Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Foreword:

This is just an idea, and I'm not talking from a position of authority on this subject, but I do believe it is worth exploring.


Explaination of reasoning:

As it seems to me, all this debate about power projection, the SOV system and proliferation/abuse of apex force, is missing the real base issue here.

No one disagrees that large coalitions and alliances are killing null content by being able to completely overwhelm smaller forces in null-sec without the smaller force having any real viable tactics to resist them. In order to solve this issue, the power and unassailable position a group of players achieves simply by being large and controlling lots of space needs to be alleviated in some way.

In the real world all throughout history, there have been situations in which a smaller, less well financed force has been able to thwart or even destroy larger, much better funded groups through guerrilla warfare. While disruptive tactics are viable to a degree in Null warfare, they are very limited in their effect and often have little lasting effect and require an insane amount of dedication and time to have an effect on large groups.

Oft times large war efforts have collapsed under their own weight (for example Napoleon's invasion of Russia) and almost in every case the failure of these otherwise overwhelming forces comes down to a failure in planning/execution, or disruption of, logistics. I'm talking supply chains people! =P Supply chains and logistics in general are almost always the weak point of a larger/superior force, but as it stands in EVE at this time, this does not seem to be the case.

The difficulty of supplying and maintaining a group or war effort should increase exponentially with size, as it stands now, it does not, and in some cases in EVE it may actually become easier.

We need to find a way of making supply logistics scale with size, and make supply chains viable target in wars.

---

So, here is my suggestion.

Make major supply lines static to some degree.

How I suggest this may be achieved is by making jump freighters as they function currently less viable for large scale supply logistics, and replacing them with freighters and Jump Bridges.


Proposed changes:

1: Change jump mechanics to function similar to the new WH mechanics, varying distance depending on mass (possibly compounded by amount of cargo being carried)

2: Effective mass reduction when using jump bridges for JFs or freighters

3: Reduce jump range of JFs

(Edit) 4: Make freighters unable to use Titan jump portals.

I believe these changes would conspire to force alliances to set up static shipping lanes that would be vulnerable to disruption, as well as making jump freighters less viable/reliable in supplying a group the larger it becomes. This will allow for smaller groups to starve out larger groups entirely or even the playing field. And increase the logistics strains on larger groups, encouraging smaller and more groups, thus more dynamic politics, and thus more conflict.

It will hopefully also encourage smaller groups to become more dependent on local resources.


Please only civil discourse, I believe I may be on to something here, and would appreciate honest and civil criticism of the idea.

I mean jump bridges as in the POS structures, not titan jump portals.

Edit: Just found out freighters can use Titan jump portals, that seems kind of silly to me, but for what i suggested to be viable, that would need to be removed as well.

I didnt know that frieghters could use jump portals, I have edited for that.




These would be limited for volume and expose the carriers to being intercepted more frequently.




I dont, want it to be more than its worth. I want more small factions and for those factions to have viable opportunities for guerrilla warfare and potential resistance to larger forces.

And im not suggesting that any group have zero logistical links to high sec, that could never happen, and i wouldnt want it anyway. Im meerly suggesting that a small group could produce the comparatively small amount of ammo and fuel needed locally much easier than it would be to ship it in, thus making them more difficult to disrupt in that manner.

Well im suggesting that smaller groups would be able to use JFs becuase they need less volume of supplies. Or would only need to use their shipping lane once a week for example.

Where a large alliance wouldnt be able to feasibly use jump freighters for everything, and would need to use shipping lanes more often, thus opening them up to raids and mistakes with greater frequency than that of a smaller alliance.

But a bigger group has more JFs, more JF pilots, and more warm bodies they can use to defend said routes. Taking out a CFC JF isn't going to matter much, while taking out a JF from a small group that only has a handful of them is going to be a much bigger loss.

Hence the change to cyno landing ranges and JF range. More time in space, more chances to mess up and less options in jump routes. And while blowing up one CFC JF might be a drop in a bucket, theyd be active and open to hunting on a more frequent basis, where one JF loss for a smaller group would be a larger hit, there would only be a few of them operating, and thus fewer chances to catch one.

In that scenario, a shipping lane of Jump bridges on POSes would require less time in space, and less jumps. But open them up to disruption from smaller groups in a different way.

