open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Look Brackets] Several Coordinated Ideas for 0.0
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 13:59:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 14:09:00
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 length of time is a balance point), 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 14:00:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 14:05:21
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 and module base costs, and increase the drop-rates for faction tower and POS module 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 14:01:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 14:08:32
Mini-FAQ/Obvious Objections

Objection: This does nothing about the "Capitals Online" problem. People will just use capitals for taking down the moon-based planetary defense stations in addition to using them to take down the planetary base.

The PDS only stay down for around 10 minutes. Think about how long it takes you to warp slow-aligning caps around in a laggy fleet fight. If you try to blob your caps around, you will never get your caps back into position at the planetary base to do damage to it during its window of vulnerability after taking down the PDSs. Your dreads need to be sitting there ready to go into siege when they get their window of opportunity. If you foolishly split your caps up among the PDS, your several small groups of caps might get individually blobbed and destroyed by the defender.


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.

You need to knock out 3 out of 5 PDSs to make the planetary base vulnerable. When incapacitated, the PDS stays down for about 10 minutes -- about 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.

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

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

Alternatively, bubble them when they warp in, blob up yourself, and enjoy your huge badass fleet fight. At least if they choose to blob your PDS-killers, you'll be fighting them at a PDS instead of a deathstar or lagstar POS. The point of the idea isn't to completely eliminate blob warfare in all cases. 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.

But, if you're talking about a fleet blob situation, don't pretend that a blob of ships can flit all around a lagged-out 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.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:01:00 - [4]
 

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 theoretically 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 in system, 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.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company

Posted - 2008.08.18 14:34:00 - [5]
 

A great consensus plan, I know the CSM has seen a few 0.0 related topics come their way, but this one was really hashed out from the ground up in Fahtim's thread.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:08:00 - [6]
 

The only part of this I disagree with is the proposed DDD changes. Ideas like the ones in Yaay's thread accomplish the same objectives better while being more interesting and useful.

Aside from that, however, I like this proposal. I'm still amazed by its genesis, but the results look like a plan that has a good chance of not ****ing off anybody too much, which is saying quite a lot.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:22:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 15:21:59
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
The only part of this I disagree with is the proposed DDD changes. Ideas like the ones in Yaay's thread accomplish the same objectives better while being more interesting and useful.


Yeh, I liked some of xttz's ideas from that thread. Really any change to the titan that prevents a defender using AOE DD to one-click-kill the subcap teams at the PDS would work. I kind of like the "mobile base" idea for the titan in our proposal because currently it's a real PITA breaking into a fully-towered system (no free moon for a staging POS). But it's not like a critical element of the proposal. The critical element is that the subcap-killing AOE DD goes away but it remains useful to bring a titan onto the battlefield.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:34:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Toman Jerich
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 15:21:59
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
The only part of this I disagree with is the proposed DDD changes. Ideas like the ones in Yaay's thread accomplish the same objectives better while being more interesting and useful.


Yeh, I liked some of xttz's ideas from that thread. Really any change to the titan that prevents a defender using AOE DD to one-click-kill the subcap teams at the PDS would work. I kind of like the "mobile base" idea for the titan in our proposal because currently it's a real PITA breaking into a fully-towered system (no free moon for a staging POS). But it's not like a critical element of the proposal. The critical element is that the subcap-killing AOE DD goes away but it remains useful to bring a titan onto the battlefield.


Oh, I liked the idea about "defensive mode". Should be a module rather than a big switch, but the principle of a mobile humongous shield is a good one. The current Titan setup of cloak/DDD/IStabs is bad, but there's a lot of proposed DDD changes out there that would make it just fine. Ultimately, I want them to have a role in combat that lasts longer than 20 seconds, that allows the Titan a good(though not perfect) chance of survival, and that doesn't wreck fleets singlehandedly. I don't much care what that role is.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:34:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: NanDe YaNen on 18/08/2008 15:34:29
So far the thread's already a model of how to get a good proposal going. Take the topic to the speaker's corner, deliberate the points, and gather concerns from multiple parties. After everyone's hopefully smarter about all the interests and consequences involved with the change, several drafts are produced, discussed, and finally somebody takes it to assembly.

This proposal is a result of the hard work of more than several people who don't always fully agree on the subjects at hand. At times there have been some funkier twists considered, but only the ones that made it through deliberation have made it here. There still might be work going on.

Extended Credits:
Sovereignty Decentralization ~ NanDe Very Happy
Edit support

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.19 12:01:00 - [10]
 

Bump for further discussion.

waristina
Amarr
Slavers Inc

Posted - 2008.08.19 12:20:00 - [11]
 

Must say that I beleive you have all come up with a very good and acceptable proposal to combat the nightmare that is 0.0 sovereignty warfare. This appears to be a well constructed and thought-out set of ideas, that when combined make a positive step towards a new sovereignty engine.
Congrats and you have my support!

GulletSplitter
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.08.19 20:54:00 - [12]
 

Against....solely because of this:
Quote:
The cost/benefit analysis for living in 0.0 is not favorable.


You can make much more money in 0.0 with half a brain then you can make in high. If you can't afford losing money due to a small gang raiding your space and cutting off your economic modules...then you really shouldn't have that system to begin with. Shrink and consolidate.

