These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE's summer expansion better focus on sovereignty
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
JD No7
V I R I I
#21 - 2013-01-23 11:10:24 UTC
Someone elsewhere stuck up the shot term solution to all this mess with one simple change.

Put moon harvesters on the outside of the shield. Give them the same strucutre benefits of guns etc, but have their production related to their armour %.

All of a sudden, alliances have to live where they have tech moons. All of a sudden small gangs can do something worthwhile. All of a sudden, all the arguments about power projection etc. become moot as these large coalitions have to actively defend their tech moons.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#22 - 2013-01-23 11:13:00 UTC
And how will that do anything to make them eager to engage in sov wars? Sounds like 0.0 alliances would have even less motivation to go to war with your idea.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-01-23 11:31:42 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
You don't want to think about what would happen to empire if most of the sov alliances decided to get serious about making a point.


YES WE DO! acta non verba

Here's my question: If 0.0 is such a terrible place, why don't you just leave? If there are such better options, then leave null to the people who think it rocks.
JD No7
V I R I I
#24 - 2013-01-23 11:35:52 UTC
Similarly, I love NPC 0.0 and the only thing messing it up is the 100 man hotdrop routine from bored Sov holding coalitions.
Dave Stark
#25 - 2013-01-23 11:37:37 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You don't want to think about what would happen to empire if most of the sov alliances decided to get serious about making a point.


YES WE DO! acta non verba

Here's my question: If 0.0 is such a terrible place, why don't you just leave? If there are such better options, then leave null to the people who think it rocks.


tip: nullsec might be ****, but it's where interesting things happen. when was the last time you heard anything significant happening in high sec that wasn't a result of 0.0 folk deciding to be dicks?
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#26 - 2013-01-23 11:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: handige harrie
So Mr. Razor guy, why not fix it yourself and start shooting TEST?


also; Tech didn't start this war, it ended it before it even started, so much for Moons as a conflict Driver.

Baddest poster ever
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-01-23 11:42:44 UTC
JD No7 wrote:
Someone elsewhere stuck up the shot term solution to all this mess with one simple change.

Put moon harvesters on the outside of the shield. Give them the same strucutre benefits of guns etc, but have their production related to their armour %.

All of a sudden, alliances have to live where they have tech moons. All of a sudden small gangs can do something worthwhile. All of a sudden, all the arguments about power projection etc. become moot as these large coalitions have to actively defend their tech moons.

objectives will be sitting around shooting more structures, but also sitting around guarding structures all the time. sounds fun

also this doesn't afffect sov grind, tech is mostly in one part of the galaxy and also the change is attempting to base more gameplay on a broken moon minerals system

also how is tanking pos guns a small gang objective :/
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2013-01-23 11:47:18 UTC
ps i've shot like ten structures ever and i hate it already

how do you people do this on a regular basis
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#29 - 2013-01-23 11:50:17 UTC
I await Dominion 2.0. Which they will nerf and screw up months later.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
JD No7
V I R I I
#30 - 2013-01-23 11:56:03 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
JD No7 wrote:
Someone elsewhere stuck up the shot term solution to all this mess with one simple change.

Put moon harvesters on the outside of the shield. Give them the same strucutre benefits of guns etc, but have their production related to their armour %.

All of a sudden, alliances have to live where they have tech moons. All of a sudden small gangs can do something worthwhile. All of a sudden, all the arguments about power projection etc. become moot as these large coalitions have to actively defend their tech moons.

objectives will be sitting around shooting more structures, but also sitting around guarding structures all the time. sounds fun

also this doesn't afffect sov grind, tech is mostly in one part of the galaxy and also the change is attempting to base more gameplay on a broken moon minerals system

also how is tanking pos guns a small gang objective :/


Have you seen how Tech moons are fitted atm? 4 of each hardeners, no offensive mods...

Re-read what I said. This is a short term suggestion to give alliances something to think about rather than just taking all the Tech moons and then just lol-training all over EVE.

I agree the dependence on Tech moons needs to go. Alliance income should be ground up, tax based on player activities. Things like ring mining will greatly help here. But equally the Sov system should also be based on activity. The irony being is that the system is about there already - with the system upgrades requirements being activity based. Just change the Sov gaining to this type of system too.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#31 - 2013-01-23 12:03:08 UTC
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
Here is my obligatory 'take sov from alliances and give it the corporations' plee.


What would this accomplish? Sov alliances already have a holding corp. Sov would just be switched to that holding corp.


True, but i think systems with outposts within them would be granted to the alliances more larger or active member corps rather than all be given to a holding corp.

It would be hard to predict how this would play out due to our sandy box that is eve



Er, you know that outposts are held by corps, right?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2013-01-23 12:06:29 UTC
JD No7 wrote:
atm?

you haven't thought this through
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-01-23 12:07:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mayhaw Morgan
Benny Ohu wrote:
objectives will be sitting around shooting more structures, but also sitting around guarding structures all the time. sounds fun


OMG, what if they had to field a defensive force to sit there and protect their ISK geyser at all times? What if they needed to interact with their peasants to ensure enough manpower was in position to deter attack? What if some random group of peasants could just come and cap their ISK geyser without warning? What a cold and harsh universe it would be if they had to protect what was theirs or incentivize others to do that. How could they survive, if other players could just come and . . . affect them. /sarcasm

Benny Ohu wrote:
also how is tanking pos guns a small gang objective :/


A "small gang" can overcome POS guns by outsmarting them. As it is now, there is very little reason to do that, and very many reasons not to.
Frying Doom
#34 - 2013-01-23 12:09:56 UTC
Lets be blunt while this whole thing looks like a stunt to get CCP to redo Sov warfare, as they are currently starting their planning for the next expansion.

It is still a worth while stunt.

POSs are old out of date and a night mare
Sov is old out of date and a nightmare
Corporate roles and management well hey that just needs shooting


There seems to be a theme forming here. Now CCP does not want to do a lot in one hit, on just one thing. Fair enough I can understand that but EvE players while patient (Lets face it EvE is a game of patience, look at the skill queue) but the players are not infinitely patient.

So start on these problems and come up with a publicly avaiable time table for completion. This way you can start on these and give people some relief in the mean time and then add other neat stuff in the expansions like new ships or cool things for new players.

Oh and on Null, Top down income needs to die and fast.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Alexandros Balfros
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#35 - 2013-01-23 12:12:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


It's quite accurate, although I wouldn't go so far as to say "entire" development.

And little skirmishes like Burn Jita and Hulkageddon were just short term comedy events by one alliance. You don't want to think about what would happen to empire if most of the sov alliances decided to get serious about making a point.





So get serious, they wont care otherwise :P

To be fair CCP dont want sov to be quick and easy, it needs to be hard and take an alliance, it needs to take some sort of effort instead of "He with the bigger blob takes the system" which just encourages blobbing instead of actual fights, i can however agree that taking sov of an unclaimed system takes too long and should be addressed, but taking sov from another alliance should be time consuming and use timers
Othran
Route One
#36 - 2013-01-23 12:22:01 UTC
I have absolutely zero interest in sov bashing but CCP better get something done about it soon as sov null is dead for much of the day.

Obviously there's places like HED and some of the mixed sov region station systems but by and large the rest is dead now.

Its significantly worse than this time last year IME.

Huge chunks of the map are just wasteland - nobody cares about the systems other than trying to rent them out. At least in the past you'd find some renters but system after system is empty now (even outpost systems).

NB - obviously I'm talking about the times I play, other TZs must be better What?
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#37 - 2013-01-23 12:49:39 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Meanwhile at CCP HQ.


Really? I Imagined it more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHcYZiWqWPg

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Anthar Thebess
#38 - 2013-01-23 12:58:48 UTC
+1
Limit the NIP! - how ?
Let it be unprofitable to you to have a neighbour ;)

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
killorbekilled TBE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-01-23 13:16:03 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
Here is my obligatory 'take sov from alliances and give it the corporations' plee.


What would this accomplish? Sov alliances already have a holding corp. Sov would just be switched to that holding corp.


True, but i think systems with outposts within them would be granted to the alliances more larger or active member corps rather than all be given to a holding corp.

It would be hard to predict how this would play out due to our sandy box that is eve



Er, you know that outposts are held by corps, right?


And yes i did know this

:)
Othran
Route One
#40 - 2013-01-23 13:31:37 UTC
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
killorbekilled TBE wrote:
Here is my obligatory 'take sov from alliances and give it the corporations' plee.


What would this accomplish? Sov alliances already have a holding corp. Sov would just be switched to that holding corp.


True, but i think systems with outposts within them would be granted to the alliances more larger or active member corps rather than all be given to a holding corp.

It would be hard to predict how this would play out due to our sandy box that is eve



Er, you know that outposts are held by corps, right?


And yes i did know this


I think the point he's making is that "systems with outposts within them would be granted to the alliances more larger or active member corps rather than all be given to a holding corp" is what happens in practice, so you're suggesting something that already happens. I appreciate you mean it should be a game mechanic but its not going to have any significant impact on sov null.