These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

[CSM] December Summit - Nullsec - Stations, Sov, Resources

First post
Author
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-11-23 16:24:44 UTC
Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-11-23 21:36:38 UTC
It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

StukaBee
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2011-11-23 22:22:56 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks.


Pretty much.

Brute force with massive numbers should be an option, but it shouldn't be the only option in every circumstance. There's more than one way to storm a castle.
Raid'En
#4 - 2011-11-23 23:36:34 UTC
we hate shooting structures. that's the big point.
also we need more reasons to need sov.
Lord Zim wrote:
It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks.

maybe a system like FW ano, the one where you only need to stay near the beacon for the timer to move ?
on sov it would mean that you don't need tons of ships, and so could do more than one thing at the same time.
of course it would need a good thinking given it will be harder for defense.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-11-24 00:04:03 UTC
More incentive for taking and holding sov. More system upgrades. Perhaps upgrades exclusive to each other so you either have to choose one, or conquer another system.

Incentives for actually populating the systems. Space in 0.0 shoudn't be a bunch of station systems with 100 people at any moment and 50 systems empty 23/7. Ideally this should compact the population of existing large alliances and in turn make room for new ones. The anomaly nerf was a step in the completely opposite direction.

More opportunities for individuals to do things when there's nothing going on on a corp/alliance scale. Anomalies shouldn't be the only way for an individual to make decent income.

Less tedious structure grinding to capture space after the original owners have failcascaded long ago.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-11-24 01:53:42 UTC
Should be several things to discourage power blocks and power projection.

Also...

/me waves to noobcake
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-11-24 09:46:11 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Should be several things to discourage power blocks and power projection.

By f.ex making SOV easier to take and to lose, so repeating IT Alliance's 2-3 month of "we're dead guys, but we still have our SOV" is going to be difficult since even smallish corps/alliances can take over a system if they're dedicated enough?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Eperor
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#8 - 2011-11-24 10:22:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Eperor
1. CCP atleast need alow to anchore more than one station in system for players.
2. Increase all outpost capacity in his bonuses:
2. 1. Amaar station eedto have atbase atleast 50 manufucturing slots and each upgrade makes more them.
2.2 minmatar station to ned more base refining procentage and more slots like 10 at start, and atleast 10 office slots.
2.3 gallente station need more office slots in base stats and manufucturing slots 30 offices at start and 20 manufucturing slots.
2.4 caldari station too need increase of office slot count manufucturing slot count science slot count.

Resureces:

Veldspar in 0.0 need some love and low end resure4ces by increasing reprocesing outcomes form thos types off ores (problem how to separete with is mined in high sec with in 0.0) I tink by creating new ore type with is only in 0.0 with holds all low end minerals.
Sanctum count need to be increased in systems and balances income form it that its more then incursion income in 1 hour. I tink each system need to have atleast 2 sanctums, if ccp wish keep that imapct from system sec status keep it, by increasing sanctum count in beter systems, and by deacreasing usles anomaly count.

I hade some more but for start wil be inaf this.


P.S. english its not my native language and i lerned it in EVE so sorry about grammar:0
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#9 - 2011-11-24 11:26:44 UTC
Structure grinding needs to be removed or re-engineered from the ground up as it's a pointless time sink that does a great deal to put players off Null.

Is there a point to Sov anymore? I understand those with the power, skills and money to do moon mining and build super caps gain advantages from it but since the anomaly nerf does anyone else? There needs to be a point to Sov for those of us at ground level, small scale objectives that encourage small gang effort as well as larger scale participation not only on the combat but the industry front.

If players can build and deploy a station they should also be able to watch them burn.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law

Jenn Makanen
Doomheim
#10 - 2011-11-24 13:56:47 UTC
Some kind of mechanic to make sov in surrounding systems affect how easy it is to drop the sov in a system? So it makes sense to attack multiple systems at once, rather than just the one?