For the most part I like your proposal with the exception of increasing money flow in null space. It would be more appropriate to propose everything you have without the increase (moon minerals)/decrease (POS/POS Fuel costs) in money but WITH a caveat that the economics of living in 0.0 would need to be closely watched.

Prove that it would get more expensive before increasing iskies in the game.


Really well thought out though....I very much liked where you were going with it other then the economy thing.

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.20 04:20:00 - [13]
 

You'll find voices on the other side of this argument who know how hard it is to fund war efforts and keep churning out enough capitals and T2 gear to satiate the ship grinder that is 0.0 sov warfare. They'll argue that any hit to 0.0 profitability will seriously hinder the ability of 0.0 alliances to stand on any firm footing compared to losec alliances who enjoy the lack of as much exposure of assets.

Right now taking moon mining offline requires sieging a POS. If the modules are more vulnerable, there will be more disruptions. More disruptions means less t2 gear and probably some inflation surrounding that t2 supply.

Less stuff in circulation means less t2 stuff getting chopped up and less pilots who are flying it. Over all, less of any resource production, like moon mining, equates to less junk for us to play with. If anything, I'm for much, much increased supply of junk.

With the sov tools focusing a bit more on fleet mobility and leaving more opportunities for dividing and zerg rushing a pinned deployment from the main force, I believe we'll see a natural balance to context-creep that would normally accelerate in a bolstered production environment. Therefore, if anything, I'd like to see boosted 0.0 productivity accompanying these newer, more effective tools of sov.

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.20 13:54:00 - [14]
 

Welp.

I Wouldn't bump it again. If any CSM rep was going to reply, they would have by now. Doesn't look like we'll be able to get much feedback. 0.0 threads in general haven't seen many responses since Kelsin's first thread. Kind of a mixed blessing I guess; at least things aren't getting worse.

GulletSplitter
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.08.20 15:22:00 - [15]
 

I understand the implications of making moon mining more interruptable would break the current way alliances are controlling space. That being said I think that is part of the whole CCP idea...less capital ships....

My hope is that your proposal would decrease the #'s of caps in fights. No more 500 man cap blobs floating about.

Like I pointed out earlier though...keep iskies where they are now and just adjust them later if it becomes an issue. It's not that I'm opposed to changing the isk rate of moon mining...it's just that I want to see the need first.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured

Posted - 2008.08.20 15:51:00 - [16]
 

gangster

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.20 16:01:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: GulletSplitter
I understand the implications of making moon mining more interruptable would break the current way alliances are controlling space. That being said I think that is part of the whole CCP idea...less capital ships....

My hope is that your proposal would decrease the #'s of caps in fights. No more 500 man cap blobs floating about.

Like I pointed out earlier though...keep iskies where they are now and just adjust them later if it becomes an issue. It's not that I'm opposed to changing the isk rate of moon mining...it's just that I want to see the need first.


Well, CCP definitely wouldn't implement a boost to 0.0 income that was unbalanced - this proposal just makes sure to point out that income will definitely be impacted by the vulnerabilities of raiding, and says that as part of that change CCP will have to take a look at base income levels to balance that out. Which I think is a very fair request.

Angel Violette
The Filthy Few
Pendulum of Doom
Posted - 2008.08.21 07:47:00 - [18]
 

with this i might and many other think about moving to 0.0. and also it makes a lot more sence than these moon based poses to deside who is in control.

Cayleu
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2008.08.29 05:37:00 - [19]
 

Looks like a good effort to make 0.0 more interesting

Mad Ilya
Brutor Tribe

Posted - 2008.08.29 06:12:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Mad Ilya on 29/08/2008 06:23:59
Sounds somewhat reasonable (with fast read thru).

I'm most excited about "Small Gang Harassment Targets" and was browsing for thread to support that would mention it. It opens smaller gangs options to screw up their enemies isk making nicely. Structure resists can be used to balance it so that it's relatively easy to repair those said structures (moon mining, labs) but not as easy to shoot them down. Some over-streched alliances will prolly say it's a nerf but I see it that the logistical stuff would most likely promote and require alliances/corps to look after their stuff better (concentrate on one area). Maybe even opening some space for smaller entities to work for.

I don't really want to comment much on the sov mechanic change as long as it doesn't shorten siege times for systems, it will probably be fine. It should take several days to capture a system - having sov ping pong wouldn't be too fun for anyone.

If brought up separately, I'd fully support the small gang harrasment option even if the sov mechanic wouldn't change at once. Maybe put resists/hp in line with like 10 BS shooting for 20min for moon miner etc.

Edit: DDD could exist in the future in my mind if it would be changed to suit current titan numbers. Say make it fire more often, but half the "dps" (f.ex. every 15min, 1/8th of current damage) and shorten its range. Titan could still help you in fleet fights, but not necessarily one-click-win them. They would be more vulnerable and the biggest problem would be if enemy brings 10 titans to the grid. Rolling Eyes

Pliauga
Gallente
Posted - 2008.09.08 09:29:00 - [21]
 

Sounds good /signed


 

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