These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A message everyone in HED-GP can come together about

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#321 - 2014-01-20 00:48:33 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Nooodlzs wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.


Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out.

Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system.


So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local?

Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker.

Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#322 - 2014-01-20 00:58:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Nooodlzs wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.


Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out.

Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system.


So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local?

Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker.

Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV?


1.) There are many forms of activity:
-- Market activity
-- S&I Activity
-- Killing rats
-- Logistical activity.
-- Harvesting resources (mining, moongoo, PI, etc).
-- PvP in a system

2.) There is also investments that can be made to a system: TCU, IHUB, IHUB upgrades, Station, POS deployements, etc.

Sov could be based around your activity in a system, which should make your investments safer or less safe. IMO, if you aren't using a system, it should be easily conquerable (Like NO RF timers on any of your structures or claim units). It should still be claimable, just hard to defend from an attack. Likewise, if you are using a system, you should be allotted RF timers to defend it, and possibly other boons to boot.

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#323 - 2014-01-20 01:09:08 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Which is why all forms of 'teleportation' need to pull from the same pool of light years with a cap, like I described earlier:


If the pool is player/corp/alliance based why does this keep duplicate fleets from happening? Did you have a universal 'teleportation' pool in mind?


And let's be honest... You can move a 4000 players from one end of the universe to the other within an hour simply utilizing interceptors. Groups like CFC would simply need an offensive fleet to move about to whatever "combat zone" existed, and a defensive fleet for home. Moving the pilots is trivial, although potentially tedious (but when has that ever stopped alliance warfare).

To stop force projection, you litterally need to inhibit Jump clones, gate travel, and jump travel to the extent it is impossible for you to buy stuff in Jita today, and make it out to Deklein before Wednesday.

The reality of the situation is, that players will congregate and amass for the action, and that fundamentally, the only solution is to implement a mechanic that moves players out of the system if the system becomes overburdened. Doing this fairly, in a manner that structure timers and stuff don't end up being abused, is non-trivial. But without it, you will always be able to move more and more and more pilots into a system until the node crashes.

Sorry if I am so bold to say 4000 interceptors is vastly different than 4000 capitals. And even with a t2 travel fit interceptor, warp speed rigs and no implants, it actually does take a solid hour or more to travel the entire map.

But again, back to interceptors to power project. How much firepower are they bringing compared to capital ships? What kind of staying power do they have compared to capital ships? What kind of impact do those interceptors have in sovereignty warfare?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#324 - 2014-01-20 01:14:28 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Which is why all forms of 'teleportation' need to pull from the same pool of light years with a cap, like I described earlier:


If the pool is player/corp/alliance based why does this keep duplicate fleets from happening? Did you have a universal 'teleportation' pool in mind?


And let's be honest... You can move a 4000 players from one end of the universe to the other within an hour simply utilizing interceptors. Groups like CFC would simply need an offensive fleet to move about to whatever "combat zone" existed, and a defensive fleet for home. Moving the pilots is trivial, although potentially tedious (but when has that ever stopped alliance warfare).

To stop force projection, you litterally need to inhibit Jump clones, gate travel, and jump travel to the extent it is impossible for you to buy stuff in Jita today, and make it out to Deklein before Wednesday.

The reality of the situation is, that players will congregate and amass for the action, and that fundamentally, the only solution is to implement a mechanic that moves players out of the system if the system becomes overburdened. Doing this fairly, in a manner that structure timers and stuff don't end up being abused, is non-trivial. But without it, you will always be able to move more and more and more pilots into a system until the node crashes.

Sorry if I am so bold to say 4000 interceptors is vastly different than 4000 capitals. And even with a t2 travel fit interceptor, warp speed rigs and no implants, it actually does take a solid hour or more to travel the entire map.

But again, back to interceptors to power project. How much firepower are they bringing compared to capital ships? What kind of staying power do they have compared to capital ships? What kind of impact do those interceptors have in sovereignty warfare?


A mass mechanic tied to your "jump" limit a la wormhole maybe to allow people to go where they want but not being able to bring the firepower where they want? Would player be willing to inty boat across the universe if they knew they have ship already staged close to the battle field waiting for them?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#325 - 2014-01-20 01:24:29 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Nooodlzs wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.


Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out.

Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system.


So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local?

Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker.

Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV?


1.) There are many forms of activity:
-- Market activity
-- S&I Activity
-- Killing rats
-- Logistical activity.
-- Harvesting resources (mining, moongoo, PI, etc).
-- PvP in a system

2.) There is also investments that can be made to a system: TCU, IHUB, IHUB upgrades, Station, POS deployements, etc.

Sov could be based around your activity in a system, which should make your investments safer or less safe. IMO, if you aren't using a system, it should be easily conquerable (Like NO RF timers on any of your structures or claim units). It should still be claimable, just hard to defend from an attack. Likewise, if you are using a system, you should be allotted RF timers to defend it, and possibly other boons to boot.



I would change the structure so they are not "do or die" point of conflict. Make them matter but still require some activity in the system. Make the TCU spawn one of those billboard in game which would show the % of control the current holder has over the system. Then, make everything done in system matter to a point so destroying the TCU is not always spawning such crazy fleet fight. Any fueled POS gives some control to the defender, destroying them reduce it. Rats killed by defender raise the control while attacker make it go down. Make the system a tug-of-war for the control of it instead of those one time OP deciding all of it. Recent system change would also affect neighboring system to a point but for some time only if the defending side manage to hold the line for some time.

And damn is there probably a hell of a lot of way to abuse all of this that I can't think of...
Zircon Dasher
#326 - 2014-01-20 01:40:45 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:

Sorry if I am so bold to say 4000 interceptors is vastly different than 4000 capitals. And even with a t2 travel fit interceptor, warp speed rigs and no implants, it actually does take a solid hour or more to travel the entire map.

But again, back to interceptors to power project. How much firepower are they bringing compared to capital ships? What kind of staying power do they have compared to capital ships? What kind of impact do those interceptors have in sovereignty warfare?


I know you were responding to Gizznitt but what he said and what I had in mind are slightly different.

I was thinking more about regional caps. If projection gets smaller, it makes sense to start duplicating the fleet at the regional level (where regional = Pool/2 or 4or whatever and 'duplicating'= alts+caps). That could be a lot more infrastructure than what is currently held, but we are only talking time and ISK. Which really means time. Thus why I asked if you meant a universal pool.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#327 - 2014-01-20 01:46:02 UTC
I think we are having a miscommunication issue:

Malcanis wrote:
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.


He suggested fragmenting the universe by making it hard to move from one end of it to the other (using cap boosters and consumable fuel). You suggested limiting travel by LY's instead of consumables. However, you left of gate-travel (something Malcanis included).

Marlona Sky wrote:
Instead of the once per day deal for jump drives, it should be more functional in light years with a cap.

So everything that makes you go from one system to another without taking gates eats away at this pool of power projection. That includes jump drives, jump bridges, titan bridges, jump clones and even pod deaths.


Zircon then brought up an obvious counterpoint: Large powers in the game can easily have multiple fleets of ships (simply waiting for pilots) located throughout the galaxy. They really only need 1 home defense fleet (in case **** happens), and one offensive fleet (to be honorable third parties with) to maintain a very similar force projection that they enjoy today.

Marlona Sky wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:


If the pool is player/corp/alliance based why does this keep duplicate fleets from happening? Did you have a universal 'teleportation' pool in mind?


And let's be honest... You can move a 4000 players from one end of the universe to the other within an hour simply utilizing interceptors. Groups like CFC would simply need an offensive fleet to move about to whatever "combat zone" existed, and a defensive fleet for home. Moving the pilots is trivial, although potentially tedious (but when has that ever stopped alliance warfare).

To stop force projection, you litterally need to inhibit Jump clones, gate travel, and jump travel to the extent it is impossible for you to buy stuff in Jita today, and make it out to Deklein before Wednesday.

The reality of the situation is, that players will congregate and amass for the action, and that fundamentally, the only solution is to implement a mechanic that moves players out of the system if the system becomes overburdened. Doing this fairly, in a manner that structure timers and stuff don't end up being abused, is non-trivial. But without it, you will always be able to move more and more and more pilots into a system until the node crashes.

Sorry if I am so bold to say 4000 interceptors is vastly different than 4000 capitals. And even with a t2 travel fit interceptor, warp speed rigs and no implants, it actually does take a solid hour or more to travel the entire map.

But again, back to interceptors to power project. How much firepower are they bringing compared to capital ships? What kind of staying power do they have compared to capital ships? What kind of impact do those interceptors have in sovereignty warfare?


Those 4000 inties, that take an hour to travel from one ass-end of the verse to the next, then swap ships into BS's and carriers and dreadnaughts and go pewpew. If somebody attacks their home system, they reship to inties and can defend it within an hour or so.

My point: You have to limit ALL TRAVEL across the universe, or you solve nothing in regards to force projection.

And if the CFC can still get back to VFK to stop some incoming force from harming them within a timely fashion (see inty travel), they will always stick their head into HED-GP because that's where the action is.

The ONLY solution to server-crashing populations taking down a node or causing massive lag-induced problems is to LIMIT the population in a system. That limit ALREADY EXISTS whether you want to admit it or not (it is just a function of hardware capability).

If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.



Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#328 - 2014-01-20 01:54:00 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.


I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#329 - 2014-01-20 01:57:56 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.


I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places.

-Liang


As pointed out before:
Image taking sov required you to be in 4 places at once:

Side A divies up their forces and puts 500 pilots in each place.
Side B moves everyone to one or two places and crushes 1/4 or 1/2 of the enemy forces with overwhelming numbers/firepower.

How long can Side A keep that strategy up and expect to win the war?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#330 - 2014-01-20 02:00:02 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.


I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places.

-Liang

I'd like your posts if you didn't constantly assume I would have no idea who wrote them if you didn't tell me.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#331 - 2014-01-20 02:01:57 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.


I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places.

-Liang


As pointed out before:
Image taking sov required you to be in 4 places at once:

Side A divies up their forces and puts 500 pilots in each place.
Side B moves everyone to one or two places and crushes 1/4 or 1/2 of the enemy forces with overwhelming numbers/firepower.

How long can Side A keep that strategy up and expect to win the war?


Sure, but you have to admit the current game design behind sov rather provokes this kind of behavior.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#332 - 2014-01-20 02:06:09 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.


I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places.

-Liang


As pointed out before:
Image taking sov required you to be in 4 places at once:

Side A divies up their forces and puts 500 pilots in each place.
Side B moves everyone to one or two places and crushes 1/4 or 1/2 of the enemy forces with overwhelming numbers/firepower.

How long can Side A keep that strategy up and expect to win the war?


Sure, but you have to admit the current game design behind sov rather provokes this kind of behavior.

-Liang


I fully admit that... 100+m EHP structure shoots with multiple RF timers. There is NO infrastructure within nullsec (related to sov or not), that doesn't take a significant fleet to actually destroy in a timely manner. And almost all of them have long RF timers that allow the locals to form up as big a response as they can muster. Couple this with Jump logistics, and the writing on the wall was designed a long time ago! I fully support revamping Sov!!!
Align Planet1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#333 - 2014-01-20 03:01:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Align Planet1
I know I'm going to get abused for this, but I have a genuine question:

Does Eve need sov mechanics?

Without a sovereignty system, you could deploy and destroy any relevant structure (CSAAs, Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, etc.) anywhere in null sec. All solar systems could be assigned an index number (1 to 5) for available belts, sites, and complexes, and those numbers could be distributed according to true sec within the ranges of the current sov development indices. Stations could be (very expensively) upgraded to improve their defenses and industrial capabilities. All of this could be accomplished without the contrivances of TCUs, I-Hubs, and SBUs.

So, I guess the more detailed version of the question is: isn't the "sovereignty layer" of system control a bottleneck that necessitates blob warfare, and wouldn't a more diffuse array of immediately available targets encourage smaller scale fights and harassment? Wouldn't it be better for a given alliance to have a few "fortress systems" with stations that serve as the military and industrial heart of the empire, while forcing their excess populations out into the frontier to earn a living?

I don't know the answers to those questions. But I do think we're all jumping to the "fix sov" conclusion without discussing whether de jure sov should exist in the first place.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#334 - 2014-01-20 03:17:42 UTC
Align Planet1 wrote:
Does Eve need sov mechanics?


Maybe. I think the psychological impact of ownership and investment is a very important aspect of the game. Removing sov means removing much of that sense of ownership and investment. You could argue that WH space does just fine without formal ownership, but I'd argue the personal investment in your system is much higher. After all, moving into and out of WH space is hard and risky, and you spend so much more time basically confined to one place.

I suppose it would be possible to calculate de facto ownership via some complicated formula involving each kind of interaction in a system. Maybe you could even assign today's bonuses based on how far ahead your alliance is from its competitors. But, I think that's not a particularly new suggestion.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Align Planet1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#335 - 2014-01-20 03:23:19 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Align Planet1 wrote:
Does Eve need sov mechanics?
I suppose it would be possible to calculate de facto ownership via some complicated formula involving each kind of interaction in a system. Maybe you could even assign today's bonuses based on how far ahead your alliance is from its competitors.


Yeah, I wouldn't even go that far. Thanks for the reply, though.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#336 - 2014-01-20 04:10:57 UTC
Align Planet1 wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Align Planet1 wrote:
Does Eve need sov mechanics?
I suppose it would be possible to calculate de facto ownership via some complicated formula involving each kind of interaction in a system. Maybe you could even assign today's bonuses based on how far ahead your alliance is from its competitors.


Yeah, I wouldn't even go that far. Thanks for the reply, though.


Sure, but I can't help but feel I either didn't communicate well or you missed the point I was trying to make. Consider:
- People don't really think of "owning" high sec, because there is no mechanism to do so and the barriers for entry and exit are low.
- People don't really think of "owning" low sec, even though there's a mechanism to do so. The barriers for entry and exit are too low.
- People don't really think of "owning" NPC null sec without having lived there for a very very long time. There is no formal support for ownership and the barriers for entry and exit are still somewhat low.
- People do think of "owning" Sov null sec, because there is formal support for it and the barriers for ownership are quite high.
- People do think of "owning" WH systems, despite there being no formal support for it. The barriers for entry and exit are very high.

Basically: Compelling gameplay in this area requires formal systems or extreme investment. So: yes, I believe that some kind of sov system is necessary.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#337 - 2014-01-20 04:40:08 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
...

what happened to Malcanis??? reasonable post in forums???

fully supported

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#338 - 2014-01-20 06:41:59 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
...

Malcanis, is this an indication that there is a plan to fix null sov (that the incumbents won't like)? Or were you simply meaning that solution would not be well received?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#339 - 2014-01-20 06:49:19 UTC
We have only ever gotten vague messages from CCP about changing Sov. Although there are hints they have basically said,"**** it." And then CCP going forward with making your own space, IE making gates and stuff, which would operate differently from nullsec sov.

The problem is this could take far longer then people could stand to actually be put into the game.
Net Malone
Perkone
Caldari State
#340 - 2014-01-20 07:45:37 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Net Malone wrote:
But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly.

You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? Blink


You are wrong.

Limiting power projection - I understand power is damage in your post - do not make blobs smaller it make blobs BIGGER and fights takes more time.

CCP need to nerf big entities like coalitions not poor player toys. In current state of mechanic entities abuse mid-size player grups making them useless and worthless.

Political and economical reasons need to be changed. Bigger universe with different resources on each size. Proper economy need to be enforced via in-sandbox needs. Discover other ancient empire far, far from current one maybe ?

But if one entity like CFC is killing game whatever you do - deal with them ! Someone wrote: "We are here to destroy your game !". Let's go for beer with them ?

NIPs proof that ppls prefer relative state of peace over conflict. Coalition liders fooled CCP that they (20 - 50 players) are representing whole playerbase. That liders hijacked EvE ! Is CCP such naive ?

Best solution is to escalate number of systems. CCP: ask marketing department how they can use that.

And sov rules need to be changed - sov OWNERSHIP needs to be divided. Simple solution: eliminate aliance owned sov, all power to CORPORATIONS ! Watch out for abusers - current coalitions. If you just nerf jumping/bridging ability it will slow down moving forces a bit BUT DO NOT DIVIDE THEM ! Nerfing jumping will make a week to roll cap-ball from Period Basis to Branch and effectively control half of the universe. No one would want to build there his own home, becouse once in month it will be cleaned to the dust.

So divide coalition and do not make player live worse.

Escalating system numbers with sov changes is perfect way.