These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE's summer expansion better focus on sovereignty
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#301 - 2013-01-25 11:05:49 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
let's take a look at a "time bottleneck" which, i assume means adding some kind of delay between each jump a capital ship makes?

let's assume a 6 hour cooldown for the sake of having a cooldown.
well the large entities can send say, 5 caps to do something, the small entity sends 5 caps to counter it. now for the next 6 hours the large entity can move their other 95 caps around with impuny as all of the small entity's ships are on "cooldown".

this just means that large entities waste a few cap ships to distract the small entity, then for the next 6 hours are able to steamroll them as the small entity ends up having to defend itself from cap ships, without cap ship support.

remind me how this benefits small entities?

And what about the space those 95 caps came from? Who is guarding that while they are gone?


the other 100 cap ships the large entity has. they are a large entity, they have more ships and people and stuff.

or if you don't buy that, then leave 50 of the 95 ships at home and just buttfuck the small entity with 45 cap ships. surely 45 is enough to wipe out a group of players that can only field 5 caps, right?

Well sending half is a strategy. Weakens your overall capital presence, but would hopefully send a message to any would be attackers.

Bottom line is, you have to make a calculated strategic decision. How many can we afford to send? Will our defenses hold in other parts of our space long enough for them to come back.

How much decision making goes into, "Send everything and they will be back home in time for tea." Bottom line is, even though as bleak as it sounds, those 5 enemy caps would stand a better chance against 45 instead of the 95. Not to mention it could open an opportunity for some other unrelated action in the now weakened territory to be exploited by a different attacker.

The game is simply too small. I'm not saying to remove jump drives or bridges or anything like that. My point is no sov system, no matter how much time CCP, CSM or players spend on trying to improve or perform a complete revamp; none of it will matter and will be just as bad as the current, if not worse - if the time bottleneck is not put back into place for power projection.


U are my idol. I love you man. Can we have babies?

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#302 - 2013-01-25 11:06:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Imo focus is moving away from a proper analythical path.

Power projection? Maybe.
Poor nullsec facilities? Sure.
Big HP boring structures grind? Of course.


But you'll never grasp the whole when tackling single issues.

What I am going to post next should imho be actually brought up at a CSM meeting.


An use case for null sec should be made, a motivator analysis too:

1) Which kind of playerbase are the best candidates for null sec? Should we (CCP) add more industrialists to them? And similar questions.

2) Why do they want to go there to begin with? Did we (CCP) put an answer to their aspirations in there? Did it work?

3) What makes those instigators decide "hey I want to become / lead a new power in null sec". Did we second them with proper game mechanics?

4) MOST IMPORTANT: What are the exact steps that worked in the past to make the big transition from:

Instigator =>
Corp with common goals =>
Corp moves to low sec / FW / staging =>
Corp moves to NPC null sec / staging =>
Corp eventually takes some sov or enters an alliance and holds sov =>
Alliance expands and fights against the established ones.

5) What broke some of those steps and why? Can we either restore this progression or provide new ways to reinstate a similar results progression?

6) What to do with those very large alliances?

- implement mechanics to increase intra-alliance conflict so they are easier to split?

- create post "we won EvE" content for them so that they can further evolve?

- just give them "farmlands" and let the game go on towards a sort of cooperative empires gameplay?

7) What is the price for leaving everything as is? Is it worth it? How will the EvE franchise be affected by stagnation? How will the playerbase react and how will subscriptions reflect that?


Without these clear points in mind, it's easy to patch in a change in there, a nerf in there, a buff in there and... achieve nothing but to create new issues or just shift the issues to a next future. And with every shift and hold over the issues will just come back harder and stronger than before till the whole game implodes.

I hope a CSM member reads this and considers these points for a CCP meeting.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#303 - 2013-01-25 11:28:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Zloco Crendraven
In my 1 year Nullsec career i was in 2 small-medium sized Alliances. Now i am in a medium sized lowsec corp. From my experience i dont find that the force projection nerf would hurt small alliances that much compared to the benefits/balance it d bring.

Bigger Alliance could always steamroll over smaller entities as they can now. But the further the smaller entity is, the more hassle bigger ones would have. And that is a nice balance. Smaller entities never needed force projection because they were most of the time on the defense or attacking neighbors.

There would be a boom in Mercenary activity because they would be much more effective in harassing their targets.

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Kalle Demos
Ironic Corp Name
#304 - 2013-01-25 11:37:53 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
We want battles, exploding ships, and goodfights, but these are becoming increasingly rare as more people get tired of the current sov mechanics.

So please, CCP, focus the summer expansion on sovereignty mechanics. I know it's a big project, but it needs to be done more than anything else and it needs to happen sooner rather than later.



For those of you with amnesia, do you know whats hilarious, in the past 2 years the 0.0 sections in the CSM minutes can be summarised with one line "CCP are aware theres an issue with sov warfare, CSM are aware theres an issue, players are aware theres an issue, we all want sov fixed, no one likes structure bashing and people want to see less supercaps" and do you know what happens in every expansion? 50% improvement to visual crap and 50% to changes that should have been done 5 years ago.


Dont expect a change for years and when you do see one expect it to be worse than it already is.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#305 - 2013-01-25 12:58:43 UTC
Kalle Demos wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
We want battles, exploding ships, and goodfights, but these are becoming increasingly rare as more people get tired of the current sov mechanics.

So please, CCP, focus the summer expansion on sovereignty mechanics. I know it's a big project, but it needs to be done more than anything else and it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

For those of you with amnesia, do you know whats hilarious, in the past 2 years the 0.0 sections in the CSM minutes can be summarised with one line "CCP are aware theres an issue with sov warfare, CSM are aware theres an issue, players are aware theres an issue, we all want sov fixed, no one likes structure bashing and people want to see less supercaps" and do you know what happens in every expansion? 50% improvement to visual crap and 50% to changes that should have been done 5 years ago.

Dont expect a change for years and when you do see one expect it to be worse than it already is.


So we need to wait three more years....

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Docter Daniel Jackson
Fleetworks Training
#306 - 2013-01-25 13:29:38 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Kalle Demos wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
We want battles, exploding ships, and goodfights, but these are becoming increasingly rare as more people get tired of the current sov mechanics.

So please, CCP, focus the summer expansion on sovereignty mechanics. I know it's a big project, but it needs to be done more than anything else and it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

For those of you with amnesia, do you know whats hilarious, in the past 2 years the 0.0 sections in the CSM minutes can be summarised with one line "CCP are aware theres an issue with sov warfare, CSM are aware theres an issue, players are aware theres an issue, we all want sov fixed, no one likes structure bashing and people want to see less supercaps" and do you know what happens in every expansion? 50% improvement to visual crap and 50% to changes that should have been done 5 years ago.

Dont expect a change for years and when you do see one expect it to be worse than it already is.


So we need to wait three more years....


And the rest Roll
Dave Stark
#307 - 2013-01-25 14:06:00 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
none of it will matter and will be just as bad as the current, if not worse - if the time bottleneck is not put back into place for power projection.


and as i pointed out if you have more capitals than your opponent once they commit to defending against a small attack from your capitals for the duration of that time bottleneck they are free to pillage as they so choose with the rest.

this does nothing but hurt the small entity.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2013-01-25 15:26:59 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:


But what if they don't want to have any friends, for example they are a ~solo player~


Well obviously that means they win eve then since we must cater to the npc corp ~solo honourable elite pvpvpvpver~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#309 - 2013-01-25 15:33:11 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Marlona Sky wrote:

Look how weak and transparent your argument is.

Enough with pretending like you care about the little guy. You don't. What you do care about is saying anything you possibly can to keep power projection exactly the way it is. Because you can move incredibly fast across the game in minutes is the very reason for the giant blue null we have now. And you wave your little arranged skirmish flag in the air like it is war. It is nothing more than harmless pillow fight.

Human nature is to see safety. No one is arguing that. It translates very well into this game. What is absurd is players are seeking safety in massive numbers, not from neighboring enemies, but from enemies that reside on the OTHER SIDE of the map. This causes a domino effect on what is needed for safety.

The time bottle neck on power projection NEEDS to be restored if this game is to become fun, exciting and dynamic again. Who cares if CCP roles out a completely new sov system if everyone can be anywhere in the game in minutes. You complain about structure grinding, yet don't ask why so many hit points were added to them. They were not designed for smaller battles with warring neighbors a few systems away. They were designed with massive coalitions in mind.

So there you have it. Victim of your own success if you will. You created this mess. You are responsible for this ****** sov system. The answer to fixing all of this is restoring the time bottle neck in power projection, but you are scared. Scared because you know that if you had to defend a pocket of space on your own and could not rely on blues who live across the galaxy to aid you that moment, you would be taken out with the trash.

Anyways, enjoy the current sov system. You made it this way.


You're right I'm not an advocate for the little guy but I sure as hell am going to call you out when you say something stupid like "hurrr nerf pwoer projection it help little guy hurrr!" The only thing nerfing power projection will do is hurt everyone and make nullsec less fun. Now I realize NCdotte is basically in highsec so its to your advantage to do so, look how transparent your motives are.

Yeah as much as you pubbies want to assert that we did, we didn't code the game or design the mechanics.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2013-01-25 15:47:16 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

... but I sure as hell am going to call you out when you say something stupid ...

i would do the same but this way i will need to answer to EACH your post Shocked

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#311 - 2013-01-25 15:51:07 UTC
If a Cyno Jammer was vulnerable to smaller ships, would that make a difference? (It's a POS module now, iirc. So you need to fight through pos shields and defences)

Say, a stand alone installation, that generated a deadspace field, restricting access to cruisers and below. So, if you could sneak in a covert ops ship, you could covert cyno in a blops fleet, to take it down. before bridging in your main fleet.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#312 - 2013-01-25 15:57:01 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

... but I sure as hell am going to call you out when you say something stupid ...

i would do the same but this way i will need to answer to EACH your post Shocked


:iceburn:

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2013-01-25 16:54:10 UTC
What you pubbies want to turn 0.0 into. http://www.warcraftpeople.com/media/images/news/nerfnow_deathwing_free_loot.png

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#314 - 2013-01-25 17:06:05 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
What you pubbies want to turn 0.0 into. http://www.warcraftpeople.com/media/images/news/nerfnow_deathwing_free_loot.png

And who is turning Fountain into Battlegrounds in EVE again?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#315 - 2013-01-25 17:15:14 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
none of it will matter and will be just as bad as the current, if not worse - if the time bottleneck is not put back into place for power projection.


and as i pointed out if you have more capitals than your opponent once they commit to defending against a small attack from your capitals for the duration of that time bottleneck they are free to pillage as they so choose with the rest.

this does nothing but hurt the small entity.

I'm going to chalk it up to not having my coffee yet, but I think you are saying that you would move your coalitions entire capital fleet to pillage the small space of someone. Aside from that being the case right now, it would leave the rest of your coalitions space open for anyone to attack without worrying about you defending with caps.

Your coalition would replace you as sky marshall very fast.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#316 - 2013-01-25 17:22:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
let's take a look at a "time bottleneck" which, i assume means adding some kind of delay between each jump a capital ship makes?

let's assume a 6 hour cooldown for the sake of having a cooldown.
well the large entities can send say, 5 caps to do something, the small entity sends 5 caps to counter it. now for the next 6 hours the large entity can move their other 95 caps around with impuny as all of the small entity's ships are on "cooldown".

this just means that large entities waste a few cap ships to distract the small entity, then for the next 6 hours are able to steamroll them as the small entity ends up having to defend itself from cap ships, without cap ship support.

remind me how this benefits small entities?

And what about the space those 95 caps came from? Who is guarding that while they are gone?


the other 100 cap ships the large entity has. they are a large entity, they have more ships and people and stuff.

or if you don't buy that, then leave 50 of the 95 ships at home and just buttfuck the small entity with 45 cap ships. surely 45 is enough to wipe out a group of players that can only field 5 caps, right?

Well sending half is a strategy. Weakens your overall capital presence, but would hopefully send a message to any would be attackers.

Bottom line is, you have to make a calculated strategic decision. How many can we afford to send? Will our defenses hold in other parts of our space long enough for them to come back.

How much decision making goes into, "Send everything and they will be back home in time for tea." Bottom line is, even though as bleak as it sounds, those 5 enemy caps would stand a better chance against 45 instead of the 95. Not to mention it could open an opportunity for some other unrelated action in the now weakened territory to be exploited by a different attacker.

The game is simply too small. I'm not saying to remove jump drives or bridges or anything like that. My point is no sov system, no matter how much time CCP, CSM or players spend on trying to improve or perform a complete revamp; none of it will matter and will be just as bad as the current, if not worse - if the time bottleneck is not put back into place for power projection.



Making the game involve some sort of strategy as to how/where resources - ships - are assigned would definitely be a good thing. The current game has one strategy - come with your biggest blob always everywhere everytime. That is not really strategy.

It doesn't have to be a base 6 hour cool down either. It could be a set amount of distance per 48 hours or even longer whatever.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#317 - 2013-01-25 17:26:18 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
none of it will matter and will be just as bad as the current, if not worse - if the time bottleneck is not put back into place for power projection.


and as i pointed out if you have more capitals than your opponent once they commit to defending against a small attack from your capitals for the duration of that time bottleneck they are free to pillage as they so choose with the rest.

this does nothing but hurt the small entity.

I'm going to chalk it up to not having my coffee yet, but I think you are saying that you would move your coalitions entire capital fleet to pillage the small space of someone. Aside from that being the case right now, it would leave the rest of your coalitions space open for anyone to attack without worrying about you defending with caps.

Your coalition would replace you as sky marshall very fast.


This is all well in good except that you forget about those pesky timers and how they make your argument fail.

This Razor spacebro said it better than I did:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marlona Sky once again ignoring the fact that defense has nothing to do with power projection seeing as you have a space of usually about a day in which to move ships, in other words more than enough time to move any kind of ship capital or otherwise across the map with any reasonable nerf.


Nerfing power projection just means it will require more people to do something well and that means its even harder for the little guy to compete, so try again. It's painfully obvious that the only thing you are trying to do is harm these big coalitions you hate, while trying to make it look like you are white-knighting for the little guy.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#318 - 2013-01-25 17:29:13 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marlona Sky once again ignoring the fact that defense has nothing to do with power projection seeing as you have a space of usually about a day in which to move ships, in other words more than enough time to move any kind of ship capital or otherwise across the map with any reasonable nerf.

I think moving a coalitions entire fleet to one pocket of space to fight off a small alliance carving out a section of space for themselves would be a grave mistake. Leaving borders unprotected? Territory unchecked? That would be asking for everyone to take kidney shots at you if your guard was down focusing entirely on one thing.

Remember, you would not be able to zip back and forth all over the map in minutes. Blink


but at the same time, you don't need your whole cap fleet in order to eliminate a smaller entity if you're a larger entity, so you won't be leaving borders unprotected or territory unchecked, you will still have your own space guarded while still having a numerical advantage, even if you only bring cap ships to equal theirs and then use subcaps to drive home the "power in numbers" aspect of your advantage.

failing that, if people are unwilling to deploy cap ships for fear of leaving their home undefended then nobody will attack each other for fear of being invaded and lead to a more obscene and risk averse 0.0 which is a situation nobody wants.



I think the sitting in home systems stems from a different problem. The problem is, it is better to just sit in your current system than it is to conquer new systems. CCP should make it so that if you win a war conquest you end up with more than if you just sit in your space.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#319 - 2013-01-25 17:37:22 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
none of it will matter and will be just as bad as the current, if not worse - if the time bottleneck is not put back into place for power projection.


and as i pointed out if you have more capitals than your opponent once they commit to defending against a small attack from your capitals for the duration of that time bottleneck they are free to pillage as they so choose with the rest.

this does nothing but hurt the small entity.

I'm going to chalk it up to not having my coffee yet, but I think you are saying that you would move your coalitions entire capital fleet to pillage the small space of someone. Aside from that being the case right now, it would leave the rest of your coalitions space open for anyone to attack without worrying about you defending with caps.

Your coalition would replace you as sky marshall very fast.


This is all well in good except that you forget about those pesky timers and how they make your argument fail.

This Razor spacebro said it better than I did:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marlona Sky once again ignoring the fact that defense has nothing to do with power projection seeing as you have a space of usually about a day in which to move ships, in other words more than enough time to move any kind of ship capital or otherwise across the map with any reasonable nerf.


Nerfing power projection just means it will require more people to do something well and that means its even harder for the little guy to compete, so try again. It's painfully obvious that the only thing you are trying to do is harm these big coalitions you hate, while trying to make it look like you are white-knighting for the little guy.

Did I say a new sov system should be based on timers? No, I did not.
Dave Stark
#320 - 2013-01-25 17:42:42 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
none of it will matter and will be just as bad as the current, if not worse - if the time bottleneck is not put back into place for power projection.


and as i pointed out if you have more capitals than your opponent once they commit to defending against a small attack from your capitals for the duration of that time bottleneck they are free to pillage as they so choose with the rest.

this does nothing but hurt the small entity.

I'm going to chalk it up to not having my coffee yet, but I think you are saying that you would move your coalitions entire capital fleet to pillage the small space of someone. Aside from that being the case right now, it would leave the rest of your coalitions space open for anyone to attack without worrying about you defending with caps.

Your coalition would replace you as sky marshall very fast.


if i'm a large entity, why would i send all of my caps? i'm a large entity, a fraction of my capitals could wipe them out since they've got no cap support for 6 hours and i don't have to worry about being engaged by their cap fleet.

what strategy i employ is besides the point, the point is every example i have given proves that your idea of some kind of time lockout only hurts small entities and your only answer to that so far has been "lol u r crap fc" basically.

please, for the sake of the kittens, point out HOW a time lockout helps small entities? because i've pointed out, several times, that it simply doesn't.