These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

[Proposal] Sorting Out 0.0 Space

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Goose Sokarad
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2011-09-19 00:27:38 UTC
This is all i can come up with.

To make people use space they have sov in they either use it or sov will drop.

With sov in 0.0 there needs to be a certain amount of activity you should have to do to keep sov up, other then just paying the sov bill that ccp needs to come up with, like kill x amount of rats per week or something.

I think the normal ihub should have a status bar for sov that once it hits max level you will have done enough this week to keep sov.

Now alliances that try to capture whole regions i did think that maybe have a mini ihub that just shows sov status maybe a idear till they get settled there,but if there going to take a whole region they can afford the main ihub and shouldnt be hard for them to get it there.

The longer you hold sov and are active in the systems have sov in,you get a longer grace period before sov starts to drop if go inactive there because your helping allies or something.

If a alliance was to fight a long war and they got people to be active in their space to keep the sov up,i dont think theres anything wrong with that.

Having people in your systems keeping sov up provides targets for others.

Now how long the grace period you can build up i think ccp can decide that,but i think with some of the campaigns some alliances have in 0.0,that needs to be taken in consideration when deciding how long the grace period should be.

When the grace period runs out ccp will need to decide how quick the sov drops,and they can use what level sov have to determine how long before sov drops if dont do anything.

A corp should get a message that the grace period in system x they have sov in has expired,and if they dont do anything in x amount of time sov will drop there if dont do anything.

You could have a staging system immune in a region to the sov drop because of inactivity but only the main sov holder in the region would qualify for this.

Getting the grace period up to max from the start when first take sov or have retaken sov lost,is something ccp need to decide.
It could be sov 5 gets you max grace period im not sure if it should be quicker then that,because the grace period could well exceed the time it takes to get sov 5,because anything less then that alliances may feel confined to their sov.Although depending how active you need to be to keep sov up,it may not have to be as big as what im thinking it will need to be.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#42 - 2011-09-19 01:50:36 UTC
Goose Sokarad wrote:
In 0.0 the more space you have the harder it should be to defend it,but that isnt the case because of jump bridges.

CCP could change it so that only industrial ships bringing supplies in could use them.

If big entities in eve want to move large gangs about quickly,there going to have to use titans to do it.



The "big entities" you speak of all have a substantial number of titans and regularly use them for bridging fleets even within their own space. Jump bridges do not have the range of a JDC V titan, not even close. Subcapital force projection is hardly overpowered in this game - a supercapital fleet can get across the map within 30 minutes, possibly even less with strategically placed cyno alts.

But you know this already and are probably some OB/hydra/nomercy idiot hiding behind some NPC corp alt.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Usurpine
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2011-09-19 11:38:19 UTC
Delete all motherships and titans, delete all Characters >100 mill skillpoints.
Players having characters and ships like this dont pay to cpp anyway. So no loss.
That would make 0.0 empty.
But it would let me stop playing eve.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2011-09-19 14:28:38 UTC
Goose Sokarad wrote:
This is all i can come up with.

To make people use space they have sov in they either use it or sov will drop.

With sov in 0.0 there needs to be a certain amount of activity you should have to do to keep sov up, other then just paying the sov bill that ccp needs to come up with, like kill x amount of rats per week or something.

I think the normal ihub should have a status bar for sov that once it hits max level you will have done enough this week to keep sov.

Now alliances that try to capture whole regions i did think that maybe have a mini ihub that just shows sov status maybe a idear till they get settled there,but if there going to take a whole region they can afford the main ihub and shouldnt be hard for them to get it there.

The longer you hold sov and are active in the systems have sov in,you get a longer grace period before sov starts to drop if go inactive there because your helping allies or something.

If a alliance was to fight a long war and they got people to be active in their space to keep the sov up,i dont think theres anything wrong with that.

Having people in your systems keeping sov up provides targets for others.

Now how long the grace period you can build up i think ccp can decide that,but i think with some of the campaigns some alliances have in 0.0,that needs to be taken in consideration when deciding how long the grace period should be.

When the grace period runs out ccp will need to decide how quick the sov drops,and they can use what level sov have to determine how long before sov drops if dont do anything.

A corp should get a message that the grace period in system x they have sov in has expired,and if they dont do anything in x amount of time sov will drop there if dont do anything.

You could have a staging system immune in a region to the sov drop because of inactivity but only the main sov holder in the region would qualify for this.

Getting the grace period up to max from the start when first take sov or have retaken sov lost,is something ccp need to decide.
It could be sov 5 gets you max grace period im not sure if it should be quicker then that,because the grace period could well exceed the time it takes to get sov 5,because anything less then that alliances may feel confined to their sov.Although depending how active you need to be to keep sov up,it may not have to be as big as what im thinking it will need to be.


Why would you want to force people to do something so boring just to keep sov? It's bad enough that we have to grind through so much dull structure HP to take a system, I for one don't want to have to grind through hours of dull sanctums just to keep it. Making things tedious is not a good idea.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#45 - 2011-09-19 16:45:05 UTC
Lykouleon wrote:
...Also, in before the stealth whine from CVA about CCP being mean to them about space costs.

Do you remember the discussions that came in the run-up to Dominion, particularly in the Sov. cost threads?
The Providence system of governance was mentioned as the model by which CCP intended all of null to be molded: numerous alliances sharing the burden by divvying up space among themselves ..

But then the blob/bloc/pet-empires started moaning and CCP reduced the sov costs to a pittance so that by the time Dominion launched the optimal scenario was for one alliance to have all space and fill it with meat-shields/renters .. worked like a charm it did .. biggest one now is what 250+ systems or something stupid?

For my grander scheme I'd refer you to my post in a similar thread in F&I
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#46 - 2011-09-20 08:14:33 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Goose Sokarad wrote:
This is all i can come up with.

To make people use space they have sov in they either use it or sov will drop.

With sov in 0.0 there needs to be a certain amount of activity you should have to do to keep sov up, other then just paying the sov bill that ccp needs to come up with, like kill x amount of rats per week or something.

I think the normal ihub should have a status bar for sov that once it hits max level you will have done enough this week to keep sov.

Now alliances that try to capture whole regions i did think that maybe have a mini ihub that just shows sov status maybe a idear till they get settled there,but if there going to take a whole region they can afford the main ihub and shouldnt be hard for them to get it there.

The longer you hold sov and are active in the systems have sov in,you get a longer grace period before sov starts to drop if go inactive there because your helping allies or something.

If a alliance was to fight a long war and they got people to be active in their space to keep the sov up,i dont think theres anything wrong with that.

Having people in your systems keeping sov up provides targets for others.

Now how long the grace period you can build up i think ccp can decide that,but i think with some of the campaigns some alliances have in 0.0,that needs to be taken in consideration when deciding how long the grace period should be.

When the grace period runs out ccp will need to decide how quick the sov drops,and they can use what level sov have to determine how long before sov drops if dont do anything.

A corp should get a message that the grace period in system x they have sov in has expired,and if they dont do anything in x amount of time sov will drop there if dont do anything.

You could have a staging system immune in a region to the sov drop because of inactivity but only the main sov holder in the region would qualify for this.

Getting the grace period up to max from the start when first take sov or have retaken sov lost,is something ccp need to decide.
It could be sov 5 gets you max grace period im not sure if it should be quicker then that,because the grace period could well exceed the time it takes to get sov 5,because anything less then that alliances may feel confined to their sov.Although depending how active you need to be to keep sov up,it may not have to be as big as what im thinking it will need to be.


Why would you want to force people to do something so boring just to keep sov? It's bad enough that we have to grind through so much dull structure HP to take a system, I for one don't want to have to grind through hours of dull sanctums just to keep it. Making things tedious is not a good idea.


Boring to you perhaps but not to other people, the game is about the 40000 people who are online at any given time, not the 5000 or so in 0.0 at the moment.
Feggy
Labrat Lonewolves
#47 - 2011-09-20 11:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Feggy
Shingorash wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Goose Sokarad wrote:
This is all i can come up with.

To make people use space they have sov in they either use it or sov will drop.

With sov in 0.0 there needs to be a certain amount of activity you should have to do to keep sov up, other then just paying the sov bill that ccp needs to come up with, like kill x amount of rats per week or something.

I think the normal ihub should have a status bar for sov that once it hits max level you will have done enough this week to keep sov.

Now alliances that try to capture whole regions i did think that maybe have a mini ihub that just shows sov status maybe a idear till they get settled there,but if there going to take a whole region they can afford the main ihub and shouldnt be hard for them to get it there.

The longer you hold sov and are active in the systems have sov in,you get a longer grace period before sov starts to drop if go inactive there because your helping allies or something.

If a alliance was to fight a long war and they got people to be active in their space to keep the sov up,i dont think theres anything wrong with that.

Having people in your systems keeping sov up provides targets for others.

Now how long the grace period you can build up i think ccp can decide that,but i think with some of the campaigns some alliances have in 0.0,that needs to be taken in consideration when deciding how long the grace period should be.

When the grace period runs out ccp will need to decide how quick the sov drops,and they can use what level sov have to determine how long before sov drops if dont do anything.

A corp should get a message that the grace period in system x they have sov in has expired,and if they dont do anything in x amount of time sov will drop there if dont do anything.

You could have a staging system immune in a region to the sov drop because of inactivity but only the main sov holder in the region would qualify for this.

Getting the grace period up to max from the start when first take sov or have retaken sov lost,is something ccp need to decide.
It could be sov 5 gets you max grace period im not sure if it should be quicker then that,because the grace period could well exceed the time it takes to get sov 5,because anything less then that alliances may feel confined to their sov.Although depending how active you need to be to keep sov up,it may not have to be as big as what im thinking it will need to be.


Why would you want to force people to do something so boring just to keep sov? It's bad enough that we have to grind through so much dull structure HP to take a system, I for one don't want to have to grind through hours of dull sanctums just to keep it. Making things tedious is not a good idea.


Boring to you perhaps but not to other people, the game is about the 40000 people who are online at any given time, not the 5000 or so in 0.0 at the moment.



/signed.

I disagree Danika, and agree both Shinga and Goose, both of their ideas are to be thought through by CCP imo.

Both progressive sov costs (per number held and per real secstat) and actitvity for sov maintenance are great ideas. I'd even say that the higher the sov level is the more activity a corp/ally should invest in the system, in other words the shorter the "grace period" should be. I'd say this second part is even easy to implement. Sov structures simply should trigger NPC spawns to come shooting them. Sov level 1 = small group of NPCs that will take them let's say 24 or more hrs to bring the structure down. Sov level 5 = nice NPC group shooting structure down in couple of hours. This would make spaceholders to constantly guarding their stuff, and what's even better, guarding them in subcap ships. Ofcourse you can always risk your cap for any incoming gangs... :D Anyway, who wants to maintain sov5 has to have full round TZ guarding, which is tedious and boring, and needs a lot of effort and management, but for the benefits you should really put this into the game. A few highend moons can really make enough ISK to pay for the tedious efforts. These changes would tie down a lot of manpower or at least would concentrate them more...

I understand that this would make most of 0.0 space a politically/territorially* noonesland, but that would give smaller corps/allies opportunity to go. Wild west again, like in the old days. (*territorr*.*: I don't know whether I spelled this right, or even if such a word exists... :D)
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#48 - 2011-09-20 12:28:04 UTC
Feggy wrote:
Shingorash wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Goose Sokarad wrote:
This is all i can come up with.

To make people use space they have sov in they either use it or sov will drop.

With sov in 0.0 there needs to be a certain amount of activity you should have to do to keep sov up, other then just paying the sov bill that ccp needs to come up with, like kill x amount of rats per week or something.

I think the normal ihub should have a status bar for sov that once it hits max level you will have done enough this week to keep sov.

Now alliances that try to capture whole regions i did think that maybe have a mini ihub that just shows sov status maybe a idear till they get settled there,but if there going to take a whole region they can afford the main ihub and shouldnt be hard for them to get it there.

The longer you hold sov and are active in the systems have sov in,you get a longer grace period before sov starts to drop if go inactive there because your helping allies or something.

If a alliance was to fight a long war and they got people to be active in their space to keep the sov up,i dont think theres anything wrong with that.

Having people in your systems keeping sov up provides targets for others.

Now how long the grace period you can build up i think ccp can decide that,but i think with some of the campaigns some alliances have in 0.0,that needs to be taken in consideration when deciding how long the grace period should be.

When the grace period runs out ccp will need to decide how quick the sov drops,and they can use what level sov have to determine how long before sov drops if dont do anything.

A corp should get a message that the grace period in system x they have sov in has expired,and if they dont do anything in x amount of time sov will drop there if dont do anything.

You could have a staging system immune in a region to the sov drop because of inactivity but only the main sov holder in the region would qualify for this.

Getting the grace period up to max from the start when first take sov or have retaken sov lost,is something ccp need to decide.
It could be sov 5 gets you max grace period im not sure if it should be quicker then that,because the grace period could well exceed the time it takes to get sov 5,because anything less then that alliances may feel confined to their sov.Although depending how active you need to be to keep sov up,it may not have to be as big as what im thinking it will need to be.


Why would you want to force people to do something so boring just to keep sov? It's bad enough that we have to grind through so much dull structure HP to take a system, I for one don't want to have to grind through hours of dull sanctums just to keep it. Making things tedious is not a good idea.


Boring to you perhaps but not to other people, the game is about the 40000 people who are online at any given time, not the 5000 or so in 0.0 at the moment.



/signed.

I disagree Danika, and agree both Shinga and Goose, both of their ideas are to be thought through by CCP imo.

Both progressive sov costs (per number held and per real secstat) and actitvity for sov maintenance are great ideas. I'd even say that the higher the sov level is the more activity a corp/ally should invest in the system, in other words the shorter the "grace period" should be. I'd say this second part is even easy to implement. Sov structures simply should trigger NPC spawns to come shooting them. Sov level 1 = small group of NPCs that will take them let's say 24 or more hrs to bring the structure down. Sov level 5 = nice NPC group shooting structure down in couple of hours. This would make spaceholders to constantly guarding their stuff, and what's even better, guarding them in subcap ships. Ofcourse you can always risk your cap for any incoming gangs... :D Anyway, who wants to maintain sov5 has to have full round TZ guarding, which is tedious and boring, and needs a lot of effort and management, but for the benefits you should really put this into the game. A few highend moons can really make enough ISK to pay for the tedious efforts. These changes would tie down a lot of manpower or at least would concentrate them more...

I understand that this would make most of 0.0 space a politically/territorially* noonesland, but that would give smaller corps/allies opportunity to go. Wild west again, like in the old days. (*territorr*.*: I don't know whether I spelled this right, or even if such a word exists... :D)


NPC's attacking SOV structures is kind of amusing. Perhaps they could do something with Incursions to make them do it.
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#49 - 2011-09-20 12:29:18 UTC
I like where this thread is going, somewhat constructive conversation about minor tweaks here and there.

I will put all the ideas together at some point when the ideas stop coming in.

Should prove interesting reading and provide some "food for thought".
Feggy
Labrat Lonewolves
#50 - 2011-09-20 12:51:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Feggy
Shingorash wrote:
I like where this thread is going, somewhat constructive conversation about minor tweaks here and there.

I will put all the ideas together at some point when the ideas stop coming in.

Should prove interesting reading and provide some "food for thought".


I don't want to be too negative, as I also like all these ideas that should help the majority of players to have a chance for 0.0. I also liked these threads years ago (2008-2009). I also posted them a lot. But there was no (good) result at all.

Anyway I lived in 0.0 quite a lot when it was funny, lived in 0.0 some when it got less funny, and nowadays I sometimes fly out to have some "advanture", but that's all. It means I have the good memories from the past, but no newcomers will ever experience such a thing again.

BTW: Have you noticed it's impossible to engage a conversation in 0.0 these days? I mean normal conversation unlike "gf", "gtfo" or "speak russian or die"... My last bigger kind of travels took 170+ jumps in 0.0 (made just for fun) and even I started with an "o/" in every system with locals I hardly got any response. I only got a conversation from a really small corp's member in curse... he was wondering that someone was having a conversation with him, which he really is missing these days.

Anyway, back to the topic. All these ideas are nice and good, but we should really know what's on CCP's mind, probably they have some other ideas, or have motivations to go the opposite way (like they did the last couple of years). Probably they are experimenting with whether they can make a monopoly-ally which will win the game, or give an end to it, so they can finally shut down their servers to save on electric bills or have great servers for upcoming fps or whatever... I don't know. :)

Later edit: i pray for any sane CCP members would ever read this post. As this one was quite offensive by forum rules I hope it grabs attention. :trollface-palm:

Last edit: bump it if you like this!
Eperor
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#51 - 2011-09-22 09:23:32 UTC
Feggy wrote:
Shingorash wrote:
I like where this thread is going, somewhat constructive conversation about minor tweaks here and there.

I will put all the ideas together at some point when the ideas stop coming in.

Should prove interesting reading and provide some "food for thought".


I don't want to be too negative, as I also like all these ideas that should help the majority of players to have a chance for 0.0. I also liked these threads years ago (2008-2009). I also posted them a lot. But there was no (good) result at all.

Anyway I lived in 0.0 quite a lot when it was funny, lived in 0.0 some when it got less funny, and nowadays I sometimes fly out to have some "advanture", but that's all. It means I have the good memories from the past, but no newcomers will ever experience such a thing again.

BTW: Have you noticed it's impossible to engage a conversation in 0.0 these days? I mean normal conversation unlike "gf", "gtfo" or "speak russian or die"... My last bigger kind of travels took 170+ jumps in 0.0 (made just for fun) and even I started with an "o/" in every system with locals I hardly got any response. I only got a conversation from a really small corp's member in curse... he was wondering that someone was having a conversation with him, which he really is missing these days.

Anyway, back to the topic. All these ideas are nice and good, but we should really know what's on CCP's mind, probably they have some other ideas, or have motivations to go the opposite way (like they did the last couple of years). Probably they are experimenting with whether they can make a monopoly-ally which will win the game, or give an end to it, so they can finally shut down their servers to save on electric bills or have great servers for upcoming fps or whatever... I don't know. :)

Later edit: i pray for any sane CCP members would ever read this post. As this one was quite offensive by forum rules I hope it grabs attention. :trollface-palm:

Last edit: bump it if you like this!


tING ITS SUCH IN 0.0 itsn oting to do now not much posibilitys to ern isk and smal entatys vwil nto haold space eny way if they will be not blue to the big entatys, and if even you wil rise sov cost no mader, big allinces wil drop sow in usles systems, and smal entatys eny way will not have posibility off geting it.
CCP need get bacjkl sanctums in al systems again, that ppl have to do somtign there not make is more waste land at it is now, and sanctums ned to be the same allined off income as incursions, aderways no change again.
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2011-09-30 14:39:37 UTC  |  Edited by: David Grogan
one way to fix null sec is to get rid of super caps altogether.

no supercaps = no i-win button for large alliances. introducing both titans and super carriers was a very bad idea ccp chose to do. they would actually have to fight for their space.

sadly ccp is unlikely to remove them now.

its doubtful ccp will ever be able to fix null sec now as the damage has already been done. the drf and goons are already too rich, and with armies of bots and vast amounts of tech moons pumping isk into their wallets they will never be toppled.

even if someone disbands goons or any of the drf alliances the isk will still remain in such immense quantities that they will reform under one name or another and as long as this isk is there no other newly formed alliances consisting of newer eve players can ever compete.

this is one of the many reasons why subs are down.

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#53 - 2011-10-01 14:03:20 UTC
Agreed. Caps are not the problem really. The amount of isk in game is stupid.
Brisco County
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#54 - 2011-10-05 11:29:15 UTC


The point of this game is to shoot spaceships in space. We need ideas that foster wars between null-sec entities. Nobody will want to conquer more space if it just meant that their sov bill would increase. This idea only fosters ratting bots.
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#55 - 2011-10-05 11:48:54 UTC
Brisco County wrote:


The point of this game is to shoot spaceships in space. We need ideas that foster wars between null-sec entities. Nobody will want to conquer more space if it just meant that their sov bill would increase. This idea only fosters ratting bots.


Its easy to spot a ratting bot and report it now so that isnt really an issue.
Kblackjack54
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#56 - 2011-10-07 04:12:34 UTC
Never apologize for a good idea clearly presented well thought through, but if you go into fine detail you will soon realize that such a change would in fact make no change at all except to make things a lot worse

The thorny problem of 0.0 space occupation is one that has long needed a complete makeover, that CCP have not addressed this earlier is in my view a severe mistake on there part as it has led, coupled with other factors to the current under-utilization of 0.0 space we see today.

CCP clearly stated that they wished to ‘Open’ up 0.0 space, the recent JB nerf was an attempt to do this changes to Plex seeding another, tinkering as they did must have shown them that the problem is more deep rooted than can be solved in such a manner.

A more radical and effective solution to opening up 0.0 space would be to dispense with the ability to claim space at all, This would of course change the ISK making potential of Alliances overall and force them to interact fiercely for space, in short a true ‘Sandbox’ environment.

At this point Alliances would be required to take and more importantly hold space by force of arms alone, coupled with changes to moon seeding, Capital balancing and general tweaking of several other factors the requirement for player/Corp/Alliance level interaction becomes the controlling factor in 0.0 space.

I would suggest that this change alone would make EVE a very dynamic place to live, it would make a huge change to the way Alliances interact requiring the development of skills not currently used in EVE to achieve anything approaching the current stale but comfortable environment we see today, but something that would never be achievable due to the fluid nature of politics.

I would further suggest that this one single alteration to game mechanics would change EVE to it’s roots as by making 0.0 space truly free it would alter the way pilots looked at the game in terms of skills required and experience needed to live and work in null sec space, but would not change the basic entry level environment that is Empire, migration would be dependent on the pilots skill and experience level.

Heady ideals maybe but when you take a cold hard look at EVE as it currently exists, 0.0 space is flat, lifeless and not at all dynamic and has led to the current situation in Null sec space being one of less not more interaction.
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#57 - 2011-10-07 08:28:47 UTC
Kblackjack54 wrote:
Never apologize for a good idea clearly presented well thought through, but if you go into fine detail you will soon realize that such a change would in fact make no change at all except to make things a lot worse

The thorny problem of 0.0 space occupation is one that has long needed a complete makeover, that CCP have not addressed this earlier is in my view a severe mistake on there part as it has led, coupled with other factors to the current under-utilization of 0.0 space we see today.

CCP clearly stated that they wished to ‘Open’ up 0.0 space, the recent JB nerf was an attempt to do this changes to Plex seeding another, tinkering as they did must have shown them that the problem is more deep rooted than can be solved in such a manner.

A more radical and effective solution to opening up 0.0 space would be to dispense with the ability to claim space at all, This would of course change the ISK making potential of Alliances overall and force them to interact fiercely for space, in short a true ‘Sandbox’ environment.

At this point Alliances would be required to take and more importantly hold space by force of arms alone, coupled with changes to moon seeding, Capital balancing and general tweaking of several other factors the requirement for player/Corp/Alliance level interaction becomes the controlling factor in 0.0 space.

I would suggest that this change alone would make EVE a very dynamic place to live, it would make a huge change to the way Alliances interact requiring the development of skills not currently used in EVE to achieve anything approaching the current stale but comfortable environment we see today, but something that would never be achievable due to the fluid nature of politics.

I would further suggest that this one single alteration to game mechanics would change EVE to it’s roots as by making 0.0 space truly free it would alter the way pilots looked at the game in terms of skills required and experience needed to live and work in null sec space, but would not change the basic entry level environment that is Empire, migration would be dependent on the pilots skill and experience level.

Heady ideals maybe but when you take a cold hard look at EVE as it currently exists, 0.0 space is flat, lifeless and not at all dynamic and has led to the current situation in Null sec space being one of less not more interaction.


I dont think removing SOV is the answer, its just the way it works that needs sorting out.

There must also be another way of sorting out botting, if someone is logged on 19 hours a day and has a steady stream of rat bounties its pretty much guaranteed its a bot. If CCP sorted this out as a starting point it would help.

I would also be tempted to remove PLEX from in game as there are far too many now.

Those are different points though.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2011-10-07 11:35:29 UTC
You need to address the too-much-intel side as well.

Pushing the costs up for holding more could reduce holdings, open up opportunities a bit but you also need to blind the organizations from the API to see into systems they don't go to. ( dotlan for example, on who is building what and where).

Removal of that information would allow for SOV to be taken and only discovered later. it would allow for building of POS's that aren't discovered because nobody has been to that system in quite some time - so on and so forth.

Without the privacy factor, it's easy to pull a list from the web, go out and blow up targets with 100% intel accuracy because you know they have just anchored a POS or declared SOV - no matter where they did it, even with your lack of having been to those places in months.

Many operate there less for holding systems than preventing others from holding them/getting to close. That intel needs to require work to make the entire thing run or they'll shut down your idea and simply cut costs - emptying even more places that may have some people operating in them.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#59 - 2011-10-07 12:03:43 UTC
Mocam wrote:
You need to address the too-much-intel side as well.

Pushing the costs up for holding more could reduce holdings, open up opportunities a bit but you also need to blind the organizations from the API to see into systems they don't go to. ( dotlan for example, on who is building what and where).

Removal of that information would allow for SOV to be taken and only discovered later. it would allow for building of POS's that aren't discovered because nobody has been to that system in quite some time - so on and so forth.

Without the privacy factor, it's easy to pull a list from the web, go out and blow up targets with 100% intel accuracy because you know they have just anchored a POS or declared SOV - no matter where they did it, even with your lack of having been to those places in months.

Many operate there less for holding systems than preventing others from holding them/getting to close. That intel needs to require work to make the entire thing run or they'll shut down your idea and simply cut costs - emptying even more places that may have some people operating in them.

Those lists require the corps to provide dotlan with the info.. or at least an API. If your corp is doing this, you might want to have a corp meeting to explain what opsec is, and why its important to enforce.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Elzon1
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#60 - 2011-10-09 17:43:12 UTC
Why not just make sov based on player activity?

Sure it's lame, but it would probably work. Maybe make it something like a 5 to 7 day period where both sides would compete in some sort of activity. Perhaps do it based on rat kills? I know its lame, but there could be plenty of opportunities for PVP unless the defenders don't defend their turf.

Any sort of exponential fee based system is doomed to failure for obvious reasons as Meissa Anunthiel pointed out.

The structure bashing needs to go and so do the useless fees I think. I'm hoping CCP already figured out that sov needs to be based on activity. We shall see when they finally release a dev blog with what they want to do with sov so we can criticize it.

A plan without criticism is one doomed to failure I think.

Previous page123