These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#521 - 2013-01-27 01:11:16 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Pretty much. An interface tracking "the empire" would be nice. Of course, then amusing things happen, if, for example, you have renters ratting, but it's not their sov, so does it count? Would your non-sov-holding renters actually be attacking you? That would be hilarious.


This is indeed one of the problem I could not find a solution to compeltely. I though people ratting would be at least from your alliance so it would not affect the sov level but if renters are not in alliance, then I am not sure. A sov interface where you can input corps as mercenaries maybe. Thier ratting in your sov system count as your alliance doing it. Just throwing this as a possibility of course.


2 points need to be added to that.

1- The "renter" corp/alliance need to be able to decline the rights. No setting of your enemy as renters when losing a war.

2- Based on this, a timer on the revocation of renting. You can't as a renter instantly beging trashing SOV. The defending party recive a warning about your breach of contract and X hours later you can start doing damage.

The second one might not be necessary but i'd rather not integrate another "metagame" while changing the whole system. It could be removed if most people really think it's way too limiting.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#522 - 2013-01-27 01:55:28 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Pretty much. An interface tracking "the empire" would be nice. Of course, then amusing things happen, if, for example, you have renters ratting, but it's not their sov, so does it count? Would your non-sov-holding renters actually be attacking you? That would be hilarious.


This is indeed one of the problem I could not find a solution to compeltely. I though people ratting would be at least from your alliance so it would not affect the sov level but if renters are not in alliance, then I am not sure. A sov interface where you can input corps as mercenaries maybe. Thier ratting in your sov system count as your alliance doing it. Just throwing this as a possibility of course.


2 points need to be added to that.

1- The "renter" corp/alliance need to be able to decline the rights. No setting of your enemy as renters when losing a war.

2- Based on this, a timer on the revocation of renting. You can't as a renter instantly beging trashing SOV. The defending party recive a warning about your breach of contract and X hours later you can start doing damage.

The second one might not be necessary but i'd rather not integrate another "metagame" while changing the whole system. It could be removed if most people really think it's way too limiting.



'Sov' points that can spent for upgrades? (like LP for FW)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#523 - 2013-01-27 02:07:19 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Pretty much. An interface tracking "the empire" would be nice. Of course, then amusing things happen, if, for example, you have renters ratting, but it's not their sov, so does it count? Would your non-sov-holding renters actually be attacking you? That would be hilarious.


This is indeed one of the problem I could not find a solution to compeltely. I though people ratting would be at least from your alliance so it would not affect the sov level but if renters are not in alliance, then I am not sure. A sov interface where you can input corps as mercenaries maybe. Thier ratting in your sov system count as your alliance doing it. Just throwing this as a possibility of course.


2 points need to be added to that.

1- The "renter" corp/alliance need to be able to decline the rights. No setting of your enemy as renters when losing a war.

2- Based on this, a timer on the revocation of renting. You can't as a renter instantly beging trashing SOV. The defending party recive a warning about your breach of contract and X hours later you can start doing damage.

The second one might not be necessary but i'd rather not integrate another "metagame" while changing the whole system. It could be removed if most people really think it's way too limiting.



'Sov' points that can spent for upgrades? (like LP for FW)


It should all be player driven IMO so a NPC store to use a currency in makes no sense to me. The renters will pay the sov holder jsut like now except there will be "official paperwork" to make thier attacks not cause SOV control loss. Seeing as most renters would not have a capital, they would not be able to gain territory to influence your SOV anyway. As for allowing other alliance to rat in your system instead of thiers, I am not sure why it would happen as they would have to rat in thiers anyway just to maintain control...
Kalle Demos
Ironic Corp Name
#524 - 2013-01-27 15:07:40 UTC
It seems CFC dying took the attention away from this thread, please continue. Its very important CCP fixes sov ASAP and since they have said previously they can only fix things in the summer expansion (or maybe winter, not sure) its best you guys keep this going until 2015
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#525 - 2013-01-28 00:21:46 UTC
When did they say that?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#526 - 2013-01-28 00:58:14 UTC
See?
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#527 - 2013-01-29 05:07:32 UTC
Confirming, my alliance is dying. Withering on the vine if you will. You can tell by all the members we've lost on dotlan.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#528 - 2013-01-29 17:36:39 UTC

+1 to revamping nullsec....

