These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#501 - 2014-07-09 01:25:03 UTC
Updated op to reflect changes including Cronus Maximus Alchemy Idea.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Mario Putzo
#502 - 2014-07-09 01:32:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
I still think you need to address the potential impacts on Low Sec.

Unlike NS you can't evict people from space to secure an avenue, you can't bubble gates to secure a system, you can't flick on a cyno jammer to protect an asset. or op

While I understand that LS is the red headed step child of EVE, its accessibility to industry is much less and more risky than that of NS, or HS, and reducing that further will turn it into even more of a barren waste land.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#503 - 2014-07-09 01:48:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Manfred Sideous
Mario Putzo wrote:
I still think you need to address the potential impacts on Low Sec.

Unlike NS you can't evict people from space to secure an avenue, you can't bubble gates to secure a system, you can't flick on a cyno jammer to protect an asset. or op

While I understand that LS is the red headed step child of EVE, its accessibility to industry is much less and more risky than that of NS, or HS, and reducing that further will turn it into even more of a barren waste land.


Lowsec like Nullsec needs a rework. If I were to take a stab in the dark I would move production lines out of hisec or at least create great incentives to do so in Lowsec. The treaty system would be real handy in lowsec. I envision Faction Warfare vieing to take and hold space from other empires. I envision Builders and Miners buying protection from Faction Warfare in the form of paying protection money through the treaty system. If Amarr Faction warfare provides the safest space and deliver on their treaties better builders and industrialist will gravitate to those areas. Faction Warfare players get a cut of the collected isk for the treaties. Now this sounds nominal and perhaps at first it could be. But if builders are getting much higher ME/PE from lowsec factory lines than from hisec than money says they are going to go where the profits are. Furthermore opposing factions will want some of that sweet sweet treaty isk and will look to disrupt or take those production centers. This creates a ton of new conflict drivers.


Of course if you want to be safe and are willing to accept less profit and longer production by all means stay in the comfort of hisec.


So you have FW with a vested interest in protecting their customers from pirates and opposing factions so they can retain their business. Opposing factions will be battling and skirmishing to disrupt that environment and to enlarge they're empires.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Mario Putzo
#504 - 2014-07-09 02:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
and what of the areas that don't include FW as an option? or should CCP consider expanding on the FW system to perhaps include all LS areas?

I think a treaty system is reasonable but the issue becomes more apparent that when the stop of materials flowing from nullsec occurs because of no JFs or what not to bring them to market, exactly what does LS then do with itself?

I think more intertrading would be required in the new scheme of things, simply backending all of NS requirements into NS would leave both HS and LS short changed. Perhaps something like the following layout.

HS>
Mid Tier Minerals (stuff common in LS atm)

LS>
High End Moon Goo (stuff common in NS atm)
High Tier Mins (from NS)

NS>
Low End Moon Goo (stuff common in LS atm)
Low End Minerals.(from HS)

This make LS essentially the bridge for required materials. Guys from NS will have to come to LS or deal in LS in order to get High End Goo, and Minerals, as will guys from HS. Guys from LS will be required to deal with guys in HS and NS in order to get low end minerals and moon goo.

With the reduction in power projection localized lowsec groups will be more capable of controlling or contesting the moons against Null Sec power blocs, and there should be some synergy established between the regional groups in order to facilitate production.

It also draw more people into "open" conflict zones, in the sense HS guys can't simply hide behind Concord, and NS guys can't hide behind cyno jammers and bubbled gates. Everyone would have to come into the no mans land that is lowsec where your protection is essentially limited to the friends you have at the time.

I
amber mbd
#505 - 2014-07-09 02:46:59 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
and what of the areas that don't include FW as an option? or should CCP consider expanding on the FW system to perhaps include all LS areas?

I think a treaty system is reasonable but the issue becomes more apparent that when the stop of materials flowing from nullsec occurs because of no JFs or what not to bring them to market, exactly what does LS then do with itself?

I think more intertrading would be required in the new scheme of things, simply backending all of NS requirements into NS would leave both HS and LS short changed. Perhaps something like the following layout.

HS>
Mid Tier Minerals (stuff common in LS atm)

LS>
High End Moon Goo (stuff common in NS atm)
High Tier Mins (from NS)

NS>
Low End Moon Goo (stuff common in LS atm)
Low End Minerals.(from HS)

This make LS essentially the bridge for required materials. Guys from NS will have to come to LS or deal in LS in order to get High End Goo, and Minerals, as will guys from HS. Guys from LS will be required to deal with guys in HS and NS in order to get low end minerals and moon goo.

