These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Summit Topic: Null Sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2012-05-30 13:26:19 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Isk only is so much that he who had more cash could own a larger amount of territory while spending more in actual terms but less in percentage terms, with the more spaced out your territory is the more it would cost you to supply said areas.

What would be the "ideal size" for "an alliance's cut of nullsec" before costs start increasing?

Would you call this a sandboxy mechanic?

Frying Doom wrote:
As to the second part of your argument I agree to the need to Nerf jump ships, as to the allowing sov to switch easier I believe that should be related to how much effort is put into an area not just buying upgrades but actual doing things. As I have said before having a slider bar with the more you do the more stable that system is, almost like what the FW system has just become but more, including what mining is done as well as plexing and also including just active moving within the system by the alliance members. The more active the more stable.

If you ignore a system you take it should be easier to loose.

I don't see why the amount you use a system should matter at all. If it's a system you use a lot, show up to defend it when the baddies come a-knockin'. Problem solved. If you don't, oh well so sad, say bye bye to that system. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#322 - 2012-05-30 14:00:05 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
So there's nothing but super alliances in nullsec, and it's currently absolutely hopeless for anyone to even bother?

Yep, pretty much this.

Renter or GTFO apparently..

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Mercurio Ogeraurhirhe
Milking Interstellar Incorporated.
#323 - 2012-05-30 15:16:52 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So there's nothing but super alliances in nullsec, and it's currently absolutely hopeless for anyone to even bother?

Yep, pretty much this.

Renter or GTFO apparently..


One of the tools that make this too easy is the other source of free intel in game, the API. We 0.0 alliances only have to check dotland or the ingame map to spot somebody taking sov in "our" territory or just ratting. Then call a CTA for the weekend.

As long as this exist it is going to be really difficult to do anything in 0.0 for anybody but the smallest of groups.

Even without that, as the big guys are going to kill you just for tears, the small alliance will last weeks at the most. But at least there will be an opportunity.


tldr: Stop free Intel. No sov, no jumps, no NPC kills. Go and check yourself.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#324 - 2012-05-30 19:32:29 UTC
Mercurio Ogeraurhirhe wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So there's nothing but super alliances in nullsec, and it's currently absolutely hopeless for anyone to even bother?

Yep, pretty much this.

Renter or GTFO apparently..


One of the tools that make this too easy is the other source of free intel in game, the API. We 0.0 alliances only have to check dotland or the ingame map to spot somebody taking sov in "our" territory or just ratting. Then call a CTA for the weekend.

As long as this exist it is going to be really difficult to do anything in 0.0 for anybody but the smallest of groups.

Even without that, as the big guys are going to kill you just for tears, the small alliance will last weeks at the most. But at least there will be an opportunity.


tldr: Stop free Intel. No sov, no jumps, no NPC kills. Go and check yourself.

WH's - The *NEW* end game of Eve-Online Big smile

I kid, but WH"s are where people go who don't want to be concerned with getting/holding/defending or taking Sov...

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#325 - 2012-05-30 19:43:15 UTC
Trying to limit the size of nullsec sov holding alliances is an exercise in futility.

There is strength in numbers, and any alliance leaders who aren't complete egomaniacs will exploit this.


Try to limit the size of territory an alliance can hold, and you'll end up with 10 little GSF's blue'ing each other to still hold massive amounts of space. And once they are working together they can pool the resources of their territory to get even bigger. And under a system where you a forced to actively use and patrol your space, alliances that can get big enough to have large fleets in every timezone will be the ones who can keep their space.

Again, wormholes already provide pretty much everything people are asking for in this sort of petty kingdom approach to sov, with the added benefit of not having to deal with the game's actual sov mechanics. Its straight king of the hill, where the team who can keep active pilots in space will be the ones to reap the most rewards. And wormhole limits and the lack of cynos means the big bad blobs can't just waltz in and crush them.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2012-05-30 19:54:14 UTC
B-b-but they can't update their market orders from within the WH so they have to leave every 5 minutes!

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Elzon1
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#327 - 2012-05-31 08:19:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Elzon1
Just in case it is not too late to add some input, I will add my .02 isk.

Most of this stuff is going to be obvious.

1. r32 alchemy as a band aid to the technetium bottleneck problem. Add ring mining or whatever afterwards if that doesn't help the problem enough.

2. Separate oupost/stations from sov grinding mechanics (you need sov to put one up, but you don't have to grind through it to get sov).

