These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#581 - 2014-09-26 10:54:06 UTC
Something I want to add. The warning system for anyone medling with your POS need work. And can be done alongside these changes.

Systems where you have very low activity should NOT send you a warning when someone is medling with your POS. With moderate activity you can receive the mails.. delayed. And with reasonable activity you receive them on time.


Also the tricks using API to detect Siphon usage must be patched.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#582 - 2014-09-26 11:02:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrie Atticus
Kagura Nikon wrote:

THe game needs tactical targets that can be harassed and damaged by small fleets, somethign to be possible to use a bit of "gerrilla tactics" without a frotnal clash, a place where massive super fleets are not the answer.

AND there must be a way to make that 2-3 capitals ships do not work just as super capital blob bait. And hte only way I see that possible is to make impossible to jump dozens of capitals at SAME time in a system.


Form a big enough ball to not get harassed, a few hundred supercaps sounds about right. This isn't a small-scale 6-man multiplayer shooter, you're in an MMO. Obviously this group would attract the attention of everyone and their grandmother, but at least you'd be able to take systems if you are big enough of a threat.

How you manage to gather this group comes from social interaction like a good MMO has.

What CCP is changing first is the wrong end but it's one of the easiest changes and I'm not looking forward to more changes to trivial things as they'll only **** off null players and limit smaller entities who cannot get fuel fast enough to jump their small pack of caps and blobs around the map.

Edit: just change the whole of null in one go instead of building irritation and ill suspense of more bad an easy changes. Do it on Phoebe or whatever comes after that.

Just, BOOM, all the changes.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#583 - 2014-09-26 11:06:43 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Here's an interesting idea that hasn't really been brought up yet. Everyone just quit paying rent. Really.... just stop. Calculate the time it will take your overlord to take all the sov back that is being rented. When the winning blob fleet shows up, just go play mech warrior while they retake the system. Once they have it all back, join thier corps. Pretend nothing happened.

The net change in game play will be zero. You just aren't paying rent anymore. There isn't any sov to fight over either way. You rent it from them or they own it. When they go back to playing mech warrior you go back to whatever pve you were doing before you quit paying rent. When they come back and hastle you or whatever... just log off and go play mech warrior.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Join them in their afk play. Eventually CCP will fix the problem or dry up. Either way - you'll already be up to speed in mech warrior.


Renters don't own the sov in system, if they don't pay rent, they get booted trapping all their assets to the station and revoking clone rights. After that it takes 30 minutes + reinforce + 30 mins to remove all of their POS's and job's done.
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#584 - 2014-09-26 11:58:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

The very fact that you think we want to keep the current sov is evidence enough that you have no idea what you are talking about. The only people CCP should ignore are NPC high sec players who have zero experience in null sov.


I'm not a high sec player. Try again.

Again you reveal your irrelevant assumptions. As if there is no grey area between Goons and their blue donut, and high sec mission runners.

Enjoy embracing a failed endgame. Keep repeating you have all the answers when you embody all the problems of null. Those of us that know better will have moved on, and you will get to be king of the mountain of a dying meta.

I promise you, your ideas are not only bankrupt, but biased and fueled by a handful of people obsessed with maintaining the status quo.

Likely CCP will realize this far too late, and you will have bragging rights for having "won" eve before it actually dies.
Not that any of that differs from years of your organization repeating it's goals.
Have fun with that.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#585 - 2014-09-26 13:22:37 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

The very fact that you think we want to keep the current sov is evidence enough that you have no idea what you are talking about. The only people CCP should ignore are NPC high sec players who have zero experience in null sov.


I'm not a high sec player. Try again.

Again you reveal your irrelevant assumptions. As if there is no grey area between Goons and their blue donut, and high sec mission runners.

Enjoy embracing a failed endgame. Keep repeating you have all the answers when you embody all the problems of null. Those of us that know better will have moved on, and you will get to be king of the mountain of a dying meta.

I promise you, your ideas are not only bankrupt, but biased and fueled by a handful of people obsessed with maintaining the status quo.

Likely CCP will realize this far too late, and you will have bragging rights for having "won" eve before it actually dies.
Not that any of that differs from years of your organization repeating it's goals.
Have fun with that.


