These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposal to revitalize EvE. Change SOV/Station, introduce tiny tower, and revisit industrials.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Death Toll007
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-01-06 10:59:57 UTC
Due to increase number of T2 BPO's and supers being sold, it is an indicator of the steady decline since Incarna's disappointing release. CCP attempted to correct for its huberis by focusing on Space ships this patch, the question remains if that will continue to be the focus or not and continue the landslide towards other Sci Fi MMORPG's from our childhoods, or if they will redouble their efforts to revitalize this amazing game.

I do not know what it will take but I have three ideas: 1. Change Sov and station mechanics. 2. Bring back original industrial ship idea. 3. Create a Control Tower Tiny.

These ideas are all geared towards increasing the frequency of small gang warfare, and reduce effectiveness of blob warfare.

1. Sov and station mechanics.

Proposal:
1. Current Sov mechanic. remove.
2. Make stations controlled by building corporation (or in the case of current stations, the owning corporation).
3. Make a static isk or fuel cost for them, and they are only vulnerable to attack when either is not available.
4. Reduce material cost for them so they are more attainable.
5. Add a skill to corporation skills at (x8) that allows the construction of one station per 50 members. (1-50 members, 0 stations; 51-100 members, 1 station; etc)
6. A station is allowed to boost a system like in current sov mechanic and only in one field. This is either displayed in the station info or graphically on the model.
7. Reduce the ship/item hangar for non corporation members to equivalent of a carrier ship maintenance array and 5,000m3.
8. For Corp members make it equal to 2 carrier SMA, and 10,000m3.
9. Make amount on market unlimited.
10. All structures previously dependant on SOV are dependant on whether or not you have a station in system. So yes, two cyno jammers, or jump brideges from other alliances/corporations are possible.

Effects:
1. No more system owned by... in top left of screen.
2. Anyone can benefit in your system if they are allowed to do so.
3. forces patroling and diplomacy with others in your area.
4. Manipulating this system would require 25 accounts to spawn one extra station.
5. Alliance will have to manage their personnel, and assets more carefully, and cannot extend easily across all of eve with hundreds of stations.
6. Incorporates economic warfare as a means of clearing out an opposing forces stockpile of goods, but because they set the price, the question becomes who is benefiting.
7. Logistics demand increases to supply the markets in null.

More to come.

-DT
Death Toll007
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-01-06 11:00:41 UTC
2. Control Tower (tiny)
This tower would be allowed to be anchored anywhere as long as it is not within a certain distance from other structures, and would be significantly less expensive, resource intensive than its larger cousins. Down side is it would also be less useful as anything other than a glorified shield.

Proposal:
1. Create a POS structure called control tower tiny, it can be anchored anywhere in space as long as it is 250km from other structures (POS, Gate, Station)
2. It uses 1/2 the fuel of a small, and has a smaller stront bay, max of 6hrs.
3. Half the hit points of a small tower.
4. Capable of foregoing any other mods to fit the mod to reduce the sig radius and make the tower itself unscanable (ships present would still be scanable)
5. Shield is only 2.5km radius, so the entire pos could be bubbled, and anything inside could be trapped. It also limits the number of ships that can hide in the POS.
6. Fitting would allow for the equivalent of 1 medium gun, or 2 small guns and a warp disruptor.
7. Size, make it 1000m3 in size.

Effects:
1. Opportunity for personnel to anchor structures in low sec / 0.0 / high sec (with standing) in the middle of nowhere as a staging area, but not so OP'ed that it cannot be easily removed with a little effort.
2. Potential to have a stealth'ed staging area in hostile territory.
3. Mobile command post for small scale industrial operations.
4. With new mechanics, if in bubble on POS, ships should be unable to warp, or disappear on log off.
5. Potentially utilized in large scale long running PvP engagements by anchoring and fueling while major offensive is going on, and then onlining a warp disruptor to hold a cap on the field...

3. Industrial ships original concept:

Industrial ships originally were supposed to be more than the glorified cargo carriers they are. They were supposed to be a stepping stone for the industrial toons between mining, and the rorq. Allowing for all the industrial and research modules equivalent of services in station. I believe they were racial specific for bonuses to the mods, with the concept any of them could fit others without recieving bonus's. Copying = Mini, reprocessing = galente, research = caldari, manufacturing = amarr.

Proposal:
1. Institute industrial mods.
2. add fuel bay to the industrial ships.
3. Give racial bonuses to be better than stations.
4. Make unmodified slightly less beneficial than stations.

