These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Author
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#81 - 2014-07-05 12:05:30 UTC
IMHO the main problem with sov is the grind and rigidity of the current system. You grind indexes, or structures and have to keep grinding indexes just for maintenance and not grinding them is not an option else your system is worthless. To take a system you need to grind structures, then grind them again and it's a binary system where you either fail or completely break the opposition and grind some more structures.

It's not malleable. It offers no access point for smaller fleets. It is a must, not a can. It's an imperative, not a choice. That's where my ideas are coming from. To smash the big rigid structures and have the sov holders assemble them to their needs and allow smaller entities to bite at the giant's heels when they can't get to the balls.
KanashiiKami
#82 - 2014-07-05 14:13:40 UTC  |  Edited by: KanashiiKami
read and see what is fun to implement

key is make TCU the focus, no more need of other sov flipping structures like SBU

TCU enables upgrade of system resource architectures directly and it must be anchored inside a POS. TCU onlining and offlining requires 72 hours, TCU upgrade paths requires 72hours per cycle. each alliance/corp can hold on to a maximum of 5 TCUs (so in effect 5 systems max). this can be a new skill branch under leadership, or addon feature to existing skill currently in leadership tree

in order to hold 5 TCUs, each TCU in use need to be upgraded to level 5. a level 2 TCU enables the alliance to hold 2 TCU in operation max, until both TCU is upgraded to 3, then they are allowed to operate a 3rd TCU. each level of TCU upgrade also allows a system fleet wide passive buff (like the incursion debuff), shield resistance, damage etc. 5 upgrades, 5 buffs selectable, each system can be a different mix of buff.

and based on this TCU mechanism, it can be expanded into ship "license" granting roles. bare individuals can by themselves pilot a single ship, corp/alliance fleet ops have a piloting limiting factor, maximum number of cap units allowed undocked universe wide starts at 3 capital units. each TCU level upgraded adds 2 more cap piloting slots, maxing out at 13 (including freightors, roqs, orca, etc, as 1 cap unit, supercap could count as 1.5 units, a titan is maybe 3units). piloting license can be set by the generic corp leadership skill level 5, and cap piloting can be a corp level flag bestowed on pilots deemed fit to fly capital level ships (which could be added bonus to corp hangar security

a TCU-ed POS can field the option of a jump portal structure, this structure features POS to POS jumping w/o distance limits (a POS is powerful after all). the said jump modules can have a 72hr timer (so larger freightor corps will find this a nice feature)

the alliance can choose to have only 1 sov system and have only 1 TCU at level 5 and still field the max number of 13 cap ships if he has all 13 cap pilots under him.

onlining a TCU will create an auto system wide alliance fleet and system wide buffing countdown bar (opposite of incursion debuff), which after 72 hrs will give the full blown buff of whatever the alliance chief has trained for or chosen (cyno jam? mining yield? anomalies bonus? shield resistance?). pilots joining system wide fleet will need 72hrs to move from holding wing to fully buffed wings, only alliance members can join this fleet. consequently, attacking fleets must field a command ship armed with counter-TCU mod, and same rule applies, 72hrs in fleet to achieve full buff benefit.

in the actual warring system, only TCU buffed fleets will exact full damage on each other (subject to extra buffs so any ship/structure is effectively 4x more in EHP). pilots not under TCU buff of either side gets a 90% debuff inside a TCU-ed system (extent of debuff may vary). a TCU POS in the process of going online cycling a full 72hrs only get hit at a debuffed rate of damage.

addition to maxed level TCU in the POS, a last final unlock can be achieve to unlock capital POS status. this enables cyno and warp gate lock for said system and enables a 2nd POS to be anchored 100km of capital POS. such an unlock can only be done at 1 POS per corp/alliance. a capital POS also enables ability to use additional capital sized POS weaponry at reduced PG/CPU costs. the said special capital POS defense module will be special, as normal ship armaments can be inserted into said structure, and it will be amplified into a capital sized weapon. eg : large nos --> capital nos, large hybrid --> capital hybrid, item stats are multiplied accordingly to reflect slower traversal and higher damage etc.

in TCU enabled fleet vs fleet war, only 1 each of opposing fleet can effectively fight each other in a single system. max pilots 50 + 50. non TCU-buffed fleets may interfere but with strong debuff, it will take over 2500 pilots to have same effect, by which time, latency will make any play very unpleassant. POS defensive guns and other operable structures like ECM are now also listed in the system fleet view for direct access and to effectively control maximum pilot limit.

