open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked End the oligarchy. EVE needs more “frontier” and less "empire."
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 03:14:00 - [1]
 

Basic Premise:

  1. Most of the wealth of EVE is too easily captured by a few alliances.

  2. Most of the alliances are controlled by only a small number of actual players, compared to the total player base of EVE.

  3. It is too easy for large alliances to hold vast stretches of 0.0 space. It is even easier for these few players to dominate other regions and even lowsec thru the use of alt-corps.

  4. This means that only a few actual players can dominate most of the best parts of EVE, and the vast majority of the player base is cut out of the best parts of the game.

  5. PVE <> PVP. The fittings are different, the play style is different.

  6. It is too easy to make boatloads in 0.0 through macros/botting.


All of this means that most ppl will never venture into 0.0. They know it isn’t worth the risk. You have to “belong” to one of the “in-groups” to get anything in 0.0. It is commonly held that even the few moons with resources in low-lowsec are held by these same players in the big alliances through alt-corps.

If CCP really wants people to experience 0.0 and all that EVE has to offer, then the oligarchy of the ruling EVE elite needs to end. EVE needs more “frontier” and less “empire.”

Solutions:

  1. Make all NPC AI fight like sleepers and incursions. Make it difficult. Bring PVE styles and fittings closer to PVP. This is better for everyone. Casual players can still scale the kind of PVE play they want by the size of the mission/complex/anomaly they want to run, and ships will not be gimped for different kinds of combat, giving us more options.

  2. Make the NPC AI fight for their own space (pirate faction, aka 0.0). If a capsuleer organization goes into 0.0, then the size of the “footprint” (threat level) that any capsuleer organization creates will cause a proportional response from the NPCs whose space has been invaded.

  3. This means that NPCs will stage their own incursions into the “sovereign space” of capsuleers to reclaim their own space, directed against the “invaders” who so boldly claimed Sov in their space, including structures needed to claim Sov.

  4. Large alliances will have a stronger response directed against them than smaller ones. The more systems you claim, the bigger and more dynamic the response.

  5. If you have allies who assist you, then each allied group will earn an “aggro response” from NPCs for assisting their friends. If you assist another alliance, then your own alliance will earn the same agro response from the NPCs, and your “threat level” might increase. This might escalate the scale of the NPC incursion into your own space. This will serve to limit the formation of large conglomerates of smaller alliances trying to accomplishing what larger alliances now do by themselves.

  6. Make the kind of NPC response more dynamic. Create roving gangs of NPCs in space that has a high “capsuleer footprint” or threat level. This will make it much more difficult for larger alliances to carry out their logistical functions over vast tracts of space. It shouldn’t be easy for any group of players to manage the logistics of a vast empire in “occupied” space.

  7. Roving gangs of NPCs will also inhibit afk macros/botting, as the uncertainty of attack increases dramatically.

  8. Make the gains of claiming SOV more obvious. One possible solution is to eliminate the local display in 0.0 – with only the sovereign faction able to “see” local within their own space. This would drive a demand for more SOV – but the more SOV you claim, the more resources you have to spend fighting back incursions in your own space. A logical kind of balance when compared to the all-gain-no-risk system in place now. (As in: we will claim Sov in as many systems as we can, even if we don’t need them, just to deny anyone else from using them – because we are big enough to do it and no one can stop us.)


Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 03:16:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Tohmu Blackwing on 16/02/2011 03:22:02
Goals and Benefits

  1. To limit the capability of any one human player from controlling vast resources and limiting others from achieving what they might be able to accomplish through alliances with other dominant players. Yes, this is social engineering. I make no apologies for it.

  2. By smashing the oligopoly over the resources of EVE, it opens up the game to smaller alliances, corps and even individuals to risk it all to achieve great wealth and experience new forms of gameplay.

  3. By putting greater pressures in place to hold Sov in 0.0, it should cause the larger alliances to break up into smaller pieces. By penalizing the smaller pieces when they help each other, it forces a spirit of independence on the capsuleer organizations that claim space. The goal is to reduce the size of the territory claimed by any one actual player to a much more realistic size (not vast tracts of space controlled through multiple accounts in different alliances, all paid for because you have an unending ISK faucet from your 0.0 holdings, paying for all of those accounts.)

  4. By breaking up the larger alliances into smaller pieces it should encourage smaller gang-style warfare. This is a very desirable outcome. If an alliance can no longer sustain 5000 members, then fleet sizes SHOULD decrease. This makes the use of supercaps much less prevalent. This should encourage a more fluid, roaming style of warfare, not the static POS ping-pong of the past.

  5. To bring all players closer to the same kinds of fittings and tactics for both PVE and PVP. This makes the game much more well-rounded by encouraging players to experience both styles of play.

  6. To cause spaceships to blow up. The EVE economy depends on ship loss. If missions become harder to run at higher levels because they are more like 0.0, and if 0.0 becomes much more difficult to manage overall, then the economy will be the ultimate winner in all of this.

  7. If 0.0 alliance players are so busy managing their now greatly reduced areas of Sov, then they will be less likely to bother with lower class regions and low-lowsec – and this will open up new opportunities for smaller groups to finally be able to exploit. Similarly, the less desirable systems and constellations in the holdings of the larger alliances will open up because it is no longer feasible for a few players to hold everything in sight.

  8. This might even encourage the creation of more player-based stations in 0.0 (this has to be good for the EVE economy, right?), as the spaces between capsuleer holdings will become important to different factions.

  9. An end to the stupid and unrealistic “space cattle” of EVE who must be “farmed” at asteroid belts because they are incapable of organizing, adapting or even anticipating capsuleer activities.

  10. Destroy the ability of macros/botters from making easy isk anywhere in EVE. But at the very least, drive them out of the more profitable areas through roving NPC gangs and the loss of local display.


All I wanted to accomplish through this was to provide a more realistic experience (no more space cattle) to the game and, most importantly, to reopen the “frontier” in EVE by preventing a few players from monopolizing ALL of the best space in EVE.

NOTE: Edited for formatting.


Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.02.16 03:43:00 - [3]
 

It would be more reasonable to ask for new 0.0 regions that have different rules, more frontier style that's difficult to secure for large alliance

kinda like low sec, but with worthwhile rewards

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 03:48:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
It would be more reasonable to ask for new 0.0 regions that have different rules, more frontier style that's difficult to secure for large alliance

kinda like low sec, but with worthwhile rewards

That is another option, and I have heard that CCP plans more "layers" to the game experience, but it will take a lot of work and a LONG time to implement this. Taking what seems to be working in Incursions and using it as a template to redefine NPC behavior seems like a much more workable solution.


Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
Black Sun Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.16 04:42:00 - [5]
 

You've obviously thought this out some.. but I disagree with your whole premise that too much is owned by too few. Of course, I'm not an anarchist.. or a communist. CCP doesn't want people just to experience the 0.0 space.. They want them to experience the corp/alliance 0.0 life style. The best parts of 0.0 should be able to be captured and held.. or it becomes worth less than it is now... because you won't be able to develop it as well.

Your ideas make 0.0 into a hellish place to try to live and grow (as if it's not bad enough now).. and true to the communist model the larger and more successful are always the ones hit the hardest by anti-growth anti-trust anti-corporate measures. I don't like these kind of changes..

I'm not against all your ideas though.. I have always liked the no-presence-in-local-chat suggestion.

If your idea is just to anti-trust style break up all large groups in 0.0, what's to stop large coalitions from not forming an official alliance (ala BOB) and control all the space with out the severe disadvantages?

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 05:57:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Barbara Nichole
You've obviously thought this out some.. but I disagree with your whole premise that too much is owned by too few. Of course, I'm not an anarchist.. or a communist. ...

Your ideas make 0.0 into a hellish place to try to live and grow (as if it's not bad enough now).. and true to the communist model the larger and more successful are always the ones hit the hardest by anti-growth anti-trust anti-corporate measures. I don't like these kind of changes..

I'm not against all your ideas though.. I have always liked the no-presence-in-local-chat suggestion.
...
Thanks. I really don't mind people who disagree. Thanks for being civil about it.

I don't think this is so much "communist" as "regulatory" in nature. I am not proposing that the masses be given anything other than the opportunity to risk for the CHANCE to earn a reward. What I think this is, clearly, is an anti-trust measure designed to bust up the big alliances.

Originally by: Barbara Nichole

If your idea is just to anti-trust style break up all large groups in 0.0, what's to stop large coalitions from not forming an official alliance (ala BOB) and control all the space with out the severe disadvantages?



Actually, I think (hope) that I have a mechanism in place to deal with that possibility. I will refer to my original post, under the Solutions section, post #5:
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing

v. If you have allies who assist you, then each allied group will earn an “aggro response” from NPCs for assisting their friends. If you assist another alliance, then your own alliance will earn the same agro response from the NPCs, and your “threat level” might increase. This might escalate the scale of the NPC incursion into your own space. This will serve to limit the formation of large conglomerates of smaller alliances trying to accomplishing what larger alliances now do by themselves.


So this mechanism is designed to prevent cooperative coalitions from assisting each other to retain large tracts of space. Simply put, if you help another alliance, then you earn more Threat Rating from the NPCs in your own space. If alliance A helps alliance B, then A gets tagged with their own Threat Rating, based on the "footprint" they have in their space PLUS they earn extra aggression for assisting another alliance to protect their space. Eventually, the Threat Rating will push the NPC response beyond the ability of small groups of players to defend against. That is the goal. Cut down on what any one person can actually hold.

Originally by: Barbara Nichole
CCP doesn't want people just to experience the 0.0 space.. They want them to experience the corp/alliance 0.0 life style. The best parts of 0.0 should be able to be captured and held.. or it becomes worth less than it is now... because you won't be able to develop it as well.

I have to disagree here. I am not talking about an end to alliances, only to the massively fun-killing (my opinion) mega-huge alliances that run everything on the board. I am talking about smaller, more personal alliances, perhaps. I am talking about corps where you actually KNOW the people you play with, as opposed to the 600 members you do not know but play with so you can get access to space. I realize that this proposal is based on my opinion of EVE, so it is ok to disagree. I just think that it would open up a kind of game play that makes EVE much more accessible to more people and more fun for everyone.