With the reduction in power projection localized lowsec groups will be more capable of controlling or contesting the moons against Null Sec power blocs, and there should be some synergy established between the regional groups in order to facilitate production.

It also draw more people into "open" conflict zones, in the sense HS guys can't simply hide behind Concord, and NS guys can't hide behind cyno jammers and bubbled gates. Everyone would have to come into the no mans land that is lowsec where your protection is essentially limited to the friends you have at the time.

I


"take all the high end resources away from nullsec and give them to lowsec"

lol and people say the goonies are trying to rig it for themselves. are u for real? Shocked
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#506 - 2014-07-09 02:55:31 UTC
Wouldn't it be simpler to just put some off racial area ice into the spawn table, but at a low rate than the normally associated type. Thus each region would have all of the ice, but would of course have much more of its racial variety. Seems a lot easier than adding npcs or alchemy.
Mashka Cybertrona
Imperial Dawn.
#507 - 2014-07-09 03:05:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mashka Cybertrona
I asked the question to some people on coms tonight, I want to ask you all the same question;

seeing how we all share the same interests and hobbies, we are fundamentally the same demographic. Anyone that has been in this game long enough has associates on both sides of the current nullsec divide because we are practically the same. All the bickering, trolling, flaming and local spam is an effort to try and generate conflict between groups when realistically there isn't.

The question then is, why play in a way none of us enjoy?

If we all want the same thing, small/medium sized fleet roaming and good fights, why not make an agreement with the good fight in mind. Declare a deployment zone/Hunting ground (like catch right now) and put some loose mechanics in play to make it interesting.

NIP across the region, no towers to be placed from any external entities. Let HERO keep their space.

No fleets larger than 50, multiple independent fleets are ok. Hell you could even run NPSI (not purple shoot instantly).

Agreement to not use Meta-gaming such as the use of spies, keep it fun and spontaneous.

Anyone that decides to try and screw up the fun and break the rules will have the entire CFC and N3 to deal with.

Each entity would declare a staging system on the fringe of the deployment zone, players for all factions would be welcome to come and pvp in a setting created by the players for the players.

Set our fictional differences aside, trust each other to turn EvE back into a playable game by working together to produce an environment/deployment that we can all enjoy without having to grind endless amounts of sov space and/or fight in heavy TIDI.

What an experience that would be.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#508 - 2014-07-09 03:23:16 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Alchemy is of course a better option than npc traders.

However, in the broad sense I don't see the point of nerfing Jump freighters, as I don't believe they're part of the problem. Take today's fight for example. PL lost ~30 caps and 1 super to BL, and they may have lost more had NC. not shown up in their carriers and Supers. Classic Power projection issue, right? Was it a projection of Subcaps that ended the fight? No. It was carriers and supers that broke up the fight, as usual.

Even looking at subcap projection, for most Pvp ops subcaps are bridged by Titans. They aren't moved in on JF, unpackaged, and fitted with a fleet waiting on the whole process. JFs only help people stage in a given system. You can nerf JFs, and it will take people a day or two to stage instead of an hour or two. Big deal.

The only motivation I see in nerfing JFs is to camp chokepoints and region gates. And while I'm sure gatecamping for freighters will be very fun Roll it doesn't really affect power projection. The worst offenders regarding power projection are Titans, Supers, Carriers, and Dreads. It is their that any nerf needs to focus.

Regarding industry, as posted here, as industry in null is buffed in Crius and beyond, it is very likely we'll see more production, mining, and general activity in null. Likewise, nerfing the links between empire and nullsec will cripple distribution of T2 moon minerals. I don't think anyone wants that, as first and foremost this will stifle the null industry we hope to foster.

Lastly, what of Blops, where do they fit in this brave new world? Kinda pointless when the target sees a bunch of cloakies sitting next door in local. Your changes would nerf a ship class that has only seen the light of day thanks to an increase in jump range. And now that range will be reduced to nothing.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#509 - 2014-07-09 03:50:28 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
I still think you need to address the potential impacts on Low Sec.

Unlike NS you can't evict people from space to secure an avenue, you can't bubble gates to secure a system, you can't flick on a cyno jammer to protect an asset. or op

I just thought i'd address this thing specifically.

I underlined and bolded the cyno jammer thing. So if this change does go into effect you'll have no need for this thing, so we could probably get rid of it.