I personally think you are misguided here. A gaming company creates the rules system that cover how players and NPC's interact with each other, but that is not content. Content is what the hell the show is about. It is the WHY. Not the HOW.

In some games, the content of the game is fed to you by corporate storytellers: Why are you doing XYZ: To save the princess, to get this treasure, to conquer the Galaxy, to save the universe, to escape hell, to save your soul, etc, etc, etc.

In other games, the content is generated by players: My old-school D&D and WoD games were constantly evolving campaigns completely led by player and GM actions.

Many companies ofter Mod tools to their playerbase to tap community creativity, which may easily create far more content than any company can produce.

EvE has very little CCP produced content. Are you really running Damsel in Distress to save that slutty wench? Sure, some players eat this up and call it good content, but most players have a different purpose for running that mission.

Does player interaction create content? When that interaction provides the WHY you pursue your path in game, it certainly does.

Now, as to the Op, your proposal does very little to improve EvE. I've been doing small gang nullsec PvP for many years now, and your proposal would do nothing to improve the Sov System, to improve small gang PvP in nullsec, or to really benefit the game. Things need to change, but I don't think this is the right change.

Yeah that is true. I can see my concept acting as a pretty serious barrier of entry for new entities instead of causing old and large enteties, bloated with members, collapsing in on themselves due to logistical failures.

In any case it boils down to this: I believe that huge alliances and coalitions are ****** for EVE. The logistics for any group or project of sufficient size should be a major limiting factor. Supply chain disruption/raiding would be fun and awesome and add a new dynamic to conflicts

Im not entirely sure how those things could be achieved, but I believe that my initial suggestion may be a good way to do it, given refinement.

Again, I must disagree with you Mike. There are several reasons things are shipped in from Jita.

1.) Supply of Materials:
♦ Building items, especially the universally utilized T2 modules and ships, requires access to processed moongoo materials, datacores, PI materials, and large quantities of minerals. Several of those items are ubiquitously available throughout the universe, and moreso in nullsec. However, several of those items are region specific resources. For example, look at the distribution of R32 and R64 Moons throughout the universe. In every region, you only have a fraction of the moon types available, which simplistically means with local resources you can only build a fraction of the t2 modules in the game, and fewer t2 ships. Datacores, which are needed for invention, pragmatically cannot be found in nullsec, and are an empire-only source (from FW LP). The point, big or small, every nullsec alliance is dependent on empire for their materials of war.

2.) Supply, compared to demand, already creates scarcity within the game. While valuable resources are an excellent conflict driver, when capitalistic heads prevails the situation grows fairly unhealthy in EvE. For example, before moongoo was rebalanced Tech moons were a major bottleneck in t2 production. There are a limited number of Tech moons in the game (~275), and eventually the oligopoly (OTEC) developed that further restricted the supply. In their prime, a single Tech moon earned 15b isk a month in profits. To be honest, the superpowers we have today came to power using the profits of these moons. CCP rebalanced T2 materials, which resulted in a devalue of Tech moons, and that is when our current superpowers moved to the current rental system to fund their war machines.

3.) Take a look at who's movement gets restricted as you limit the availability of jump fuel. Is it the independent 250 person alliance living in NPC nullsec (often very deep in Nullsec)? They pragmatically have very little alliance level income (pretend it is 20b a month), and cannot afford the scarce jump fuel. Or is it the mighty CFC alliances, that collectively bring in trillions of isk every month? Who's going to secure these scarce resources? Is it the small independent alliances, or is it the monoliths? Your proclamation will result in large coalitions forming a new Oligopoly around jump fuel, and they will hoard it so they can actually travel, while smaller groups simply won't have a chance.


Right now, you are looking at the supply and demand problem from the wrong side. We shouldn't be focusing on limiting the supply of force projection. We should be focused on limiting the DEMAND for force projection. Taking sov centers around major EHP structures that a conventional force cannot hope to grind on any reasonable timeframe. What's more, the series of RF timers make it so the defenders have abundant opportunity to counter attack at a time most optimal for them. The result is, the only way you can win a Sov battle is to have an overwhelming force. This is what needs to change. Remove the need for an Apex force. At the same time, encourage more people to fly in space. I don't care what they are doing, so long as they are in a vulnerable ship, flying around space.