But there is a significant difference. Yes, the hisec ice miner momst likely produces a large quantity of isotopes used in null, but he interact via a hisec system (jita) and not in null sec.

I think you might want to either post on your main or grasp the concept that if you're not part of a field or have trained expertise on it, you might have no clue on what actually happens on the field or what changes are required. Opinions are beautiful and golden, but not a single person should take their personal opinion as the final solution to everything.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#586 - 2014-09-26 13:23:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think one of the ideas here is to change that. Missions are not the answers. There are literally 10s of thousands of anoms that don't get bothered with every day. It's a mechanical issue, not a pve problem.

(Pro hint : adding more and/or different red plus signs to null will not cure the boredom)


As has been pointed out, anoms have a hard cap of 10 people per system. If you want to get rid of the vast empires then you must change to a mission based income for line members so you can fit them all into less space. Its not a cure for boredom is to solve the empire sprawl issue.


See, you've got it wrong. They aren't in empire because there are no missions in null. They are in empire because they don't care to be spoon fed entertainment by folks that don't get what actual fun is.

It's fun to give each other handies on mumble over how awesome it is to have dominion over eve w/out really doing anything but wave a club in the air. I get that. What you need to get is that if a player isn't on mumble sharing those handies, then it's not fun.

You're the self proclaimed overlords and you've created a vast wasteland of boring. I'll say this again... adding more/different red plus signs to null will not solve the problem. The problem isn't how to put more sheep into a pen. The problem is the sheep are bored in that pen and are leaving to do other things. If the current overlords didn't suck so much at providing entertainment, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

YOUR BORING PERSPECTIVES OF WHAT EVE SHOULD BE ARE THE PROBLEM. I know, it's hard to get your arms around that. Perhaps an few more mumble handies will make it ok. Go on.... go back to your buddies and tell each other how awesome you are while not actually playing the game... because you've made it boring.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#587 - 2014-09-26 14:26:22 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think one of the ideas here is to change that. Missions are not the answers. There are literally 10s of thousands of anoms that don't get bothered with every day. It's a mechanical issue, not a pve problem.

(Pro hint : adding more and/or different red plus signs to null will not cure the boredom)


As has been pointed out, anoms have a hard cap of 10 people per system. If you want to get rid of the vast empires then you must change to a mission based income for line members so you can fit them all into less space. Its not a cure for boredom is to solve the empire sprawl issue.


See, you've got it wrong. They aren't in empire because there are no missions in null. They are in empire because they don't care to be spoon fed entertainment by folks that don't get what actual fun is.

It's fun to give each other handies on mumble over how awesome it is to have dominion over eve w/out really doing anything but wave a club in the air. I get that. What you need to get is that if a player isn't on mumble sharing those handies, then it's not fun.

You're the self proclaimed overlords and you've created a vast wasteland of boring. I'll say this again... adding more/different red plus signs to null will not solve the problem. The problem isn't how to put more sheep into a pen. The problem is the sheep are bored in that pen and are leaving to do other things. If the current overlords didn't suck so much at providing entertainment, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

YOUR BORING PERSPECTIVES OF WHAT EVE SHOULD BE ARE THE PROBLEM. I know, it's hard to get your arms around that. Perhaps an few more mumble handies will make it ok. Go on.... go back to your buddies and tell each other how awesome you are while not actually playing the game... because you've made it boring.


Do you want us to be forced to own 300+ systems to support our members?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#588 - 2014-09-26 16:36:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

THe game needs tactical targets that can be harassed and damaged by small fleets, somethign to be possible to use a bit of "gerrilla tactics" without a frotnal clash, a place where massive super fleets are not the answer.

AND there must be a way to make that 2-3 capitals ships do not work just as super capital blob bait. And hte only way I see that possible is to make impossible to jump dozens of capitals at SAME time in a system.


Form a big enough ball to not get harassed, a few hundred supercaps sounds about right. This isn't a small-scale 6-man multiplayer shooter, you're in an MMO. Obviously this group would attract the attention of everyone and their grandmother, but at least you'd be able to take systems if you are big enough of a threat.

How you manage to gather this group comes from social interaction like a good MMO has.

What CCP is changing first is the wrong end but it's one of the easiest changes and I'm not looking forward to more changes to trivial things as they'll only **** off null players and limit smaller entities who cannot get fuel fast enough to jump their small pack of caps and blobs around the map.

Edit: just change the whole of null in one go instead of building irritation and ill suspense of more bad an easy changes. Do it on Phoebe or whatever comes after that.

Just, BOOM, all the changes.



YEt the majority of the players prefer smaller engagements. Ask almost anyoen that left nullsec why they did, and majority will say BLOBS in every fight.

People want to play a game where their BRAINS matter, skills matter. And that super blobign is not the answer to everything.

IF YOU want to stay in a HORRIBLE game, then it is your problem.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#589 - 2014-09-26 16:58:23 UTC
Looking more and more like there will be spool-up timers on jump drives. Not likely cool-down timers as there would probably be ways to circumvent them (dock, log off and back on etc).

I'm all for spool-up timers. If you are going to implement these CCP, tie them into TIDI as well so that if you try to jump/bridge into a system with tidi...you will take a very very long time to appear in system.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#590 - 2014-09-26 17:57:39 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Looking more and more like there will be spool-up timers on jump drives. Not likely cool-down timers as there would probably be ways to circumvent them (dock, log off and back on etc).

I'm all for spool-up timers. If you are going to implement these CCP, tie them into TIDI as well so that if you try to jump/bridge into a system with tidi...you will take a very very long time to appear in system.

On jump drives?

Why not put the spool up timers on the cyno instead, and have the spool up period be categorized by these three details:
1. Cyno ship locked down as normal for cyno activation
2. No system-wide beacon until spool up completes, but a placeholder beacon on grid during spool up period
3. No ship can jump to cyno until spool up completes.

Once spool up completes, cyno would engage for the remaining time as normal, with existing details.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#591 - 2014-09-26 18:46:50 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Looking more and more like there will be spool-up timers on jump drives. Not likely cool-down timers as there would probably be ways to circumvent them (dock, log off and back on etc).

I'm all for spool-up timers. If you are going to implement these CCP, tie them into TIDI as well so that if you try to jump/bridge into a system with tidi...you will take a very very long time to appear in system.

On jump drives?

Why not put the spool up timers on the cyno instead, and have the spool up period be categorized by these three details:
1. Cyno ship locked down as normal for cyno activation
2. No system-wide beacon until spool up completes, but a placeholder beacon on grid during spool up period
3. No ship can jump to cyno until spool up completes.

Once spool up completes, cyno would engage for the remaining time as normal, with existing details.


So nothing changes.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#592 - 2014-09-26 19:07:14 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
[quote=SFM Hobb3s]Looking more and more like there will be spool-up timers on jump drives.
Why not put the spool up timers on the cyno instead, and have the spool up period be categorized by these three details:
You just time the cynos to light in sequence. Still have ability to move ships across universe quickly.
If it is on the Titan/Blops ship, then the same thing except easier since you are using those ships in sequence anyways (only one activation per ship is needed).

The time HAS to be on the ship that jumps.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#593 - 2014-09-26 19:14:43 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Looking more and more like there will be spool-up timers on jump drives. Not likely cool-down timers as there would probably be ways to circumvent them (dock, log off and back on etc).

I'm all for spool-up timers. If you are going to implement these CCP, tie them into TIDI as well so that if you try to jump/bridge into a system with tidi...you will take a very very long time to appear in system.

On jump drives?

Why not put the spool up timers on the cyno instead, and have the spool up period be categorized by these three details:
1. Cyno ship locked down as normal for cyno activation
2. No system-wide beacon until spool up completes, but a placeholder beacon on grid during spool up period
3. No ship can jump to cyno until spool up completes.

Once spool up completes, cyno would engage for the remaining time as normal, with existing details.


Won't work on just cyno. The ship, beit super/carrier/dread or bridging fleet has to be what has the delay. You need that ship or whatever stuck waiting for however many minutes before it can jump again. You do it your way with the cynos and people will just have the cyno chain's pre-spooled and you will still have super blobs zapping all the way across Eve in moments like they do now.

And the delay between jumps is going to have to be both meaningful, and impacted by the TIDI of the destination. If CCP wants to deter huge super blobs, and therefore encourage smaller battles (even involving caps) it will have to be so there is more than enough time for any fleet, even subjected to TIDI, to react or accomplish its goals before the blob can get on field.

To this end it might be time for a built-in Eve tool that could give you intel on the presence or arrival of a supercap fleet within jump range. Yes this sounds like something the blocks would surely hate, but I bet any smaller alliances would grow a pair and use their caps more often.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#594 - 2014-09-26 19:15:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Looking more and more like there will be spool-up timers on jump drives. Not likely cool-down timers as there would probably be ways to circumvent them (dock, log off and back on etc).

I'm all for spool-up timers. If you are going to implement these CCP, tie them into TIDI as well so that if you try to jump/bridge into a system with tidi...you will take a very very long time to appear in system.

On jump drives?

Why not put the spool up timers on the cyno instead, and have the spool up period be categorized by these three details:
1. Cyno ship locked down as normal for cyno activation
2. No system-wide beacon until spool up completes, but a placeholder beacon on grid during spool up period
3. No ship can jump to cyno until spool up completes.

Once spool up completes, cyno would engage for the remaining time as normal, with existing details.


So nothing changes.

You seem to be missing the point of impact.

The spool up taking place on the cyno side also keeps the capital ship locked down for the duration, unless they knew ahead of time that the capital ship would be needing to jump at that moment.
For a pre-planned cyno, no nothing would need to change.

But for a reactive cyno, you have a cap pilot waiting on the go ahead from another player to jump, assuming it isn't an alt on another screen.

X Gallentius wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Looking more and more like there will be spool-up timers on jump drives.
Why not put the spool up timers on the cyno instead, and have the spool up period be categorized by these three details:
You just time the cynos to light in sequence. Still have ability to move ships across universe quickly.
If it is on the Titan/Blops ship, then the same thing except easier since you are using those ships in sequence anyways (only one activation per ship is needed).

The time HAS to be on the ship that jumps.

Sure, if you ignore that the jumping ship cannot simply immediately jump until it get's cap back up.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#595 - 2014-09-26 19:22:14 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Looking more and more like there will be spool-up timers on jump drives. Not likely cool-down timers as there would probably be ways to circumvent them (dock, log off and back on etc).

I'm all for spool-up timers. If you are going to implement these CCP, tie them into TIDI as well so that if you try to jump/bridge into a system with tidi...you will take a very very long time to appear in system.

On jump drives?

Why not put the spool up timers on the cyno instead, and have the spool up period be categorized by these three details:
1. Cyno ship locked down as normal for cyno activation
2. No system-wide beacon until spool up completes, but a placeholder beacon on grid during spool up period
3. No ship can jump to cyno until spool up completes.

Once spool up completes, cyno would engage for the remaining time as normal, with existing details.


Won't work on just cyno. The ship, beit super/carrier/dread or bridging fleet has to be what has the delay. You need that ship or whatever stuck waiting for however many minutes before it can jump again. You do it your way with the cynos and people will just have the cyno chain's pre-spooled and you will still have super blobs zapping all the way across Eve in moments like they do now.

And the delay between jumps is going to have to be both meaningful, and impacted by the TIDI of the destination. If CCP wants to deter huge super blobs, and therefore encourage smaller battles (even involving caps) it will have to be so there is more than enough time for any fleet, even subjected to TIDI, to react or accomplish its goals before the blob can get on field.

To this end it might be time for a built-in Eve tool that could give you intel on the presence or arrival of a supercap fleet within jump range. Yes this sounds like something the blocks would surely hate, but I bet any smaller alliances would grow a pair and use their caps more often.

This obstacle is less of a challenge to overcome.

Put timers on both ends, that may or may not match each other.

Cyno already lit? then the timer on the jumping ship is the only one to be waited on.

The real question I have, is how long would each timer be?
I would suggest 30 seconds to a minute on the cyno side, but you seem to be considering proactive cyno chains.
And the delay between jumps for cap recovery is not enough.

