These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#181 - 2014-07-07 17:08:50 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Exactly both things have to be changed jumpdrives and jump bridges (both pos and titan ones )

Still spreading universe a bit could be some way to do it without even touching this mechanic , but i don't know what will be simpler.

Let say that all current regions will be moved away from each other so no direct capital jumps are possible ( SOV Region <> SOV Region )
The only way to move a capital to some region is using some NPC <> SOV connection (closer constellation a system that is much closer or something like this)

This will be also interesting from other perspective , as keeping this system safe will be the point of securing some region.

Still the best solution is to mix them and get as much changes into this game as possible.

I know that this is probably bad idea , what do you think about putting to a supers additional requirement that when activating regional jump they have to spoil their drive on a sun for few minutes ?


No offense but its still just a matter of lighting a extra cyno or 2. When you have experienced players like my alliance for instance we can pre-postion cynos to create a net that expands the entire game. We can be anywhere we want when we want.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
#182 - 2014-07-07 17:11:12 UTC
jack1974 wrote:
Another solution to power projection is similar to escalations.

Mechanics:
ArrowA SUBCAP Cyno will allow the mass of any subcap to come through its tunnel but is limited to the use of only 1 capital ship. 1 Capital ship coming through the tunnel would result in the cyno overheating and burning out. can only fit to subcaps

ArrowA CAPITAL Cyno will allow the mass of any subcap, carrier, or dread to come through the tunnel. 1 Supercapital may come through the tunnel but then the cyno would overheat and burnout.can only fit to capital ships

ArrowA SUPERCAPITAL Cyno will allow the mass of any supercap, carrier, dread, subcap to come through its tunnel without overheating.can only fit to super capitals

Supporting ideas:
Ideacynos will now be sized small/medium/large. This would make it impossible for a hound to fit a supercapital cyno in its highs. Larger cynos means more LO

Ideain order for a super to come on grid there would have to be a sacrificial carrier cyno(limited to 1 super) or a super lit cyno. In order for there to be a carrier on grid there would have to be a subcap lit cyno. This would ensure a version of subcap dominance in order to ESCALATE to supers.

Ideasupers can no longer get across the universe in 20 minutes. If you want to move a super fleet you will consequently need a super cyno for each mid. Since cyno's last a while the fleet will have to wait for the cyno to end or they risk losing the super that lit the cyno. This would apply to carriers/dreads too.


+1

"It is not possible either to trick or escape the mind of Zeus."

U-MAD Membership Recruitment

PoH Corporation Recruitment
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#183 - 2014-07-07 17:16:55 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Limiting how far a capital ship can jump just doe snto work because makes impossble to traverse high sec using the low sec pockets as is done now.

Simply creating a timer between any jump drive activation of like 5-10 minutes would be more than enough to make capital ship fleet movement slower, but not harder.

Also titan bridges are much much more problematic on the fast response field than t capital ship jump drives. Somethign shoudl be done so they are not so overhelmingly powerful. That is by far the most powerful ability in game ( and rightfully belongign on the largest of the ships), but if its used as commonly as I use my cell phone, then something is amiss.




On the sov things. I left 0.0 after dominion because the sov changes just pushed even MORE towards the worst thing in 0.0. Massive HP grinding of structures.

Remember station services? Why the disabling of services basically failed as a feature? Because the ammount of EHP is ridiculous . No one wants to spend 1 hour with an average fleet to take services out or need to bring a capital ship blob to take services of a station.

We need more targets that are EASY to disable (and then also easy to repair) so that smaller incursions are doable and not everythign need huge fleets.

Station services woudl be a start. Cut their EHP to 10% of current. Half Jump bridges EHP. Move moon mining pos modules to outside POS shield so they can be disabled in a reasonably short time by a moderate gagn that is not responded when incursioning at an enemy space... Things like that make smaller gangs more meaningful, promoting more chances of combats (and smaller combats) and usually way more fun engagements that wehn combined with a timer on capital jump drives woudl mean not every single fight is under constang risk of a hotdrop.



