These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1361 - 2014-08-18 15:25:32 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Both do poorly in large fleets as it is impossible to cordinate them. .


Lol

Sounds like Goons need to learn to play instead of face rolling to victory via numbers. There is a solution, you are just unwilling put forth the effort.


More like you need to go learn more about this game. Tell me, if these weapon systems are so good why does nobody use them against us?
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1362 - 2014-08-18 15:26:28 UTC
Look, I'm honestly not out to just play your devils advocate. You make some reasonable points. And I'm certainly not ttacking your organization.

If you have an issue with massive balls (lol)... of capital ships RR each other

its far more healthy for 00 landscape to disincentivize those 'all in one system' fights and far more measured and logical to look at the abilities and roles of cap and supercaps themselves than to think the fix is to rework eve combat mechanics from the ground up.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#1363 - 2014-08-18 15:52:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Both do poorly in large fleets as it is impossible to cordinate them. .


Lol

Sounds like Goons need to learn to play instead of face rolling to victory via numbers. There is a solution, you are just unwilling put forth the effort.


More like you need to go learn more about this game. Tell me, if these weapon systems are so good why does nobody use them against us?


You are missing the point and putting up a straw man.

When have Goons ever won anything without having superior numbers? All you people know is one way to fight, the easy way, and you aren't willing to put forth the effort and rise to the challenge to find out what works, you would rather ask CCP to change the game for you. Pathetic.

Nullsec stagnation is purely centered around the unwillingness of the 2 great power blocs to fight. You put yourselves into this situation. Get a clue and try convincing your leadership of what needs to be done for the good of EVE. If you people weren't so afraid of losing, EVE wouldn't be in the state that it is in.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1364 - 2014-08-18 16:00:19 UTC
We all know John Lennon would be writing a song about Imagining an EVE without Remote Reps.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1365 - 2014-08-18 16:05:04 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
Look, I'm honestly not out to just play your devils advocate. You make some reasonable points. And I'm certainly not ttacking your organization.

If you have an issue with massive balls (lol)... of capital ships RR each other

its far more healthy for 00 landscape to disincentivize those 'all in one system' fights and far more measured and logical to look at the abilities and roles of cap and supercaps themselves than to think the fix is to rework eve combat mechanics from the ground up.


The mechanics need it.

The problem is that you are looking at power projection as a problem when it is just a symptom of other problems. The way to solve the issue of power projection is to rework sov so that you cannot hold hundreds to thousands of empty systems. Residency based sov would reduce our space from half the galaxy to just Dek. This means we also lose the vast bulk of the jumpbridge network. Without the need to guard huge regions of space the issue of titan bridging fleets from one end of the galaxy to the other also vanishes. Infact it becomes downright dangerous due to us not holding the space.

We then need to reduce the need to have massive fleets. Residency sov again helps greatly by removing the need to form up for just 4 fights at fixed times and instead needing to attack someone space 24/7. Huge fleets simply don't do this job well nor will dumping a wrecking ball in a system for a few hours. The RR changes would further erode into the need for having large fleets to alpha through RR support. It would now be viable to throw cheap, disposable fleets such as shield rax into the heart of a battleship fleets and just smash away or even run gorilla fleets like we used to in 2007 and cause a lot of damage.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1366 - 2014-08-18 16:05:12 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
Look, I'm honestly not out to just play your devils advocate. You make some reasonable points. And I'm certainly not ttacking your organization. If you have an issue with massive balls (lol)... of capital ships RR each other its far more healthy for 00 landscape to disincentivize those 'all in one system' fights and far more measured and logical to look at the abilities and roles of cap and supercaps themselves than to think the fix is to rework eve combat mechanics from the ground up.
The thing is we do want to disincentivise the 'all in one system' fightghts too. The thing is that the Dominion SOV system has unwittingly become a paperclip maximizer. The entire SOV system needs a rewrite or we will just be back where we are at present with a new meta to maximize.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1367 - 2014-08-18 16:09:48 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Both do poorly in large fleets as it is impossible to cordinate them. .


Lol

Sounds like Goons need to learn to play instead of face rolling to victory via numbers. There is a solution, you are just unwilling put forth the effort.


More like you need to go learn more about this game. Tell me, if these weapon systems are so good why does nobody use them against us?


You are missing the point and putting up a straw man.

When have Goons ever won anything without having superior numbers? All you people know is one way to fight, the easy way, and you aren't willing to put forth the effort and rise to the challenge to find out what works, you would rather ask CCP to change the game for you. Pathetic.

Nullsec stagnation is purely centered around the unwillingness of the 2 great power blocs to fight. You put yourselves into this situation. Get a clue and try convincing your leadership of what needs to be done for the good of EVE. If you people weren't so afraid of losing, EVE wouldn't be in the state that it is in.


Ah so you are a grr goon poster.

Its funny how, if ECM is such a viable weapon, that nobody uses it. Infact the last people to use it was, well, us in alpha fleets. It was retired because ECM ships are both easily removed from a fight and provide very little advantage as logi simply fitted ECCM.
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#1368 - 2014-08-18 16:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
baltec1 wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Both do poorly in large fleets as it is impossible to cordinate them. .


Lol

Sounds like Goons need to learn to play instead of face rolling to victory via numbers. There is a solution, you are just unwilling put forth the effort.


More like you need to go learn more about this game. Tell me, if these weapon systems are so good why does nobody use them against us?


You are missing the point and putting up a straw man.

When have Goons ever won anything without having superior numbers? All you people know is one way to fight, the easy way, and you aren't willing to put forth the effort and rise to the challenge to find out what works, you would rather ask CCP to change the game for you. Pathetic.

Nullsec stagnation is purely centered around the unwillingness of the 2 great power blocs to fight. You put yourselves into this situation. Get a clue and try convincing your leadership of what needs to be done for the good of EVE. If you people weren't so afraid of losing, EVE wouldn't be in the state that it is in.


Ah so you are a grr goon poster.

Its funny how, if ECM is such a viable weapon, that nobody uses it. Infact the last people to use it was, well, us in alpha fleets. It was retired because ECM ships are both easily removed from a fight and provide very little advantage as logi simply fitted ECCM.


Your problem is that you guys are only capable of thinking one dimensional. I don't expect you to know anything complex about EVE. "Unga Smash" is all you guys do. It isn't impressive, its just the huddling of the masses.

Nobody expects you to come up with the solution. But given that the only limitations to your problems are complexity and organization, i'd say it is fairly balanced.

"its too hard" should not be your excuse. Stop blaming CCP and start blaming your leadership. The blue doughnut is completely based on your unwillingness to fight each other.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1369 - 2014-08-18 16:17:27 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:


Your problem is that you guys are only capable of thinking one dimensional. I don't expect you to know anything complex about EVE. "Unga Smash" is all you guys do. It isn't impressive, its just the huddling of the masses.

Nobody expects you to come up with the solution. But given that the only limitations to your problems are complexity and organization, i'd say it is well balanced.

"its too hard" should not be your excuse. Stop blaming CCP and start blaming your leadership, sheeple.


Again, if ECM was viable why does not a single large fleet in the entire game use it?
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#1370 - 2014-08-18 16:20:09 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
baltec1 wrote:


Again, if ECM was viable why does not a single large fleet in the entire game use it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."

How typical. Try to think in more than one dimension, guy.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1371 - 2014-08-18 16:24:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Why?
How many times you can fight in the same setup, the same gang, in TIDI 10% ( real 0.5%) for 7 hours.



Been doing this for the last 4 years. 8 if you include pre tidi.

Face it, you cant fix anything by trying to nerf power projection. We will always get our forces to where we need it, even if it means warping gates from one side of EVE to the other.



Indeed power projection nerf does not SOLVE anything. But some level of reduction of massive fleets mobility would be a good icing in the cake of a reform of 0.0 warfare that make large fleets less needed.

A slight impediment and a reduction of the desire when combined make much larger effect over human psycology than eithe rof the 2 in separate.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1372 - 2014-08-18 16:27:23 UTC
afkalt wrote:
It would make it a hell of a lot hard to fight on two (or more) fronts though.



Would be relevant for supercaps only. All other vessels can be stockpiled on all fronts and pilots jump clone, suicide jump or shuttle travel to the other front.

Nerfign power projection alone will NOT solve the issue as long at the activity remains NECESSARY.

It does not matter how hard is to get food.. getting food is mandatory so people will continue to get food, facing harder work if needed. But as long as food is needed, people will continue to eat, no matter the obstacles you add.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1373 - 2014-08-18 16:28:31 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Why?
How many times you can fight in the same setup, the same gang, in TIDI 10% ( real 0.5%) for 7 hours.



Been doing this for the last 4 years. 8 if you include pre tidi.

Face it, you cant fix anything by trying to nerf power projection. We will always get our forces to where we need it, even if it means warping gates from one side of EVE to the other.



Indeed power projection nerf does not SOLVE anything. But some level of reduction of massive fleets mobility would be a good icing in the cake of a reform of 0.0 warfare that make large fleets less needed.

A slight impediment and a reduction of the desire when combined make much larger effect over human psycology than eithe rof the 2 in separate.


They just doubled the cost of jumping them, It had no impact on us. We would find a way to deploy them. The answer is as I put further up, deal with the reasons behind needing them in the first place.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1374 - 2014-08-18 16:31:28 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Again, if ECM was viable why does not a single large fleet in the entire game use it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."

How typical. Try to think in more than one dimension, guy.


That's not a straw man. You should stop trying to shoehorn tippias' thing into an argument and actually do your homework on fleet comps over the years.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1375 - 2014-08-18 16:49:24 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Nullsec stagnation is purely centered around the unwillingness of the 2 great power blocs to fight. You put yourselves into this situation. Get a clue and try convincing your leadership of what needs to be done for the good of EVE. If you people weren't so afraid of losing, EVE wouldn't be in the state that it is in.

The Dominion SOV system pretty much forces you to maximize SOV, in order to maximise returns on SOV ownreship. (money moons, good truesec for line members to rat in) This forces the leaders to squash any threat to SOV ownership. Smashing the little guy now, before he can become any threat to even a single system you own later. Figureing out a new more powerful meta for fleet combat so that you minimise losses to your fleet, and have a more mobile fleet so that you can attack/defend more with less effort. We (N3/PL, CFC) have taken the Dominion SOV system almost to its logical conclusion, and it is frighening ALL of us, but the demands of the Dominion SOV system require us to continue, to figure out a meta that will beat the present one in efficiency.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1376 - 2014-08-18 17:09:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
Look, I'm honestly not out to just play your devils advocate. You make some reasonable points. And I'm certainly not ttacking your organization.

If you have an issue with massive balls (lol)... of capital ships RR each other

its far more healthy for 00 landscape to disincentivize those 'all in one system' fights and far more measured and logical to look at the abilities and roles of cap and supercaps themselves than to think the fix is to rework eve combat mechanics from the ground up.


The mechanics need it.

The problem is that you are looking at power projection as a problem when it is just a symptom of other problems. The way to solve the issue of power projection is to rework sov so that you cannot hold hundreds to thousands of empty systems. Residency based sov would reduce our space from half the galaxy to just Dek. This means we also lose the vast bulk of the jumpbridge network. Without the need to guard huge regions of space the issue of titan bridging fleets from one end of the galaxy to the other also vanishes. Infact it becomes downright dangerous due to us not holding the space.

We then need to reduce the need to have massive fleets. Residency sov again helps greatly by removing the need to form up for just 4 fights at fixed times and instead needing to attack someone space 24/7. Huge fleets simply don't do this job well nor will dumping a wrecking ball in a system for a few hours. The RR changes would further erode into the need for having large fleets to alpha through RR support. It would now be viable to throw cheap, disposable fleets such as shield rax into the heart of a battleship fleets and just smash away or even run gorilla fleets like we used to in 2007 and cause a lot of damage.


This is what I mean, I can agree with pretty much all of this,

But its shortsighted to balance the foundation of defensive logistics across this huge game around such a specific issue.

I think the sov endgame issues can quickly be seen by those in the coalitions as "the game".

But for the vast majority its not.
It's your game.
(Insert "ruining your game" goon slogan irony here)

In the game as a whole, at any given time there can be several to dozens of mid-tier engagements across low sec and npc 00, fights comprising of 20-150 participents. frig/af gangs, hacs, you name it, a couple carriers get dropped, escalation is welcome here and is what differentiates between a good day and an epic one. All of this does revolve around the intermingle of EW, RR, dynamic battles that dont boil down to cracking a ball of motherships.

To alter the how logistics work to fix sov and coalition level engagements is nuts.

Yes, sov needs changed, caps need changed, but resetting pvp as we know it is not only the wrong thing to do, but risks shifting the dynamics of less-than-1000 player fights into something less diverse and more lopsided towards a flat dps slug out.

Make a case for removing remote cap rep mods entirely if you want. But needing and using logistics in a fight isn't a problem to 99% of the game.

It's just another (welcome) tool in the toolbox. One that remains interesting by having MORE tools in it ,not less.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1377 - 2014-08-18 17:27:22 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
Look, I'm honestly not out to just play your devils advocate. You make some reasonable points. And I'm certainly not ttacking your organization.

If you have an issue with massive balls (lol)... of capital ships RR each other

its far more healthy for 00 landscape to disincentivize those 'all in one system' fights and far more measured and logical to look at the abilities and roles of cap and supercaps themselves than to think the fix is to rework eve combat mechanics from the ground up.


The mechanics need it.

The problem is that you are looking at power projection as a problem when it is just a symptom of other problems. The way to solve the issue of power projection is to rework sov so that you cannot hold hundreds to thousands of empty systems. Residency based sov would reduce our space from half the galaxy to just Dek. This means we also lose the vast bulk of the jumpbridge network. Without the need to guard huge regions of space the issue of titan bridging fleets from one end of the galaxy to the other also vanishes. Infact it becomes downright dangerous due to us not holding the space.

We then need to reduce the need to have massive fleets. Residency sov again helps greatly by removing the need to form up for just 4 fights at fixed times and instead needing to attack someone space 24/7. Huge fleets simply don't do this job well nor will dumping a wrecking ball in a system for a few hours. The RR changes would further erode into the need for having large fleets to alpha through RR support. It would now be viable to throw cheap, disposable fleets such as shield rax into the heart of a battleship fleets and just smash away or even run gorilla fleets like we used to in 2007 and cause a lot of damage.


This is what I mean, I can agree with pretty much all of this,

But its shortsighted to balance the foundation of defensive logistics across this huge game around such a specific issue.

I think the sov endgame issues can quickly be seen by those in the coalitions as "the game".

But for the vast majority its not.
It's your game.
(Insert "ruining your game" goon slogan irony here)

In the game as a whole, at any given time there can be several to dozens of mid-tier engagements across low sec and npc 00, fights comprising of 20-150 participents. frig/af gangs, hacs, you name it, a couple carriers get dropped, escalation is welcome here and is what differentiates between a good day and an epic one. All of this does revolve around the intermingle of EW, RR, dynamic battles that dont boil down to cracking a ball of motherships.

To alter the how logistics work to fix sov and coalition level engagements is nuts.

Yes, sov needs changed, caps need changed, but resetting pvp as we know it is not only the wrong thing to do, but risks shifting the dynamics of less-than-1000 player fights into something less diverse and more lopsided towards a flat dps slug out.

Make a case for removing remote cap rep mods entirely if you want. But needing and using logistics in a fight isn't a problem to 99% of the game.

It's just another (welcome) tool in the toolbox. One that remains interesting by having MORE tools in it ,not less.


Thats why I ask for diminishing returns. The smaller fleets RR would work as normal even when using a handfull of carriers or supers. Its only when you start usinging them in large numbers in big fleets that the diminishing returns would hit. Most people in EVE who dont take part in the big fights simply wont notice the change.
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#1378 - 2014-08-18 17:48:25 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Nullsec stagnation is purely centered around the unwillingness of the 2 great power blocs to fight. You put yourselves into this situation. Get a clue and try convincing your leadership of what needs to be done for the good of EVE. If you people weren't so afraid of losing, EVE wouldn't be in the state that it is in.

The Dominion SOV system pretty much forces you to maximize SOV, in order to maximise returns on SOV ownreship. (money moons, good truesec for line members to rat in) This forces the leaders to squash any threat to SOV ownership. Smashing the little guy now, before he can become any threat to even a single system you own later. Figureing out a new more powerful meta for fleet combat so that you minimise losses to your fleet, and have a more mobile fleet so that you can attack/defend more with less effort. We (N3/PL, CFC) have taken the Dominion SOV system almost to its logical conclusion, and it is frighening ALL of us, but the demands of the Dominion SOV system require us to continue, to figure out a meta that will beat the present one in efficiency.


If I am reading this right it it sounds like the incentive of the profits you are making are exceeding your desire cause the conflict that keeps the game interesting. I know many pilots in the coalitions want a great war, but the leadership apparently doesn't want it to happen, as they have the most to lose.

This phenomena has occurred in other games as well, such as Darkfall. 2 great powers emerge composed of many players who want to the opposing faction, and then the leadership decides its easier to sit on their control of resources that risk the losses that could come no doubt come from continuous conflict. Basically the leadership is afraid to lose their space pixels.

I still feel it is up to the players to force your leadership into causing conflict, because they already shown their unwillingness to fight, and it is causing a mass loss of interest in the game.


Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1379 - 2014-08-18 17:50:29 UTC
baltec wrote:

Thats why I ask for diminishing returns. The smaller fleets RR would work as normal even when using a handfull of carriers or supers. Its only when you start usinging them in large numbers in big fleets that the diminishing returns would hit. Most people in EVE who dont take part in the big fights simply wont notice the change.


Even if that much is appropiate the devils in the details.

Then there is the previously stated concern of null fights boiling down to cheap dps spam. I'm not sold that this is a very progressive trade

None of this invalidates the need for power projection to be limited and time consuming. In many regards it would reinforce the need for every reason I've already cited.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#1380 - 2014-08-18 17:53:43 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
baltec1 wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Again, if ECM was viable why does not a single large fleet in the entire game use it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."

How typical. Try to think in more than one dimension, guy.


That's not a straw man. You should stop trying to shoehorn tippias' thing into an argument and actually do your homework on fleet comps over the years.


Of course it is a strawman. You are talking about only one thing (ECM) and in one specific scenario (large fleets).

On top of that you ask for empirical data only while neglecting the multitude of possibilities. Lets not limit ourselves to only arguments you think you can win, shall we?

It's OK. I don't expect someone like you to admit they were wrong.