a few more thoughts...


Let's hit the idea of "The Sandbox" really hard. As well as how economy and the pursuit of wealth fits into getting players to do what you want.


We end up with our players holding sovereignty, they want to make it rich operating a null sec trade hub that is more 'open' than the typical region.


Let's make some assumptions :



  • We've established a system that promotes smaller alliances as well as larger ones.

  • We've established the tools necessary to allow players to feel somewhat safer in 0.0, that a notable portion of those high sec pirates feel the risk vs reward to be worth it.

  • We've created economic advantages and asymmetry between high sec and 0.0



What is needed to make these things successful?


Well, for one, is an 'army' or 'police force'. Some have mentioned hiring Gate Guns, some have mentioned hiring NPCs.


But I know that CCP doesn't want to go that way for many good reasons. What CCP wants is for people to start to do these through player interaction. Hence the "let's make bosoters self-policing".


Now, the first argument is "it's boring".

The second argument is, "It's really ****ing boring."


And I think sitting around waiting for something to happen is about what most people do, but add the idea of "protect and serve" and they get even more grumbly about it.


Now, large 0.0 alliances make tons of cash, but why don't they actively pay for a "police" force, let's say. Well, first is a lack of need. There's no "open" public space, so little need for it.


There's few players who will consider it fun to log in and sit around and have nothing to do but watch other players do it. Price incentives can make this possible, if, let's say, an alliance could afford even 100M an hour per player to run that 'police' force.



These are also challenges that I'm kind of curious to see how the "Booster Police" will handle. How can you convince players to sit around and wait for some dude with a booster in his cargohold to show up?


Well, I imagine those same tools can be taken into 0.0 somehow. Facilitating the ability to run a player run police force, providing content for those players other than just "sitting" there and waiting for something to happen, would be very promising for a 0.0 profession. I think the perception and reality of that police profession are actually very different.


Players are by nature naughty, there would be much 'Law' to be enforced out there. I figure it would be more interesting than a typical 0.0 roam now adays, once you actually have the population volumes in 0.0 to promote these kinds of pro-player enforcement tools - put 10 people in a system and you're going to have someone getting a bit rowdy. :)


----------


QUESTION :


Do you have a goal for the number of people you want a single 0.0 system to POTENTIALLY be able to hold when fully invested?






Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.23 17:01:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
....

Careful with direct comparisons with high-sec, people there have infinite rats in the form of missions whereas null has finite rats in belts/plexes .. tradehubs or lack thereof has more to do with null manufacturing being gimp.
Null population density will never be as high as high-sec for that reason .. suppose it could be done by introducing agents in space for Bacon-Button™ feature, but then we are back at uncontrollable ISK faucets Very Happy
Originally by: Bloodpetal
I had a few more thoughts...

Why bother policing anything when you have 1-48hr timers on everything of value? Just muster forces at the appointed time and everything is rainbow farting unicorns.
The only way to make alliances want to police their space is if you are able to threaten it in a way that doesn't favour bi-weekly CTA's .. which is where all the support for activity metrics playing a part comes in I guess.
Make a lot more high value stuff vulnerable to roams and hit'n'runs or remove/restrict a majority of timers. There is no easy way to do it and no matter what is done a lot of null will cry foul as requiring :effort: is hard to sell when you have spent years pampering the clientèle.

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.23 19:31:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Originally by: Bloodpetal
I had a few more thoughts...

Why bother policing anything when you have 1-48hr timers on everything of value? Just muster forces at the appointed time and everything is rainbow farting unicorns.
The only way to make alliances want to police their space is if you are able to threaten it in a way that doesn't favour bi-weekly CTA's .. which is where all the support for activity metrics playing a part comes in I guess.
Make a lot more high value stuff vulnerable to roams and hit'n'runs or remove/restrict a majority of timers. There is no easy way to do it and no matter what is done a lot of null will cry foul as requiring :effort: is hard to sell when you have spent years pampering the clientèle.




I'd say the big issue is that you have a population to police...


Null Sec is pretty fuggin quiet lately. It's the obvious reason they're working on fixing 0.0 is because its population is not only growing smaller but its activity level is declining heavily. We know the reasons for this, I'm not getting into it.

The "police" force is useless if there's noone doing anything. In the end it needs to be a player driven system, but my main point is taking the tools they are planning for "Booster Police" in High Sec and find a way to make them usable by the players in 0.0.


Making things "illegal" isn't exactly unknown for a government to do to "acquire" assets. Imagine I told my guys that Boosters are "illegal" in our space, they confiscate all those goods as they come through, and I give them to my Capital ship pilots for CTA's, etc.


The "police" idea is less for actual armed invasions, but more for tools to create a security force other than making them go, "well, this is really boring". If you get my meaning. Yes, in the end The Alliance will always summon its "militia" of pilots to defend and attack. And again, you don't call the city police when your neighboring nation is invading, you get your army to take care of it.


It is more about taking tools already in progress and giving them thought for 0.0 as well as high sec, and also creating a profession, a "Security" force and so on. Totally feasible? That's for BFF to figure out.


Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.23 20:21:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
....

Careful with direct comparisons with high-sec, people there have infinite rats in the form of missions whereas null has finite rats in belts/plexes .. tradehubs or lack thereof has more to do with null manufacturing being gimp.
Null population density will never be as high as high-sec for that reason .. suppose it could be done by introducing agents in space for Bacon-Button™ feature, but then we are back at uncontrollable ISK faucets Very Happy


Good points, but to increase the population of nullsec does mean putting things in there for all those people to do.

The fact of the matter is that right now a fully developed system can probably support 20 active players engaged in carebear activities, but only a few of them can be engaged with really high-end activities at a time. Additionally, as soon as the PvP flag waves in-system they all need to dock up, because the PvP is targeted at them and is too close to avoid any other way.

In busy highsec systems you almost always have a full mix of activities going, including PvP.

Obviously the rules of highsec can't work for nullsec, but if more activities are spread out over a larger space in each system then the presence of PvP doesn't necessarily mean "I gotta dock naow!" because the PvP can be far enough away to not be an immediate threat.

Evander Armistice
Posted - 2011.08.23 21:33:00 - [116]
 

Ok, I have an idea. It may not be a good idea but I am dropping it here to maybe provide a kernel which might germinate into something awesome. The idea will revolve around modifying jump mechanics and making force projection tied to sov level via player activity.

As I see it part of the problem of sov holding is tied to capitol force projection. As of now he who hold the most super caps wins and then because no one can hold as much turf as they can liberate rental alliances are installed on the newly scorched earth.

In this instance alliances destroy because they can and because it’s fun to roll in with 60 super carriers (which it is). However, smaller alliances need to NAP or be swallowed. Huge power blocs ensue and Eve becomes a less diverse place. This idea would hopefully limit the size and scope of each individual alliance, encouraging a quality over quantity mind-set.

Another part of the problem is that players often feel that they are just pawns showing up for the next CTA to fight over moon goo. Industrial guys are second class citizens on their best day. In this model player participation will be key.

Here is my idea:

1-make cap ship jump drives only useful for travel and/or limited engagements.
Meaning that the rules for what and how many ships can pass through a cyno is changed. One ship per cyno is my thought but maybe that is too extreme.

Also cap ships have some type of “sensor disorientation” timer after they come out of jumpspace which precludes them from fighting immediately after landing. Timer would increase with ship mass and distance travelled. A carrier making a short jump might get a 20 second timer. A supercarrier jumping to max range might pull a 60 second timer or more. I am not firm on times, this is something that would require intense debate

In a scenario where multiple caps drop into a system via cynos it would be best if a sub cap fleet preceded them and at least provided a “perimeter” for them so they can “orient their sensors” and “prepare to engage”.

In this case Fc’s will have to make a critical determination of when to commit their capitol assets.

2- Force projection is implemented by an alliance asset known as a “wormhole generator”. It will operate similar to a titan bridge except that its range will be variable and availability will depend on certain variables(mainly alliance player participation).

The WH generator will be open into a system that is not jammed, via a cyno beacon, and ships from the home system may enter at will. Additionally, caps will be able to jump to it/through it with no sensor disarray.

A-The Wh will remain open for a preset time in 30 min increments up to 24/hrs. The longer the timer is set for the larger the WH which means the largest ships may pass through. 30 min=small raid 24 hrs =invasion. Longer duration also equals more fuel consumption, I will get to fuel later.

B-WH is probeable. Enemy ships may use it to counter attack. However, enemy caps and super caps will suffer from sensor disarray from jumping blind.

C-range of the WHG is the range of your outermost secure system plus or minus a variable which is based on the total of a new index. The index will be the total output of the alliance across a variety of fields. Total ship kills/losses, mining, ratting, exploration, (PI when dust arrives) etc will all effects that ability of the alliance to project force. The more activity the longer the WHG’s range and more often in a given time period it will come on line.

This also will have the indirect benefit of causing alliances to recruit in a balanced fashion. Members from all walks of Eve life will be needed to make the alliance function optimally. Of course, these members can and should be willing to defend their space.
cont.

Evander Armistice
Posted - 2011.08.23 21:36:00 - [117]
 

cont from above...

In essence, you have to be using your space to the max to get great WHG range. If not you won’t be able to apply instant force to another area. This puts the onus of a successful alliance on the average players.

An inactive but huge alliance will not be able to get out its own way. An active alliance of whatever size will be much more tactically mobile.

Frequency of availability will have to be determined by CCP but I as I see it, inefficient alliances only getting a couple of uses a week whereas as well run active alliance might get at least one maybe two uses/day.

Alliance heads can also choose to use the WHG for logistical purposes, moving resources from one area to another.

Of course titan bridges and normal jump drives will still be available but the ability to hot drop a multitude of capitols with no penalties should be diminished. I leave that up to CCP to implement and fine tune.

