These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

I fixed sov mechanics...no seriously

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
dark heartt
#41 - 2013-04-19 04:02:34 UTC
Why do you think that there should only be one station for each constellation? If an corp, alliance or coalition can afford to have 1 outpost in each system, shouldn't they be allowed to?

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Hannah Flex
#42 - 2013-04-19 04:17:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannah Flex
.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#43 - 2013-04-19 04:29:14 UTC
Hannah Flex wrote:
dark heartt wrote:
Why do you think that there should only be one station for each constellation? If an corp, alliance or coalition can afford to have 1 outpost in each system, shouldn't they be allowed to?


Because he and his ilk detest the massive battles of sovereignty warfare (which clearly CCP and the general public love) See: Asakai, and wants to turn 0.0 into small-gang pvp haven


Why doesn't he go to NPC null then? That's 90% of what happens in Syndicate.

Unless of course he can't hang.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2013-04-19 04:32:03 UTC
Fix sov by making no one want to hold sov, while also driving more people to high sec by removing the few reasons some bother to leave high sec.

Why you want everyone in high sec?
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2013-04-19 04:43:50 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

Step 1, One Constellation One Station
Step 2, Put the farms and fields BEYOND the castle moat

This will make people roam through space more without having everyone they meet simply dock up. If they want the fruits of their lands, they'll have to go out and get them and actually defend their ability to do it.


Any time you use the word "make", you show your ignorance.

You can NOT make anyone do anything.

You can make an activity less profitable than another, and magically, everyone will stop doing that less profitable activity.

The result of your change would be to move even more people from null to high sec. Then let me guess. You'll whine for nerfs to high sec to "make" people go back to null.

You can not force people to play the game, so you can not "make" them play the way you want them to play. Attempts to do so will simply cause them to stop playing.
dark heartt
#46 - 2013-04-19 04:45:09 UTC
Hannah Flex wrote:
dark heartt wrote:
Why do you think that there should only be one station for each constellation? If an corp, alliance or coalition can afford to have 1 outpost in each system, shouldn't they be allowed to?


Because he and his ilk detest the massive battles of sovereignty warfare (which clearly CCP and the general public love) See: Asakai, and wants to turn 0.0 into small-gang pvp haven


Ah. This explains it. Eve has always been about the massive battles and war stories that come with it for me (even though I have next to no experience in that realm of gameplay).

In other news, posting in an anti-blob thread.

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2013-04-19 04:54:58 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

Step 5, The step that makes it all meaningful.

Now would they bring in a 1500 man fleet to hit some stupid structure until it hit some timer, reset and try again this time with 1500 man response fleet with 99 percent of the people involved would have the contribution of "orbit anchor, hit F1 at primary."

Instead you're going to have to send out small squads of 10-20 Cruisers bouncing all over the system in a cat and mouse game with the defenders.



Why wouldn't they roll 7, 200 man fleets in battle ships to alpha your low hp structures? Why wouldn't they have massive bubble camps in that one system with a station that all the defenders are trapped in? Why wouldn't they have a fleet of caps and super caps hanging around? In case the defenders get some idea to break the camp?


Without timers, you go to bed in a station you own, and wake up 8 hours later to find the station flipped. You can't undock without all your stuff being inaccessible?

Why would anyone move to null if it is that easy to lose all your stuff?



The grind is designed to create a level of safety and stability necessary to get people to leave high sec and move to null.



Your post assumes people will behave the way you want them too rather than the way that makes the most sense, from their point of view.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2013-04-19 04:59:03 UTC
dark heartt wrote:

In other news, posting in an anti-blob thread.


Of course it is an anti-blob thread. Well, anti-carebear and anti-blob thread.

OP envisions an EVE universe where all players fly around in groups of 10-20 (or fewer) cruisers or smaller. What he fails to do is provide ideas for mechanics that will achieve that. Instead, what he proposes will push the few null bears to high sec, while breaking the blob up from 1 fleet of 1500, into 7 fleets of 100 and a station camping fleet of 1000.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#49 - 2013-04-19 05:25:57 UTC
Not sure if this is some extremely elaborate trolling attempt/joke/attempt to rustle jimmies, or you seriously think that this is a good idea. Now I could stoop to such simplicities as pointing out that your example system (WMN- in Kalevala) is actually WNM-, or that many constelattions do not have true central systems (http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/The_Kalevala_Expanse/78-6RI#const)
or I could point out the fact that it is highly impractical to have stations centralized. Or the fact that many of them are NOT centralized, because they serve strategic purposes being in the systems they are in. Or I could get into how you would be taking away stations from various entities, and forcing them into the hands of one entity, in cases where different alliances hold station sovreignty in the same system. Or the fact of how many super/capital builders and the likes would no longer be able to produce in their systems off their bpos from station if it wasnt in station. Or how upgrades for stations would have to be completely overhauled, and there are big questions how you would handle the merging of so many factory slots.

But all that is pretty pointless, because there are not too many stations. Your argument is built around a false premise, that the stations are the cause of the problem.

You also fail on your assumption that moving valuable sites out of station systems, will make the people performing isk-making activities in these systems more risk prone. This is simply not true.

People who make money in systems that do not have a station in them, use a control tower. As such, with multiple control towers in a system, and the fact that the control towers generally have defenses, you cannot simply jump in, warp to the station, drop a bubble, and wait for carebears to get caught. Instead, you have to actually catch them in the belts, sites, missions, etc. This makes it HARDER for you to catch them, and does not create more roaming. I've lived out of a pos many times, and not just in wormhole space. You compress your ore, and jump freightering to the nearest station system, or via rorqual, will still be a completely safe activity, provided you don't do something moronic (on the scale of this thread) like jumping into your pos system with hostiles in local.

As for getting rid of the structures, and making it all about the station? You sir, are actually making it HARDER to conquer sov, and far easier to defend it. No longer do you have to spread your forces out to cover the various SBUs, no longer do you have to check the timer on your Ihub, or TCU. No longer do you have to go defend tons of systems. Now you can just sit your super fleet on top of the station, and when anyone shows up, if they want to take any part of that constellation, they HAVE to fight you, on your home turf. You're taking away disruption mechanics (dropping SBUs to harass), and you're taking away the ability of hostile fleets to sit somewhere safer for them (on a gate, as opposed to on a hostile station, where enemies can play docking games, or reship), and are making it much safer for the defender.

Your idea strongly favours the defender, will promote stagnation, and make it harder to flip sov.

The last part of your scenario is pointless for me to touch on, as you have completely missed the point on what would actually happen, as a result of this suggestion. This is a terrible idea, that was horribly thought out, and the only good thing that came from this thread (other than the opportunity for me to point out to you how wrong you are), is that in the future when someone else has the same stupid idea, we will be able to link them back to this thread, and tell them to stop regurgitating old failed ideas.

/thread
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2013-04-19 05:28:58 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
Posting in a not-so-stealth 'Nerf the big blue blob' thread.


Except you know, this would make eve safer for the blue doughnut, and other supergroups, as briefly outlined in my post.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#51 - 2013-04-19 06:25:40 UTC
dark heartt "Why do you think that there should only be one station for each constellation? If an corp, alliance or coalition can afford to have 1 outpost in each system, shouldn't they be allowed to?"

Because it builds a turtling mentality. Yes POS can fulfill a similar role but more people are prone to go to station rather than a pos.


Hannah Flex "Because he and his ilk detest the massive battles of sovereignty warfare (which clearly CCP and the general public love) See: Asakai, and wants to turn 0.0 into small-gang pvp haven"

I don't detest it. On the contrary my greatest love is finding a big battle and dropping bombs on one side or another if not both. But it shouldn't be the only type of combat that affects sov in a meaningful way. I think my ideas (which as pointed out are on par with FW and look what the mechanics did for FW) would help change that. You have both small gang and grand battle pvp.


SmilingVagrant "Why doesn't he go to NPC null then? That's 90% of what happens in Syndicate.

Unless of course he can't hang."

Of course the funny thing is that I am currently in Syndicate. And also this thread is about sov mechanics, not NPC space.

LHA, "Fix sov by making no one want to hold sov, while also driving more people to high sec by removing the few reasons some bother to leave high sec.

Why you want everyone in high sec?"

Why would no one want to hold it?

"Any time you use the word "make", you show your ignorance.

You can NOT make anyone do anything.

You can make an activity less profitable than another, and magically, everyone will stop doing that less profitable activity.

The result of your change would be to move even more people from null to high sec. Then let me guess. You'll whine for nerfs to high sec to "make" people go back to null.

You can not force people to play the game, so you can not "make" them play the way you want them to play. Attempts to do so will simply cause them to stop playing."

LHA you know what is funny? In your previous post you said I was "making" people move to high sec. Then the very next post you contradict your own reasoning. Why are you acting like the current mecahnics are some written in stone gold standard that needs to be followed or else people will stop playing? Yes make HS less profitable but make 0.0 more risky at the same time.

"Why wouldn't they roll 7, 200 man fleets in battle ships to alpha your low hp structures? Why wouldn't they have massive bubble camps in that one system with a station that all the defenders are trapped in? Why wouldn't they have a fleet of caps and super caps hanging around? In case the defenders get some idea to break the camp?"

Because if you can divide an enemy force, you can beat it. You only need local superiority, not over all. And yeah they can bubble camp your station but they'd have to do it for a week straight non stop for what you said to happen.

"Without timers, you go to bed in a station you own, and wake up 8 hours later to find the station flipped. You can't undock without all your stuff being inaccessible? "

LHA did you even read the thread? Who talked about taking timers away? What you fail to do is reading comprehension.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#52 - 2013-04-19 06:25:47 UTC
Arronicus

"Not sure if this is some extremely elaborate trolling attempt/joke/attempt to rustle jimmies, or you seriously think that this is a good idea. Now I could stoop to such simplicities as pointing out that your example system (WMN- in Kalevala) is actually WNM-"

Plus nobody cares about a typo. Don't forget that, perhaps the most important part.

"or that many constelattions do not have true central systems (http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/The_Kalevala_Expanse/78-6RI#const)"

Obviously FBH. It has the most links to other constellation systems. Furthermore almost as pointless as your previous criticism. Something easily worked around even if true.

"or I could point out the fact that it is highly impractical to have stations centralized. Or the fact that many of them are NOT centralized, because they serve strategic purposes being in the systems they are in. "

Probably your only smart move in this discussion.

"Or I could get into how you would be taking away stations from various entities, and forcing them into the hands of one entity, in cases where different alliances hold station sovreignty in the same system."

Make an equal and fair division where needed.

"Or the fact of how many super/capital builders and the likes would no longer be able to produce in their systems off their bpos from station if it wasnt in station. Or how upgrades for stations would have to be completely overhauled, and there are big questions how you would handle the merging of so many factory slots."

Can be worked around.

"But all that is pretty pointless, because there are not too many stations. Your argument is built around a false premise, that the stations are the cause of the problem. "

Except that that isn't the premise. Fine keep the stations, make them destructible though and stick to the central station flipping the constellation rather than this drag of a sov mechanic we have in place.

"You also fail on your assumption that moving valuable sites out of station systems, will make the people performing isk-making activities in these systems more risk prone. This is simply not true. "

So let me ask you this, are you more or less safe with a friendly station in system. Go.

"People who make money in systems that do not have a station in them, use a control tower. As such, with multiple control towers in a system, and the fact that the control towers generally have defenses, you cannot simply jump in, warp to the station, drop a bubble, and wait for carebears to get caught. Instead, you have to actually catch them in the belts, sites, missions, etc. This makes it HARDER for you to catch them, and does not create more roaming. I've lived out of a pos many times, and not just in wormhole space. You compress your ore, and jump freightering to the nearest station system, or via rorqual, will still be a completely safe activity, provided you don't do something moronic (on the scale of this thread) like jumping into your pos system with hostiles in local."

But at the end of the day everyone has to come back to a station. Except now everyone will be focused on one main station. You can also try dropping a bubble on an asteroid belt btw.

"As for getting rid of the structures, and making it all about the station? You sir, are actually making it HARDER to conquer sov, and far easier to defend it. No longer do you have to spread your forces out to cover the various SBUs, no longer do you have to check the timer on your Ihub, or TCU. No longer do you have to go defend tons of systems. Now you can just sit your super fleet on top of the station, and when anyone shows up, if they want to take any part of that constellation, they HAVE to fight you, on your home turf. You're taking away disruption mechanics (dropping SBUs to harass), and you're taking away the ability of hostile fleets to sit somewhere safer for them (on a gate, as opposed to on a hostile station, where enemies can play docking games, or reship), and are making it much safer for the defender."

I don't think you read the full article. You know the part that talks about the "nerve structures" and all that that you'd need to run around and defend so that your station does not become vulnerable. It would help if you actually read the OP rather than rant in the wind.

"Your idea strongly favours the defender, will promote stagnation, and make it harder to flip sov."

You think that after not reading the article of course.

"The last part of your scenario is pointless for me to touch on, as you have completely missed the point on what would actually happen, as a result of this suggestion. This is a terrible idea, that was horribly thought out, and the only good thing that came from this thread (other than the opportunity for me to point out to you how wrong you are), is that in the future when someone else has the same stupid idea, we will be able to link them back to this thread, and tell them to stop regurgitating old failed ideas."

Actually the best part of your post is that we can all see your complete lack of reading comprehension. Thankfully now we can all point that out and refer you somewhere for help.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#53 - 2013-04-19 08:11:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
@ Andski,

While Goons are run by an almost real world government like bureaucracy, I can see why they have you just press F1. Why would you ask me to write something out you can easily look up?


Because the mark of somebody who knows what the **** they're talking about isn't just in being able to explain a process but detail several eventualities and how to deal with said eventualities

As a "guy who occasionally runs bomber gangs" you're not one of those people

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2013-04-19 08:17:58 UTC
Good morning everybody.

