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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (30)

Author Topic

MasterDecoy
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.11.15 06:15:00 - [181]
 

Off topic - Zulupark

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.15 06:18:00 - [182]
 

Also: Right now the "manage" button and the "offline" button are dangerously close next to each other on the starbase interface. Please fix this, since right now it's a little easy to accidentally offline a tower.

Vaslav Tchitcherine
The White Visitation
Posted - 2007.11.15 07:23:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
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.

Agreed, I was questioning what looked like your assumption that this necessarily involved dreads and/or POS. I'm hoping a solution arrives that involves parallel avenues.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.15 07:39:00 - [184]
 

Originally by: Vaslav Tchitcherine
Originally by: Goumindong
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.

Agreed, I was questioning what looked like your assumption that this necessarily involved dreads and/or POS. I'm hoping a solution arrives that involves parallel avenues.



I think it necessarily involves POS, you can siege a POS with battleships, its just not easy.

The key is to get the number of POS down lower. That is the borning part. If you had to siege 1-2 POS per system it would be no big deal.

E.G. Lets say that three new points are added to a system called "sov holding points" and at you can place POS there to hold a system. This means that the most POS you would ever need to siege is 2 to secure a system. It means that if you dont defend your system, attackers will take it over in short order.

Sieging this system wont be boring, it will take a couple of hours tops once you can bring dreads in, spread accross both sieges. But what it does is it forces enemies to defend their POS instead of putting up d2 specials and hoping the enemy will get bored to death. And if the defenders lose the POS, in order to get sov back, or keep it from switching they have to siege a POS themselves instead of just finding open moons and putting more towers up.

Defending a system becomes "we have to defend this POS" instead of "we have to plop down some more towers maybe?"

Its really the prime problem, just too many POS. This needs to be coupled with a way for a small gang to do damage to an alliance that just docks up. As bane said on the previous page. A small gang cant realisticially shoot station services, in fact, a small gang cant realisticially do any damage to an alliance if the alliance docks. They dont have the time[or ammo likely] to shoot stations or the strength to shoot POS, all they can do is hope someone undocks, and all the alliance has to do to not take losses is dock up.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.15 08:36:00 - [185]
 

Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg
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?

Ahhh, argumenting on your big friends wishes instead of what would be good for the game. Class!!!

Big alliances, like your good friends there, are pretty detrimental to the GAME!
Big alliances cause lag-blobbing to occur! While I agree it would be great if the game could handle it, it can't!
They hinder smaller entities in gaining a foothold (ie. raising the bar for high-sec to 0.0 transition)!
They make 0.0 politics turn into an 'us' vs. 'them' place, instead of a more complex place af multiple alliances having complex relations.
All in all, it dumbs down the game, taking away complexity and replacing it with simplicity!

But keep arguing only for your own groupings advantage. Remember though that CCP asked for what could improve Sov. warfare, not what would be good for your grouping.....
Originally by: Kerfira
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.

Ahh, again the egotistical argument.... "Blobbing is my friends tactics, don't you dare touch it!"

Blobbing is bad on almost all levels! There's no fun at all in the lagged out blob-fests that are so common these days in 0.0, and of.c. again it hinders smaller groupings form doing much, even though they may be better players.

'More players' should NOT automatically have the advantage over 'less players'. If the 'less players' are better at tactics and better skilled at fighting (I'm not meaning purely skill points here), the 'less players' should have a very good chance of winning over the 'more players'. This'd provide incentives for players to get better at the game, not just better at gathering a bigger blob.

If this is not so, then you've reduced EVE from being a game of strategy, tactics, skill and abilities, to being a game of who can gather the biggest blob. Whop-di-****ing-do! Where's the incentive to get better?

All in all, I think your arguments are totally biased. You're not looking at what would be good for the game, but only at what would be good for your grouping!

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.15 08:40:00 - [186]
 

off topic - Zulupark

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.15 08:59:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
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.

Just because it'd prevent your alliance (and other biggies) from claiming huge areas you don't use doesn't mean an idea is 'dumb' (classic GoonSwarm argumentation there btw.)...

