open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals: How to fix nullsec in every way - Permanently.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 21:05:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse

OK, so you are saying there was no connection there,



Yes

Originally by: Newt Rondanse

and it is purely a coincidence that no other major alliance has been interested enough in the benefits of NRDS to take the risks.



No, major alliances don't subscribe to NRDS because its a ******ed way to play Eve. It is simply safer to shoot everyone one sight.

Originally by: Newt Rondanse

I think they could only support their NRDS policy as long as they flew under the radar of their NBSI neighbors for the most part. The difficulty of maintaining the NRDS policy put them in a weaker position strategically and they lacked the tactical competence to overcome that disadvantage.



No, they would have been removed from Providence whether they were NRDS, or NBSI. It had no bearing on their defeat whatsoever. How can you possibly not understand this.

Originally by: Newt Rondanse

In short, as soon as they ticked off somebody better at playing by the optimal nullsec rules they got squashed.



No... as soon as they decided to try to take some space from a distracted, larger neighbour, they got squashed.

Originally by: Newt Rondanse

The fact that there is an optimal way to play the nullsec game, and that everybody is currently playing towards that optimal approach, is one of the things that needs to change.



NBSI, or NRDS, is a player choice. I would prefer if the players are left to their own devices to discover the optimal pvp tactics and policies... oh wait, that's how it is now.

Sephiroth CloneIIV
Rim Worlds Republic
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.08.25 21:18:00 - [32]
 

I agree with the idea that nullsec should be able to support more. Though keep the best stuff uncommon or finite in supply (complexes), to have a reason to search for things beyond one or two systems.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.26 00:11:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 26/08/2011 00:29:18
Added new post on page 1.

It should clarify things a little (and explain how current sov holders could be handled during the upgrade). It may also address some concerns some people have had.


Will DestroyYou
Posted - 2011.08.28 22:22:00 - [34]
 

I like the idea of trade hubs out in 0.0.

Thorian Baalnorn
Posted - 2011.08.29 00:31:00 - [35]
 

OP: First i commend you on your attempt. But the Goon is partially right. Though his mentality is what causes part of the current problem. " My blob is bigger than your blob, therefore i should always win". Fact is Goons have always been blobbers. Unfortunately, blob warfare makes the game uninteresting. Pvp in which one side has overwhelming numbers most if not all the time is neither creative nor fun.

Your suggestions, while some are good, would not work out at all. First if you take an average size 0.0 alliance your looking at anywhere from 75 - 300 plus people online a time. You would spend two hours trying to find somewhere to rat or mine if they were in all one system. On top of this all systems would have to be constantly reinforced, node wise, because people would move in blobs and have blobs on gates. Then you have the owner of the home system has all their eggs in one basket..... including their entire cap and SC fleet. Taking a system would be near impossible and if you managed to take one with overwhelming numbers then the people in that system, who had all their eggs in one basket, lose everything, get mad and emoquit.

Systems need to be more upgradable and all systems should be upgradable so their are no crap systems. All 0.0 is dangerous and all should have decent systems.

* First thing you need to is rework the map so no 0.0 is more than 20 jumps from empire. What this causes when systems are far away from empire is for alliances to secure the space from lowsec all the way out the end of the map in that area either though conquering or through napfesting.

*Second NPC regions should be directly accessible from lowsec( a few are not) roughly 25% of each NPC region should be available to claim. A constellation here with another over here and 1-2 NPC constellations dividing them.

*Three, an ideal size is 1 system for every 50-200 members of an alliance. A region should be be able support 4000 to 8000 people.

* Systems near 0.0 should require much more investment to upgrade. Systems far from empire should require less investment. You should pay for the convience of owning a system close to empire and you should get a break on systems that require more logistics headaches.

* All systems should be upgradable to the same level. You should be able to make any system in 0.0 as desireable as any other systems in 0.0 if you spend enough on upgrades.

*Systems should be able to be upgraded to be heavily defended. You should be able to place defense weapons around any structure( their would have to be a limit) including station and gate guns. More than one station should be allowed in a system( max of 3 lets say)

The whole system is more complicated than that. You have to make so big alliances dont want to napfest or hold a lot of empty space rent out to renters and you have to make it so people want to take space at least sometimes and not just carebear constantly.

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.08.29 00:46:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn

* All systems should be upgradable to the same level. You should be able to make any system in 0.0 as desireable as any other systems in 0.0 if you spend enough on upgrades.



Serioulsy, are you new?

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231

Average Joe already got fugged out of that.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.29 01:03:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 29/08/2011 01:14:54
Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn
Lots of good points.

