These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1601 - 2014-09-08 15:35:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:



Naa. smaller alliance have what? 4-5 titans? Easy to pay. But when you need to pay for STOCKPILED titans like goons and PL have, that starts to hurt a lot. Imagine paying a hundred plexes per month for something that might be used in the next 1 year?


We don't have stockpiles of titans. They are not national assets, they are privately owned but we do replace them if they are lost in strat ops, a plex a month is nothing. Private owners of titans in small alliances or corps however would be hurt by this added need.


Kagura Nikon wrote:

Otherwise, with dockable titans, and no reason to not stockpile them, you know both sides soon would have 500 titans on reserve and stockpiled. Losing ewar immunity would not be enough, if lossing titans woudl mean nothing for any alliance because they can buy one from the huge stockpiles around.


Losing a titan or ten is already a none issue to us.

Kagura Nikon wrote:

If titans and supers dock, there NEED to be a reason to not make huge stockpiles of them. Even if the PLEX is charged for the right to DOCK them (so at least used titans form smaller groups are not affected, but stockpiling them becomes prohibitive)


We do this by getting rid of the need to have vast capital blobs. This is where the change to occupancy sov comes in, if you get rid of the need to grind down vast amounts of EHP in a handful of set battles you reduce the effectiveness of the super blob massively.


If you implement the no need for supers BEFORE the dockable titans and the result is VERY soudn then yes. But risking to allow dockable titans before you know if the plan to reduce their need succeed is TOO dangerous ( you know almost nothign work as planned in eve)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1602 - 2014-09-08 15:37:16 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the fire-power already.

Hmm no.
You like most of the people here stated that current structure EHP blocking most of the actions.
If dreads had enough dps then this will not be an issue.

Why boosting dread dps - before ccp fix other stuff in ~3~ years is bad thing?



Much easier and better would be to cut all EHP of all structures to 1/4th of current numbers. Woudl give more value for battleships.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Shalmon Aliatus
Bluestar Enterprises
The Craftsmen
#1603 - 2014-09-08 15:40:28 UTC
Just a random idea about power projection:
How about a nerf on cyno ? There is a cyno in every system, it’s called a sun. You can even see it from any system when you are in space. If you want to travel huge distances, you align to that sun (new jump mechanics require that you are aligned towards the system you are jumping to) and press jump. You will end up somewhere in a sphere 2-3 AU from the sun. If you want to be more precise (like for a hotdrop or for jump freighter usage, you can still light a cyno, but the cyno range will be limited (like 1-2 ly or something). Large fleet movements to a fight on the other side of New Eden need a large jump to a system near the fight,regrouping the fleet in that system because of the sphere and then using a cyno for the last jump. Maybe a part of your fleet gets bubbled before they can join the fight, If you want to prevent this, you can decide to use more cynos, which includes more jumps.

I know that this will lead to (super-) capitals moving save through New Eden because of jump-cloak-jump, but if you don’t need to light a cyno screaming “I am here !” across the universe, maybe we can ban cloak from them. Sure, you can get scanned down, but a titan should have support fleet near him to prevent him from going down (considering that capitals jumping to the system to kill him also land on a random point in the sphere and can be up to 6 AU away and exposed to tackle. Dreads and carriers can take the risk, since they don’t cost that much. If you want to move them save, you return to smaller jumps from station to station, using the cyno.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1604 - 2014-09-08 17:01:47 UTC
Wow, is this dead horse still being flogged?

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1605 - 2014-09-08 17:38:20 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


If you implement the no need for supers BEFORE the dockable titans and the result is VERY soudn then yes. But risking to allow dockable titans before you know if the plan to reduce their need succeed is TOO dangerous ( you know almost nothign work as planned in eve)


Naturally, letting supers and titans dock would be near last if not the very last thing on the list of null fixes.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1606 - 2014-09-08 17:39:33 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


Much easier and better would be to cut all EHP of all structures to 1/4th of current numbers. Woudl give more value for battleships.


Disagree strongly, We could cause a lot of damage if this happens via suicide dreads.
Anthar Thebess
#1607 - 2014-09-09 22:22:13 UTC
No we didn't forget about this CCP.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Skyy Dracon
The Milkmen
Churn and Burn
#1608 - 2014-09-12 03:16:35 UTC
KanashiiKami wrote:
... continued

so the above format, allows for a single entity to field max 4 titans? (or maybe titan unit count can be 8, so max titans fielded per alliance is now only 1, plus other misc cap ships. then freighters / indy cap ships could count as 0.5 units?)

