These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pre-CSM Summit Nullsec and Sov Thread

First post First post
Author
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
#61 - 2014-09-11 23:55:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Vizvig
Need very strong necromancy to bring the sov's corpse back to live as an zombie.

And countless pvpers will fight for sov, yes they will be honour enough to farm those meadows themselves and will not rent out it.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#62 - 2014-09-12 00:00:32 UTC
I'm sure you've been following it, but the nullsec threadnought by Manfred Sideous on improving null basically sums up a lot of what I think should happen.

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

KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#63 - 2014-09-12 00:03:02 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Rovinia wrote:
- Limit Alliance-to-Alliance blue standing to 2-3 entitys.
Then it'll be done on the Corp level.
There is nothing, NOTHING, you can do in Eve to keep people from working together.



Weekly charge on the list. Escalating with the total number on the list.
JuGGeR
Knights of the Posing Meat
#64 - 2014-09-12 00:08:08 UTC
something new , oldies sorta flown it all , killed it all done it all , what about new ships where having multi setups possible and you can mix up the ships guns or missils where the pilot flying it can see a benefit of having 200 million sp and trained everthing not made for bearing.

maby get around to do the capital t2 also since t1 has been out half of the time eve has been in play.
thelaststanden
M.I.M.M.S
The Watchmen.
#65 - 2014-09-12 00:09:25 UTC
Use the space or lose it should be the next mess change.

Index levels base on owner ship.

industry 2 and military 2. Station, and sov ownership anything under that should lose sov and station fall under as a NPC. You no longer will be able to afk the space.


Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#66 - 2014-09-12 00:11:08 UTC
Sovereignty, in it's current form, should be removed from the game entirely.

  • Players should not have to pay a sov bill to Concord to control zero security space
  • They should not have to "hold sov" to build or anchor structures
  • Structure bashing should have zero relevance to who "owns" a system
  • The true measure of "ownership" is control.
  • If I control what happens in your sov, then it doesn't matter whose name is on the label.
  • Control of a system does not require new game mechanics
  • It would in fact benefit from the removal of all existing sov related restrictions!!


  • There are 2 major changes necessary to make the above feasible:

  • Make outposts destructible
  • Remove the "outpost capture" mechanic where it can be captured by shooting at it.

  • Capturing an outpost should have to be done via direct player-to-player negotiation e.g. "Surrender your outpost to us and we will let you remove all your assets peacefully, otherwise we shall destroy it and everything inside of it".

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

    Samuel Wess
    Doomheim
    #67 - 2014-09-12 00:24:03 UTC
    Have a crazy guy do it, will likely succeed and have a better impact than a balanced group of people.


    Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"

    Dorian Wylde
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #68 - 2014-09-12 00:54:21 UTC
    Jack Marshal wrote:
    Why in the **** should we bother given suggestions
    when Fozzy Doesn't listen anyways
    .



    Not personally agreeing with everything you type does not mean he isn't listening. As they've said untold numbers of times, they are not, have not, and will not balance the game solely around what people say on the forums. Feedback is not the same as dictating policy. Deal with it or leave, just for the love of god stop whining about it like it's ever going to change.


    That ....individual aside, there are some hilariously unrealistic expectations in this thread and it's only on page 4. Think before you post, guys. In a game that does not use battlegrounds or arenas for pvp, "blobs" as you sadly refer to them are not going away. The person who brings the biggest group to the fight will, and should, likely win. Ideas on how to limit (not destroy) power projection would be great examples of useful feedback. Just remember that at the end of the day, if an alliance decides to spend hours and a few thousand blocks of ice to bring their super caps across the galaxy to demand tribute from your little 50 person alliance, they absolutely should have an expectation of victory. That's how war works.
    Gilbaron
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #69 - 2014-09-12 01:13:08 UTC
    the only thing that can nerf ~force projection~, ~apex forces~ and ~tildes~ is giving people something else to do.

    that something should be more profitable and (even more important) more important (sic !) than showing up at the other and of the galaxy with your entire military force.
    Maraner
    The Executioners
    #70 - 2014-09-12 01:13:15 UTC
    Suggestions

    1. Enable asymetrical warfare by seriously nerfing remote rep. I've made previous posts on this but if this was to happen to favour small fleets or triage doctrines over pantheon carriers and scimi blobs....more stuff will die. At the moment if you see an opposing fleet has serious rep power you are more than likley just not going to engage. If you give stacking penalties to RR then you at least have to option to engage and fight even if you are going to lose your fleet. - This should have the effect of forcing down fleet sizes and enabling smaller groups to contest for territory - maybe

    2. Reduce the EHP of structures..amazed that this hasn't happened already tbh.

    3. Try to promote pocket empires, give system or constellation naming rights to alliances - yes there may be need for a CCP filter on this one, but if you take space and it's yours you get to name it. Encourge and reward alliances that own groups of systems within one area whilst penalising them for having space all over the damn place.

    TBH i have no idea how to deal with big blue donut or the rental agreements that are out there at the moment, it's pretty nasty that it's impossible for small groups to effectively fight for space and that the only real route at the moment is to pay the ferry man. Personally I want to see dozens of small enpires come into existence that get to fight with their neighbours.

    Lots of constant small wars with occaisonal coalition fights. We need to fracture down space and enable smaller nation states.

    The easiest and most brutal approach would be to making renting space a EULA violation (listens for the screams).

    GL either way
    Aliventi
    Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
    Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
    #71 - 2014-09-12 01:28:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
    Take a look at some ideas on how to redo SOV. My post is #74 around midway down.

    You need to remove the tools alliance use to afk hold large amounts of space. These are power projection, notifications, and large EHP structures.

    A quick thing you could do that would rapidly change nullsec would be the removal of all in-game and API notifications. If the asset (R64 moon, SOV, station, etc) is important to you then it's important enough to spend time gathering intel on every day. If you don't care about the asset it will fall to someone who cares about it more than you.
    Thatt Guy
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #72 - 2014-09-12 01:51:34 UTC
    Step 1: Ask for feedback
    Step 2: Ignore feedback
    Step 3: Change things to the way you want it, because screw the players feedback

    You already proved you don't care what the players think with wormhole spawning distance and incursion scout sites.

    So why should we bother this time?

    Haters gonna hate, Trolls gonna troll.

    Chainsaw Plankton
    FaDoyToy
    #73 - 2014-09-12 01:56:15 UTC
    my biggest issue with 0.0 is that more people should be in space! looking at the map and just seeing all them empty systems makes me sad.

    also roaming gangs should be enough to encourage a response, as it is now it more or less seems that ratters can hide out for 5 mins till the roamers get bored and move on.

    I guess what I'm saying is make it easier to kick some sand in the sandbox.

    oh, and probably nerf local.

    @ChainsawPlankto on twitter

    Kyle Aparthos
    Apotheosis.
    #74 - 2014-09-12 01:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyle Aparthos
    Here's my two cents as someone who has lived in Null and worked with the CFC for some time:

    There's no real way to resist the buildup of coalitions. People will always set one another blue and create diplomatic contacts. But what can be changed is how much space may be feasibly occupied by one group of people---and the more groups occupying space, the less chance they will ALL get along.

    Step one: Do away with timers. POSes are an exception here---with their reinforcement mechanics, it makes sense for them to have a countdown timer. As far as everything else goes, though, there seems to be little logical reason for stations, etc. to have timers. By simply removing the timers, it would, simply by mechanical extension, make the game feel far more fluid and less, in a word, "grind-y."

    Naturally, this creates a bit of an issue. With current levels of station and TCU HP, it would be more than possible for a large coalition to drop huge numbers of supers on a structure and wipe it off the map during an enemy's downtime, when too few people are online to form up and defend it. By itself, removing timers only makes the continued dominance of megacoalitions even easier.

    Step two: Either modify the EHP of structures, modify the mechanics of SBUs, or both. As it currently stands, the existence of SBUs makes it easy to give an alliance some advance warning for when they are about to be attacked. This is good. It would get really boring and really aggravating really fast if Null descended into a shitstorm of people dropping capitals on TCUs without warning. But, at the same time, this also makes it laughably easy for a large enough alliance to simply swoop in and destroy an SBU before their opponent even has a chance to form. As I see it, there are two easy solutions---either do away with SBUs and make stations and TCUs have extremely high levels of HP(modified by certain factors, as I shall discuss later), or ensure that an SBU is invulnerable for the first 24 hours of its anchoring, forcing both sides to commit within a reasonable timeframe to attack and/or defend.

    Of course, again, this by itself will not stop huge alliances from spreading out. We can titan bridge to many systems, given a few hours advance warning, and crush the opposition. Hence a third mechanic needs to be introduced:

    Step three: Make both the benefits of holding sov, as well as the ability itself to hold sov, a function of how heavily that system is actually occupied, and by whom. This requires some explanation. In my optimal system(through my eyes, feel free to tell me I'm an idiot), if random alliance X wants to hold some space in Cloud Ring, they need to move their **** out there and live in those solar systems. If they're a small alliance, say, 200 pilots, they can feasibly be active across about 5-10 systems, with somewhere between 20-40 pilots ratting, mining, PvPing(Successfully---as in killing non-alliance members in their space), etc. in each system. In each system that they want to actually live in, they must anchor a TCU, which will be initially relatively vulnerable to attack, but, as a function of the number of people actively doing stuff inside the solar system, will become less vulnerable(read: higher EHP) and offer greater bonuses to the system as time progresses. Naturally, systems with a station are more frequented than systems without, which means that more people will flock to "station systems," and those would need to have some form of modifier to make them require more activity to actually hold. Perhaps at a certain point of sustained activity, at the level you might expect from a capital system for a given alliance, the system would become immune to SBUs.

    Conversely, the fewer people actively engaged themselves in a given system, the weaker and more vulnerable the TCU would become over time, weakening quickly at first(obviously an invulnerable system becoming vulnerable again very rapidly indeed), and then tapering off slowly, with totally or near totally inactive systems not requiring SBUs at all in order to headshot the TCU. It may or may not be possible to weaken the system faster if a force which does NOT hold Sov in the system is actively engaging in activity, especially killing the Sov holders, in said system, as would happen if an alliance is unable or unwilling to defend its borders.

    Step Four: ISKies. I have never worked with administration on an alliance level and know little about paying Sov bills. I trust the fine folks at CCP to handle that.

    This combination of different mechanics would, as a whole, imply that, as a whole, it would be much more difficult for a large alliance to hold vast swaths of space that they do not use. This would, in turn, hopefully lead to a "fracturing" of Sov nullsec. Large coalitions such as the CFC could still exist, naturally. It is in our nature to work together. But if every alliance could only feasibly control a certain quantity of space, many, many more alliances would seize territory in currently low-activity regions. It is highly unlikely that every one of them would set one another blue. The so-called "Apex Force" would not matter---they could go in, absolutely wreck a group of people, and move in, but unless they planned to stay there, it wouldn't do them very much good.
    Logically speaking, this would lead to a system of Sov warfare in which structure grinds are replaced with warfare setups which are designed to weaken an alliance's grip on space, and prevent them from living in and occupying their own territory. To entirely rip Sov from an enemy's hand, you would have to camp them into stations, destroy their ratters, engage and defeat them in PVP over a period of time. You may know these things as "fight generators" and "not goddamn structure grinds." I would foresee this creating a much more diverse nullsec.

    So there you have it. These are Kyle's suggestions. :)

    Opinionated analyst, CSM XI candidate

    Get in touch with me via tweetfleet slack (Kyle Aparthos), reddit (u/KyleAparthos), in-game, or via email (kyle.brashear@hotmail.com) for all of your Analysis needs :)

    Kell Braugh
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #75 - 2014-09-12 02:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kell Braugh
    Given any combination of sub-capital > 150k KM from the jump in gate and tackler, if you initiate warp within 5.35 seconds of someone jumping into your system, there is mathematically no way you can be tackled, there is zero player-contributed risk in your activity.

    This is true for a crow with all inertia mods and rigs, and implants, and hardwires vs a bulkhead filled Dominix as an example.

    Fix this and it will go a long way to fixing null sec.
    Kiera Malukker
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #76 - 2014-09-12 02:17:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiera Malukker
    How about instead of listening to the feed back from those in null who already hold sov and complain about it when their in the big blue circle jerk the devs listen to those who would like to participate but can't cause blobs, structure grinds, etc.

    The stuff that's supposed to be for small groups to harass big guys with aka targetable structure services, siphon units etc hurt the larger entities by making them laugh too hard at best... There needs to be a way for a small group to sow terror in the minds of the larger entities and make them think oh s#$% that wasn't expected or what we needed to happen right about now.

    Think the kinds of stuff terrorist do in rl and apply it to eve.... we should have strategic class tools to balance super cap fleets to sow terror in the hearts of our enemies and those we want to enact revenge upon.

    How about some kind of chemical/biological,nanobot attack that cripples a station for a period of time denying access to it or even damaging certain assets like bpo me/te or destroying the quality of R64 moons with some kind of environmental attack or disabling/disrupting a jump bridge network for a period of time with some kind of gravity well that causes those using to be spewed out in random systems across a given area or even an attack on a star that makes a system extremely toxic to those attempting to use it for a period of time kinda like the negitive effects incursions have but player orcastrated such as a super nova event that the residents can stop in time if they act fast enough but if they fail will have to suffer from for say a week or so ...something along those lines should be possible and even plausible since i remember reading a while back how EVE's engine can be used to do stuff like that but that you hadn't really thought of any good things to use it for....

    I'm sure there's plenty of other terror type things people could come up with that would cripple the null bears in some fashion and would be useful to small groups trying to create a beach head in null sec and having the capacity to pull off such attacks would give them a bargaining position as well kinda like north korea vs the usa by using nukes to prevent an invasion. Sure the USA could crush them if they wanted to but at what cost? That's the mentality i'm talking about here.

    it could be balanced by making it expensive and have it scale say a disabled jump net work around 5 bill, a station attack 10-20 bill and a system wide attack 35-40 bill or have it correlate with the costs of supers at say half their general price. You could even make it difficult to pull off but extremely effective at making null groups go oh sheet is not good day today if carried out successfully just think of all the knives in the back the null bears will use on each other by employing low level corps to do their under handed business because they fear someone doing it to them first...... could be lots o fun think of the meta muhahhahhahahahahaaaa some of us just want to watch them burn is all and we should have the tools to make it happen with out bringing 2000 of our friends in on it and enacting 18hr tidi bashes. CCP is always talking about how a few individuals having an impact on the community at large and I can think of no better way to make it happen.

    TwistedIf you give us the tools we will set the universe on fire......Twisted
    Skyy Dracon
    Repercussus
    Reverberation Project
    #77 - 2014-09-12 02:25:07 UTC
    KIller Wabbit wrote:
    Skyy Dracon wrote:
    Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
    I hope sov is based on system activity and population. Should have to live in your space to own it.

    like I said in my post on the topic in this thread take away jump bridges and non covert Cynos and the large alliances will dissolve into cannibalism leaving room for smaller entities to fill the subsequent voids.


    I think you will also have to limit the head count of Alliances and remove Alliance to Alliance standings. Then let the cannibalism begin! Sauce with that? Twisted
    nah alliance to alliance standing is an important factor in joint Ops even outside normal coalition efforts (we do WH evictions and other merc contracts) not nice to shoot the guys paying us to be there. :p

    Just removing a corporation/alliances ability to be omnipresent should have enough of a destabilizing effect that Sov warfare would have meaning again, and renters well they're F*'ed unless they're willing to fight for the space they occupy.
    Skyy Dracon
    Repercussus
    Reverberation Project
    #78 - 2014-09-12 02:31:36 UTC
    Rovinia wrote:
    - Change the Titan bridge mechanic from a "push" to a "pull" so that you actually have to put the ship at risk. That would still allow power projection but make it much more risky.

    - Remove the immunity of Titans to conventional Warpdisruption and give them a Warpstrength of 25 instead.

    - Limit Alliance-to-Alliance blue standing to 2-3 entitys.

    Solid Idea's but what prevents those Titans from being safed up in a POS somewhere nearby? the only real Risk there is someone forgetting to fuel the tower really. Sure Sov owners will scan down the POS and attack it but with the Titan there to pull in reinforcements.....its akin to sticking your hand in a snake hole....your gonna get bit.

    Not sure how the warp disruption change would effect anything really except letting stupid pilots save their titans more often?
    Skyy Dracon
    Repercussus
    Reverberation Project
    #79 - 2014-09-12 02:34:19 UTC
    KIller Wabbit wrote:
    Sniper Smith wrote:
    Rovinia wrote:
    - Limit Alliance-to-Alliance blue standing to 2-3 entitys.
    Then it'll be done on the Corp level.
    There is nothing, NOTHING, you can do in Eve to keep people from working together.



    Weekly charge on the list. Escalating with the total number on the list.

    so you want null sec alliances to start Alt corps to farm incursions in high sec to fund their standings list? That's exactly what will happen with that change.
    Skyy Dracon
    Repercussus
    Reverberation Project
    #80 - 2014-09-12 02:36:26 UTC
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    Sovereignty, in it's current form, should be removed from the game entirely.

  • Players should not have to pay a sov bill to Concord to control zero security space
  • They should not have to "hold sov" to build or anchor structures
  • Structure bashing should have zero relevance to who "owns" a system
  • The true measure of "ownership" is control.
  • If I control what happens in your sov, then it doesn't matter whose name is on the label.
  • Control of a system does not require new game mechanics
  • It would in fact benefit from the removal of all existing sov related restrictions!!


  • There are 2 major changes necessary to make the above feasible:

  • Make outposts destructible
  • Remove the "outpost capture" mechanic where it can be captured by shooting at it.

  • Capturing an outpost should have to be done via direct player-to-player negotiation e.g. "Surrender your outpost to us and we will let you remove all your assets peacefully, otherwise we shall destroy it and everything inside of it".

    Honestly your ide isn't as insane as it first sounds. lol

    This could in theory re-landscape the entirety of EVE.