These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1241 - 2014-08-13 08:26:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Max of 10 people can rat per system = empires needing vast areas of space to support their members.

Before anomalys in most systems nobody was ratting and even in the -0.6--1.0 we needed 7belts per player.

baltec1 wrote:
Grinding through hundreds of millions of EHP pushes us to need big capital fleets to both attack and defend.

Before it was billions of ehp I personally setup all station systems in a way that you had to shoot at least 4bil ehp sometimes even 10bil ehp.
baltec1 wrote:
System sov is taken in a hanfull of fixed fights which means you blob up for just a few hours at a time.

That is so that small groups have a chance to fight (This favors small groups who don't have timezone coverage).
If you can not bring 250players through 2 of the 3 TZ you do not have Timezone coverage.
baltec1 wrote:
Small fleets do zero damage to larger ones thanks to RR logi.

Ask Rooks and Kings or their friends they know how todo that but it needs actual player skill. I know F1 is easy
baltec1 wrote:
Subcap fleets can do nothing to boot/wreckingball fleets other than die.

Wreckingball is gone and even that can be broken if you are willing to lose a few dreads.
Most of the time people are to afraid to lose their capital that is why the wrecking ball was very effectiv.
If you want to break a 500player wrecking ball you need to accept to lose 300dreads in the process.
It is a lot of isk but if you kill 6titans or 20supercarriers in the battle you already won the isk war and dreads are produced a lot faster then supers.

We don't lose high skillpoint players to supercaps because they can have a holding char. We lose them because flying in a harpyfleet with a 130mil SP clone means that your clone is worth more then the ship.

Nothing of that will change coalitions or their ability to control huge amouts of sov .

The CFC is at the moment deployed with fleets in 6 Regions from 4 different staging systems.
In this 2 deployments only 25% of the members are realy activ and none of the renters.

How to you want to change game mechanics to reduce the ability of coalitions to control huge amouts of sov ?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1242 - 2014-08-13 08:40:31 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lu Ziffer wrote:

Before anomalys in most systems nobody was ratting and even in the -0.6--1.0 we needed 7belts per player.


That doesn't change the fact that we are limited to 10 per system now.

Lu Ziffer wrote:

Before it was billions of ehp I personally setup all station systems in a way that you had to shoot at least 4bil ehp sometimes even 10bil ehp.


That doesn't change the fact that we still need to use massive cap fleets now.

Lu Ziffer wrote:

That is so that small groups have a chance to fight (This favors small groups who don't have timezone coverage).
If you can not bring 250players through 2 of the 3 TZ you do not have Timezone coverage.


Small alliances have no hope of defending a system from the CFC in a hanfull of fixed fights. It does not favor them, it makes it impossible for them to win.


Lu Ziffer wrote:

Ask Rooks and Kings or their friends they know how todo that but it needs actual player skill. I know F1 is easy


Show us how much sov they hold and all the fights they are winning vs full capital and baltec fleets. In a stand up fight over a POS they would get crushed.


Lu Ziffer wrote:

Wreckingball is gone and even that can be broken if you are willing to lose a few dreads.


Feel free to tell us all about how you get dreads into a cynojammed sysem or how they are now classed as subcaps. While your at it explain how a small alliance would be able to deploy 600-800 dreads.

We lose pilots all the time because their main is stuck in a nyx, its one of the oldest and most hated things about these ships.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1243 - 2014-08-13 09:16:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
We lose pilots all the time because their main is stuck in a nyx, its one of the oldest and most hated things about these ships.

I can not change people who are not willing to get a holding char.

Cyno jammed systems ? You remember cynojammed regions with gatecamps at every outgoing gate with bubbles 100km around the gate that was difficult to get into and we still did it.
Killing a cynojammer takes 1minute and you lose 1bs doing it.

We already changed the game so that we need less space to support the same amount of players we also changed the game to need less capitals to take sov.
Before the structuretimers we were alarmclocking to get the reinforce timers in our prime time and we locked down entire regions. We did not need capitals or jumpbridges or titan bridges for that we had 500players 24/7.
There is no way how a small group can keep sov against a bigger enemy. At some point the ISK and manpower will crush them there is no game mechanic that can change that.
You make the wrong assumption that coalitions are a result of gamemechanics but they were formed because the bigger number wins and this is something you can not change.
We can not change that the bigger coalition wins it is natural and we can not stop them from existing because they are formed outside the game.
So the only thing left is to give them enough new space so that they will not be able to control all of it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1244 - 2014-08-13 09:23:21 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lu Ziffer wrote:

I can not change people who are not willing to get a holding char.



So **** everyone flying one? Yea, that goes down well.

Lu Ziffer wrote:

Cyno jammed systems ? You remember cynojammed regions with gatecamps at every outgoing gate with bubbles 100km around the gate that was difficult to get into and we still did it.
Killing a cynojammer takes 1minute and you lose 1bs doing it.


Feel free to tell us how you do that with an entire boot/wreckingball sitting on top of it.

Lu Ziffer wrote:
We already changed the game so that we need less space to support the same amount of players we also changed the game to need less capitals to take sov.
No they haven't.

Lu Ziffer wrote:

So the only thing left is to give them enough new space so that they will not be able to control all of it.


They have done this several times in the past, every time the powerblocks just absorbed it. Adding more space will never work because it is the mechanics that are the issue.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1245 - 2014-08-13 09:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
This time baltec is right (on general terms, there are a few perks on his suggestions that I dislike, but his view is right). Dominion was bad for the game on the long run.


I jsut think that carriers shoudl still be able to use drones, Just split fighters and droens in different bays. Droen bay being like 200M, that would allw them to help shotign POS and stuff liek that and helpign agaisnt subcaptial fleet, but unable to fend on thier own against subcapitals.


RR problem is that it is cross class broadly opne. Carriers should not be able to lock and repair so fast subcapitals unless they are in triage. Logi cruisers should not be so damm powerful. In the past we had spider tank battleships and those were way more fun and balanced thatn current RR. Why? Because range was shorter and they took more time to react.

All logi ships shoudl lose the bonus to fit larger sized repairers, and their range bonus should be reduced by some 25% at least, increase their signature to normal cruiser size. Then increase the capability of large repairers (and transfers) so that within class remote repair become an option.


That or make all remote repair bonuses on all ships focus on DRONE remote repair. THese take much logner to act and make much harder to react to enemy fire.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1246 - 2014-08-13 10:16:41 UTC
@Kagura Nikon
I agree Dominion was bad and expansion that reduced jumpbridges to 1 per system did also nothing.

Logistics are easyly taken out by EWAR but this is difficult to handle with players who can not do more then anchor up and press F1

@baltec
yes "So **** everyone flying one" who is not happy with it.
If you buy a super you know what you are doing or you bought the char and ship with plex then I am not even sorry for you because you did not inform yourself well about what you were getting into.
This is a mess the pilot did himself and he has to live with the consequences this is a part of the game.

How we broke camps? We accepted to lose 100bs on the way to the cyno jammer. There is no easy way.

Yes they have the expansion was called "Dominion" and before we had to get more towers in a system then the hostile force.
Putting a tower with only hardeners in reinforced takes 4times longer the shooting the armor timer of an ihub. And as I told you at the time everystation system had 10towers like this totaling at 4bil ehp.
So yes they made it a lot less grind then before and without anomaly no system would support 10players.
Would you pls read up on this before posting something that is 100% wrong.

And they only added the droneregions which is the worst regions in term of density.
It has more connections with stargates then any other area and it has systems were a carrier can jump in 150systems in one jump.
That was really badly designed space in terms of how long it takes to take control and how many people you need to control it.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#1247 - 2014-08-13 10:31:31 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
lol two posts worth of text usually mean that a given proposal is "overly complicated". Big smile

The proposal itself is simple: base sov on military occupancy / presence only and solely.

The two pages of text come from working out the details, and arguing in favour of the concept.

X Gallentius wrote:
There needs to be two paths to sovereignty - Overwhelming force AND persistent force, not overwhelming force OR persistent force.

And pray tell why?

I will actually argue the other way: If overwhelming force would be necessary, then we would again need big coalitions, because then you could only gain and hold sov by being big(ger). But we want to get away from the necessity of big coalitions.

If overwhelming force is one of two possible ways, then you can still form large coalitions if you desire and be successful / hold sov, but you are not effectively locked out of sov if you don't form one of two large blocs.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1248 - 2014-08-13 10:47:02 UTC
Felix Judge wrote:

I will actually argue the other way: If overwhelming force would be necessary, then we would again need big coalitions, because then you could only gain and hold sov by being big(ger). But we want to get away from the necessity of big coalitions.

If overwhelming force is one of two possible ways, then you can still form large coalitions if you desire and be successful / hold sov, but you are not effectively locked out of sov if you don't form one of two large blocs.

The necessity for big coalitions are coalitions.
So to remove the necessity for big coalition you have to remove meta gaming which you can not because it is not a part of the game.

And the problem is really not ehp even a system with 10 hardener towers and 4bil ehp, that is 4.000.000.000 ehp or the ehp of 1000dreads or 70titans can be reinforced in one hour by 100dreads.
ehp is not the problem it is the coalition which you can not break who has a fighting force that is superior to any smaller entity.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1249 - 2014-08-13 11:05:09 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Felix Judge wrote:

I will actually argue the other way: If overwhelming force would be necessary, then we would again need big coalitions, because then you could only gain and hold sov by being big(ger). But we want to get away from the necessity of big coalitions.

If overwhelming force is one of two possible ways, then you can still form large coalitions if you desire and be successful / hold sov, but you are not effectively locked out of sov if you don't form one of two large blocs.

The necessity for big coalitions are coalitions.
So to remove the necessity for big coalition you have to remove meta gaming which you can not because it is not a part of the game.

And the problem is really not ehp even a system with 10 hardener towers and 4bil ehp, that is 4.000.000.000 ehp or the ehp of 1000dreads or 70titans can be reinforced in one hour by 100dreads.
ehp is not the problem it is the coalition which you can not break who has a fighting force that is superior to any smaller entity.



So if your way of thinking is right, better we unsub and ccp clsoe the game, because we are all dooomed.
Yes you can change the metagame, you can influence people minds by changing mechanics. One thing missing is that game designers should make a few semesters of psycology on their local university. THis game is about people, understanding how people react and face things is as important as math in balancing the game.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1250 - 2014-08-13 11:22:16 UTC
@Kagura Nikon
We have to accept that we the players are the problem.
Psychology?
Self preservation and finding friends to fight you enemys is one of the most basic natural psychological needs.
We are already taking about that .



The funny thing is you talk about ingame income and how you think it changes the game but nobody is taking into acoount the real cash coalitions spend on their out of game services and how that affects their abilities.
We have coalitions who have
-multiple voice servers were thousands of players can join
- messaging services
-chat tools.
-map tools
-logistic tools
-intel tools
-tools that control SOV and tower status
and many more.
It costs 1000 of $ each year and and personal to keep it running and some of the software they developed themsel,f some was bought and some was given to them free of charge. But the software a coalition uses is often worth thausands of $.

This is a huge reason why coalitions have the capability to strike down any smaller group.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1251 - 2014-08-13 11:39:38 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
@Kagura Nikon
I agree Dominion was bad and expansion that reduced jumpbridges to 1 per system did also nothing.

Logistics are easyly taken out by EWAR but this is difficult to handle with players who can not do more then anchor up and press F1

@baltec
yes "So **** everyone flying one" who is not happy with it.
If you buy a super you know what you are doing or you bought the char and ship with plex then I am not even sorry for you because you did not inform yourself well about what you were getting into.
This is a mess the pilot did himself and he has to live with the consequences this is a part of the game.

How we broke camps? We accepted to lose 100bs on the way to the cyno jammer. There is no easy way.

Yes they have the expansion was called "Dominion" and before we had to get more towers in a system then the hostile force.
Putting a tower with only hardeners in reinforced takes 4times longer the shooting the armor timer of an ihub. And as I told you at the time everystation system had 10towers like this totaling at 4bil ehp.
So yes they made it a lot less grind then before and without anomaly no system would support 10players.
Would you pls read up on this before posting something that is 100% wrong.

And they only added the droneregions which is the worst regions in term of density.
It has more connections with stargates then any other area and it has systems were a carrier can jump in 150systems in one jump.
That was really badly designed space in terms of how long it takes to take control and how many people you need to control it.


PL/N3 burned 200 systems in a single weekend. We took down most of the south in a week, NC was absorbed in just 2 weeks.

No matter how much new space you add we will take it. You have yet to address any of the issues I and many others have shown you.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1252 - 2014-08-13 11:51:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

PL/N3 burned 200 systems in a single weekend. We took down most of the south in a week, NC was absorbed in just 2 weeks.

No matter how much new space you add we will take it. You have yet to address any of the issues I and many others have shown you.

So actually you say there is not enough ehp and timers because we are capable of taking 200systems in 2 days.
Btw at that rate it would take 15years to take 1mil systems which is more then EVE is alive. Cool

Other issues? pls tell me which other issue is so important for stagnation in EVE.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1253 - 2014-08-13 11:56:30 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:



Other issues? pls tell me which other issue is so important for stagnation in EVE.


I told you several times. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being deliberatly stupid.

10 people cap per system for ratters = powerblocks need vast areas of space.

Just answer this one issue.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1254 - 2014-08-13 12:02:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:



Other issues? pls tell me which other issue is so important for stagnation in EVE.


I told you several times. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being deliberatly stupid.

10 people cap per system for ratters = powerblocks need vast areas of space.

Just answer this one issue.


How has ratting anything todo with the stagnation.
50% of the big coalition members are not ratting at all.
The other 50% do it 20% of the time they are online.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1255 - 2014-08-13 12:07:34 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:


How has ratting anything todo with the stagnation.
50% of the big coalition members are not ratting at all.
The other 50% do it 20% of the time they are online.


The fact that we need vast areas of space is part of the reason why there is no room for smaller powers. The mechanics means the powerblocks MUST hold huge areas of space.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1256 - 2014-08-13 12:10:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:


How has ratting anything todo with the stagnation.
50% of the big coalition members are not ratting at all.
The other 50% do it 20% of the time they are online.


The fact that we need vast areas of space is part of the reason why there is no room for smaller powers. The mechanics means the powerblocks MUST hold huge areas of space.

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being deliberatly stupid.
You guys say space is so empty that is why we need no more space.
Which is because a lot of people don't want to go ratting.

Even if somenew guys came in do you really believe we would not just kill them for fun?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1257 - 2014-08-13 12:13:32 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:


How has ratting anything todo with the stagnation.
50% of the big coalition members are not ratting at all.
The other 50% do it 20% of the time they are online.


The fact that we need vast areas of space is part of the reason why there is no room for smaller powers. The mechanics means the powerblocks MUST hold huge areas of space.

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being deliberatly stupid.
You guys say space is so empty that is why we need no more space.
Which is because a lot of people don't want to go ratting.

Even if somenew guys came in do you really believe we would not just kill them for fun?


Answer the issue at hand.

How do you support an alliance of 200 online if only 10 can rat at a time in your system?
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1258 - 2014-08-13 12:17:39 UTC
200online
100afk
20roaming
10scanning
20 mining
50 ratting
with 10systems this can easyly be done.

That was so difficult I need 3 second s to solve that
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1259 - 2014-08-13 12:20:04 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
200online
100afk
20roaming
10scanning
20 mining
50 ratting
with 10systems this can easyly be done.

That was so difficult I need 3 second s to solve that


So you have no answer for supporting 200 ratters in a single system in the current sov null setup.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1260 - 2014-08-13 12:36:11 UTC
baltec wrote:
So you have no answer for supporting 200 ratters in a single system in the current sov null setup.

Why should a system support 200ratters? and how would that end 0.0 stagnation.