open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked UPDATE ON PAGE 16, 19: Sovereignty and starbases, the future!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (30)

Author Topic

Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:08:00 - [151]
 

Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 15:10:04
Goddamnit, again.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:09:00 - [152]
 

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Originally by: Kerfira
My suggestion

The general idea is wise, but contains some problems;

1.grinding sov ; people will do nonsense stuff to get sov: (1) Bring alts in insured BS with no fittings and blow them up. (5) producing millions of Kestrels in order to reprocess them and produce once more if You have enough slots (6)researching PE of everything up to heaven just to gring sov (11) doing 10 billion transactions back and forth just to get sov.

I know the idea is not fully worked through yet, and it will require some adjustments, perhaps also of other game mechanics. On your comments:
#1: I don't see a big problem (not on a 1-3 months scale of things). One thing that could rapidly make that unpopular is removing insurance from 0.0.
#5: Easy (and physically logical) step to solve this would be a cap on reprocess efficiency of outposts/POS at 80%. Since the manufacturing would be at POS, you'd still pay fuel too...
#6: The research equipment would be at a POS so you'd stil pay fuel.
#11: Each type of activity would only count a relative part of the whole equation. Thus if you did 1 or 1000000 transactions, it wouldn't make a difference (since you control the only station in system).

If there were people doing things like this to exploit it, the way the average was weighed could easily be tweaked. Or restrictions like the ones mentioned above put in to make it costly.
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
2.grinding sov part 2: people will use blob tactics in a funny way; (2) Attack! We need to conquer this system till tommorow and we need 1500 more sov points. So we will do a 200 man veldspar mining op in our prime time with 50 more guarding station just in case while the enemy is asleep! Yarr!

I never intended the points to be visible Very Happy
.....well, except maybe in a general sort of way.... Perhaps a ranking list for system/constellation/region, but without any scores would suffice. That way there'd also be an element of surprise in it (yay, we got sov!!)...
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
3.(1) If kills give so many points, one blob battle can change sov.

Would have to be balanced. If you as an attacker can prevent the current holder from doing significant activities in space (mining, ratting etc.), then eventually you should gain sov.
One main thing though, if you as an attacker deploys your entire force to your opponents systems, someone can sneak right in and take your systems away with little effort. Alliances could be forced to keep forces at home as well as having them on the attack (part of breaking the blob).
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
4.(1) It was always possible for a little weaker (porrer pvpers) but rich enemy to try to defend by simple virtue of having more battleships in reserve and people willing to get back to fight. With many points for ship kills, financial sacriface (courage, heroism and whatnot) of defenders who unluckily stand against a better FC, suddenly works in their disadvantage. A totally artificial statistic kill efficiency (equipment+pvp skills) becomes more important that the current "complex efficiency" combining equipment, pvp skills, logistcs, resources and morale.

PvP should not count in the 50+% scale. I (without having made any calcs whatever) figured it maybe in the 30% scale. That would leave some maneuvering room for less PvP minded corps.
After all is said though, this system was intended to encourage ship combat, not limit it, but at the same time open up current PvP centric alliances/corps to also want other player types!
IMHO though, the alliance that IS the better PvP alliance should eventually win!

Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:10:00 - [153]
 

Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 15:11:12
Revamped Starbase Warfare Draft:
This is just a sketch on how to address the most common issues currently encountered with starbase warfare. I have other things to do today, so this isn't prepared or polished in any way. Bear with me.

The major problems are:

    [*]Lack of small-scale goals
    [*]No limit on sovereignty claiming towers or moons
    [*]Bad overview/management tools for Starbases (Made bearable by out of game tools)
    [*]Spiraling logistics demands due to shoddy overview combined with a lack of limits
    [*]Unrefined anchoring/onlining system not in any sensible synch with structures being outside the forcefield
    [*]Forcefields mechanics: Webifier immunity, the ability to sit just 1m outside it and the excessive travel/logistics/repairing safety that entails.
    [*]The big time-grind that all the above create


Sovereignty tower limit:
Every system needs a limited number of sovereignty affecting moons. A reasonable number would be any uneven number between 5 and 9. Possibly let the base number be 5, and purchasable outpost/conquerable upgrades increase it by 2 each. As it stands now though, the unlimited number of moons challenges players endurance more than anything else - which for a single system is only mildly annoying, but wars are fought over regions and dozens of station systems.

Suggestions:
- 5 arbitrarily assigned sovereignty moons per system. Entirely do away with size-based Sovereignty, these moons can be held by smalls if people please.
- 4 week timer for Sov 4 reduced to 1 week
- Three moons for any non-station system.
- Massively increased fuel-consumption for cynojammers outside of station systems.

Guns-outside-of-forcefield issues:
Currently, an incapacitated gun is considered offline - so an identical new gun can just be onlined. This also is a problem with hardeners, which can be used to slow starbases going into reinforced at no real detriment once they come out of reinforced - since they all automatically offline and allow for weapons to be anchored. Another oversight is that manned guns have no lockrange limit, whereas unmanned guns have maximum activation and lock ranges. Faction modules also get twice the hitpoints of their non-faction counterparts, breaking the risk/reward of shooting anchored structures.

Suggestions:
- incapacitated modules keep using CPU/PG
- 48h self-repair-to-75% timer on guns
- 300km max lockrange on all manned modules
- Faction modules get 20% more hitpoints than their T1 counterparts, not twice.

Small scale goals:
This is where moonmining should really shine, as a low-level disruptable operation. It is already somewhat right now, but cynojammers and the ability to use large towers put a crimp in this. Jumpbridges should also be a part of this, as right now they're too easily overdefended. The downside of making small scale objectives too easy would be overly time-intensive repairing efforts, hence a self-repair/maintenance system would be in order.

Suggestions:
- Moon Harvesters take half the current fitting, go outside the forcefield and can only be used on Small Towers. They get 2 million armor hitpoints to compensate, and will repair themselves to 75% armor and 100% structure 48 hours after being shot.
- Jump Bridges take one quarter the current fitting and can only be anchored outside of Medium towers. 3 Million armor hitpoints and repairs itself to 75% after 24 hours.


Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:11:00 - [154]
 

Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 15:15:55
Logistics and overview:
Constantly having to keep starbases fueled is intended to make them vulnerable to starvation. But since all methods of fueling are quasi invincible, it's only a drag on players.

Suggestions:
- Corporation assets-in-space shows control towers and their fuel status, consumption and prognosis for time remaining. Modules get moved away from here and into the show info or a sub menu of the tower.
- Strontium bays reduced by 33%, fuel bays increased by 66%.
- Fuel silo structure or any equivalent mechanic requiring the tower to be fueled from outside the forcefield for vulnerability

Forcefield mechanics and cynojammers:
Forcefields are like stations, proximity to complete invulnerability. Unlike stations, they don't have docking or aggression timers
and allow anyone to reach safety by simply moving a meter back inside it. In addition to that, we've got webifier invincibility. To top
it off, cynojammers absolutely reward abusing this to no end while allowing no hostile capitals in system which in itself creates problems
with carriers.

Suggestions:
- Statis Webifiers are untied from the "EW" trait and will affect anything, including Motherships and Titans.
- Forcefield automatically keeps all objects ~5km away from it's edge. To enter the forcefield requires clicking
on the control tower and selecting 'dock/enter forcefield' at which point the ship in question will commence
coasting inside at cruise speed (about 60 seconds for a carrier). The pilot retains full control but remains webbable/shootable etc. Whether warping straight inside remains is a generic
gameplay question and not specific to starbases.
- Carriers retain all current TQ fighter bonuses/attributes, 50% capacitor boost and EW immunity. They and motherships cease to be remote-repairable however.
This breaks the scaling issue of the remote-rep chain while maintaining the 'interesting/fun' aspects of carriers and eliminating the excessive EW vulnerability of non-supercaps.
- Motherships get 2 extra highslots to compensate somewhat, allowing for easier Triage and Remote ECM Burst

The grind
Tower hitpoints overall just take too long, moving beyond giving a fair time to counter to just becoming a grind. If your opponent doesn't show up in 90 minutes, he probably won't show up in 3 hours either. This is massively alleviated with less starbases, but a few small tweaks to make it more interesting can't hurt.

Suggestions:
- No shield recharge for 12 hours after a tower hits 90% shields
- 10% less shield hitpoints for large control towers
- removal of faction hitpoint bonuses for towers entirely
- 50% reduction in armor and structure of control towers

Wait, some things are okay but I don't agree with everything...
Well, that's the idea behind splitting it up into separate problems. Of course certain individuals will be enormously defensive about anything involving capital changes, and it might not be vital to change those particular things just yet (besides Statis Webifiers being considered EW :/ ). It's just an outline of how within realistic parameters starbase warfare can be revamped to be playable, goal-oriented and interactive for as many different sizes of corps/alliances as possible. It's not necessarily the only way to do things, although I'm convinced your ways are stupid or excessively contrived.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:13:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg
Logistics and overview:
Constantly having to keep starbases fueled is intended to make them vulnerable to starvation. But since all methods of fueling are quasi invincible, it's only a drag on players.

Suggestions:
- Corporation assets-in-space shows control towers and their fuel status, consumption and prognosis for time remaining. Modules get moved away from here and into the show info or a sub menu of the tower.
- Strontium bays reduced by 33%, fuel bays increased by 66%.
- Fuel silo structure or any equivalent mechanic requiring the tower to be fueled from outside the forcefield for vulnerability


The logistics required to keep sovereignty of systems needs to be made harder! Not easier!
If it's made easier, this'll not mean that the logistics people will get more time to do other stuff. It'll just mean that more POS are put up!

The amount of space an alliance/corp can comfortably claim needs to be cut drastically.
The main idea behind the solution suggestion I put forward on the previous page was that alliance/corp should not be able to claim more space than they could and would use!

Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:21:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

The amount of space an alliance/corp can comfortably claim needs to be cut drastically.
The main idea behind the solution suggestion I put forward on the previous page was that alliance/corp should not be able to claim more space than they could and would use!


Not really. Trying to bore and frustrate people out of holding space will just make them less interested in holding space, less interested in taking space and generally murder the idea of territorial warfare. The intention of fuel mechanics was that logistical lines would be a part of combat, and actually speed conclusion up or provide an alternate way to end a conflict besides brute force.

That concept in itself is good. Trying to make it too tedious to hold space goes against the idea of a) having people want to play EvE b) having people want to play the particular facet that makes EvE unique. You are essentially just complaining that large alliances might hold a lot of space - that's the point of the system, that we have a method of fighting over space. We want to make fighting over it more attractive, not less so. Currently it is already a major headache to deal with acquired space and the single biggest disincentive towards a dynamic, fast-moving political scene.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:29:00 - [157]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 14/11/2007 15:31:06
Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg
You are essentially just complaining that large alliances might hold a lot of space - that's the point of the system, that we have a method of fighting over space. We want to make fighting over it more attractive, not less so.

Not complaining about it so much as seeing it being bad for the game....

You may think it ok for a large alliance to hold a lot of space, but at the same time you're denying that space to smaller alliances who might like to have a go at 0.0, but who don't have a chance in hell to grab a piece of it since it is all grabbed by big alliances.
It might be nice epeen for BoB/Goons/RA/whoever, or your own alliance for that matter, to hold large amounts of space, but if its held just to not be used while there're smaller alliances who can't get into 0.0, I'm counting that as detrimental to the game.
There's no way a small alliance can get a foothold in a large alliances space (blob ftw.), so the only really feasible solution is to limit alliances to no more than they can use, whether through logistics or sov determination mechanics.

The main thing that needs to be taken out of territorial warfare is the usability of the blob. If that's done, then I think everything else would more or less fall in place nicely no matter what the mechanics.
Dealing with the blob though is not possible if we keep the current POS sovereignty mechanics (even if we tweak numbers etc.) or similar centralised sovereignty targets.