a counter-TCU buffed fleet will feature vastly buffed stats for logistics groups (yes groups, long drawn war, you need more than a few of these pilots)

now with the above
- rate of flipping sov is broken up into a longer than 24hr affair
- a TCU unit is now the main focus structure to "manage" sov/system control and effects
- a TCU can have 5 levels of upgrades and finally a capital tier.
- a TCU will occupy approx 33% of a single large POS, but a capital TCU gives a double POS anchoring expansion
- limit number of sovs per alliance/corp
- limit number of cap/super cap deplyable. reduce capital swarms
- improve defensive capability of POSs, with maximum TCU able to addon capital armaments.
- TCU resistance buffs and reduced max ship count on both sides to the extent it is impossible to single volley any sub-cap ship let alone capital ships.
- to completely wipe 5 TCUs will mean the losing side will have to restart buidling sov from square 1 totally starting from TCU level 1. so apart from TCU mechanics in play, large fleets swarming over each other are still possible, but now are limited to active TCU level limits maxing at 13 capital units per alliance fleet.
- smaller POS operator can choose to expend 10 units of this cap limitation to online a concord protection module. yes pay concord to actively protect your POS in any sec space.
- in non-null space. TCU will only affect a radius up to 300km. and running TCU is not cheap
- there is now reason to form active smaller corps and hold active sov space, AND have some variety in null space
- POS onlined defensive modules appear as units in fleet panel, including hired concord SWAT units.

WUT ???

KanashiiKami
#83 - 2014-07-05 14:49:17 UTC  |  Edited by: KanashiiKami
... continued

so the above format, allows for a single entity to field max 4 titans? (or maybe titan unit count can be 8, so max titans fielded per alliance is now only 1, plus other misc cap ships. then freightors / indy cap ships could count as 0.5 units?)

WUT ???

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#84 - 2014-07-05 15:49:20 UTC
removing the OP mechanic that jumpbridges/jumpdrives are would mostly fix power projection and would immediately create far more gameplay in general .. the things people actually want .. pretty simple solution CCP just be brave enough too do it

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2014-07-05 15:56:31 UTC
There are really thousands of different SOV systems you could come up with that might or might not be better then the current. Some of these would most likely just not be possible, but talking about what would make for a better system can lead to some general ideas of what everyone is looking for. Here are just a few points I see in common with everyone mostly.

1) SOV that is not being actively defended should be able to be taken much more easily then SOV that is being defended.


2) People actually defending their SOV should get some sort of advantage besides timezone advantage and docking rights.


Something that has been brought up a few times, but has not been talked about here yet is the idea of better terrain on the Eve map. Most of the North and the South of the map are flat plains with a bunch of forest for people to hind in(NPC nullsec/lowsec). This make them both very easy to invade. It is just down right impossible for someone to not have a foothold some where if they actually invade.

Any place there is actually some type of gap on the map becomes very powerful to those that own it. I can explain, the dronelands is basically a valley surround by a huge mountain range. There are a few paths you can invade with subcaps, but if you want capitals in there, you have only two ways to get in. There are a few more gaps in the map, like the divide between catch and delve, but not a whole lot more.

Adding in more gaps or some sort of blocks for jump drive. Forcing people to have to use certain gates/systems to go into certain regions, this would go along way to helping out in an overall SOV change. Maybe even moving the NPC nullsec pockets so people cant only just base out of them to defend/attack entire regions. Although let me be clear, if that was the only thing done it would be terrible.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#86 - 2014-07-05 17:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.


4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.


26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.



Thread reopened after some unintended delay. My apologies for that

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#87 - 2014-07-05 21:50:25 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Zappity wrote:
More broadly, I WANT to want to go to null. But the current options of join the blob, bow the knee or rent have zero appeal for me. And no, I don't know how to fix it :)

you don't want to go to sov null, then. what's to fix?


What's to fix is the current system where there is no point going to null without joining one of the existing coalitions. People want to be able to try to carve out their own chunk of space but it is currently in a choke hold of the existing groups so there is no point. It's fair enough that the greatest power can exert the greatest control but when this impacts the game by putting people off even bothering with null (about 80% of the players I think?) then it is an issue. CCP want more people in null so there needs to be incentives to do so.



I feel for you bro. I think nullsec would be much cooler place if there were many smaller groups. If those smaller groups didn't have to worry about giant monolithic groups swooping in and crushing them. Or for that matter elite pvp groups with high concentrations of supercaps that can just overwhelm small groups. See the problem is when you make it easy for groups to move great distance and easy to hold sov without using it or living in it this state will exist. So we must deal with those 2 things. How we do that is making it so you need to use the space to hold it and make it so you can be self reliant in nullsec so you are not dependant on easy empire logistics.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#88 - 2014-07-05 22:02:33 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
removing the OP mechanic that jumpbridges/jumpdrives are would mostly fix power projection and would immediately create far more gameplay in general .. the things people actually want .. pretty simple solution CCP just be brave enough too do it



The catch is to change things so nullsec are not reliant to a tether to empire to survive. That means they need to be able to attract miners and builders to be able to supply them with needed goods and services. I don't think people will mind giving up jumpbridges and jumpdrives as we know them now for a more vibrant and healthy nullsec. I say that if there are mechanics to supplement for how we do things now. Or we can be self reliant in nullsec without the tether to empire.


I personally benefit greatly from the current status quo. My alliance is one of the richest and best oufitted and most powerful in the game. However I love this game and care for its welfare. The current status quo is not conducive to a healthy or vibrant nullsec that encourages player growth. Because the bar for entry is so high and the lack of content drivers is so low. Myself a 10 year veteran and willing to adapt to a whole new way of doing things if it means that we end up with a more vibrant and healthier nullsec and by extension game.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#89 - 2014-07-05 22:16:24 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
removing the OP mechanic that jumpbridges/jumpdrives are would mostly fix power projection and would immediately create far more gameplay in general .. the things people actually want .. pretty simple solution CCP just be brave enough too do it



It's not about bravery its about offering a credible alternative to why we need jumpdrives ( currently we need them to survive in nullsec because we cannot be self reliant we depend on our tether to empire).

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
Capital Interstellar Group
#90 - 2014-07-05 22:29:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Paynus Maiassus
mynnna wrote:
There are literally no redeeming qualities to your post whatsoever, everything from "let's remove jump drives but not ACTUALLY remove them" to "let's give people a way to disable hub upgrades for a day at a time within a fifteen minute window, yeah THAT won't get abused in odd timezones at all with no recourse whatsoever" just screams "Let's make the game so awful and unfun that half of nullsec quits."


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.


Manfred, Mynna is correct here.

First, the rental system isn't all that bad. I am looking to rent and insodoing I will have opportunities to do things that I, as a more or less independent entity would not be able to do otherwise. 'Back in the day' I would be forced to get in with a big alliance and suck everybody off for years in order to find myself in a position to where I could do what I wanted to do. The rental system adds a financial and contractual element that works in the stead of trust. If I screw anybody over I get reset, blown out of new eden, and lose the 50 billion ISK worth of crap I have out in my system. If my rental alliance screws me over I go straight to TMC and EN24 and let everybody know not to rent from my renter. And I'll tell you, the changes you suggest would make it utterly impossible for a little guy, and independent, like me, to have a system out in Paragon Soul. So the current system actually does offer the little guy some things that would go away in your miserable nerf world.

As for combat, the problem is not so much the game is that you won't take the meta to its conclusion. I personally dream of a world without Goons in it. The only person that can make that happen is you. But you flat out said you won't be fighting real wars, just little proxy ones that make the masses happy. You know, I am an industrialist and every time I mention invulnerable Rorquals or super tanky freighters the gankers always whine and throw risk vs. reward at me. Well, the super coalitions are being bad at Eve. You need a little lesson on risk vs. reward, apparently. Stop with the proxy wars and figure out how to go at the Goons at the throat.

Yes, the current meta does lead us to the blue donut. However, the blue donut is not here yet. Actually we have a situation that has never existed before in Eve's history where there is the potential for more massive battles than ever before in Eve's history. All it takes is you super coalitions deciding to fight them. I'll gladly participate in them. I'll gladly sell you ships to blow up in them. I'll have a lot of fun with this. But the problem isn't really CCP at this stage, it's you.

So we are hearing that there will be player built star gates. The sandbox will change. New futures will come to us. But let that happen when it's ready. If that weren't coming, and we were in a blue donut, then the game would be broke. However, we have some time for the biggest parties Eve has ever put together to blow the hell out of each other and actually create the blue donut (that will probably be rendered obsolete by the new constellations coming with the new stargates).

Don't fear the present. Make use of it.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#91 - 2014-07-05 23:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Galphii
Since this thread has turned into a general discussion about ideas to fix sov, I'll throw in a few ideas I'd like to see.

Arrow Small gangs should matter.
Arrow Sov structures shouldn't need supercapitals to deal with. Supercaps can be used to deal with other supercaps.

I'm thinking of making attacking a constellation more like a bank heist. There's a big central structure, plus a number of smaller structures that have to be dealt with around the constellation. Nodes, if you will. Have the central constellation structure armed to the teeth, with possibly upgrades such as a strategic weapon, long range scanners, or supercapital construction bay. The smaller nodes can be destroyed or hacked (the faster but non-permanent option) by players using the hacking minigame. SInce the hacker will be exposed during this time, it'd be good to have escorts. Small, fast moving hacking gangs could hit these nodes while the main fleet moves towards the primary target.

Destroying the nodes does not help weaken the sov structure. Only successful hacking will do this. So, a big fleet of capitals could attack it as they do now (losing dreads to its powerful weapons), or a smaller fleet can be clever and disable its defenses before hitting it.

Nodes could have number of different purposes when hacked.
* Disable local for a time.
* Lower shield strength on the main structure to greatly reduce its resistance.
* Disable placeable sentry guns throughout the system.
* Disable sensors place around the constellation which provide information on hostile fleet movements.

Etcetera

Oh, and this plan would work better if jump drives weren't a thing. Having to move a big fleet around is a disincentive to bring one. Small, fast fleets would have an advantage.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#92 - 2014-07-05 23:20:15 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
mynnna wrote:
There are literally no redeeming qualities to your post whatsoever, everything from "let's remove jump drives but not ACTUALLY remove them" to "let's give people a way to disable hub upgrades for a day at a time within a fifteen minute window, yeah THAT won't get abused in odd timezones at all with no recourse whatsoever" just screams "Let's make the game so awful and unfun that half of nullsec quits."


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.


Words.


So I am all for all out war but I cannot call what others want to do. I am the minority here most will want to make agreements so they have some reasonable measure of security. I think its stupid in a video game that people are so attached to pixels that they would deny themselves fun in order to protect those pixels. We aren't going to wake up anytime soon and see each coalition going at eachother in full out war. It's sad and makes me sad.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Hemmo Paskiainen
#93 - 2014-07-06 00:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
Good Idea's!


I think ppl can see the eve economy as a real capitalistic economy. Such a economy runs perfect when its tiny to medium sized. When it gets bigger and scaling up of multinationals (Coalitions) take place than problems occour. In such a economy everything is dominated by $ (ISK) which makes those multinationals be able to buy more power (ISK = Powerprojection (supers, fc's, bribes (spy's), ect ect) until a point of no return where the system loses itsselve into enslavery (dont watch too much tv these days).


Scaling up go's faster and faster and happens usualy right after a crisis (30's, 70's, 2010). In EVE it went really fast after the hugh tech isk injections. To respond on your good post; you can change the system (sov mechanics) but aslong as the same amount of gained powerprojection stay's into the coalitions; changes will only be small to moderate. Maybe steeper measurements ontop of your idea's are needed to come even close to the admosphere of the old days (i was there). Maybe a very steep exponential sovholding cost factor for big coalitions; so that beyond a point a financial disadvantage will naturaly cap the scaling up (connected to member amount, bluelist ect?)


Ontop of this, my oppinion is that EVE and sov is beyond a broken point. Sov and supers are interrelated and thus something must happen to this too. Shared corporation/Alliance super accounts, yes 1 guy flying 5 supers.... i have seen that before somewhere Roll. Without somehow hitting super powerprojection & current possesion (yes, its a very very delicate issue but so is the problem that they cause (my head spins when thinking of amounts build with tech isk)) with a nerfbat, no other small "new independant" coalition will arise for a very long time even if the sandbox rules are changed.....


I do find it quet funny that this problem was predicted 2 years ago by me and manny other people, just after the alchemi changes (dominion?)


Srry for the broken englisch, drunk grammar noob in progress...

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?

KanashiiKami
#94 - 2014-07-06 05:43:59 UTC  |  Edited by: KanashiiKami
Hemmo Paskiainen wrote:
Good Idea's!


Srry for the broken englisch, drunk grammar noob in progress...


i agree

therefore there has to be a new mechanism in place that dissociates a pilot in a sov. and pilots trying to take on sov and pilots trying to make a sov. in short, break up the large swarms of caps.

the tweak has to be in the fleeting mechanism, and the sov flipping, etc

and like they say, eve has to be bold and yet not afraid to offend with new moves, otherwise in a few years, all thats left is probably 1 man playing all 1000 accounts in eve HAHAHA ... and he doesnt need to pay as he can plex it HAHAHA

OR ... if CCP is even brave enough ... HAVE NO MORE SOV ... you only have POSs. and you limit fleet battles in each system to a max of 5 capitals and 50 pilots and 1 fleet each. introduce a concord war fleet register to limit swarming fleets. then NERF all corps and alliances to a max of holding 5 POS max and limit inter-corp POS sharing by removing the allow POS to be shared amongst other corp option. so only pilots within your own corp can use your own facilities.

but i dont think ccp will do it. because they are using EVE as a real life simulator for real world statistics somehow

however on the other hand the purpose of null is to be able to do anything out there, and this trait is being over exploited to the detriment of the game for other to enjoy, i wonder if CCP takes this game enjoyment seriously for all the players

WUT ???

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#95 - 2014-07-06 07:21:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
KanashiiKami wrote:
but i dont think ccp will do it. because they are using EVE as a real life simulator for real world statistics somehow


In the real world, we don't have invulnerable structures guaranteeing the sovereignty over a certain area. There are borders and border guards; however, mostly the borders of your influence are agreed upon in treaties and via negotiations, and they can easily be removed, changed or your sovereign space taken over or occupied by a new group. (All happening right now).

The same would happen in EVE without sov structures and sov as it is:

First of: I am opposed to limiting power projection with capitals. Whatever you do to limit that, you hurt exactly those smaller entities more in the process than big alliances and coalitions. As always.™

Secondly, your influence and your sovereignty as an alliance and coalition would stretch as far and wide as you make use of your system and can enforce your claims. With enough usage (PVE (as it is right now) and PVP (something new, I guess), you can solidify the claims on your systems and if you have reached a certain threshold, you can deny docking for non-blues, with a little bit more, you can upgrade your system in your station (or if there is no station, with some kind of marker) and use fancy POS modules. If you don't use your claimed space, your claim decays and everyone else can do things™ in that system. If you don't have used that system to begin with, you have no right to claim it to begin with. Moreover, until you have reached that threshold of activity, the whole world can dock in stations in 00.

And don't start complaining about that PVE is the hinge on where your claims dangle round. This is already the case, has been for many years, and is a good and easily quantifiable measurement. Giving you the opportunity to use PVP as well in order to solidify your, is a risk as some people have nothing better to do to exploit it right from the start -- By trying to kill thousands of rookie ships or dozens of battleships to keep their claim. If it's that what you want to do in the game, you should surely have the freedom to do so. Roll

But regardless what else you do (except for forcefully instated limitations), every aspect that favors small entities can be exploited by bigger fish to thwart those smaller groups.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Ugly Eric
Drone Renter Federation
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#96 - 2014-07-06 07:32:28 UTC
I dont know Manny my friend. I agree 100% that something needs to be done. Somehow I just cant believe the changes you suggested would make it any better. Quite the controverse.

As I am and have pretty much always been on the smaller guys alliance, I have some experience on that. However I am so new to this game, that I have not seen the days w/o jumping ships and w/o the JF logistic backbone. Somehow I see it nearly impossible to think this game could have any fun in it anymore without said logistics tools.

But so frustrated I am in the current state of eve, that I will back you up anyway, beacause this is after all the best thought thru plan I have seen so far. I will throw few smaller change ideas to the soup as addition to your ideas though, as the points I am about to represent are something that I as the small guy have been forced to fight constantly against.

- If system has online SBU's on more than 50% of the gates, IHUB goes to anchored mode and thus will stop all sov upgrades from system. Once SBU's are destroyed it takes the 3 hours to online the IHUB again and everything will go back to normal again. Also, if system have a anchored SBU, anyone should be able to pick it up.
--- This would stop the retardation of defencive SBU's, this would force the sov owner to actually defend their system from the getgo of an invasion. Yes, this would be abused by roaming gangs, but then again the current system is abused by sov owners. Maybe increase the SBU price by tenfold or something to lessen the abuse factor.

- To your idea of sov cost limit, I had an idea, that every next system you have sov in doubles the price from the previous system. So first system could be the current 84m/2weeks if I remember correctly. Next would be 168m/2weeks, then next 336m/2weeks, etc. This would ofc divide us into even more smaller alliances, who each hold 1-2 systems. However, it would leave a LOT of space w/o sov. And all those sovless systems would be on the plate for the small guy. Yes, as soon as someone notices the small guy got sov, the big guy comes and cleans it up again, but if the small dudes does this much enough / often enough, the big guy eventually is forced to a) take sov there or b) just leave the small guy to be. With time this would I believe lessen renting aswell, as the small guy actually have a chanche to gain sov on their own.

- Jump bridges could IMO excist, but only to owning alliance usage. No standings usage to JB. Also they should be IHUB upgrade, not pos module. Thus jumping into them blindly would create a lot more content, as you could not use them blindly and safely by deafault, but need to scout them, or have a ship, that can handle the possible unknown threat on other side.

- Finally the stations. Make the destructable. When a station pops, it leaves a indestroyable wreck, that has loot in it. This would give the sov owners an actual reason to fight for their assets. This would create a lot of conflict in form of "lets see if that station is a loot pinata".

However, I am in a state in eve, where something needs to be done and needs to be done FAST. The game is broken atm. The game I love so much is nearly unplayable.

-U
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#97 - 2014-07-06 07:59:16 UTC
Why is there a blue dev tag here, and no dev post???
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#98 - 2014-07-06 08:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
I guess Ezwal's sweeping was a little bit to throughout. CCP Fozzie had posted in this thread, that even though there's no dev response, they would still read topics. Guess, Ezwal forgot to untick the check box. Or Fozzie remove the post himself ... Roll

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#99 - 2014-07-06 10:25:18 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Since this thread has turned into a general discussion about ideas to fix sov, I'll throw in a few ideas I'd like to see.

Arrow Small gangs should matter.
Arrow Sov structures shouldn't need supercapitals to deal with. Supercaps can be used to deal with other supercaps.

I'm thinking of making attacking a constellation more like a bank heist. There's a big central structure, plus a number of smaller structures that have to be dealt with around the constellation. Nodes, if you will. Have the central constellation structure armed to the teeth, with possibly upgrades such as a strategic weapon, long range scanners, or supercapital construction bay. The smaller nodes can be destroyed or hacked (the faster but non-permanent option) by players using the hacking minigame. SInce the hacker will be exposed during this time, it'd be good to have escorts. Small, fast moving hacking gangs could hit these nodes while the main fleet moves towards the primary target.

Destroying the nodes does not help weaken the sov structure. Only successful hacking will do this. So, a big fleet of capitals could attack it as they do now (losing dreads to its powerful weapons), or a smaller fleet can be clever and disable its defenses before hitting it.

Nodes could have number of different purposes when hacked.
* Disable local for a time.
* Lower shield strength on the main structure to greatly reduce its resistance.
* Disable placeable sentry guns throughout the system.
* Disable sensors place around the constellation which provide information on hostile fleet movements.

Etcetera

Oh, and this plan would work better if jump drives weren't a thing. Having to move a big fleet around is a disincentive to bring one. Small, fast fleets would have an advantage.



some good points here ... just the option too not have too grind for hours with a capital fleet .. instead being able too use a more mobile fleet too cause disruption .. maybe be able too raid some structures using hacking too steal resources, ships, modules etc...
Capitals shouldn't be a requirement too do anything .. they should be an option .. capitals should be rarer in fights more like a couple of capitals with say 100 various other ships .. rather than massive blobs of carriers..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Draahkness
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#100 - 2014-07-06 10:47:50 UTC
I have been gone from game some 3 years now and I just got back. If my suggestions are outdated please have some understanding. Constructive critisism appreciated.

1. Remove AFK income for alliances. Remove the r16, r32 and r64 minerals from moons all together. Insert them again in PI, Hacking and deadspace mining sites. And obviously they can still be refined from lesser materials.

2. Reduce the usefullness of supers in sov-war by making sov-structures invunurabe to the supers-only weapons.

3. Make system cyno-jamming part of the sov system. When sov drops, only then does cyno jamming go down.

4. Make titan jump bridges work like pos or covert jump bridges. Fuel consuption per weight jumping through.

5. Make sov in a system dependant on a number of node structures placed around the constellation. Say 3 or 4. If one of them is active the sov structure in invunurable. Nodes can be hacked (inactive for 10 mins) or reinforced (inactive until repaired). Nodes can be scooped or destroyed if sov in the "mother" system drops or changes.

6. Ramp up the cost of having more then 3 or 4 sov systems by ALOT. As promised some 15 expansions ago.