These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pre-CSM Summit Nullsec and Sov Thread

First post First post
Author
Hugh Jappendage
Doomheim
#221 - 2014-09-13 11:04:04 UTC
TCU's should only be destructible by flying an inty (needs T2 resists esp thermal) down an exhaust port to a central power core to shoot it. This removes the need for supers.
Whether the inty makes it back out isn't something I care strongly about.

Inty only has 1 chance (system wide timer seen by everyone) per hour, no 'I'm going back for another run' hero carp...

Inty can only attempt & be successful once more than 50% of the planets in system have been sbu'd by new Planetary Claim Units which are 350k m3 in size.

CCP could put white Crow skins in Nex store....

Disclaimer: I am in no way 'borrowing' an idea from any film I've ever seen that may or may not involve spaceships...

Reset all sov and start from nothing with this method of taking space (starts with Interbus Sov & TCU's)

Lol
scotayne hawkins
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2014-09-13 11:37:54 UTC
remove local null that will fix the bot's, sovernity biggest blob will always win so no fixing that
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#223 - 2014-09-13 11:43:59 UTC
MASSADEATH wrote:
Being one of the small null sec alliances that fights the CFC and goons daily here is my take.

Even though we have 1300 in alliance and in the range of 60+ capitals we can never field them or we will be crushed. The speed at which the enemy can bridge ships in our area makes most of our capital usage rare and ninja in fashion. (in fact that goes for subcapitals as well)

The JB network allows the enemy to bridge ahead of us even using ceptors, it has basically made gate travel non existant in vast portions of null.

The defensive SBU ability is silly.


and the vast HP to take out structures and multi tiered timers actually makes it every hard for smaller groups to try and disrupt and hurt the enemy. Since they can travel vast distances with their capital forces to defend for timers.

so fast and quick attacks cannot be done. Even though most of the time there is no one around in most of the enemy space, the quick time to build a blob and move it is a huge restriction for small attacking forces.


Most of their vast area lies undefended 99% of the time, however timers allow these much larger numerical forces to bring blobs to bear, compound that with instant travel times for capital and subcapital forces, and it makes it almost impossable for smaller entities to take ground.


The enemy like in any war should have to choose where to place defensive fleets....and by that choice leave areas weak for attack.

Thats not the case now... they are equally positioned to defend everywhere.

I dont think "the alpha" wrecking ball ect is the issue.... the issue is the wrecking ball can be anywhere and everywhere instantly. Especially since they know when and where the timers will be.




I'm not sure if you've ever travelled through the jump bridge network but it's more of a convenience rather than some major strategic asset.

As for timers. They are required or people would have no incentive to have expensive structures in space if they could wake up in the morning and find that a fleet of ninja Dreadnoughts had blown up their capital construction tower during the night.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Black Canary Jnr
Higher Than Everest
#224 - 2014-09-13 11:45:33 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:


Incursions.. They are finally viable in Nullsec
.



I agree on one point: you can make just as much, if not more isk in 0.0 incursion than highsec.

However the issue remains that we still only have 2 or 3 0.0 incursions, so in the respect of being a semi-dependable income source they are not viable and high sec is still king for incursions. To relay the stats on systems by sec status again:

Quote:

• 1,212 highsec
• 695 lowsec
• 3,294 nullsec
• 2,498 w-space
• 230 dev-space


I'm glad CCP is going to release some sort of dev blog on sov discussion afterwards. I hope that you will go into some thoughts on popular suggestions like farm and fields, more occupancy based sov suggestions and revamps of dominion in it.Thank you for being so considerate of player feedback anyways, it is very much appreciated by players, even if we don't do a good job of voicing it :)
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#225 - 2014-09-13 12:05:17 UTC
Changes to null sec Sov.

A lot of people are saying nerf this, nerf that. But i think eve is super hard, and there is no need to nerf it eaven more.

rather would be cool to change things, force people to fly small gang, and a massive blobs only for things like station Destructions \o/


People should be able to criple rattion systems by solo players or small gangs, Posted by sokole oko i will try to add the link later.

but it was reinfocing upgrades in iHUb to make them offline for few hours.

small timer like 10-15 min and than 1M EHP or something and upgrades are going offline for few hours.

Less blob grind and waiting for timers, but a good fluid constant fight for dominace.

With new mechanicks, like if there are more than a 5 players within 100km of becon, from the paticular allince timer stop.

And limit the grid like in Tournamets by adding toxic cloud on the grid that will eat 10% of shis hit points per second or something.

loking the sites some how to prevent blobing. 5 players or less from atacking corp/aliance and 5 or less from defending site

ofc than people will lock the sites with some shity alt's, soo i have no idea whot to do about that ;p, maybe only 5 fleet members could be in the site?

some th


Most important thing is to remove the misndles structure grind and make it posible for very small groups of organized people to hit and take sov from big boy's. And hold the ground by taking the becons if the have stamina to do so.


But some thing should be left for super big fight. and these are stations and some times, ihubs.

taking over ihub when you grind up the system, with small fire power. with all the upgrades, and become the new landlord \o/


i think that would be super cool. people would not be able to hold a mass of empty space. small pvp corporations would be able to take over and hold systems.

i say to thee, no more shity timers, let's fight for our stuff insted of hiding under the cloud of numbers.Twisted



i am sure that Devs will make the right decisions. there is no need to remove Jump bridges etc. etc. Pirate

only thing needed is to give players a chance by making the right mechanicks in the game \o/ so the can actualy fight, have fun
and become the new legendary wariors.


Nobaudee
EVE University
Ivy League
#226 - 2014-09-13 12:44:48 UTC
I see a lot of talk about the economics in null.


I would only say Don't Completely Disconnect Null Sec And High Sec.


If it gets to the point where a group can go to null and never need to leave then you will end up with two separate games internally.


Just like there needs to be reasons for high sec dwellers to move to low and null there needs to be reasons for low and null to travel back to high sec, even if temporarily.


Just remember that everything can't be perfect. There should be weaknesses built into systems. It is those weaknesses that keep things flowing.
Kaiio
Space Fukery
#227 - 2014-09-13 12:49:50 UTC
Not directly a change to nullsec but i didn't feel like making a new thread for this.

I'm suggesting an idea that breaks the AFK cloaky camping of system, it is ridiculous that 1 person can decide to effectively shut down an entire system by parking someone cloaked in it.

It would go something like this, the sun emits some sort of pulse every random amount of minutes which deactivates cloaks, this would mean that you'd have to be actively behind the computer in order to cloaky camp a system.
In order for this effect not to bother active cloaking fleets too much is to start a visible 1 minute timer before the sun emits this pulse.

Just figured i'd throw this idea out there
thelaststanden
M.I.M.M.S
#228 - 2014-09-13 13:24:02 UTC  |  Edited by: thelaststanden
WHEN IT'S ALL DONE AND SAID!

BRACE YOUR SELF FOR
SOMETHING SO
FANTASTICALLY
FANTASTICAL YOU'LL SOIL
YOURSELF FROM
INTERGALACTIC
EXCITEMENT




USE IT OR LOSE IT! KEEP THESES INDEX LEVELS UP!
Grave Digger Eriker
Doomheim
#229 - 2014-09-13 13:36:58 UTC
scotayne hawkins wrote:
remove local null that will fix the bot's, sovernity biggest blob will always win so no fixing that

Have you EVER lived in NullSec? Most bots are in Highsec not Null and removing Local would just turn NullSec into a poor version of Wormhole space.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#230 - 2014-09-13 13:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
How about this as a sov rebalance:

Rework sov to be similar to FW system grinding, except expanded to where sov goes by constellation, instead of by system; sort of a large-scale "campaign" by the alliance if you will. Taking a page from FW would be a good idea in how the ihub system works there since it's tried and true. Instead of FW timer plexes, in null the basic NPC ownership of a system already goes to the rats who live there, so it would make sense for them to be the ones really owning it, and have the capsuleers pay rent to them (gives renter empires a funny sort of meta). Set it up so the pirate complexes/sanctums or what have you count towards the contested level of the system as complex capping in FW, and if you clear enough of the complexes in one system over time and many spawns, the ihub (or alternate giant fortress thingamajig) goes vulnerable as it works in the other system, and you have to flip it.

The difference from FW at that point would be that the system would remain lost until the entire constellation gets flipped, leading to an incentive for focused "campaigns" in a given area that would appropriately pool alliance and coalition manpower and resources and focus them in a given area for an extended duration. This leaves a nice progression that scales up null from FW lowsec, and allows for easy integration as it uses a lot of the same code and concepts that FW does, minus the whole "Warzone tier" BS we have to deal with. Infrastructure hubs that normally control the system in fw low would be scaled up big-time to gigantic citadel structures the size of a station, with HUGE HP pools to compensate for the potential for huge capital fleets on field.

The sanctums that are being run would pop up on the overview, and would reset after an appropriate amount of time if they were defended properly against the enemy; I'll throw anywhere from 20 minutes to a full hour as a ballpark number for it. Capsuleer "campaigns" as they would be called could also be similar to incursions in that they would be visible on the map, and have a noted system graphics and audio change like the sansha ones do (albeit different). While this is optional, it would help with the immersion, I think. Scannable combat sites would not contest the system.

Decontesting a system would involve running new combat sites in the system called "capsuleer beachheads" with different titles denoting their size. These would be complexes/sanctums filled with a number of mercenary rats that you'd have to clear, and would spawn with scaling regularity in relation to the contested level of a system; same with the local sanctums that would be offensively plexed. Example would be if a system is 10% contested, you'd have a lot more pirate sanctums than beachheads since the enemy just has their foot in the door, and if a system was 90% contested, you'd have a lot more beachheads than pirate complexes, since their forces have been depleted by being hit hard by the enemy.

Pros:
-At its core, it's all-out space warfare on a huge scale. Sanctums are big, null fleets are big, and it opens up a lot of avenues for awesome fights.
-It encourages organic gameplay
-It makes good use of local "terrain"
-The mechanics behind it from the bottom up are sound as they extrapolate from FW and incursions and simply scale it up.
-It encourages alliances and coalitions to coordinate and focus more coherently and sanely on these "campaigns"
-The inherent mechanics would be conducive towards balancing fleet sizes and doctrines, while accommodating for larger blobs in the bashes, and not barring the effective usage of capital skirmishes in the complexes.
-It promotes healthy teamwork, as a focused campaign within a given constellation would bring out quite a few players, and would look fairly similar to a hisec incursion or higher in terms of local population demographics.

Cons:
-It would be fairly intense, and very resource and time-intensive. Capping a system would require frequent fleets out on both sides, and the potential for clusterf*ckery on citadel bashes would be even more insane than in lowsec, especially with all that extra hp.
-It would be a massive change that would induce quite a bit of chaos and upheaval for alliances that have gotten by renting out their space and slowly grinding sov in a controlled fashion in drawn-out, pre-planned events. It would require an entirely different meta and integrated strategies.
-Since station lockouts would apply in the same way as they do in FW, the stability of assets would be a serious concern. Granted, it gives people more incentive to fight over and defend their space, I can see people leaving their stuff behind becoming more of an issue.
-There would be a lot of balancing and groundwork to cover to make sure it doesn't get messed up in the same way dominion sov did.

Thoughts?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2014-09-13 13:58:54 UTC
Kaiio wrote:

I'm suggesting an idea that breaks the AFK cloaky camping of system, it is ridiculous that 1 person can decide to effectively shut down an entire system by parking someone cloaked in it.


Straight... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything?

If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you?
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile
Deep Thought Labs
#232 - 2014-09-13 14:14:43 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:


Straight... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything?

If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you?


2 things off the top of my head

1. Blackops Drops
2. Proper PVP fit ship can gank a PVE ship quickly
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#233 - 2014-09-13 14:22:51 UTC
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:


Straight... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything?

If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you?


2 things off the top of my head

1. Blackops Drops
2. Proper PVP fit ship can gank a PVE ship quickly


But if they're AFK, they cannot harm you.
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile
Deep Thought Labs
#234 - 2014-09-13 14:24:22 UTC
If you have a way to confirm they are, in fact, AFK.

Absolutely Not Analt
Carebears on Fire
Viral Society
#235 - 2014-09-13 14:25:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Absolutely Not Analt
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:


Straight... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything?

If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you?


2 things off the top of my head

1. Blackops Drops
2. Proper PVP fit ship can gank a PVE ship quickly


But if they're AFK, they cannot harm you.


As much as I agree with Adrie, and the others who present ideas for trapping and killing cloakers, I fully expect CCP to do something to nerf the perfect protection that cloaking offers, simply based on the volume of the whine surrounding it. Whether they also do something about the perfect intel of local at the same time is probably up for debate.

The most likely idea, I suspect, is something ship mountable that lets you track them down, which will deal with the AFK cloakers, but allow the active ones to continue to operate with impunity (as they should).

Eve is a multi player game. And you are the content. - Ralph King-Griffin Being meh at two things is not better than being great at one. - Lugh Crow-Slave

Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#236 - 2014-09-13 14:30:55 UTC
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:


Straight... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything?

If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you?


2 things off the top of my head

1. Blackops Drops
2. Proper PVP fit ship can gank a PVE ship quickly


But if they're AFK, they cannot harm you.


As much as I agree with Adrie, and the others who present ideas for trapping and killing cloakers, I fully expect CCP to do something to nerf the perfect protection that cloaking offers, simply based on the volume of the whine surrounding it. Whether they also do something about the perfect intel of local at the same time is probably up for debate.

The most likely idea, I suspect, is something ship mountable that lets you track them down, which will deal with the AFK cloakers, but allow the active ones to continue to operate with impunity (as they should).

Cloaks using capacitor would be a good way to balance things, I think. Makes some medium and large cloaks along with their t2, and set the cap usage up so that barring covops ships, *most* ships would have trouble staying permanently cloaked unless they had a cap regen rig/mod or two.

Damn that's a good idea; gonna post that as a thread.
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2014-09-13 14:33:22 UTC
Make SOV holdable only by corps with active players, remove possibility to have holder corps controlled by alliances. Alliances have to be held together by diplomatic skills, corps become valuable assets instead of more grunts to the meat grinder, corps can be attacked by military force and/or threats/bribes and their sov taken by hostile corps. Cap possible size of corps. In short, empower corps, nerf alliances. Fun chaos and small scale wars and more dynamic playing will ensue!

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2014-09-13 14:45:51 UTC
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:

The most likely idea, I suspect, is something ship mountable that lets you track them down, which will deal with the AFK cloakers, but allow the active ones to continue to operate with impunity (as they should).


A ship module could work. It could be like a system wide pulse that is sent out that and if the cloaked ship doesn't go through some process to counteract the plus in say 5 minutes, the cloak drops. However, the ship sending out the pulse should not be able to dock, move, jump a gate or be near a pos for around 1-5 minutes after activating such a device.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#239 - 2014-09-13 14:47:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Align Planet1 wrote:
If you're going to reconsider the high level goals of the sov mechanics, it would be enormously helpful to have a discussion on what the justifications are for having de jure sovereignty in the first place.

If 0.0 is supposed to be "lawless" space, ownership by fiat (i.e. arbitrary game mechanics) seems to contradict that principle. All of the actual benefits of controlling a system -- and the mechanics that enable it -- could remain in place without the contrivance of a Territorial Claim Unit. In other words, perhaps player groups should be able to build infrastructure hubs, CSAA's, jump bridges, etc., or even plant a pretty flag, in any system at any time. The only requirement for keeping those structures and reaping the benefits would be the ability of owners to defend them. That would be the purest expression of occupancy-based sov.

Just to be clear, this isn't about "fixing" the current sov mechanics. I'm questioning whether they should exist at all.
I like the brutal simplicity of it....

Want to hold space? do so by the barrel of a gun.
Want to build something? Anywhere? go ahead, but be prepared to defend it with the barrel of a gun.

Edit: This was how it was 10 years ago - there was no 'sov'; players drew the map (even though there were no 'formal' alliance structures at the time) - it was simple, dynamic and not a timer in sight.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Jori McKie
African Atomic.
Train Wreck.
#240 - 2014-09-13 15:06:54 UTC
Some time ago, i had some ideas about a dynamic system securtiy especially for PvE rewards, not so much about sov but maybe this could help.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1391139#post1391139

The topic is locked for now.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar