These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Bypass this! A new idea for null sec sov mechanic
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CompleteFailure
DAWGS Corp.
#21 - 2014-08-12 15:43:53 UTC
I can't recall if I've ever heard or read a more useless plan. You really have no clue, do you? Roll
Mohamad Transporte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2014-08-12 15:55:08 UTC
thanks for the useless wall of text that has no relation to the OP ....

A- 3 or 4 has repeated the point of : Dont suggest to limit alliances because they can create alt alliances!!!!!!

this is true as a stand alone concept... but if the limit is linked to >>>>> READ: ONLY AGGRESSOR AND DEFENDER <<< are allowed to engage during the battle time. then you can have a billion alt alliances that are completely useless and have no role in defending your ihub / station

B- If you want to criticize, please let me know how you will abuse that or how the new idea will not achieve the main aim which is reduce the effect of blobbing
CompleteFailure
DAWGS Corp.
#23 - 2014-08-12 16:04:56 UTC
Because preventing people from participating is the exact opposite of what needs to happen with null sov.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#24 - 2014-08-12 16:25:48 UTC
CompleteFailure wrote:
Because preventing people from participating is the exact opposite of what needs to happen with null sov.

I see you are a blobber

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
CompleteFailure
DAWGS Corp.
#25 - 2014-08-12 16:29:31 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
CompleteFailure wrote:
Because preventing people from participating is the exact opposite of what needs to happen with null sov.

I see you are a blobber


Abloobloobloo
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-08-12 16:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: knobber Jobbler
Mohamad Transporte wrote:
Power projection , Sov mechanic changes, etc.. all those ideas are not nice and limit options for getting the fights that we all search for

I have a cool idea i want to disclose here .. not sure if this has been brought out yet but here goes my brain fart:

> Reduce SBU timing to online to 1 hour, once sbu is onlined, a countdown of random 12 to 24 hours starts for the system to enter something called "Battle mode". Battle mode stay for 6 hours. Onlined sbu will vanish once battle mode is effective and can't be offlined to be re-used
> SBU cost is ~ 500 mill building cost
> Cap Alliance membership to 4000 members
> Only alliances with more than 500 members can online sbu
> All ships that doesn't belong to the alliance holding sov and aggressor alliance will automatically have their locking ability reduced to nill (yes u can't lock anything) and bombers will have their bombing modules offlined when they pass within the sbu'ed system (however, they can lock and shoot if I-hub / station
> Cyno jammer doesnt work when a system is sbu'ed
> you can't sbu more than 2 systems belonging to the same alliance within 24 hours

--- General Output after patching---
1. Sov will be reflecting Alliance military power not the coalition's
2. limiting alliance members will prevent all x-coalitions to reform into one alliance
3. More fights since small alliances (800 to 2000 members) can fight unorganized full alliances
4. Cyno jamming for sbu'ed system will prevent camping gates by blues to that alliance

In short ... having more blues will have no effect to sov taking and will be limited only to skirmish fights here and there over pos


There are just to many holes in this.

The best suggestion so far (not mine!) revolves around directly relating system usage with how easy it is to take or defend. This would not only scale well but could be introduced along side many existing mechanics over a period of time, so minimising disruption but changing the system for the better.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#27 - 2014-08-12 17:54:06 UTC
How about we just remove SOV entirely. Let the players decide what SOV is and get rid of these arbitrary deployables that cannot be attacked or some magical presence of some deployable that changes everything. It's all looking very stupid at this point.


Oh I know, there'd be no way to farm the sites without SOV, right? Well, isn't all this farming and grinding what all those highsec carebears are into? So why do it in null? Oh to pay for PVP. Where? In nullsec? Probably highsec or lowsec.

So, since there's a push to have more industry in nullsec, let's kill SOV and have the PVP there too. Then this symbiotic relationship between nullsec and highsec can be removed and everybody can stop pointing their fingers at either side of the Great Wall of Carebear and blame other players for everything wrong with the game.


Kill all teh SOV! Throw it away. It's supposed to be player defined space, well then, let it be player defined.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-08-12 18:01:30 UTC
Mohamad Transporte wrote:
> Cap Alliance membership to 4000 members
> Only alliances with more than 500 members can online sbu



oh hey, let's use the hard limit approach on EVE. surely that will work awesomely and it won't be exploited at all...

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#29 - 2014-08-12 18:04:57 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
It's supposed to be player defined space, well then, let it be player defined.

I have seen several sandbox games that were purely player defined in its contents, without gameplay direction. They were all desolate hellholes. I wouldn't wish something like this on any player group in EVE Online.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Ka'Narlist
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#30 - 2014-08-12 18:07:22 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
The best suggestion so far (not mine!) revolves around directly relating system usage with how easy it is to take or defend.

Its an old suggestion but I tend to agree with it too. Somehow the sov should be tied to the usage of the space through the sov holding alliance. The problem here is to be carefull to not let sov become a pure PvE expierience.
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-08-12 18:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugia3
Mohamad Transporte wrote:
thanks for the useless wall of text that has no relation to the OP ....

A- 3 or 4 has repeated the point of : Dont suggest to limit alliances because they can create alt alliances!!!!!!

this is true as a stand alone concept... but if the limit is linked to >>>>> READ: ONLY AGGRESSOR AND DEFENDER <<< are allowed to engage during the battle time. then you can have a billion alt alliances that are completely useless and have no role in defending your ihub / station

B- If you want to criticize, please let me know how you will abuse that or how the new idea will not achieve the main aim which is reduce the effect of blobbing


You want to know how it can be exploited?

Alliance A has 1000 people. They create Alliance B for the sole purpose of maintaining SBU's in their main ratting system. This renders them 100% safe from everything. A few dozen people ratting in carriers or supers will easily rake in enough money a day to maintain 24/7 sbu's in the system assuming even a 5% tax rate.

So basically, you have created a system where people can afk rat the best rats in the game in super-bling ships (like supercarriers) with 0 risk. Literally, 0 risk. See the problem yet?

That and you're making it so only megacoalitions can actually play the game and telling everyone who isn't NC., PL, or CFC to **** off and unsub.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#32 - 2014-08-12 18:38:52 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
It's supposed to be player defined space, well then, let it be player defined.

I have seen several sandbox games that were purely player defined in its contents, without gameplay direction. They were all desolate hellholes. I wouldn't wish something like this on any player group in EVE Online.



I thought "desolate hellhole" is something that everybody around here takes pride in. You know, "go back to WoW" and all that sort of thing.

If desolate hellhole is the result of purely player-defined space, how does Eve already do it differently? I don't think that this game would suffer the end of SOV like that. Unless of course, the entire nullsec thing has always been all about farming and earning ISK (read: not much different from highsec) after all.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2014-08-12 18:43:23 UTC
Ka'Narlist wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
The best suggestion so far (not mine!) revolves around directly relating system usage with how easy it is to take or defend.

Its an old suggestion but I tend to agree with it too. Somehow the sov should be tied to the usage of the space through the sov holding alliance. The problem here is to be carefull to not let sov become a pure PvE expierience.


The answer to making sov tied to space usage is to remove sov. Just like lowsec, where a group can still live in and unofficially own an area.

Oh, and remove non-blops jump drives too.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#34 - 2014-08-12 19:29:07 UTC
Mohamad Transporte wrote:
Power projection , Sov mechanic changes, etc.. all those ideas are not nice and limit options for getting the fights that we all search for


Not really. If they changed SOV, power projection, and supers in a way that resulted in nullsec being broken up into a lot of smaller groups, and changed resourcing so groups would have to change SOV periodically, there would be a lot more fights. Right now we have a Black and White Cookie in NullSec and not much PvP content.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#35 - 2014-08-12 19:34:59 UTC
So bad and counter to the very nature of the sandbox that I suspect OP is actually DrysonBenningon in disguise.

Oh, wait, at least Dryson knows where "Features and Ideas discussion" sub forum is :)
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#36 - 2014-08-12 19:37:04 UTC
Wow this is the dumbest idea I ever heard of. And watch me break this in 3 seconds

Alliance a is capped at 4k, they used to have 10k, so they split into another alliance of 4k. They decided they do not wish to be attacked, so alliance b 'invades' alliance a, thus making there space invulernable. When your lame timers expires and the 'invasion' is over, they just do it again. No one can attack either of them as they just keep 'invading' eachother. Red V. Blue do this pretty much every day.

Your idea is crap. Do yourself a favor, and look up 'Constalation Sov' ccp tried something like this, it was crap then, and this is still crap now.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#37 - 2014-08-12 19:42:14 UTC
Another way to ruin your idea. alliance a had 10k members, so it breaks up into 20 500 man alliances. each oen can sbu the 2 of the others systems, cyno jammer is no lonmger needed as if you just cycle your sbu's when 'battle mode' ends, no oen can freaking lock anything in any of there systems. Each alliance can have 40 systems in this mode at every time. 500m for an sbu is a drop in the bucket, no need for a srp, and anyone not in the 'invation' that enters any of the 40 systems gets killed. And they can't fire back.


Still a stupid idea. Lets implement it so goons and large alliances can just get richer.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#38 - 2014-08-12 19:42:39 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Mohamad Transporte wrote:
Power projection , Sov mechanic changes, etc.. all those ideas are not nice and limit options for getting the fights that we all search for


Not really. If they changed SOV, power projection, and supers in a way that resulted in nullsec being broken up into a lot of smaller groups, and changed resourcing so groups would have to change SOV periodically, there would be a lot more fights. Right now we have a Black and White Cookie in NullSec and not much PvP content.


Nope, what there would be is a whole lot more living in High Sec, history has shown that you can't make people fight in a video game by dangling resources in front of them.

People fight in a game when fighting is fun, trying to manhandle people into fighting has, in this game's past, not only resulted in less fighting but also in more people leaving null sec for other place in game that made more sense.

It's human nature to seek help, some faux game mechanic meant to 'break people up into small groups' will have the opposite effect.
Ka'Narlist
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#39 - 2014-08-12 19:48:12 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
Ka'Narlist wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
The best suggestion so far (not mine!) revolves around directly relating system usage with how easy it is to take or defend.

Its an old suggestion but I tend to agree with it too. Somehow the sov should be tied to the usage of the space through the sov holding alliance. The problem here is to be carefull to not let sov become a pure PvE expierience.


The answer to making sov tied to space usage is to remove sov. Just like lowsec, where a group can still live in and unofficially own an area.

Oh, and remove non-blops jump drives too.

Are you working in a team with the OP?
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2014-08-12 20:16:20 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Mohamad Transporte wrote:
Power projection , Sov mechanic changes, etc.. all those ideas are not nice and limit options for getting the fights that we all search for


Not really. If they changed SOV, power projection, and supers in a way that resulted in nullsec being broken up into a lot of smaller groups, and changed resourcing so groups would have to change SOV periodically, there would be a lot more fights. Right now we have a Black and White Cookie in NullSec and not much PvP content.

I've been here for quite some time and I can say this:

breaking nullsec will result in a crapload of changes, tears, whining and end up in the same state we have today.


To change the nullsec mentality you need to change a very primal human mentality which is, to group up.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Previous page123Next page