These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
CIA Agent
Colonial Industries
#341 - 2014-09-15 15:43:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nerriana wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Nerriana wrote:


Here are couple ideas about Agents on Player Owned Stations:

ArrowAs CONCORD (and pirates) are neutral, so are the agents. Agent-bearing station must be open and accessible to everyone. As long as the agent is in residence (including a week-long "warning period" which sends notification to anyone with any items on station after owner cancels agents' contract), the station cannot be closed to anyone. This allows pirate population to control the carebear population and keeps carebears on their toes.

ArrowStation services are available to everyone at same price as long as agent is in residence. Profits from station services naturally go to the owning corp. Otherwise, if you want to get fancy, you could allow other corps to buy, install and maintain their own service modules and run a bit of competition...

ArrowStation owners naturally pay for the privilege of having agent(s) on station. This cost naturally escalates with mission levels available. This is, of course, in addition to normal station costs.


All good ideas here!

I highly doubt (for example) CFC liking the idea that anyone can dock in any of their stations that isn't CFC...doesn't matter if it has agents or not.


Nobody in null will like the idea. Outposts are a huge investment for anyone to make and letting everyone to dock means defending it becomes a nightmare of station games.


The Point is that without such drawbacks the agent on station would become a huge, private ISK faucet for alliance/coalition carebears hiding behind n jumps of intel-channel monitored sov.

The Station owner would have a real incentive to keep station open to everyone and have to make hard choices about profitability vs. security.


How is it a huge private isk fauset when literally everyone has access to them in high sec?



well to be fair what u can do is open it to everyone and charge a docking fee to non blues and make it so much that people cant afford to dock. but i do like the idea of missions agents in outposts
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#342 - 2014-09-15 16:27:01 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
Carniflex wrote:

any balance should be focused on the fact that power projection can not be avoided and the best cure for that is that there is no doctrines which can be only and only countered by having more of the same ship.


Putting a pod anyone on the map doesn't equivocate to putting an individual standing fleet (especially of the capital variety) anywhere on the map.

I'm more than aware of the mental hurdles people will jump through to try and suggest this isn't the case. But it flat out is.

And putting bodies in cruisers and battleships is a far cry from dreads and slowcats. And if we want to play mental hurdles... even if someone also stages capital fleets all over the galaxy with jump clones/podding themselves around between them, it's one measure further away from the current state of blinking fleets wherever we want them instantly.

You can can repeat "power projection nerfs won't work" until your blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And as often as someone claims that, .. there will be a person like me explaining that literally every reform of null will be for not if the space and politics cannot be regionalized.


For any remotely organized entity the cost of dreads and slowcats is not an huge issue. Currently ofc you do not need multiple locations because these ships themselves are exceptionally mobile. But do not assume that if you somehow manage cap the capital travel speed then the major coalitions will not start maintaining multiple pre-deployed capital fleets if the slowdown is significant enough.

Take, for example, various T3 or faction battleship doctrines employed which can run up to slightly under 1 bil/pop. And ofc you do not need to go excessive for power projection. A 200 tengus + 50 scimis is reasonably overwhelming, for example, against an entity that can field up to ~50 guys. Anyway - there is no point over nit-picking over the details of the doctrines. Some doctrines always exist and cost should be a balancing factor (as the number of Titans in game clearly demonstrates) so it's safe to assume that if doctrines exist powerblocks will be able to afford them if they need to. Even if it would mean maintaining 500+ capital ship piles in three separate locations over the EVE Universe, for example.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#343 - 2014-09-15 17:01:44 UTC
CIA Agent wrote:
well to be fair what u can do is open it to everyone and charge a docking fee to non blues and make it so much that people cant afford to dock. but i do like the idea of missions agents in outposts


The problem with mission agents from outposts is that mission runners are so much harder to catch than normal ratters, due to having to scan them down.

All of a sudden nullsec isk making gets even safer than it already is.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
CIA Agent
Colonial Industries
#344 - 2014-09-15 17:11:16 UTC
Force Projection for noobs..

a carrier with jump cal 5 which takes months of training and fuel conservation 4 the max jump range of a archon (all carriers) is 14.6 light years. the closest i could get to that distance was 14.02 light years in this

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Archon,544/Ihakana:Aunenen

as you can see it will cost a single archon roughtly 12,655 units of fuel to make 1 jump. and to go back to the system it started in is another 12,655. thats a total of 25,310 per round trip 1 max distance jump away.

currently helium isotopes are going for about 1,084 at the time of this post in amarr, one of the cheepest locations for it in empire as shown below

http://www.eve-central.com/home/quicklook.html?typeid=16274

so if we take the cost per unit of helium and multiply it by the amount of fuel required 25,310 x 1,084 you get 27,436,040 isk to move 1 system and back. now since we are crying about fleets of archons, lets multiply the amount of fuel to go 1 round trip at max distance for 250 archons. 25,310 x 250 = 6,327,500 units of helium. now lets find the cost of that.. 6,327,500 x 1,084 = 6,859,010,000 isk.

so with a cost to move a 250 man archon fleet to its location and then back again providing it took no damage on the move it will cost the archon fleet almost 7 billion isk to go 28 light years which again is 1 max distance jump cycle and back again.

