open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Big 0.0 Revamp Thread - Incentivizing 0.0 and stuff
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (17)

Author Topic

Posted - 2008.12.29 07:33:00 - [241]

change is good!

Tasha Voronina
Caldari Navy Reserve Force
Posted - 2008.12.29 07:35:00 - [242]

Actually buffing something for once instead of a nerf.... supported!

As for those small gang objectives...
here's a couple of ideas:

-solar batteries at POS that have to be outside of shields and are easily incapacitated, but while they're online, they reduce actual fuel costs for running said POS (only 2 per tower max)

-local as it currently stands is agreed to be broken as an intel tool (at least, from what I understand and think) which it was never intended to be... well, here's a thought - anchorable structure at sun that provides current local functionality to 0.0, but is easily incapacitated, putting local into delayed mode

-re:cynojammers - it's kinda early in morning, so this may be something really bad, but anyway, here goes: right now, we have one big cynojammer covering the whole system - why not split this functionality up into smaller structures? These smaller cynojammers would each individually jam only a portion of the system (let's say 5 AU around themselves) and be easier to incapacitate than the current jammer, but multiple could be linked together to jam the whole system. But, as soon as over 33% of the linked jammers are incapped, the systemwide jamming goes offline and only the individual jammers remain in effect. (This should be limited to a maximum of 3 jammers per planet, else this will only promote even moar POS spammage Confused)

Further ideas along these lines should go (imho) along the lines of easily incapacitatable small structures which give system-wide benefits (which are small enough as to not be overpowering, yet significant enough to be worth defending).

As for sov. mechanics... anything that reduces POS spam is good - ideally, controlling planets should grant you (higher levels of) sov., but until something like that is in place, the idea posted here should do.

Vanessa LaiDai
Posted - 2008.12.29 08:16:00 - [243]

Sounds good to me.

Posted - 2008.12.29 08:20:00 - [244]

I think, this heads the right way.

Venkul Mul
Posted - 2008.12.29 08:41:00 - [245]

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

POS fuelling is tedious

* Trade goods cannot be produced in the general area.

While I like most of what I have seen so far I see a problem here.

Giving the possibility to produce trade goods to 0.0 alliances mean removing even the last link between Empire and 0.0. In theory Empire and 0.0 are in a symbiotic relationship, 0.0 is the frontier where you can gain and lose big fortunes in a very small time, empire is the old lands where the skilled laborers are, where are produced the things that make life more comfortable, ecc.

If all the goods can be produced in 0.0, that relationship die. At that point we will be really playing in 2 different, unrelated, games, where there is no need to move from an area to the other, forever.


An idea about stations: unless something has changed (I have never been a station owner so I can be mistaken), the owner of a station don't get any of the taxes on the items that pass through the station market.

That seem strange to me. The idea of giving the station tax (not the broker fee) to the station owner seem a basic one. It would be a great incentive to the development of better markets in 0.0 and give a reward to the station owners.

Posted - 2008.12.29 08:50:00 - [246]

that's why you get the big bucks Darius o9

couger malthas
Violent Purge PLC
Posted - 2008.12.29 08:57:00 - [247]

i am Couger Malthas i support this thred

Posted - 2008.12.29 09:17:00 - [248]

First, some notes on the previous CSM posts.


There is a lot here, so i won't go point to point:
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

Boring POS warfare

POS warfare is only boring in two regards.

1. Too many SOV objectives
2. Too difficult to achieve strategic goals that do not involve direct sovereignty control.

The actual fights at the POS are fun. The challenges that arise to get a foothold and bring in resources, is fun. The problem comes when you have 30 POS to purge and no one is defending. If that number were more reasonable then there would be very little problem.

Plundering specifically is a very bad mechanic. It is going to either have all the problems with strontium or all of the problems with ping pong and more. If you have a system where people can come in and take static resources that have been acquired then you will have a system where its impossible to producing using the plunderable options. They will be robbed during your off times.

Useless 0.0 space

Lack of Income sources for individuals 0.0

Dynamic rat spawns and POS/Outpost modules are a bad idea. Dynamic spawns are bad because it leads to an unpredictability in what systems will be the most productive. Systems that are more productive are more desirable for organizations and individuals. This means that a predictable quality of spawns in an area is good for bringing people together to fight.

You can see this exemplified most easily for moons. Its what organizations fight over. If you had quality ratting ground to fight over you would see more conflict. If its dynamic then all space is going to be roughly equally valuable. And that does not generate conflict.

POS/Outpost modules are a bad idea simply because they give the people who own the area another added advantage. As one of our goals is to bring people to 0.0, people are going to need to be able to produce well without the aid of these structures.

