open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked [Proposal] lag reducing SOV mechanics
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.06 15:26:00 - [1]
 

A.) Introduction

Lag can obviously not avoided in a single system ! This is a flaw, that is caused by a false design assumption of EVE, i.e. that moore's law will provide hardware improvements, which scale with a growing number of pilots. And this turned out to be false in terms of a single processor core. EVE nodes do not benefit from multi-core processors.

Changes in hardware architecture to distribute a solar system on several CPUs might be on CCP's drawing board, but they do not improve the situation for a specific grid and my impression is, that the technical hurdles will keep this concept for quite a time from implementation into EVE.

The following concept for sov mechanics is trying to achieve the following objects:

  • provide a game mechanic for sovereignty that is conductive to a reduction of the average number of pilots per grid and per system, while keeping fleet fights meaningful and fun.

  • provide a game mechanic for sovereignty, that gives territorial conflicts a more strategic depth than the current system, more stability for "builders", while retaining the volatility, i.e. giving "conquerors" the same chances to fully take over a space as they have now.

  • provide a game mechanic for sovereignty, that is tactically more interesting and not a boaring grind



Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.06 15:32:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 06/01/2011 16:14:33
B.) Main Features


  1. SBUs are not placed in the system you are attacking but in the systems next to it. So you place SBUs near gates, which are linked to the solar system you want to attack. When the first SBU is anchoring (not onlined) the neighbor system becomes “contested”.

  2. SBUs can only be placed in systems, that are

    1. neutral and not claimed by anyone, or

    2. claimed by your alliance

    3. on a gate next to a system that is in “contested” state


  3. TCUs have 6 states:

    1. onlining, vulnerable

    2. invulnerable, claiming

    3. invulnerable, “contested” by a SBU in adjecent system, allowing to the placement of SBUs in other adjacent systems regardless of their ownership

    4. vulnerable, when >50% of the gates are under the influence of online SBU in the adjacent solar system

    5. invulnerable, in Reinforcement Mode for max 36h

    6. vulnerable for destruction


  4. SBUs have 3 states

    1. vulnerable, until online

    2. online and invulnerable as long as the threatened TCUs is invulnerable

    3. online and vulnerable when a threatened TCU is vulnerable





proposed result
Fleet fights take place at several SBUs and the TCU which are in different systems at the same time. Concurrent fights at several different places are encouraged by game mechanics.

Fleet fights take place in a quite predictable manner, since the borders of player empires are the most vulnerable patches of space. The game mechanic encourages attacking a system adjacent to the already conquered one. Therefore the limited number of relevant systems can easily be put on dedicated enforced nodes automatically, without any interaction by players or GMs.

Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.06 15:46:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 06/01/2011 16:36:06
C.)Other features

  1. Stations and iHubs are invulnerable as long as a TCU is online.
    TCU takeover is more volatile than it is now, so there is no need for additional RF timers. On the other side important alliance infrastructure can and shall be protected by buffer solar systems

  2. SOV level is 0 per default, if there is no TCU. SOV can only be gained in Systems with TCU, then SOV may range from 0,001 to 5.499

  3. There are perks for high SOV Level

    1. Industrial and Military development indices are capped by the strategic SOV level, irrespective of the iHub extensions

    2. At more than 1.0 POSes consume 25% less fuel

    3. at more than 2.0 a SOV Enforcment Array (SEM) can be placed, as well as cyno generator array

    4. at more than 3.0 a cynosural jammer and CSMAs can be placed

    5. at more than 4.0 and above 2 jump bridge array can be placed, CSAAs can be placed

    6. at more than 5.0 all POS in system and Station modules become invulnerable.

      If a system is in SOV5 its SOV level must be eroded by SBUs or the TIU mentioned below. CSAAs should not be destroyable out of the blue sky, but offlinable by SBUs/TUI … CSMAs get a function .. Supercaps could be “stored” relatively safe.