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:34:00 - [158]
 

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 14/11/2007 15:37:16
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 14/11/2007 15:36:40
Harder POS logistics means;
Defender struggles to keep 10 POSes.
Attacker has even bigger problem if he wants to win by POS spam. Since keeping 50 POSes is such a big effort, they rather attack POSes or defenders supply lines.

Easier POS logistics means;
Defender puts 100 POSes with little effort.
Attacker puts 150 POSes with littl effort.
Who has more patience in managing this crap, wins.


One could say "but hauling fuel and mining ice is so boring and tedious".
Well, since its done in war zone and has implied risk, its probably less boring then rinning missions in empire alt, buying fuels in empire and jumping them directly to POSes.
Also, there would be simply less POSes on both sides.
Also, every manhour of work for haulers and escorts creates "need" for the cool and exciting work for hunters and pirates :)

---------------------

Aha, I thought on Kerfiras theory of sov thru activity and I came to conclusin that maybe the opposite would be better and less prone to abuse? Loosing sov by lack of activity :)

xiqx
UK Corp
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:52:00 - [159]
 

suggestions 1: change the stargates. You get sovereignty by holding the gates and building a 'jump in scrambler' somewhere in the system. The 'jump in scrambler' is of course for keeping those ships out who can jump themselves. The corp/alliance holding the gate has access to the stargate of course.

suggestion 2: being able to put a pos/outpost/station on a gate for defending sovereignty.

suggestion 3: everything should be destructible within a reasonable time. (well except the gates maybe)( a stare contest between two fleets of 200+ ships is not my idea of fun.)

suggestion 4: random jump in point from a Stargate. Make this point appear in overview for a period of time so people can warp to it. perhaps a specific scanner should be build/owned in the system to be able to warp to it.( a sort of half solution for gatecamping)the random jump in point should perhaps be somewhere at the edge of the solar system.

Suggestion 5: When sovereignty is broken some benefits of holding the system should be suspended.

Suggestion 6: make the posses cool looking, something customizable.

major consequences: Defense moves from inside the system to outside it's own system.

when the defense of a gate is down the gate is freely accessible. The 'jump in scrambler' does not have an affect on stargate use.

the 'jump in scrambler' should be able to be destroyed only by ships that are not capable of jumping themselves.

extra note: If I copied anyones idea I did it accidentally. You can't read everyones post. Very Happy



Abrazzar
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:14:00 - [160]
 

Edited by: Abrazzar on 14/11/2007 16:16:57
I think sovereignty could be regulated by populating the system with a colony, much like the outpost just in different sizes for different stages of sovereignty.
So the alliance chooses a planet to set up their colony and start small.

Sov 1 requires a Space Colony. It consists only of a couple of habitation modules, a landing pad and a silo or something and is populated by civilians. The colony is self sufficient, producing stuff and selling it for provisions and fuel. The corp/alliance that set the colony up gains some ISK in taxes per day.
Sovereignty changes during the next downtime 24 hours after it was set up.
The colony only has little defenses, no facilities and can be easily destroyed by a smallish gang. It costs little in time and ISK to set up a Space Colony.

Sov 2 requires an Outpost and two Space Colonies. The Outpost is build on a Space Colony by expanding the structures and facilities of it. It will yield greater taxes than a Space Colony. Two station services can be installed in an Outpost, a limited amount of ships can be docked at the same time. Only members of the alliance may dock at the Outpost and access the facilities. Ships up to Battleship size can dock.
The additional Space Colonies can be set up at any moon or planet.
Sovereignty changes during the next downtime 24 hours after it was set up.

The Outpost is fitted with some autonomous defenses that fire at any hostile entity getting in range. It cannot be destroyed but conquered once the shields are down. It needs one battleship to get within docking range of the Outpost and issue the conquer command. It takes 30 minutes to round up the opposition and convince the civilians to cooperate. During that time the ship cannot activate any modules. Should it get out of docking range or get destroyed, the conquer timer gets reset. More ships can issue a conquer command though it will not reduce the timer, but only keep it ticking down should one of the other ships become unavailable.
Sovereignty changes to the new owners during the next downtime 24 hours after ownership changed.

Should Space Colonies in the system get destroyed and are not replaced before downtime the sovereignty drops to 1 if there are fewer than 2 left.

Sov 3 requires an Advanced Outpost and 5 Space Colonies. The Advanced Outpost is built on the base of an Outpost. It yields more tax, can hold more pilots and has more facilities than the standard outpost. Ships up to capital size can dock.
The additional Space Colonies can be set up at any moon or planet.
Sovereignty changes during the next downtime 24 hours after it was set up.

The defenses are strong enough to hold off a small fleet by itself. A Battleship will need 90 minutes to conquer the station. Should a carrier issue a conquer command, the timer will be reduced to 30 minutes.

Should Space Colonies in the system get destroyed and are not replaced before downtime the sovereignty drops to 2 if fewer than 5 and to 1 if fewer than 2 are left.

Sov 4 requires a Space Station and 10 Space Colonies. The space Station is build on the base of an Advanced Outpost. It yields a substantial tax income, allows unlimited ships docked and has a good variety of facilities and services available. It basically functions like normal space station. Any non-hostile pilot can dock. All player generated taxes are given to the controlling corp/alliance.
The additional Space Colonies can be set up at any moon or planet.
Sovereignty changes during the next downtime 24 hours after it was set up.

The defenses of a Space Station are strong enough to hold most fleets at bay. A Battleship will need 270 minutes to conquer, a carrier 90 minutes and a Mothership 30 minutes.
Sovereignty changes to the new owners during the next downtime 24 hours after ownership changed.

Should Space Colonies in the system get destroyed and are not replaced before downtime the sovereignty drops to 3 less than 10, 2 less than 5 and 1 less than 2.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:15:00 - [161]
 

Conclusion:

Only one center of attention per system instead of several.
Sovereignty can be sabotaged by smaller roaming gangs.
POSes will only be set up when necessary instead of all over the place.
Sovereignty still gives its bonuses to the POSes, making the investment worthwhile.
Maximum Sov is limited by the amount of available colony spots.
No upkeep is needed if you defend the colonies while ill defended systems can be sabotaged easily.
Systems far off the area of influence of an alliance can be conquered without much chance of defense.


Afterthoughts:

How many systems an Alliance can control could be limited if the amount and kind of Sov Stations a alliance can set up is capped by the amount of members in the Alliance. Every member generates a Government Point and each Space Colony, Outpost, Advanced Outpost and Space Station requires a certain amount of Government Points. This would result that only important systems will be build up to Sov 4, while other systems will have a smaller station and thus more easy to conquer.

If the Amount of Sov Stations is limited an Alliance needs the option to abandon a Sov Station. The system then would become neutral. A neutral station can be conquered for another Alliance by a single person in an appropriate ship without having to tear down the shield first.

Max Teranous
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:36:00 - [162]
 

I don't want a tweak to sov mechanics, i want to see a new system built from the ground up that solves or at least addresses the multiple issues that exist because of the current system. In no particular order, i'd like the following things to be included:

* Reasons to fight for both attackers and defenders, ranging from small gangs to fleets with capital support. Defenders that don't defend should be penalised (as an alliance) but defenders that do should have some sort of advantage of home territory.

* A design which discourages blobbing in some way. Split, multiple objectives, or some kind of stacking penalty on incoming fire on an object for example. I don't want to see people being turned away from gangs, rather them making a second/third gang and attacking/defending something else.

* Less boring tasks. Shooting or repping hundreds of millions of hp's of static npc objects is boring !

* Remove "spam". Systems should only be taken with fighting and force, not putting up more static objects then the other guy.

* Reduce the Timezone effects. Really tough one this, due to the varied people we have playing around the world, but always having attacking fights at odd hours is irritating.

* Split the industrial use of POS and the Sov use of POS, if POS are kept as the Sov marking system. Trying to balance both simultaniously just doesn't work.

I'm not really sure how to go about designing a system with the above in mind, but any new design should look at answering the above IMO.

Ernest Graefenberg
Minmatar
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:49:00 - [163]
 

Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 16:51:43
Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 16:50:23
Originally by: Kerfira

There's no way a small alliance can get a foothold in a large alliances space (blob ftw.), so the only really feasible solution is to limit alliances to no more than they can use, whether through logistics or sov determination mechanics.


How much exactly can say, 6000 people use? How many moons are they allowed to exploit? How many station systems are adequate? Really, how small exactly do you expect these groups to be? And if Goonswarm are 'worthy' of say, 10 stations - you'd be happy with 0.1 stations for your small corp, right?

It's all fine and dandy sitting on a soapbox about people owning too much space, but arbitrarily extending the tedium and logistics involved really does nothing, zilch for the small guy and everything for the game being completely unfun. Do you honestly believe more stringent PoS fueling will make people give up space? Hell no. And we won't be taking any less space either, because the only real incentive to do so right now is kicking other peoples **** in (and maybe moon mining, it's kind of nice).

Their are a lot of small alliances in space that exist just fine, their is even a support structure in place specifically for alliances too small or defunct to maintain a PoS network, called NPC 0.0 stations. Bigger groups will crush smaller Sovereignty holding alliances without friends all the time, the game will never cater to making that impossible - make friends, manipulate politics or kick more ass are the only sensible options instead of mucking PoS warfare to a halt in hopes of creating a newbie-shield of sorts.

Territorial warfare is like that by nature, groups competing to kick each others **** in. Stop trying to change it into something non-competitive which it's not and focus on the topic at hand, making the conflicts fun.

Quote:

The main thing that needs to be taken out of territorial warfare is the usability of the blob. If that's done, then I think everything else would more or less fall in place nicely no matter what the mechanics.
Dealing with the blob though is not possible if we keep the current POS sovereignty mechanics (even if we tweak numbers etc.) or similar centralised sovereignty targets.



It's the exact same fallacy as the "Doomsday counters blobs" line: You don't want to actually marginalize players. More players need to have the advantage over less players, that's the end of the story. If it does not cater to elitist fantasies, that's too bad - but the point here is to make it fun, not fair. Remember that part about EvE being a harsh place? Well yeah.

Also, splitting up the actual number of ships in any engagement on both sides will not lessen the advantage of numbers. Whichever side has the larger active playerbase will still win, even if the individual engagements are smaller. There's no good way to eliminate pivotal battles though, and their shouldn't be - they are an important part of the experience. The small-scale goals from a few posts ago go a long way towards making non-pivotal battles matter more though. Don't kid yourself though, the side with the larger active numbers will always be at an advantage.


Two step
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:52:00 - [164]
 

I've got what is actually a pretty simple fix, and I think it would help a lot.

Make POSes come out of reinforced at a random time anywhere from 1-4 days from when they are put into reinforced. Neither the attacker nor the defender should be able to see when the POSes will come out, only when they are actually out of reinforced. This would force an attacker to actually control the system for a long period of time and reduce the "all-hands" fleet battles which we all know the server cannot handle.

velocity7
Posted - 2007.11.14 17:50:00 - [165]
 

I kind of like the idea with the NPCs and stuff being tied in to factional warfare: [1][2][3]

Guns at stargates are also nice, but could encourage blobbing, depending.

Although UT2004 mechanics were suggested earlier in the thread, I feel that they may result in short battles for sovereignty of a system rather than say a week or so. It doesn't give much time for corporations to get their stuff out and pull out of the system if they are going to lose.

Manufakturka
Posted - 2007.11.14 19:09:00 - [166]
 

Ernest Graefenberg,
you are member of the Coallition, we get it. Now go away.

You are also an example of the worst filth that plagues this game, with your maniacal under-the-table peddling of I-WIN button poorly guised as solution.

To answer your points:

1) Cynojammer is single POS warfare element that is actually fun. It forces you to actually use proper fleet and gives defender a chance against the megablob of doom. I have lost like 4 BS while attacking cynojammed POSes, so do have first hand experience. With cynojammer dedicated group of defenders can actually force you to make a sweat if want the inevitable to happen.
2) How much space 6000 characters (50% of that being alts) need? Surely not one quarter of entire conquerable universe. That would make world of EVE quite small, don't you think? To answer that - they needas much as they can maintain. The Kerfira system would work perfectly here, while current system fails horribly (with superalliances literally redefining the meaning of word 'overextend').
3) You're asking for a mothership nerf in a highly moderated thread about POS wars. A mothership nerf, of all things. Relly, just end yourself or something.
4) "Small scalle goals" of making moon mining arrays targetable is a dumb griefing machine. nothing will make players more happy than hearning that their POS was offlined at 4AM local time, 7th time this week. If anything, such structures should be temporarily disabled after successful attack and not destroyed/incapacitated.
5) Jump bridges taking less PG/CPU. No comment.

Kerfira,
I was thinking about it a bit and I got to a conclusion that actually, why shouldn't decisive fleetbattle be of a great influence to sov calculations? It's pretty much what happens now and what people expect to happen.

Ideally, I would like the system to knock the sov by one tier after short, heated campaign or decisive fleetbattle, but take quite long to completely evict someone and change sov to yours. This way we still have the place for PvP corps/alliances, mercenaries and alike who want to kick other guys ass, while providing defeated corp with rebuild strategy (unless attacker wants to move in, defeated alliance would still have sov 1-2 in few systems, which would encourage rebuilding and act as a deterrent to quitting).
The whole thing might work internally by subtracting points of defending alliance when their ships are killed till a certain floor is reached, this way you can get fleetbattles that matter in system where persistence decides the day.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.14 19:12:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

The logistics required to keep sovereignty of systems needs to be made harder! Not easier!
If it's made easier, this'll not mean that the logistics people will get more time to do other stuff. It'll just mean that more POS are put up!

The amount of space an alliance/corp can comfortably claim needs to be cut drastically.
The main idea behind the solution suggestion I put forward on the previous page was that alliance/corp should not be able to claim more space than they could and would use!


This is dumb.

Also, your "grinding sovereignty" mechanic is dumb.

There are only two real big problems with sovereignty right now.

1. There are too many POS.

2. There is no small gang activity that can damage an alliance outside of huge long duration cloaking ops.

The first is easy to fix, you just reduce the number of POS by limiting it to 1-3 per system at designated spots. As in 1-3 depending on the design goal.

The second is not so easy. Everyone seems to want every action to have to deal with sovereignty. This is bad, sovereignty should be about jumping in dreads and sieging POS. If people want to defend their systems they can hot-drop the enemy dreads and have a grand battle. If they dont, they can lose the system.

But there still needs to be something for small gangs to do. Which means you need to decouple this with any idea about it working to grant any bonuses or penalties dealing with sovereignty. It might be based around destroying resources granted by sovereignty. But it means being able to do real isk damage to an alliance if they do not defend their space.

Now you just need a way to have that consistant with the prime driving mechanic of "cant hurt people when they arent online" part and you can start working on an idea

Vaslav Tchitcherine
The White Visitation
Posted - 2007.11.14 19:26:00 - [168]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Sovereignty should be about jumping in dreads and sieging POS.

Why?

Emphasis added.

Serena Hennessy
Koshaku
Antaeus Combine
Posted - 2007.11.14 21:32:00 - [169]
 

As I was part of one of the roundtables where this was discussed in depth, I'd like to add a short summary of what I see are the failings of the current systems, and some suggestions.

The problems:
1) Warp-To-Zero + JumpClones + JumpDrives have combined to make Eve a VERY small universe. While it was previously possible to clonejump, it required podding yourself and wasn't without cost (who wants to pod themselves with a full head of snakes?) As it stands, I can be in delve one night, jita the next, and the drone regions the following day. While this isn't DIRECTLY connected to Sov and Starbases, it IS the primary reason that you guys are being forced into dealing with this issue NOW -> By shrinking the universe, you've increased the density of 0.0, and the resulting blobs have exposed the flaws in the current system.

2) There is no real cost to warfare. While NPC supplied towers are good isk sinks, it also means that supplies are unlimited, the constraint is solely on isk. Pre-Jumpclones, Jumpdrives and warp-to-zero, logistics governed, as it took a LOT of industrial trips (or well escorted freighters) to fuel a sizeable POS infrastructure. This was good, because it made spamming any big amount COSTLY. Not in terms of ISK, but in terms of PILOT TIME, which is the less abundant of the two. With the aforementioned logistical improvements, the burden has shifted away from pilot time to isk supply. This is bad. One person can spam an entire system in one night, and fuel it, alone. A side effect is that it rewards harbouring isk-farmers, as a cut of their income can really improve your ability to wage war.

3) POS warfare is BORING and ENCOURAGES blobbing, instead of more tactical combat. Whatever the new system is, it needs to be FUN and REWARDING. As a dread pilot, shooting POS for 6 hours != fun.

The solution?

Alliances and Empires are about PEOPLE, not THINGS. Whatever the end mechanic is, it needs to center around PILOT TIME, not ISK. It should also be rewarding and diverse.

Require pilots to spend a certain amount of time uncloaked in space (outside of a POS shield) in order to gain sovereignty over a system. Something like 100+ pilot hours per day, averaged over a week. This would force alliances to actually LIVE where they have sov, which would discourage groups from one side of the galaxy from expending enourmous resources to fight groups on the other, and would then break warfare down to a more system-by-system, constellation-by-constellation and region-by-region level.

Larger alliances could hold more space, because they would have the pilots to be able to. Smaller alliances would be forced to hold less space, because they would have to more carefully manage their human resources. Effectively, you'd shrink the universe again, leaving jumpclones for things like getting a new skillbook, rather than fighting a war ten regions away. Furthermore, there would me more incentives to have smaller fights more often - prevent enemy buildup in your territory before they pass your amount of territorial control time. However, if you're going to do something like this, you'll have to give incentives for people to stay in one place - expand trade, invention, exploration and manufacturing so there's more to do in any given spot. POS would remain industrial tools. Killing them would be inflicting economic harm.

Furthermore, give alliances reasons to be at peace with one another beyond mutual defence. Make peace economically rewarding by asymetrically seeding npc trade goods in outposts, creating trade opportunities, and more opportunities for pirates and small gangs. By rewarding peace, you empower war: It hurts your enemies more, but you also incur a cost by not having guys at home.

End result: more small gang pvp. Bigger universe. More fights more often. More to do in 0.0. Larger population capacity without adding regions.

You'd have to give dreads more to do than shoot pos, but that's not bad either :)

Svetlana Scarlet
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Posted - 2007.11.14 21:56:00 - [170]
 

Edited by: Svetlana Scarlet on 14/11/2007 21:57:35
Well, my suggestion for population-based sovereignty was posted before here:

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=595218

Basically, I think we need to make POSes and outposts useful things you can have in space, and not things that drive sovereignty. People shouldn't be forced to build POSes for no purpose other than to claim sovereignty; each one should be built by its owners for some sort of utility, whether its moon mining, research, manufacturing, or refining, and outposts should be to provide market hubs and places for pilots to gather. Instead of a bunch of absentee landlords having sovereignty over space just because they spam POSes, space is owned by the people who spend time there and live and work in that space.

It would be a drastic change from the current paradigm, but I think there's a lot of people who think maybe that is what is necessary.

Edit: Heh, it looks like Serena either read my article or came up with almost the same idea. ;)

Serena Hennessy
Koshaku
Antaeus Combine
Posted - 2007.11.14 22:16:00 - [171]
 

Edited by: Serena Hennessy on 14/11/2007 22:21:52
Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet

Edit: Heh, it looks like Serena either read my article or came up with almost the same idea. ;)


You know what they say about great minds...

But seriously, this is an MMORPG. Make Alliances, Sov, and terratorial warfare people-powered. That's why these games are great. The more you focus gameplay around people, the better and the more dynamic the gameplay is. The real shame about Eve right now is that the sov mechanics have stripped nearly all of the dynamic and emergent gameplay out of 0.0 and has replaced it with the almighty blob.

Which wouldn't be so bad, except the blobs create a neverending feedback loop of further blobbage which makes the server go *barf*. 250vs250 fleet battles are still pretty crazy fun, and what other game has them, but really, they shouldn't be the only thing going on.

Edit: And Svetlana, although I didn't previously read your post, nor do I read SHC, the main problem with your idea is that you allow pilots to be docked, cloaked, in pos shields, in warp, or otherwise safe to count towards sov. My way means every person counting towards sov could be killed, making it possible to actually defend a system, and more, FORCING you to engage in combat to protect what's yours, rather than relying on broken game mechanics (pos spam) or just sticking alts in stations which can't be countered other than by more alts.

Nifel
PAX Technologies
Posted - 2007.11.14 22:22:00 - [172]
 

Edited by: Nifel on 15/11/2007 18:37:36
Edited by: Nifel on 14/11/2007 22:23:30
Idea:

Bring back station shooty shooty with a twist:

Sovereignty adds layers of shields on the station.
Once a layer has been shot down the shields can't be shot at again for 2 hours.
A layer that's recently been shot down can't be repaired until 1 hour has passed since it was shot down.
Sovereignty has "dams" (barriers) that once surpassed floods sovereignty into neighbouring systems. Each successive system after that has higher dams spreading sovereignty at an increasingly slower rate.
The more stations that are held in a constellation the higher the rate of sovereignty buildup.
If an enemy holds the station your sovereignty withers away at twice the rate it builds up at (base).
You gain sovereignty points for the system while holding the station even if it was recently captured.
High sovereignty allows placement of guns at the station that can be shot at to be disabled (ala current pos guns mechanics).
A corporation that holds a station with minimum sovereignty level 1 can set for autodestruct.
Autodestruct is always 1 week.
If a corporation cancels the autodestruct it starts counting down the destruction timer at twice the rate (so 2 days until it's cleared if it's been counting for 4 days).


That's my contribution to this. Numbers can of course be discussed and tweaked as always. I've tried to set them to allow for maximum conflict giving incentives to fight tooth and nail.

Have some <3 devs... you're all too often abused (sometimes righteously though :<).

*added*
If a layer has been fully repaired and the layer above it was shot down as well a full hour must pass before that layer in turn can start being repaired.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.15 00:23:00 - [173]
 

Originally by: Vaslav Tchitcherine
Originally by: Goumindong
Sovereignty should be about jumping in dreads and sieging POS.

Why?

Emphasis added.



Because stations need to change hands as a result of concrete combat.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.15 00:26:00 - [174]
 

Ok hereís the idea. Iím bracing myself for the smack down.

-Slight change in Sovereignty Rules
-POSís are no longer used to gain sovereignty.
-New station types introduced.

Like Posís each of these Space structures will be either Amarr/ Gallente etc.

I also think there should be a racial set bonus, but I could not decide on a suitably system wide balance bonus.

Here is what is required to gain Sovereignty.

Territory (Sovereignty 1) Requirement
A single Garrison, is automatically set to claim sovereignty. This needs to be in place for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.

Sov 1 Bonusís:
Your alliance is visually represented on the starmap as being the sovereign of the solar system

You can only deploy outposts in solarsystems where your alliance holds sovereignty.

Outposts and conquerable stations held by your alliance are invulnerable until you lose sovereignty.

Your alliance is able to anchor capital shipyard production facilities, thus enabling the construction.
Can deploy Shield Enhancement POSís
Can deploy 1 Command Starbase in system.

How to challenge Sov 1:
Destroy Sovereignty owners Garrison

Garrison [Only 1 per system] Price: 2billion

The Garrison is automatically set to gain Sovereignty, so if you deploy one then you are attempting to claim sovereignty.

Garrison (allows you to claim sov 1) [same stats as a large tower]
- At Sov 2 it becomes a Fortress and gets: 50% bonus to shield HP
- At Sov 3 it becomes a Bastion and gets: 50% bonus to shield HP
- At Sov 4 it becomes a Citadel and is invulnerable unless Sov level drops back to Sov 3.
(It can be anchored to any Landmark in a system: Moon, Planet, Sun, Asteroid Field. [and if there is Tactical Environments it can anchor in some of those, but would take relevant penalties] Except Jump Gates)


Protectorate (Sovereignty 2) Requirement
Must have 1 Command Starbase deployed in system
Territory level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days

Sov 2 Bonusís:
Cynosural field generator arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system).
Scanner arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system).
Can deploy up to 2 Command Starbase in system.

How to challenge Sov 2:
Destroy Command Starbase to drop the defender down to Sov 1.
Or Destroy Fortress to drop defenders down to Sov 0.


Province (Sovereignty 3) Requirement
Must have 2 Command Starbases deployed in system.
Protectorate level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days

Sov 3 Bonusís:
Twinned jump bridge structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system).
Cynosural field jammer structures can be anchored (Note: Only one may
Can deploy up to 3 Command Starbase in system. be anchored per system).

How to challenge Sov 3:
Destroy 1 Command Starbase to drop the defender down to Sov 2
Or Destroy Bastion to drop defenders down to Sov 0.


Constellation Capital (Sovereignty 4) Requirement

Must have 3 Command Starbases deployed in system.
Province level sovereignty undisrupted for thirty days.
Constellation Sovereignty needs to be in effect for your alliance within the constellation.
Sov 4 Bonusís:
All starbase control towers (Except Command Starbaseís) are invulnerable and cannot be locked.

Shield Enhancement POSís receive 50% bonus to shield HP
Sovereignty of the system cannot be contested, and is locked into place until the system is forced to a lower sovereignty level.

How to contest Sov 4:
Destroy 1 Command Starbase to drop the defender down to Sov 3

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.15 00:29:00 - [175]
 

Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 15/11/2007 01:45:07
Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 15/11/2007 01:40:29

Post Continued

Command Starbase (CS) [same stats as a large tower] [Price:1 bill]

Field headquarters Ė Can Link to 3 Shield Enhancement POSís (Once a Linked Shield Enhancement POS has been destroyed, a new Shield Enhancement POS cannot be linked to the Field Headquarters until the others that are linked are either destroyed or the Command Field headquarters is off lined.)

Sov 1: 15% Bonus to Turret Batteries Damage for all stations in system.
Sov 2: 15% Bonus to Turret Batteries Damage for all stations in system.
Sov 3: 15% Bonus to Turret Batteries Damage for all stations in system.

Stellar Energy Array Ė Can Link to 3 Shield Enhancement POSís (Once a Linked Shield Enhancement POS has been destroyed, a new Shield Enhancement POS cannot be linked to the Stellar Energy Arrayuntil the others that are linked are either destroyed or the Command Stellar Energy Arrayis off lined.)


12.5% bonus to all stations Shield HP in system.

(requires 10 Advanced Science Labs in system for Stellar Energy Array bonusís increase by 100%)


Furtherance Depot Ė Can Link to 3 Shield Enhancement POSís (Once a Linked Shield Enhancement POS has been destroyed, a new Shield Enhancement POS cannot be linked to the Furtherance Depot the others that are linked are either destroyed or the Command Furtherance Depot off lined.)

25% Bonus to fuel efficiency to all stations in system.
Bonus to all stations in system CPU/PG by 5%.

(requires 10 Reactor Arrays and 10 Bio Chemical Arrays in system, Furtherance Depot bonusís increase by 100%)


Shield Enhancement POSís (SEP) Sov 1 [Price: 500mil]

Furtherance Depot Shield Enhancement POS
Stellar Energy Array Shield Enhancement POS
Field headquarters Shield Enhancement POS

Medium towers with half the cpu and power grid. Can deploy at a moon. When a SEP is linked to a CS, the CS becomes immune to attack. You can select which CS the SEP is linked to in the station menuís.
Once a SEP is linked to a CS, it cannot break its link unless destroyed or the CS is off-lined. If one of the SEPís are destroyed, the CS remains invulnerable until all the SEPís are destroyed.


Empiric Sovereignty

Requirements: Constellation Capital Sovereignty undisturbed for 30 days.

Empiric Sovereignty Warfare

If one of the following requirements are met, Empiric sovereignty will change to a contested mode:
∑ The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses sovereignty control of the majority of the systems in the constellation.
∑ The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of the minimum of three outposts or conquerable stations.
∑ The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of the capital outpost or conquerable station.

Sov 5 (Empiric) Bonusís: (this was in a previous post but has now been revised slightly and added to this.)

It allows you to buy a new space station structure called a Capital Outpost node. The Node has all the same stats as a large tower but with 3 main differences.

1: Only 50% of the CPU and Power grid can be used for Gunnery placements and shield hardeners.

2: Only 50% the CPU and Power grid can be used for deployable structures other than Gunnery placements and Shield Hardeners.

3: Does not have a reinforced mode.

The Capital Outpost Node counts as an extension of the Outpost and so is immune to attack until ĎThe alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of all capital outposts or conquerable stationsí in the constellation.

Also you can link another Capital Outpost Node to the first one. And keep linking them forever (maybe 15km between each one). You can keep adding Starbase Structures to each node and eventually build a city.

Veng3ance
Multiversal Enterprise Inc.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.11.15 01:49:00 - [176]
 

Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:09:16
Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:08:08

I think the focus on POS changes should be the inclusion of "objectives" for smaller gangs. Or a benefit for enemy to split between multiple pos's.

I think we all agree, during a siege, assaulting 3 seperate pos's and having 2-3 smaller fleet battles happening instead of one giant fleet battle on one grid would be a vast improvement on the current system.

I think when CCP made changes to Stations by putting station "services" on them was a step in the right direction, and those mechanics should be the focus on how POS warfare should change.

For example:

All POS should have "pos services" that a gang can shoot, much like we have for station services. I know this idea is almost in affect being that guns are shootable or cyno jammers can be taken down etc etc. But I think it was implemented wrong.

First off, not just the guns or jammer should be targets, those kinds of targets are pre-emptive for a siege. The idea of POS "services" is not for siege, but day to day entertainment and harassment. One could be a "fuel service", when this service is knocked out, the POS will hemmorage fuel, increasing fuel burn rate by a percentage (I was thinking double speed). Another could be a "Lab service" that cancels any research jobs going on at the pos, or at least delays them. Another could be "Mooning mining service" , if you disable this service the pos will be forced to stop moon mining for "X" amount of time. A "production service" is another example. Etc. Etc.

I think you can get the idea of where im going with this. This would create "objectives" for gangs. For example "tonight we are going to disable all moon mining on allianceX's ferrogel operation, that should **** them off"

or "our spys tell us an Aeon mothership is under contruction in X system. We don't have the forces to destroy it, but we can disable production for 24 hours, delaying their mothership"

Stuff like that, it makes day-to-day operations less focused on gate camping or station hugging, and its something that actually EFFECTS the enemy. Not just some stupid annoyance you have to remote rep.

HOWEVER,

There is a few very very important things that need to be done for this to actually work.

1) POS must be weaker offensively. I know ill get some flame for this, but I think its the number one thing that needs to change in POS warefare. Atm large pos are way to powerful. Any 30 or even 40 man gang looking to disable a pos "service" would NOT be able to do so with the current pos mechanics.

Large POS should not be able to be destroyed by a 30-40 man support fleet. But yes they should be able to be harassed. Each POS "service" would have a decent amount of hitpoints but lowish recharge rate, meaning the gang would have to sit there for a bit, possibly waiting for a fight to happen over the pos service, but not so many hitpoints that it becomes dull, or something not worth wasting your time over.

2) Dreads tank must be toned down. This is to "compensate" for POS being less effective offensively. Do they really need that tank for anything but deathstar pos's?

3) (Not POS related) STATION services hitpoints need to be reduced! When I go to a system with a 25 man gang, I should not hear "don't shoot their services, your wasting your time" , it takes too long, recharge is too high for smaller gangs.

Ontop of all this. I think certain pos's should effect sov. while others should not. Introducing a sov. module would be a step in the right direction, but I think the module should have negative affects on the pos (such as making it worthless for anything but sov.). This would force alliances to use less pos for sov. claiming and shorten sieges.

Phew, that was a lot to type. Wink

Drogher Forerunner
Posted - 2007.11.15 02:11:00 - [177]
 

Originally by: Veng3ance
1) POS must be weaker offensively. I know ill get some flame for this, but I think its the number one thing that needs to change in POS warefare. Atm large pos are way to powerful. Any 30 or even 40 man gang looking to disable a pos "service" would NOT be able to do so with the current pos mechanics Wink


Cant large gangs/fleets of small ships (AF, Inti's HACS) take out the services without getting hit but the guns?

Veng3ance
Multiversal Enterprise Inc.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.11.15 02:28:00 - [178]
 

Originally by: Drogher Forerunner
Originally by: Veng3ance
1) POS must be weaker offensively. I know ill get some flame for this, but I think its the number one thing that needs to change in POS warefare. Atm large pos are way to powerful. Any 30 or even 40 man gang looking to disable a pos "service" would NOT be able to do so with the current pos mechanics Wink


Cant large gangs/fleets of small ships (AF, Inti's HACS) take out the services without getting hit but the guns?


I guess it depends on the hitpoints of each service. Realistically we do want to see battleships taking on large pos's. I think it would be a bit too easy if a nano gang had the DPS to drop a service.

ardik
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.11.15 03:36:00 - [179]
 

troll - Zulupark

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.15 05:59:00 - [180]
 

I just want to say that I agree with just about every one of Ernest Graefenberg's points and think the ideas really could work well, and it's only a few simple changes from what you have now (1 2). The limitation of 5-9 sov claiming POSes per system I don't quite agree with, and I would prefer the "POS -> Moon -> Planet -> System" idea. The change to carriers giving them +50% to capacitor and EW immunity is a little out there, and so is forbidding remote-repping other capital ships at least a little bit. I also did not like the idea of making cyno jammers use much more fuel outside of station systems and the "docking" sequence with POSes sounds a little wonky but it's got the right idea. Overall, it's a scheme of ideas that could definitely work, with or without some modification.

I'd also be in favor of reducing the hitpoints of POSes and POS modules substantially, since they are honestly just too high in general. People will still be able to respond and defend their towers because their destruction is mediated by stront timers; the HP at its current levels is just a grind that makes larger "blobs" than necessary a prerequisite.

The only POS module I would not change too much is the cyno jammer, since I see it as an essential tool in POS warfare at the moment. Halving cyno jammer HP could be okay; much more than that could be over the top.

I also had an idea a few months back that's pretty simple, here ya go:
Originally by: Intermediate Levels of Disabling for Station Services
Okay, so with station services, you've got two sides of the boredom issue:

Wayne: "We want small gangs to have effects on sov besides just ganking miners, but the services have too much HP!"
Perry: "We don't want to have all of our god damn clone bays wrecked while we were at work, jackass"

As a compromise, there could be a sort of middle ground between enabled and disabled for station services. This would not have the absolute effect of completely turning something off, but it could have less hitpoints so it would take less people to pull it off.

So instead of the current way it works:

Full shield, armor, structure: Enabled
Shoot down to structure after hours: Disabled

Change it to:
Full shield, armor, structure: Fully enabled
Shot down to armor: Made a little crappier
Shot down to structure: Completely disabled
Repaired up to just shield: Partially enabled
Repaired to full health: fully enabled

So what can "partially enabled" mean for a station service?

For the factory and laboratory services its easy; just make jobs take twice as long (as an example). Doesn't take too long to fix, and it does have an noticeable effect on the outpost owner, but if you came back from work and somebody partially disabled your factory/lab jobs, it would have at least continued at a slower pace.

For the Refinery, you could reduce refinery efficiency. Pretty self-explanatory.

Fitting, Medical, and Repair services aren't so obvious. For medical the only thing I can think of as middle of the road is to make clones more expensive, or to make it so you can't set your clone to that station. For repairs, you could make repairs more expensive, but at conquerable stations you can get repairs done for free, so unless they change that, it won't work. Fitting is also a little tricky; could you maybe make it so it takes longer to fit a ship, or maybe make it so you can mount modules, but they can't be onlined in station so you have to do it outside with the tedious cap recharge to 97% stuff? Could work, anyway.


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (30)

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