But you have to understand, a lot of the problems in null AND low sec currently are caused by power projection. There is always the looming threat of hot drop.

With the threat of hot drop gone there is a whole world of difference in your ability to secure your own safety.

You can evict people from space to a major extent, for at least the period of time you're active. You don't really need to worry about bubbling gates to secure a system because if one or two ships get through, big deal, they can't cyno in the rest of their forces on top of you. (unless they have a titan in a pos next door obviously)

Your ability to ensure your own safety will once again be in your own hands.

Not having power projection will change everything in a very positive manner.

I'd rather see lots of small meaningful fights happening at the same time, than another B-R that is staged for the sake of "content" by the two remaining blocks.


Some people may feel that removing the Jump mechanic is sort of a "pulling the rug out from under" type of change. I think that's good. In fact i'd like to suggest the removal of alliance and or even corporate level Standings. Maybe they could design a standings system for alliances that functions like wardecs do in high sec. Kind of a reverse war dec where you pay to get someone to be your ally temporarily and the cost scales for the same reasons. Yeah that'd be nice. ;) More isolation!
Mario Putzo
#510 - 2014-07-09 03:52:57 UTC
amber mbd wrote:

"take all the high end resources away from nullsec and give them to lowsec"

lol and people say the goonies are trying to rig it for themselves. are u for real? Shocked


What's wrong afraid of actually having to apply risk to get reward? Low Sec is the most dangerous space in the game for POSes and Mining. It should offer the highest end resources. Even more so with the proposed changes in this thread.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#511 - 2014-07-09 04:06:56 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Alchemy is of course a better option than npc traders.

However, in the broad sense I don't see the point of nerfing Jump freighters, as I don't believe they're part of the problem. Take today's fight for example. PL lost ~30 caps and 1 super to BL, and they may have lost more had NC. not shown up in their carriers and Supers. Classic Power projection issue, right? Was it a projection of Subcaps that ended the fight? No. It was carriers and supers that broke up the fight, as usual.

Even looking at subcap projection, for most Pvp ops subcaps are bridged by Titans. They aren't moved in on JF, unpackaged, and fitted with a fleet waiting on the whole process. JFs only help people stage in a given system. You can nerf JFs, and it will take people a day or two to stage instead of an hour or two. Big deal.

The only motivation I see in nerfing JFs is to camp chokepoints and region gates. And while I'm sure gatecamping for freighters will be very fun Roll it doesn't really affect power projection. The worst offenders regarding power projection are Titans, Supers, Carriers, and Dreads. It is their that any nerf needs to focus.

Regarding industry, as posted here, as industry in null is buffed in Crius and beyond, it is very likely we'll see more production, mining, and general activity in null. Likewise, nerfing the links between empire and nullsec will cripple distribution of T2 moon minerals. I don't think anyone wants that, as first and foremost this will stifle the null industry we hope to foster.

Lastly, what of Blops, where do they fit in this brave new world? Kinda pointless when the target sees a bunch of cloakies sitting next door in local. Your changes would nerf a ship class that has only seen the light of day thanks to an increase in jump range. And now that range will be reduced to nothing.


I think the whole idea is about logistic chains/lanes. Without jump freighters logistics becomes an alliance level concern. An alliance will thrive and die by the strength of it's own supply line. There will be more strategy when it comes to war. There will be more important fights than just "maybe we should defend this tower when it comes off of reinforce". And small victories can have a lot more impact on the overall war. It's really a great thing.

I'd say that JFs exist more because of power projection. Not inspite of.

I think that Blops would thrive in this system too. Sure you can see that they're in your system next door, but unlike a titan that needs a PoS to sit at securely, a blops can be floating around wherever cloaked and you arn't able to keep eyes on them. So in fact Blops would be even more effective since you can't see them cyno in or out.

Conversely, If there is a Titan next door in a pos, well what options does the titan have if you decide to attack that pos? They can jump one system away so they're very limited in their ability to escape. Which means that Titan bridging will be most likely used for defense rather than offense. So there again Blops Bridging will most likely end up your go to offensive maneuver.

I really like all this strategy stuff ;)
amber mbd
#512 - 2014-07-09 04:29:45 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
amber mbd wrote:

"take all the high end resources away from nullsec and give them to lowsec"

lol and people say the goonies are trying to rig it for themselves. are u for real? Shocked


What's wrong afraid of actually having to apply risk to get reward? Low Sec is the most dangerous space in the game for POSes and Mining. It should offer the highest end resources. Even more so with the proposed changes in this thread.


nullsec is "safe" because the people there make it safe, and if using ur space mattered like in these changes that would be more true. lowsec is "dangerous" because u cant or wont put in the effort, so ur basically saying "waah i'm a lazy pvper who doesn't want to organize, reward me for it".
Draahkness
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#513 - 2014-07-09 04:36:00 UTC
Well. How about making blops the exeption to the rule? Give them the range carriers have today and let them jump between regions.

Pros: Small alliances that needs less volume of supplies and also has less people/skills to run escort fleets can use blockade runners. Hot dropping with bombers or recons becomes a thing. Fuel consumption per mass of bridger prevents huge blob-hotdrops.

Cons: The biggest gamers, like PL, can hotdrop with 300 blops rather then bombers thus cirkomnavigating the fuel problem.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#514 - 2014-07-09 04:37:13 UTC
>Each alliance has a Capitol seat, each corp in the alliance has a Home system
>Make sov require contiguous systems and scale the cost to how many systems are owned.
>system bonuses are tied to distance from capitol, and home
>Sov costs are based on useage (reverse scale, more used systems are cheaper)
>Map statistic intel is no longer published (docked active pilots/active pilots in space)
>Grav/ice sites become signatures again and better balanced for lowend minerals (just make them easy to find)
>Everything gets an alchemy (Goo, Ice, minerals, gas)
>system sov index tied to useage, Naturaly degrading sov means that sov can be lot due to inactivity by owners.
>allow more then one outpost per system and remove outpost ownership from sov influence. add monthly upkeep costs per station.

-Jump bridges are now for only moving around in your own space because the sov necessary has to be attached to other sov.
-Individual nullsec empires are smaller to control costs, while encouraging small alliances to take space, While this doesnt change renting, it encourages more alliances owning space. and reduced the sprawl of single entities.
-multiple outposts not affected by system sov means that A. Real market hubs can be built, with refining, manufacturing and research can be centered in a home or capital system, B. Services can be rendered and upkept by third parties (neutral black frog stations anyone?)
-more alchemy allows for greater freedoms in ship types in non-native regions, with reduced logistical need for fuel importation.
-Ice and ore signatures means greater security for miners in null, low and wh, while better balance of mineral composition means less reliance on importation

Comments?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Anthar Thebess
#515 - 2014-07-09 06:49:46 UTC
Keep alive this thread pls

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#516 - 2014-07-09 08:13:16 UTC
Reading this thread I find myself slowly being won over, however I still see a fairly major problem.

All these changes ignore the problem of jump clones.


An example.

Entity A and entity B (hereafter referred to as A and B) hold sov in the same region (hereafter referred to as region AB). Both are roughly equal power with A holding a capital ship advantage over B.
Things have been quiet in region AB so A decide to go and invade entity C in the region next door with a large battleship gang. In the week that they are gone from region AB, A's structures and sov decays. B sees an opportunity to expand their sov and begins to RF A's towers and structures.

Ideally with the proposed changes what would happen is that entity A would either have to give up on their invasion of C, or risk losing their already established sov.
However, all A need do is jump clone back to their home system, swap back into their capital ships, and go save their ****. They could then JC back to the staging system in C and continue their little invasion.




Would these proposed changes still be effective even if jump clones remained untouched?
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#517 - 2014-07-09 09:06:38 UTC
I'm not a capital pilot so I'm probably gonna get burned here but.....

From the times I've used a bridge or I've been bridged in I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be any time involved in the travel other than the time it takes to drop the cyno, broadcast it, open the portal, r-click and jump. Then the final travel time is basically how long it takes you to load the system. So....

What if jumping had a "speed"? I mean, it seems to me that it's mostly about the time it takes to move a fleet a long way so.....

If there was a speed at which you travel during a jump would this help to reduce power projection? We could say that we're traversing "Jump Space" and we can travel at so many fractions of a lightyear per second. This could even be linked to your ships current warp drive speed. Because the jump drive opens a wormhole which essentially reduces the distance to travel significantly so we're warping accross "Jump Space". Then, there would be a significant delay in travel time after the cyno is dropped. It would also mean that fast ships would arrive first or have to time their jump after the larger ships (Easily done but easily ****** up). Giving defenders a significant oppotunity to destroy the cyno ship and cause a "mis-jump".

With the travel time the mis-jump caused by cyno destruction before landing could drop you into an entirely different system causing massive problems with the fleet ending up in several systems.

This is just my random idea.
Anthar Thebess
#518 - 2014-07-09 09:41:14 UTC
The Capitol
(again some idea about )

Only one system per alliance.
System gains immense bonus on all timers, managing those timers, buff to structure EHP , etc.
?Can be only erected in real stations systems, not player made outposts, or capitol in those systems will give more real bonuses.
In this system you can install some additional upgrades , for example something that will allow to decloak ships.
( why not , 1 system per alliance )
Have pos structures that will boost even ships of alliance members.

All sov bills , structure ehp , possible upgrades is measured by the distance from this system.
So more gates you have to pass to get into capitol , the more you pay for unkeep, and less upgrades you can install.
Different constellation or even region escalate base cost few times.

Perfect example what i have in mind are those constellations :
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Feythabolis/3-PC31
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Feythabolis/OFQ-HG

Summary:
So we have 1 system with not destroyable station , place where alliance lives , upgrades provide most security , timers are nightmare for attackers, you cannot cloaky camp people , etc ... and surrounding systems that can have destroyable outpoosts , less upgrades etc


How to limit renting?
Lets mess with the holding corps a bit.
A.
Why not capitol system activity ( that defines ehp, timers etc ) base on :
80% on system holding corp activity
20% on alliance member activity
0% on out of alliance activity
B.
Corp ownership over the capitol base on some defined actives in this system, and it is based on a monthly basis.
So system ownership can change hands if current holders will be sitting idle.

People put so many outposts that ccp can upgrade some of them to stations.
Stations should be not destroyable , outposts yes.
Why keep stations untouchable?
Because this is still game, and people go to vacations, get sick ... and you are giving one more reason to fight back.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#519 - 2014-07-09 09:56:54 UTC
amber mbd wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
and what of the areas that don't include FW as an option? or should CCP consider expanding on the FW system to perhaps include all LS areas?

I think a treaty system is reasonable but the issue becomes more apparent that when the stop of materials flowing from nullsec occurs because of no JFs or what not to bring them to market, exactly what does LS then do with itself?

I think more intertrading would be required in the new scheme of things, simply backending all of NS requirements into NS would leave both HS and LS short changed. Perhaps something like the following layout.

HS>
Mid Tier Minerals (stuff common in LS atm)

LS>
High End Moon Goo (stuff common in NS atm)
High Tier Mins (from NS)

NS>
Low End Moon Goo (stuff common in LS atm)
Low End Minerals.(from HS)

This make LS essentially the bridge for required materials. Guys from NS will have to come to LS or deal in LS in order to get High End Goo, and Minerals, as will guys from HS. Guys from LS will be required to deal with guys in HS and NS in order to get low end minerals and moon goo.

With the reduction in power projection localized lowsec groups will be more capable of controlling or contesting the moons against Null Sec power blocs, and there should be some synergy established between the regional groups in order to facilitate production.

It also draw more people into "open" conflict zones, in the sense HS guys can't simply hide behind Concord, and NS guys can't hide behind cyno jammers and bubbled gates. Everyone would have to come into the no mans land that is lowsec where your protection is essentially limited to the friends you have at the time.

I


"take all the high end resources away from nullsec and give them to lowsec"

lol and people say the goonies are trying to rig it for themselves. are u for real? Shocked


After a point it become obvious even to them that the current path will destroy the game for them as well. Eve is a combat game, if combats cannot happen because of current geopolitical scenario, then it loses its fun. Better to be poor and happy than rich and miserable.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#520 - 2014-07-09 10:05:36 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
I am trying to catch up on all the discussion and post. But man so many good ideas and everyone is being very constructive. Lets keep this going. Lets make this thread the most peaceful constructive threadnaught that CCP is forced to look at in whole. I may not like or agree with all ideas in this thread (itt). However knowledge grows by challenging existing knowledge opinion and thought so keep it coming.



ITs easy to make it constructive and peaceful discussion when the problem is so clear for several years that absolutely everyone that pay attention to the game agrees something must change. Only hard part is finding a good set of changes that does not offend eve principles and does not have super nasty side effects.

What we all agree? We need to make changes so that powerblocks are not the only viable way to play eve, in fact up to the point that several smaller groups become a good way to play. More, we need to find a way so that renting 90% of the universe is not a reality.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"