Basically you need a system that produces on an individual level only when that person is in the area.

You have the same kind of problem with missions, but i think its slightly reduced by the increased density that it leads too.


Lack of quick small gang PVP, lack of objectives

Small gangs inflicting Sov damage is not a good idea. While more defenses are bad, a move that would allow small gangs to influence sov would be a massive change in the level of power needed to remove sov. It would become effectively impossible to hold. The problem lies entirely in the barriers to entry for killing strategic pos modules such as miners, bridges, and cynos.

If you make taking down and putting up these types of modules faster and easier then small gangs have a real place on the battlefield. Not as a main tactic, but as support.

It should also be noted that there already are ways for small gangs to be useful, they just are not so explicit as many would like.


POS fuelling is tedious

Get rid of it. With the exception of strontium, POS fueling serves no purpose in eve. Roll the cost into the structures. A POS that is not tended will not provide a lasting deterrent to its destruction.

If a constant cost is deemed to be required as a game mechanic, then make that constant cost be deducted from the corporation wallet automatically and give directors a proper POS management system that informs them of status without bunking up their mail. That way players can "delegate" the fueling of POS to NPCs.

"Logistics" should be "getting ships and men to the front" and not "making sure everything is fueled".


Posted - 2008.12.29 09:17:00 - [249]

Originally by: Vuk Lau

Planet orbiting structures should have much more HP then current POSes

No, they should not. One of the problems in 0.0 is the inability of new entities to get involved. Making things harder to kill increases the barriers to entry for attacking sovereignty.

While less sov related small gang activities ought to also be present, increasing the barrier to entry for attacking sovereignty would be counter productive in that regard.

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
here are a number of ways to accomplish this, one that I've proposed involves giving spaceholding alliances the ability to upgrade their space over time, increasing the sec rating or seeding asteroids or even a mechanic to add agents, perhaps via station upgrades. The possibilities for this are endless but at the end of the day the big picture desired end result is to make conquering space worth it

If this happens, it has to be permanent increases(I.E. not gone when you kick the folks out) and there have to be realistic and known limits that enforce a hierarchy in terms of quality of space. Otherwise we may run into a problem where all space becomes equally good as people max out their improvements.


Now a list of some things that are very important to get big picture right

On Sovereignty and POS

  • The Mechanic of: Side one places structure to claim, side 2 kills structure to reduce claim needs to be preserved
  • The number of structures need to be reduced
  • The strategic and logistical functions of POS need to be removed from the structures that hold Sov: There is a fundamental break in the level of effort required to advance against each that cannot be served when they are melded together
  • A system similar to the strontium mechanic needs to be preserved for any built up asset that can be destroyed or plundered
  • Other plunderable assets must not incur loss of activity prior to the point that it was plundered or after it is resecured

On enhancing the value of 0.0

  • Any player influenced improvements must be permanent: Temporary changes reduce the incidence that a region will be attacked
  • It should not be possible to "gimp" a region with said upgrades
  • Player improvements must not allow an optimal improvement strategy to end up with regions of equal value
  • Flat improvements need to be aimed at individual rather than corporate or alliance production
  • Flat improvements need to end up with regions of differing value

Posted - 2008.12.29 09:22:00 - [250]

sound good

Rick Pjanja
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.29 09:22:00 - [251]

i agree :D

Vashan Tar
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.12.29 09:25:00 - [252]


Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.29 09:43:00 - [253]

Sounds Good!

Posted - 2008.12.29 09:57:00 - [254]

i support this

Posted - 2008.12.29 10:18:00 - [255]

0.0 Sov-system need to be changed.. this is a nice idea for it

Lord PET
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.29 10:59:00 - [256]

Supporting ideas.

Posted - 2008.12.29 11:15:00 - [257]

Ashemi Darkhold
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.29 11:19:00 - [258]

Edited by: Ashemi Darkhold on 29/12/2008 11:19:14
I agree something needs to change, and this seems like a good start.

am0n tristessa
Posted - 2008.12.29 11:37:00 - [259]

Edited by: am0n tristessa on 29/12/2008 11:37:18
Sounds good to me.

Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.12.29 11:55:00 - [260]

I truly support making 0.0 life more worth it to individual players. Revamping how 0.0 mechanics work just seems like the best solution, not some nerf/boost to Pos-mechanics. The changes Darius and Vuk puts to the table seem to have good points, and with CCP's refinement they might make Eve a lot more interesting for us who want to live in 0.0, and not participate in the Empire factional warfare. Bringing missions to 0.0 through some standings-mechanics might also be a good way to start, but Pos mechanics are the true clinching point.
Ankhwhatever, your points are sometimes self-defeating, and sometimes just seem... not so well thought out. Looting and Small gang pvp-points in particular. Eve should not be about WoW-like raiding parties.
Thank you CSM's, for trying to make our game more fun. Very Happy

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2008.12.29 12:01:00 - [261]

Right now as it stands the risk versus reward equation is completely skewed in Eve. 0.0 is completely stagnant and the reason for this is that conquering space is simply not worth it. There's no "massive riches" to be gained.

Technically there is. Those moons are big earners. The moment suicide gankers' insurance gets nerfed officer mods will sky rocket in price.

What I'd recommend is not to reduce the value of NPC and Empire/lowsec space but to BUFF 0.0.

Plus a system for empire to consume far more of wat 0.0 has to offer. One option obviously being the above suicide ganker option. Another would be tournament arenas that consume and destroy mods if you lose.

There are a number of ways to accomplish this, one that I've proposed involves giving spaceholding alliances the ability to upgrade their space over time, increasing the sec rating or seeding asteroids or even a mechanic to add agents, perhaps via station upgrades.

Would there be some sort of reversing factor of this?

NPC agents in Conquerable outposts

npc agents :) so beautiful an idea.

I love to see the big alliances coming out :)

Gen Mayhem
Posted - 2008.12.29 12:01:00 - [262]

Making it easier to challenge SOV is a good thing, but making a small roaming gang capable of doing it will only become a headache as someone already pointed out, you can't make it TOO easy...

I think making it easier for the average player to make more isk in 0.0 is also a good idea, maybe the systems that get ratted empty more often generate better rats than a system that is not ratted in as often. Or vice versa a system that doesnt get ratted in generates better rats than one that has 10 people ratting in it 24/7/365
(or something just an example)
I do agree completely though that the main isk makers should be the individuals, not the corp or alliance with static ops funneling in huge sums of money.

As for getting people out of empire, why not have an event that temporarily makes empire not so secure? I know this is going out on a limb but as an example, concord goes on strike, leaving empire undefended for a week or two.
Or better yet, someone ****es off the jovians, so they decide to come rip up empire for a few weeks, maybe it could become an event where the eve community must defeat the invading power to restore security to 1.0.
This would cause a mass exodus of players from empire, boost 0.0 corp populations and maybe even help form new alliances.

Also what about random wormholes, let's say one opens up in "alliance a's" territory, leading to "alliance b's" space. suddenly this new wormhole connecting one end of the universe to the other, not only allows, but forces corps and alliances that wouldn't normally have much exposure to eachother, to be face to face and either fight or join forces. Also the randomness would make it an "iffy" proposition to go through, what if you're attacking the other alliance and the wormhole closes behind you, leaving you 40+ jumps from home?

I agree with the suggestions made by the CSM members, but think you should be very careful how easy you make it to destroy SOV, and also think you should try to suggest a wide range of things that could benefit the entire game, even if it could be at the expense of someone playing now.
Whats good for the future of eve, may not be the most liked suggestion.

Posted - 2008.12.29 12:29:00 - [263]

The first two posts should be CCP's top priority and will greatly benefit everyone in the game, drawing more players.

I support the first two posts in this thread.

The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.29 12:31:00 - [264]

Sounds good.

4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.29 12:34:00 - [265]

Thumb up!

Moon Kitten
Posted - 2008.12.29 12:44:00 - [266]

Proud American
Ministry of War

Posted - 2008.12.29 12:46:00 - [267]

Originally by: Moon Kitten
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Hrm yes an excellent idea.

Yes, it's quite good actually.

Tuxedo Catfish
Posted - 2008.12.29 12:51:00 - [268]

I support this message. o7

Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.12.29 12:52:00 - [269]

Originally by: Ephemeron
Regarding the idea of moving sov holding structures to planets:

I want people to be aware of this issue: many people warp to planets for various reasons - sometimes in combat, other times to scan belts.

If we have sov claiming stuff at the planets, those structures SHOULD NOT automatically kill whatever warps there. Either they should have passive defense measures, or they must be positioned at least 300 km from the planet warp to point, out of gun range.

It may not seem like a big issue now, but it will be once it is used on massive scale in EVE.

People warp to planets because there's no chance of a hostile POS being there. Also, they warp to planets because belts sometimes have rats in them.

If you're invading a system, this makes a covops or interceptor far more useful, as they can make safe spots. A hostile force shouldn't be able to warp to a planet in a sovereign system with no repercussions. Planets, especially if they are populated, should be heavily defended.

Kuisma Koistinen
Posted - 2008.12.29 12:53:00 - [270]

Thumb up also!

Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (17)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only