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

Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Fusion Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.04 04:29:00 - [151]

Originally by: Max Devious
You know, I've only been playing this game for about 3 months, but like most of you, I've been playing strategy games for a long time. I've read a lot of what is here in several of the topics under review, and there are various, many times complex solutions to all of them. I think there is a simple solution to many of these issues; change the architecture of space in EVE.

The EVE universe as it exists today is basically a flat disk. This makes it very easy for the existing alliances and pirates in Low Sec to control the choke points into Empire space. Why not extend the EVE universe into a spherical shape. Obviously this means many more star systems and gates, and it is much harder to control 3D space where there are many entries. This would necessarily limit the size of sovereign blocks, because you have to be able to control all that space, and this would smear out the concentrations of power in choke points and make it harder to control.

Likely there would be some areas of space that are permanently unclaimed, at least until the player base expanded enough to exercise control over all of it. This would give small holdings a place to explore and stake claims. There would be room for new players to get out of Empire without having to submit to one power block or another. Rents would go away because why rent from these alliances when you can just go find some free space and mine/rat/POS there. This also spreads out the money and lets people get more into PvP without having to worry so much about the cost of replacing ships. More PvP would make a lot of players really happy. Going on roams could be a real adventure out over hundreds of systems.

Changes that would have to go with this are controls over botting, because the space could be filled with bots very quickly. We also might need to come up with expansions of the various NPC groups into this space. Sovereignty might require that the space under control be worked by the holders or revert to free space in a period of time, with the resulting loss of POSs and stores in the system, so that the alliances don't just dump POSs everywhere to claim the space.

There could be many approaches to implementing this new space, and lots of them have been discussed in other of these threads. I don't know what the price of such an expansion of space is in terms of hardware, but it seems the initial cost in coding is minimal, though I don't know what coordinate system is being used in defining systems. Given that a lot of this space might be empty or lightly used, the cost in server expansion might be minimal as well. Perhaps some of the CCP folks here can address that question. But I truly believe that if you want to grow this player base, and your business, an expansion of space is really needed to give the freedom that true space exploration and colonization would have in fact.

Ya know I have often thought the same thing. Too many choke points - needs to be more 3d - more ways to get into systems and bigger. A lot of people have mentioned more space and way far out being harder where as wormholes are your only way to get there.

OF course this begs the question where as the far out ones are barely occupied and it takes a long time to fill out those spots, wouldn't you need some hi-sec "islands" in between. It would be really interesting to make it to where SOV holders could choose one of two paths. Make your 0.0 system HI-SEC or keep it low sec. Each with benefits and draw-backs.

The hi-sec path makes your Outpost a trade hub and stop off point for thousands daily where you collect taxes ...but the catch would be you lose your good (o.o) true sec sites.
The 0.0 true 0.0 path would keep the same mechanics as now.

Just an idea. : )

Bayushi Aramoro
Red Horizon Inc
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.09.04 15:55:00 - [152]

Well I know there is alot of changes coming to the eve universe,
some I am sure I will like and some not so sure I will like.

I would like to offer a suggestion on conquest and player stations. Why don't you add simply mechanics that would allow for stations to be defendable.

Say you start a 0.0 conquest of a region. The first station you try and conquer has a station smart bomb , this makes using supers out of the question.

The second station you try to conquer has a titan ecm "that jams all titans" attached to it , this makes using titans pointless.

The third might have a dread nuet attached to it.

Once 51% of the region has been conquered you can choose a home system that effects all cap ships in the system. So no party may use them in any offensive manner. Would change the whole design of combating over a region

This would give an advantage to a defending party. The offending party has the advantage of timing. Cause lets face it , its easier to offend than it is to defend in the current state of eve.

EI Digin
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.09.04 19:23:00 - [153]

When we start to talk about sovereignty mechanics, and the mechanics involved to tip the scales, everything becomes so much more complicated because there are just so many factors involved and everything has to be fair. I believe the current system works, it's just that it needs to be tweaked a little to make it easier for everyone, not just those with a large amount of supercaps, to play.

To start off, I think that at the very least, EHP on sovereignty structures needs to be nerfed. EHP does nothing but add to the tediousness of attacking a system, and forces an attacker to either camp the system with stealth bombers for hours while they shoot a structure, or to use supercaps and titans. Possibly reducing the amount of timers required to take a system could also be an idea, showing up 4 times to take an undefended system with an ihub and a station is a little bit much, and sovereignty ping-pong is good as it signifies contested territory. It also makes it easier for a smaller group to catch a larger one with its pants down, if your pvp core is deployed elsewhere you might see some of the edges of your empire be taken from you.

The massive amounts of EHP on structures is the current show-stopper in large warfare, you can win battles who seriously wants to go through all of that grinding? It also makes situations where a larger alliance has totally failcascaded but puts up terrible timezone timers just to anger the attacking entity. This shouldn't happen, if you lose and give up it shouldn't take weeks or months to take things.

When we are talking about having to shoot people and not structures, you have to understand that simply planting your flag isn't going to stop an entity from trying to take it back. You can't go around shooting the structures and reasonably expect the other side to collapse, you need to fight them head on and win constantly in order to demoralize them and cause a cascade.

Vulnerabilities already exist, either you have a weak sub/supercap fleet, or you're weaker in x timezone, or your fc's don't quite know how to deal with bombing fleets yet, or you take too long to form up in a critical situation, or your fleets are prone to having stragglers who can easily get picked off, or a corp/alliance in the group doesn't like the others. These are just some of the many vulnerabilities that can lead to an alliance's eventual downfall.

Emergent terrain comes from no group being totally isolated, there are two borders on every large coalition's edges currently, hopefully with changes there will be more. If a smaller alliance finds you weak, or a larger alliance thinks you're not a good enough meatshield, you can get attacked. Or if you take too much space another group might find you overextended.

Grunts are very important in the current system, because numbers are the most important part of current fleet warfare. If your grunts keep getting smacked around they will be demoralized and not show up. I believe if you make fleet fights, which are necessary for a large alliance's survival, more diverse, you will see grunts becoming much more important and make it easier for more skilled grunts to stand out of the crowd.

Currently, if you want to invest in your space you can use POS mods like cyno jammers/generators or you can drop a station, which makes a system easier to defend with more timers, or put up an ihub and put some mods in, making it easier for more people to live in a system.

Space currently doesn't have many dimensions of value, you can either get the lowest true-sec space, or space with rich moons, or you can't live in nullsec profitably. It needs to be more viable for higher true-sec space to be lived in and farmed. This will also give a rise in the amount of smaller entities, because a larger entity will want to get the most isk by farming the most profitable space.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel, things just need to be looked at and fixed accordingly.

EI Digin
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.09.04 20:14:00 - [154]

If you improve the ability for a large alliance to live in a specific constellation of space because it can earn you more isk than if you spread out over a large space, it allows you to have a de-facto capital area. It also leaves the space you don't use as much vulnerable because other smaller entities will want the scraps you leave behind. I believe that more than one outpost per system could help promote this too. But to do all this you need to make it easier for the average 0.0 player to make isk. The risk/reward factor is all out of whack in 0.0 and it needs to be looked at.

Destructible outposts would help to reinforce the fact that if you do not defend your space adequately, you will lose your things. There is also a huge emotional factor in having your capital station, and all the things inside, be destroyed. It also allows an attacker to have a scorched-earth policy if they don't want to take the space, but rather aggravate another entity.

The ability to disable or destroy IHUB upgrades or station services or to steal moon goo from miners not only gives a small roaming group a goal to achieve, but forces a group to actively defend its space from raiders.

I believe that constellation-wide upgrades just make it easier for a large entity to defend a large amount of space, or to promote living spread out in larger areas of space, which shouldn't necessarily be possible. It needs to be easier to contest sov, not harder.

I believe that some things like throwing down a station, maybe even steep discounts on sov bills or fuel discounts, should be tied more to sov levels. Not very many things require sov levels at the moment and it seems like a wasted mechanic only put in place to lengthen the amount of time it takes to put up jump bridges. I think that you shouldn't necessarily make things harder to put in with sov levels, but to make it easier for entities who have settled down to live there, making them have more of an emotional and monetary attachment to their space, giving a slight advantage to the defenders, and people who settle down rather than go around ransacking everyone's space.

When you are putting everything on the line, and you usually are in SOV warfare, its silly to disable an entities' large advantage, whether its the blob of supers they put up or if they have a subcap advantage. There shouldn't be arbitrary things to screw over anything, supers and titans just need to be nerfed so that it's harder for them to shoot subcaps, and EHP should be nerfed so that they aren't required unless they need them to fight.

Supercaps dominating sov warfare is just a symptom of the problem, the issue is that they are imbalanced and that is a topic for another thread. Let's work on getting to the actual issues.

Reducing EHP and the amount of timers allows for smaller task forces to go out and reinforce things to promote smaller fights and escalation, if for example a large entity is putting all of its eggs into one basket and hellcamping one system. This also makes sovereignty more fluid, if you're only defending a single system you are going to rightfully lose the rest of the systems you have, and if you succeed in your camp have to start from scratch and fight (or quickly go through) for the space you've lost.

We don't need any more space, NPC or SOV, a ton of space is already empty, it just needs to be filled.

There shouldn't be NPC guns on gates or stations/roaming friendly NPC wolfpacks because EVE is supposed to be run by the players. If you want to defend your space, do it yourself.

Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.09.05 04:16:00 - [155]

I just had an idea...

1) Leave sov mechanics as they are.

2) Make the cost of sov grow exponentially. That is, keep the cost of a system pretty low for a corp or alliance that holds just 1 system. If they want two systems, instead of the cost being the same, it doubles. For both systems.

EG, owning 1 system would cost 10m a month. Owning two would cost 40m a month. for 3: 90m a month, 4 = 160m a month.

The bill for each system increases the total cost exponentially.

Pretty soon people will look at ways to maximise the space they have Vs what they can get away with.

Keep sov mechanics as they are, a large attacker will just have to budget for that much more space. For the defender, the bill drops, alot, so they may be able to afford to get another system nearby.

This may encourage large NAPs, but maybe it won't?

Hakkon Jita
Posted - 2011.09.06 09:21:00 - [156]

Edited by: Hakkon Jita on 06/09/2011 09:22:59
I would like to see Sov. like a castle. you got border control, border defence , perimeter defence , caste defence , Keep defence. You can already upgrade the system. if you could add warp-jammers to a system and the number of jammers is defined by the system level, the system level can't be higher then the number of jumps to nearest non-controlled system. and warp-jammers would stop non blue from entering the system. This would make your "empire" safer longer in and promote smallscale small ship to do further in raids in to enemy ground. while the bigger ship pounds the first line.

L1 warp-jammers doesn't allow Battleships to enter the system
L2 warp-jammers doesn't allow BattleCruisers to enter the system
L3 warp-jammers doesn't allow Cruisers to enter the system
L4 warp-jammers doesn't allow Destroyers to enter the system
L5 warp-jammers doesn't allow any movement throug the gate unless its a cov-op ship with a specific module.

example ZA9-PY (2011-09-06) have another alliance 3 jumps out. raising this system to a L3 and adding a L3 warp-jammer would make this system pretty safe for the alliance. only stealth ships and lightning raids with Frigs and Destroyers can attack it until 1-SMEB have fallen.

The cost for adding warp-jammers should be on a exponential scale.

and the warp-jammers should be automaticly downgraded if a outer system falls to another alliance.

Augustina Maxima
Posted - 2011.09.07 05:09:00 - [157]

There is one major problem with all the changes people keep proposing and that is no matter how you change the Sov System of EVE-Online the side with superior numbers and equipment will always be the winning side in sov-wars. As of right now an 500 man alliance does not stand a change against a 2000 man juggernaut. And thats a shame it you should be able to hold/gain sov not with just numerical superiority but with tactical superiority. Right now there is absolutly no need for tactics in sov-warfear. Which makes it incredibly boring and I'm not even talking about structure shooting here because that is just a tidious task not so much as boring in eve today because even 500 man alliance are now likly to have atleast 10 supercarriers. And then there is it reinforce timer problem. If you life in EU timezone and you want to take sov from an US based alliance well thats kind of impossible if your alliance doesnt have tons of unemployed people and or students. Because normal working people are neither willing nor able to get up in the middle of the night 3 times in a week just to take one system.

In short the sov system should be dynamic so that sov war will unfold dynamic as well as each system each constellation each alliance you fight against will be different.
You should be able to setup sov the way it best fits you as the space holder. Each way to set it up with advantages and disadvantages.
You know these cubes where you try to get the same colour on one side and you can rotate all axes thats what the sov-system of eve should be like. (I belive they are called "Zauberwürfel" in german so it should be magic cube in english) You have 6 flavors each of these divided up in another 6 and then you start mixing:)
What I liked about the dominion changes was the possibility to upgrade your system but sadly in my opinion there is way to few options here and for each region/constellation/system its always the same which makes it ******ed.