Wow, this guy has no idea. lol Anyway, i had three beer and three white russians yesterday,
just ate an egg sandwich and made myself a whole litre of green tea to drive away the aftermaths
of my not actually excessive intake of alcohol yesterday. This always helps, btw.
Hurray for green tea ! :D


So, to stay on topic i hereby post how to fix hangovers.

See ... it's ... like ... uhm ... ah yes. I wasn't drinking anything for two months now, i think.
Slowly starting again, had my first beer of that period two weeks ago. You know,
the worst part about not drinking is that, when you drink again,
it's not necessarily easier to get drunk, but actually gives you more pain the next morning !

Otoh heavy, daily drinkers don't suffer from these consequences. They don't have the headaches,
because they drink all day anyway, so their life is actually much easier than the life of those who
don't drink every day.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to drink every day, because that leads to less pain !

Now where's my Nobel prize ...
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#55 - 2013-04-19 08:28:14 UTC


Plus nobody cares about a typo. Don't forget that, perhaps the most important part.

Read the forums more. Many of us dislike typos, especially when referencing important systems.

Obviously FBH. It has the most links to other constellation systems. Furthermore almost as pointless as your previous criticism. Something easily worked around even if true.

That's not a true center system, and YOU are selecting it based on strategic importance, something I have labelled as an issue here. There is no 'center' system, unless the distance between the outer points of all the systems is triangulated.



Make an equal and fair division where needed.

1 constellation, 2 stations, held by seperate alliances, each alliance only holds the one station. Both alliances are of roughly the same size, and have helped take the space together, or have lived there roughly equivelant times. How do you propose to fairly and equally divide the station?


Can be worked around.

Is an absolutely massive inconvenience to relocate supercapital construction.




So let me ask you this, are you more or less safe with a friendly station in system. Go.

Because we are discussing hunting and killing of isk makers, THEY are less safe, while making isk, with a station in system. As am I, when I am making money. Why? Because the station provides a false sense of security. Bubbles can be thrown up on it by a fast dictor, it could have a tiny undock radius that you are not within warping to it, among other things. With a pos, you show up, they warp to one of the poses. SUPPOSE you pick the right one. SUPPOSE you get a dictor bubble up, and sling them to prevent them from getting inside the bubble, they still have guns on their side, and are much safer.

Non station systems are safer for making isk in.



But at the end of the day everyone has to come back to a station. Except now everyone will be focused on one main station. You can also try dropping a bubble on an asteroid belt btw.

Not really, no. Once you live in wormhole space, you very quickly learn that you don't NEED stations very often while doing active isk acquisition (Ratting, Anoms, Mining, Gas Harvesting, Exploration, ammo ressuply, pvp ship storage, repairs. (provided you keep some extra drone stock, and nanite paste).



You think that after not reading the article of course.

Having gone back and read through, I still stand by my point, that it will be easier for the defender.
Jitalt Pirkibo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#56 - 2013-04-19 09:10:47 UTC
Hannah Flex wrote:
dark heartt wrote:
Why do you think that there should only be one station for each constellation? If an corp, alliance or coalition can afford to have 1 outpost in each system, shouldn't they be allowed to?


Because he and his ilk detest the massive battles of sovereignty warfare (which clearly CCP and the general public love) See: Asakai, and wants to turn 0.0 into small-gang pvp haven

Yeah - because Asakai was totally a SOV-motivated battle.
And "massive battles of sovereignity warfare" come about at the end of every single timer. And therefor SOV-grind burnout has basically never been a concern.

...

Oh. Wait.



I don't care about his credentials. The more proposals there are, the more inspiration there is for CCP when coming up with SOV-fixes. And don't kid yourselves - there are salvageable parts in this proposal.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2013-04-19 09:30:34 UTC
Well, I kind of stopped reading at "the number of stations is too high!!!!1111!1!!1!!!!" because one station max per system is such an obscene system.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Bluetippedflyer
Fallen Rabbits
#58 - 2013-04-19 09:40:08 UTC
i think ppl would be suprized at the number of eve subscribers that would enjoy this sov model, thx goons for shitposting/bumping
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2013-04-19 09:56:44 UTC
... and here we see REAL opinion of 0.0-dwellers about "boring SOV", "bring small gang into 0.0" and other things.

and this opinion is: DON"T TOUCH MY TIMERS AND SOV-GRINDING!
Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#60 - 2013-04-19 10:00:26 UTC
I agree. The number of NPC stations is far too high. We need to be rid of them all.

Give players the modular starbase system and get NPCs to use the same mechanism. People will build their own stations where they are most useful. Space will be developed by the people who live there.

Of course the advantage will go to the team with the most steam rollers, but they already have that advantage anyway.

Day 0 Advice for New Players