It actually means the idea is good for the GAME as a whole (though maybe not for your group).....

Blobbing needs a good swift kick in the 'nads (yes, I know lag-blobbing is a favorite tactics of yours, but that doesn't make it good for the game).
This doesn't just go for ship blobbing, but also for alliance/corp blobbing. This'd make for a more interesting 0.0 than the current 2-block situation.

My suggested change would mean first of all that ALL player types (not just PvP'ers) would have a place in 0.0 alliances, and secondly that alliance warfare would be more about continually fighting your enemy until he could fight no more, instead of blobbing his station systems at your own prime-time shooting his POS and hoping he doesn't get his towers stront-timed.

This would make POS warfare a sideshow (mostly economic and anti-cynojam/jumpbridge/cynogen), while making ship-to-ship combat over a large area THE way of Sov warfare. This is what most people claim they want (more ship-to-ship, less senseless shooting of structures).

My idea is somewhat dependent on high-sec imports (mainly minerals) into 0.0 being nerfed a lot (which seems to be happening). What is used in 0.0 should be produced in 0.0, not imported from isk-farmers in empire!
If this is done, then you actually have a good chance to starve your opponents out of their territory. If you can prevent them from gathering resources, then eventually they can fight no more when their stockpiles run out. Most importantly, it'll give plenty of small-medium level ship fights instead of the big boring lag-fests....

MasterDecoy
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.11.15 09:15:00 - [188]
 

off topic - Zulupark

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.15 09:47:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
blobbing



You do realize that your idea is entirely dependent on blobbing?

"Putting up infastructure matters" - POS SPAM
"Kills Matter" - Blobbing

Mining, Ratting, Exploring - Stopped by blobbing. Blobbing allows you to do these activities.

You think its bad right now when goons blob? Imagine if they dont even have to fight you, we just show up and park a couple hundred guns in your system and dont even bother to shoot the pos.

You think a small alliance is going to be more nimble than a large one? Yea it makes it easier to nibble off the edges, it also makes it easier to be slaughtered mercilessly. Goons will do this as a hobby and as roaming gangs. We could take over entire alliances by the power of our production empire alone.

Not to mention the ridiculousness of macro-ratters gaining sov in systems.

The idea is terrible.

ardik
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.11.15 11:20:00 - [190]
 

trolling - Zulupark

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2007.11.15 11:29:00 - [191]
 

off topic - Zulupark

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2007.11.15 11:57:00 - [192]
 

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 15/11/2007 12:13:17
And back to creative thoughts.

The problem is timezones vs small gangs.

Small gangs need many small targets over large area to be useful.

Timezone balance requires some mechanics to prevent wiping out a german alliance while all Germans are at work. Those mechanics are currently POSes with zillions HP and strontium.

General idea is: have small, weak installations that hide in POSes for half for part of the day when You cannot defend them.
This could be automatic or manual.

Installations should be a valit target for a small gang, like 5 minutes of shooting for 10 HACs.

Installations should give tactical or economic advantage - like suppporting scouts probing, mining additional moon resources, reinforcing POS shields, making Your safespot harder to probe, giving command-like bonuses to nearby friendly fleets.

Installations should be hidden but possible to probe out without extreme effort. They should be located in characteristic areas (like near belts, near moons for POS support, near sun for scanners). This would be like tactical locations to controll. They should have area of effect, like half or 1 AU, so there can be parts of system domineted by one force and another.

Installations are hidden in POSes in hours Your alliance can't afford to defend them.

If You cannot keep Your installations safe for at least 6 hours a day (like in a completely unused far region of Your alliance, prone to roaming gangs), and enemy can put his own installations, he should be able to take over the system without capital fights (imagine hidden hacking installations hanging 100 000 km off Your POS, that take 3 days to hack POS computer systems and let enemy pass shields - If You can't regularly guard, probe and patrol Your system).

Installations should be cheap (20-50mill) and mobile (5 minutes anchoring or so). This way a spread force anchoring and moving 5 at once, can gain some tactical advantage over a blob taking 1 at once.

Installations should allow creating "covert" bases in enemy territory, offering hard to probe ammo reserves, hull repairs, refitting and even loot storage for ratters.

I think that CCP wanted to go in that direction by putting POS modules outside shields and allowing people to disable them. It just needs polishing to shine.

Shayleigh Snowflower
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.11.15 13:48:00 - [193]
 

I think, that with the Heavy Interdictors and the new black-ops ship, and some maturing of the current POS stuff, that EVE will be OK. Espesially after the POS modules unanchor and becomes stealable.

One feature I would like are POS module Killmails. POS module incap mails. If possible, to have the amount of damage dealt to a module on the killmail for each particapant would be great fun. Should also be the same for station services.

I am fairly sure that would invoke all kinds of 'competition' for gangs.


A POS Sabotasje ship would maybee be fun? Maybee a ship that can, over a couple of hours construct a 'doomsday machine' to clear away pos modules? Would ofcurse require carriers etc to rep his shields so he do not die from POS guns while making the device? If the device are not destroyed within 36 hours, it will start to generate disturbances so that modules inside the POS shield (hardners, moon-miners, silos) shut down, and if not destroyed within 72 hours, it blows the POS and everything else on the grid to Hotel Echo Lima Lima with a 100 000 000 damage magneto-black-worm-hole-banana bomb. This device shouldn't need more than a million HP so it is easy to take out, IF there are a defending party.

How this would work, how to defend against it and how to counter it, I don't know, but, it would be nice to shorten the long weeks of clearing out.

Garr Anders
Minmatar
The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2007.11.15 14:57:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: Garr Anders on 15/11/2007 14:57:37
Im a total noob, never been in a POS war not even have any real experiences in PvP, and to be honest I think it's very delicate for me to even post here but I just got an idea I want to throw it in here for brainstorming regarding the Blob.

Anybody now the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battletech#The_Clans]BattleTech [/url]Universe and remember how Clans decided on who and with what they achieve a wargoal?

They try to underbid each other using less resources than the other bragging their clan can achieve that objective with less (mechs/pilots/unites) than the others.

Is something like this feasible ?

This idea is totally raw and probably a stupid but what comes to my minds is something like.

Alliance A wants to gain sovereignty over system X from B.

They declare "contest of sovereignty" stating before hand
+ their planed fleet size in points something alike for the tournament
+ a given time window when they want to attack
+ the time they need to achieve their goal (what ever those might be)

Now the Alliance B has time to put up a defense to match the point score of the attacking fleet, but they have to declare how many points they need as well but:
+ taking more points (e.g. taking more/bigger ships) could
- reduce the number of goals the attacker has to achieve
- give him more time
- allowes him to up his fleet to the same number of points only once

+ taking less points on the other hand could:
- adds additional objectives to achieve by the attacker
- decreases the time for the attacker
- allowed the attacker to tone down his fleet to similar points score

Just to brainstorm on.
What goals ? No idea
How big the time windows for attacking / how long you can take for an attack ? no idea either
How to calculate points ? the same.

Yes this makes combat more "formal" no real sudden hit and run tactics, although it might offer "sabotage missions", stuff you can take out/attack on the fly which are needed to open up a formal attack window to contests a system.

Again just a very raw idea to counter the blob.

When this sounds like an arena fight, yes, I know, good bad, I dont know, this all is just an idea to focus the ppl using dedicated ships rather than just blobbing away.

Oh regarding the fight itself, some when within the starting attack time window the fleet commander of the attacking fleet "registers/broadcast" a contest for the system and from that time on his fleet is kinda registerded. Only a defending fleet comander can accept this broadcast, also registering his fleet as is. Only these two fleets are able to damage each other (and objective defense stuff or so).

Where they keep their fleets with the system doesn't matter.

Using a stargate unregisters you and when you re-enter you are out of the fight.

I guess I wrote enough, so I ll go into the corner and hide my noob as from any buttkicks ... . :shock:

Veng3ance
Multiversal Enterprise Inc.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.11.15 15:17:00 - [195]
 

Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:21:12
I would just like to say a quick comment.