You know I had a idea of being able to hack an ihub and disable upgrades. Would be cool if you could do this to station services as well. Mynnna pointed out that this would create chaos in off timezones. So I think the trade-off is to reinstate services or upgrades they would need to be hacked to unhack the hack. LOL alot of hacking one might say. When the hacking is taking place it shoots a Evemail and a system wide emote. That way the owner can respond thereby making conflict drivers. The hack should take 15ish minutes from start to complete.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Cherry Yeyo
Doomheim
#184 - 2014-07-07 17:21:28 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
No offense but its still just a matter of lighting a extra cyno or 2. When you have experienced players like my alliance for instance we can pre-postion cynos to create a net that expands the entire game. We can be anywhere we want when we want

These are just symptoms of the problem, the problem being: theres not enough localized value in 0.0

In the Tech days you guys didnt bother with any sov because you could live off of moons. Moons lost value so you look around for something that can sustain a reasonable living. Theres nothing, its all garbage but if we collect enough garbage (regions) that'll do.

There is nothing in Oasa with any value, no one is going to fight over it. A small alliance would probably like to live there but they cannot because it takes too many man hours to contest sov and the defender will just drop a slowcat blob to rep up any objective anyway.

Why would they have to do that?

Because Oasa + 15 other regions is somebodies new Tech moon

.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#185 - 2014-07-07 17:22:25 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Limiting how far a capital ship can jump just doe snto work because makes impossble to traverse high sec using the low sec pockets as is done now.


Sorry , but no.
The whole point of people suggestions is to change this, and there is no difference if this is lowsec or a nullsec.
What eve needs is to be big again, where moving from one edge of universe to another in a capital or super will not take <1h.

You suggest timer between jumps, it will not change nothing.
Ops will just start a bit ealier , and this will make capital, and especially supercapital usage more safer.

I think , whole point of changes made by CCP should focus on making sov holding alliances much more tied up to space they own.

There will be always place for deployment in other side of eve , as eve is a game of alts.

I'm not saying that this will be easy job , but it is something that ccp have to do.

Just look at this webpage , and "all times" graph.
Players Online

Current numbers put active player base number around 2011 , and it is still dropping.

You can say that every thing CCP gained since Incarna it is now gone or even more from what i see Quantum Rise was also expansion that put the active player base above this number , and this is 2008.

People where not waiting for Industry re haul , yes it is nice , players online will jump a bit for 2-3 months and then again they will start dropping.

People where asking CCP for certain changes , and where again ignored.
How long people are asking for pos system rehaul? or for a sov mechanic changes? or for different cyno / jump mechanics? supercapital changes?

Something that relay matters , and what we will get?
More expensive ships, more expensive logistics , so less people willing to burn their isk in ships.
Nice industry interface , that will benefit a very small group of players , as one skilled character have 50? or more production lines , but when on grid , he can fly only one ship.

Eh, yes you can say that i'm worried about eve.
This is nice game , but it is falling apart, because instead of growing ... devs are cutting roots just to make it more colourful and shiny , like this is the reason why most of the players play in this game.



Good Post. I think CCP sometimes gets muddled in Signal to Noise ratio from the player base. This thread is great and we already have confirmation that a Dev is watching it so lets keep the discussion going.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#186 - 2014-07-07 17:27:12 UTC
Syd Unknown wrote:
In my opinion one of the big problems that causes powerprojection are the timers...
People can set the timers to their likings, so they have WAY to much time to get their defending numbers in.
Timers should be MUCH shorter, so the defenders have to be CLOSE to their defending system to be able to always defend it.
If an Alliance wants to take SOV they can prepare for it and Blitz it.
The Defending Alliance should be either there to defend it, or loose it.
timers should not be ANY longer then 24 hours. (or maybe even 3 stages of 8 hours each)


Timers have to be over 24 hours and here is the reason. We are playing a game with players from around the world. A defender who is russian would not be able to defend timers realistically if they exit in american timezones. Groups have to be able to set timers to when they can actually be online to play.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#187 - 2014-07-07 17:30:39 UTC
With the timer discussion, I think another thing that's been forgotten is the distinction between tower timing (takes some effort to get the timer right) and the new system of preset timers. I am not convinced that the "set time, timer is within the variance based on that time" is a better idea than the old system of tower timing where there were things like ******* up stront timing, or the ability to kite towers.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#188 - 2014-07-07 17:32:27 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Syd Unknown wrote:
In my opinion one of the big problems that causes powerprojection are the timers...
People can set the timers to their likings, so they have WAY to much time to get their defending numbers in.
Timers should be MUCH shorter, so the defenders have to be CLOSE to their defending system to be able to always defend it.
If an Alliance wants to take SOV they can prepare for it and Blitz it.
The Defending Alliance should be either there to defend it, or loose it.
timers should not be ANY longer then 24 hours. (or maybe even 3 stages of 8 hours each)


Timers have to be over 24 hours and here is the reason. We are playing a game with players from around the world. A defender who is russian would not be able to defend timers realistically if they exit in american timezones. Groups have to be able to set timers to when they can actually be online to play.



The timers for critical stuff yes. But smaller things should be possible to be disabled faster, like station services, jump rbidge networks and moon mining operation.


We msut have strategical targets, that need a 24h timers, and tactical targets that must be handled quite fast to force an active defense when attacked during the play time of the home alliance.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#189 - 2014-07-07 17:34:00 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Well, if we wanna go the route of limiting power projection, how about starting with something smaller and more incremental? How about we just remove Titan bridging? I mean it wouldn't solve the whole problem but it would be a start.

I've always felt uneasy about the idea that 99% of Titans' role in Eve is just to sit in a POS and bridge.


Removing titan bridging then gives a unfair advantage to capitals then. You can't do it in increments because it will leave a very imbalanced state .

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#190 - 2014-07-07 17:34:59 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

The timers for critical stuff yes. But smaller things should be possible to be disabled faster, like station services, jump rbidge networks and moon mining operation.


We msut have strategical targets, that need a 24h timers, and tactical targets that must be handled quite fast to force an active defense when attacked during the play time of the home alliance.

All three things can be disabled without any timers at all.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#191 - 2014-07-07 17:37:05 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You make a good point about replacement caps to avoid the timmers. But at least would keep super capitals as slow response.

What you want to achieve is good, but limitign jump to adjacent system is not because will not curtail mobility. Will create serious choke points and even more stagnations. Unless you add several dozen extra low sec system just to provide alternative routes on those points. And then you need to solve the problem of the low sec pockets....


Thats why you can take the gate or you can bypass the gate and jump in anywhere in system via cyno.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#192 - 2014-07-07 17:42:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Manfred Sideous wrote:
CHANGES


  1. Proximity to other owned sov. So if you own a system and your other sov is not connected to that system then the cost is increased of the unconnected system.
  2. Pirate & Mining index affects sov cost. So if you are at level 4 or higher than there is no cost modifier. But 3 , 2 , 1 affects the cost. (levels are subjective and clearly open to debate/adjustment)



One point I'd like to bring out is that this model would encourage/require sovereignty over low value systems with no real use, except as interconnects between one developed and useful part of space and another.

Because it is desirable to keep alliance players who own space relatively close to home, low value systems would be great points of contest for blowing up an alliance's sovereignty costs-but only if it is trivial to contest sovereignty in systems that are minimally developed or utilized. If it's not hilariously easy to attack (or, likewise, to defend against), people will not have to live in the space they have in order to keep it.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#193 - 2014-07-07 17:43:53 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
You make a good point about replacement caps to avoid the timmers. But at least would keep super capitals as slow response.

What you want to achieve is good, but limitign jump to adjacent system is not because will not curtail mobility. Will create serious choke points and even more stagnations. Unless you add several dozen extra low sec system just to provide alternative routes on those points. And then you need to solve the problem of the low sec pockets....


Thats why you can take the gate or you can bypass the gate and jump in anywhere in system via cyno.



And about the capitals strained in low sec pockets? This solution needs a failsafe. Somethign like.... you can jump to any system the current system have a gate to... PLUS the closest system that allows a cyno. Then it could work.. to avoid peopel get stuck in low sec pockets.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#194 - 2014-07-07 17:44:31 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:

Because it is desirable to keep alliance players who own space relatively close to home, low value systems would be great points of contest for blowing up an alliance's sovereignty costs-but only if it is trivial to contest sovereignty in systems that are minimally developed or utilized.


It should not be trivial to win space ever. Even unused space. However, like I said before I think that unused space should cost effort to hold and defend, because while rich and powerful alliances have amounts of isk that are effectively inexhaustable in a fight against an up and coming alliance, they don't have infinite effort.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#195 - 2014-07-07 17:47:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Retar Aveymone wrote:

It should not be trivial to win space ever. Even unused space. However, like I said before I think that unused space should cost effort to hold and defend, because while rich and powerful alliances have amounts of isk that are effectively inexhaustable in a fight against an up and coming alliance, they don't have infinite effort.


If it's not hilariously easy to attack (or, likewise, to defend against), people will not have to live in the space they have in order to keep it. The contests will simply be decided by whoever can motivate the most pilots to burn their defending fleet across N systems in time for the sovereignty structure timer(s). In this scenario, the design would ultimately not make much difference in permitting smaller entities to persist in anything resembling close proximity to large ones. With the modern timer model, the window of reaction would still be large enough to bring out the mighty glacier fleets, which stop any systems from changing hands, even when it is stationed dozens of jumps from home, with little advanced notice.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#196 - 2014-07-07 17:50:52 UTC
Steph Livingston wrote:
I haven't been in a 0.0 alliance for quite awhile, but it seems to me the problem with stagnation isn't the ability for alliances to move their forces from point to point but the time, and fire power, required to dislodge an entrenched alliance.

Reinforcement timers allow alliances ample time to re-position fleets and, for the most part, choose when to engage. It's useful for small alliances with a few members, but makes the big coalitions almost impossible to dislodge. A few hours to a small alliance is a few dozen ships, to a coalition it's putting the system into TDI.

Instead of limiting force projection, I rather like the idea of an area of influence mechanic in sov space. Each alliance chooses a system to be their seat of power, where their influence will strongest. Every jump away from this system will have a lower influence score, eventually resulting in systems where the alliance has 0 influence.

As a mechanic, influence would represent how long a system would hold out against aggressors. The Seat of power would have the longest re-reinforcement timers, letting alliances set up defenses, and boarder systems would be reinforced for mere hours, if at all.

It allows the current system to be more fluid. If you wanted to hold lots of territory, you can do it but you need pilots available at a moment's notice. If you want to hold small amounts of territory, you can afford to be a little more strategic and choose your battles.

It also allows small groups to actually be a little more effective. You don't have to send a capital fleet in to battle every time, if the boarder systems have no reinforcement timer you could run and try to grab systems before a defense could be mounted.


This one of those ideas that seems great in a vacuum or in a new Eve. However we are at a state where some alliances are over 9000 players ( sorry couldn't resist ). Also you cannot create a system where people have to respond immediately or they lose sov. This game is played by people all over the world. Asian players can't be online when Americans are playing in American primetime. Also a large alliance is going to need more space than a small alliance so although your seat of power Idea is neat. It cannot be a static limit or arbitrarily set.

I maintain that I think the solution is you tie sov cost and structure tenacity to the usage of the system ( Building , Refining , Mining , PVE ). The more you do the more tenacity your structures have and the lower the sov cost is. The less you do the opposite effect happens. This incentivizes utilization of space and not taking more than what you can utilize. Now some space is better than other space and CCP has stated throughout the years they want to maintain that. So if you have ****** space you will always have you're eye on greener pastures. Or as you grow and expand you will vie to take more space. These are all viable content drivers.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#197 - 2014-07-07 17:51:23 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

The timers for critical stuff yes. But smaller things should be possible to be disabled faster, like station services, jump rbidge networks and moon mining operation.


We msut have strategical targets, that need a 24h timers, and tactical targets that must be handled quite fast to force an active defense when attacked during the play time of the home alliance.

All three things can be disabled without any timers at all.



Not by a small fleet. If people want more of smaller alliances/power blocs, then you NEED to stop thinking on the terms of fleets always having 200 members or more. The majority of the people that I know and that left 0.0, did it because they do not want that scale of fleets as the standard to do anything meaningful.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#198 - 2014-07-07 17:54:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Quinn Corvez
I like the ideas put forward in the OP but i doubt CCP would be willing to take such a drastic action, as too many things would need to be changed/re-balanced .

Changes to the sov mechanic has a better chance of reduce power projection and revitalizing null sec. There needs to be an incentive for alliances to maintain a small but well developed territory, instead of it just being a land grab. Moon mining arrays should be removed and instead, moon goo should be collected by individual specialized ships. If the mobile cyno inhibitor was better designed and jump bridges were not at a pos but instead in a vulnerable location in space, capital projection would not be an issue.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#199 - 2014-07-07 17:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Not by a small fleet. If people want more of smaller alliances/power blocs, then you NEED to stop thinking on the terms of fleets always having 200 members or more. The majority of the people that I know and that left 0.0, did it because they do not want that scale of fleets as the standard to do anything meaningful.


This blog entry by Kaeda Maxwell is very relevant to this topic:

http://kaedamaxwell.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/theres-small-and-than-there-is-small.html

Quote:
...there's small and then there's small. What we define as a small gang is largely dependant on where in New Eden we live and operate. So much so in fact, that whenever I talk to somebody about small gang warfare that I haven't spoken with on the subject before I ask them; "What number are we talking about when you say small?".

I have to ask that question because when I say small I mean anything between about 6 or 7 and 20. It's not uncommon for 0.0 FC's or even just residents to consider a 50 man fleet a 'small gang'.
You may wonder why that qualification is relevant? Well it's relevant because the term 'small gang' has been coming up a lot in balance discussions on the forums over the past few expansions. And when the word 'small' doesn't mean the same thing on both sides of a debate it leads to unnecessary misunderstandings.

As I already alluded to in the second paragraph, definitions of small are in part tied to where in New Eden you live. In lowsec 50 people is a *sizeable* fleet, it's not a gang size that is unheard of but if you move around lowsec with 50 people in fleet you stand out. Even for some of lowsecs largest groups like say Shadow Cartel or the Waffles a casual fleet of 50 is a bit of a novelty, usually when I see them roam (or sit on a Titan) their numbers tend to be somewhere between 20 and 40. And numbers for entities like SCUM. or combined militia fleets tend to be in that ball park too. For corporations like say the Tuskers or Calamitous-Intent a 50 man fleet literally requires half of the membership to be logged in all at once (and the paper membership numbers include alts and people on extended afks). And even for entities that have comparatively high participation rates like Snuff Box or Balex I rarely see a battle report that has more then 30-35 of them on it at once.


There's much more material in the link.
Dirty Sanchezco
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#200 - 2014-07-07 17:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
-Posting on request of MrRive-

I'm going to go into conspiracy theory mode for a second. I'm also going to explain why the current trend of 0.0 politics will be the end of this game and the end of all the 'headline breaking' nonsense that CCP loves so much. I'll try and suggest what I think should be done to improve 0.0 space for everyone involved except a select few at the top.

I've been involved in high end eve politics for a very long time. I've not been active for the past couple of years, but before that I was in PL high command for at least 5 years, so i got to know on first term basis most of the high command of most of the biggest coalitions in eve.

Back in '05/'06, just when large coalitions started to control huge segments of eve (BoB, the russian block ect.), *Snip* Please refrain from discussing RMT. ISD Ezwal
The first alliance I was in was Prime Orbital Systems, and in our home system of 16p there was a 10/10 DED plex which would net over 5bisk/day on a good day. BoB used to control a lot of them in delve

and fountain, and the russians controlled a hell of a lot more. they were pretty large coalitions, and there was a hell of a lot of behind the scenes fighting over these plexes, *Snip* Please refrain from discussing RMT. ISD Ezwal

Right in the middle of BoB's power, moons were buffed, and plexes nerfed heavily. Funnily enough, most of the high end moons were in BoB space *Snip* Please refrain from spreading baseless rumors. ISD Ezwal.
dysprosium prices rocketed and each moon was worth over 15b/month, and BoB controlled at least 100 of these things spread around

Fountain and delve. The russians controlled a lot of them in the east,*Snip* Please refrain from discussing RMT. ISD Ezwal
When PL entered the scene in Fountain, dyspro moons were still incredibly valuable, and we managed to take all of the moons in fountain from BoB because they were fighting a war on two fronts. All the isk which those moons provided BoB (trillions and trillions) was never found in its entirety.

PL in fountain was incredibly legitimate compared to most other alliances with a large moon income. The vast majority of isk went into building the alliance and buying titans and the like. It's what made PL one of the strongest alliances, even though we were vastly smaller than a lot of the alliances out there. *Snip* Please refrain from discussing RMT. ISD Ezwal

Times changed, and the income from moons changed too, but generally it was always incredibly profitable to own space with moons in, because they would net you hundreds of billions a month. 4-5 years have passed *Snip* Please refrain from discussing RMT. ISD Ezwal
If you think the big battles in eve have anything to do with 'gudfites' rather than keeping the grunts in line so people can keep making isk, then you are sorely deluded.

The state of eve politics will not change until it is no longer profitable to own large swathes of moon income. It's just not going to happen. The conspiracy theorist in me is saying 'I wonder how much isk certain people are skimming off the top to line their RL pockets with'.

*Snip* Please refrain from discussing RMT. ISD Ezwal

You want to fix eve? You MUST make space bigger, moon income less OP, and make people work for their ships and space. Manny's idea works I think, but either way, radical changes need to be made, or eve wont last another 2 years. Personally, I would massively nerf moon income and buff nullsec mining, make NPC's more powerful to induce people to rat in null, improving roaming

opportunities for small gang warfare and protection fleets. Nerf the heck out of supercaps, and get rid of jumpbridges. Nothing done to try and improve the game will be popular, but sometimes you have to burn things to the ground to make way for new growth. 0.0 used to be a lot of fun, lets make it that way again.