As far as 0.0 being more hellish, well, that is debatable. It certainly would mean that one alliance could not rule entire regions. That is a good thing. Regarding development, well, that is still possible. Just on a smaller scale.

Politics would remain the same, just not spanning the breadth and width of EVE. It would be more local. Maybe even more personal.


Jennifer Emmagan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.16 06:22:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Jennifer Emmagan on 16/02/2011 06:26:51
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing

I am talking about smaller, more personal alliances, perhaps. I am talking about corps where you actually KNOW the people you play with, as opposed to the 600 members you do not know but play with so you can get access to space. I realize that this proposal is based on my opinion of EVE, so it is ok to disagree. I just think that it would open up a kind of game play that makes EVE much more accessible to more people and more fun for everyone.


I agree, I like small corps/alliances for this reason. It's funner, for me, to be in a corp where an individual person can have a medium-large impact on the corp/alliance as a whole. When your an in alliance or alliance of alliances filled with hundred or thousands of members, you're just another guy. If you stay or leave it doesn't matter much. In small corps/alliances you're important, when you're there that one extra guy in your fleet can make the difference. It also is better for morale I think. People seem to be happier when they think they matter, and generally the individual doesn't matter in larger corps.

Edit:

Sadly I think your idea is going to be shot down by the people in the big alliances. I agree there should be penalties for holding large amounts of space other than it costing ISK. It's just a hard problem to approach. How do you add penalties without ruining how people are currently playing? I like the concept you are aiming for but I can't support the means you are suggesting to get it done.

I do, however, support additional content of player vs NPC contested space where you can take space from NPCs which try to reclaim it with the penalties you suggested. It's almost like a PVE/PVP hybrid. The idea I do like, just only as an addition, not a replacement.

prospector oen
Posted - 2011.02.16 08:14:00 - [8]
 

if activity in a 00 area is quite - more wormholes direct from empire and low sec should spawn into these regions

Viral Effect
Caldari
BRAINDEAD Corp
Posted - 2011.02.16 09:24:00 - [9]
 

More solar systems could be an idea.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:44:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing


Originally by: Barbara Nichole

If your idea is just to anti-trust style break up all large groups in 0.0, what's to stop large coalitions from not forming an official alliance (ala BOB) and control all the space with out the severe disadvantages?



Actually, I think (hope) that I have a mechanism in place to deal with that possibility. I will refer to my original post, under the Solutions section, post #5:
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing

v. If you have allies who assist you, then each allied group will earn an “aggro response” from NPCs for assisting their friends. If you assist another alliance, then your own alliance will earn the same agro response from the NPCs, and your “threat level” might increase. This might escalate the scale of the NPC incursion into your own space. This will serve to limit the formation of large conglomerates of smaller alliances trying to accomplishing what larger alliances now do by themselves.


So this mechanism is designed to prevent cooperative coalitions from assisting each other to retain large tracts of space. Simply put, if you help another alliance, then you earn more Threat Rating from the NPCs in your own space. If alliance A helps alliance B, then A gets tagged with their own Threat Rating, based on the "footprint" they have in their space PLUS they earn extra aggression for assisting another alliance to protect their space. Eventually, the Threat Rating will push the NPC response beyond the ability of small groups of players to defend against. That is the goal. Cut down on what any one person can actually hold.





Sorry, but you have a delusion here.

In which way exactly you are going to determine that "alliance A helps alliance B" ?

Please note, reading CAOD or various chats will not help there.

It seems you are trying to regulate purely social behaviour with a stick, which can be easily avoided, and without even having a carrot.


Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.16 12:04:00 - [11]
 

The big issue with your proposal as I see it is that 0.0 is great fun because you're fighting with other players rather than NPCs. NPCs are a resource to be farmed, but 0.0 is a place for Player vs Player competition (on all the levels that entails), not more AI controlled entities to kill.

As for big alliances limiting access to 0.0 resources - have you seen the recruitment threads lately? The big alliances are big because they recruit and retain members, it's that simple.

And then to the personal touch. You can be in a big corp/alliance and still get to know the people you fly with. I'm in the nullsec corp I'm in because of the people in both the corp and the alliance. The fun times and struggle that we go through together as part of 0.0 life are what bring us together.

However I do agree that 0.0 needs more space for small entities. NPC 0.0 is the place to try out as a new player/corp/alliance. More NPC regions all around 0.0 would go a long way to helping small alliances. Although there are some NPC regions (eg Venal) that can become even less inviting to new players (when PL/Tri/Whoever made it their stomping ground).

Perhaps make more NPC 0.0 regions with only basic moon minerals (so no big alliances will be interested) so that more new/small groups can have a place to occupy in 0.0 too.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.02.16 15:30:00 - [12]
 

No such thing as frontier in eve, players destroy that pertty quickly.

