These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

SOV tearing down the old.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#201 - 2013-10-31 16:19:31 UTC
The only difference between arguing with Dracvlad and Infinity is I'm pretty sure Infinity is a troll.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#202 - 2013-10-31 16:21:09 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Mechanics which incentivize both the attacker and the defender to show up for as many fights as possible.
Provide targets for all sizes and types of fleets.
Make every fight meaningful.
Allow people to damage an enemy's infrastructure without necessarily escalating into a sov war. (No siphons don't count.)
Decent income sources from 0.0 on personal, corporation, and alliance level.
Less space should be able to sustain more people, thus reducing the need for massive unused territory.
Renting agreements/treaties supported by game mechanics (e.g. alliance wide tax rate, shared blue lists, shared cyno beacons, etc.)
Encourage mining/manufacturing/industry in 0.0 instead of importing from highsec.
Reintroduce PvP-based income sources.
Reduce the effect of timezone warfare and the need to alarmclock ops.
Provide incentives to introduce new players to 0.0 early on. Corollary to that, improve corporation/alliance security features so that doing so isn't suicide by the way of awox.



siphoons count.. but they are just like 1% of what we need. I wish all the POS structureds would stay OUTSIDE the pos shields... And all would be way easier to disable with a dozen non capital ships. So we coudl wage attrition war. Disable jump bridges etc .. forcing the defenders to have patrols.

Would love if local was delayed 1 minute, and the sov owner could pay a monthly fee for a detector that would update it in30, or 15 seconds.. the faster the update the more expensive. But enough that a system with such a system will not be profitable unless you have economical activity there!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2013-10-31 16:33:03 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
The only difference between arguing with Dracvlad and Infinity is I'm pretty sure Infinity is a troll.



Nah I;m pretty sure Infinity is both that narcissistic and that naive.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2013-10-31 16:57:42 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

EDIT: Do you seriously think you would have beaten BOB with the current Sov system, because I seriously don't think you would have!


I actually wasn't around for most of the BoB war. My experience lies mostly in the D2/LV era. One thing that might be quite hard to understand now is that Battleships and anything T2 used to be pretty expensive and a nightmare to fight with T1 kit. On top of that a POS hit way for way more of your HP than it does now and it was possible to win a system by quite literally outspending your opponent. While the challenges faced by an alliance now might be different I'm not convinced they're harder.

I'm not happy with the way Sov works right now and I posted a bit in the thread on The Mittani about how I think things should change (you can go read it here if you want) but the gist of it is:
People should want to live in the space they own but shouldn't be forced to
The default level of defense for sovereignty should be low (much lower than it is now)
Alliances should be able to increase the defenses of their systems if they want but at an ISK and human cost
Alliances should be free to decide how important a system is to them
Where timers are necessary (and they are necessary) there should be room for human error in setting them

The most important thing to realise is there is no magic set of game mechanics that will stop a larger alliance from destroying a smaller neighbour if that neighbour persists in attacking them. You either need to be friends, pretend to be friends (something a young Goonfleet did a lot of, don't be above lying) or have the threat of your own, bigger friends. The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#205 - 2013-10-31 17:05:09 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#206 - 2013-10-31 17:08:53 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.


+1

Nor should they. "SOV" holding is for groups, SOV null is group space. Solo and small group players have low sec, 2/3rds of wormhole space, NPC null and high sec to play in.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#207 - 2013-10-31 17:19:55 UTC
Quote:
The most important thing to realise is there is no magic set of game mechanics that will stop a larger alliance from destroying a smaller neighbour if that neighbour persists in attacking them. You either need to be friends, pretend to be friends (something a young Goonfleet did a lot of, don't be above lying) or have the threat of your own, bigger friends. The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


Emphasis mine.

And that's why renting, folks. For people who don't meet the requirements to be in, say Pandemic Legion, but still want to live in their space.

This "Rebel Alliance" bullshit is just deluded wishful thinking.

"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.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#208 - 2013-10-31 17:28:31 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.


+1

Nor should they. "SOV" holding is for groups, SOV null is group space. Solo and small group players have low sec, 2/3rds of wormhole space, NPC null and high sec to play in.


"Small" is relative here, mind you. A five hundred pilot alliance, in sovereign null, is "small".

And again, I'm not saying such groups should be forbidden by mechanics from null. I think it would be great if the mechanics allowed for a larger, more diverse range of groups actually holding space...in no small part because it would potentially help mitigate the arms race that's led us to what is effectively two opposing coalitions. I just don't think the mechanics will ever allow one of these "small" groups to go it completely alone.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Lazy Eagle
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2013-10-31 17:31:58 UTC
Posing in ANOTHER nerf 0.0 thread......
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#210 - 2013-10-31 17:38:22 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.
This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.
+1 Nor should they. "SOV" holding is for groups, SOV null is group space. Solo and small group players have low sec, 2/3rds of wormhole space, NPC null and high sec to play in.
"Small" is relative here, mind you. A five hundred pilot alliance, in sovereign null, is "small". And again, I'm not saying such groups should be forbidden by mechanics from null. I think it would be great if the mechanics allowed for a larger, more diverse range of groups actually holding space...in no small part because it would potentially help mitigate the arms race that's led us to what is effectively two opposing coalitions. I just don't think the mechanics will ever allow one of these "small" groups to go it completely alone.
I would say that the mechanics are not what is stopping a 500 man alliance from taking and holding sov.

The mechanics allow it just fine. The meta doesn't.

"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.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#211 - 2013-10-31 17:45:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.
This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.
+1 Nor should they. "SOV" holding is for groups, SOV null is group space. Solo and small group players have low sec, 2/3rds of wormhole space, NPC null and high sec to play in.
"Small" is relative here, mind you. A five hundred pilot alliance, in sovereign null, is "small". And again, I'm not saying such groups should be forbidden by mechanics from null. I think it would be great if the mechanics allowed for a larger, more diverse range of groups actually holding space...in no small part because it would potentially help mitigate the arms race that's led us to what is effectively two opposing coalitions. I just don't think the mechanics will ever allow one of these "small" groups to go it completely alone.
I would say that the mechanics are not what is stopping a 500 man alliance from taking and holding sov.

The mechanics allow it just fine. The meta doesn't.


I'd argue that the mechanics have driven the meta in this case. When any given sov timer is "reset to the beginning if this timer is defended" both the attacker and defender have great incentive to bring overwhelming force, so bulking up with friends is an expected outcome.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#212 - 2013-10-31 18:10:49 UTC
Yeah, people underestimate how badly dominion mechanics focus everything that can be bad about unregulated mass warfare in a game into a pinpoint. Yes, there will always be issues, but dominion makes them about as bad as they could possibly be.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#213 - 2013-10-31 18:14:36 UTC
mynnna wrote:


I'd argue that the mechanics have driven the meta in this case. When any given sov timer is "reset to the beginning if this timer is defended" both the attacker and defender have great incentive to bring overwhelming force, so bulking up with friends is an expected outcome.


Overwhelming force is a good idea, timers or no timers. It would very likely have evolved naturally, especially in this game. Idk, chicken, egg, I suppose.

"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.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-10-31 18:20:55 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
mynnna wrote:


I'd argue that the mechanics have driven the meta in this case. When any given sov timer is "reset to the beginning if this timer is defended" both the attacker and defender have great incentive to bring overwhelming force, so bulking up with friends is an expected outcome.


Overwhelming force is a good idea, timers or no timers. It would very likely have evolved naturally, especially in this game. Idk, chicken, egg, I suppose.


Probably, yes, but the all or nothing nature of Dominion doesn't help.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#215 - 2013-10-31 18:31:21 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
mynnna wrote:


I'd argue that the mechanics have driven the meta in this case. When any given sov timer is "reset to the beginning if this timer is defended" both the attacker and defender have great incentive to bring overwhelming force, so bulking up with friends is an expected outcome.


Overwhelming force is a good idea, timers or no timers. It would very likely have evolved naturally, especially in this game. Idk, chicken, egg, I suppose.


Probably, yes, but the all or nothing nature of Dominion doesn't help.


True. I would argue that sovereignty in general is all or nothing, though. Hell, EVE in general is all or nothing much of the time. Fight someone? One lives, one dies. Loot fairy? Coin flip on the good stuff.

I said something like this earlier in the thread, but CCP has a long row to hoe to "fix" sov. If you ask me, it starts by re-examining what "holding sovereignty" really means, to them, to the people who have it, and to the people who don't have it.

"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.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#216 - 2013-10-31 18:33:06 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

EDIT: Do you seriously think you would have beaten BOB with the current Sov system, because I seriously don't think you would have!


I actually wasn't around for most of the BoB war. My experience lies mostly in the D2/LV era. One thing that might be quite hard to understand now is that Battleships and anything T2 used to be pretty expensive and a nightmare to fight with T1 kit. On top of that a POS hit way for way more of your HP than it does now and it was possible to win a system by quite literally outspending your opponent. While the challenges faced by an alliance now might be different I'm not convinced they're harder.

I'm not happy with the way Sov works right now and I posted a bit in the thread on The Mittani about how I think things should change (you can go read it here if you want) but the gist of it is:
People should want to live in the space they own but shouldn't be forced to
The default level of defense for sovereignty should be low (much lower than it is now)
Alliances should be able to increase the defenses of their systems if they want but at an ISK and human cost
Alliances should be free to decide how important a system is to them
Where timers are necessary (and they are necessary) there should be room for human error in setting them

The most important thing to realise is there is no magic set of game mechanics that will stop a larger alliance from destroying a smaller neighbour if that neighbour persists in attacking them. You either need to be friends, pretend to be friends (something a young Goonfleet did a lot of, don't be above lying) or have the threat of your own, bigger friends. The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


I think we have pretty much the same view actually reading the above, its just how to get there differs.. As for the destroying the smaller alliance hell yeah, the key thing here is that the smaller alliance gets stomped on but can still resist, this changes the game dynamics a bit, especially if they are fighting over what the bigger entity sees as a system with minimal value, that is what I hope to see. But the small lone wolf alliance will always needs friends that is a given and I hope you did not think I was arguing that this was not the case.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#217 - 2013-10-31 18:34:02 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.


This is exactly what I am after.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#218 - 2013-10-31 18:37:27 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
mynnna wrote:


I'd argue that the mechanics have driven the meta in this case. When any given sov timer is "reset to the beginning if this timer is defended" both the attacker and defender have great incentive to bring overwhelming force, so bulking up with friends is an expected outcome.


Overwhelming force is a good idea, timers or no timers. It would very likely have evolved naturally, especially in this game. Idk, chicken, egg, I suppose.


Probably, yes, but the all or nothing nature of Dominion doesn't help.


This is the key issue, overwhelming force was always going to happen, but I was hoping for a more dynamic fluid situation around the lower level systems.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#219 - 2013-10-31 19:27:32 UTC
As mynna correctly pointed out, small lone wolf sov holders were never really a thing. If ccp wants to change that, then smaller entities need to be able to have ways to do non-negligible damage to larger entities. As long as smaller entities have no meaningful way of harming the larger entities, sov will remain the exclusive domain of the larger coalitions.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#220 - 2013-10-31 19:38:17 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
PotatoOverdose wrote:
As mynna correctly pointed out, small lone wolf sov holders were never really a thing. If ccp wants to change that, then smaller entities need to be able to have ways to do non-negligible damage to larger entities. As long as smaller entities have no meaningful way of harming the larger entities, sov will remain the exclusive domain of the larger coalitions.



Larger entities will have such tools too. Use them on someone else as a little lone wolf and you'd better be damn sure you can handle the retaliation.

This is what I mean when I say diplomacy will never not be a thing, that total lone wolves would always run into problems. Sooner or later they'd try to take on someone bigger than them, or someone with friends, and get squashed because they have none. Or, we don't even have to talk about "overwhelming force." Perhaps they're proficient enough to hold their own, but their neighbor to the other side gets opportunistic and tag-teams them, or whatever. Diplomacy doesn't always mean blue lists, after all.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal