These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Beacon of Deacon
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1761 - 2015-02-03 22:57:27 UTC
I have been playing EVE on and off since 2007. I only came back in November after a break of around two years- as many others, I was fed up with the stagnant and boring state of conquerable space. What brought me back was the promise of big and drastic changes made by CCP, supposed to break the sleeper hold the few big names have on null. Unfortunately, announcements will only get you so far. Cutting the jump ranges was fun for a spell, watching the other side fail miserably when trying to bridge and finding out they're out of range. Unfortunately, while this does dampen the omnipresent fleet hotdrops somewhat, it doesn't exactly change the strategic situation a whole lot. Personally I blame leaving open the "jump by gates" mechanic which essentially undermines the purpose of the fatigue timer. The supercap blob is something that no non-sov-holding alliance is going to touch with a 10-foot pole, whether they come through cyno or by gate. Making the supercaps jump through gates just makes them go slightly slower if they want to make it in time for the important timers. Only that doesn't matter, since ti-di will make it last just enough for the impenetrable superblob anyway. At the same time moving caps/supers through gates completely removes any need for logistics- no need for refueling or cynos, making it logistically way easier than the old way. When God closes the door, he opnes another door I guess...

The power of carriers goes hand in hand with the supers. Instead of being limited use support ships, the carriers are now 4 million hp, 1000 dps, unjammable, undampable, slightly-less-mobile logistic ships with impenetrable spider tanks... The CCP is the only entity capable of breaking down the risk-averse coalitions, yet for some reasons known only to themselves, they refuse to make any attempt at doing so. In the past a small alliance could potentially take a stab at grabbing some territory which the big guy found too vulnerable as he had to concentrate on a different area. Even if the blob wanted to keep the systems, it was possible to win, through giving your 120% in tactics, maneuvering, team cohesion, doctrines, determination. Nowadays it's so easy for the defender to defend, both through the timer mechanics and the ease with which they can maintain and replace their expensive doctrines that they can "want" everything they hold and hold it unless they themselves decide otherwise. Giving 400% amounts to nothing, since the big guys have so much resources at their disposal it's impossible to cope. Essentially the current state of null makes good on the joke "If sometimes less is more, than imagine how much more more could be"...

CCP tries very hard not to aggrevate any of their players, they don't seem to realise it's an approach doomed to fail. One side wants something, the other side doesn't want to give it to them. It's a battle in which the smaller/poorer attacker will eventually burn out and fail, that's pretty clear if you look at the numerous alliances which used to hold sov, and now they don't. How many of them actually closed down because of leadership/drama? And how many of them have been simply brushed aside by the "I take your stuff because I can" attitude? Unless CCP (and not the CSM, or this or that nullsec lobby) makes a clear statement about what kind of null sec entities they actually want, EVE will be stuck in this limbo forever. And the old player's good will will only last so long before he decides that it wasn't worth coming back afterall.

I want to play this game. I really do. But I also want to be able to play this game, and currently CCP is doing nothing in that regard.
Anthar Thebess
#1762 - 2015-02-04 08:01:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Please refrain from spreading baseless rumors. ISD Ezwal.
Beacon of Deacon
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1763 - 2015-02-04 14:38:34 UTC
Ridiculous. Consulting changes to the broken mechanics with people abusing currently broken sov mechanics. Makes as much sense as convicting someone of murder and letting him chose his own sentence...
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#1764 - 2015-02-04 17:21:10 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Snot Shot wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only has the OP'ster abandoned this thread, but CCP Fozzie stopped reading it as well as we have not heard from either in a while......Sad
.


You should know better by now. I read everything.

Please make this thread a sticky! The nullsec rebalance is still an ongoing process, so this thread should be a major part of the discussion!
Anthar Thebess
#1765 - 2015-02-05 14:19:48 UTC
You just have to post in it from time to time, to make it visible for CCP.
Sean Apollo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1766 - 2015-02-05 17:03:06 UTC
I think we all can agree that Sov mechanics are pretty bad and need to be fixed. But as far as the stagnation, thats the null sec community's fault. You guys made blocs not CCP, Blocs weren't always here when they switched from Dominion mechanics, this is what the null sec community did and instead of trying to fix that problem they continue to blame CCP.

Example would be when CCP released the jump changes for jump drives. What does the null sec community do? They group up into even tighter groups. CCP can't destroy coalitions and its not their fault that they are here today. It's the Null sec community's fault.

Most people hate me...

Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#1767 - 2015-02-05 18:58:24 UTC
Blocs and ever-growing alliances are a natural consequence of the way people play these kinds of games:

1: We like to win.
2: More people = more power = more winning.
3: If your opponent keeps growing, you had better also keep growing or you will become obsolete.
4: Repeat until those many alliances from years ago have ended up as one big one.
5: I'm new to this game, but in another two:
In one of them, it became a very simple game of 'everybody gang up on the strong faction.'
In the other, conflict ground to a very near halt between mechanically declared wars because alliance warfare got so big and cumbersome (and because of the direction of the game's design), it aligned 90% to the three factions. Serious conflict eventually ended up as 2 vs 1 faction because one of them just kept winning whenever it dueled one of the other two.

tl;dr: In diplomacy games where it's all about who can bring the most firepower and best control the map, "a few big names" are going to happen, and there's not a lot to be done about it. Once people figure out how to hold on to space, things are going to slow down. Probably the best thing that can be done to keep the game fresh for not-big-names is to expand chaotic (wormhole) space and keep at least some of it playable for just about anybody.

A signature :o

Beacon of Deacon
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1768 - 2015-02-05 20:46:15 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
Blocs and ever-growing alliances are a natural consequence of the way people play these kinds of games:

1: We like to win.
2: More people = more power = more winning.
3: If your opponent keeps growing, you had better also keep growing or you will become obsolete.
4: Repeat until those many alliances from years ago have ended up as one big one.
5: I'm new to this game, but in another two:
In one of them, it became a very simple game of 'everybody gang up on the strong faction.'
In the other, conflict ground to a very near halt between mechanically declared wars because alliance warfare got so big and cumbersome (and because of the direction of the game's design), it aligned 90% to the three factions. Serious conflict eventually ended up as 2 vs 1 faction because one of them just kept winning whenever it dueled one of the other two.

tl;dr: In diplomacy games where it's all about who can bring the most firepower and best control the map, "a few big names" are going to happen, and there's not a lot to be done about it. Once people figure out how to hold on to space, things are going to slow down. Probably the best thing that can be done to keep the game fresh for not-big-names is to expand chaotic (wormhole) space and keep at least some of it playable for just about anybody.



Bull. http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/20071001.png It'd be enough to make it really hard and expensive to hold anything outside a certain area due to power projection, concord fees, logistics. In that case even if you have a huge coalition, it won't matter much cause everyone will have to take care of his own backyard. In 2007 a few big alliances were duking it out, but most null entities were smaller (by area, not necessarily by numbers), and even if they had standings to the moloch class like goons or BoB, they didn't give a crap about the war. Which is what could very well return if CCP stopped chopping Hydra's heads off and instead cut it's goddamn heart out.
Anthar Thebess
#1769 - 2015-02-06 11:37:49 UTC
Exactly the whole point of nullsec changes should be state similar to this days where every one could find something he could call "my own". We had many groups holding sov, more borders that where constantly contested and changing.

CCP must go in this way , as current state is bad , not only because it is boring , but also because servers are unable to maintain so many players on grid.
Counter is capped at 10% Tidi, but in reality things happen slower and slower.

This is nonsense, as battle without TIDI is taking 20-40 minutes ( and this is acceptable) but under TIDI ( 3 and more HOURS) this is game, and you not always where will be blob fight.

Currently still the best practice to block any engagement is to drop 100+ archons 20+ motherships - as there is no counter to this kind of fleet.

In theory there are many , but in practice no one will do nothing , as NODE WILL JUST DIE.
Apparently every one except CCP remember the HED- battle, when you clicked jump and :
- you got your own KM still in warp tunel
- where people got disconnected , and where landing on grid for the next hours without ability to logout.
- you jumped in , but was unable to activate any hards weapons, or disable them
- where siege cycled , and was still working without stront,
- where you could not jump out even when you had cap, fuel

Remember that this was not just some random fight, but something that CCP was prepared, they reinforced node.
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1770 - 2015-02-07 01:27:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Soltys
Few cents ...

Did jump fatigue even achieve desirable effect (aside making capital pilots' life relatively more frustrating and introducing weird "capital uses stargate" concept) ?

The point of the change was supposed to make distant moves either very risky and unforgiving (in context of not being able to come back or move further any time soon) but remain relatively efficient and nible on their "own turf". The "turf" being at most a constellation. Why the hell tie the constrain to a pilot ? WTF ?

Wouldn't it be far better to instead of copypasting certain idea from certain blog and literally stuffing it in game (despite all the blatant issues) - go with something a bit different and more imaginative ? Such as borrow certain mass concept from wormholes, for example:

- add per-constellation "gravitational stability" value. When certain ships / facilities are used (basically any stuff involved with jumping without using stargate, with role bonuses of using less of it) it goes down. Mass and distance are crucial components here
- for intra-constellation jumps, it goes down not much (mass matters, distance not that much)
- for inter-constellation jumps, it goes down a lot (both source and destination constellations are subject to the cost, both mass and distance matter a lot, the latter exponentially)
- it refreshes by itself - very, very slowly (perhaps some structures could be introduced to improve it (owner) and weaken it (attacker))
- "gravitational stability" is overall visible, but only when you're in constellation

It achieves same effect without turning cap life into a chore (on their own turf) or weirdly allowing caps to use gates. Logistics matter a lot - and one has to plan where and when to move, and how (and if you move, you truly weaken source system/constellation for days). At the same it limits lol-distant travels much more rigidly than fatigue system. Plus no silly gate-use workaround (or frustrating but still viable pilot/alt swapping).

IMHO that makes far more sense that flawed fatigue mess added.

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl

Anthar Thebess
#1771 - 2015-02-11 07:28:53 UTC
But it can be easily abused by local people to negate all movement.
CCP where are the sov and nullsec changes you promised?
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1772 - 2015-02-11 20:28:12 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
But it can be easily abused by local people to negate all movement.


Random locals with capitals ? Such locals are to be evicted from territory - quickly and with big bang. Also local (within constellation) capital movement would be cheap.

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl

Anthar Thebess
#1773 - 2015-02-13 08:31:36 UTC
Well remember that jump drive nerf did not solve any issues related to empty null space.
Yes there are some ownership movements , but those are still mostly done by big blocks.
Small groups don't have big chance to do any thing - when the super capital thug arrives.

Grinding timers takes more time than moving capitals by few regions, additionally blobs prepared them self by buying , and seeding capitals around NPC space so they can move in subcaps , and reship on site.

Old groups have alt pilots, assets and income.
New pilots have will , and courage.

Yet they cannot achieve nothing.

You would be surprised how many times older players protested , when big blocks wanted to hit and erase FPR.
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1774 - 2015-02-13 14:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Soltys
Quote:
Well remember that jump drive nerf did not solve any issues related to empty null space.


Yea, I realise that. It has no chance to solve any issue - and - especially alone. It was relatively obvious back in the day when the idea was posted on certain blog and it's apparent now. It certainly managed to make piloting caps more frustrating (though the thread when it was announced was pretty amusing), but other than that ?

IF the fatigue system was adjusted in a way that:

- using gates is disallowed
- ships inherited fatigue (so max(ship,character) is used)
- jump penalty was lessened locally

that could somehow work. Original concept on that blog didn't consider using gates either. They essentially implemented a workaround that makes this whole system void.

Anyway my idea few posts above was to hard limit logistic movements - big cost for longer moves (turning them into sitting ducks when they move too far away with no ship/pilot/regular gates/etc. workarounds possible), small cost for local movements. If the constraints are not related to starmap (so in this context to constellations) I don't really see that happening efficiently.

Another cancer are all kinds of reinforce timers. When group A comes to shoot some B's POS and then POS tells them "lol guys ok, come back in rand(150120) seconds (usually 150120)" then that's fundamentally borken. What we have now shifts advantage to defending side far too much - and to ridiculous levels when big power blocks are considered.

Solving this fairly will be tough though. Rough idea I had was:

- owner of pos have to designate 3 days from the following week (it can be changed at will before the actual week begins)
- in each of those 3 days the POS is vulnerable for X hours, with at most 2 consecutive periods
- no reinforce timers

Basically it puts proper responsiblity on defenders to actually defend their **** actively, without turning it into no-life guarding role - thus 3 days (could be different value) and some hours from each of those days.

Obvious issue with this rough concept is, that most groups would just evacuate valuable stuff during invulnerability periods if they don't want to bother with defenses. And POS itself is a dirt cheap junk after all.

But for this (or anything else) to make sense, the power projection must be properly constrained first. And I don't see that happening anytime soon, especially after they just implemented the whole fatigue system.

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl

Anthar Thebess
#1775 - 2015-02-13 15:02:43 UTC
Soltys wrote:

Solving this fairly will be tough though. Rough idea I had was:

- owner of pos have to designate 3 days from the following week (it can be changed at will before the actual week begins)
- in each of those 3 days the POS is vulnerable for X hours, with at most 2 consecutive periods
- no reinforce timers

Basically it puts proper responsiblity on defenders to actually defend their **** actively, without turning it into no-life guarding role - thus 3 days (could be different value) and some hours from each of those days.



Agree and disagree at the same time.
Poses in Normal space are expendable.
In Wh they hold sometimes most stuff that belongs to you - people need brake from time to time.
RL first.

Quite easy solution is make Moon Harvester outside pos shields , and make it destroyable , like normal gun.

Towers also have their RF timer defined by amount of stront. So you arrive at different hours.
Kite tower for few hours keeping it below 50% of shield.
You have some ability to modify timer.

In case of all sov structures you cannot do nothing. You will get usually 2-5 AM timer for your TZ.
Week for whole system timers ...

Think how game would change if each timer was defined by strontium , and each respective timer would consume more and more strontium.

Let say that final ihub timer just to initialize one require full freighter of strontium , and all timers 2 freighters?
The same for stations.
Think how much this simple change could affect eve game play?

2 freighters to have full timers on ihub or 6 jump freighters!
You don't refil ihub after pumping it up ? Well no timers for you , or you will get just 1 timer.

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1776 - 2015-02-13 18:22:43 UTC
Soltys wrote:
Quote:
Well remember that jump drive nerf did not solve any issues related to empty null space.


Yea, I realise that. It has no chance to solve any issue - and - especially alone. It was relatively obvious back in the day when the idea was posted on certain blog and it's apparent now. It certainly managed to make piloting caps more frustrating (though the thread when it was announced was pretty amusing), but other than that ?

IF the fatigue system was adjusted in a way that:

- using gates is disallowed
- ships inherited fatigue (so max(ship,character) is used)
- jump penalty was lessened locally

that could somehow work. Original concept on that blog didn't consider using gates either. They essentially implemented a workaround that makes this whole system void.

Anyway my idea few posts above was to hard limit logistic movements - big cost for longer moves (turning them into sitting ducks when they move too far away with no ship/pilot/regular gates/etc. workarounds possible), small cost for local movements. If the constraints are not related to starmap (so in this context to constellations) I don't really see that happening efficiently.

Another cancer are all kinds of reinforce timers. When group A comes to shoot some B's POS and then POS tells them "lol guys ok, come back in rand(150120) seconds (usually 150120)" then that's fundamentally borken. What we have now shifts advantage to defending side far too much - and to ridiculous levels when big power blocks are considered.

Solving this fairly will be tough though. Rough idea I had was:

- owner of pos have to designate 3 days from the following week (it can be changed at will before the actual week begins)
- in each of those 3 days the POS is vulnerable for X hours, with at most 2 consecutive periods
- no reinforce timers

Basically it puts proper responsiblity on defenders to actually defend their **** actively, without turning it into no-life guarding role - thus 3 days (could be different value) and some hours from each of those days.

Obvious issue with this rough concept is, that most groups would just evacuate valuable stuff during invulnerability periods if they don't want to bother with defenses. And POS itself is a dirt cheap junk after all.

But for this (or anything else) to make sense, the power projection must be properly constrained first. And I don't see that happening anytime soon, especially after they just implemented the whole fatigue system.


Jump fatigue... is absolutely terrifying for force projection. Is it enough to break the will of the leadership of the big blocs? No. We will walk all day in capitals ships from gate to gate if it means ruining someone's day, but it leaves the capitals vulnerable and the home systems undefended. (Enter reavers.)

Any sov or timer replacement system that revolves around decisive battle will naturally lead to steamrolling once a side cannot maintain the equilibrium of force. Arbitrary time limits on when we can fight does not delay this by very much. It might annoy no-life poopsockers like me, who would be forced to twiddle my thumbs and build more supers while waiting. But strategically, when you consider high-level bloc gameplay, it achieves nothing.

What a smaller group needs to have a chance at defending against a larger group is to be able to have reversals, even minor and localized ones despite being defeated at decisive battle. We are all hoping that occupancy sov would bring us something like that. We are also hoping that the new sov will be able to support our pilots without so many of them running incursions in high-sec. When you have an activity that has a competitive economic advantage, exploiting it becomes necessity if you do not want to lose out. Said incursions, is also high-level income that does not need to be fought for in a bloody way, thereby detracting from income that must be fought for in bloody ways. Though that is a different issue, it is invariably tied to the way conflict is conducted in the rest of the game.

Sov needs to be worth taking. Nobody is going to go sleepless nights to rob us of 60M per hour we make in afk ishtars, when you make the same running level 4 missions, and double that running incursions. It is not nearly worth the things we will do to you both in-game and in the meta-game.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1777 - 2015-02-13 19:15:18 UTC
Sean Apollo wrote:
I think we all can agree that Sov mechanics are pretty bad and need to be fixed. But as far as the stagnation, thats the null sec community's fault. You guys made blocs not CCP, Blocs weren't always here when they switched from Dominion mechanics, this is what the null sec community did and instead of trying to fix that problem they continue to blame CCP.

Example would be when CCP released the jump changes for jump drives. What does the null sec community do? They group up into even tighter groups. CCP can't destroy coalitions and its not their fault that they are here today. It's the Null sec community's fault.



True enough, though it is core EVE mechanics that make Sov a winner take all scenario.

All Sov contests are in and out in a few systems of conflict, then it becomes an issue of Evac and watch everything burn in structure bashing. In the opening battles, the morale is highest, the largest fleets, the best fit fleets, the strongest resistance is brought to bare. Whatever side loses those fights has signed off on all future, lesser efforts to hold their Sov and begin Evacuation.

In truth it's the most realistic way to go. Kursk determined the Russian front in world war two. It was the fatal blow that pushed to war to the gates of Berlin but in a game environment where the end goal is not peace but eternal war, that's a horrible model to be using. If Sov is to be a prolonged conflict affair, it can't be defined in absolute battles that turn in to grind fests because we are all fully aware of the process.

Scenario: I gather 2000 people we go claim Sov. Fun, fun, fun for everyone. For a battle or two at least. Then comes months and years of grind to get the space to a working status with Indexes in the 4 and 5. Done by the PvP crowd that took that space? Nope. Everything about EVE contradicts everything about EVE. The Sov system is jut a pronounced example of it. Grind or Gank, Gank to grind.
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#1778 - 2015-02-13 21:09:38 UTC
Draahkness wrote:
I have been gone from game some 3 years now and I just got back. If my suggestions are outdated please have some understanding. Constructive critisism appreciated.

1. Remove AFK income for alliances. Remove the r16, r32 and r64 minerals from moons all together.


^^This^^

Draahkness wrote:
6. Ramp up the cost of having more then 3 or 4 sov systems by ALOT. As promised some 15 expansions ago.


^^and this^^

Things that would help make the Eve Universe a bigger place.

Do not run. We are your friends.

Anthar Thebess
#1779 - 2015-02-23 22:46:36 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=406411&find=unread
Another set of ideas.

We did not forget CCP.
Sov / Null changes.
Nina Lowel
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
#1780 - 2015-02-24 04:20:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Nina Lowel
Supers caused 0.0 stagnation. Without them you either aren't getting into 0.0 or you become a renter, it's as simple as that.

CCP also hasn't added much new 0.0 space in the last decade (meanwhile EVE population increased dramatically) aside from WH's and who gives a crap about wormholes. Add another 5-10 regions and turn all supers into minerals with a "Sorry but we completely effed our game up by adding these so here's the minerals it cost to build them back" note and 0.0 will cease to be stagnate.

Another idea in ADDITION to the above is to allow regions to be 'claimed' much like a system. You need to control 51% of the systems in the region like you need to control 51% of the gates in a system.