open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked What determines Sovereignty? An examination of the concept.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.15 21:05:00 - [121]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 15/08/2008 21:07:04


Objection: People are just going to blob all the planetary defense modules. Noone will spread out.

If you take that approach you're going to waste a lot of your dreads's siege cycles and make the process take longer overall.

Suppose that you need to knock out 3 out of 5 PDMs to make the planetary base vulnerable. When incapacitated, the PDM stays down for 10 minutes -- one siege cycle. If you split your forces and coordinate so that they all go down at about the same time, you can get about one full siege cycle of damage in. If your blob takes them down one at a time and it takes 4 minutes for each one, then by the time you've taken down #3, #1 is going to come online in two minutes or so. Enjoy your two minutes of siege damage before the base goes invulnerable again.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.15 21:34:00 - [122]
 

That's a great point about the siege cycles.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:03:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 15/08/2008 22:03:12

Objection: Well the defender will just blob up and kill the smaller gangs that are attacking the planetary defense modules.

So what? Bubble them when they warp in, blob up yourself, and enjoy your huge badass fleet fight. At least if they choose to blob your PDM-killers, you'll be fighting them at a PDM instead of a deathstar or lagstar POS. The point of the idea isn't to completely eliminate blob warfare. It wouldn't really help with lag much anyway because as soon as you get 400 guys in a single system it goes to **** regardless of what grid you're on.

Alternatively, you can keep dodging their blob and hitting the PDMs where there blob isn't. In high lag it will take them quite a while to warp their blob from PDM to PDM, load grid, and start killing your PDM-killers who are already on grid and killing a PDM. Meanwhile all your other subcap groups are at other PDMs bringing them down.

If you're talking about a fleet blob situation, don't pretend that a blob of ships can flit all around the system on a whim smashing groups of subcaps. Maybe one group every 20 minutes if the node doesn't crash. Meanwhile the planetary base is vulnerable to sieged dreads and is getting its ass kicked.

Objection: They won't need a blob. They'll just warp a titan to the PDMs and DD all the subcaps there.

Ya, the proposal includes a part about geting rid of the old-style subcap-murdering DD and replacing it with an anti-cap weapon. So you're wrong.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.15 22:30:00 - [124]
 

I think what a defender will actually want to do if they have a strong cap fleet is to blob the main attacking fleet at the planetary base. The main attacking fleet will need to kill the defense fleet rather than firing on the planetary base, so the PDM-killer subcap gangs won't be any use at the PDMs. They may as well all join the main battle at the planetary base.

If the defender has a smaller fleet or a large fleet of mostly subcaps, then they'd be best off trying to split up and kill all the enemy subcaps attacking their PDMs. If those PDMs don't go down then the planetary base is safe, and we already established that is sucks to use caps to take them down.

So the defender can manage an effective defense using either a gang of subcaps or a large cap fleet, and regardless of either side's fleet composition, both subcaps and caps are really useful.

And the idea still leaves plenty of opportunities for the huge battles with big expensive ships that can only happen in 0.0.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.16 00:41:00 - [125]
 

Toman, your analysis is precisely why I've been pushing for off-grid objectives for the sov tools. Suddenly sov warfare becomes a whole hell of a lot more interesting.

Can we get a full proposal draft working on the Speaker's Corner before going to CSM? Kelsin, Fahtim, and I already have dead proposals. There are many, many more. I'd like to clean one up to a great extent and make sure it builds momentum fast, as if starting off with multiple architects from different sides of the galaxy isn't a good sign.

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.16 00:51:00 - [126]
 

What we need is a delegate to read this thread, or at least pages 4 and 5, and have them start the thread and sponsor it onto the meeting.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.16 01:02:00 - [127]
 

Just after reading this, I was using a lighter to light some coals. The top popped off randomly and I thought nothing of it only to discover that the lighter itself had completely caught on fire while I was holding itLaughingLaughingLaughing

WTF? It's on fire? In my hand? I'm going to sue bic and donate the funds to CCP to build a much faster server so we can fix lag and drop this whole proposal down the toilet. I should probably go check that my living room hasn't also started spontaneously combusting.

We should write up a proposal draft for said CSM's and get them to support it. Otherwise it looks like CSM 1 is supporting CSM 2's proposal and I'll be amazed if that isn't used later as de-facto ego spam.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.16 02:22:00 - [128]
 

This trivializes Sov warfare and lets any small gang chip away the sov of a thousands-strong empire.