So, how much timer would you want on the jumping ship's side?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#596 - 2014-09-26 20:32:58 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Sure, if you ignore that the jumping ship cannot simply immediately jump until it get's cap back up.
The cap issue hasn't stopped people yet. Why would it stop them now?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#597 - 2014-09-26 20:51:30 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Sure, if you ignore that the jumping ship cannot simply immediately jump until it get's cap back up.
The cap issue hasn't stopped people yet. Why would it stop them now?

Because power projection has two sides.

The strategic side, which you point out with rapid jump fleet transit across the map. I acknowledge this is important.

And the tactical side, with power projection most specific against smaller entities and groups, which is characterized by hot dropping.

A delay on the side of the jumping ship offers inconvenience to the strategic side, and risk if the delay is long enough to create opportunities for capital ambushes.

A delay on the cyno side would offer tactical uses a similar inconvenience, if the targets were able to fight back against the forces present at the moment rather than be dropped with a bridged assault force of relative overwhelming strength.

I believe a point was made that we wish to empower smaller groups, in this context.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#598 - 2014-09-26 21:42:41 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Sure, if you ignore that the jumping ship cannot simply immediately jump until it get's cap back up.
The cap issue hasn't stopped people yet. Why would it stop them now?

Because power projection has two sides.

The strategic side, which you point out with rapid jump fleet transit across the map. I acknowledge this is important.

And the tactical side, with power projection most specific against smaller entities and groups, which is characterized by hot dropping.

A delay on the side of the jumping ship offers inconvenience to the strategic side, and risk if the delay is long enough to create opportunities for capital ambushes.

A delay on the cyno side would offer tactical uses a similar inconvenience, if the targets were able to fight back against the forces present at the moment rather than be dropped with a bridged assault force of relative overwhelming strength.

I believe a point was made that we wish to empower smaller groups, in this context.

themittani.com wrote:
Force projection has been hotly discussed over the last year, and it appears CCP agrees with the most common criticism: that big gangs of capital and supercapital ships can travel too far and too quickly. Smaller groups of players have been afraid to engage, knowing that a supercapital hammer could be dropped on them from a galaxy away. Greyscale and Nullarbor intend to slow down long-distance travel, with nerfs planned for long range use of jump drives (short range use should be relatively unimpacted). The developers expect it to be in one of the next two releases, Phoebe or Rhea, before the end of 2014. CCP loves the big battles like B-R and Asakai, but minor fights shouldn't be escalating to the point of pulling in forces from across


I read it differently as "short range unaffected, travel long distances nerfed". YMMV.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#599 - 2014-09-26 22:36:09 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
themittani.com wrote:
Force projection has been hotly discussed over the last year, and it appears CCP agrees with the most common criticism: that big gangs of capital and supercapital ships can travel too far and too quickly. Smaller groups of players have been afraid to engage, knowing that a supercapital hammer could be dropped on them from a galaxy away. Greyscale and Nullarbor intend to slow down long-distance travel, with nerfs planned for long range use of jump drives (short range use should be relatively unimpacted). The developers expect it to be in one of the next two releases, Phoebe or Rhea, before the end of 2014. CCP loves the big battles like B-R and Asakai, but minor fights shouldn't be escalating to the point of pulling in forces from across


I read it differently as "short range unaffected, travel long distances nerfed". YMMV.


That is specific, in my view, to groups already operating in null. Possibly with some sov holdings, I would expect at least with expectations in that direction.

To smaller groups, of no strategic significance in many cases, the prospect of operating in null could be made less overwhelming by taking one of the most obvious threats off the table.

Whether it is an overblown phantom that scares pilots away, or a genuine tactic to suppress newcomers, I believe the expectation that they can bring a group together only to be dropped on has significant impact on whether they choose to risk a trip into null to play.

This, in my opinion, is in addition to larger groups using it to predate smaller ones with a bit too much leverage for good game play.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#600 - 2014-09-27 01:21:09 UTC
Distribute fights over multiple systems, reduce the amount and length of timers, and increase grunt-level income so that players don't give a **** if they lose their ship while generating income and aren't sucking solely off the teat of their alliance and/or make it such that you need to form groups to do high level anomalies so you are ready to go if pvp happens.

Stop wasting your time with jump distance which dedicated players will work around anyways or how other various schemes about how a ten man group of casuals should be able to dominate a 20,000 strong playergroup.