4-Fuel: when a sov system reaches the highest industry level every day there will be an increasing chance that a grav belt containing a mineral/ice hybrid will be found. This incredibly powerful new material will need to be harvested to power the WHG.

A-This material emits powerful gravitational and radioactive forces which cause damage to ships nearby; the bigger the ship the more violent the reactions. Only ships with industrial style shields will be spared the worst of the effects (all Ore ships).

B-Material may or may not be perishable after harvest. I see it as mine as needed resource, quite valuable but needs to be used in a short time window. Again this leads to more tactical thinking with respect to the use of the WHG, no stockpiling, no selling on the market. Contracts are a buyer beware instance.

C-Grav site will be probeable. Therefore “resource denial” type raids are entirely feasible. However, given the ill effects of the site on combat ships, hit and run by well organized cruiser-type gangs with logi support would be the most viable tactic. Capitol ships entering the site other than a Rorqual would literally be ripped apart in seconds by the waves.

Evander Armistice
Posted - 2011.08.23 21:38:00 - [118]
 

cont from above

Sovereignty

Sov would be determined by planting a flag (TCU whatever mechanic you want) and then sov would be gained, maintained and advanced via a combination of timers and player activity. The more activity in each system the faster sov is gained. Sov will spread from system to system based on what the players do in surrounding systems. Other than planting the original TCU all sov will be gained in this manner.

This will lead to a slow and steady “sov creep”

There would be three types of sov systems

1-Fallow: systems that see very little use and have no station will be considered fallow. This is the initial sov of any newly gained system other than the alliance’s home system. It would be easy take in terms of sov. A fallow ststem can be upgraded to secure a secure system can be downgraded to fallow through disuse.

2- Secure: a system with high player activity and/or a station would be considered “secure”. These systems would be of average difficulty to flip

3-Home: this is the alliances base system and would have access to special alliances assets such as the WHG. This system would be highly defensible.

In order to gain sov players would have to “use” a system. When a certain point total is gained (which depends on sec level of the system) the system “flips sov”. All types of activity would count towards gaining sov. Hoever, pvp would get the most “points”.

Directors would have weekly update mails with sov totals sent to them. Gains and losses would be represented. Massive gains or losses within a system would also trigger an instant “Congrats! or “Emergency!” type mail depending.

All players would have a sov tab on their character sheets. It would hav three options

1-Never effect sov- this would allow a player to not add to capture or upgrade of a system not in their alliance. This would be useful for a “ninja” type player. It would a player to use a system but fly under the radar so to speak.

2-Only effect Sov of alliance with negative standing.

3-Effect all Sov.

Conflicts in Sovereignty

Sovereignty may eventually expand to a point where one alliances holding butt up against another’s( secure to secure or secure to fallow but not fallow to fallow). If this occurs the constellations which touch will experience something similar to incursion effects eg. Bounties, plex spawns and grav sites diminish.

This condition will encourage the effected alliances to take action.

The obvious answer is to remove the offending system’s sov. However, if two friendly alliances butt up to one another they can form a “treaty”.

A treaty will mitigate but not totally remove the negative effects of living side by side with another alliance. Each alliance will have to pay a fee for each treaty they enter into. The treaty costs increase significantly the more an alliance enters in to.

That is what I have so far. Thank you for reading.


Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.23 22:12:00 - [119]
 

Of course we haven't mentioned the 'nuclear option yet': remove sovereignty in its entirety. This would mean that POS stations and moon mining might need to be reviewed (or we go back to the POS ping pong of old).

One advantage would be that anything and everything in Null could, potentially, be destroyed (even stations). Its possible that such a free form approach would generate 'influence by reputation' (as per the old influence map).

Quite how DUST conquests would tie in here is harder to perceive but it might be worth consideration over complex sov mechanics?

C.

Cregg Neir
Posted - 2011.08.23 23:06:00 - [120]
 

Claiming space is incredibly time consuming, and holding it even more so. It's all well and good to say that there should never be a feeling of safety, but this choice alone will always keep the bulk of players in high sec rather than in null sec. There is a huge population of potential players who do not want constant combat.

When my corp lived in Tenerifis and in Great Wildlands, the game began to have a strong negative impact on my life. I had to spend far too much time worrying about my assets in space, maintaining them, protecting them, and moving them when they were endangered. The game may be about conflict, but being on the losing end of conflict is not very much fun. And when you are a small, young player in Eve, or young corp, you are going to spend a long time being beaten up.

This is probably the toughest issue, in my mind. Does EVE have to be a niche game that is best played by those who can spend most of the day online playing it? Does the EVE market have to rely on destruction to drive it? Of course destruction should be a large factor, but is it always to be the only driver?

Many of us in the game are gentle people who do not want to take things from other players, who do not want to be the big corp who takes everything away from the small corp. Does that mean that, in the long wrong, we are playing the wrong game?


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