These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pre-CSM Summit Nullsec and Sov Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#21 - 2014-09-11 21:03:30 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I used to think that the way to get small entities involved in null sec was to make sov more defensible allowing a smaller group to really dig in their heels and stand up against a large group.

I know see that the exact opposite is true... the large HP numbers on sov structures actually provide a minimum barrier to entry while not effecting larger entities at all.

think about it, if you multiply the HP on all sov structures by 30x, the only people who could realistically do sov warfare would be N3, PL, and the CFC; nobody else could bring a relevant amount of damage.

TL;DR
instead of making sov harder to take, make it easier



This is what happened pre-Dominion. All the talk was about "small group objectives" and "small groups being able to compete", but the realty was a territial version of Malcanis' law, the big got bigger and the small got lowsec/wormholes lol.

This is why looking at the actual past and actual data is paramount in this discussion.

Also to CCP and the CSM, don't think that this kind of thing will ever work, this contributed to the current problems.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#22 - 2014-09-11 21:06:24 UTC
when are you fixing links
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-09-11 21:06:30 UTC
Make sure to knock down the ehp of any sov structure that continue to exist post overhaul by a lot.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#24 - 2014-09-11 21:10:42 UTC
New deployables incoming in 3... 2... 1...

Invalid signature format
Circumstantial Evidence
#25 - 2014-09-11 21:13:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
alliance income relies more heavily on players being in space
This may be true, but its in the form of vast rental empires. Smaller groups that would like to see their name on the SOV map without paying up, still feel left out. Which leads to many ideas asking for new counters to capital blobs and/or nerfs to force projection.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-09-11 21:15:51 UTC
It's like going to work when you know there's some huge project sitting there that you have to get done, but you know just how many headaches you will have doing it.

Hats off to CCP for letting us know they are about to step off the deep end. Keep that Advil handy!
Cherry Yeyo
Doomheim
#27 - 2014-09-11 21:30:45 UTC
Find a way to do away with the renter model. Conquering the galaxy with your super blob than renting it out and unsubbing is dumb and bad gameplay.

.
flatterpillo
Doomheim
#28 - 2014-09-11 21:32:25 UTC
Four words ; Apex Force.
Angry Mustache
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2014-09-11 21:37:08 UTC
Just saying seeing Rise on the focus group about sov null makes me nervous.

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
Align Planet1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2014-09-11 21:39:30 UTC
If you're going to reconsider the high level goals of the sov mechanics, it would be enormously helpful to have a discussion on what the justifications are for having de jure sovereignty in the first place.

If 0.0 is supposed to be "lawless" space, ownership by fiat (i.e. arbitrary game mechanics) seems to contradict that principle. All of the actual benefits of controlling a system -- and the mechanics that enable it -- could remain in place without the contrivance of a Territorial Claim Unit. In other words, perhaps player groups should be able to build infrastructure hubs, CSAA's, jump bridges, etc., or even plant a pretty flag, in any system at any time. The only requirement for keeping those structures and reaping the benefits would be the ability of owners to defend them. That would be the purest expression of occupancy-based sov.

Just to be clear, this isn't about "fixing" the current sov mechanics. I'm questioning whether they should exist at all.
Amro One
One.
#31 - 2014-09-11 21:39:52 UTC
Just undo all that has been done in SOV (back to 2007 era) and fix those god for awful POS mechanics.

Why can't I repackage a ship in a POS, wtf.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#32 - 2014-09-11 21:44:41 UTC
also, when are ESS being fixed?

or does everyone just pretend they never happened?
Jack Marshal
The Malleus Maleficarum
Random Violence.
#33 - 2014-09-11 21:51:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Marshal
Why in the **** should we bother given suggestions
when Fozzy Doesn't listen anyways
as we saw with the WormHole mass based jump range

since the change 20 of us have not been able to do anything
and we are plagued by BLOB's because we cant do anything (Thanks for that fozzy)

I hope Fozzy run rabid with null-sec and kills the rest of the player base in eve

CCP doesnt Listen, and just is driving to get more blob fights
they have killed small gang fights

Fozzy has personally killed the groups under 50 in the ability to use capitals in PVP

Thanks Fozzy, BTW he didn't READ the 1,300 post on the wormhole mass based jump range OR the CSM
in charge of it so why do you think he is going to bother reading these?

Good luck Null Sec, hahaha now your going to get Fozzy love !
I hope he screws up your game dynamics ! If your a Huge alliance or Coalition
Im sure you will like the changes CCP supports You-Tube Mega-Fights, not the
small gang stuff.

BTW minecraft is going well, all my people have had a great time on that instead of eve.
We are plexing now, since were not paying for service that the customer support flagrantly
ignors its consumers.
Sigras
Conglomo
#34 - 2014-09-11 21:56:30 UTC
Jack Marshal wrote:
BTW minecraft is going well, all my people have had a great time on that instead of eve.
We are plexing now, since were not paying for service that the customer support flagrantly
ignors its consumers.

LOL if you think that buying PLEX doesnt support CCP monetarily, I can see why you suck at Eve... the minerals you mine are free right?
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH
Scumlords
#35 - 2014-09-11 22:04:25 UTC
Being one of the small null sec alliances that fights the CFC and goons daily here is my take.

Even though we have 1300 in alliance and in the range of 60+ capitals we can never field them or we will be crushed. The speed at which the enemy can bridge ships in our area makes most of our capital usage rare and ninja in fashion. (in fact that goes for subcapitals as well)

The JB network allows the enemy to bridge ahead of us even using ceptors, it has basically made gate travel non existant in vast portions of null.

The defensive SBU ability is silly.


and the vast HP to take out structures and multi tiered timers actually makes it every hard for smaller groups to try and disrupt and hurt the enemy. Since they can travel vast distances with their capital forces to defend for timers.

so fast and quick attacks cannot be done. Even though most of the time there is no one around in most of the enemy space, the quick time to build a blob and move it is a huge restriction for small attacking forces.


Most of their vast area lies undefended 99% of the time, however timers allow these much larger numerical forces to bring blobs to bear, compound that with instant travel times for capital and subcapital forces, and it makes it almost impossable for smaller entities to take ground.


The enemy like in any war should have to choose where to place defensive fleets....and by that choice leave areas weak for attack.

Thats not the case now... they are equally positioned to defend everywhere.

I dont think "the alpha" wrecking ball ect is the issue.... the issue is the wrecking ball can be anywhere and everywhere instantly. Especially since they know when and where the timers will be.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#36 - 2014-09-11 22:07:03 UTC
yay, another summit where nullsec gets to W/B/M/C and nothing gets done for anybody. Can we break this cycle finally so hisec can get some dev time?
God Arthie
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#37 - 2014-09-11 22:07:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie, i hope you wouldn't take it personally and I'm not being rude or anything, but when you WILL get fired from CCP 80% of the people who play eve would be finally happy =). And I think many of those who left for other games, because of your bad judgment, will come back and EVE will grow and not rot.
Hope you have a nice day.
Copper Khai
#38 - 2014-09-11 22:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Copper Khai
Jack Marshal wrote:
Why in the **** should we bother given suggestions
when Fozzy Doesn't listen anyways
as we saw with the WormHole mass based jump range

since the change 20 of us have not been able to do anything
and we are plagued by BLOB's because we cant do anything (Thanks for that fozzy)

I hope Fozzy run rabid with null-sec and kills the rest of the player base in eve

CCP doesnt Listen, and just is driving to get more blob fights
they have killed small gang fights

Fozzy has personally killed the groups under 50 in the ability to use capitals in PVP

Thanks Fozzy, BTW he didn't READ the 1,300 post on the wormhole mass based jump range OR the CSM
in charge of it so why do you think he is going to bother reading these?

Good luck Null Sec, hahaha now your going to get Fozzy love !
I hope he screws up your game dynamics ! If your a Huge alliance or Coalition
Im sure you will like the changes CCP supports You-Tube Mega-Fights, not the
small gang stuff.

BTW minecraft is going well, all my people have had a great time on that instead of eve.
We are plexing now, since were not paying for service that the customer support flagrantly
ignors its consumers.


Doesn't help to be negative. Fozzie's proven to be a great dev. Clearly smart and cares a lot about the game. He doesn't appear to have a shred of ego problems either.

The Bigger ships landing further away from the hole made closing holes a lot riskier - as it should be. Why give WH's an empire where they control the gates in. Instead let them be subject to more variables. Since it's lucrative. It also slows down the ISK grind for them. Makes sense to me.

The bigger picture is EVE nullsec problems are caused by the smart players collectively out thinking the smart devs - blobs! The large coalitions inevitably followed self interest in stead of community interest and have sat on their leads. Even if a spy were to offer CFC the N3 on a platter, Mittani would decline. What can CCP do about that?

I'm interested to see what CCP comes up with. There's no easy fix. Anything they develop - players will overcome if they can directly benefit, unfortunately for EVE and the greater good.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#39 - 2014-09-11 22:09:25 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
HVAC Repairman wrote:
out of my cold dead hands will you take dominion sov away from me


those terms are acceptable

m


http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy121/OJMcG/Oohcat.gif
Fonac
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2014-09-11 22:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Fonac
I think the root of the problem of Alliances, 0.0 and income is the fact that the income level is from top to bottom, and not the opposite.

Top to bottom means that the alliance wallet is filled by stuff like moon mining, and tax from corporations.. Or whatever they can tax. This has the benefit of Alliances being able to pay large sums of srf and sov bills.... It also means that the alliance require such amount of isk to upheld these "arrangements ". The renter issue only came in to place when the moon mining was nerfed, and Alliances ran out of isk, and had to find new ways to pay their srf bills.

As it is right now, sov bills are obviously to cheap... The mere thought of it being feasible to rent out a system in such large scale is ludicrous. This should be nerfed, make an exponential increase of sov bills for every one more system you hold and make it way to expensive to own half the eden 0.0 landscape.

This in turn should open up the possibility to upgrade your own system to a much larger degree, better mining better ratting(all things that put the isk in the player wallet, and not the alliance wallet) make cloaking in one system impossible or hard(since you only have a few systems that is actually good.)

Other thing as I mentioned before is moon goo. This has got to stop being possible to passively mine. Put it into the hands of the player to actively mine! This also mean that an alliance can not control the isk of the player.

The added benefits of all this, is that Alliances will not be the rich power houses they are now, it also means all pos grinds because of an r64 moon will stop(everyone hates it...) and finally it means that srf is not a thing that should be expected as the player itself got the isk, and not the Alliance.

And for all the people who claims 0.0 is empty, I can only say that makes sense, would you like to live 100 meters from your enemy?... I would expect there to be some distance.. But attest I know exactly where they are, if I want to fight them.

Edit; most systems are with the current mechanics, not able to sustain more than a handful of players, it only take a few to eat the good sites for example. This is currently not a problem, since the alliance basically pay for your ship if it dies... It would be a problem if they don't have the same income in the long run.

Also if the alliance had less systems in total it will limit the power projection you have with cyno beacons and cyno bridges... This is a very good thing.

Written from phone..