open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Fighting for Sov in Dominion
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 : last (12)

Author Topic

Jmarr Hyrgund
The Bastards
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:46:00 - [271]
 

Pre-Dominion the sovreignty (sov) system was based on POS warfare. If you had so many POS's in a system you could claim the system as yours. Thus taking sov was based on knocking over the current holder's towers and placing your own. Now considering that it took 10 battleships and 2 dreads approximately 3 hours to get the sheilds of one POS down, and now we have to wait for the best part of two days before we can start work on the armour and structure, you can see why blob warfare became the way to do things.

The more ships you have pounding on a POS the quicker it goes down. So a blob (or multiple blobs) of battleships, dreads, and carriers were necessary to quickly take down a POS. This produced some epic battles but unfortunately it also caused epic lag. I'm giving the military commanders of the big alliances the benefit of the doubt by believing that they do want to try other ways of taking sov but the blob is still the only way to do it.

At first glance, Dominion looked to address the requirement for POS bashing Blobs, and make it easier for smaller, faster moving fleets to take sov. The goal was to make sov warfare in 0.0 more fluid and fast moving. If you know anything about whats been going on in 0.0 recently (lag, lag and more lag) it didn't work.

Now, post-Dominion, instead of knocking over POS's to take sov, you have to place Sovreignty Blockade Units (SBU) at more than half of the stargates in a system. These SBUs take three hours to come online (about the same amount of time it takes a relatively small gang to get a POS into reinforced mode) after which time the occupying force's Infrastructure Hubs (IH), and Outposts become vulnerable to attack. Once the IH (and Outpost if present) is destroyed, the Territorial Claim Unit(TCU) is vulnerable.

The main problem as I see it is that IHs and Outposts still require the use of blobs. The TCU is small fry, with a total of 21 million total hitpoints (less than half of the Large Domination Tower's sheild alone) compared with the IH's 192.5 million ( 75m sheild, 112.5m armour and 5m structure). Since the TCU cannot be attacked without taking down the IH in a system the blob is still needed. Leaving aside Outposts (I can't find the relevant data regarding hp and such) simply running the numbers shows that sov warfare still relies heavily on rolling around the galaxy in blobs.

All this is beside the point though it does illustrate how Dominion failed to stop the blob.

The other thing that I find baffling about the sov mechanic in Dominion is that militarilyspeaking it's all ass backwards. Surely the TCU should prevent the Outpost and IH from being attacked or captured, not the other way around? The IH and Outpost are the juicy bits of the sovreignty mechanic and should be capturable intact. This has been the way with modern warfare from year dot. Rarely do you attack somewhere simply because of its location, the majority of the time you attack in order to take control of what has been built there.

More coming...

Jmarr Hyrgund
The Bastards
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:52:00 - [272]
 

...continued

The Dominion sov mechanic has you destroying the very thing that makes the space valuable in the first place. The allies didn't set out to take Arnhem during operation Market Garden because it had a river running through it. They wanted the bridge, the thing that had been built there. Neither did the Japanese bomb pearl harbour because it was beside the sea, they bombed it because of the harbour that was there.

You see my point?

Now, turn it around. What if the TCU was the the thing preventing the outpost and IH from being capturable instead of the other way around? Black Ops fleets would finally have a purpose other than guerilla warfare (or no purpose as some would argue). A fairly light gang could take down a TCU in about 4 hours (including the time it would take to online a few SBUs).

The long onlining time of a TCU (8 hours) would give the defenders plenty of time to get their act together and take down the invading TCU with the possibility that if they were defeated they could blow the IH and Outpost themselves. Much like the Germans did with the bridge at Arnhem. The objective of the attacker should never be to destroy infrastructure, but it should be an option for the defender if the worst comes to the worst. Not for nothing do retreating armies burn crops and salt the earth behind them as they go, they are depriving their enemies of the use of that resource. Just look at what ****** did in Kuwait with the oil wells for a more modern example.

Managing to get the TCU online would transfer ownership of the IH and Outpost to the invaders, possibly at a certain percentage of their capabilities which would increase over time as the occupying force settles in and the populace gets used to the change of management.

I believe that reversing the current sov mechanic would reduce the need for large blobs of 500 ships or more and allow samller, faster moving gangs to have a place in sov warfare other than being simply skirmishers. It would also give us the more fluid sovreignty warfare that we were promised with Dominion.

The big blobs are why you have lagfests, lose the blobs and you reduce the lag (you can't eliminate it completely but you can make it more manageable.) The blob must die, and I think this is one way to kill it.

SXYGeeK
Gallente
do you
Posted - 2010.03.31 02:17:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: SXYGeeK on 31/03/2010 02:19:28
the problem with putting the TCU as the first thing to down in the sov mechanics is that it holds the sov and the strat index.
the statigic index takes months to build, that shouldn't be lost in an evening to a black ops gang.

we realy don't want flip floping of systems occuring every day, as stated by CCP in the intention of the new sov system.
In your example the winning strategy would still be blob. blob the system for 8 hours and its a gauronteed win. enemies blob it the next day and take it back. flip flop flip flop.

Check out my post on the preceeding page about how we could add smaller objectives in advance of the hub/outpost bashes that would give meaningfull objectives to smaller gangs.

Agente
Posted - 2010.04.08 08:01:00 - [274]
 

Changing 0.0 warfare (and trying to make the blobs inefficient)
I have been reading thousands of message lately, so probably some of the ideas are not new. If that's the case I say sorry in advanced.
First change, sovereignty as it is now is something that should be for the powerful and the entrepreneur. Sovereignty means that Concord trust you to enlarge the frontiers of civilization, assigning a system to you to take care and develop. And the only way to show your willingness to do that is by owning an Outpost. As they are officially protected by Concord they are invulnerable under normal circumstances. Owning a station means:
1.The system will appear in the maps, so Big Alliances can be visible if they so wish.
2.They function as a base for your mining operations, commerce, etc.
3.They allow the construction of an Ihub until Strategic level 5, so you can develop the system. One change is that for the Cynosural Jammer you need level 5.
To reinforce their role as business centres they should be cheaper to built that now, around one third, but with an important upkeep cost. Let corporations make them profitable. If the bills are not paid, after a week the outpost explodes with all its contents and disappears.
This is how things work legally. But this is EVE and in 0.0 we are no precisely law abiding citizens, so lets talk about Control.
Control is achieved just the same way that now is sovereignty, with a TCU (Territorial Control unit) but the only benefits that it provides are:
1.You can seed a Ihub, and develop it until strategic level 3.
2.You can activate delayed local for who you like, based on standings.
This is something I think is worth to fight for. And also, as you don't claim sovereignty, you are invisible. Unless somebody goes there and finds you. To help to this, both the TCU and Ihub use stealth technology that makes them invisible to the scanner. You must be in the same grid to see them on the overview, making spotting them difficult. Your small alliance can hence have their small piece of 0.0 provided you are careful and don't attract attention. At he same time, if somebody thinks you are there, they still can search your ships and kill you if you are not ready to run or fight.
Now that we have the board set, lets go to conquest. What a TCU does is to hack the information flow in the gates erasing any reference at your ships or Ihub. This is expensive, because you not only have to cheat the program but also bribe some human supervisors, therefore the upkeep cost. To take control over a controlled system you need to bypass their programs an set your own. Lets see how:
1.You attack the TCU with a Control Hacking Tool. You have to “shoot” the TCU for 30 seconds wich forces a reset of it. This must be done from less than 2500 metres. By the way, capitals can't equip this tool as their jumping reactors disturb their function. If the attack is effective, the TCU restarts, a process that takes two hours, and the owning party receives a message.
2.The key to successfully hack the TCU is to start as soon as it is open to business. At this moment you must be hacking the gates, but which ones? You must control the TCU and at the same time detach the affected gates from the network so Concord doesn't realize what is going on. To succeed you must hack for 60 minutes at least 51% of the gates, rounded up, 1 and 2 jumps away of the system that is being attacked. Better an example: if there are 3 systems in a chain where A is a dead-pocket, -C-B-A, to control A you must control 51% of “gate A in system B” and “gate B in system C”, so both of them.

Agente
Posted - 2010.04.08 08:07:00 - [275]
 

continues...
1. If you succeed the gates are reset, entering reinforced mode until a time defined for the defender plus or minus 5 hours. As a note, if you have that 51% controlled you can hack any other gate at any moment during the 60 minutes. So if you loose a gate and the enemy abandons it you can retake the position. To form a big blob and jump from gate to gate weeping the attackers is not an option for the defender. The important points is that the attacker controls 51% of the gates continuously for 60 minutes, but they can be different ones.
2.When the gates exit reinforced mode, repeat point 2 to gain control of the TCU.
What this mechanics provides if a variety of “geographic” situations.
If you own a dead-pocket this is actually a stronghold. Very easy to defend as you can blob the attackers and win the battle just killing one of their fleets.
When there are five or six gates, we effectively kill the blobs as the battlefield will be stretched over several systems, with several ways to approach the attack and the defence.
Now lets see what happens after you control the systems.
In systems with an enemy outpost, you can now intercept the emergency messages directed to Concord, so it becomes attackable.
If there is an Ihub nothing happens initially. They are invulnerable under any circumstances, but if the owner doesn't keep the development levels at 4-5 the strategic level starts to decline. When it reaches 1 the one who farms the system takes control of it.
To conclude, the main change is that with this mechanics different system will have different tactical value. Systems with only a few gates will be easy to defend with blobs. System with an intermediate number of gates will be fair ground for different tactics, baits, use of reinforcements and movement of fleets along the battlefield. Systems with a lot of gates will be difficult to attack because they will require a lot of coordination on the part of the attacker, but if someone is willing to prepare an effective, flexible army they will break havoc. We also increase the variety of ships as non capital fleets are necessary to hack the gates, while the capitals will be useful to defend this fleets against another capitals, besides their traditional roles. It is like disembarking on an hostile beach, the marines go with their landing boats while the carriers provide cover and dreadnoughts bombard the coast artillery (sorry for my imagination :-).
Finally, the possibility of being invisible in 0.0 controlling a system I think will attract more small alliances, making their rating and mining operations safer, and thus providing more targets for the roaming gangs. To balance this, one interesting possibility would be to put the covert ops in delayed local mode when they switch on the covert ops cloaking device. An invisible scout looking for invisible raters, but who will be hunted? As the owners of the system are not visible in local perhaps that undefended Orca is just a bait for a 20 ship fleet waiting just outside scan range. Small gang warfare could be really exciting with that level of uncertainty. And who knows, perhaps it will make Black Ops useful?
Thanks for reading.

hi mates
Posted - 2010.05.01 11:32:00 - [276]
 

here are some idea's i had about expanding the current sov system

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1311056

TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.05.02 15:27:00 - [277]
 

Edited by: TheLordofAllandNothing on 02/05/2010 15:27:19
If anything dominion just made null sec even more stagnated, stacked so incredibly heavily in the favor of the defender, you can shoot down ihubs and stations all weak, and if the opposition rallies for just one night out of the 7 or so they had the attackers are back to square one.

Combine this with the lag and dominion is the worst expansion in the history of eve online. I would prefer shooting pos to how it is now. (And i take part in these sov holding battles every single day)

Carai an'Caldazar
Amarr
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.05.07 19:12:00 - [278]
 

Edited by: Carai an''Caldazar on 07/05/2010 19:39:40
Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing
Edited by: TheLordofAllandNothing on 02/05/2010 15:27:19
If anything dominion just made null sec even more stagnated, stacked so incredibly heavily in the favor of the defender, you can shoot down ihubs and stations all weak, and if the opposition rallies for just one night out of the 7 or so they had the attackers are back to square one.

Combine this with the lag and dominion is the worst expansion in the history of eve online. I would prefer shooting pos to how it is now. (And i take part in these sov holding battles every single day)


THIS!!!!!

-----------

Edited: After reading some of the back pages, I hope CCP is reading this thread as there are a number of good ideas posted here.

Sovereignty fighting in Dominion is slow, tedious, and painful. Blobbing early and camping the system for hours before the reff timer comes out is almost required due to the current state of the servers. Timezone warfare due to the exiting of reinforced mode has never been worse (in my experience from playing over the least 3 years).

A couple ideas that come to mind personally include
1) Reduce the price of SBU's, and make their activation time FAST (~30minutes or less?) - This would allow roaming gangs to disrupt sovereignty quickly with raids, and/or take down systems with sovereignty without IHUB/Stations.

2) Consider a solution to the double-reinforced timer that exists now... possible solutions include keeping a double timer but one reinforced comes out on a 24 hour cycle after the first reinforced, while the second comes out in the defenders timezone. Another solution would be to go to a single reinforced timer. A third solution would be to have the timer come out in 24/48 hours from the attack, but give the defender the option to "Release" reinforced mode to exit the timer early (thus allowing for the defender to begin repairing on their timetable).

3) If you want smaller gangs to have a role in sovereignty warfare, then reduce the effective hitpoints of all structure relating to sovereignty warfare. By order of magnitude. A 20-man HAC gang will not engage in sovereignty warfare unless they can get in, actually accomplish something, and get out without wasting half their evening's playtime.

Take steps in these directions, and/or the many ideas that have been posted in this thread... and watch the state of the universe erupt as individuals/pilots/corporations can actually make a difference. As it is now, come with a coalition or go home.

---------

Those with established space may complain about steps taken to increase the volatility of their infrastructure - this coming from a sovereignty holding pilot - but at the same time volatility in sovereignty has provided some of the most interesting times in EVE. Provide meaningful steps that an attacker can take with a handful of guys (think active corporation sized number of pilots on concurrently --> 15-25 pilots not counting alts) to make a difference.

Raukho
Evoke.
Ev0ke
Posted - 2010.05.15 10:38:00 - [279]
 

I want to shoot towers again.

Dominion SOV is a complete failure giving to many advantages to the defender. There is to many reinforce timers when there is an IHUB and Station in a system. The defender only needs to succefully defend one. These timers can be fixed on a time favouring the defender without anybody present or possibility to kite them. This makes SOV war even more boring and stagnant the in pre Dominion pos warfare.

Improvements: no fixed timers back to the strontium like system as in posses. Make kiting possible. Actually just go back to the previous system and limit the amount of posses that can be used in a system to claim sov.

WarriorTooth
Posted - 2010.05.15 10:43:00 - [280]
 

Edited by: WarriorTooth on 15/05/2010 10:47:10
I, too, would like to shoot poses again, this timer system is ridiculous.