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.02.16 15:51:00 - [13]
 

support for the general idea. make it require continual effort to hold sov. corps that actually use their space will take it as a blessing to have more rats to shoot, but moongoo monopolies will crumble. and good riddance.

in order to make rats effective against pos, you'd need to include a few capital ships in their spawns, as well as programming that allows them to identify main targets, like ecm and webber batterys, command ships and logistics, secondaries, like turret and launcher batteries and player ships.

i'd have your rats defending their space reinforce till the defenders are overwhelmed, unless you go to some deadspace and take out their barracks or something. i was actually disappointed when this did not happen with the incursion expansion. maybe you can get the pos attacking rats included in one of the patches to the expansion.

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 19:14:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Di Mulle
...
Sorry, but you have a delusion here.

In which way exactly you are going to determine that "alliance A helps alliance B" ?

Please note, reading CAOD or various chats will not help there.

It seems you are trying to regulate purely social behaviour with a stick, which can be easily avoided, and without even having a carrot.

I think it should be quite easy. I might be delusional here, but this is a computer game where everything in it has some kind of unique ID. It should be easy enough to track for a properly coded system.

I imagine it would work something like this:

For every member of alliance A that assists alliance B against the NPC incursion (either by causing damage or repping the alliance fleet members of damage) the "threat meter" rises a little. If you cause damage to, or repair the damage caused by the NPC incursion, then you risk adding to your own alliance's Threat Rating (the level of the NPC incursion directed against your own alliance).

For every action that is taken in support of another alliance, your "threat meter" rises. If the "threat meter" rises to a significant level - and this would require that multiple members of your alliance have been assisting another alliance, to prevent a lone wolf spy from tipping the Threat Rating against the alliance he has infiltrated - then the Threat Rating of your own alliance goes up a level.

Imagine it like this: each alliance begins with a Threat Rating. This is the level of the NPC response to your "invasion" of their space. There are several levels of Threat Rating, from "mostly harmless" (pardon the Douglas Adams reference here) to "annoyance" and all the way up to "massive incursion required." At the lower levels, it amounts to a slight rise in the NPC population of each system. NPCs would also appear at non-standard points in a system, like planets and moons. At higher Threat Ratings, regular NPC roaming patrols would form up and move through systems, camp gates or just generally cause as much havoc as they can. The highest levels of Threat Rating would require POS killing fleets to descend on SOV generating structures to remove the threat - and eliminate anyone in the way.

If you help another alliance, it can easily be tracked. This is your "threat meter." If this rises enough, then your Threat Rating goes up a level, and the NPC response in your own space gets more problematic.

This should prevent the same members of the mega-alliances from simply breaking into smaller alliances to share out the NPC threats between them. If they help each other, they add to the time that will be required keeping their own space clear of NPC threats.

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 19:38:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
The big issue with your proposal as I see it is that 0.0 is great fun because you're fighting with other players rather than NPCs. NPCs are a resource to be farmed, but 0.0 is a place for Player vs Player competition (on all the levels that entails), not more AI controlled entities to kill.

I agree. I have been in a large 0.0 alliance. I've been out there, and I don't want to turn 0.0 into a huge mission. But right now, once you set up in space, the only threat you have to deal with is human. And if your alliance is big enough, then that is only a remote possibility. Look at the pattern of Sov claims. A big alliance claims the space they REALLY want first, then they spread out as far as they can, including space they don't really use. All I am trying to do is eliminate that second step. Alliances will still be able to claim and hold space they WANT. But the extra Sov claims will become too much hassle for them to bother with.

Look at it this way. Alliances will now be able to tailor the level of NPC response against them to fit their play style. If before they conquered and held an entire region - because they could - but really only utilized a few systems in it, then they will have to decide if they want to spend time each week (each day, maybe, depending on the Threat Rating) dealing with NPCs. If they don't want to bother with NPCs all that much, then maybe they can get by with only a single constellation of space. This lowers the Threat Rating to a level that is barely an annoyance for their pilots AND it dramatically reduces the amount of logistical work that will be required by their members as well. This lets them continue their PVP style of play, with less effort also required to fuel far-flung POSes. It might also increase the number of potential targets near them, as all that open space will beckon to other alliances to come and set up shop.

Net result? MORE PVP!

I really see this as a win-win for EVERYONE. It will drive new groups to 0.0, making the whole area much more interesting. With lots of smaller groups out there, I am really hoping that fleet sizes will decrease accordingly. Smaller fleet engagements between smaller alliances will hopefully become more common. Net result? MORE PVP - on a smaller, more entertaining scale. Almost EVERYONE agrees that smaller fleet engagements are much more fun than the lagtastic mega-fleet battles. Most people seem to prefer gang warfare to fleet battles. And CCP will LOVE the reduction of lag on their servers. Again, I think this seems like a win-win.

Fewer Supercaps!

And also... with smaller alliances holding fewer systems, then it will also become much harder to build supercaps. THIS IS ALSO A GOOD THING. I remember when the "Steve" was the only Titan in the game. I remember the awe we all had at what it took to build it. Now how many Titans are in the game? No, EVE will continue to evolve into a gigantic supercap love fest, as players continually evolve their skills towards the last remaining career path open to them: Titan pilot. I am just hoping to find a way to make supercaps less prevalent in day-to-day fleet battles. They should be the can of whoop-a$s that you open up when you really need to "make your case" with an aggressor. Unfortunately, they all too often seem to be the go-to option for most fleet battles.

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 19:55:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
As for big alliances limiting access to 0.0 resources - have you seen the recruitment threads lately? The big alliances are big because they recruit and retain members, it's that simple.
That is part of my point. They recruit till their ranks are bursting at the seams. And yes, that is how they hold space. But their total population is still a drop in the bucket compared to the total population of EVE - and yet they control ALL of the moon goo market and most of the best space in EVE. I know HOW they do what they do, but that is what I am hoping to change.

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
And then to the personal touch. You can be in a big corp/alliance and still get to know the people you fly with. I'm in the nullsec corp I'm in because of the people in both the corp and the alliance. The fun times and struggle that we go through together as part of 0.0 life are what bring us together.
Then you are very lucky. That is a good thing. I would hope that if this system were enacted that you would find a way to stay together. It would be possible, just don't claim more space than you need/can deal with. It doesn't limit your fun, but it does mean you can't claim a vast area of space unless you are willing to pay the price for it.

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
However I do agree that 0.0 needs more space for small entities. NPC 0.0 is the place to try out as a new player/corp/alliance. More NPC regions all around 0.0 would go a long way to helping small alliances. Although there are some NPC regions (eg Venal) that can become even less inviting to new players (when PL/Tri/Whoever made it their stomping ground).

Perhaps make more NPC 0.0 regions with only basic moon minerals (so no big alliances will be interested) so that more new/small groups can have a place to occupy in 0.0 too.
A couple of other people also suggested more space. This is, of course, a possibility. NPC regions are a good idea. That could work, but... quite a few issues here. How is that introduced into the storyline? I guess they could be suddenly "discovered" as hidden pockets of space held by the NPCs... But the final question you have to ask is: how much space is enough? A significant part of 0.0 is often quite empty at any one time or another already. The space is claimed, but unoccupied most of the time. If CCP keeps adding space, then how big does 0.0 have to be? And if you simply add more systems, how does that stop the existing alliances from growing into those new areas, as well?

Also, if there are resources (moon goo and ore) in these systems then how does it impact the market to suddenly introduce this into the game?

Even NPC regions can be dominated by the larger alliances - they just cant claim Sov. I wanted to find a way to limit the amount that any one player can actually control - to open up the current space of EVE to more players. By making it more of a hassle than it is worth for them to try to dominate EVERYTHING in sight, then the game suddenly opens up a lot more.

I don't completely disagree with you, but I think that it adds a number of other issues that CCP and the playerbase will have to deal with. By simply creating an incursion-based NPC response throughout all known space, you keep the resources finite AND shrink the player controlled areas at the same time.

In any event, thank you for continuing the civil discussion of this. I enjoy a good debate, and this one has been good so far.

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 20:05:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Jaik7
support for the general idea. make it require continual effort to hold sov. corps that actually use their space will take it as a blessing to have more rats to shoot, but moongoo monopolies will crumble. and good riddance.
My thoughts exactly. I really do think it is a win-win for everyone involved. Smaller alliances. More fluid PVP. Smaller, more realistic player-based empires in 0.0. Not these huge jump-bridge-interconnected multi-region-spanning zones of denial that we have now.

Originally by: Jaik7
in order to make rats effective against pos, you'd need to include a few capital ships in their spawns, as well as programming that allows them to identify main targets, like ecm and webber batterys, command ships and logistics, secondaries, like turret and launcher batteries and player ships.
Agreed. The Sansha supercarrier is only the first of its kind. I am sure of that. The cap ships would only spawn at higher Threat Ratings, and would act like a regular incursion, but might also be directed to take out Sov-generating structures.

Originally by: Jaik7
i'd have your rats defending their space reinforce till the defenders are overwhelmed, unless you go to some deadspace and take out their barracks or something. i was actually disappointed when this did not happen with the incursion expansion. maybe you can get the pos attacking rats included in one of the patches to the expansion.
This is an interesting idea. This idea would require players to first remove the Sov-generating structures of the NPCs before they can drop their own Sov structures... Interesting idea...

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.16 20:23:00 - [18]
 

One more thought on this. If this kind of incursion-based change to all NPC behavior was introduced, it would have a significant impact on the moon-goo market. Right now there is a regular and dependable supply of moon goo into the market. This is controlled by the mega-alliances, and is a big part of their income.

If this proposal is enacted and it causes the breakup of the mega alliances, then there would be a disruption to the moon goo (and possibly the high-end mineral) market. This is also a good thing, IMO. Add to that the dramatic increase in ship losses due to incursions and you have a more volatile market. This makes the economy much more interesting. There are more opportunities for more people to play and enjoy the game in this kind of environment. More ships would need to be built, but the materials would be less reliably available... that spells opportunity for an entrepreneur. Opportunity NOT controlled by the mega alliances, that is.

Who knows, with this extra disruption to the materials market, CCP might open up Moon harvesting in WHs - or open up to all lowsec moons (currently capped at .3 systems or lower). IF CCP did this, it would drive traffic to lowsec, something they have said they have wanted to do for a long time.

Again, win-win, no? (well, for everyone except the big bosses in the mega alliances, that is. Sorry, Sir Molle.)

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.16 21:23:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing
Again, win-win, no? (well, for everyone except the big bosses in the mega alliances, that is. Sorry, Sir Molle.)


Plenty of the mega alliances have fallen, particularly recently - Atlas (now reborn and fighting for Delve/Querious), AAA (made a much bigger come back so far), Init (only had a small rise, but held a lot of space for a while), and of course our favourite Sir Molle's IT (no longer defending its space and shedding corps so much the wardec mails I'm getting are like spam).

So yes, there is a lot of resources in 0.0 space, but they are always vulnerable and there is always a bigger fish (always!). Inactivity is more of a killer for 0.0 alliances than anything else - there are ways to occupy space for the smaller entities already, so making a massive change to 0.0 sov space would be a little over the top IMO.

And another thing - having moon goo operations spread out makes for opportunities to gank transports/freighters (both jump or regular) that you just don't get when everything is centralised. A lot of the time it's simply a matter of being in the right place at the right time, and that often comes down to simply putting the effort in to persistently harass a larger (or not) enemy.

Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
Black Sun Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.16 23:00:00 - [20]
 

Quote:
Net result? MORE PVP!


perhaps.. I hope the net result doesn't turn out to be more people in high sec.

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.02.17 05:05:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Barbara Nichole
Quote:
Net result? MORE PVP!


perhaps.. I hope the net result doesn't turn out to be more people in high sec.



I think that the superalliances are forcing people out of nullsec by denying them huge tracts of space where there's nothing but moongoo poses at every moon, held together by a network of jump bridges which allow them to defend all the space that they are not using with blobs of drakes and supercaps.

also, to the op's concern over moongoo and high end minerals:

moongoo farms will be set up by the greedy small guys hoping to strike it rich with t2 production, competing with each other and driving t2 prices down. win for the new guys, win for the consumer, lose for the much hated moongoo monopolies.

even if all of nullsec is only ever mined by fully insured covys after this, we'll still have some very secure wormhole miners who only have to fight off rats once for each grav site.

besides. because of the fact that a system can be upgraded with sov, and the fact that huge stockpiles of mins have been built up over the years, i think that the high end min market will remain rather stable.


Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.17 05:41:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Barbara Nichole
Quote:
Net result? MORE PVP!


perhaps.. I hope the net result doesn't turn out to be more people in high sec.

Really? Ah, of all of the arguments against it, I did not really expect that one.

Why do you think it might drive people out of 0.0? You have me stumped on that one.

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing
Again, win-win, no? (well, for everyone except the big bosses in the mega alliances, that is. Sorry, Sir Molle.)


Plenty of the mega alliances have fallen, particularly recently - Atlas (now reborn and fighting for Delve/Querious), AAA (made a much bigger come back so far), Init (only had a small rise, but held a lot of space for a while), and of course our favourite Sir Molle's IT (no longer defending its space and shedding corps so much the wardec mails I'm getting are like spam).

So yes, there is a lot of resources in 0.0 space, but they are always vulnerable and there is always a bigger fish (always!). Inactivity is more of a killer for 0.0 alliances than anything else - there are ways to occupy space for the smaller entities already, so making a massive change to 0.0 sov space would be a little over the top IMO.
Well, TBH... I never expected many people currently in one of the big alliances, like yours, to actually be very happy with this proposal. It is reasonable to expect that the beneficiaries of any current system would never be happy to lose what they have, so I understand your resistance to the idea. I say that not to attack your ideas, but to point out that I believe there are quite a few more players on the other side of the fence. People who feel they have no chance to go to nullsec because they are unwilling to pimp themselves out to bigger alliances. (those words were spoken to me by a friend who quit EVE after several years because of his frustration with the limitations on his opportunities.)

I get it that the current members of the major alliances are probably not going to receive this proposal with open arms - but I think it is a shortsighted reaction. And with respect, I DO NOT think it is over the top to revamp a system that is so thoroughly gimped that only a small percentage of the total population of a game will EVER get to experience ALL of the game. I cannot think of another game that has created limits on the end-game experience (such as it is in a game like EVE, with no "end"). EVE allows a few players to prevent the vast majority from even TRYING some of the most interesting parts of the game. So with respect, I really do not think a proposal like this is over the top at all.

I will say that I think the opposition to this will likely revolve around "it ain't broke FOR ME, so don't fix it" kind of arguments. But I believe that there are many other reasons to consider this proposal - that directly benefit the players who profess a love for all things PVP. I really do see this as driving new groups into 0.0 - and that can only be a good thing for PVP. More of it - and in smaller groups. I might be delusional, but there it is...

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.17 06:29:00 - [23]
 

I solved this problem years ago with my Sovereignty 2.0 idea. Force sovereignty to be more than just picking and chosing the best systems.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.17 06:41:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 06:47:24
Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 06:46:44
Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 06:42:34
Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 06:41:35
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing
I think it should be quite easy. I might be delusional here, but this is a computer game where everything in it has some kind of unique ID. It should be easy enough to track for a properly coded system.

I imagine it would work something like this:

For every member of alliance A that assists alliance B against the NPC incursion (either by causing damage or repping the alliance fleet members of damage) the "threat meter" rises a little. If you cause damage to, or repair the damage caused by the NPC incursion, then you risk adding to your own alliance's Threat Rating (the level of the NPC incursion directed against your own alliance).

For every action that is taken in support of another alliance, your "threat meter" rises. If the "threat meter" rises to a significant level - and this would require that multiple members of your alliance have been assisting another alliance, to prevent a lone wolf spy from tipping the Threat Rating against the alliance he has infiltrated - then the Threat Rating of your own alliance goes up a level.

Imagine it like this: each alliance begins with a Threat Rating. This is the level of the NPC response to your "invasion" of their space. There are several levels of Threat Rating, from "mostly harmless" (pardon the Douglas Adams reference here) to "annoyance" and all the way up to "massive incursion required." At the lower levels, it amounts to a slight rise in the NPC population of each system. NPCs would also appear at non-standard points in a system, like planets and moons. At higher Threat Ratings, regular NPC roaming patrols would form up and move through systems, camp gates or just generally cause as much havoc as they can. The highest levels of Threat Rating would require POS killing fleets to descend on SOV generating structures to remove the threat - and eliminate anyone in the way.

If you help another alliance, it can easily be tracked. This is your "threat meter." If this rises enough, then your Threat Rating goes up a level, and the NPC response in your own space gets more problematic.

This should prevent the same members of the mega-alliances from simply breaking into smaller alliances to share out the NPC threats between them. If they help each other, they add to the time that will be required keeping their own space clear of NPC threats.


I think you are so lost within your idea that you start to miss the obvious thing.
All of your hypothetical hyper elaborated scheme MAY ensure one thing - that said alliance A will not "help" alliance B to kill some annoying NPC's. Big deal. As a by-result it MAY ensure that space hold under uniform sticker will get smaller.

Now, it has exactly zero influence for the said alliance A to unite with alliance B when going against other players, not NPC's and/or cooperate in other numerous ways. It also has zero influence for any alliance to project their power over formally unclaimed systems.
This is exactly what was going after Dominion a bit and was very easy to predict - alliances scrapped some of their sov, but in any practical sense they still owned the surrounding unclaimed systems.

Not even speaking about that proposed system would be a hell to design, code and balance properly, while at the end it will achieve very little.

Also, please take a note, that currently 0.0 space is hold not by mega-alliances, but by mega-coalitions already. I.e. the work-around for your scheme is already in place and has been for a long time.

On a more general note, I start to think that we are looking for magical wand to solve a problem (which lots of people will perceive as non-existing, btw) while that wand may not exist at all. Yours , however, definitely is not so magic.

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.17 07:18:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Di Mulle
Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 06:47:24
Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 06:46:44
Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 06:42:34
Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 06:41:35
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing
...


I think you are so lost within your idea that you start to miss the obvious thing.
All of your hypothetical hyper elaborated scheme MAY ensure one thing - that said alliance A will not "help" alliance B to kill some annoying NPC's. Big deal. As a by-result it MAY ensure that space hold under uniform sticker will get smaller.

Now, it has exactly zero influence for the said alliance A to unite with alliance B when going against other players, not NPC's and/or cooperate in other numerous ways. It also has zero influence for any alliance to project their power over formally unclaimed systems.
This is exactly what was going after Dominion a bit and was very easy to predict - alliances scrapped some of their sov, but in any practical sense they still owned the surrounding unclaimed systems.

Not even speaking about that proposed system would be a hell to design, code and balance properly, while at the end it will achieve very little.

Also, please take a note, that currently 0.0 space is hold not by mega-alliances, but by mega-coalitions already. I.e. the work-around for your scheme is already in place and has been for a long time.

On a more general note, I start to think that we are looking for magical wand to solve a problem (which lots of people will perceive as non-existing, btw) while that wand may not exist at all. Yours , however, definitely is not so magic.

I suppose it was inevitable that the discussion would get a bit nasty...

I agree with you. It does not prevent working against other players. I realized that from the outset, however, I do expect that alliances will have a natural tendency to claim AS MUCH SPACE AS THEY CAN, and therein lies the balance. They will try to claim as much as they can, and this will tax the time required by the members to deal with NPC incursions. THIS will prevent them from being as thorough as possible in dealing with any outside capsuleer threats. That is, as you correctly point out, a hypothetical, however.

So having said that, it is not, as you so kindly point out MAGIC. I never expected it to be ... MAGIC.

Besides, I believe there is still the potential for new groups and smaller alliances to move into the space that will likely open up. There is the potential for this to happen - as opposed to the system currently in place. It is better than nothing, IMO.

I'm sorry you seem so upset by the proposal. Like I said earlier, I don't mind if people disagree. It is a game and this is a proposal. I just hope we can keep from turning this into a flame-thread.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.17 09:51:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing
Basic Premise:

1. Moon goo system. Sort it out (preferably remove entirely) to make all areas profitable. PI can easily be tweaked to fill the need.
2. Either lead or follow, the multiple leaders approach will implode spectacularly, natural order of things Smile
3-4. Null is best part? Shocked
5. Any more "sky is blue" revelations you'd like to share? Very Happy
6. Same bots make boatloads in high/low. Not an isolated phenomenon.
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing
To limit the capability of any one human player from controlling vast resources..

We haven't been able to do that in the real world with thousands of years of war/strife, do you really think a little pressure is enough in Eve? Very Happy

Using NPCs to balance the player world will not work and should not be done. Incursions with their penalties is bordeline as it is when it comes to "forced" PvE content.

- If you want the frontier back, then change the teleportation capability of null (bridges/cynos)..
- If you want more pew, less blobs and smaller empires then make smaller fleets pose a tangible threat rather than something you ignore/bypass until they leave.
- If you want less ISK available then remove the static incomes and replace them with interactive ditto.

Three easy, albeit time consuming to design, steps and not a single instance of forced PvE content in sight.

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.02.17 15:33:00 - [27]
 

idea:

we may not need pos attacking rats. maybe all that's needed is a mass/hour limit on jump bridges. that would force defenders to respond to crises in waves instead of in one huge blob, giving attackers a chance to become defenders.

having the biggest blob may let you win in any situation, but you can't use that blob unless you can get it all on location. i personally think that this change will force people to work in better coordinated fleets instead of chunks of players attacking the same primary.

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.17 15:47:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing
Basic Premise:

1. Moon goo system. Sort it out (preferably remove entirely) to make all areas profitable. PI can easily be tweaked to fill the need.
2. Either lead or follow, the multiple leaders approach will implode spectacularly, natural order of things Smile
3-4. Null is best part? Shocked
5. Any more "sky is blue" revelations you'd like to share? Very Happy
6. Same bots make boatloads in high/low. Not an isolated phenomenon.
Originally by: Tohmu Blackwing
To limit the capability of any one human player from controlling vast resources..

We haven't been able to do that in the real world with thousands of years of war/strife, do you really think a little pressure is enough in Eve? Very Happy

Using NPCs to balance the player world will not work and should not be done. Incursions with their penalties is bordeline as it is when it comes to "forced" PvE content.

- If you want the frontier back, then change the teleportation capability of null (bridges/cynos)..
- If you want more pew, less blobs and smaller empires then make smaller fleets pose a tangible threat rather than something you ignore/bypass until they leave.
- If you want less ISK available then remove the static incomes and replace them with interactive ditto.

Three easy, albeit time consuming to design, steps and not a single instance of forced PvE content in sight.

1. I agree with that idea. Removing it from "special" moons and making it more available throughout space on a planetary basis is a good idea. It does, however, complicate the market - supply and demand issues. I do not know what impact it would have on the EVE market, but I think it would drive ship costs way down. Maybe that is good, maybe not. I don't know. But in any event, I don't disagree with your idea.

2. Not sure what you mean here.

3-4. Well, from a T2 production basis, it is not possible to "do it all yourself" unless you have access to moon goo. The best of which is in nullsec. So, yes, from that perspective, it is the best part of EVE.

5. That was an unworthy troll comment.

6. True, but changing the way NPCs work in ALL space might help with that. This was part of my suggestion.

Regarding your own suggestions:

i. I agree with the removal of jump bridges, just as I agree with the removal of local from nullsec. Both are unrealistic and both allow far-flung empires to exist beyond what should normally be possible from an alliance.

ii. Regarding your "more pew, less blobs" comment, well, that is nice but HOW exactly do you propose that? I tried to suggest a mechanism that would influence fleet battles. You suggestion is more like a wish list. A good one, but by leaving out the HOW it is nothing more than just a good notion. If you have a good suggestion on HOW to do this, and why it is better than this proposal, then I am all ears. Honestly.

iii. "Interactive ditto...?" What is that? And which static incomes are you referring to? Again, the HOW is important to take your suggestions more seriously. You suggest they are easier to implement than my mechanism, which essentially just recycles the Incursion Coding on a more global basis. I can't see how that could be true, especially since CCP has been looking for a solution to your 2nd suggestion for many years now. If it were easy, I am sure CCP would have done it already.

I will concede that my proposal forces PVE on 0.0 players. But I think that is the price to pay for invading the sovereign space of the NPCs. Most people do some PVE - ratting or exploration sites - so it isn't an unreasonable burdon IMO.

Of course, that is just MY opinion. Others may disagree.

General Domination
Posted - 2011.02.19 10:05:00 - [29]
 

Dear CCP,

I would agree with that there is a problem generally, but I am not the expert for its solutions. But I am a high level supporter of Highsec and Concords to be there.

@Poster: you should make clear what empires stands for in you posts, because it confused me a bit.

Tohmu Blackwing
Posted - 2011.02.23 03:54:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: General Domination
Dear CCP,

I would agree with that there is a problem generally, but I am not the expert for its solutions. But I am a high level supporter of Highsec and Concords to be there.

@Poster: you should make clear what empires stands for in you posts, because it confused me a bit.
Ah... when I speak of "empires" I am referring to the player-controlled space of 0.0. I am not referring to Empire space, or high-sec space.

This proposal only affects high-sec space by suggesting that ALL NPC conflicts will utilize the sleeper/incursion AI that seems to move PVE content closer to PVP content.

Sorry for the confusion.


Pages: [1] 2

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