No it doesn't. This new sov warfare system is more immune to small gang harassment than the current system is.

Under the current system, if you find a small POS with no guns, you could park a cap-stable geddon there all night and fire at with T1 ammo and blow it up if no one came to stop you. Under this new system, you must have a fleet to take down the sov-holding structures.

The planetary bases, which are the sov-holding structures, are invulnerable to attack unless the majority of their satellite defensive modules have been incapacitated. Those satellite modules are self-repairing on a pretty short timer. Any small gang that tries to take down a planetary base is going to be stuck playing whack-a-mole with the defensive modules and never be able to hurt the planetary base.

What the new system allows is a role for small gangs of sub-capitals to split off from the main fleet and pursue sub-capital sov objectives in support of the activity of the main fleet. Without the rest of the fleet there, the small gang is useless. Without the small gangs, the main fleet (the cap fleet) is useless. Everyone is working together in the same system at the same time.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.16 02:37:00 - [129]
 

The proposal supplies a means for gangs of raiders to temporary disabled alliance moon-mining. Unless something is added to balance that out, it will hurt the overall profitability of living in 0.0 and increase the pain of it. So, there's another angle to work into the proposal because in fact the profitability of living in 0.0 needs to improve somehow, not get worse.

Maybe instead of improving the profitability, which is difficult because of market dynamics, we can decrease the cost. We're already changing some things about POS. While we're at it, let's decrease the up-front costs and overall upkeep costs of POS.

These are not complicated changes.
- Decrease the cost of POS and POS modules. This can be done by decreasing base costs and by increasing the drop rate of faction POS BPCs.
- Decrease the rate of POS fuel and trade goods consumption.
- Increase silo capacities so that POS require less tedious maintenance.

All of this needs to be in the same proposal. The problems in 0.0 cannot be addressed piecemeal because they are all interconnected. You cannot design a sov warfare proposal that does not affect 0.0 profitability, so both have to be addressed at once.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:33:00 - [130]
 

Edited by: Kelsin on 16/08/2008 15:03:15
Second Draft, adding some language about profitability in the face of potential raiding. Keeping it in broader terms is probably smart since CCP will be handling the exact nature of that sort of change.

Recommended Changes to 0.0

This issue focuses on three areas of changes to improve gameplay in 0.0 Sovereignty Warfare:

1) Improvements to Sovereignty Warfare
Changing the Sov-claiming structure from moon-anchored POS to Planet-anchored Bases.

2) Raidable Logistics/Support Infrastructure
Remove Sovereignty-claiming from moon-anchored POS, reduce automated defenses and move most modules outside Control Tower shield to open them up to attacks by raiding subcap gangs. POS would then be focused on specific non-Sov claiming roles such as: mining/industry, jump bridge, cyno jammer, planetary defense.

3) Invader Tools/Titan Rebalancing
To account for the above changes, removal of AOE effect from Doomsday Device, to be replaced with single-target anti-capship weapon and “Staging Area Shield” ability.

These three areas of change combined are intended to make Sovereignty Warfare more fun and multi-faceted and provide for better gameplay at the Siege level as well as offer tangible raiding objectives for small subcapital gangs.


Improvements to Sovereignty Warfare

This change primarily hinges on moving the basis of Sovereignty from moon-anchored POS to planet-anchored Bases, supported by planetary defense modules anchored on separate grids surrounding the Planet. A new Siege mechanic is introduced to make epic battles over these Planetary Bases more interesting.

The Planetary Base

The Planetary Base’s primary purpose is to establish Sovereignty over a solar system. Secondary roles could include acting as a Fuel Depot for POS at moons in orbit around the planet, to ease fueling logistics. Additional functions could also be added.

When attacked, the Planetary Base follows much the same path as current POS Siege mechanics, with one new addition:

Upon the expiration of the reinforcement timer, five Planetary Defense Modules anchored in separate grids surrounding the planet come online. In order for the main fleet to inflict damage on the Planetary Base, 3 of the 5 PDMs must be disabled. When disabled via damage, a PDM will go into a short (5-10 minute) downtime to repair itself. Once repaired it will come back online and resume supporting the Planetary Base. Thus, Attacking forces must continuously suppress the PDMs around the Base while the main Siege force attacks the Base itself.