1) make someone from a specific owning corp actually need to warp somewhere to set a timer
2) make kiting of stations and ihubs possible

Nestor X85
Caldari
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.05.15 11:18:00 - [281]
 

current sov mechanics are way too easy for the defenders. they just need to form a megablob 1 time and no one can break their stations/systems.

however if more "randomness" was put into the timers it would even things out a bit. for example if defender only could choose the date the structures exit reinforcement not a specific timer, even with the current 2hour "randomness" it still gives the defender too much of a advantage.

sov warfare is and has always been in favour of the alliance/group who can bring more friends...

war is good for the whole eve community. but with current mechanics you need 1000 active players to live in a system 23/7 to break sov in it. In my opinion tower warfare was better when there always was a chance of random timers(bad stronting) and player mistakes on timing starbases to their most active timezones.

maybe its just me but i miss the good old days when there was no huge powerblocs and you could just roam anywhere and find a group of people wanting to defend their space. no one had 1000 players to spam into system so the other side never had a chance to load grid.

Batolemaeus Junior
Free-Space-Ranger
Posted - 2010.05.15 12:30:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Nestor X85

however if more "randomness" was put into the timers it would even things out a bit.


No, then it's just a lottery.

The old system with a larger amount of milestones per systems with a good window for human error was vastly superior and still is. Ironically it even had less grind than the Dominion sov system..

I said it months ago and i'll say it again. Structures with HP to shoot are horrible. I don't play to sit for hours shooting at inanimate objects or repairing them. Factional warfare did this much, much better.

Selene Dukat
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.05.15 14:36:00 - [283]
 

I have a novel idea:

Instead of trying to find ways to make the game mechanic discourage large scale conflict, how about trying to find ways to make the game function well enough to support large scale fleet battles.

You can call it "blob" all you want, but epic encounters between massive fleets would be heart pounding and thrilling if it were not for the fact that after seven years, Eve still can't deliver on its promise of a smooth gameplay universe.

I don't like the elimination of options. I like it that small gang warfare is an option, and that mid-sized fast moving fleets are an option. I also like it that large scale massive fleets are an option - except that for most of Eve's life the latter option has been crippled by performance failure.

I'd rather that CCP start focusing the overwhelming majority of its development power and company resources to improving game performance in larger number situations than once again revamp the game mechanics.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.05.15 19:35:00 - [284]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 15/05/2010 19:35:24
Reposting my ideas will take too much time so I'll just link the post.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1315256

Wrong paradox
Posted - 2010.05.15 22:35:00 - [285]
 

Originally by: Selene Dukat
I have a novel idea:

Instead of trying to find ways to make the game mechanic discourage large scale conflict, how about trying to find ways to make the game function well enough to support large scale fleet battles.

You can call it "blob" all you want, but epic encounters between massive fleets would be heart pounding and thrilling if it were not for the fact that after seven years, Eve still can't deliver on its promise of a smooth gameplay universe.

I don't like the elimination of options. I like it that small gang warfare is an option, and that mid-sized fast moving fleets are an option. I also like it that large scale massive fleets are an option - except that for most of Eve's life the latter option has been crippled by performance failure.

I'd rather that CCP start focusing the overwhelming majority of its development power and company resources to improving game performance in larger number situations than once again revamp the game mechanics.




OMG im agreeing with an OWN alliance guy..

but with that said 100% agree you watch bad ass trailers for this game ALL of them have HUGE fleet fights. you dont see people mining or running missions but big a*s fights!

leave the ihub with its XP 1 RF timer and take us back to POS warfair!

Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2010.05.16 00:46:00 - [286]
 

The current system basically encourages the use of more and more numbers and less strategic thinking. Yeah, I say that even knowing how the old POS for sov worked, which is a sorry thing indeed.

Right now stations (which are the only system sov that really matter) require an initial reinforce and then 4 follow-up attacks in order to conquer them. Since timers are all set in advance with only a small randomizer to them, there is no way for an attacker to achieve a favorable timer. In other words, all 4 follow up attacks will be at whatever time the defender has the most people available vs the attacker having the least. Translation: 4 alarm clock ops per station system, with the defender having to win only one of them.

The fact that these timers have such a long delay on them, makes it absolutely trivial to call up everyone you have any relationship to, no matter how remote, to pile on for defense. There's no situation where a single entity has to defend their own turf, they will always have plenty of opportunities to bring in a larger group. What, Thursday doesn't work for you? No problem, how about Saturday? Ok, Sunday then...

Combat has no disincentive for bringing more people, which encourages larger and larger grouping for these sorts of scheduled events. Don't feel secure with 200 guys? Ok, bring 400, or 600 or 20,000. More importantly, superior tactical decisions quickly get dwarfed by just flat out numbers, particularly with a fixed asset at stake. Super-fast probing and the nano nerf disempower two of the old approaches for a smaller more flexible gang to battle a larger more sluggish one (good sniper use, and hit and run). Yeah, they're both possible, but they've both been nerfed pretty hard.

End result: Sov warfare in Dominion is pure cr*p, and just leads to getting the largest group you can and piling into system with it. Horrible stuff.

What's needed: Basically EVE needs a disincentive for using a large group. Right now there's nothing but advantage gained for bringing more guys. Its not even a matter of diminishing returns. 2 guys is just 2 x as good as 1 guy. That's terrible.

Interestingly, the old Titan DD was a reasonable disincentive for this up to a point. The first couple Titans around provided a potential large penalty for using a large group, offset by the personal risk of using the Titan. In other words, a smart opponent could bait you into using the Titan(s) and then punish you for it, but a dumb 'bring more guys' level opponent was just asking to get spanked with them.

This forced larger engagements to rely more on capitals (which ended up limiting numbers a bit just because not as many people fly caps as subcaps and the cost associated is higher - upping the stakes for participating), and punished you for just bringing a ton of cannon fodder. Cannon fodder was still useful, but not free like it basically is now without any sort of area sweeper.

Nice, but once you start dealing with fights where 6+ Titans are on the field regularly, they stop really being tacklable at ll (since you can just DD even HICs off them), and once you hit 20+ Titans even capitals become irrelevent because now these can be DD'd off the field as well. The old system was better, but had a pretty obvious breaking point where it simply didn't work at all.

So let's ask what was missing and perhaps there's ways to address that. My real goal is to make it viable for mid-sized alliances (let's say 500ish guys) to engage in meaningful sov struggles against other mid-sized alliances over lower value space. So what can we do to make that a reality?

First, there needs to be some way to take control of station reinforce timers away from the defender without being overpoweringly in the favor of the attacker. Perhaps you have to have someone from the owning corp manually set the timer when its attacked or it gets randomized (ie.. someone has to adjust the 'stront' or you roll the dice)... [continued]

Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2010.05.16 00:53:00 - [287]
 

[from part1] This wouldn't change much vs big corps, but at least smaller corps could be ninja reinforced to achieve a more favorable timer. Maybe it needs some form of kiting like we had with POS, the timer is locked at a certain %, and you can then hold it in that range for a while and push the timer accordingly. This rewards system dominance and enables you to move the timer by maintaining it.

Second, I actually think we're suffering from the lack of area DD. Single shotting capitals with Titans may be fun for the Titan, but its kind of lame really. I'd much rather see them in the 'sweep off stupid blob' mode. Perhaps a somewhat reduced area damage attack that only does fractional damage to capitals. Let them keep their gun usage. I like the Titan turret modifier, that feels appropriate for Titan vs Capital battle, but lose the one target DD. Then we're back to having an actual hazard for fielding too many cannon fodder in a sloppy fashion. Right now there is almost none (stealth bombers to a degree, but they're pretty lag vulnerable so usually the times when they'd be most appropriate is where they work the least well.)

Anyways, there's a start. As long as we're at it, we can halve MS damage and provide killmails from self destructs. Perhaps double how long people remain in space after they log when actively pointed (30 mins not 15 for all the supercaps trying to dodge this way). None of this stuff is as important.

The real key - provide a disincentive to using more guys rather than just always encouraging more. The larger the expected enemy gang becomes, the fewer opportunities exist. This is a terrible direction for the game to head.

Carai an'Caldazar
Amarr
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.05.16 05:49:00 - [288]
 

Edited by: Carai an''Caldazar on 16/05/2010 05:49:41
In regards to the post above: I have to give props to CCP for coming up with a way to get Titan's ONTO the battlefield. Same with Supercarriers. I can't thank them enough for removing the old "drive by" and making it so the most important thing on a titan wasn't align time. It's actually FUN being in a battle with titans on each side battling it out!

Sov Warfare though - I think many (maybe most?) would agree that bringing back the old POS warfare to some extent is likely preferable over the current system. This system is broken, and frankly just isn't fun to wage an invasion. There is no *real* fights that act as a determining factor, just numbers and who lags the other guy out first. NC has had their losses due to stupid crap. SC has had their losses due to stupid crap. I think both would rather have won or lost based on actual actions of their FCs rather than who loaded grid first.

If you want to keep sov upgrades, IHUBs, etc? Please do! IHUBs would make a great capturable objective for when sovereignty switches hands. Whoever has sov can unanchor the IHUB so scorched earth policies could be used, but you'd be hurting your own productivity in the process. Remove stations completely from the mix and whalla... POS's acting as your sovereignty markers and your new system upgrades working in harmony. Keep the ref timers on the IHUB but detach from sov (maybe make this 1 ref timer?). Remove stations from reffing and bring back damaging station modules... (Just some random thoughts about how some of the new stuff could actually be useful still?)

-------

Just my opinions... but Dominion sovereignty changes have been a real stinker. Please someone be taking a look at this and figuring out a way to provide meaningful fixes, including looking at potentially old methods that have worked before. Please consult the CSM to consider this - as I am completely unsure you give a damn what the playerbase thinks unless we get completely emo and cause such a fuss you are forced into action... Confused

JarJar Binkz
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.05.16 10:48:00 - [289]
 

Edited by: JarJar Binkz on 16/05/2010 10:55:56

@CCP

There's very little controversy in player responses here and it has been such for a long time. Is it possible to have something done here before the tyrannis patch? So the game doesn't suck so much for six more months?

How complicated is it to implement an external fuel bay on ihubs and stations that gets locked at 50% damage for starters? Hard code something quickly? And see about other feature requests for the next patch?

BR,

JarJar Binkz


PS I agree with mistress and the init guy

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.05.17 03:11:00 - [290]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 17/05/2010 03:34:44
Edited by: Quesa on 17/05/2010 03:16:33
First, your forums seriously need an upgrade. 5min spam timer + asking for feedback on game design + 4000 character limit = Horrible.

As for sov changes, I really think some emphasis needs to be returned to POS warfare (DO NOT PANIC, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT 50 POS'S PER SYSTEM). I keep thinking of ways to try to simplify the assault of a system and still maintain some semblance of a defensible station system.

Some ideas I keep coming back to are (some may be the same as it is now):

    [*]iHUB needs to be a POS mod that gives bonuses to the tower it's deployed on, maybe something like +10% shields/pg/cpu so that you can have some type of super-death star. This allows someone to ninja-RI for good timers and such.
    [*]iHUB is the sole array that allows you to claim sov.
    [*]iHUBs are not small enough in volume to fit 2-3 in a JF, upgrades should remain the same(??).
    [*]All station services are dropped to 750,000-1,000,000 hp and are always vulnerable to attack.
    [*]Station HP is dropped by 50% and has no resists.
    [*]Station timers are set like a POS RI timer. (The SBU anchoring + mails from stations being "shot" should be ample warning.
    [*]iHUB anchor/unachor times are increased to 2 hour.
    [*]iHUB online time is increased to 4 hours. (total to get an iHUB up and running, 6 hours)
    [*]If the iHUB is in the process of onlining and the POS that contains it is then RI'd, the iHUB returns to an "offline" state and may be unanchored.
    [*]iHUB POS bonuses are only active if the iHUB is online. iHUB remains online if it was successfully onlined prior to a POS being RI'd and will continue to be active while the POS is RI'd.
    [*]iHUB may not be anchored if there are any active SBU's in the system.
    [*]Station ownership has absolutely no bearing on sovereignty.
    [*]TCU's are ****ing gay, trash them.
    [*]SBU's still function the same but are not necessarily NEEDED for a station system siege. They are multi-purpose.
    [*]Anchoring SBU's on 51%, or more, of the gates suspends all upgrades. Yes, that's right, suspends all upgrades and their benefits. So yes, cyno jammers, captial production arrays and jump bridges would stop functioning or pause and anoms would stop spawning. The arrays wouldn't go offline, just stop functioning. (So basically, if the SBU's were destroyed, the arrays would start working again without having to roll around the system onlining and re-linking everything.)
    [*]Anchor and online times are swapped so that it's 3(?) hours to anchor and 1 minute to online. Once the SBU's shields drop below 50% it begins to take structure damage.
    [*]SBU is more vulnerable during it's anchoring stage and only has 50% of it's total armor. Once it hits the "onlining" stage, it's HP goes to what it is now.
    [*]Each SBU that is successfully onlined in the system decreases the anchor time of the next by 50%. This allows for an easier "return to siege" if a required SBU is destroyed during a siege.
    [*]Station is target-able when there is an iHUB onlined in system but is invulnerable to damage.


So lets say you want to take a station system. Since the iHUB is at a POS, SBU's are not required to assault that POS, nor are they required to kill the iHUB (so keep that in mind). You can, if you choose, go through the current motions by dropping an SBU first - then sieging the POS and then the station.

    [*]You siege the POS which contains the iHUB.
    [*]You drop SBU's to make the station vulnerable for attack.
    [*]You siege the station and successfully complete the phase 1 of the station RI and your 'alarm clock' siege has given you a good timer.
    [*]You return and kill the iHUB and the POS containing it.
    [*]You are able to successfully RI the station for the second time.
    [*]You come back and are then able to capture the station.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.05.17 03:17:00 - [291]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 17/05/2010 03:17:52
How could this have gone different?


    [*]If your SBU count drops below 51% of covered gates, the station becomes invulnerable (unless the iHUB is still active) and you will have to re-anchor another SBU to attack the station. Here is the kicker, if there is no iHUB in system and there are not the required % of SBU's active, the station isn't targetable by anyone. This means it cannot be repaired until an iHUB is active in the system again. The defenders will have to make the decision to either wait the 3 hours to re-SBU the system (making it vulnerable again) or waiting the 6 hours for another iHUB to online (allowing for an attacker re-group to RI that POS and stopping the iHUB from reactivating thus allowing for the defenders to get their defensive arrays back online).
    [*]The station will not repair itself over time, it has no shield recharge thus the progress of the attacker is not lost right away.
    [*]If the defenders are able to, one way or another, make the station targetable, they will need to repair it.


It's really ****ing late for me now so I'm sure I missed some stuff or contradicted myself on the sov ****.

THE IDEA is to give smaller entities some tactics to disrupt larger entities by:
-Suspending iHUB/upgrade benefits by onlining SBU's (also giving SBU's a dual purpose).
-Drastically dropping station service HP's allowing for small to mid-sized fleets to cause some grief.

All the while maintaining good defensive bonuses for stations and sovereignty by:
-Increasing the defensibility of the single POS that maintains your sovereignty (the one that has the iHUB in it).
-Allowing for that final station timer to be set as it is now (fire and forget timer).

And also removing the ******ed mechanic that effectively halts a system siege by killing an SBU by:
-Forcing a defender to either re-SBU their own system or spending the time to re-arm/anchor a new POS to get a new iHUB online thus allowing them to repair the station and allowing the attacker some time to regroup and continue the station.
-Speeding up the anchoring time of SBU's the more that are still online in system.

I realize that no system is going to be perfect but the current one needs some serious tweeking.

HOWEVER this game will continue to be mostly **** for us NullSec'ers until they fix the lag.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.05.17 03:29:00 - [292]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 17/05/2010 03:32:39
Furthermore, I don't know why this hasn't been stated:

There is alot of talk about milestones and the like when talking about Sov swapping hands. However, nobody has really laid out how many each entity actually has.

The attacker has, worst case scenario, these milestones:

  • Anchor SBU

  • Shoot iHUB

  • Shoot Station

  • ----

  • Shoot iHUB (First RI)

  • Shoot Station (First RI)

  • Shoot iHUB (Second RI)

  • Shoot Station (Second RI)

  • Kill iHUB (Final)

  • Capture Station (Final)

  • Kill TCU (Final)


All of these events can be (save the Station/TCU capture/Kill) spread out so that the attacker has to come back 7 times. Each of the "out times" for the structures are dummy-set by the defending entity with a measly variance of 2 hours giving the attacker/defender a minimal 4 hour window of when the structure may exit RI. I may be wrong on when you can kill the TCU but the message is still speaking very loudly.

Are we ready for the defender milestone?
  • Kill 50% of the TCU's.


So what we are looking at is the deck already, heavily stacked against the attacker by placing the odds of capturing a station to 1:7. This is not taking into anything else, JUST the possible milestones CCP is raving about.

Lets not also forget that the attacker doesn't really have milestones, in the true sense of the word because when the SBU's are downed the siege essentially restarts to step 1. (Apart from the defenders forgetting to rep the structure).


The lesson? Any decent and half competent entity will never lose a station system to anyone of equal size if they are of different timezones. Then we get to the subject of another dev post stating that people have worked around these issues using diplomacy, meta gaming and other methods. What this developer seems to forget is that diplomacy usually entails gathering more pilots to take a system from someone smaller. This leads to larger and larger coalitions. Then we are back to the current state of 0.0 where there are 2 major power blocks that own the space.

Asyrdin Harate
Aura of Darkness
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.17 14:41:00 - [293]
 

I would probably change:

Add 1 timer to TCU, so you can't take sov within a day / gain the ability to fight over unimportant systems.
Remove timers from stations
Remove 1 timer from I-hubs
Add reinforced timer to SBU's
Make station ownership dependent on sov - if there is no sov there is no owner and the station effectively acts like an npc station

and make you have to stront all sov structures / can time them the way you like

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.05.20 20:56:00 - [294]
 

As per standard operating procedures, the first few pages are active with CCP replies and discussion, then the thread gets thrown to the side. Surprised it's still a sticky.

Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2010.05.26 11:27:00 - [295]
 

Posted this in a GD thread a while back but guess it belongs here really.

Imo the new sov system sucks horribly and the old one was far better. POS spam as it's called was (compared to the current system) another way of saying more smaller sov related objects to attack, which promoted smaller fights, which was good.

The current system of a couple of very high hp structures to shoot doesn't scale the challenge of taking/holding sov to the size of the protagonists, overly favours the defenders due to the timer mechanics, and promotes worse blobbing than Eve has ever seen.

In the old days there were more choices which made sov warfare interesting. Towers could be kited. Defenders and attackers could choose how much effort to expend on spamming towers compared to aggressively destroying the towers of the enemy. Constellation sovereignty not only provided meaningful security for cap ship arrays it also provided terrain creating meaningful 'fronts' and safer rear areas adding a bit of richness to the campaign strategy as a whole.

Under the current system the battle for every system is practically identical and any system is just as vulnerable as any other, which is dull. Shooting massive hp structures that don't even fire back is even more dull. Having only a couple of structures involved in sov with 48 hour timers leaves the attackers with great chunks of time with nothing useful to do, which is incredibly dull.

Having to pay CCP isk for sov sucks arse, having to pay CCP isk for the privilege of being allowed to attack someone elses space sucks even worse. Sov should be something useful/valuable for PvPers to fight over not something you need an army of renters grinding PvE (or whatever) to pay for.

Instead of introducing this new system CCP should have built on the existing system instead, maybe limiting the size/number of POS that could be used to hold sov. Also introducing system upgrades as external POS modules which could be attacked by smaller fleets, especially including defensive system upgrades to provide smaller but still meaningful targets for small fleets.

The players had no meaningful input into this new system, it was dropped on us as a finished design about 10 weeks before go live with no collaberation or forewarning and only tweaked insignificantly thereafter. The end result is that it's horrific and should be scrapped, but of course it won't be. Instead we'll just have to live with sov warfare being as dull as ditchwater for at least a few years (best case).

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:28:00 - [296]
 

Most of the problems are becuase you can cross enitire galaxy with entire fleet in no time and no cost , and you wonder why the bigger blob wins and NAPTRAINS are so common.Confused

Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.06.02 15:52:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: Quesa
As per standard operating procedures, the first few pages are active with CCP replies and discussion, then the thread gets thrown to the side. Surprised it's still a sticky.


Is Abathur even at CCP anymore?

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.06.09 22:23:00 - [298]
 

Originally by: Hatsumi Kobayashi
Originally by: Quesa
As per standard operating procedures, the first few pages are active with CCP replies and discussion, then the thread gets thrown to the side. Surprised it's still a sticky.


Its sticky becuase they forgot about it totally , even to remove it.

Taisuke Black
Posted - 2010.06.24 20:45:00 - [299]
 

Here's my idea: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1342063

Basically I've said, what if holding sov in a system meant you could have your gates limit the number of enemies that enter the system?

SXYGeeK
Gallente
do you
Posted - 2010.06.29 18:46:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: SXYGeeK
As many people have pointed out a lot of the agrivation in the current system is that it revolves around only a few major milestones that turn into BLOB fests. Dominion was described to be a system where using the space and fighting for it would determine ownership.

An Idea I would like to put forth is that of a Security Index. A high index is one where the sov holder has a good hold on the system high participation and defends it against day to day attacks, a low index is a system where the holder doesn't use it day to day or defend it against attacks.

This index would be cheifly affected by ship to ship combat.
attackers can lower the index quickly by killing defending ships (defending ships beeing any ship with positive standing to sov holder)
the defenders can raise the index quickly by killing attacking ships (nutral and bellow)

The index would be slowly affected by PVE content, killing pirates, mining rocks, ext.. a small portion of the military and industrial indexes could pour over into the security index.

We also need something to encourage combat, so the index should be able to be affected slowly by attackers in the form of attacks on infrastructure. Incaping POS equip or Refing a POS, Disabling station services, attacking Ihub upgrades (would be nice to see upgrades beeing disableable by attack)

an AFK defender would not be growing the index if they are prevented from PVE and are not coming out to engage attackers, whilst the attacker is degrading index and preventing PVE by attacking upgrades, station services, and REFing POS's.

this could spawn day to day nice fights as attackers gear up for a SBU assualt on the system.

--------

now the security index has to matter, It should weight the combat in the SBU phase.
First, anchoring SBU's, the timer would be shortened in a low security index, perhaps in as little as an hour once a system has been worn down by many days of successfull skirmish attacks.
Second, Hub and Station Ref timers. when SBU's are anchored the attacker puts in their time preference. The prefered times of both the atacker and defender are used with a varience between them based on the security index. so a high index means the hub and station come out when the defender chooses, a low index means they come out when the attacker chooses.
Lastly, HP, the security index could provide higher or lower resistances on the Station,Hub,TCU,SBUs. in favor of the attacker or defender based on the security index.

what this all means is that taking the time to fight over a system and soften up your target will make a big difference. It will encourage defenders to come and fight in day to day battles that will be occuring. giving a wolfpack style assualt a chance to take on a system that isn't beeing defended at all. but that a suprise capital ship attack on a system may still be successfull even with a high security index.

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

next, we need to distribute the fighting. we don't want folks just blobing a system for a week to kill the security index then drop SBUs, well that's always a stradegy but lets try to encourage a more distributed fight.

security index of systems in a constalation and region boost one another. constalation more so than region.
the rate of change of an index when attacking a system is weighted on the rate of change of indexes in other systems, mostly in that constalations, but lightly in the whole region.
the intention of this is that by going and attacking varried targets throughout the constalation and region during a conflict will aid in reducing the security index of your target.

It would still be possible to degrade a high index system over say a couple weeks with determined attacks, but it could be done in a few days by spliting your forces and attacking all sov systems in the constalation and region.

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

thanks for reading.


a repost of my idea.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 : last (12)

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