I personally want to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of Timer-based structure shooting! Furthermore, I want to see the inclusion of small gang objectives. While I don't want to see the current incarnation of FW become the new sov system, it does some things right!

-- An individual plays a role in flipping a system... They don't NEED a fleet to accomplish their part... all they need is a frigate and a little motivation...

-- Randomly spawning objectives: A small gang objective should be a target of opportunity, not a pre-planned OP.

-- Limited Opportunity: A small gang objective should be accomplish-able quickly... If the enemy only has 10 minutes to respond... they can't bring everything..

-- You don't need to "force" large fights.. things can and will often escalate naturally...
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#529 - 2013-01-29 17:37:59 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

+1 to revamping nullsec....

I personally want to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of Timer-based structure shooting! Furthermore, I want to see the inclusion of small gang objectives. While I don't want to see the current incarnation of FW become the new sov system, it does some things right!

-- An individual plays a role in flipping a system... They don't NEED a fleet to accomplish their part... all they need is a frigate and a little motivation...

-- Randomly spawning objectives: A small gang objective should be a target of opportunity, not a pre-planned OP.

-- Limited Opportunity: A small gang objective should be accomplish-able quickly... If the enemy only has 10 minutes to respond... they can't bring everything..

-- You don't need to "force" large fights.. things can and will often escalate naturally...



Size limited objectives?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
No More Heroes
Boomer Humor
Snuffed Out
#530 - 2013-01-29 17:42:48 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

+1 to revamping nullsec....

I personally want to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of Timer-based structure shooting! Furthermore, I want to see the inclusion of small gang objectives. While I don't want to see the current incarnation of FW become the new sov system, it does some things right!

-- An individual plays a role in flipping a system... They don't NEED a fleet to accomplish their part... all they need is a frigate and a little motivation...

-- Randomly spawning objectives: A small gang objective should be a target of opportunity, not a pre-planned OP.

-- Limited Opportunity: A small gang objective should be accomplish-able quickly... If the enemy only has 10 minutes to respond... they can't bring everything..

-- You don't need to "force" large fights.. things can and will often escalate naturally...


Most of these things are covered under Farms & Fields™

http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

http://themittani.com/features/creation-and-destruction

.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#531 - 2013-01-29 18:26:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
No More Heroes wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

+1 to revamping nullsec....

I personally want to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of Timer-based structure shooting! Furthermore, I want to see the inclusion of small gang objectives. While I don't want to see the current incarnation of FW become the new sov system, it does some things right!

-- An individual plays a role in flipping a system... They don't NEED a fleet to accomplish their part... all they need is a frigate and a little motivation...

-- Randomly spawning objectives: A small gang objective should be a target of opportunity, not a pre-planned OP.

-- Limited Opportunity: A small gang objective should be accomplish-able quickly... If the enemy only has 10 minutes to respond... they can't bring everything..

-- You don't need to "force" large fights.. things can and will often escalate naturally...


Most of these things are covered under Farms & Fields™

http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

http://themittani.com/features/creation-and-destruction


I've read those articles.. and many of the Forum's on Farms & Fields™ . On the old forums, there was a nice lengthy thread about farms and fields ideas.... Farms & Fields™ typically don't refer to "Sov" battles, but to everyday infrastructure that give people a reason to attack and defend.

And while I'd love to see Farms & Fields™ implemented.. . My post is about including Small gang objectives directly into Sov Warfare... Currently, all Sov Warfare objectives are enormous structures with RF timers...

To give an example: Imagine if you could speed up or slow down an IHUB/TCU's RF countdown timer by some major margin (like +/- 12 hours). How? Through several small gang objectives that randomly spawn during the RF countdown... Achieve the objectives and you may speed up or slow down the RF timer.... As long as the objectives were random in nature, complete-able by a small gang in a short time (<15 minutes), etc... suddenly there is a new dimension to Sov that involves small gang warfare... This creates interesting opportunities for Strikes when an enemy is unprepared... it allows for natural escalation, and rounds out the Sov game...
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#532 - 2013-01-29 18:35:50 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
No More Heroes wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

+1 to revamping nullsec....

I personally want to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of Timer-based structure shooting! Furthermore, I want to see the inclusion of small gang objectives. While I don't want to see the current incarnation of FW become the new sov system, it does some things right!

-- An individual plays a role in flipping a system... They don't NEED a fleet to accomplish their part... all they need is a frigate and a little motivation...

-- Randomly spawning objectives: A small gang objective should be a target of opportunity, not a pre-planned OP.

-- Limited Opportunity: A small gang objective should be accomplish-able quickly... If the enemy only has 10 minutes to respond... they can't bring everything..

-- You don't need to "force" large fights.. things can and will often escalate naturally...


Most of these things are covered under Farms & Fields™

http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

http://themittani.com/features/creation-and-destruction


I've read those articles.. and many of the Forum's on Farms & Fields™ . On the old forums, there was a nice lengthy thread about farms and fields ideas.... Farms & Fields™ typically don't refer to "Sov" battles, but to everyday infrastructure that give people a reason to attack and defend.

And while I'd love to see Farms & Fields™ implemented.. . My post is about including Small gang objectives directly into Sov Warfare... Currently, all Sov Warfare objectives are enormous structures with RF timers...

To give an example: Imagine if you could speed up or slow down an IHUB/TCU's RF countdown timer by some major margin (like +/- 12 hours). How? Through several small gang objectives that randomly spawn during the RF countdown... Achieve the objectives and you may speed up or slow down the RF timer.... As long as the objectives were random in nature, complete-able by a small gang in a short time (<15 minutes), etc... suddenly there is a new dimension to Sov that involves small gang warfare... This creates interesting opportunities for Strikes when an enemy is unprepared... it allows for natural escalation, and rounds out the Sov game...


I'd suggest the ability to attack people's upgrades. The indices they've spent time increasing and so on (and have suggested on my blog.)

Mostly as it introduces something other than an all or nothing attack on someone's Sov.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#533 - 2013-01-29 19:13:37 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
No More Heroes wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

+1 to revamping nullsec....

I personally want to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of Timer-based structure shooting! Furthermore, I want to see the inclusion of small gang objectives. While I don't want to see the current incarnation of FW become the new sov system, it does some things right!

-- An individual plays a role in flipping a system... They don't NEED a fleet to accomplish their part... all they need is a frigate and a little motivation...

-- Randomly spawning objectives: A small gang objective should be a target of opportunity, not a pre-planned OP.

-- Limited Opportunity: A small gang objective should be accomplish-able quickly... If the enemy only has 10 minutes to respond... they can't bring everything..

-- You don't need to "force" large fights.. things can and will often escalate naturally...


Most of these things are covered under Farms & Fields™

http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

http://themittani.com/features/creation-and-destruction


I've read those articles.. and many of the Forum's on Farms & Fields™ . On the old forums, there was a nice lengthy thread about farms and fields ideas.... Farms & Fields™ typically don't refer to "Sov" battles, but to everyday infrastructure that give people a reason to attack and defend.

And while I'd love to see Farms & Fields™ implemented.. . My post is about including Small gang objectives directly into Sov Warfare... Currently, all Sov Warfare objectives are enormous structures with RF timers...

To give an example: Imagine if you could speed up or slow down an IHUB/TCU's RF countdown timer by some major margin (like +/- 12 hours). How? Through several small gang objectives that randomly spawn during the RF countdown... Achieve the objectives and you may speed up or slow down the RF timer.... As long as the objectives were random in nature, complete-able by a small gang in a short time (<15 minutes), etc... suddenly there is a new dimension to Sov that involves small gang warfare... This creates interesting opportunities for Strikes when an enemy is unprepared... it allows for natural escalation, and rounds out the Sov game...


I'd suggest the ability to attack people's upgrades. The indices they've spent time increasing and so on (and have suggested on my blog.)

Mostly as it introduces something other than an all or nothing attack on someone's Sov.


If I want to stop someone from ratting or making isk I can just park a cloaky alt in system... Attacking someones upgrades generally does nothing in the taking or defending the Sov of a system, and I'm stating there needs to be room for a small force to influence the Sov game...

Currently, the battle for the TCU is determined by the forces you wield... either you can defeat the forces and save the TCU or you can't... and since it's on a timer, everything is moreless "predetermined". There is no form for asymmetric warfare in Sov.. This really makes it pointless for a small group to even try to defend their space from a large group... as nothing they can do will influence or alter the process... Hell... they can't even slow it down!!
Hannah Flex
#534 - 2013-01-29 19:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannah Flex
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
This really makes it pointless for a small group to even try to defend their space from a large group... as nothing they can do will influence or alter the process... Hell... they can't even slow it down!!


WALLTREIPERS Alliance would like to have a word with you.

They are a small 500 man spanish alliance that held a constellation in Delve prior to the soco vs. CFC conflict last year. They fought like lions using snipers and bombers and ohgod the bombers until they were down to one system left. They had one system left. And they held that system for 2 weeks- against a coalition of 45,000 players by sheer tenacity and balls of steel.

We would drop SBU's and they would ninja the things, we would guard the SBU's till they anchored then leave and they would kill them with a couple supers. That little alliance earned the respect of all 0.0 more than any kb stats or supercapital fleets or Battleclinic rating ever could.

You are right though- there needs to be more small gang objectives.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#535 - 2013-01-29 19:42:30 UTC
Hannah Flex wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
This really makes it pointless for a small group to even try to defend their space from a large group... as nothing they can do will influence or alter the process... Hell... they can't even slow it down!!


WALLTREIPERS Alliance would like to have a word with you.

They are a small 500 man spanish alliance that held a constellation in Delve prior to the soco vs. CFC conflict last year. They fought like lions using snipers and bombers and ohgod the bombers until they were down to one system left. They had one system left. And they held that system for 2 weeks- against a coalition of 45,000 players by sheer tenacity and balls of steel.

We would drop SBU's and they would ninja the things, we would guard the SBU's till they anchored then leave and they would kill them with a couple supers. That little alliance earned the respect of all 0.0 more than any kb stats or supercapital fleets or Battleclinic rating ever could.

You are right though- there needs to be more small gang objectives.

Amen to that, WALLTREIPERS definitely earned my respect during that conflict.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#536 - 2013-01-29 19:59:15 UTC
Hannah Flex wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
This really makes it pointless for a small group to even try to defend their space from a large group... as nothing they can do will influence or alter the process... Hell... they can't even slow it down!!


WALLTREIPERS Alliance would like to have a word with you.

They are a small 500 man spanish alliance that held a constellation in Delve prior to the soco vs. CFC conflict last year. They fought like lions using snipers and bombers and ohgod the bombers until they were down to one system left. They had one system left. And they held that system for 2 weeks- against a coalition of 45,000 players by sheer tenacity and balls of steel.

We would drop SBU's and they would ninja the things, we would guard the SBU's till they anchored then leave and they would kill them with a couple supers. That little alliance earned the respect of all 0.0 more than any kb stats or supercapital fleets or Battleclinic rating ever could.

You are right though- there needs to be more small gang objectives.


And if WALLTREIPERS Alliance had the ability to change RF timers by completing random small gang objectives....
--- Imagine the value of their tenacity when IHUB's become vulnerable 3 hours early... or six hours later than originally planned... then they could ninja destroy SBU's and make taking their systems much more difficult.

We can't / shouldn't change the generalized idea that "big numbers" will win against smaller numbers.... but that doesn't mean we should arm pilots with tools that enable tenacious small groups to alter the combat situation, ideally so they can win...
turmajin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#537 - 2013-01-29 23:02:01 UTC
I really cant see why the FW sov system couldnt be used,ok so it might need tweaking here and there ,but its a valid way of deciding sov imo,and will eventually include Dust operations.instead of TCUs and SBUs and grinding alot of structures.Lets base it on taking a / the station in system,and holding the temperate planets in future Also as there would be no TCUs ect it could open up alot of space for other alliances to occupy.At the moment thats difficult to do ,as big alliances own 100s of systems ,which require alot of structure grinding but no station or ownership of planets or /planetary operations like industry /argricuture ect on planets no sov in that system.This is the way Sov is going to go anyway to accommodate Dust so why not make a start on it this summer expansion,or at latest in the winter expansion.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#538 - 2013-01-30 00:15:49 UTC
turmajin wrote:
I really cant see why the FW sov system couldnt be used,ok so it might need tweaking here and there ,but its a valid way of deciding sov imo,and will eventually include Dust operations.instead of TCUs and SBUs and grinding alot of structures.Lets base it on taking a / the station in system,and holding the temperate planets in future Also as there would be no TCUs ect it could open up alot of space for other alliances to occupy.At the moment thats difficult to do ,as big alliances own 100s of systems ,which require alot of structure grinding but no station or ownership of planets or /planetary operations like industry /argricuture ect on planets no sov in that system.This is the way Sov is going to go anyway to accommodate Dust so why not make a start on it this summer expansion,or at latest in the winter expansion.


Because FW sov System is ENTIRELY based around small gang activity...
Furthermore, it's heavily based on the use of alts to plex/deplex systems...

Nullsec wants SOME big target excuses to deploy massive fleets and have massive battles... and frankly the FW Sov system doesn't have this...

We need a middle ground... In my opinion, Sov should start off with a big bang.... it should then be influenced by lots of small gang stuff... and then the struggle should conclude with another big bang.... (rinse and repeat until Sov is conquered).

Sir Diablos
Requiem Knowledge
#539 - 2013-01-30 01:12:06 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I'll say it again: if CCP think that players will be infinitely patient, they are incorrect. Matters are coming to a head in null and if there isn't a proper reworking of sov 0.0, it's not going to be pretty.

I fully understand that CCP wanted to work on empire for the last few years, but now the situation in null is approaching meltdown. It has been 5 years since the last work on improving sov 0.0 was done, and now that patience is wearing very thin indeed.

*Eliminate multi-million hp structures as the lynchpin of sov. Sov strength should be determined by player activity, not deployable structures.

*Undefended sov should be easy to take, no to remotely set timers.

*Make it viable for 0.0 players to actually live in 0.0 by reworking outposts so that we can upgrade them to match NPC systems

*Base alliance income on the activity of players, not the output of lifeless moons owned by an elite few.


At the moment, Sov 0.0 depends on supers, structures and moons. It should depend on players.


Best post that I've read in awhile. Kudos.

I sometimes have to wonder when the harshness of space was replaced with the soft foamy feel of a theme park.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#540 - 2013-01-30 02:34:26 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Hannah Flex wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
This really makes it pointless for a small group to even try to defend their space from a large group... as nothing they can do will influence or alter the process... Hell... they can't even slow it down!!


WALLTREIPERS Alliance would like to have a word with you.

They are a small 500 man spanish alliance that held a constellation in Delve prior to the soco vs. CFC conflict last year. They fought like lions using snipers and bombers and ohgod the bombers until they were down to one system left. They had one system left. And they held that system for 2 weeks- against a coalition of 45,000 players by sheer tenacity and balls of steel.

We would drop SBU's and they would ninja the things, we would guard the SBU's till they anchored then leave and they would kill them with a couple supers. That little alliance earned the respect of all 0.0 more than any kb stats or supercapital fleets or Battleclinic rating ever could.

You are right though- there needs to be more small gang objectives.

Amen to that, WALLTREIPERS definitely earned my respect during that conflict.

Good stuff, I'd ask if they were blue to us now, but I think they're HBC?

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 ?