^^ (some may have not completely understood the proposal - it is rather long and somewhat complicated the way I tried to explain it)

Blob Warfare: Yes blob warfare sucks. But alliances with enough players in them should still have an advantage. The goons are correct in this. This idea would at least split them up on most occasions on to different targets. Only in the final stages of the fight for a system would a full blob be in one place in the system (outpost and sov unit attacks on the final day(s)) - for this the nodes can be automaticly reinforced (eg: when system goes from higher, down to < upgrade level 10).


Support Large Alliances: For the issue with numbers of people in the system, 100 upgrades is 100 new objects in space under this system. Each object attracts rat spawns, meaning min of 100 players can be carebearing at any time at one of them (in a -1.0 sys). More if some upgrades are for anoms and scan sites (those would open multiple sites per upgrade), and more again with the new agents in outposts (unlimited). This idea could literally support an unlimited number of players in a single system.


All Eggs In One Basket: Smart alliances will keep most assets in a trade hub station. These will be very hard to remove and take much longer giving people time to evac. Also attacking them most of the time is not in anyone's interest (they serve everyone in the area equally). Also keep in mind the idea is 3 systems, not just 1 (the second 2 get capstone upgrades ealier due to lower max upgrades).

A big part of the trade upgrade capstone is it would literally make nullsec like highsec - concord patrols, special war-dec required to attack it. These new war-decs would probably have a 1 week delay or similar before beginning (and anyone with a link to the hub would be notified). These trade hubs would be extremely safe - to encorage trade and putting assets in the station they need to be (trade in 0.0 will never work any other way).


Low-Sec: I'm trying not to go into this in this topic. It needs work, thats all I will say. At least the 0.0 trade hubs under this system would also serve them (most will be in crappy nullsec closer to empire due to their gate link hub). Maybe later some of the ideas here could extend to low-sec; some sort of mini-sov or shared-sov system.


All Systems Upgradeable The Same: Although they can not be upgraded as far, under this system a crappy -0.1 sys gets its capstone after only 10 upgrades. Capstone upgrades are a huge buff, and getting one early (specially for smaller alliances) is a big boost. In the end I see these mainly being trade and industry areas, but with agents or anoms/sites they also would be good home systems for small alliances just starting out in null.


Defence On Any Structure: That was a big part of this idea from the start. Much of the idea is built around exactly this. Security upgrade would be nearly all guns, merc npcs, area-wide cyno gammers, etc - all specificly system defensive upgrades (unlike the current ones named "security" which are really just ratting upgrades).


Napfests: Yeah they sorta suck, but they will allways be a part of EVE. This system will not change much there - nothing will, it's human nature.


Thanks for your thoughtful posts and ideas. Keep them coming.

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.29 01:41:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: PewPewYou
A big part of the trade upgrade capstone is it would literally make nullsec like highsec - concord patrols, special war-dec required to attack it. These new war-decs would probably have a 1 week delay or similar before beginning (and anyone with a link to the hub would be notified). These trade hubs would be extremely safe - to encorage trade and putting assets in the station they need to be (trade in 0.0 will never work any other way).



Can you please explain why you think this is needed, and why you think nullsec dwellers actually want it? Giving your enemies a base to stage out of literally right next door to your only three systems would be a pretty terrible idea.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.29 02:34:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 29/08/2011 02:35:09
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: PewPewYou
A big part of the trade upgrade capstone is it would literally make nullsec like highsec - concord patrols, special war-dec required to attack it. These new war-decs would probably have a 1 week delay or similar before beginning (and anyone with a link to the hub would be notified). These trade hubs would be extremely safe - to encorage trade and putting assets in the station they need to be (trade in 0.0 will never work any other way).



Can you please explain why you think this is needed, and why you think nullsec dwellers actually want it? Giving your enemies a base to stage out of literally right next door to your only three systems would be a pretty terrible idea.


Actually makes it easier to defend, assuming they decide to come from there.

We will adapt.

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.29 03:02:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: PewPewYou
Edited by: PewPewYou on 29/08/2011 02:35:09
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: PewPewYou
A big part of the trade upgrade capstone is it would literally make nullsec like highsec - concord patrols, special war-dec required to attack it. These new war-decs would probably have a 1 week delay or similar before beginning (and anyone with a link to the hub would be notified). These trade hubs would be extremely safe - to encorage trade and putting assets in the station they need to be (trade in 0.0 will never work any other way).



Can you please explain why you think this is needed, and why you think nullsec dwellers actually want it? Giving your enemies a base to stage out of literally right next door to your only three systems would be a pretty terrible idea.


Actually makes it easier to defend, assuming they decide to come from there.

We will adapt.



How does giving them a staging system one jump away make defending easier? And WHY are we supposed to want this? Why are we supposed to want any of this?

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.29 05:46:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 29/08/2011 05:48:33
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: PewPewYou
Edited by: PewPewYou on 29/08/2011 02:35:09
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: PewPewYou
A big part of the trade upgrade capstone is it would literally make nullsec like highsec - concord patrols, special war-dec required to attack it. These new war-decs would probably have a 1 week delay or similar before beginning (and anyone with a link to the hub would be notified). These trade hubs would be extremely safe - to encorage trade and putting assets in the station they need to be (trade in 0.0 will never work any other way).



Can you please explain why you think this is needed, and why you think nullsec dwellers actually want it? Giving your enemies a base to stage out of literally right next door to your only three systems would be a pretty terrible idea.


Actually makes it easier to defend, assuming they decide to come from there.

We will adapt.



How does giving them a staging system one jump away make defending easier? And WHY are we supposed to want this? Why are we supposed to want any of this?


Because you know which gate they are going to use. Very Happy

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.29 10:27:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Danika Princip on 29/08/2011 10:29:52
Originally by: PewPewYou
Edited by: PewPewYou on 29/08/2011 05:48:33
Originally by: Danika Princip

How does giving them a staging system one jump away make defending easier? And WHY are we supposed to want this? Why are we supposed to want any of this?


Because you know which gate they are going to use. Very Happy



Which you know anyway if you have ever heard of this thing called a 'scout', or a 'spy', or common sense.

I'll ask again. Why do we want highsec in our 0.0? Why exactly do we want to get concorded in what used to be deep nullsec? Why do we want to not be able to cyno our capitals to whatever part of null we want, limited only by range? What about people who want to rat/mine/whatever in a quiet system no reds will go to? If every alliance has three systems and three systems only, then every system will be camped. (Every gate into every system will be camped to, so small gangs will be dead.)

Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2011.08.29 10:47:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Gemberslaafje on 29/08/2011 10:59:16
I am somewhat intrigued (bare with me here) by the 'highsec in nullsec' idea.

HOWEVER

Not at all how it's said in this idea.

But just imagine you as an alliance builds a strong relationship with any of the NPC Corporations, Pirates or whatever.

Wouldn't it be interesting if these relations start influencing the space the alliance holds?

Now, I'm not EVER for Concord in 0.0. Let that be absolutely, bountifully clear. 0.0 should stay, mostly, what it is now.

However, what if, if for example the alliance has a good relation with the Amarr Navy, Amarr Navy people start migrating to that system? They should be destroyable, they should be in need of defence, they should not ever UPSET the balance in 0.0 - but they should be there.

- Gate rats could occasionally be swapped by (similar power) Gate NPC's of which ever corporation has the good standings. Killing those rats would also decrease standings with the corporation, but not incur CONCORD penalties (It's still 0.0)
- Perhaps mission NPC's could move to the system. obviously this should be carefully balanced, but we still have the standard 0.0 anti-ISK measures to make sure this is less obviously abused.
- If the corporation is a pirate corporation, rats should become friendly to the alliance. They should still be targetable, but white-cross instead of red-cross.
- They should add a bit of force to the entity which has the system. Maybe by warping in a few cruisers if someone gets shot by a neutral or something. Again, it shouldn't destroy the balance, but it might be enough to help a carebear out of a sticky situation once or twice.

EDIT:
- Once they included incursions for more corporations (or figured out a way to procedurally generate them regardless of corp) you could perhaps entice your favored corp to do an incursion in a specific region or against a specific alliance.. Of course, there should be balancing factors (thinking not just price, but also max incursions per corp, a cooldown period etc) and it shouldn't be pinpointable (It's silly to keep a home system under constant incursion) but I think it could be interesting.

ThisIsntMyMain
Posted - 2011.08.29 15:48:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: ThisIsntMyMain on 29/08/2011 15:51:22
FFS Can nobody see the obvious major flaws in this ...

1. One system supports an entire alliance income
2. Taking another system requires the same fire power as the current game balance.
3. Moving your blob from one system to the next is even easier than jumping halfway across the map.
4. Cant upgrade more systems with this alliance - simple, make another dummy one.

results ...

Major alliances have more than one system. Alliances get even richer. Even more ISK washes around the game. Everybody has titans. The balance of power doesn't change.

You're shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Thorian Baalnorn
Posted - 2011.08.29 16:21:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Amber Villaneous
Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn

* All systems should be upgradable to the same level. You should be able to make any system in 0.0 as desireable as any other systems in 0.0 if you spend enough on upgrades.



Serioulsy, are you new?

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231

Average Joe already got fugged out of that.


and then i said...

Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn
The whole system is more complicated than that. You have to make so big alliances dont want to napfest or hold a lot of empty space rent out to renters and you have to make it so people want to take space at least sometimes and not just carebear constantly.


The goal is the reason to napfest is nearly nonexistent. And the reason to expand your empire is because you need more space because of your growing alliance size not because your greedy and want to make billions off moon goo and renters every month.

Originally by: PewPewYou
Blob Warfare:
Blobbing should not be able to win with just sheer numbers.Their needs to be a way to balance out blobs out so you get diminishing returns by blobing. Warfare should be about strategy and tactics not who has the most nooblets to stick in a ship or who has the most SCrarrier pilots. Granted larger alliances should get a numbers advantage, but the way things are numbers always ensure victory to the guy who has the most BFFs.

Originally by: PewPewYou
Support Large Alliances:
But two problems with this. 1) If rats are at every object in space( remember the game has to keep track of all the rats in that system at least the ones that are currently able to be viewed by a player) and you have 50 people ratting the system, then i have to spend my time warping around finding some rats to kill. The chances of me running into someone ratting several times in a row are quite high. 2) To many players in a system make in laggy. 0.0 alliances have a base system. This is usually a staging area and where most players station spin. However if you allow these systems to support more people and limit the systems to a very few because a system can support more. Then you have laggy systems that are impossible to travel through. Which makes all the more than one JF and Carrier jump from lowsec useless. It also makes logistics for systems not close to empire a nightmare for corps/alliances that dont have a good JF/Carrier.

Originally by: PewPewYou
All Eggs In One Basket
Wont work. Your adding a lot of lag to the system. and making every system impossible to travel through unless your friends or the owner. But it is also necessary to travel through space controlled by others right now or a good portion of null would be completely out of the question for you. You would have to remove the mechanic that requires you move through null gate by gate to make this even doable. Say like a jump bridge you can jump to and from from empire. OR supergates that jump to NPC space surrounded by sov null or move all the systems alot closer to empire or something. Otherwise your still going to have napfest( so people can still access space away from empire) or just control a large amount of space.

Originally by: PewPewYou
All Systems Upgradeable The Same:
Actually your making them less desirable than they are now and the already good ones more desireable ( can have 100 upgrades on a good system i think you said). So you have crappy 0.0 that can be upgraded 10 times to be meh 0.0 (say -0.1 to -0.25) then you have good systems that are -1.0 and can be upgraded to say -2.0, using true sec to compare value. All you did was make the good systems even more valuable and crappy ones even moreso by comparsion

All systems need to be able to reach the same level or near the same level.Some should just require a larger investment than others. Even making the crap systems only upgrade to 50% of the best max system would be ok.

Thorian Baalnorn
Posted - 2011.08.29 16:33:00 - [46]
 

Quote:
Napfests: Yeah they sorta suck, but they will allways be a part of EVE. This system will not change much there - nothing will, it's human nature.


Napfest ultimately ruin a mmo. It becomes about numbers and then you end up with 2 sides constantly beating other as people get tired of blob warfare and quit until the subscriptions can no longer support the game and it gets shutdown. Ive played many games until shutdown or near shutdown and its always due to blob vs blob and one blob managing to take most of the territory.


You need to get rid of the reason to napfest not just ignore them. Napfest are a problem and changes should address them not continue to ignore them. Their are ways to reduce why to napfest. It is something that requires a lot of work and a balancing act while at the same time not making it so 10 people can take over a region.



I think one of the biggest problems is, i have been playing this game about 4 years and in that 4 years the peak number of active users online has went from a max of 28k to as high as 62k. Users online only account for a small portion of active accounts.

In this same time sov 0.0 nor empire has been expanded. The only thing that been added is WH space which helped some because thankfully some corps love it in that 0.0. But for most its not interesting.

We need more systems. This game started out feeling kind of spacey when i started playing but still a bit crowded in empire now it went from spacey to ghetto in 0.0.

I would say about 500 hi sec , 250 lowsec, and another 1000 0.0 systems and 500 more WH systems would thin us out a bit.

Overs
Posted - 2011.08.29 21:00:00 - [47]
 

PewPewYou, instead of making fun of you, here are a few points or arguments against some of your ideas.

* Make systems much more upgradeable: I think the current sov system is junk; "fixing" it won't make it better.

* Re-do moon distributions: Re-distributing moon goo would be fun but only because it would be a short term galactic disaster.

* Change jump brigs: I don't see jump bridges as a problem or out of line with game mechanics; it seems inline with the Titan's jump portal generator.

* More then 1 outpost per system: With the way current sov works, outpost spamming will become the new sov strategy.

* Change NPC rats so that they spawn at moons and planets and any other objects in systems: sounds like a sure way to help pay for that POS.

* Add some bounty for rogue drones and reduce loot drops: this will create more isk in game over all and have it's own economic impact; it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

* Let alliances hire agents for their starbases: who pays for it and why?

* Make holding more then 1 system cost an exponential ammount to hold: this sounds like a hard fix like trying to garden with a bulldozer. This method would be too forced.

Fleet Changes:

* Targeting limitation: what happens if all the friendlies target each other as a defensive strategy?

Misc Changes:

* Change local chat to display number of blue/red/neuts: I'd rather get rid of local.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr
Divine Power.
Atlas.
Posted - 2011.08.30 06:01:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn
Quote:
Napfests: Yeah they sorta suck, but they will allways be a part of EVE. This system will not change much there - nothing will, it's human nature.


Napfest ultimately ruin a mmo. It becomes about numbers and then you end up with 2 sides constantly beating other as people get tired of blob warfare and quit until the subscriptions can no longer support the game and it gets shutdown. Ive played many games until shutdown or near shutdown and its always due to blob vs blob and one blob managing to take most of the territory.


"Napfests" are a logical inevitability of natural selection and humanity's ability to create ordered systems. Weak, uncoordinated groups are swallowed up by larger, better coordinated organizations. There's nothing CCP can code in that will stop people from cooperating.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.30 09:04:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 30/08/2011 09:18:43
Lots of good points made. Some accurate and some not fully understanding the idea. I can not answer them all right now. I will answer some.

New Rat Spawns Creating Lag: No more then an empire mission system. EVE handles them fine with much more players then will be in these systems. Not really an issue here.

Napfests: Not sure how they can be stopped now, can they be stopped? Ideas? ... One thing this idea does do is force any "alt" alliances to also be active, or they loose their upgrades over time.

Blob Warfare: Can't stop it (like napfests). At least this idea makes them split over multiple targets most of the time, so the defending fleet can send equal numbers to as many of those targets as they can, and at least those fights will be somewhat even (equal numbers). It would come down to skill and ship/setup choices of the squads. The larger force still has the advantage (some of their attacks go unchallenged), but they over all will loose more ships in *fair/good fights* at the places the defender could match with squads.

Max Target Issue With Friendly Locks: CCP would need to think about this mechanic. I just put forward the basic idea.

-0.1 Undesirable: They would make great trade or mission hubs. 10 upgrades for those is plenty. They just won't make great ratting systems or highly secure systems (asside from maxed trade hubs, which are meant to be secure and safe). These systems are perfect for new alliances and unwanted by big alliances.

Concord In Trade Hubs: This was the idea I came up with to make trade hubs viable in null. Trade needs security, or it will never work. I am not saying it has to be the exact same system as empire, but the holder of the system needs protection. I would think the concord would probably only act on behalf of the spaceholder (or assist only transport type ships), not interfere with other entities fighting in the system. Again, something CCP needs to think about - this was just my "basic" outline idea on how it could work. I am not saying my idea is going to be perfect in it's current form (but I know something along the lines of it's basic principal could work). These systems are meant to help everyone in null by providing safe trade systems near where they are needed. Please, post alternate methods! Post your own ideas!

Issues With Trade-Hub Gate Links: Just a thought. Maybe limit ship types using these gates to industrials/transports/freighters/shuttles (and maybe the T1 frig from each race with large cargo bay)? Would that make sense? Security based upgrades have their own line of new gates which would still be unlimited (and only link to an alliance's own systems).

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2011.08.30 09:07:00 - [50]
 

The only way to effectively stop nap fests is to limit the amount of entities one can set blue.

And that'll give a bigger shytestorm then you can clean up ;)

(Disclaimer: I'm not actually for the idea)

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.30 09:10:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Gemberslaafje
The only way to effectively stop nap fests is to limit the amount of entities one can set blue.

And that'll give a bigger shytestorm then you can clean up ;)

(Disclaimer: I'm not actually for the idea)


Lol been there... Hence why I am avoiding this topic as much as possible.


Pages: 1 [2]

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