lets now put it in perspective. say a 250 man slowcat fleet Formed in the NC staging system of FAT and went to kill some poor capitals to get to nisuwa the location of the recent eve bet event. that would equal 82.5 light years.. 41.25 there and 41.25 back.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Archon,544/FAT-6P:Nisuwa

a total amount of 18,561,500 helium isotopes and multiply that by isotope cost 18,561,500 x 1084 = 20,120,666,000 isk.
fuel consumption per light year is the same across all capital class ships. with the excaption of JFs which pay alot more.

titans would also cost alot more since we dont have the reach to get there and no one has an entire titan route setup with everyone online at one time so alot of the time titans have to follow the fleet to bridge again putting them at risk as well as costing them stupid amounts of fuel to bridge.

so in the end u complain about force projection of capitals and how over powered they are but u have no idea how much it costs to move such a fleet. so 20 billion isk is the cost for an average 250 man carrier fleet to reach across eve and go home.. if you still think this is broken then no one can help your stupidity.

thank you all for your time
CIA Agent
Colonial Industries
#345 - 2014-09-15 17:12:19 UTC  |  Edited by: CIA Agent
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
CIA Agent wrote:
well to be fair what u can do is open it to everyone and charge a docking fee to non blues and make it so much that people cant afford to dock. but i do like the idea of missions agents in outposts


The problem with mission agents from outposts is that mission runners are so much harder to catch than normal ratters, due to having to scan them down.

All of a sudden nullsec isk making gets even safer than it already is.



ummm.. whats ur point? u should be able to jump into a system and instantly find the guys ratting?

RVB is that way m8------>
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#346 - 2014-09-15 17:20:12 UTC
CIA Agent wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
CIA Agent wrote:
well to be fair what u can do is open it to everyone and charge a docking fee to non blues and make it so much that people cant afford to dock. but i do like the idea of missions agents in outposts


The problem with mission agents from outposts is that mission runners are so much harder to catch than normal ratters, due to having to scan them down.

All of a sudden nullsec isk making gets even safer than it already is.



ummm.. whats ur point? u should be able to jump into a system and instantly find the guys ratting?

RVB is that way m8------>


RvB is right here!!!

Just submit a application at Red Federation or Blue Republic, and within minutes you'll have access to hundreds of ships per day to kill!

Don't wait!

Apply Today!

...
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#347 - 2014-09-15 17:27:48 UTC
Total Destruction of Outpost Services
First, let's clear the air. This is not about destroying the actual station itself and thus destroying all of the assets inside as well. In fact this is the complete opposite. The TL:DR

  • All "standard" station services can be destroyed
  • Player assets minus insurance rates and jobs in process (up to a max 40% loss of initial value) are immune
  • Requires overhaul on station upgrade cost structure and HP values
  • Gives small groups, roaming gangs, and large entities options for harassment

    • The intended purpose is to provide a way for everyone to have an impact on the largest group, and inversely the smallest group, equally by giving players a way to force strategic fights and/or punish groups for applying the "dock up and make them feel bored so they don't come back" strategy.

    For any of this to work, there needs to be an overhaul on the pricing structure for upgrades and adding a cost to build the station services. The work around here is that scientist found a way to combine "insert conflict driving material" and standard minerals, allowing the structural integrity required for station services to be reached at using significantly less materials. The trade-off, the relative HP against attacks when considering capsuleer weapons decreased significantly. That part is important. We now have cost effective, replaceable station parts that can be destroyed by roaming gangs and large groups alike. The result? Roaming gangs can now actively make a station obsolete when targets can't be found or decide to dock up which forces people to actively defend their systems. Strategic value comes in the way of choosing when to destroy station services, i.e. blob comes and you're losing your station regardless bc they need the staging point so pop all of the station services before you leave.

    As for the conflict driving material. A new substance was found only in high sec space. Scientist discovered it was radioactively created by constant engine exhaust in heavily populated areas (hence highsec only). The mineral needs to be mined out. The properties of the new mineral require extreme caution. When in natural form, it can be mined using special crystals (similar to mercoxit mining), but due to the radioactive makeup the mineral quickly changes properties and becomes extremely heavy which means hauling it requires DST or bigger. Given the high levels of radioactivity the mineral cannot be JF'ed or Titan bridged....so yes that requires freighter runs to get the large amounts out to nullsec. Results? More activity in space as people are having to move the new mineral around. (No, you can't keep the mineral in a Mack's ore hold and then jump a rorqual around)

    Station Services:
  • Repair facility - can no longer repair a ship or modules until the service is replaced
  • Reprocessing plant - can no longer refine products until the service is replaced
  • Fitting services - can't refit your ships (mobile depots kinda of defeat this one though)
  • Medical clone services - clones aren't destroyed, however due to the destruction of the office all records of your clone details were destroyed. Fortunately you have renters insurance (because every apartment owner should :D) so the insurance company will pay 60% (can change is number) of the original clone's cost once the service has been replaced.
  • Insurance services - due to the bureaucracy of this industry, all records are kept on two different kinds of media. However, an explosion means most things go bye bye. After destroying this service, all active insurance contracts made at the station are voided. Fortunately there is a 40% ( number up for debate) that the insurance company will find your contract agreement while cleaning up the wreckage thus granting your insurance coverage back.
  • Manufacturing center - all jobs installed are now put at some level of risk. Once destroyed, there is a 75% (number up for debate) that your materials will be recovered. However the lost time cannot be replaced.
  • Station outpost - all corporate hangar assets become impounded until the fee is paid to interbus (yeah they still own some parts of your station and hey, let's be honest they need the cash flow after their POCO investment flop).