All those people suggesting Stations themselves become the focus on battles; that is a terrible idea.

It just pushes people to blob around the station. I think the key focus on these pos changes should be fleet battles going from one grid to multiple grids breaking up lag and blobs.

There must be some sort of objective that will spread gangs to multiple pos's within a system.

Ill brain storm on this "objective" a bit more haha. Its hard to think of a good incentive to attack multiple pos's simultaneously. Cool


Cker Heel
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.11.15 16:45:00 - [196]
 

Nerf the tank of control towers, but allow the pos in system or constellation to reinforce each other.

Can the game engine support POS boosting each other's shield? It could be akin to the gang bonus system.

Make lone tower shield far smaller, say a tenth of what they are now and add a structure to spider tank the towers. The spider tank would need too automatically boost towers under attack.

The interlocking defense should much be more effective than the tower's own boost -- that is, two linked towers can tank much more than two lone towers. That also means its far more effective siege the two towers at once instead of sequentially.

The remote boosting sturctures could have versions for in-system boost and in-constellation boost, linked like jump bridge structures.

Then a system assualt would include objectives like taking out the remote boosting structures, and spreading blob DPS to multiple towers at once to defeat the spider network.

Empire towers and lone towers should be easier to kill anyway. At higher sov levels, you can anchor better spider tanking structures, or they can be interlocked with more towers, or some such bonus.

Perhaps hackers could analyze the structures to discover the tower links.

Cker Heel
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.11.15 16:52:00 - [197]
 

It also occurs to me interlocking towers could cure POS spam as well.

If only so many remote boost structures are allowed per system (like jump bridge limits), only a small set of towers will have the strong spider tanks. Spammed towers beyond that limit would be easy pickings for BS gangs since they have a fraction of HP of today's towers.


Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.15 17:37:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Veng3ance
Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:21:12
I would just like to say a quick comment.

All those people suggesting Stations themselves become the focus on battles; that is a terrible idea.

It just pushes people to blob around the station. I think the key focus on these pos changes should be fleet battles going from one grid to multiple grids breaking up lag and blobs.

There must be some sort of objective that will spread gangs to multiple pos's within a system.

Ill brain storm on this "objective" a bit more haha. Its hard to think of a good incentive to attack multiple pos's simultaneously. Cool




Damn, I've put in so many ideas, tried to break up the pos fighting a bit. But your right, it still all focus's too much on the actual station fighting.

Im going to have to hit the brain storm room again and get those hamsters running again.

Nifel
PAX Technologies
Posted - 2007.11.15 18:51:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: Veng3ance
Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:21:12
I would just like to say a quick comment.

All those people suggesting Stations themselves become the focus on battles; that is a terrible idea.

It just pushes people to blob around the station. I think the key focus on these pos changes should be fleet battles going from one grid to multiple grids breaking up lag and blobs.

There must be some sort of objective that will spread gangs to multiple pos's within a system.

Ill brain storm on this "objective" a bit more haha. Its hard to think of a good incentive to attack multiple pos's simultaneously. Cool




Anything as strong as POS will always get a blob. It's not a problem to have the station as a focus point for huge megafleets as that is one of the selling points of EVE and if it wasn't possible a lot of players simply wouldn't play any longer. What's needed is escalation and one or more incentives to spread out your fleet.

As an example: my suggestion could be engineered to encourage multiple hits in this way. Let's say you can deploy various structures to help gain sovereignty points in systems, slow down removal rate if your stations is captured, increase removal rate if you just took an enemy station and probably some other stuff as well that would help industry. The structures would be multi-part that would have to be placed over several places in the system(s) and that would have to be hit simultaneously in order to remove them in a timely manner. If just one part is hit the other parts of the multi-part structure would harden it significantly, but if all were to be hit at the same time they would be unable to harden the other parts.

Oh and... this is a brainstorming session. There are no "bad" ideas ^^;;.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.15 18:53:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Not to long ago, i put togther another guys idea

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=530688

This is a link to the thread.

Its not a perfect idea, but its a fast and easy idea that could run in the interim...



Well i read through the idea. Have to agree with them its a great idea. That pretty much solves the whole problem of POS spamming.

Originally by: Goumindong
The other thing i looked at was factional warfare based.

Which can be described in short at:

Alliances set standings towards single NPC faction to +

Alliances gain:

    Kill Mission of Appropriate Type and of Various Levels and Qualities Spawn in owned stations
    NPCs of Apropriate type spawn on friendly gates. They will guard alliance forces on grid
    LP Store of faction appears in each station
    Friendly NPC Haulers buy items listed where a profit can be made then haul them to the sale
    Friendly NPCs spawn in belts and mine- listing the product on the local market


Secondary Effects

    Hostile faction NPCs appear in belts
    Hostile faction NPCs create exploration plexes


How it works

    When enemies kill friendly NPCs the alliance loses standing with the faction
    when friendlies kill enemy NPCs the alliance gain standing with the faction
    More standing = More haulers
    NPC haulers actually hold the items bought/sold. So if you kill one, and they were hauling t2 items, your gang can loot the t2 items


So now people are encouraged to both go into space to kill NPC haulers that have bought materials from the enemy and were going to sell them back to them. And people are encouraged to protect those haulers. And there are rats on the gates for enemies to kill to make it harder for alliance enemies to gain cheap minerals through NPC mining ops. And mining ops to kill to do the same. This means enemies have less access to faction gear and it hurts them.

Yadda yadda yadda, its not fleshed out. But the whole hold moon=planet control point is a good idea.


I also think that if your corp/alliance is
[example 1] + to Amarr and another Corp/ Alliance (friendly for example) is + to Minmatar. Then you are automatically set hostile to them [or set hostile to them on a Faction warfare Standings section and your normal standings continue to work in a normal way] Either way, If you now kill the Corp./ Alliance that are Factionally hostile to you, then you recieve LP [A Higher amount than killing the NPC -maybe double or triple depending on ship class] and you raise your standing.

[Exanple 2]Equally If you are + to Amarr and a hostile Corp is + to Amarr, You can kill each other, but you lose standing (and possibly LP, not sure how that works) at the same rate/way that you would gain it in the first example.

One more thing. If you have Constilation Sov and are + to Amarr, then you can delclare it as join Amarr Empire Space on the map, (Amarr Space increases the map) and the area can recieve a bonus.
Exmaple 1: 25% to fuel efficiency
Exmaple 2: Amarr navy NPC's on gates. That shoot Factional Hostile targets.
Exmaple 3: Gate guns shoot Factional Hostile targets.

Also a corp or alliance can remain indipendent. But then they miss out on the chance to gain LP (or gain a low amount from killing Faction alligned Corps -NPC Amount.) also they can be killed by Faction alligned Corps for low LP - NPC Amount. Reason being is that they are infidels or something.

I also think Level 5 Empiric Sov (I put this idea on a previous post) should be added, if for nothing but coolness factor.

Well Goumindong, You solved POS spamming, Factional warfare. Now you have to come up with a way Sov fights that have more variety, then solve world hunger.

Svetlana Scarlet
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Posted - 2007.11.15 20:00:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: Serena Hennessy
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.

I also came to this conclusion, but my intent was to come up with a good base system to work from and tweak from there. The other issue is that people docked or cloak can be working and adding to the economy and strength of the region as well. I wasn't sure it was fair to simply proclaim that they had no value because of that. You could be running the POS defenses, you could be taking care of industrial work, etc. All of those things shouldn't be invalidated as contributions. I suppose you could set an idle timer on people though; any account which hasn't taken actions other than chatting for more than X amount of time is considered idle and therefore does not count towards sovereignty. That would still allow for abuse, but it would at least be a least-effort way of cull the most obvious cases of abuse.

Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.15 21:15:00 - [202]
 

Gaining Soverignty Points for activities in the system is a good idea. Soverignty is the extension of government into the daily lives of the populace. As such, you need an active population to maintain it.

I'd link Soverignty to multiple factors, each contributing a small amount. The list of items which contribute to Soverignty would include:

1> POS's
2> Stations/Outposts
3> Isk generated by Ratting/Refining/Building/Missions
4> Kill/Death ratio
5> Neighboring Systems Soverignty
6> Designated Provincial Capital
7> Time Soverignty Held
8> Factional Warfare?
9> Planetary Populations?

The point of this style of calculations allow both Massive Invasions and Constant Harrassment to push soverignty in one direction, while the defender can counter with Solid Defense or Attrition Warfare to push back.




Ramirez Dora
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.15 23:51:00 - [203]
 

Edited by: Ramirez Dora on 16/11/2007 00:17:44
Edited by: Ramirez Dora on 16/11/2007 00:10:29
Considering that the new system will have to be easily implementable, easy to calculate (no one wants to calculate gathered ISK per day for every sov system in game, nu uh) yet challenging AND fun, I think two changes could greatly benefit the current system.

1. Sov: Moons and Outposts

1.1 Moons

First moon of every planet (that has a moon) in a system is a primary moon, make sure all systems have at least 3 primary moons. This will reduce the amount of moons needed for Sov yet be easily implemented AND prevent you from having to put deathstars and glorified mining POS's where you can have nice research/production POS's.

To implement this change all moons would require an attribute called (arbitrarily here) SovStr (sovereignty strength). Non-primaries get 0, primary moons get 1.

1.2 Outposts

Outposts act like an extra 2 primary moons under your control. Outposts should become siegable (sic?) but that is not the main subject of this post so I'll leave that one for now. Basically Outposts are an object in the system with a SovStr attribute of 2.

2. The grinding pain: POS fatigue

Correctly pointed out in several occasions, having to wait for a stront time error is annoying. How do we allow attackers to overcome this issue without nerfing the hell out of any defense? It's called POS fatigue.

The concept is easy, every time a POS is put into siege but then saved, it will suffer from fatigue (excertion on the shields eh). A POS that comes out of reinforced and is saved will have X % of its shields in fatigue (e.g. can not be repped) thus reducing shield strength for X amount of time (until fatigue wears off).

If we set fatigue % to 10% and fatigue timer to 5 days:

Alliance B attacks POS 1 of Alliance A and it is reinforced.
Alliance A defends the POS when it comes out of reinforced and reps it up.
--> POS 1 HP: shields 90%, armour 100%. Fatigue timer is at 5 days.
2 days later, Alliance B attacks the POS again, and darn it, Alliance A defends it again.
--> POS 1 HP: shields 80%, armour 100%. Fatigue timer WAS at 3 days, but now at 5 again.
...
The sieges continue and POS 1 was saved from destruction 5 times.
--> POS 1 HP: shields 50%, armour 100%. Fatigue timer is at 5 days.
The POS has reached critical fatigue and can't be reinforced for another 5 days. Alliance B now has a CHANCE to take out the POS entirely.

You can adjust percentages and timers to balance this system, but it is flexible, less hard to implement than 100% new solutions and removes a lot of the current annoying issues.


Drakine
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.11.16 00:16:00 - [204]
 

Make NPC Stations shootible so use people in NPC Space have some fun :(

Regions were there are no POS Controling sov would be great. I wouldnt mind station ping pong :P

Dwindlehop
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2007.11.16 00:33:00 - [205]
 

Remove sovereignty from POS altogether. Otherwise leave POS alone as they serve a useful function: labs, construction hangars, moon mining, etc.

Give outposts some fitting room for guns, launchers, EW, hardeners, and so forth. Change the sovereignty level calculations to base off length of outpost ownership instead of length of POS ownership.

To claim alliance A's outpost, alliance B has to shoot the defended, hardened outpost down to 0. Add the reinforced mechanic from POS in as well to remove ninja strikes at offpeak hours. My solution gives a nice balance between static 20+ moon POS wars and pre-sov station ping-pong.

A better solution would involve force being projected on two or more nodes simultaneously for maximum success, but I can't think of any sensible ideas that utilize that mechanic.

Ramirez Dora
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.16 00:44:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: Dwindlehop
Remove sovereignty from POS altogether. Otherwise leave POS alone as they serve a useful function: labs, construction hangars, moon mining, etc.

Give outposts some fitting room for guns, launchers, EW, hardeners, and so forth. Change the sovereignty level calculations to base off length of outpost ownership instead of length of POS ownership.

To claim alliance A's outpost, alliance B has to shoot the defended, hardened outpost down to 0. Add the reinforced mechanic from POS in as well to remove ninja strikes at offpeak hours. My solution gives a nice balance between static 20+ moon POS wars and pre-sov station ping-pong.

A better solution would involve force being projected on two or more nodes simultaneously for maximum success, but I can't think of any sensible ideas that utilize that mechanic.


Just as we want to go away from the 20 'it's-a-drag-to-kill-me' POS slugfests per system, we really don't want it to come to 1 superPOS slugfest.

Less amounts of fights on multiple locations on POS that suffer fatigue will be less prone to superlag blobfests.The solution isn't 100% complete, but is a feasible basis from which you can build.

Serena Hennessy
Koshaku
Antaeus Combine
Posted - 2007.11.16 03:16:00 - [207]
 

Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet
I also came to this conclusion, but my intent was to come up with a good base system to work from and tweak from there. The other issue is that people docked or cloak can be working and adding to the economy and strength of the region as well. I wasn't sure it was fair to simply proclaim that they had no value because of that. You could be running the POS defenses, you could be taking care of industrial work, etc. All of those things shouldn't be invalidated as contributions. I suppose you could set an idle timer on people though; any account which hasn't taken actions other than chatting for more than X amount of time is considered idle and therefore does not count towards sovereignty. That would still allow for abuse, but it would at least be a least-effort way of cull the most obvious cases of abuse.


Right, but by forcing people to be active in space, you encourage pew pew. And besides, it's 0sec, it's SUPPOSED to be dangerous. I'd like to force people to expose themselves to it as much as possible :D

Ramirez Dora
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.16 03:43:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: Serena Hennessy
Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet
I also came to this conclusion, but my intent was to come up with a good base system to work from and tweak from there. The other issue is that people docked or cloak can be working and adding to the economy and strength of the region as well. I wasn't sure it was fair to simply proclaim that they had no value because of that. You could be running the POS defenses, you could be taking care of industrial work, etc. All of those things shouldn't be invalidated as contributions. I suppose you could set an idle timer on people though; any account which hasn't taken actions other than chatting for more than X amount of time is considered idle and therefore does not count towards sovereignty. That would still allow for abuse, but it would at least be a least-effort way of cull the most obvious cases of abuse.


Right, but by forcing people to be active in space, you encourage pew pew. And besides, it's 0sec, it's SUPPOSED to be dangerous. I'd like to force people to expose themselves to it as much as possible :D


Sadly, the sheer amount of number crunching that would require is not feasible. Not to mention it would not be very transparent bringing frustration to both developer and player, allowing for increased abuse of the system and favouring larger > smaller.

You want a system with a reasonable number of deciding variables that can not easily be exploited. Whilst the deciding factor should definitely be presence related I do think the only feasible way is through some sort of structure and not the individual players.

Loedem
Minmatar
Knockaround Guys
Posted - 2007.11.16 06:30:00 - [209]
 

Originally by: Dwindlehop
Remove sovereignty from POS altogether. Otherwise leave POS alone as they serve a useful function: labs, construction hangars, moon mining, etc.

Give outposts some fitting room for guns, launchers, EW, hardeners, and so forth. Change the sovereignty level calculations to base off length of outpost ownership instead of length of POS ownership.

To claim alliance A's outpost, alliance B has to shoot the defended, hardened outpost down to 0. Add the reinforced mechanic from POS in as well to remove ninja strikes at offpeak hours. My solution gives a nice balance between static 20+ moon POS wars and pre-sov station ping-pong.

A better solution would involve force being projected on two or more nodes simultaneously for maximum success, but I can't think of any sensible ideas that utilize that mechanic.


I like this...maybe a combination of this and the existing system? For example...an Outpost is fairly tough to siege in comparison to a POS, however if your opposing team has spammed POS's, then a quicker alternative may be the outpost as a way to bypass. There would have to be ways to circumvent refueling the outpost from station hangars, maybe with time-outs, but other than that it adds a duel objective:

- Conquer the system via the current POS warfare method.
- Conquer the system via the Outpost, when the effort of POS warfare outweighs it.

You could even add a strategic element to this by weakening outpost defenses for every POS in system aiding its sov, thus putting the defender in a position to decide which strategy works best.

The point is you're fighting over the Outpost anyway...it should be somewhat a center of attention :)

The defenses around the Oupost can be configured any way that's deemed a good balance...for example, you could have a large shield around the entire structure (bounces anyone without docking rights) or could have 2-3 towers in its proximity (if protecting undocking people is giving too much to defense...I'd prefer this config tbo...and incorporated in the sentry gun locations that empire stations would have.).

Problem #2: Zerging - I think this should be treated as a completely different issue tbo. The point of this thread is to make POS warfare less drawn out and boring...but at the same time zerging does take a bit of the fun out due to the lag....perhaps some extra check and balances can be put in that periodically takes count of defenders and attackers (and penalizes, gives bonuses....I'll have to think on this one and edit this post later on)

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.11.16 11:29:00 - [210]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kerfira
blobbing

You do realize that your idea is entirely dependent on blobbing?

"Putting up infastructure matters" - POS SPAM
"Kills Matter" - Blobbing

Mining, Ratting, Exploring - Stopped by blobbing. Blobbing allows you to do these activities.

You think its bad right now when goons blob? Imagine if they dont even have to fight you, we just show up and park a couple hundred guns in your system and dont even bother to shoot the pos.

You think a small alliance is going to be more nimble than a large one? Yea it makes it easier to nibble off the edges, it also makes it easier to be slaughtered mercilessly. Goons will do this as a hobby and as roaming gangs. We could take over entire alliances by the power of our production empire alone.

I've never claimed that numbers wouldn't gain you some advantage :-)
If you want to park 200 goons in a system/constellation for 2-4 weeks (or whatever time is deemed right) and shut it down for your opposition, you DESERVE to get the system! You may even shoot POS if you want, but you're not forced to....

The type of blobbing I'm trying to avoid with this suggestion is the 'occation super-blob', where everyone+dog blobs up because 'at 1837 EVE time a POS comes out of reinforced'.

With my suggestion you'll still have the option to 'blob' in a way, but you'll need to do it over a long period of time instead of a half-hour interval that'd most likely be lagged to hell.....
This means that even an inferior enemy will have timezones where he can score some points, not to mention that since the current owner will have the station, he'll score points on production etc. Depending on how each type of activity is weighed against the others, this gives the defender some advantage, but he'll still have to fight to keep what he's got.

You say you can take any territory you want with this, but isn't that already the case then? With my suggestion an alliance will only be able to KEEP territory they actually use! It'll hopefully also mean a lot more ship-to-ship combat!
Originally by: Goumindong
Not to mention the ridiculousness of macro-ratters gaining sov in systems.

If they're the only ones using it, I don't see it as anything to worry about really. They log off anyway when people enter, so once someone starts using it, they'll go away and so will their sov.
Originally by: Goumindong
The idea is terrible.

No, the idea is DIFFERENT. It needs a bit of work on things like treaties to let allies work in your area without competing on sov with you, but that's what I call housekeeping.

It may also be that it needs to work on a constellation basis instead of individual systems. That way you'd spread out any tendency to blob even further.

The idea that all types of players should have an equally valuable place in any alliance empire IS a good one! Today, if you're not a PvP'er, you more often than not get told to f-off if you approach a 0.0 alliance (my characters are all PvP'ers except one which does the logistics for the other three. What I'm really after is more small-medium scale ship-to-ship combat).

I see a system like this gaining us WAY more small fights than we currently have, since small fights (but a lot of them) will contribute a lot more to you winning over your opponent than showing up with a huge blob and not fighting at all.
Less POS pew-pew (preferably none), more ship pew-pew!


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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