2a. Upon taking control of a station an alliance can control all assests inside it. In other words the controlling alliance decides who is authorized or not to store items in their station. [Farms and Fields]

2b. Upon the station being empty of items and (excess, non-active) ships the controlling alliance can dissassemble the station in question. Anyone logged out or stuck in the station will stay in their active ship upon the destruction of the station. The usual log-in safe warp will be applied to those whom are still in the station as well as those whom are to log in later.

3. Base sov on activity, not structure grind. You have to use your space if you want to keep it.

3a. Make anomalies adjustable in size (npc count) based upon player activity (the more players the more npc's). The individual player doesn't make more money, but the corporation and alliance can from taxes. This allows for the maximum utilization of a small number of systems instead of spreading players over a wide area.

4. Alliance taxes... nuff said.

5. Add sov based "lookout towers" to be placed adjacent to gates. These towers report to a new intel system. The new intel system reports based on standings set by the controlling alliance. The system reports name, standing, corporation, alliance, and ship type of invading character. A lookout tower can be disabled upon shooting out it's shield and armor. After claiming sov the lookout tower can be destroyed by destroying it's structure. Any lookout tower without shield or armor cannot report to the intel system. Lookout towers report characters upon them decloaking off a gate and removes them from the intel system upon their jumping out through the adjacent gate or itself being disabled. If a lookout tower is disabled on a particular gate by a hostile fleet you won't know if they are still in system or not unless they uncloak on grid close to another operating lookout tower. This could be used to either replace or supplement local chat in nullsec.

5a. New automated temporary bounty system added to intel system. Upon hostile entering alliance controlled sov with operating "lookout towers" a bounty is applied from a central bounty wallet division. The bounty amount can be based on name, standing, corporation, alliance, and most importantly ship type. This bounty is only applied if the hostile is in claimed sov and is only claimable by the controlling alliance's members. With this alliance members can get paid to defend their space.
Frying Doom
#328 - 2012-05-31 08:55:48 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Trying to limit the size of nullsec sov holding alliances is an exercise in futility.

There is strength in numbers, and any alliance leaders who aren't complete egomaniacs will exploit this.


Try to limit the size of territory an alliance can hold, and you'll end up with 10 little GSF's blue'ing each other to still hold massive amounts of space. And once they are working together they can pool the resources of their territory to get even bigger. And under a system where you a forced to actively use and patrol your space, alliances that can get big enough to have large fleets in every timezone will be the ones who can keep their space.

Again, wormholes already provide pretty much everything people are asking for in this sort of petty kingdom approach to sov, with the added benefit of not having to deal with the game's actual sov mechanics. Its straight king of the hill, where the team who can keep active pilots in space will be the ones to reap the most rewards. And wormhole limits and the lack of cynos means the big bad blobs can't just waltz in and crush them.


I am not trying to limit the size of null sec alliances I am trying to make the space used or lost. If a system is strategically important use it. I don't think I have never suggested an all timezone rule just a daily one. But yes the larger the number of active players in an alliance the easier to hold larger territories.

And again on wormholes you love them so much you go claim sovereignty in one.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#329 - 2012-05-31 08:59:26 UTC
Elzon1 wrote:
Just in case it is not too late to add some input, I will add my .02 isk.

Most of this stuff is going to be obvious.

1. r32 alchemy as a band aid to the technetium bottleneck problem. Add ring mining or whatever afterwards if that doesn't help the problem enough.

2. Separate oupost/stations from sov grinding mechanics (you need sov to put one up, but you don't have to grind through it to get sov).

2a. Upon taking control of a station an alliance can control all assests inside it. In other words the controlling alliance decides who is authorized or not to store items in their station. [Farms and Fields]

2b. Upon the station being empty of items and (excess, non-active) ships the controlling alliance can dissassemble the station in question. Anyone logged out or stuck in the station will stay in their active ship upon the destruction of the station. The usual log-in safe warp will be applied to those whom are still in the station as well as those whom are to log in later.

3. Base sov on activity, not structure grind. You have to use your space if you want to keep it.

3a. Make anomalies adjustable in size (npc count) based upon player activity (the more players the more npc's). The individual player doesn't make more money, but the corporation and alliance can from taxes. This allows for the maximum utilization of a small number of systems instead of spreading players over a wide area.

4. Alliance taxes... nuff said.

5. Add sov based "lookout towers" to be placed adjacent to gates. These towers report to a new intel system. The new intel system reports based on standings set by the controlling alliance. The system reports name, standing, corporation, alliance, and ship type of invading character. A lookout tower can be disabled upon shooting out it's shield and armor. After claiming sov the lookout tower can be destroyed by destroying it's structure. Any lookout tower without shield or armor cannot report to the intel system. Lookout towers report characters upon them decloaking off a gate and removes them from the intel system upon their jumping out through the adjacent gate or itself being disabled. If a lookout tower is disabled on a particular gate by a hostile fleet you won't know if they are still in system or not unless they uncloak on grid close to another operating lookout tower. This could be used to either replace or supplement local chat in nullsec.

5a. New automated temporary bounty system added to intel system. Upon hostile entering alliance controlled sov with operating "lookout towers" a bounty is applied from a central bounty wallet division. The bounty amount can be based on name, standing, corporation, alliance, and most importantly ship type. This bounty is only applied if the hostile is in claimed sov and is only claimable by the controlling alliance's members. With this alliance members can get paid to defend their space.


I always welcome new ideas, agree with them or not ideas are always good. It is just negative criticism without proposing ideas that I have a problem with.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2012-05-31 09:12:16 UTC
A lot of good points there, and I agree with most of them. The only one I'm not entirely sure about is this one:

Elzon1 wrote:
3. Base sov on activity, not structure grind. You have to use your space if you want to keep it.

I keep going back and forth between having it work based on activity, having a single module which is anchored somewhere which defines who "owns" a system, or go back a bit in time with a twist and make players anchor a structure on planets and the majority wins.

The problems I keep thinking up, however are as follows:
Based on activity:
What sort of activity would make sense to define who owns what? Would it be descriptive or prescriptive?

Single module:
I'm thinking this could be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If you can defend a space through military might, you can own it. If you can't, then this module won't stay there very long anyways. Not that I really see a reason to fret if it is removed since, again, I think it should be more descriptive than prescriptive.

Multiple planet-anchorable modules:
This would have the added benefit of enabling SOV warfare to regain its old tug of war mechanic, where you fight over a system for a period of time and both sides can win some and lose some, as opposed to today's system where you either win all 6 fights over a properly upgraded system, or you go back to start.

If my theory is correct, then the latter could possibly enable fights in multiple systems at the same time, as opposed to today's system where you more or less go all in in one system, duke it out, then move on to duking it out in the next system if you won all 6 timers. And hopefully, it'd also make wars last longer, because the last few wars I've been in have always ended after a few weeks, even if the forces on each side were somewhat equal.

As for 5, I've absolutely no problems with the majority of this suggestion, in fact I've suggested it multiple times to replace local with something which allows the sovholder to see who's in its own systems (although I'd extend it to allow giving intel to blues as well, but I'm not really going to cry if that doesn't happen). The only problems I have with it is that personally I'd have it as one structure or a targetable subsystem in the IHUB so if someone does shoot it, all local goes away for everyone. The second problem I have with it is that it still allows for logon traps and entry by wormholes, so there'd still be the case of being unable to be moderately safe without having to expend a lot of time and energy to do the boring task of watching nothing happen in a system.

5a is gameable, but it's also interesting.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#331 - 2012-05-31 10:46:41 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
A lot of good points there, and I agree with most of them. The only one I'm not entirely sure about is this one:

Elzon1 wrote:
3. Base sov on activity, not structure grind. You have to use your space if you want to keep it.

I keep going back and forth between having it work based on activity, having a single module which is anchored somewhere which defines who "owns" a system, or go back a bit in time with a twist and make players anchor a structure on planets and the majority wins.

The problems I keep thinking up, however are as follows:
Based on activity:
What sort of activity would make sense to define who owns what? Would it be descriptive or prescriptive?

Single module:
I'm thinking this could be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If you can defend a space through military might, you can own it. If you can't, then this module won't stay there very long anyways. Not that I really see a reason to fret if it is removed since, again, I think it should be more descriptive than prescriptive.

Multiple planet-anchorable modules:
This would have the added benefit of enabling SOV warfare to regain its old tug of war mechanic, where you fight over a system for a period of time and both sides can win some and lose some, as opposed to today's system where you either win all 6 fights over a properly upgraded system, or you go back to start.

If my theory is correct, then the latter could possibly enable fights in multiple systems at the same time, as opposed to today's system where you more or less go all in in one system, duke it out, then move on to duking it out in the next system if you won all 6 timers. And hopefully, it'd also make wars last longer, because the last few wars I've been in have always ended after a few weeks, even if the forces on each side were somewhat equal.

