These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Shrinking Null Blocs - acknowledge coalitions.

Author
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1 - 2014-12-18 15:37:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
TL;DR


  • Announce that in 6 months freighters and haulers will lose their fatigue bonus.
  • Add additional ratting sites that require teams to complete them.
  • Recognise coalitions and allow one station per alliance, per system and increase system indexes based on that and activity.
  • One month after capturing a station, let us access all the enemy loot.
  • Seed null sec with NPC station only goods?


(Revised ratting point as sites needing teams, means less sites in total, less complaining from CCP and more chance the ratters will be able to stand and fight.)

Right, so Phoebe. Okay, force projection is now limited.

You still have an artificial force that makes people keeps more space than they need. SOV and stations. (Edit: ... and apparently a lack of anomolies)

Attention** Please recognise coalitions in the mechanics ** Attention so we can build a station on every planet and have one per alliance. One alliance can control the initial setup or in other words govern the system but if we can consolodate our space then we can use it more effectively and not try to grab so much of it.

I see it working out like this in a coalition:

Alliances would hold 1-2 systems as "home bases" / staging systems with only them in it.
Other systems would have the more powerful alliances mixed in
The lowest value systems and possibly border systems would have renters or new alliances.

Over all though, it would mean less systems per bloc and more blocs. It would mean a greater concentration of pilots, which would mean that the smaller you are the more you can defend your space.

Another thing that would be good is if we could mix our fleets in the coalitions and go through high sec. Have logi from alliance A being able to repp alliance B ship that was attacked.

Edit:

The overwhelming concern seems to be the sites and the number of pilots a system can support.
We could tie this into the stations and the activity, much like how systems can be "upgraded" now by their activity, use the multiple stations as a multiplier and further activity.

Something like this, as a very basic example:

If system = station +1 station then
Military Index = Index-now x1.5
Industrial Index = Index-now x1.5
EndIf

If NPCs killed = current max + 50% then military index = Index-now x1.2

Create an artificial extra few points of index based on stations and activity.

baltec1 wrote:
There is a fixed number of spawns that respawn on a fixed time. A max upgraded, best truesec system will host 10 people before they start stepping on eachothers toes. Next step in this thread is someone will say "well then run plexes" to which the response is they will support at the very most 100 per region. Inevitably someone will say something about faction/officer spawns to which the response is that they are rare, hence why they cost what they do.

Long story short, if you don't own a personal carrier fleet for ratting and just have the one ratting character you are better off running SOE level 4 missions in high sec. Your plan can't work because it doesn't address the real issue for empire sprawl.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#2 - 2014-12-18 17:47:38 UTC
Outpost are only in a number of systems because the 30 plus billion needed for them has become a small cost compared to the capship fleets that fielded, same with the 500m a system, just a small fee is all its become.

Much of null sec is just held waiting for renters rather then being used because its more then what's needed.

I am not in null due to multiple reasons, but I have seen the problems all over eve
To take null by force you would need to build a major power to compete with the null powers or they will just stomp you

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Jenshae Chiroptera
#3 - 2014-12-18 20:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
http://evenews24.com/2014/12/08/matt-greyscale-woodward-leaves-ccp/

Quote:
Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs won’t be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars. It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment so reds are easier to find. This may make it easier for small alliances to set up shop, with less supercapital curb stomping.

Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to sh-.”


We are still in the transition period.

My point being that we could have smaller tougher nuts to crack but many more of them.

Have a look around, a lot of coalitions and alliances are pulling back. CFC was withdrawing from the south west, if I remember correctly, as an example.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#4 - 2014-12-20 07:19:43 UTC
more outposts per system would be nice but only after they can be popped
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#5 - 2014-12-20 08:11:20 UTC
You only need 4 systems to have all the outposts you want.
The actual issue with Null Density is the number of players who can live in a system doing anything other than mining.
Average accepted number is about 10 people in an average system across every single time zone occupy all the PvE content a single system can provide.

While this number remains at this level, you will not see significant compression of members.
Null needs to be able to support a great many more per system, without significantly affecting max income per player.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#6 - 2014-12-20 14:18:13 UTC
5/5/5 system supports more than that easily and isn't even being used effieciently.

Teams, tear through sites so fast noctises are leap frogging and a hauler is needed to pick up the loot.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2014-12-20 17:26:07 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
more outposts per system would be nice but only after they can be popped

make outright destroying them easier than capturing them, afterall, capturing one should be a GOAL of an invasion, its an important asset with extreme military utility, destroying it should be the easy path to system domination, capturing it should be difficult, maybe later on with LEGION integration for fun times. also make defenders able to enact scorched earth protocols to deny aforementioned military asset from the enemy (and ALL assets currently held inside it destroyed with a 10% drop chance)
Jenshae Chiroptera
#8 - 2014-12-20 17:42:12 UTC
I can agree on destruction but not easy destruction. This is EVE, with groups like Pandem Legion in them.

If there is something to fight for to regain there will be more good fights otherwise the next big thing from Titan ganks is Station ganks. Ugh

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Bl1SkR1N
13th HOUR
#9 - 2014-12-20 17:54:15 UTC
How about, instead of making destructable stations...which is imo super hard to implement without ruining game, you remove abilitiy to build stations at all. Regions would be stuck with what they have, give them whole new meaning, maybe change how upgrades work.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#10 - 2014-12-20 18:06:43 UTC
Wow, no.

First, how about we make it so that alliances actually exist? You know, instead of being a slapdash hotfix that has held for years and years?

Alliance bookmarks first and foremost, obviously, but nonetheless, you don't just build bad on top of bad.

Yeesh.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#11 - 2014-12-20 18:06:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
I think the over all plan is to have null sec running as a player driven high sec with its own law enforcements, markets, etc.

Probably a dream but the waste land of systems can't be what they are hoping for or trying to make happen.

Edit:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Alliance bookmarks first and foremost, obviously, but nonetheless, you don't just build bad on top of bad.


Check into that. I think I read in a dev post or blog that it will never happen. Too many book marks bursting the download when you change systems.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-12-20 18:20:13 UTC
I'm hoping CCP will do the exact opposite of what OP wants, and instead forces localization on null. Remove all timers on sov structures and outposts.

Make it so the only people that can hold and defend a system, are those that live there. No more coalitions sending a thousand f1 scrubs to make a timer and prevent any change or growth in null.

Sure, at first you'll see exactly that. Coalitions desperately clinging to their old meta and flipping some systems...but with no more timers, the original inhabitants of those systems can literally take them back right after the aggressors leave. Maybe this could make coalitions irrelevant, which would be the best thing for Eve since sliced bread and jump fatigue.

And as for destroyable stations....the only people that REALLY want this are those that are currently members of those large coalitions. They would absolutely love to go from system to system and pop every station that is not their own.

Perhaps this mechanic could work a long time in the future, but not so long as the coalitions of today exist. It would just be exploited, which is what they always do.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#13 - 2014-12-20 18:57:46 UTC
Timers are vital. Getting a large alliance organised to do something takes time. There are also weaknesses in time zones.

The large alliances can't be bothered to build stations half the time. Just control it and rent out POSes.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#14 - 2014-12-20 20:34:02 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Check into that. I think I read in a dev post or blog that it will never happen. Too many book marks bursting the download when you change systems.


Wouldn't this new on-demand gizmo thingy mean that they wouldn't need to download until you right clicked in space or opened people & places?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#15 - 2014-12-20 21:06:58 UTC
An alliance of alliances, how long before these groups demand that alliances of alliances of alliances becomes a recognized group?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#16 - 2014-12-20 22:43:49 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
An alliance of alliances, how long before these groups demand that alliances of alliances of alliances becomes a recognized group?


Then we adapt and coalitions can only have one station per system going forward, devaluing the alliance to corp levels.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#17 - 2014-12-21 04:49:55 UTC
Under your plan how would we support tens of thousands of pilots with just one system when currently a single system can support at most 10 pilots at a time?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#18 - 2014-12-21 18:17:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Under your plan how would we support tens of thousands of pilots with just one system when currently a single system can support at most 10 pilots at a time?


Not trying to herd 10 thousand into one system.
I know that one system that is being used quiet inefficiently can support about 80 online at a time.

Are you talking about 10 solo ratters taking their sweet time to clear a site?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#19 - 2014-12-21 18:32:00 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
An alliance of alliances, how long before these groups demand that alliances of alliances of alliances becomes a recognized group?


Then we adapt and coalitions can only have one station per system going forward, devaluing the alliance to corp levels.


...wow.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#20 - 2014-12-21 19:23:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
...wow.


... because being the same as now, where they can have only one alliance station per coalition in there would be so bad? Oh hang on, there would still be more stations with more blues .... wow! Roll

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

123Next pageLast page