    • Anyways, the idea is that players have a different way to harass an enemy besides bore them to death or tidi them out of the game. It would add real value to the game and make defending your space meaningful, which in turn makes roaming in space meaningful again as well. This can be abused by large groups and small groups alike, but given the low cost and alternative options (POS, mobile deployables, etc) there are ways around not getting grieved into oblivion. The key is to balance the cost and HP appropriately so that even the little guy can get his foot in the door while at the same having an impact on operations to nullsec blocs like the cfc through a "thousand little cuts"

    --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
    Ninteen Seventy-Nine
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #348 - 2014-09-15 18:57:32 UTC
    CIA Agent wrote:


    so in the end u complain about force projection of capitals and how over powered they are but u have no idea how much it costs to move such a fleet. so 20 billion isk is the cost for an average 250 man carrier fleet to reach across eve and go home.. if you still think this is broken then no one can help your stupidity.

    thank you all for your time


    Force projection for newbs:

    Who the hell ever said it had anything to do with isk cost?
    No one can help your stupidity.
    Thank you for your time.

    "The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
    Abbadon21
    Ignotis Imperium
    Usurper.
    #349 - 2014-09-15 19:12:08 UTC
    I have been writing about this topic recently (and about Force Projection) on my site.

    I encourage everyone to read this article and the comments:
    http://www.eveproguides.com/force-projection-killing-eve/

    Here are some ideas to fix EVE and stop the accelerating loss of players:

    1. Remove the ability to restrict access to stations in Sov Null Sec
    -This will make deep Sov more dangerous and create content. Everyone can Dock at outposts but the owners can still charge for services (within limits).

    2. Remove 10% of Sov Null Sec today
    -Face it, there aren't enough people in Null and the fact that you can roam through 30+ systems and not see anyone in some cases means it's too big. Shrink it and create more conflict.

    3. Remove Timers from Sov Warfare
    -Timers encourage Defensive Warfare (Blob Warfare). Everyone has time to amass huge fleets to engage in mind numbing F1 TIDI fights. Don't encourage these fights.
    -Instead use onlining Timers and single Sov Modules. No SBUs, just one module that controls Sov for that system. Give it the HP of a POCO but NO REINFORCE. Online Delay of 15 minutes where it is half hitpoints or something.

    4. Station are conquerable without timers.
    -You can't restrict access but you can take over the station and gain control of it's income. Make this something similar to the HP of a Large Control Tower.

    5. Nerf Titans
    -Titans must Bridge from outside a POS Shield
    -Titan Bridges have a mass limitation and cool down timer. No more than 5-10 ships through every minute.

    6. Nerf Jump Bridges
    -Either Remove them all together or find some other way to make them less useful.

    7. Remove Passive Moon Mining from the game
    -EVE's biggest problem right now is that everyone is consolidating into large coalitions in an effort to control the ISK Sinks. This then allows them to easily fund Supercarriers and Titans, and thus make them vastly overpopulated. Owning a super capital today is roughly the same difficulty and frequency as owning a carrier 6 years ago.
    -Passive Income encourages bad gameplay and laziness. Make people work for ISK.
    -Make Moons actively mined by mining barges or even by mining capitals. Maybe a new capital that you park on a Moon and mine, all the while vulnerable to attack.

    8. Make Null Sec PVE more dangerous
    -Put a 10 second delay on Local
    -Make Plexes warpable without probing whenever someone is in them
    -Allow Black Ops drops inside Plexes but not Titan Bridges or Normal Cynos
    -Buff Belt Ratting in Low and Null Sec

    9. Fix Siphons
    -Siphons were a great addition to the game, but make them harder to detect and harder to kill.

    10. Add a new "Cynosural Disruption Field Generator" Module for Heavy Interdictors
    -No Cynos can be lit within 100km of the HIC
    -Draw back is you can't move, jump, or dock for one to five minutes once activated
    -Can be used on gates and stations

    11. Force Super Carriers to jump though a Capital Cyno that can only be lit by Carriers
    -To drop supers you must first drop a carrier on a regular cyno, then light a Capital Cyno on the carrier, delaying entrance.

    12. Only Three Capitals can jump through each Cyno, then 60 seconds cool down
    -Reduce Cyno durations by 50%
    -After 3 ships through cyno deactivates but ship still cannot move until cycle ends


    These changes will have a MASSIVE impact on the game. Some of them may even be unfeasible to do, but hopefully they give the Devs some ideas how they can get EVE back on track. The last thing I want to see is an EVE that is unplayable unless you join a mega coalition, which is where it's headed right now.

    I hope that these changes are made a priority and we see something in the next expansion.