Effects:
1. Industrialists gain a new role.
2. Fleets can be self-sufficient longer without the need for stations/ POS's
3. Can overcome industrial costs in stations by utilizing industrial ships.
4. Death stars can have industrial capability, that is vulnerable to spies flying the industrial capabilities away (new element to spying/sabotage game against enemy infrastructure.)
5. Couple this with the tiny towers and you can now have an industrial operation in hostile territory. (Potential bait?)
6. May see an increase in combat miners (those who mine in hostile territory)

As stated previously all of these concepts are focused on increasing the frequency of small gang warfare. As a side benefit they would also increase the roles of industrialist, logistics, and potentially combat miners. Three changes (Sov/station being very significant), two not that significant, capable of adding greater dynamics and possibilities to the game.

Thanks for taking the time to read.

-DT
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-01-06 12:20:32 UTC
3. Make a static isk or fuel cost for them, and they are only vulnerable to attack when either is not available.

Welp, that's where I stopped reading.
Death Toll007
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-01-06 12:23:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Death Toll007
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
An uniformed post.


-DT
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2012-01-06 13:14:52 UTC
Death Toll007 wrote:
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
An uniformed post.


-DT


Guy in some low-sec and Providence roaming pvp corp telling a guy in TEST that he's making an uninformed post about sov warfare...

Let me tell you about sov grind.

But okay, challange accepted.

Proposal:
1. Current Sov mechanic. remove.
I'm fine with that, it is horrible.

2. Make stations controlled by building corporation (or in the case of current stations, the owning corporation).
You mean... the station should be controled by whoever owns it, yes that's the way they work currently

3. Make a static isk or fuel cost for them, and they are only vulnerable to attack when either is not available.
Oh dear. So I can't actually ever conquer someone else's station unless they forget to pay their bills... That's profoundly dumb. Take OWN alliance for example, they amassed massive wealth because they were given tech moons in Deklin, they payed White Noise 40 billion a month from their amassed wealth just to rent a constellation and not be given any techmoons (because they're idiots). You're saying that OWN alliance should have control of a station that they can never be driven out, despite having zero presence in space, just because they can pay the bills? You know this is a PvP game right?

4. Reduce material cost for them so they are more attainable.
Nullsec already has too many indestructable stations cluttering up my overview, if anything there need to be less stations, or they need to be destructable, not spammed everywhere.

5. Add a skill to corporation skills at (x8) that allows the construction of one station per 50 members. (1-50 members, 0 stations; 51-100 members, 1 station; etc)
It's a good thing there's no such thing as alts in this game... right?

6. A station is allowed to boost a system like in current sov mechanic and only in one field. This is either displayed in the station info or graphically on the model.
So we have to build multiple stations per system... Oh god my overview is full of boxes, I'm having flashbacks to living in an NPC region!

7. Reduce the ship/item hangar for non corporation members to equivalent of a carrier ship maintenance array and 5,000m3.
Non-corporation members, you mean allies and blues? We can still set docking rights to keep out neutrals and hostiles, right? Or do you want to turn every region in Eve into an NPC region? Also what happens if you already have more than half a hauler's worth of stuff in a station that your corp doesn't own? Flush it out an airlock? Well I guess we're back to the days when everyone stored their stuff in anchorable cans... man those were the days.

8. For Corp members make it equal to 2 carrier SMA, and 10,000m3.
Oh cool, I can own almost an entire hauler's worth of stuff. Isn't that nice.

9. Make amount on market unlimited.
Wat?

10. All structures previously dependant on SOV are dependant on whether or not you have a station in system. So yes, two cyno jammers, or jump brideges from other alliances/corporations are possible.
So basically you're saying we can set up a jumpbridge network that means we never have to travel by gates again. I'm fine with that, gates suck.

Effects:
1. No more system owned by... in top left of screen.
Like in an NPC region?

2. Anyone can benefit in your system if they are allowed to do so.
Like in an NPC region?

3. forces patroling and diplomacy with others in your area.
Like in an NPC region? (lol no, NPC regions are a clusterfuck)

4. Manipulating this system would require 25 accounts to spawn one extra station.
Damn my alliance only has 5000 members, with multiple accounts, where are we going to come up with 25 extra toons when every account only has 3 character slots?

5. Alliance will have to manage their personnel, and assets more carefully, and cannot extend easily across all of eve with hundreds of stations.
We can, and so can Goonswarm.

6. Incorporates economic warfare as a means of clearing out an opposing forces stockpile of goods, but because they set the price, the question becomes who is benefiting.
Economic warfare? How about actual warfare? But I can't attack a station unless someone doesn't pay their bills.

7. Logistics demand increases to supply the markets in null.
Like in an NPC region?

---

TL;DR: Your idea is terrible and you are terrible. Eve is a PvP game with guns and shooting, there needs to be sov warfare of some description, and you're basically proposing that all regions function as if they're NPC regions, except anyone can build themselves a nerfed station... Utterly terrible.
Jenn Makanen
Doomheim
#6 - 2012-01-06 13:29:41 UTC
Quote:
Due to increase number of T2 BPO's and supers being sold, it is an indicator of the steady decline since Incarna's disappointing release.


I'd have thought that concurrent log on numbers might be a more appropriate indicator. Rather than
A: T2 BPOs, which a very limited number of people have. And are often treated as investment assets more than actual production materials (due to the bottleneck on the number of lines)
B: Supers, which have just had an appropriate nerf to stop them being so useful as lone ships.

Death Toll007
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-01-06 14:06:48 UTC
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
[quote=Death Toll007]A very well thought out argument.


I see your points. Not being able to engage them would suck. What other mechanics could we use besides silly timers to engage them?

Docking privliages would be controlled by owning corp. So Blues/alliances have less room, thus spurning people to make their own stations.

Clogging the overview is a simple fix... right click, remove from overview.

What are your thoughts on other two ideas?

-DT
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-01-06 16:01:26 UTC
Death Toll007 wrote:

Docking privliages would be controlled by owning corp. So Blues/alliances have less room, thus spurning people to make their own stations.


As a nullsec dweller I honestly don't see why a starsystem needs more than one station.

Sovreignty used to be determined by the presence of POSes in a system. So we used to spam and shoot POSes endlessly. I don't want people doing essentially the same thing with stations, especially if they can't be captured or destroyed.

I understand that conquerable stations were introduced because people were storing their stuff in anchorable cans and causing lag. What's cheaper? A new (cheaper, but nerfed) station, or a POS with a corp hangar array with 1400000m^3, or 100 giant secure containers scattered in safespots? So I think that stations in their current form are necessary.

As for a better alternative to sovgrind, I don't have one, but less structure shooting would be nice. Something y'know, fun... I know this is Eve and I should stop dreaming.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2012-01-06 19:21:56 UTC
Station must be destructible, not conquerable. And everything inside them dies when the station blows up.
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-01-06 19:31:06 UTC
Feligast wrote:
Station must be destructible, not conquerable. And everything inside them dies when the station blows up.

And biomass any toon that was docked at the time.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2012-01-06 21:03:51 UTC
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
Feligast wrote:
Station must be destructible, not conquerable. And everything inside them dies when the station blows up.

And biomass any toon that was docked at the time.


And ban the accounts too.
Death Toll007
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-01-07 15:17:08 UTC
Feligast wrote:
Station must be destructible, not conquerable. And everything inside them dies when the station blows up.


hmmm....

That would be interesting. Trade off to unlimited storage and services (in current model) would be potential loss of all lootz.... Dunno if that would revitalize or cause EMORAGEQUITs though.

So... other two ideas... any thoughts?

-DT
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2012-01-07 18:42:45 UTC
If stations were easier to destroy than to capture then people might go back to storing their stuff in anchorable cans in safespots, which I understand generates more lag, which (I think) is the reason CCP introduced nullsec conquerable stations and outposts in the first place.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-01-07 19:01:18 UTC
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
If stations were easier to destroy than to capture then people might go back to storing their stuff in anchorable cans in safespots, which I understand generates more lag, which (I think) is the reason CCP introduced nullsec conquerable stations and outposts in the first place.

tbh any idea of destructible stations should go hand in hand in streamlining pos ownership/maintenance (fuel blocks were a good step in this direction) and expansion of null manufacturing capacity.
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#15 - 2012-01-07 20:24:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
OK honestly I like the idea of timers. Basically it makes sure that none of your stuff will blow up without giving you an opportunity to defend it. Unfortunately the biggest problem with sov grind is that there are far too many timers with far too much time on them to take a system. Not to mention the structures have waaaay too many hit points

Jafit McJafitson wrote:
If stations were easier to destroy than to capture then people might go back to storing their stuff in anchorable cans in safespots, which I understand generates more lag, which (I think) is the reason CCP introduced nullsec conquerable stations and outposts in the first place.


That's too bad, I would have liked to see destructible stations. Although I get the feeling that this may be more of a problem with anchorable cans being too useful. Maybe if the cans were smaller, easier for enemies to find, and had fewer hit points this wouldn't be such a big deal. Also they aren't big enough to fit a fully fit ship in are they?

Also as far as destructible stations go I think the amount of effort required to blow up a station should be equal to the amount of effort required to take one. That way the person who just took the system has to decide weather or not they can hold the system when deciding if they want to leave a station there. It's like the conquering army deciding if they should raze a city if they know they are going to lose it.

Death Toll007 wrote:
Make a static isk or fuel cost for them, and they are only vulnerable to attack when either is not available.

Also this is beyond idiotic.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544