As for 5, I've absolutely no problems with the majority of this suggestion, in fact I've suggested it multiple times to replace local with something which allows the sovholder to see who's in its own systems (although I'd extend it to allow giving intel to blues as well, but I'm not really going to cry if that doesn't happen). The only problems I have with it is that personally I'd have it as one structure or a targetable subsystem in the IHUB so if someone does shoot it, all local goes away for everyone. The second problem I have with it is that it still allows for logon traps and entry by wormholes, so there'd still be the case of being unable to be moderately safe without having to expend a lot of time and energy to do the boring task of watching nothing happen in a system.

5a is gameable, but it's also interesting.


Ok I will admit Elzon1 has some good ideas in there that definitely need further thought and discussion.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Elzon1
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#332 - 2012-05-31 23:37:10 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I always welcome new ideas, agree with them or not ideas are always good. It is just negative criticism without proposing ideas that I have a problem with.


Cool. I am generally the same. Although on some occasions it might be fairly difficult to come up with a new or better idea.
Frying Doom
#333 - 2012-06-01 00:10:46 UTC
The other problem with any changes to Null of course are DUST 514.

The biggest problem I see with trying to factor it in is, will it be a dead weight 6 months after it is released or will it continue to add to EVE.

All the game stores around here were betting on dead weight and before it was announced as FTP, all of them said you would have to order it in because they were not going to have a single copy any where in the country.

I think the game looks great but should it be factored into Null discussions?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#334 - 2012-06-01 02:09:59 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I think the game looks great but should it be factored into Null discussions?


It should be, once we actually know how it affects null, and we won't truly know that until after it launches. Until then it's a pointless exercise, since even if we knew exactly how the mechanics and interaction would play out in-game (not just theoretically), you'd still need to know how many people are even bothering to do it before you could get a picture of that.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Frying Doom
#335 - 2012-06-01 04:05:18 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I think the game looks great but should it be factored into Null discussions?


It should be, once we actually know how it affects null, and we won't truly know that until after it launches. Until then it's a pointless exercise, since even if we knew exactly how the mechanics and interaction would play out in-game (not just theoretically), you'd still need to know how many people are even bothering to do it before you could get a picture of that.

Yeah that's the big one and you never know what will happen next year, even if it is going strong when CCP patches it.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Dex Nederland
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
The Fourth District
#336 - 2012-06-01 05:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Dex Nederland
Moons

Less variance in distribution of moon types.

The fact that an alliance can own an entire region of space and not manufacture T2 components without importing R8 materials is nuts (Tungsten, Titanium, Cobalt, and Scandium). This is without considering the bottlenecks with two R32 materials and the entire T2 module & ship supply chain.

A great example is Cloud Ring. It has 1 Cobalt moon. Really? Did ORE mine out all the Cobalt in Outer Ring and Cloud Ring to build Exhumers? This does not include the apparent total lack of Hafnium and Mercury. No local manufacturing of Ferrogel or Nanotransistors without importing those two from the other side of the cluster.

Industry Index

Add more ways to up the Industrial Index of a system and the potential upgrades to it. It would be nice to be able to take a crappy mining system, do some other industrial activities (like POS mining, research & manufacturing) and improve upon the Industrial index. In addition, provide system upgrades for the industrial index related to research & manufacturing. Faster labs, increased chance of invention success, etc.

Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Frying Doom
#337 - 2012-06-01 10:23:26 UTC
I think the whole Moons, sovereignty, Jump capabilities, industrial side, risk vs reward and pretty much the whole of Null needs looking into.

It is well crap. Lets face it.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2012-06-01 10:27:52 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I think the whole Moons, sovereignty, Jump capabilities, industrial side, risk vs reward and pretty much the whole of Null needs looking into.

It is well crap. Lets face it.

I'm not sure you've got any credentials to speak about anything with regards to nullsec balance.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#339 - 2012-06-01 10:31:40 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I think the whole Moons, sovereignty, Jump capabilities, industrial side, risk vs reward and pretty much the whole of Null needs looking into.

It is well crap. Lets face it.

I'm not sure you've got any credentials to speak about anything with regards to nullsec balance.

Well the CSM summit is over, the publicity stunt forum post is dead so how about a constructive debate about the future of null without slagging each other off?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#340 - 2012-06-01 10:40:53 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Well the CSM summit is over, the publicity stunt forum post is dead so how about a constructive debate about the future of null without slagging each other off?

When you prove that you know what you're talking about, then you can come back and comment on changes to the game. Otherwise you'll just pull a repeat of the "no local" debacle where you repeatedly toss out false statements which are proven to be junk time and time and time again.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat