These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 on Null sec and Supers, part 1

Author
JustSharkbait
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2013-09-03 04:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: JustSharkbait
*part 2 can be found here*

There is a lot of discussion and focus on null sec and supers. The discussions usually revolve around how to make the big guys suffer and give null sec more access to smaller groups. Rage, angry nerds, angry words, and personal threats are hurled at others over such discussions. However, while most proposals are not terrible, they involve tons of work by CCP and will take a long time to be seen in the game.

It is my belief that making changes with the purpose of hurting the big guys ultimately hurts the small guys on a scale lager then it affects the big ones. Part 1deals with changes to SOV structures themselves, Part two will deal with SOV mechanic changes related to Ihub upgrades, and Part 3 will deal with supers and solutions for them.

Introduction to the Problem

The basic underlying problem is thus: SOV null sec has a massive barrier to entry due to its raw mechanics, and due to the large coalitions working together with large capital fleets to control multiple regions. There is intense debate about how to fix the problem, with most suggestions involving a complete change of SOV to be based on activity levels—similar to Faction Warfare. There are also cries for supers to be removed from the game, or nerfed to non-effectiveness. The theory of people is that the big coalitions need to be removed and there is this wonderful idea of null sec having many little coalitions fighting each other over all of null sec—many different small to medium conflicts.

Current Proposed Solution Issues

Human nature is such that if we can join together to beat someone over the head then we will. We get entertainment value out of other’s suffering and in the video game world this is compounded greatly. This means that the ultimate cycle of null sec is large to mega coalitions forming to combat other large to mega coalitions. It does not matter what changes are implemented large and mega coalitions will exist until the need for them goes away.

The “farm and fields” ideas based on actively levels will simply keep the status quo. Why? Time. It takes time to mess with the activity levels and during that time the owners can cyno in their fleets from a titan and run the hostiles off, and then reverse the effects.

Quick example: 20 guys start grinding a system from goons. Goons drop 200 pilots, drive 20 guys off, and then grind it back up with the 200. Apply that example to all of the thousands of systems in null sec and it will be easier for the big guys to take over everything and hold it even more effectively than they do now. Another tie-in to the farm proposals is decay. However, large groups can still “hold” the space without their name being on it. They will turn the farm and fields into actual kill farming and leave systems open just to get kills. Additionally, if it is made it too easy to take systems, then no one can effectively hold SOV, invest in it, and live—that has to be a consideration or else sov is pointless. There has to be risk vs reward that is high enough to make it worth living in, and that can be improved upon.

The next proposals are to get rid of/nerf supers so that they will not be dominate. The thinking is this will make it easier for small non-super groups to take SOV and be effective. It will not for one simple reason: the big groups already don’t use supers as often as they could and drop 200 carriers or dreads on a problem. It is simply the threat of supers that keeps players from messing with large groups.

The big groups need to want to use supers, so supers die and the economy at the macro level cycles properly. Smaller PVP alliances that live in NPC space or low-sec must be able to effectively mess with and be able to hold SOV without fear of being completely crushed in a day. Current big power blocks need to have members break away and form their own smaller coalitions apart from the big boys (i.e. pets become kings).

New SOV Proposal Intro

There is one fundamental principle people forget when discussing these issues: anything that is changed at all will benefit the large groups. However, anything that is nerfed will severely hurt the small to medium groups while only mildly affecting the big groups. That is why the following changes are designed with several clear, core tenants:

1) must majorly help the small to medium groups,

2) must generally help everyone in that area of the game and not hurt a specific group intentionally.

3) Must not require massive game re-coding so it can be implemented in weeks-months not months-years.

4) Must only alter already existing mechanics and not completely change them.

I will briefly go over what the points mean.

1) There has to be a clear benefit for the small/medium guys or they will not change what they do or show any interest in the changes. This will keep the status quo which is not the goal.

2) Game changes should help everyone who plays that area of the game, and not intentionally hurt one specific group. In the real world this is illegal and called discrimination. Just because someone does not like a small/medium/large/mega groups of players does not mean the game company should target that group negatively. Games are supposed to be fun—bring back more fun!

3) Features and changes need to be implemented as fast as possible to continue player fun/enjoyment. Re-coding an entire section of the game is expensive, time-consuming and not needed.

4) People’s “mob rule” reaction to something they don’t like is to completely change it. This is usually not needed, and taking a step back and looking at the problem more closely with less emotion will usually provide better more realistic modifications.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

JustSharkbait
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2 - 2013-09-03 04:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: JustSharkbait
New SOV Proposal

In keeping with the points from above here are my proposed changes, the reasons behind them, the desired effects, and some negative aspects.

Reduce all SOV structure’s hit points

This is simply done to make it easier for the non-cap heavy groups to grind through raw hit points. It will also mean the building materials should be altered to use fewer materials to build, which could make them cheaper to buy as the market adjusts. The more work (grinding, farming, waiting, and indexing) that is required, the more the fun factor goes down—this causes the player activity to go down.

The HP reduction needs to be at least 50% across the board for SBU’s, TCU’s, IHUB’s, and Stations. This cuts the 20-30 minutes needed for 5 dreads to Reinforce (RF) an IHUB down to 10-15. The difference in those numbers is the response time for the big groups to move their cap fleet from one side of EVE to where the small dread fleet is. By comparison, it only takes a couple of minutes for a super fleet to RF an IHUB, many times they have to sit and wait on cap to recharge before leaving and they are already done.

The negative aspect would be the large cap-heavy groups can grind things that much faster. However, they can already grind structures so fast that it makes no difference to them. The issue with the big alliances is not that people find structure grinding hard. It is not hard for them at all, the issue it that it is boring for everyone (small to large). The change will help everyone, while giving a huge advantage to smaller gangs.

Remove resistance bonus to SBU’s

SBU’s have the same Hit points (HP) as a TCU. However, they have 50% resists. This is unnecessary. It makes it harder for attackers to kill defensive SBUs and harder for defenders to kill offensive ones. With the reduction of HP for all SOV structures this means SBU’s will die faster, but so will TCU’s. This will create more intense defensive/offensive fighting over them. The negative will be with the time it takes to online SBU’s—the attackers will have to sit there all that time or else they can lose the SUB before they can get to it to defend. However, please take this change in conjunction with the next one:

Lower the Onlining time for TCU and SBU to 1 hour, and .5 hours respectively

The TCU takes way too long to turn on and gives a clear advantage to whoever does not want it to turn on. This means that a small groups taking advantage of a timezone gap of a large group is screwed because with an 8 hour online time it will go into the next timezone where it cannot be defended. The advantage of 1 hour online means that a small group can take a system in under 2 hours if there is no IHUB. The SBU time means that clear surprise attacks are viable.

The negative aspect is clear. Entire areas of space get taken extremely quick. However, SBU’s are so fast, and TCU’s are so fast that extending empires are very vulnerable to being harassed to death for taking too much space. It does not matter how big a group is, they cannot be in 5 regions at once defending from sustained assaults.

They may be able to clean it up eventually, but they have to go on deployment against another large group at some point, otherwise they lose their PVPers. Then they become extremely vulnerable, especially with the lowered SBU times and TCU HP. No longer can a large group just “ignore” a problem because it can quickly cost them space.

Lower the M3 of Ihubs and Ihub related items and make them buildable

This is heaven for smaller groups. Make Ihubs and all Ihub upgrades small enough to fit in a jump freighter. Small groups may not have a Titan to bridge an entire freighter out just to drop an Ihub, and then they have to get the freighter out. This means that is very hard to secure a system for them. Even if the Ihub takes up all the space in a jump freighter the logistics relief is huge. The same goes for the upgrades. Also, make the upgrades buildable with BPO and take them off of being auto-seeded by NPCs.

The negative is that logistics becomes easier for large groups. However, this is not a major issue for them now as it is. They have the titans to bridge freighters everywhere and they have massive jump freighter fleets. However, making SOV easier to manage helps everyone in SOV space, large or small.

Modify RF Timers

There are several small changes here.

1) Make the Ihub and Station timers both 24 hours.

2) give the Ihub timer a 25% change to come out of RF 24 (+/- 3) hours from the time it went into RF mode, instead of when it were set for. This can be called an attacker’s advantage timer versus a defender’s advantage.

3) Give the 2nd timer a 50% chance of coming out in an attacker’s advantage time if the first timer did.

4) If a station is present in the system, then it gets a 50% chance of an attacker’s advantage timer if the Ihub was hit first and resulted in an attacker’s timer. If not, the station does not have any chance of attacker’s timer if it is hit first or the Ihub does not receive one. The second timer of a station that received an attacker’s timer gets a 50% chance of the same, just like the Ihub’s second timer.

There is a lot of technical stuff there. Currently there is NO advantage for attackers. Someone hits an Ihub and it will come out when the defenders want it to. Giving just a chance for it not to give a defensive timer means that the attackers could get a good timer for themselves which will help to mess with SOV. The disadvantage would mean groups with specialty timers could have some trouble, but such is the SOV holding life. It should not be all roses for defenders; after all they still get their stations to protect critical systems.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

JustSharkbait
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3 - 2013-09-03 04:10:22 UTC  |  Edited by: JustSharkbait
Conclusion of Part 1

These are all changes that build on each other to make an easier to manage, and easier to lose SOV structure without requiring the game devs to spend half a year to program something new. New things are buggy and could end up doing more harm than good, and could cause an even bigger super coalition that cannot be touched. The ideas of the proposed changes is to directly benefit the small to medium guys and make SOV life more enjoyable and content filled for everyone, even the big guys.

Part 2 will add and build on the above with actual changes to SOV itself—as in the benefits and costs to having it and how it all ties to in to the changes mentioned in part 1. Part three will deal with how supers fit in with all of this, and how to encourage them to die in droves.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#4 - 2013-09-03 07:05:37 UTC
Cloaky-warping covert HICs given to all corps smaller than, hm, 50 pilots. Inside each covert HIC is a list of batphone numbers Special crybaby cyno which allows you to warp with a cyno lit, so you can GTFO if no one answers your call once you have a ratting Nyx pointed. Easy solution to super proliferation and will stop everyone from complaining on the forums.
JustSharkbait
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#5 - 2013-09-03 07:24:06 UTC
nice troll.

i'm not complaining about anything though there are some that do. I am proposing changes to actually bring balance and fun into null sec and you can't do that without addressing the broken SOV mechanics and the mass use of supers.

The hard part is players who do not have mass supers or players who are not in a large coalition get frustrated. The natural human reaction to being frustrated is to want to get rid of that which frustrates you.

However, it is wrong to make changes out of emotion because you end up discrediting a style of play.

This is a game. The idea of controlling vast empires in space or being a small pirate force annoying the empires is amazing and both should be supported.

The current SOV mechanics however, cause the coalitions to be formed not because they want to be large coalitions but because it is such a hassle and administrative nightmare to deal with.

If you fix the hassles with SOV using the current system, then you reduce the need for large coalitions. They will still exist because it is a style of play, but they will not be able to control the amount of territory they do currently.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

JustSharkbait
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#6 - 2013-09-04 16:03:11 UTC
part two coming out soon. maybe today, maybe tomorrow. Depends on how school goes today. lol.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

JustSharkbait
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#7 - 2013-09-09 15:08:43 UTC
part three coming out shortly.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

Xicho
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2013-09-09 15:33:49 UTC
Not reading all that.

No one else is either.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#9 - 2013-09-09 16:15:45 UTC
Xicho wrote:
Not reading all that.

No one else is either.


I read it. Not really that long. And you're lazy for not reading it. I'll withhold judgement until I've read the other parts. But so far, I don't see anything that I wouldn't support. But I thought sov structures were already made from PI and not NPC seeded?

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

JustSharkbait
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#10 - 2013-09-09 16:41:32 UTC  |  Edited by: JustSharkbait
The structures are but the upgrades that go inside the Ihub are seeded by NPC.

They are also very large. Level 4 and 5 across the board and most strategic upgrades cannot fit in a jump freighter.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

JustSharkbait
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#11 - 2013-09-09 16:44:58 UTC
Xicho wrote:
Not reading all that.

No one else is either.


but you took the time to post.

Thank you for your valuable opinion.

Hoo Ha Ha!!

killerkeano
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2013-09-11 08:05:29 UTC
Xicho wrote:
Not reading all that.

No one else is either.


thanks for a valued, and insightful opinion!

Nice work JustSharkbait