High sov indexes in adjacent systems makes it harder, low indexes makes it easier. Or possibly have it tied to the change in adjacent sov indexes. so if you have 5 systems around you dropping, you drop faster.
Tahna Rouspel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2011-11-25 05:45:55 UTC
Raid'En wrote:
we hate shooting structures. that's the big point.
also we need more reasons to need sov.
Lord Zim wrote:
It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks.

maybe a system like FW ano, the one where you only need to stay near the beacon for the timer to move ?
on sov it would mean that you don't need tons of ships, and so could do more than one thing at the same time.
of course it would need a good thinking given it will be harder for defense.


I concur. I feel like it would benefit the game to have medium fleets (In the hundred) be the optimal way of fighting.
I think that problem can be controlled naturally with gameplay feature like the Bomber. Bombers are able to dispatch large fleets; which makes large fleet dangerous.

It benefits CCP to promote smaller fleet since they won't cause as much lag either. If larger fleet are always better, than people will tend toward larger alliances and larger fleet Battle. That will continuously put more strain on the server.


I'm not familiar with the null sec and sov mecanics, but there's definitely a lot of potential. Capture the flag could be interesting - it would remove the 'shooting structure' from capturing sov in a system, but it would still need to be long process (a day or two) to prevent Sovereignty from bouncing every few hours.

Perhaps if Sovereignty could be captured by maintaining an (active - not afk in a pos, cloaked or whatnot) enemy presence in the system. Enemy structures could increase the difficulty of capturing the system, by raising the time required to capture or by increasing the required number of foe in the system to capture it. This would make destroying structure valuable, but not necessary.
The Sov holders would need to defend by removing the enemy presence from the system (Promoting fights) and then they could raise their sovereignty 'capture' bar by leaving players there. This would force the sov holder to split their force if they are attacked on multiple fronts. It would make holding large area of null sec difficult.

This means a null sec that has more smaller holders - thus more small fights! Anyway, just a plan.
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#12 - 2011-11-25 17:20:17 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions.


- New location of moon minerals(not all in one region)
- Propably new mechanics aka Dominion v2.0

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#13 - 2011-11-25 18:53:19 UTC
Structures for sov needs to be overhauled.

Sov needs to be more focused.. and power projection minimized. Also there's a current issue where every other system has sov, with pockets unclaimed. Projection pushes those as claimed even on the in-game map.

This allows an allaince to essentially influence twice the territory than they are paying for.

Sov should require "benchmarks" to mantain and hold it, and to have x systems, y conditions must be met regarding other, currently held systems.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#14 - 2011-11-25 23:59:41 UTC
StukaBee wrote:
Pretty much.

Brute force with massive numbers should be an option, but it shouldn't be the only option in every circumstance. There's more than one way to storm a castle.

I'd go further and say that it should be possible to set ones castle up in way that makes storming it head-on equals mass suicide. Or in other words, an entity that specializes in smaller scale conflict should be able to smash a stampeding herd of cattle when on their own turf (yes, I want to re-enact the movie '300' in Eve!) ..

@ Traeb and Co.: You might want to dig up the threads on the subject that were red-hot with activity just prior to the forum switch, if I remember correctly sov was one of the questions CCP asked feedback on.



Voddick
AFK
#15 - 2011-11-26 00:04:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Voddick
Raid'En wrote:
[maybe a system like FW, where you only need to stay near the beacon for the timer to move ?


This is probably the simplest and most elegant solution to countering the "Bring 1000 friends for 10 minutes" solution that is SOV warfare. The higher the SOV level, the longer the timer.

This also gives the defender a chance to actually fight, and requires the attacker to maintain a physical, attackable presence 23/7 (or some other new timer) in the system--else the timer reverses and counts up. A defense fleet has a chance to form up properly (just like the attacking fleet had) and move to counter. More small - med sized fights here as getting 1,000 pilots to stay logged on all day would be near impossible.

Vincent Gaines wrote:
Sov should require "benchmarks" to maintain and hold it, and to have x systems, y conditions must be met regarding other, currently held systems.


I would caveat that instead of benchmarks; have alliance member count (paid, non-trial accounts only) determine the number of systems an Alliance can control. Then, increase the SOV cost exponentially:

1-4 systems = 200 mil / month each (10+ members)
5-9 systems = 300 mil / month each (25+ members)
10-20 systems = 500 mil / month each (75+ members)

The numbers are irrelevant and used as an example. They are for the CSM and CCP to agree upon.

The point here is to make SOV blobs more difficult and allow start-up alliances to steak claim in Null.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#16 - 2011-11-26 09:40:30 UTC
Voddick wrote:
This is probably the simplest and most elegant solution to countering the "Bring 1000 friends for 10 minutes" solution that is SOV warfare. The higher the SOV level, the longer the timer....

Having been in FW as an RP'er (read: active plexer) since it started I would very much advise against that. The timer system is badly thought out and poorly implemented, the amount of wasted time is staggering and has turned the plexing scene into one of disposable alt spamming.
The only thing that FW might contribute directly is the hull size restriction on plexes, whomever cooked that one up deserves a medal. Sovereignty plexes should lean towards Incursion system with objectives to be handled within each, be it a series of hacks, salvage, EHP grinds or something entirely different .. anything but a thumb-twiddle timer.
Voddick wrote:
I would caveat that instead of benchmarks; have alliance member count (paid, non-trial accounts only) determine the number of systems an Alliance can control. Then, increase the SOV cost exponentially:...

And what is to prevent the current blocs from still controlling everything? What you are proposing is pretty much what we have now, the amount of "dead space" will just increase as will the amount of slaves/pets to fill some of them.

For any type of ISK based maintenance system to work you must first address the passive faucets which currently allow for a critical mass (read: blob big enough to effectively prevent any fights) entity to hold infinite space..

- Re-introduce the capital system.
- Put limits on what infrastructure can be maintained and defended outside of home constellation/region.
* if current TZ timers are kept then it could be a linear decrease in reinforcement timers based on range for instance so that a tower on the other side of the cluster has 0hrs regardless of stront.
- Counter that with significant boons to be had "at home" (ex: production, defense, harvesting etc.)
* Allows for manufacturing centres which may (or may not) develop into trade hubs. Improves local production/viability (helps cut Jita umbilical) and thus the small operation (read: alliances new to null).
- Increase maintenance costs by system count and distance.
- Give skirmish/roam fleets ability to impact space more than popping haulers and docking ratters up.
* Holding space should mean that it requires patrols, a police force if you will. The idea that you can sit by the hearth and only go to war on the weekends to defend your land is stupid to put it mildly.

In short: Early Dominion vision was throttled at birth and what was launched was a shadow of what was announced in the planning blogs. Combat has not been spread out, small gangs have no place, independents don't exist and everything is imported.
Even shorter: Almost the entire thing needs to be redone.
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#17 - 2011-11-27 11:07:33 UTC
StukaBee wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks.


Pretty much.

Brute force with massive numbers should be an option, but it shouldn't be the only option in every circumstance. There's more than one way to storm a castle.

A big part of this is because most structures have stupid amounts of hot points. And you need a load of people if you want to take the thing down in a reasonable amount of time. The new dread mechanics that encourage you to take them out more often might help out with this.

Yeah I can see a decent HP buffer for the initial attack to give the defenders some time to get a home defense fleet up. But when you have a reinforce timer ticking down you already know when the fight is going to happen.

I hear the new PI offices have fewer hit points, and I am interested by the idea of choosing a window of time during the day for it to come out of reinforce.

If the new PI offices turn out to be really popular we might try doing something similar to the current reinforcement mechanics.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Velicitia
XS Tech
#18 - 2011-11-27 14:48:01 UTC
Eperor wrote:
1. CCP atleast need alow to anchore more than one station in system for players.
2. Increase all outpost capacity in his bonuses:
2. 1. Amaar station eedto have atbase atleast 50 manufucturing slots and each upgrade makes more them.
2.2 minmatar station to ned more base refining procentage and more slots like 10 at start, and atleast 10 office slots.
2.3 gallente station need more office slots in base stats and manufucturing slots 30 offices at start and 20 manufucturing slots.
2.4 caldari station too need increase of office slot count manufucturing slot count science slot count.

Resureces:

Veldspar in 0.0 need some love and low end resure4ces by increasing reprocesing outcomes form thos types off ores (problem how to separete with is mined in high sec with in 0.0) I tink by creating new ore type with is only in 0.0 with holds all low end minerals.
Sanctum count need to be increased in systems and balances income form it that its more then incursion income in 1 hour. I tink each system need to have atleast 2 sanctums, if ccp wish keep that imapct from system sec status keep it, by increasing sanctum count in beter systems, and by deacreasing usles anomaly count.

I hade some more but for start wil be inaf this.


P.S. english its not my native language and i lerned it in EVE so sorry about grammar:0


Here's the thing with changing the slots (and refining percentages) -- it's already "hard enough" for industrial types in nullsec since (for the most part, anyway) there's a serious need to have combat-oriented guys protecting your borders and such. This ends up leaving the industrial guys (usually) being looked down on. Yes, I will agree that not everyone does this ... but let's be honest ... as a recruiter you can have one of the following pilots...

Pilot A -- 20M SP in combat skills, only has the basics (i.e. what new players start with) in industry.
Pilot B -- 20M SP in industry, can fly cruisers or maybe BCs with T1 guns

Who would you rather have in your crew?

Now, I haven't been in nullsec in a LONG time so things may have changed ... but I remember I got drafted in because I pulled off some near impossible deliveries to a corp (5 dudes in retrievers, I had a hulk/mack ... the order was for lots of oxytopes, and a few mil units of various minerals). After getting in, I was pretty bad at refining in their station (was a 30 or 35% base station) ... so I worked to squeeze every last bit of usable material out of those rocks that I could.

Yeah, I wasn't useful for anything beyond cannon fodder ... but I made myself stand out in my corporation because I was able to refine at essentially 100% out there... I wasn't just "some miner" who was able to supply some materials ... I was one of "the guys" to talk to when stuff needed refined.

Sure, it makes things "easier" all around for indy types if everyone can refine at 100% with less effort ... but there should really be something left in the game to make training skills that high "worth it" (and no, the Elite Certificates aren't really what I'm talking about).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Tiger's Spirit
Templars of the Shadows
#19 - 2011-11-27 16:00:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiger's Spirit
1. Destructible stations.
2. Moving technitium or other rare moon minerals after one month to other 0.0 region. (The minerals of the moon runs out, just calculate how much minerals mining a large pos/month)
3. Change Upkeep System. Give chance for smaller corps and alliance.
Make much more expensive for corp or alliance if they want upkeep more systems than one.
Change every infrastructure upgrades and structure costs when corp or alliance hold more than one.


Example with Advanced Logistics Network cost per 30 days:
Just 1.5 billion now if an alliance want to upkeep ALN in five system, because every ALN cost 300 million in every system.

First system: 300 million
Second system: 300 million + 300 million from first system = 600 million
Third system: 300 million + 600 million from other two system = 900 million
Fourth system: 300 million + 900 million from other three system = 1.2 billion
Fifth system: 300 million + 1.2 billion from other four system = 1.5 billion

After change; 300 million + 2x300 million + 3x300 million + 4x300 million + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion

First system: 300 million
Second system: 300 million + 2x300 million = 900 million
Third system: 900million + 3x300 million = 1.8 billion
Fourth system: 1.8 billion + 4x300 million = 3 billion
Fifth system: 3 billion + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion
Velicitia
XS Tech
#20 - 2011-11-27 17:03:39 UTC
@Tiger

It takes a LONG time to stage POS (yeah, getting fixed) and conquer a system, etc. I agree that moongoo should probably deplete at some rate, but monthly turnover is far too fast.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

123Next page