The Defending force must anchor the PDMs, but they are dormant and can be scanned down but cannot be targeted until the Planetary Base exits a reinforcement timer.

Options for making the PDM mechanic even more interesting include having them govern the heavy guns that defend the Planetary Base, so that suppressing them deactivates the guns to aid the main siege force.

New Roles of Moon-anchored Player Owned Stations + Raiding

With the movement of Sovereignty mechanics to Planetary Bases, Moon-anchored POS are free to be refocused as logistics/support facilities, and can be re-balanced to be targets for smaller raiding forces to inflict financial and logistical damage.

Automated defenses can be downgraded to be on a level consistent with attacks by small to medium size subcapital gangs. Facilities at the POS are made vulnerable to attack in a fashion similar to Station Services, so that raiding forces that can infiltrate enemy territory can inflict financial damage by halting production, research, moon-mining, theft of resources, etc. Actual destruction of modules requires the destruction of the Control Tower itself.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:34:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: Kelsin on 16/08/2008 15:01:19
The economic model of moon-anchored POS should be re-examined with these changes to account for the potential disablement of facilities or theft of resources via raiding. The balance and risk of spreading industrial activity across a broad area, out of response reach of Defending forces vs. a smaller better secured area should be a definite choice. Decreasing of maintenance costs (perhaps via discounts through collective fueling at Planetary Bases) are recommended.

The potential for Stargate anchored gate guns similar to those found in Low-Sec can be considered – so that raiding forces with aggression towards the Sovereign Alliance will be under fire during their escape from enemy territory.

Invader Tools/Titan Rebalancing

To accompany the above changes, a new tool must be added to the arsenal of invading forces and the AOE damage element of the Doomsday Device must be changed. These two changes can be taken together to give a new tool to the Titan in exchange for reducing the power of its signature weapon.

In place of the AOE damage element of the Doomsday Device, it is recommended that the Device be changed to a powerful single-target blast designed to be attack enemy Capitals and Supercaps.

In addition, to provide for increased ability to stage forces in enemy systems prior to Sieges, a POS-caliber shield is recommended as a new module for the Titan, allowing it to temporarily create a safe zone in empty space to act as a staging ground. With this addition the Titan will truly be a mobile battle station.

Conclusion

Taken together, these changes will improve the fun and variety of warfare in 0.0 space for all levels of force deployment – from the raiding small gang all the way up to the epic Siege battle.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:36:00 - [132]
 

I think Fahtim can just post it when we're happy with it. The fact that it is a collaborative effort and we're all supporting it will help, and Toman can follow up with his FAQ.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:57:00 - [133]
 

Kelsin,

"unsecured by policing" language that will unnecessarily evoke a bad reaction. Try, "Out of the reach of fast-responding defenders" or something. The implication is that that the defense vs. raiders is an event-driven thing just like fighting any other hostile roaming gang, and no one expects people to patrol their territory. If people want to warp from tower to tower in the territory on the off-chance they encounter an enemy gang, more power to them, but most people will balk at the suggestion.

Also, not all planets have 5 moons. Many planets have none. The PDMs just need to be place off-grid, 1 au away from the planetary base or something.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:59:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Kelsin on 16/08/2008 15:04:46
Sounds good, I'll make some edits.

EDIT: done. let me know if I missed anything.

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.16 20:23:00 - [135]
 

You go ahead and post it; you're the author here. I'll support ofc, and I'll add my two isk plus some links to key posts in these discussions when I get a chance.

Also my account is gonna lapse soon so I won't be checking often.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.17 18:12:00 - [136]
 

Edited by: NanDe YaNen on 17/08/2008 18:26:51
Originally by: Toman Jerich
The proposal supplies a means for gangs of raiders to temporary disabled alliance moon-mining. Unless something is added to balance that out, it will hurt the overall profitability of living in 0.0 and increase the pain of it. So, there's another angle to work into the proposal because in fact the profitability of living in 0.0 needs to improve somehow, not get worse.

Maybe instead of improving the profitability, which is difficult because of market dynamics, we can decrease the cost. We're already changing some things about POS. While we're at it, let's decrease the up-front costs and overall upkeep costs of POS.

These are not complicated changes.
- Decrease the cost of POS and POS modules. This can be done by decreasing base costs and by increasing the drop rate of faction POS BPCs.
- Decrease the rate of POS fuel and trade goods consumption.
- Increase silo capacities so that POS require less tedious maintenance.

All of this needs to be in the same proposal. The problems in 0.0 cannot be addressed piecemeal because they are all interconnected. You cannot design a sov warfare proposal that does not affect 0.0 profitability, so both have to be addressed at once.


I'm going to put on my Darius JOHNSON Halloween mask and be sure this gets communicated well.

0.0 is very, very hard to live in. Every POS represents an entire day that someone was grinding needless bull**** and waiting for modules to anchor/online. Not to mention paying for the ****.

As a proponent of maximum unapologetic, narcissistic fulfillment for 0.0 residents, I propose that the following changes be made to 0.0:

1) Starbase Logistics are Needlessly Soul Destroying get addressed. Not slightly. 100%. Starbase spam should be trivial.
2) Instead of using the grinding buffer as a control for empire size, use PvP driven mechanics. A much more thorough and granular mechanic of income/PvP rockage relationship.
3) Give 0.0 residents much higher income to afford maintaining these empires.

The end goal is that the area that can be controlled shall be dictated by the proficiency and participation in PvP of alliances. Their industry for capability to support the war effort with regard to building PvP ships that are fun, not towers that suck, suck gas, and destroy souls.

End the Death Star's needless trail of soul destruction. Replace it with the heart-warming joy of flying around and playing internet spaceships!!!

The philosophy of using the POS grind as an alliance limiting mechanic was so ill-concieved and counter to the non-WoW-ness of Eve that it must end and be erased permanently from the history of New Eden.

Moar SHIPS! Less GAS!

Revolution.

v(-_-)

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.17 18:22:00 - [137]
 

Oh dammit.. did I just knee-jerk in a line about small-gang stuff?

My apologies. Going to check up on the whole thread and be sure I'm not missing the consensus. Seems like we're pro-multi-grid sov battles, maybe pro-raiding of POS's (only with jacked up 0.0 income), and anti-small-gang sov.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.17 18:45:00 - [138]
 

Edited by: NanDe YaNen on 17/08/2008 18:45:32
After a bit of re-reading, I really think the part where the planetary defense platform guns go offline when the orbital defense things are offline is 100% necessary.

We've established pretty clearly why the attacker can't 100% ball up. To give the defender reason as well not to ball up, require them to maintain some presence and response capability at the satellite structures.



Additionally, I'd like to see some mechanic that rewards the attacker for maintaining control at all the defense arrays...something that can be used to feint the defender away from the main structure.

An attacker who is holding down all five is going to have themselves spread out, so there's no excuse for the defender not being able to respond in some fashion.

The tool is already marvelous for allowing mobility and coordination to hurt a large attacker. Needs a little love on the side of allowing mobility and coordination to cost a large defender...unless we're doing that through the moon-mining vulnerabilities etc.

What is the opinion of the council of brighter 0.0 on this matter?

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 03:37:00 - [139]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 03:40:58
Here it is as I would post it.
-----------
This proposal includes a coordinated set of ideas that encompass changes to 0.0, sov warfare, and the roles of super-caps, caps, and sub-caps. The idea is that all of these concerns are so tightly related that it’s easier to try and solve all the problems together than to come up with piecemeal solutions. So this is not “pick-and-choose”. It’s “all-or-none”. Here are the “problems” the solution tries to “solve”:

  1. In sov warfare, there is only one case where you would prefer to have a pilot in a sub-cap rather than in a capship, and that is a cynojammer takedown. Seems like people would prefer that subcaps have more purpose in sov warfare that can’t be better filled by caps.

  2. According to CCP, sov warfare needs a place for small gangs to contribute (read: a step in sov warfare that can’t be totally blobbed and can be done in subcaps).

  3. The cost/benefit analysis for living in 0.0 is not favorable.

  4. Some people want roaming gangs to be able to do some level of infrastructural damage in conquerable space. But, allowing that makes problem #3 even worse.

  5. One ship killing 200 other ships by pushing one button is not very fun.


And here are some good things about living in 0.0 that the proposal tries not to mess up:


  1. There are massive fleet battles featuring huge expensive capital and super-capital ships.

  2. It takes #1 to effectively wage sov warfare.

  3. Those who have the best organization of the most dedicated players have the best chance of succeeding in 0.0.


Onto the changes.

New Sov Warfare System – Planetary Bases
Introduce a new sov-holding structure, the Planetary Base (PB), which is anchored at a planet. Moon-anchored POS no longer contribute to Sov. Each PB is associated with a set of five Planetary Defense Stations (PDS) with are located on different grids one AU or so from the PB. PBs get the set of anchorable offensive and defensive modules that POS currently get in the live game, however cynojammers, jump bridges, cyno beacons and other non-combat modules can only be anchored at POS.

The process of destroying a PB is exactly like destroying a POS, except that after the PB comes out of reinforced, it continues to be invulnerable until repped OR until three out of its five PDS are incapped. Once the planetary base is vulnerable, it remains so as long as three out of five PDS are incapped. The PDS are designed to be subcap objectives; think of them like station services with far, far fewer hp. 20 BS should be able to take one out in twenty minutes or so. However, the PDS are self-repairing. Around 10 minutes after being incapped, the PDS come back online with full hp. Consequently, teams of subcaps from an attacking fleet need to constantly work to keep the majority of the PDS down while the main fleet attacks the PB. The hp of the PB should be such that you can finish one off in two fully-utilized windows of opportunity with a fleet that includes 35 or so dreads. The hp is a tweakable balancing point.

PDS can only be targeted during the window of time after a PB exits reinforced and before the PB is repped. Optional idea: While the planetary base is vulnerable, the guns at the planetary base don’t fire. You could dream up other bonuses gained from disabling more than 3/5 PDS.

I have put a little FAQ at the end that explains how this addresses problems #1 and #2 above.

POS Changes – Small Gang Harassment Targets

With POS no longer being sov-holding structures, they can be made more vulnerable to attacks by roaming gangs that want to attack infrastructure.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 03:38:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 13:39:04
Move all POS facilities (moon-mining, research, production, storage, etc) outside of the POS shields. The modules can be incapped by roamers to temporarily disable their function, but to destroy them an attacker must first destroy the POS control tower. When a POS module that contains a resource (e.g. harvested moon mins or reaction products) is incapped, some percentage of its contents are ejected into space for the harassers to keep. The process for destroying a POS should remain the same, but reduce the offensive modules anchorable at a POS so as to make the POS modules reasonably vulnerable to harassment (read: a limited number of small guns, along with the normal neuts, scrams, ecm, etc).

POS keep their current level of shields, so they’re still reasonable to use as staging structures during an invasion of a hostile system. But see the titan change further down as well. The hp of the modules that will now be outside of the POS shields is a balance point.

POS Changes – Reducing the Upkeep Cost/Increasing profitability.

Assumedly some people will actually go around incapping moon-mining modules and so forth, which is going to hurt the profitability of living in 0.0 (which is already not so hot). To (over-)compensate, reduce the cost of maintaining the network of POS and increase their rates of production.

Decrease the up-front cost of a POS. Reduce control tower base costs, and increase the drop-rates for faction tower BPCs. Reduce the rate of POS fuel and trade goods consumption. Increase silo and fuel-bay size to reduce the amount of tedious upkeep effort. This is on top of the fact that under the new sov warfare system described above, you can probably get by with fewer POS to begin with. Increase reaction rates and min harvesting rates to (over-)compensate for the potential loss of resources to raiders. Because this will affect the global supply of reaction products, it will probably be necessary to adjust the amounts of reaction products needed for T2 production. In a player-based economy like Eve, if you're not increasing profitability by opening up a new market (adding a new game mechanic), then you're achieving it by wealth transfer. The T2 market is the vehicle for transferring wealth from elsewhere into 0.0.

How does this help the average Joe? Maybe if your alliance has a lower upkeep cost for maintaining the empire, it will reduce your taxes some. I mean probably they’ll just use the extra isk to buy some jerk a mothership who will then never log in again, but the proposal can’t be blamed for that.

Titan Changes – Make them Deathstar-Like XD

In order to keep Titans from dominating the defense of the PDS, we need to get rid of the AOE doomsday. The new Titan gets two modes of operation: one offensive, and one defensive.

In offensive mode, the titan is mobile and can use its Doomsday Device. However, replace the AOE effect with a very powerful single-target damage effect sufficient to alpha any one capital ship. The exact damage is a tweakable balance point.

In defensive mode, the titan is completely immobile but projects its shields outward as a POS-caliber force-field and can use its jump bridge. And when I say completely immobile, I mean un-bumpable but also unable to engage jump drives. When in defensive mode, the titan’s shield capacity is multiplied up to about the level of a large POS. The exact hp is a tweakable balance point. A titan can act as a staging point for an invasion in a pinch, although obviously you can’t it into a cynojammed system and it won’t go into reinforced when it gets into armor (it just dies really quickly).

The titan can switch modes on a longish cooldown (balance point).

Credits
This proposal is the result of Fahtim Meidires's thread; several people contributed to it and I wasn't the main one.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 03:46:00 - [141]
 

The whole thing about the titan should be better fleshed out I guess. For example, what if a Titan in defensive mode at half shields switches to offensive mode? Does it get all its shields back or does it keep the same ratio (half shields)? What if a titan goes into defensive mode near the undock of a station, such that hostile craft undock into the POS-shield-like shields?

I mean there are (pretty obvious) answers. Just need to do the due diligence to decrease the extent to which the idea can be nit-picked apart. Maybe when I'm bored at work I'll write even more words.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.18 03:56:00 - [142]
 

If proposed at this stage, we're weak on the extra benefits afforded to 0.0 alliances for having to put up with more crap from losec raiding parties. That's a definite hit at the council.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.18 11:43:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: Kelsin on 18/08/2008 11:44:21
That looks really good Toman. A couple academic points:

You probably don't have to worry about fleshing out the details too too much, as long as there is a clear statement of what the balance intent is. I think you hit a good tone with the POS logistics simplification stuff, as it's not overly specific but basically says "make it less costly to run to balance the raiding". So with the Titan changes, I'd just highlight the purpose behind it and not worry too much about length of cooldowns, etc.

A small point to add about raiding: I'd like to see the potential for actual theft of resources - fuel or moon minerals - from a successful raid. Maybe some percent of what is stored can be siphoned off, and to balance that there's a small bump in production rates in addition to the other overhead reductions that have been discussed.

Other than that I think it looks good and stressing the point that we are recommending balance points for CCP to use for each of the changes is a great strength of the proposal. I think as long as we avoid getting unnecessarily specific, people will be able to read through it and understand what the changes entail without getting hung up on misinterpretation of details. Don't worry too much about having to cover every possible interpretation, I think just having an answer ready (the FAQ idea was good) is plenty sufficient. If they don't get it, they can read this thread to understand the idea better.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:15:00 - [144]
 


Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:34:00 - [145]
 

Nice work everybody.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:28:00 - [146]
 

Not going to be a party crasher at assembly hall, but I think you jumped the gun. No new improvements to 0.0 profitability to make up for the increase in overhead from raiding.

Not that they are hard to fix, but I'd just started up a thread with a proposal for some new income/vulnerabilities that would have taken care of these issues. Considering this is aimed straight at Darius's objections to adding more granularity to warfare, I'm surprised it hasn't gotten into the mix.

Anyway, all in all, still a good proposal. Changes to sov I don't think could be much better. Glad the Titan changes snuck in there. Anti-support nerf been needed for some time.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:33:00 - [147]
 

He included mention of it NanDe. I think you'd be stepping on a land mine by trying to legislate exactly how 0.0 should be more profitable when all you need to do is say "when implementing this, 0.0 profitability has to be balanced along with it". Should something like this make it into the game, they'd have to do plenty of testing and balancing to figure out just how much of an impact raiding ends up making and how best to balance it out, so theorizing that deep at this point is unnecessary - it'll get sorted out along the way.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:50:00 - [148]
 

Considering other proposals that are already escalated, I know POS's are headed for some reworking. Still yet, there's nothing in there about what keeps a zealot coming in a 3am and dodging pos fire for a few hours while chipping away at a mining array, and there are some staunch voices opposing any new vulnerabilities to 0.0 for good reason. I don't think we got it fleshed out enough.

But yes, you see my thumb on the proposal and I'd like to see how far it can go for now as well as testing the reaction of all the assembly readers.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 16:02:00 - [149]
 

IMO more eyes need to be on it before it can be improved any further; that's why I posted it.

Either this one will make it, or we'll get some more information and be able to enjoy writing another iteration. Longass forum posts are all about the journey, not the destination. Neutral

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.18 16:07:00 - [150]
 

Fair enough. Smile

I'll lay low for a few days. Have some breakdancing to do in RL Cool


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

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