I don't think forcing Fleet commanders t tell pilots "Sorry you can't undock your Alt's Super we already have 4 in space." Is going to sit well with many super pilots....
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1609 - 2014-09-12 13:50:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:


If you implement the no need for supers BEFORE the dockable titans and the result is VERY soudn then yes. But risking to allow dockable titans before you know if the plan to reduce their need succeed is TOO dangerous ( you know almost nothign work as planned in eve)


Naturally, letting supers and titans dock would be near last if not the very last thing on the list of null fixes.



If they couple the ability to dock supers/titans with slashing (and do I mean slashing) clone costs, This would actually be a great idea. Not only are skilled pilots no longer stuck in coffins, but now, enemy intel cannot rely on contact lists to see whose supers are online (not without visual confirmation).
Anthar Thebess
#1610 - 2014-09-12 13:57:37 UTC
I'm totally fine with this - as long as there will be no more safe jumps.
Titans also will have to cross regions using XL sized regional gates , and even some separate constellations will have to be accessed used this kind of the system.

No more fast bridging jumping across the eve map - as you will have few points where you can make a stand or tackle enemy capitals.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#1611 - 2014-09-13 01:54:14 UTC
Bump for CSM members that are soon to leave for Iceland. ITT you will find the best and strongest arguments for changes to Nullsec.

TAKE THIS IT'S DANGEROUS TO GO ALONE!

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile
Deep Thought Labs
#1612 - 2014-09-13 03:21:32 UTC
Manny,

you so klazy with your 81 page threadnaught.


now go fix it in iceland!


space nerd powers, ACTIVATE!!
Space Hog
NEW DAWN CO
#1613 - 2014-09-13 03:39:12 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
CHANGES

  • Proximity to other owned sov. So if you own a system and your other sov is not connected to that system then the cost is increased of the unconnected system.

    • Arrow The aforementioned criteria could also be modifiers for effecting Sov structure tenacity. So a lightly or unused system would have structures with shorter RF cycles and less EHP. As system lose or gain tenacity the resist are modified on the sov structures. So a completely unused system with Sov would have 0% resist on the sov structures. Where conversely a well utilized system with sov would have 80% ( debateable) resistance to its sov structures. This tenacity would make it much harder to kill the sov structures.
    Arrow Stations are destructible. You wreck/kill the station all assets are relocated like a clone to a lowsec location. Perhaps it leaves a wreck that can be rebuilt who knows who cares we all want this lets do it and be done with it.
    Arrow Once a party conquers a station they have the option to put it into the destruction RF cycle. The station enters a 7day RF cycle where during this cycle anyone can come and repair the stations (Structure?) to a certain level cancelling the destruction cycle. Once the destruction cycle is aborted if cannot be started again till the station has been reconquered.
    Arrow Ihubs & Station & POS become hackable. Meaning that a player can hack the ihub and disable a upgrade for X period of time ( 8 hours?) . When a player initiates a hack it emotes in local with a countdown and a notification is sent to the alliance via evemail that someone is attempting a hack. If that player isn't interrupted in a period of time (15 mins?) then the targeted upgrade is disabled.
    Arrow Hackable things would be , Cloning , Repair , Factory , Refining , Fitting , Moon Harvesters , Reactors , Refineries , Pirate upgrades , Mining upgrades , Cyno Beacon , Jumpbridge , Cyno Jammer.
    Arrow Asteroids are rebalanced so that lower tier roids produce some abc and higher tier roids produce lower tier mins. That way as nullsec miners mine the ABC's they are getting the trit and Pyerite etcetera that they need to realistically produce.
    Arrow Deathclone changes to only closest station with dockable access or players birth system.

    *Adjacent is defined by gate connection


    I like the idea of destruction to the stations. There are way to many stations in 0.0 now and changing this would be interesting.

    A option to the complete destruction of the station might be the ability to destroy the individual service modules. So for instance if you destroyed cloning services, first all Jump Clones would be destroyed, all medical clones moved. And to get the service back on you are gona have to call all hands to RE-BUILD it from scratch. Sorta like seeing half of a building ripped in two. Re-building these services would make you put an old style logistics team together to re-build it. Like the old days when it was a whole team effort to put a station up.

    Maybe with the station hacking you could be able to syphon resources from the station. Like throwing a wrench in the cogs.


    Free Beer next go round.

    Manfred Sideous
    H A V O C
    Fraternity.
    #1614 - 2014-09-14 18:04:20 UTC
    Space Hog wrote:
    Manfred Sideous wrote:
    CHANGES

  • Proximity to other owned sov. So if you own a system and your other sov is not connected to that system then the cost is increased of the unconnected system.

    • Arrow The aforementioned criteria could also be modifiers for effecting Sov structure tenacity. So a lightly or unused system would have structures with shorter RF cycles and less EHP. As system lose or gain tenacity the resist are modified on the sov structures. So a completely unused system with Sov would have 0% resist on the sov structures. Where conversely a well utilized system with sov would have 80% ( debateable) resistance to its sov structures. This tenacity would make it much harder to kill the sov structures.
    Arrow Stations are destructible. You wreck/kill the station all assets are relocated like a clone to a lowsec location. Perhaps it leaves a wreck that can be rebuilt who knows who cares we all want this lets do it and be done with it.
    Arrow Once a party conquers a station they have the option to put it into the destruction RF cycle. The station enters a 7day RF cycle where during this cycle anyone can come and repair the stations (Structure?) to a certain level cancelling the destruction cycle. Once the destruction cycle is aborted if cannot be started again till the station has been reconquered.
    Arrow Ihubs & Station & POS become hackable. Meaning that a player can hack the ihub and disable a upgrade for X period of time ( 8 hours?) . When a player initiates a hack it emotes in local with a countdown and a notification is sent to the alliance via evemail that someone is attempting a hack. If that player isn't interrupted in a period of time (15 mins?) then the targeted upgrade is disabled.
    Arrow Hackable things would be , Cloning , Repair , Factory , Refining , Fitting , Moon Harvesters , Reactors , Refineries , Pirate upgrades , Mining upgrades , Cyno Beacon , Jumpbridge , Cyno Jammer.
    Arrow Asteroids are rebalanced so that lower tier roids produce some abc and higher tier roids produce lower tier mins. That way as nullsec miners mine the ABC's they are getting the trit and Pyerite etcetera that they need to realistically produce.
    Arrow Deathclone changes to only closest station with dockable access or players birth system.

    *Adjacent is defined by gate connection


    I like the idea of destruction to the stations. There are way to many stations in 0.0 now and changing this would be interesting.

    A option to the complete destruction of the station might be the ability to destroy the individual service modules. So for instance if you destroyed cloning services, first all Jump Clones would be destroyed, all medical clones moved. And to get the service back on you are gona have to call all hands to RE-BUILD it from scratch. Sorta like seeing half of a building ripped in two. Re-building these services would make you put an old style logistics team together to re-build it. Like the old days when it was a whole team effort to put a station up.

    Maybe with the station hacking you could be able to syphon resources from the station. Like throwing a wrench in the cogs.





    Lots of interesting things to be done. I challenge CCP you say you are "Fearless" . Put up or shut up.

    @EveManny

    https://twitter.com/EveManny
    Brutalis Furia
    Hammer and Anvil Industries
    #1615 - 2014-09-14 23:04:35 UTC
    Logi or no? Other MMOs have a classic DPS, Tank, Healer combat system, and to my eyes Logi takes that role of healer. But we don't have a tank and DPS separation - that's because Eve is different. We are not other games. Do we have ships that excel at DPS or tank? Sure, just look at the Drake or the Tornado. But there is no forced targeting mechanic to prevent us from targeting the glass cannon. This is Eve.

    So each ship needs to have its own tank, dps and healer on board. Adding the Logi broke this. Do we remove Logi now? No. I'd like to see a rebalance to where the amount of healing (shields, armor, cap, whatever) isn't doubled from what we could do with local reps alone without commensurate increases with dps or ehp. That said, I like the role of Logi and think it should stay.

    As to a solution, maybe an added penalty to incoming reps for having a local rep? That way you'd have to choose between the two.

    As to the larger question of Sov, my view is that it's more complicated than any one ship mechanic like logi. The removal of the API and 3rd party tools isn't really an option either, as the API just makes using those tools easier, but they existed long before the API and can't be controlled by CCP. If there's a demand for them, they'll exist.

    If a 2 way stalemate is making the game itself stale, then it needs to be addressed.

    I'd look at the actual mechanics of the sov system. If the mechanics were designed to end in a 2 way standoff, then it's the mechanics that need adjusting. I'd look at creating mechanics that penalize bloat and favor smaller, leaner, entities. Smaller entities = more entities = more conflict = less stagnation.

    I'd remove local. Goodbye Jita Spam! Big smile Goodbye passive intel. Shocked This would make active patrols of territory all the more important. Blops would me that much more effective too!
    Manfred Sideous
    H A V O C
    Fraternity.
    #1616 - 2014-09-14 23:12:43 UTC
    Another by-product of my power projection nerf is say goodbye to cloaky camping. Because whatever is going to be dropped on you will be in a adjacent system. Pretty easy to see.

    @EveManny

    https://twitter.com/EveManny
    Anthar Thebess
    #1617 - 2014-09-17 07:38:36 UTC
    Manfred Sideous wrote:
    Another by-product of my power projection nerf is say goodbye to cloaky camping. Because whatever is going to be dropped on you will be in a adjacent system. Pretty easy to see.


    Exactly, cloacky camping is only issue , because you can get immense hotdrop from 2-3 regions away, as long as people have midpoint titans, or using capitals.

    Logistics - they are ok ... until you are getting to a point where almost no one is able to do any damage to you using full fleet , as this leads to bigger bloobs , and bigger blue balls.

    Boosting i think i have very interesting idea how to limit the logistics impact and overall boosting, especially off grid ones.

    Remove skills : wing command / fleet command.
    Yes no more fleet wide and wing wide boosts.

    So the only possible boosts that you can have are from the squad leader.

    Now imagine how this impacts heavily fleets.

    If you want to use off grid boosts, than you loose 1 person in each squad , you also have to move into the system large amount of highly vulnerable T3 ships.
    I don't think that any FC will go into this direction.
    People will start to use on grid command ships, and they will not be full of command links, as they still have to have proper tank.
    Some dps could be also good.


    Now from the small gang perspective.
    Taking 1 or 2 boosing chars is still viable.

    You want to rat using your links - again this will again not change to much.

    Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

    Show your support to The Cause!
    Ermana
    Unidentified Murderers and Young Hack Offenders
    #1618 - 2014-09-21 23:56:19 UTC
    hi there,

    i like to say something,
    we all talking about the same thing, how can we change the 0.0 so that it is interesting agen?
    manfred was saying an importent thing in his first text.


    Im sorry to say but this is where we are at unless CCP changes something. Lets face it most of all the changes we've heard about can be gamed and only hurt the little guy.

    and he is right.

    now i see all the ideas, about clocky camper or no jb or othere things. i think we should look back like manfred already is doing. what was it in the beginning from eve what made the 0.0 so interesting.

    i think it was the team play from industry and pvp. to clame a system you needed 2 things you needed the pvpler to protect you system/s and the industry to keep it running. you had to place pos's and keep them running to claim a system.

    how is it now?

    jump in with you super cap fleet and take it when its yours you pay 180 mill to have it.

    so what means it when we change the sov system to the old way?

    we would have more isk what the system cost, you have more ppl what you need for 1 system, you have to protect your pos's, (because even a large pos can only be killed with bs). For sure you can hot drop them but even a small ally can have a nice bs fleet and do you really like to risk your moms to fight a pos? and not only risk you may have not only 1 pos what gets attacked. You have to really work in your systems. We can still keep the i hup's.

    So with just changing the sov claiming problem you would change a lot for the big allies. It would bring them to the point that they have to do something for their sov and not just have a big fleet and scare the small allies.
    Anthar Thebess
    #1619 - 2014-09-22 06:25:37 UTC
    Currently it only cost you 180 mil to hold it as broken mobility makes any one else unable to take it.

    Timers and EHP makes all systems easy to defend and take if you have enough capitals or titans and subcapitals.
    This was ok for a long time , but at some time someone decided to abuse the possibility and w have more renting space than actual "owned space".

    90% of this space is empty , and because no one is able to get it , eve downgrades as no other group can get proper income.
    What we get is current eve state , where brave and provi fight under heavy third party from big bored groups.

    Base groups throw at them self t1 doctrines , while third party groups arrive in T3 and faction ships.
    What is more bad to eve , is that nothing else is going on.
    Nothing.

    Untill CCP reduce the mobility , nothing will really change.

    I know i am repeating myself.

    But how hard is to create XL size gates that allow for supers and capital to pass.
    How hard is to add to JB , jumpdrive and titan/BO bridge 1 line of code : IF my.region <> destination.region THEN DenyJump.

    No more fast moving around few regions from 1 system.
    Simple change but requires tons of tons new midpoints ( usually not safe ) and more titans to be placed to keep current mobility ... and yet those fleets will be not so safe any more .
    Now they are jumping safely into the battle , and with this change they will be forced to use at least 1-2 gates along the way.
    You could say that this is nothing , but this also means that there is 1-2 places when you can do something to this fleet.

    Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

    Show your support to The Cause!
    Rivr Luzade
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #1620 - 2014-09-22 07:41:20 UTC
    Anthar Thebess wrote:
    But how hard is to create XL size gates that allow for supers and capital to pass.
    How hard is to add to JB , jumpdrive and titan/BO bridge 1 line of code : IF my.region <> destination.region THEN DenyJump.


    If you exclude BO and JF from that, I can live with it. Sort of. Would make it a whole lot easier to kill small people's carriers, Supers and Titans by the hands of big players, but I guess that's the price of less mobility. (semi-sarcastic)

    UI Improvement Collective

    My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.