These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Introduce "Alliance Navy" to Player Controlled 0.0 (Sovereignty Upgrade)

First post
Author
Andracin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2013-09-02 08:40:45 UTC
I think CCP Rise already stickied the bad idea thread....

Null is null for a reason. If you own the space, you are the space police. Quit trying to make npc's do your job for you.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#22 - 2013-09-02 10:52:50 UTC
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Hello Space Friends!

My name is Lyris Nairn and I have been playing EVE Online since 2008. I think that I have something to say that is relevant to many of you. Especially in this age where renters are becoming commonplace and more people than ever are flocking to 0.0, the idea of a "faction Navy"-style mechanic in nullsec seems like it might be worthwhile. I envision there being introduced an Infrastructrure Hub or Outpost upgrade which would spawn NPC entities what I am tentatively calling the "Alliance Navy."

This upgrade would require a certain Sovereignty Level to install, and would require a monthly fee to maintain (like other upgrades).

The upgrade would have the effect of spawning NPC entities whenever one of the Alliance members (or some other entities as denoted by standings) is the victim of aggression. The spawned NPC entities would then attack the aggressor, and behave similarly to Faction Navy vessels in High Security space. Unlike the Faction Navy, these ships would not necessarily spawn infinitely: there might be an internal cooldown of only once per hour, or once every few minutes, or once per individual aggressor in some time window, or once per individual victim, etc. I am not really certain of the specifics, but I am confident that CCP would be able to hammer out the details and create a worthwhile addition to nullsec game play.

This sort of upgrade would be potentially useful to help make a roaming enemy have to dedicate more than a single ship to an attack on PVE ships (their preferred targets), and would force them to make choices about target selection, projection of force, and investment of numbers or assets. In short, I think this is a good idea! Tell me what you think in the comments.

I see what you did there...

Nope

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-09-02 11:05:08 UTC
suid0 wrote:
When you have over 10,000 members... why do you need NPC's to protect you?

Idea is beyond terrible, if you own the space, you police it. RollRollRoll

-1



It's well known Goons are about a dozen and everything else is multibox alts !

How didn't you even thought about that hun?

On topic: nope, there are already enough NPCs we don't need more

What we need is corps/alliances mechanics changes, Outposts changes, structure grinding changes, null sec industry changes (slots/timers/quality/refining/wastage), not more NPCs !!

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-09-02 11:54:35 UTC
That suggestion is not entirely new.

Altho it's been a while since I saw this one. Maybe a year or two.

As far as I remember CCP said something like "Not gonna happen" about that.

I can't seem to find the thread tho so maybe it's my imagination running wild on me again. Straight

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.

PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#25 - 2013-09-02 16:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
Only if:

The owner had to fill a "navy hangar" with fitted ships.

Said fitted ships were salvagable/lootable/otherwise behaved as a player piloted ship

Piloting AI is considered to have bare minimum skills required to fly the fit.

Piloting AI is as dumb as navy ships.

This means you can throw trash and cheap navy vessels at the system's "defense hangar" but they're going to cost just as much as an actual person flying the same ship, and do a worse job of it.

Oh, and also you'll be paying the NPC crew that flies it an ISK salary every week.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-09-02 17:13:13 UTC
PopeUrban wrote:
Only if:

The owner had to fill a "navy hangar" with fitted ships.

Said fitted ships were salvagable/lootable/otherwise behaved as a player piloted ship

Piloting AI is considered to have bare minimum skills required to fly the fit.

Piloting AI is as dumb as navy ships.

This means you can throw trash and cheap navy vessels at the system's "defense hangar" but they're going to cost just as much as an actual person flying the same ship, and do a worse job of it.

Oh, and also you'll be paying the NPC crew that flies it an ISK salary every week.

None of these are unreasonable; though, dividing up the upkeep cost from "provide ISK every month" to "provide ISK every week and a bunch of other things" does seem needlessly complex. It would allow for greater customization, though: you could outfit an Alliance Navy of nothing but Insta-artillery fits, rather than whatever the default might be.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#27 - 2013-09-02 17:16:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
Alternatively, you could play with one of your thousands of alliancemates and have one of them come save you if you're attacked.

I don't understand the problem you're trying to fix. Are you arguing that sov nullsec is presently too dangerous? Because most people would definitely argue the opposite.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-09-02 17:27:37 UTC
I am not alleging there exists any "problem," and I don't really have a stake in it. I just think it would be neat and consistent.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-10-08 12:09:37 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
That suggestion is not entirely new.

Altho it's been a while since I saw this one. Maybe a year or two.

As far as I remember CCP said something like "Not gonna happen" about that.

I can't seem to find the thread tho so maybe it's my imagination running wild on me again. Straight

One can only hope.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

Darling Hassasin
Parental Control
Didn't want that Sov anyway.
#30 - 2013-10-08 13:01:58 UTC
Lyris Nairn wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
Only if:

The owner had to fill a "navy hangar" with fitted ships.

Said fitted ships were salvagable/lootable/otherwise behaved as a player piloted ship

Piloting AI is considered to have bare minimum skills required to fly the fit.

Piloting AI is as dumb as navy ships.

This means you can throw trash and cheap navy vessels at the system's "defense hangar" but they're going to cost just as much as an actual person flying the same ship, and do a worse job of it.

Oh, and also you'll be paying the NPC crew that flies it an ISK salary every week.

None of these are unreasonable; though, dividing up the upkeep cost from "provide ISK every month" to "provide ISK every week and a bunch of other things" does seem needlessly complex. It would allow for greater customization, though: you could outfit an Alliance Navy of nothing but Insta-artillery fits, rather than whatever the default might be.


Yes complex and not needlessly so. Do it like that to avoid abuse. Space holder has to give 10 items and when the crappity crap blows up it will drop at most 3/10. Therefore no incentive for the alliance (or its buddies) to farm their own "navy" for profits.

For the same reason it must not give a kill mail.

Even then your suggestion is a buff to solo pve and a nerf to solo pvp. So it seems to be against what we need in this game to make it a better game.

So in the end... no.
Ivana Screwyou
Resistance Is Phutile
#31 - 2013-10-12 12:05:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivana Screwyou
Why not simply let alliances supply standard fighters (or even drones at level 1 just for station defense) to their stations for some light automated system defense. Say a bay of up to 50/100/200 and it only uses 3/5/8 at a time based on upgrade levels. The upgrades and fighter costs would probably be a fair cost trade off.

The fighters themselves and most of the fighter AI is already in game, they just need automated target selection and some random gate/station warps when there's nothing to fight for a little extra realism...

Always being in space, they would be scan-able and not simply appear on top of the attacker, giving them a chance to avoid them. They may also, however, be at the gate the attacker enters the system through, and attack on sight. As fighters, they will not warp scramble, etc, but they would chase. They would not, however, know the location of an enemy they have not already seen or that has not attacked an alliance member.

There would be no need for any spawn timers. As soon as a fighter dies, another spawns at the outpost and warps to the action (at normal warp speeds).

The number of fighters could even scale inversely to the number of systems the alliance owns, so that a smaller alliance gets a larger benefit (more fighters at a time), up to something like 10/20/30 for an alliance with only 1 system. Sadly, smaller alliances could use all the help they can get in the current eve universe.
Simc0m
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-10-12 16:17:32 UTC
I think this is an interesting idea. If balanced correctly (expensive and not super OP) it could be a neat addition.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#33 - 2013-10-12 16:29:23 UTC

It's called "CONCORD".
You're asking for Cocnord protection in 0.0

ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#34 - 2013-10-12 17:57:56 UTC
i think a better place to start would be make there a reason for 0.0 entities to undock and defend their space. Give me more things i can shoot at, in a small gang that doesnt require hours of work.

If a small roaming gang can inflict damage by just roaming through space, the owners will be far more interested in defending and pushing out agressors than current.

I need a way to deal some damage to a large alliance that doesnt invovle an enormous blob,and hours of structure grinding. Not necessarily fatal blows to their finances, but enough that your going to care that my 10 man WH crew is roaming through your space. Currently 99% of 0.0 groups stay posed/docked up when I show up in lcoal, because they dont care that im in their territory. They dont care beacause i cant realistically do anything thats going to affect them. Disabling station services takes far too long, poses need a blob or easily ganked dreads, and taking sov is very time, and blob intensive.

Event Organizer of EVE North East

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#35 - 2013-10-12 18:28:08 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Stupid idea... if you cant protect your renters or teach them how to rat safely thats not my or ccp problem.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Previous page12