    Learn How PRO Players Make Billions of ISK and Dominate PVP: http://www.EVEProGuides.com
    Adrie Atticus
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #350 - 2014-09-15 19:36:49 UTC
    Abbadon21 wrote:
    I have been writing about this topic recently (and about Force Projection) on my site.

    I encourage everyone to read this article and the comments:
    http://www.eveproguides.com/force-projection-killing-eve/

    Here are some ideas to fix EVE and stop the accelerating loss of players:

    1. Remove the ability to restrict access to stations in Sov Null Sec
    -This will make deep Sov more dangerous and create content. Everyone can Dock at outposts but the owners can still charge for services (within limits).

    2. Remove 10% of Sov Null Sec today
    -Face it, there aren't enough people in Null and the fact that you can roam through 30+ systems and not see anyone in some cases means it's too big. Shrink it and create more conflict.

    3. Remove Timers from Sov Warfare
    -Timers encourage Defensive Warfare (Blob Warfare). Everyone has time to amass huge fleets to engage in mind numbing F1 TIDI fights. Don't encourage these fights.
    -Instead use onlining Timers and single Sov Modules. No SBUs, just one module that controls Sov for that system. Give it the HP of a POCO but NO REINFORCE. Online Delay of 15 minutes where it is half hitpoints or something.

    4. Station are conquerable without timers.
    -You can't restrict access but you can take over the station and gain control of it's income. Make this something similar to the HP of a Large Control Tower.

    5. Nerf Titans
    -Titans must Bridge from outside a POS Shield
    -Titan Bridges have a mass limitation and cool down timer. No more than 5-10 ships through every minute.

    6. Nerf Jump Bridges
    -Either Remove them all together or find some other way to make them less useful.

    7. Remove Passive Moon Mining from the game
    -EVE's biggest problem right now is that everyone is consolidating into large coalitions in an effort to control the ISK Sinks. This then allows them to easily fund Supercarriers and Titans, and thus make them vastly overpopulated. Owning a super capital today is roughly the same difficulty and frequency as owning a carrier 6 years ago.
    -Passive Income encourages bad gameplay and laziness. Make people work for ISK.
    -Make Moons actively mined by mining barges or even by mining capitals. Maybe a new capital that you park on a Moon and mine, all the while vulnerable to attack.

    8. Make Null Sec PVE more dangerous
    -Put a 10 second delay on Local
    -Make Plexes warpable without probing whenever someone is in them
    -Allow Black Ops drops inside Plexes but not Titan Bridges or Normal Cynos
    -Buff Belt Ratting in Low and Null Sec

    9. Fix Siphons
    -Siphons were a great addition to the game, but make them harder to detect and harder to kill.

    10. Add a new "Cynosural Disruption Field Generator" Module for Heavy Interdictors
    -No Cynos can be lit within 100km of the HIC
    -Draw back is you can't move, jump, or dock for one to five minutes once activated
    -Can be used on gates and stations

    11. Force Super Carriers to jump though a Capital Cyno that can only be lit by Carriers
    -To drop supers you must first drop a carrier on a regular cyno, then light a Capital Cyno on the carrier, delaying entrance.

    12. Only Three Capitals can jump through each Cyno, then 60 seconds cool down
    -Reduce Cyno durations by 50%
    -After 3 ships through cyno deactivates but ship still cannot move until cycle ends


    These changes will have a MASSIVE impact on the game. Some of them may even be unfeasible to do, but hopefully they give the Devs some ideas how they can get EVE back on track. The last thing I want to see is an EVE that is unplayable unless you join a mega coalition, which is where it's headed right now.

    I hope that these changes are made a priority and we see something in the next expansion.


    1. Also allow us to turn off a station, rendering anyone and anything inside inaccessible and services need to have no upper limit on amount charged. Want free services? Conquer the station.
    2. Remove all systems between -0.01 and -0.39 and you'll have better space for everyone
    3. Buff EHP five-fold or more
    4. See 3
    5. Titans are already getting unsubscribed because CCP isn't enforcing their rules on bumping ships inside a POS, no need for that
    6. Sure, but impose same limits on stargates if a faction does not own sov on both sides
    7. Remove PI passive income
    8. They are already warpable without scanning, not sure what to think
    9. That requires removing features from the API's industry side, would be stupid
    10. Area of effect is too small, grids can be stretched to 500km
    11. Yay, entrance delayed for 5 seconds
    12. Yay, arbitrary limits

    Everyone can make suggestions which are overkill or borderline stupid, but at least visit a nullsec system to get you bearings on what they look like.
    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #351 - 2014-09-15 19:42:49 UTC
    So what I'm taking form this is it costs about 2% of the fitted cost to make a max range jump?

    Oh the humanity.
    Rowells
    Blackwater USA Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #352 - 2014-09-15 20:33:03 UTC
    I think I'm going to have to agree with baltec1 on the logistics thing. Logistics in combat turns todays combat almost into a 'winner-takes-all' scenario. A smaller force does not engage the larger group because they know the damage they can cause is minimal since the logistics can rep beyond their dps. Its the same reason that carrier fleets are so powerful; huge amounts of reps over long distances, relatively high ehp, higher-end dps compared to subcaps and unsieged dreads. its a very versatile ship performing well in all of its roles.

    We can take one hypothetical situation and see the predicted outcomes when you remove or reduce logistics (assuming both fleets decide to engage and all other things equal/constant):
    Fleet A has 250 members with 40 logistics
    Fleet B has 100 members with 20 logistics

    Scenario 1
    Fleet A has enough dps/alpha to destroy every ship in the enemy fleet
    Fleet B does not have enough dps or reps to destroy enemy ships or stay on the field

    Result 1
    Fleet A destroys Fleet B with minimal losses
    Fleet B suffers massive losses and loses the strategic objective

    Now lets reduce the effectiveness of logistics directly on the combat site.

    Scenario 2
    Fleet A has 250 members with 40 logistics
    Fleet B has 100 members and elected to leave logistics behind in an attempt to maximize impact

    Result 2
    Fleet A destroys Fleet B while losing an almost equivalent amount of ships (90-110)
    Fleet B is destroyed entirely, but manages to damage enemy fleet in a meaningful way

    The first scenario makes a victory almost entirely binary and causes fleet commanders to make decisions such as not even showing up since they know they will lose without much impact. Bored attacker grinding a structure and a blue-balled defender.

    The second scenario ends with a heavily damaged attacker, leaving them vulnerable to other entities lying in wait or a second fleet reformed to fight again with a better comparative advantage. This also means a fleet very far away from a base of operations is going to suffer from loss of ships without ability to easily re-ship. It doesn't remove the advantage of numbers and improves the effect of smaller fleets intending to do damage to their opponents before going down in a blaze of glory.

    I think that logistics still has a role in fleets, just not on the battlefield itself. I imagine logistics on subcaps and carriers can be repurposed to be used elsewhere.
    Ninteen Seventy-Nine
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #353 - 2014-09-15 21:44:27 UTC
    Rowells wrote:
    I think I'm going to have to agree with baltec1 on the logistics thing. Logistics in combat turns todays combat almost into a 'winner-takes-all' scenario. A smaller force does not engage the larger group because they know the damage they can cause is minimal since the logistics can rep beyond their dps. Its the same reason that carrier fleets are so powerful; huge amounts of reps over long distances, relatively high ehp, higher-end dps compared to subcaps and unsieged dreads. its a very versatile ship performing well in all of its roles.

    We can take one hypothetical situation and see the predicted outcomes when you remove or reduce logistics (assuming both fleets decide to engage and all other things equal/constant):
    Fleet A has 250 members with 40 logistics
    Fleet B has 100 members with 20 logistics

    Scenario 1
    Fleet A has enough dps/alpha to destroy every ship in the enemy fleet
    Fleet B does not have enough dps or reps to destroy enemy ships or stay on the field

    Result 1
    Fleet A destroys Fleet B with minimal losses
    Fleet B suffers massive losses and loses the strategic objective

    Now lets reduce the effectiveness of logistics directly on the combat site.

    Scenario 2
    Fleet A has 250 members with 40 logistics
    Fleet B has 100 members and elected to leave logistics behind in an attempt to maximize impact

    Result 2
    Fleet A destroys Fleet B while losing an almost equivalent amount of ships (90-110)
    Fleet B is destroyed entirely, but manages to damage enemy fleet in a meaningful way

    The first scenario makes a victory almost entirely binary and causes fleet commanders to make decisions such as not even showing up since they know they will lose without much impact. Bored attacker grinding a structure and a blue-balled defender.

    The second scenario ends with a heavily damaged attacker, leaving them vulnerable to other entities lying in wait or a second fleet reformed to fight again with a better comparative advantage. This also means a fleet very far away from a base of operations is going to suffer from loss of ships without ability to easily re-ship. It doesn't remove the advantage of numbers and improves the effect of smaller fleets intending to do damage to their opponents before going down in a blaze of glory.

    I think that logistics still has a role in fleets, just not on the battlefield itself. I imagine logistics on subcaps and carriers can be repurposed to be used elsewhere.


    You not only agree with him, you sound suspiciously exactly like him.Lol
    No, seriously, every point your making he has made in nearly the exact same way.

    You made no comparison here. You compared apples to oranges and riddled it with random supposition and rhetoric.

    Scenario: 20 bil in caps trying to defend a tower terribly outnumbered but not outclassed against 5 bil in subcaps.

    Today: caps might be able to hold reps and save tower
    Logi nerf: Literally nothing will stop low isk spamming of numbers from being able to take down disproportionally valued targets.

    Fixing null and reforming sov via losers dying in a "blaze of glory". You heard it here.

    Funny, all I can hear is when this gets repeated is the very thing being ignored when it's discussed:
    null sec domination via high numbered subcaps.

    I wouldn't want to go all Grrr Goons, but it's almost like the mittani himself has written articles about the supremacy of subcapitals and really wants these changes for his own reasons. ...oh wait Oops, that's literally what he's said in his own articles.

    This doesn't have anything to do with fixing null,
    it has to do with steamrolling subcap fleets and guaranteed wins replacing possible stalemates.

    "The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
    Rowells
    Blackwater USA Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #354 - 2014-09-15 22:18:46 UTC
    Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
    Rowells wrote:
    I think I'm going to have to agree with baltec1 on the logistics thing. Logistics in combat turns todays combat almost into a 'winner-takes-all' scenario. A smaller force does not engage the larger group because they know the damage they can cause is minimal since the logistics can rep beyond their dps. Its the same reason that carrier fleets are so powerful; huge amounts of reps over long distances, relatively high ehp, higher-end dps compared to subcaps and unsieged dreads. its a very versatile ship performing well in all of its roles.

    We can take one hypothetical situation and see the predicted outcomes when you remove or reduce logistics (assuming both fleets decide to engage and all other things equal/constant):
    Fleet A has 250 members with 40 logistics
    Fleet B has 100 members with 20 logistics

    Scenario 1
    Fleet A has enough dps/alpha to destroy every ship in the enemy fleet
    Fleet B does not have enough dps or reps to destroy enemy ships or stay on the field

    Result 1
    Fleet A destroys Fleet B with minimal losses
    Fleet B suffers massive losses and loses the strategic objective

    Now lets reduce the effectiveness of logistics directly on the combat site.

    Scenario 2
    Fleet A has 250 members with 40 logistics
    Fleet B has 100 members and elected to leave logistics behind in an attempt to maximize impact

    Result 2
    Fleet A destroys Fleet B while losing an almost equivalent amount of ships (90-110)
    Fleet B is destroyed entirely, but manages to damage enemy fleet in a meaningful way

    The first scenario makes a victory almost entirely binary and causes fleet commanders to make decisions such as not even showing up since they know they will lose without much impact. Bored attacker grinding a structure and a blue-balled defender.

    The second scenario ends with a heavily damaged attacker, leaving them vulnerable to other entities lying in wait or a second fleet reformed to fight again with a better comparative advantage. This also means a fleet very far away from a base of operations is going to suffer from loss of ships without ability to easily re-ship. It doesn't remove the advantage of numbers and improves the effect of smaller fleets intending to do damage to their opponents before going down in a blaze of glory.

    I think that logistics still has a role in fleets, just not on the battlefield itself. I imagine logistics on subcaps and carriers can be repurposed to be used elsewhere.


    You not only agree with him, you sound suspiciously exactly like him.Lol
    No, seriously, every point your making he has made in nearly the exact same way.

    You made no comparison here. You compared apples to oranges and riddled it with random supposition and rhetoric.

    Scenario: 20 bil in caps trying to defend a tower terribly outnumbered but not outclassed against 5 bil in subcaps.

    Today: caps might be able to hold reps and save tower
    Logi nerf: Literally nothing will stop low isk spamming of numbers from being able to take down disproportionally valued targets.

    Fixing null and reforming sov via losers dying in a "blaze of glory". You heard it here.

    Funny, all I can hear is when this gets repeated is the very thing being ignored when it's discussed:
    null sec domination via high numbered subcaps.

    I wouldn't want to go all Grrr Goons, but it's almost like the mittani himself has written articles about the supremacy of subcapitals and really wants these changes for his own reasons. ...oh wait Oops, that's literally what he's said in his own articles.

    This doesn't have anything to do with fixing null,
    it has to do with steamrolling subcap fleets and guaranteed wins replacing possible stalemates.
    i probably sound a lot like him since I'm agreeing and reiterating his point. I just wanted to flesh out the scenario a bit more.

    And surprisingly enough having more people gives you an advantage. Who knew, right?
    Quote:
    Today: caps might be able to hold reps and save tower
    this is part of the problem. Capital power scales at a much higher rate than sub caps because every extra ship means more reps and more dps all in one package. And let's take your scenario a little further:
    20bil capitals fighting 5bil in sub caps (if you do the math that could range from 50+ to 20 people, but we balance around isk all the time right?) and the capitals manage to kill half of the sub caps before finally caving under the pressure. Having the home field advantage they have the option to pod back home and jump back in the fight in anything they want. Different doctrine to counter enemy or more caps. If they don't have the resources to do this then they lose, because the enemy has more number and better supply. And sadly there isn't much special tactics and ships can do against that. It's a reasonable win. Or is there something wrong with an enemy who is stronger and bigger than you having an advantage?

    Losing a ship as the losing entity you can now at least make the enemy pay for their victories in cold hard steel. When have two armies ever met in combat where the enemy is decimated while the attacking force comes out with minimal losses? Combat actually has value attached.

    And counter to what you believe, this nerf would remove steamrolling anything since there is actual attrition. Hard to say "we totally steamrolled those guys" when half of your fleet is wreckage.

    And if you actually read to the end you might notice where I said logistics would be repurposed elsewhere. This could possibly include structure repair assuming structures themselves remain the same. And explain to me how the "guaranteed wins" factor has changed in any way. If anything it gives advantage to those who operate closer to home.
    Andy Koraka
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #355 - 2014-09-16 01:10:45 UTC
    I'm loving the dozens of proposals from people who have never played in Nullsec and have no idea regarding it's mechanics and/or the meta surrounding it. It's like watching 10 years of angst release themselves into forum posting.

    A perfect example of that is a proposal I've seen shouted a dozen times here, that there should be a limit (mass, # of ships, whatever) on how many players can jump to a cyno, thereby fixing "force projection". Truth be told it's an irrelevant change for force projection because as soon as the first [insert arbitrary # here] supers jump through they'll light cynos and the rest will jump to them. Move OPs would be a royal PITA, but as far as a combat situation is concerned it's normal to have a Supercap light his cyno on landing so that it won't get popped. Inconvenience: moderate, Effectiveness: Zero. That kind of change might break Titan bridging, but as long as Sov is tied to one or more timers players will form up sufficiently early to make it in time. Example: for HED-GP N3/PL formed up 3 hours before the timer to get in system first, and that's with everybody "teleporting" directly to the battle grid. This proposal just adds an hour to either side of a 12 hour ti-di f***fest. Inconvenience: High, effectiveness: Zero.

    This might sound rude, but if you've never actually been a part of Sov Nullsec you should probably just stop posting since your terrible ideas are just more white noise the Dev Team has to filter out to find the good ideas that might have merit.

    TIA,
    Much love,
    Best Regards,
    Andy
    Bugsy VanHalen
    Society of lost Souls
    #356 - 2014-09-16 01:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
    well, a lot of debates as ussual.

    I for one can say I am very much looking forward to both the minutes and what comes after the CSM summit.

    There have been a lot of tears across the forums about how CCP does not listen to the comunity. I have argued several points myself. But when it comes down to it. they are reading, and are responding to player input.

    One very simple example of how the players have influenced the game. I recall reading in the CSM minutes, I do not think it was last year, but likly the year before.

    It was asked by CCP developers, in disscussions about null sec industry, what would it take to encourage more industry in null sec. many ideas were tossed around, changes to ore compositions so low end minerals did not have to be shiped in as much. added benifits to industry in null compared to safe high sec. but one that really stood out to me was the sugestion from CCP about significantly increasing the industry slots in null sec stations and outposts. The CSM responed that unlimited slots would be a good start.

    Now we have seen it come to pass. A little different, but a balanced version of those same ideas.

    Ore compositions have been rebalanced to add more low end minerals to high end null sec ores.

    better industrial bonuses and reprocessing rates in null than are available in high sec.

    mineral compression through building, and reprocessing modules has been basically removed.

    Slots, not expanded but completely removed, and not just in null sec, but all slots everywhere.

    the new industry U.I. is just a very nice added bonus.

    one of my personal favorite, compression arrays that can be used in high sec.

    Recent changes have been a massive improvement to industry across New Eden. Players had a lot to do with those changes, and the CSM summit put them on the board. Some players like the changes more than others, but overall it has been a great improvement.

    My point is, it may take a while, by the time an idea is sugested, disscussed, refined, and eventually comitted to consideration. It then has to go through several stages of high level development before it actually gets sloted in for implementation. it takes time, more time than most realize, some of these ideas we are just seeing in the last few updates, were first brought up nearly two years ago. but did not get into the game until now.

    As things have gotten ironed out with the interaction between the CSM and CCP developers, I expect that turn around will get much faster, I believe it was worth the wait for the industry changes. If they do as good of a job with the SOV revamps as they did with industry, even if it is spread over a year like the industry changes were, it will be well worth the wait.
    Abbadon21
    Ignotis Imperium
    Usurper.
    #357 - 2014-09-16 03:40:51 UTC
    Andy Koraka wrote:
    I'm loving the dozens of proposals from people who have never played in Nullsec and have no idea regarding it's mechanics and/or the meta surrounding it. It's like watching 10 years of angst release themselves into forum posting.

    A perfect example of that is a proposal I've seen shouted a dozen times here, that there should be a limit (mass, # of ships, whatever) on how many players can jump to a cyno, thereby fixing "force projection". Truth be told it's an irrelevant change for force projection because as soon as the first [insert arbitrary # here] supers jump through they'll light cynos and the rest will jump to them. Move OPs would be a royal PITA, but as far as a combat situation is concerned it's normal to have a Supercap light his cyno on landing so that it won't get popped. Inconvenience: moderate, Effectiveness: Zero. That kind of change might break Titan bridging, but as long as Sov is tied to one or more timers players will form up sufficiently early to make it in time. Example: for HED-GP N3/PL formed up 3 hours before the timer to get in system first, and that's with everybody "teleporting" directly to the battle grid. This proposal just adds an hour to either side of a 12 hour ti-di f***fest. Inconvenience: High, effectiveness: Zero.

    This might sound rude, but if you've never actually been a part of Sov Nullsec you should probably just stop posting since your terrible ideas are just more white noise the Dev Team has to filter out to find the good ideas that might have merit.

    TIA,
    Much love,
    Best Regards,
    Andy


    Not to be rude, but PVP shouldn't be about who can drop the most supers.

    Right now EVE is headed for toward a "Buy a Super Carrier and Join N3/PL/Goons or don' t even try" future. I've watched Sov PVP over the last 7 years and it has gotten worse every year.

    I'm sure it's obvious my opinion of Supers, Huge Battles, and Mega Coalitions is a negative one. Most the people in the big Coalitions probably don't agree and want to see their type of PVP buffed with better servers, reduced TIDI, and easier F1 PVP.

    IMO PVP in EVE is supposed to be an intersteller chess match, not simplified WoW.

    Making Sov Mechanics Offensive will mean that Sov will shift every night and only the most active occupants will be able to hold systems.

    Learn How PRO Players Make Billions of ISK and Dominate PVP: http://www.EVEProGuides.com
    knobber Jobbler
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #358 - 2014-09-16 03:52:19 UTC
    Carniflex wrote:
    Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
    Carniflex wrote:

    any balance should be focused on the fact that power projection can not be avoided and the best cure for that is that there is no doctrines which can be only and only countered by having more of the same ship.


    Putting a pod anyone on the map doesn't equivocate to putting an individual standing fleet (especially of the capital variety) anywhere on the map.

    I'm more than aware of the mental hurdles people will jump through to try and suggest this isn't the case. But it flat out is.

    And putting bodies in cruisers and battleships is a far cry from dreads and slowcats. And if we want to play mental hurdles... even if someone also stages capital fleets all over the galaxy with jump clones/podding themselves around between them, it's one measure further away from the current state of blinking fleets wherever we want them instantly.

    You can can repeat "power projection nerfs won't work" until your blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And as often as someone claims that, .. there will be a person like me explaining that literally every reform of null will be for not if the space and politics cannot be regionalized.


    For any remotely organized entity the cost of dreads and slowcats is not an huge issue. Currently ofc you do not need multiple locations because these ships themselves are exceptionally mobile. But do not assume that if you somehow manage cap the capital travel speed then the major coalitions will not start maintaining multiple pre-deployed capital fleets if the slowdown is significant enough.

    Take, for example, various T3 or faction battleship doctrines employed which can run up to slightly under 1 bil/pop. And ofc you do not need to go excessive for power projection. A 200 tengus + 50 scimis is reasonably overwhelming, for example, against an entity that can field up to ~50 guys. Anyway - there is no point over nit-picking over the details of the doctrines. Some doctrines always exist and cost should be a balancing factor (as the number of Titans in game clearly demonstrates) so it's safe to assume that if doctrines exist powerblocks will be able to afford them if they need to. Even if it would mean maintaining 500+ capital ship piles in three separate locations over the EVE Universe, for example.



    You'd be surprised, but even the CFC has people deployed in multiple locations. People keep their dreads 1 jump out of where they are needed, not multiple jumps.

    Right now power projection is fine for everything apart from supercaps. You can't stop people making friends but you can slow down how long it takes a Nyx getting from one side of EVE to the other or make it have dependencies on slower ships or sub caps.
    Grandorr
    SpongeBob Squarepants Enterprise
    #359 - 2014-09-16 06:40:12 UTC
    I'd like to know / say just 1 thing...

    CCP Games

    A friend and I have been talking and with all the coalitions and standings system etc.. it really doesn't matter WHAT you do to sov. The games a sandbox which means it's up to the players to create content FROM the content you put in the game.

    Now here's the kicker.. HOW can you change current sov mechanics that will MAKE IT so that the blue donut will be forced to break apart and fight.

    Like at this moment in time there is no REAL reason for PL / N3 to fight CFC & friends... They both have billions or more of ISK just chillin.

    I'm sure CFC and all the major alliance do their small lil roams and occasional defense fleets and every so often we have fights like B-R an Asaki etc.. but that's it.

    What ever change is made to sov this better be a GOOD one otherwise don't count on much changing... PL/N3 & CFC/Allies will just continue doing as they are right now.

    Theres no reason for them to fight or do anything that would cause a massive war to break out and let loose everything. No ones gonna get anything from it cept abuncha tidi fights here n there and a lot of cap fights, grinding structures IE TCU's and Stations etc.. timers, timers, timers.

    Anyways that's my thoughts on this whole Sov Change thing.. I agree we need a new sov system / change to happen but unless it REALLY changes how Coalitions n such work I don't see anything REALLY changing. CFC & allies will sit where they are now and PL & N3 will sit where they are.

    /done
    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #360 - 2014-09-16 07:28:55 UTC
    Abbadon21 wrote:


    Not to be rude, but PVP shouldn't be about who can drop the most supers.

    Right now EVE is headed for toward a "Buy a Super Carrier and Join N3/PL/Goons or don' t even try" future. I've watched Sov PVP over the last 7 years and it has gotten worse every year.

    I'm sure it's obvious my opinion of Supers, Huge Battles, and Mega Coalitions is a negative one. Most the people in the big Coalitions probably don't agree and want to see their type of PVP buffed with better servers, reduced TIDI, and easier F1 PVP.

    IMO PVP in EVE is supposed to be an intersteller chess match, not simplified WoW.

    Making Sov Mechanics Offensive will mean that Sov will shift every night and only the most active occupants will be able to hold systems.


    My PL enemy friends point is that power projection cannot be nerfed, we will always be able to deploy. Fact is that supers today are like battleships were back in 2006. We both have vast fleets of them and they are not going to go away so we have to balance null with these ships in mind. There are far too many high sec NPC players in this thread with no experience of null sov and its mechanics trying to put forth at best ideas that won't work and at worst, ideas that would make the situation even worse.

    Everyone who has been in null for years knows what the issues are and we are all fed up with the current situation. We are actively campaigning for massive nerfs to our powerblocks so that fresh, small alliances can get in on the action. More small powers in null means more targets for small gang roaming which means more fun for us. Right now 9/10 fights ends up being a blueball which is no fun for anyone.