  4. SOV level is gained by three ways, friendly TCUs in the direct neighborhood of adjacent solar systems, the TCU and iHub extensions in the system itself. SOV level is compromised by hostile SBUs in neighbor systems and the system itself

    • The TCU grants 1% SOV per Day when online. (meaning (5.5-1)*.01 = an increase of 0.044 on day 1, SOV 1 on day 11, SOV 5 on day 120, if that’s the only contribution to sov)

    • A TCU of same alliance in an adjacent solar system grants 1% SOV per day.

    • A iHub SEM extension grants 5% SOV per day, but has significant costs

    • A SBU in adjacent system as well as in the system itself decreases SOV Level by 20% per Day, until SOV Level is at 1.0



  5. There is a mechanism to plant bridge heads. Territorial Infiltration Units TIU
    1. A TIU can be anchored in any system, that is not claimed by your alliance, at any position in space

    2. TIU take 36 hours anchoring, anchoring TIUs are not visible on the overview if not in grid, but scanable. They have a very small signature and are hard to scan, only “unknown sig” shown by deep space probes (could be wormhole, Plex, or TIU)

    3. TIU takes 30 min to online, onlining and online TIUs are visible across the whole system

    4. TIU is vulnerable at any time

    5. Online TIU puts the TCU in system into contested state (state c) and allows placing SBUs in the adjacent systems. Once online the TIU starts a self-destruction timer with 15 minutes.

    6. At any given time an alliance can only be threatened by not more than 3 TIUs in all their systems. If there are already 3 TIUs and you are trying to anchor a forth it will self-destroy once anchoring is completed (avoid abuse of TIUs as probe for infiltration status). A TIU costs about 10 times the costs of a SBU but can be carried by small recon ships





With the TIU mechanism you can threaten strategically high value systems, but routine scan patrols can easily counter this kind of assault. The feature is considered to be more useful for the building of a tactical bridge head in a remote system that’s not heavily populated and monitored. Large empires are more prone to TIU attacks than small ones.

Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.06 15:52:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 06/01/2011 16:45:43
  1. s.a.
  2. s.a.

  3. s.a.

  4. s.a.

  5. s.a.

  6. Outposts become wreckable ! Outposts can be attacked in systems with no online TCU. If it looses all its armor the aggressor can decide how to persue: a.)if it loses all its structure hit points it becomes an “outpost wreck”, which means their services are disabled permanently and only pods and shuttles can dock but all ship types can undock. Upgrade platforms stay intact. b.) Outposts can also be conquered if a TCU is placed and onlined before the final assault on the strcture. An “outpost wreck” can be repaired and put into full services, if a friendly TCU is online and repair supplies (similar to the filling of an egg) are provided. The repair costs are half the costs of an egg irrespective of the upgrade status but time need for repair process scales from 6 hours for “Tier 0”, 12 hours for Tier1, 24h for Tier2 to 48h Tier3. While in repairing state, the station is vulnerable, thus the investment is prone to loss.

An aggressor has 2 options, either keep the space or devastate it …


D.) Some attribute data on the suggested modules

TCU
HP: like today
Volume: 250.000 m3
Cost: Base price + monthly fee
Anchoring: 30min
Onlining: 3h
Offlining & Unanchoring: 180 sec
RF up to 36h

SBU
HP: 50% of today
Volume: 5000 m3
Cost: 100 Mio
Anchoring of SBU 30min
Onlining of SBU 30 min
Unanchoring & Offlining: 180 sec

TIU
HP: 100k shield 1 HP armor 1HP structure (prone to attacks of very small fleets)
Volume: 200 m3
Cost: 1000 Mio
Anchoring TIU 36 hours !
Onlining TIU 30 min
Unanchoring & Offlining: no !, self-destructs after 15 min


iHUBs
invulnerable
self-destruct with no TCU in system
No RF mode for stations nor iHubs !

Major advantages of this proposal

  • Concurrent fights or at least the possibility for concurrent fights in multiple systems. Lag will be avoided.

  • High predictability, where the next major fight will happen. This can be used for the load distribution and choice of systems for enforced nodes. Less need for application forms to put a system on an enforced node. Lag will be avoided

  • More tactical and strategic depth of territorial conflicts

  • Encouragement to form compact territorial claims not scattered claims. The color dots on the map actually mean something

  • EVE does not become saturated with outposts.



CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2011.01.06 18:40:00 - [5]
 

Nice post, the topic has certainly been forefront in our minds for some time that we need to make design changes alongside the current ongoing optimisations in team gridlock now to turn things up a notch. Moving SBUs to the adjoining systems has come up previously and is being explored currently.

A longer term view is a general change to add more pacing and influence factors to the sovereignty system so its less about a small number of epic flashpoints and more about diffuse objectives inter-twinned with flashpoints which naturally encourage a fleet to break into smaller units even if some continue to blueball their way around "voltron style" which is a natural strategy.

There is of course many factors which come to affect fleet battle frequency, composition and size beyond the sovereignty mechanics and this is one part of the cosmic puzzle towards a better experience for us all.

Some interesting ideas here though and worthy of discussion.

mchief117
Posted - 2011.01.06 21:27:00 - [6]
 

Rule 1 about extremely long posts, IE more than a brief paragraph. Add a "in a nutshell" line near the top , other wise 95% of the posters will skip it entirely.
that said using a system of SBU on the border of the system vs in the system and then using a system that says, hey system X has 2 SBu units effecting it good chance there will be a fleet fight there soon i better reinforce it, would be a very good idea, as this is eve a fight can shift systems in seconds and you can unfortunately jump out of the reinforced systems doing so

Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Navigators of the Abyss
Posted - 2011.01.06 22:07:00 - [7]
 

Allow control of gates by controlling alliances and make the TCU the log that knocks the door down and I'll by a giddy school girl.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.02.17 03:33:00 - [8]
 

1. Bump because the idea deserves it.

2. Just pointing out a little flaw/consideration.

The fact that SBUs must be placed outside the target system is going to entail force splitting only if a certain condition is achieved, that is:

The time to kill an SBU must be smaller than the time required to travel between 2 different SBUs, otherwise the fleets will not split.

Some math


As a rough consideration, the time to kill an SBU usually goes as the inverse of the number of people involved (more people -> more DPS -> less time), but the travel time does not depend on the local count. This means that for a small number of people involved, fleets will not split; but when the total DPS increases enough you'll see fleets splitting.

If you take these assumptions:
  • every pilot does around 500dps (HAM drake);
  • the local limit for lagless play is (damn those missiles) 300 players (150vs150);
  • the travel time from gate to gate is around 1 minute;

that means that

a SBU must have less than 4.5m EHP to stimulate a fleet split

(that is: 150 player * 500 raw DPS * 60 seconds of travel time). Now they have 41M EHP, so I don't think that your proposal will actually change the attitude of fleets to stay together.

Are 4.5m EHP too little?

Well, if SBU ehp were reduced at such level, a single blitzing force of dreadnoughts or short range battleships could actually be devastating (wouldn't it be a good thing? Dreads and BSes would turn to be useful again).
A possible solution to this problem: the SBUs EHP are kept in the 5m range but with (maybe greatly) increased resists (less hp & higher resists = same EHP).
In this situation, if the attacker plays actively he can defend his SBUs with logistics or maybe even triage carriers.

Anyway the key is that splitting your fleet will become an interesting tactic only if the SBUs have very little EHPs. And if the little EHPs are a problem, then increase the resists (while keeping EHP constant) to boost RR effectiveness.
So the attacker will have to bring a decent load of damage, but also logistics and jammers to protect his SBUs.

Some numbers: a Guardian is able to repair 341HP per second. If resistances are 50%, it can repair 681EHP/s, if resistances are 75%, it can repair 1364EHP/s. That's just to show how changing the resistances can help the attacker in defending his SBUs while keeping the SBU EHP constant. A triage carrier would be more powerful but far more risky.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.02.17 03:49:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Camios on 17/02/2011 03:50:34
Another obvious consideration: the SBUs having about 5M EHP is a requirement to have the attacking fleet splitting.
But there's nothing forcing the defender fleet to split, so the game will be even more unbalanced than now (attacking a system will be even more dificult).

Unbalanced: how much? In the best case of a system having only one gate, the defender must defend a single TCU, while the attacker must defend a single SBU. That sounds fair.
But if the system has more gates, the attacker will have multiple weak spots to cover, while the defender will have only one. The attacker needs a lot of people for every SBU he has placed.

Moreover, if the attacker succeed in killing the TCU, then he wants to place his own, or to prevent the defender to replace his one. In this situation the battle will happen only in one system, around a TCU, and we will have lag.



Kieron VonDeux
Posted - 2011.02.17 08:34:00 - [10]
 

Forcing an attacker to have far more pilots than a defender is not bad.
Classical RL attacking armies normally start at a 3 to 1 ratio over the defender, and go up from there.

I like the idea of the SBUs being in the adjacent starsystems.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.02.17 09:31:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Daedalus II on 17/02/2011 09:43:59


I like this idea Smile

Originally by: Camios
1. Bump because the idea deserves it.

2. Just pointing out a little flaw/consideration.

The fact that SBUs must be placed outside the target system is going to entail force splitting only if a certain condition is achieved, that is:

The time to kill an SBU must be smaller than the time required to travel between 2 different SBUs, otherwise the fleets will not split.


I was thinking the same thing myself, but then I was thinking, what if an SBU isn't defeated by being killed but there rather had some sort of hold the area mechanic?

If each pilot at the SBU declared his stance in some way (select the SBU and click on choise perhaps?) either with the attackers or with the defenders. Then for each attacker on grid the SBU will strengthen 1 point, and for each defender on grid the SBU will weaken 1 point per time unit (only players in uncloaked ships count, not pods or cloaked ships). Also there should be diminishing returns, if one army tries to overwhelm the other by numbers during a short time period the amount of points they get should be much lower than 1 per time unit. Only when the armies are roughly equal size will each ship count as 1 point.

This way the strongest (with most ships) force will win the SBU. When the SBU is at 100% strength it will contest the system, if it's at 0% strength it will be destroyed.

As it's the number of people who's important and not the ships, this will promote a large number of small ships over a small number of large ships and you'll have frigate/destroyer battles around the SBUs. Having said that, if alliance A has a lot more pilots than alliance B and can field a lot more ships, nothing says those ships will survive if A jumps in 10-15 carriers full of T2 warriors.

I think this would promote splitting the armies, it's necessary for the attackers to keep all SBUs protected as they will be easily taken over otherwise, but at the same time it's no use for the defenders to attack a single SBU with overwhelming force due to the diminishing returns. If for example there is only 1 ship defending and 100 ships attacking, as long as that one ship manage to survive the gain for the attackers should be so nerfed by the large difference that it is almost at a stand still.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.02.17 17:14:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Daedalus II


If each pilot at the SBU declared his stance in some way (select the SBU and click on choise perhaps?) either with the attackers or with the defenders. Then for each attacker on grid the SBU will strengthen 1 point, and for each defender on grid the SBU will weaken 1 point per time unit (only players in uncloaked ships count, not pods or cloaked ships). Also there should be diminishing returns, if one army tries to overwhelm the other by numbers during a short time period the amount of points they get should be much lower than 1 per time unit. Only when the armies are roughly equal size will each ship count as 1 point.

This way the strongest (with most ships) force will win the SBU. When the SBU is at 100% strength it will contest the system, if it's at 0% strength it will be destroyed.

As it's the number of people who's important and not the ships, this will promote a large number of small ships over a small number of large ships and you'll have frigate/destroyer battles around the SBUs. Having said that, if alliance A has a lot more pilots than alliance B and can field a lot more ships, nothing says those ships will survive if A jumps in 10-15 carriers full of T2 warriors.



I don't think that binding the victory to sheer numbers is a good idea. It sounds a bit lame to me.
Moreover, such a mechanic would not entail that players will fight in frigates. Usually player count is fixed, so in order to be more powerful all the players will take the ship that can survive and kill the best (and that's hardly a frig or destroyer, perhaps a swarm of assault ships backed with logistics could survive, but you will lack range and DPS to try killing the other side).


 

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