Rook Sanderas
Posted - 2011.09.08 16:59:00 - [158]

This is a draft of suggested changes to improve EVE, after reading CCP’s road map for the future of the game, from NEGATIVE TEN. It centres mostly on:
- how to make null sec and low sec more appealing to players
- how to encourage player investment in areas
- making people feel that they have achieved something when they go on a roam even if no one comes out to fight
- improving the odds that someone will come out to fight
- how to add more variety to EVE PVP


Histories of New Eden - YC113 - “There was a vast migration of colonists from the heavily fortified Empire regions of space into so called lawless areas after waves of Sansha attacks. Some colonists sought better protection for their families and business enterprises in these areas…”

What if EVE didn’t just have rats to kill, but had NPC miners and transport ships to protect? Imagine a cry in local as an NPC miner broadcasts that he has been scrambled in a belt by an NPC rat – or maybe even by a hostile player? Imagine if a corporation that controlled sovereignty in an area could gain benefits from these NPC colonists? Maybe if they were well protected, they might even form militia to help defend the area?

The options are pretty open but it could change the game in a variety of beneficial ways. Introducing NPC colonists could:

- create PVP opportunities where small scale roams ALWAYS have a target (whether player or NPC, your roam will have an impact on your enemies)
- encourage more small scale roams as groups split up to try and efficiently attack more areas; therefore more squad leadership opportunities
- provide a low but steady source of passive income to players or corporations in 0.0
- encourage and even reward corporations that can defend their areas
- reduce ‘grind’

There could be transport ships that move either within a system (e.g., back and forth to Customs offices), or between systems (giving gate campers something to shoot on a slow night, or something to protect). The transport ships could even supply small quantities of resources that the corporation is low on (thus smaller groups can be more self-sufficient without needing a large scale alliance to keep an area stocked on essential minerals and other supplies) to the local market or the corporation. Corporation members could run missions based in the station that foster colonization - most current missions already focus on making the area safer or on uncovering and developing resources – or perhaps just ratting and running plexes and mining in the area encourages the appearance of more colonists.

Even on the slowest night, when not a single enemy will come out to play, a group could achieve results – possibly earning some isk as they hamper colonists in enemy areas, hurting their economic well being. Alliances might try to attract corporations that could defend their area in each timezone, as small scale attacks become as potentially damaging as mega blobs.

The foundation of ‘The Colonies’ idea is that areas should have some sort of ‘crop’ that can be grown and taken by others if not protected. It has to be difficult enough to take to discourage solo cloaked ships being able to achieve anything quickly, but not so difficult as to encourage groups larger than 3 to 10 from being necessary to achieve results. Think of this as the anti- POS – no blobs required, but passive isk or materials are being gained by individuals or the corporation. BUT you do need to protect it, or you don’t deserve it. Basically give these NPCs tank enough that someone can come save them if they care too, but not so much that it becomes grinding (maybe Drake like tank?).

Part 1

Rook Sanderas
Posted - 2011.09.08 17:04:00 - [159]

Part 2 of 2

A different ‘crop’ idea, would be to have rats spawn and chain differently. Have rats continue to come in larger and larger spawns if you don’t kill the ‘trigger’ rat (a destroyer class ship?). By the same token, raiders can come and kill these rats and restart the spawns (basically burn the crops) causing some economic hardship, but limited in relation to the effort taken to achieve this.

"With the increasing colonization of what was once considered lawless hostile space, new technologies have been discovered that can broadcast to friendly pilot computers, linking into the navigation, electronics or targeting systems of all ships within the system - increasing performance ever so slightly..."

High level missions might lead to more benefits too. For example, a ‘flag’ that could be planted in system, or the building blocks of some other local monument that can provide limited benefits similar to a low grade implant. It would also be something that hostiles might try to capture or destroy. If such an item could be held on the other side of an acceleration gate, in a mission like area with terrain, and possible ship restrictions, it would again encourage fleets to split up to achieve different tasks. A smaller group of frigates might speed toward the flag objective, through an acceleration gate that only allows frigate class ships, dodging asteroids and pieces of wrecked battleships from some long forgotten battle to try and get to the centre of the debris and capture the flag. Meanwhile the main fleet fights on the station, and raiders hit the NPCs in the belts and at the customs offices.

Low sec could have extensions of these ideas, with NPC spawns that make life for pirate wannabes – or for slow nights – more interesting. Low sec or 0.0 could also be home to some PVP arenas with gates that allow fleets to enter that hold a certain number of points (similar to alliance tournament point structure), or that give isk or some other rewards to people who can hold the ‘hill’ or plant a flag there. Though I think this idea needs more fleshing out or it could be a different kind of grind.

Could definitely use some love too. As said above, there could be transport ships jumping through gates, or other colonists trying to make a go of life in low sec. These could provide decent isk rewards but hurt ones security status. There could also be better chaining of rats to provide high quality (but no officer) rats, thus making it more tempting for people to risk low sec for the perceived rewards to be found in the belts.

Just some initial thoughts...

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

These forums are archived and read-only