Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Proposed Summer 2015 changes to nullsec is a step in the right direction - a baby step. It acknowledges the problems causing stagnation and boredom in null but seems unable or unwilling to take decisive action.

Don't worry, I'm here to save you.

Currently, Dominion sov warfare is measured in scales of days. Shoot a structure for x amount of time, wait 2 days, shoot it again for x amount of time, wait 2 more days, repeat ad nauseum. The proposed system will reduce this time to 24-48 hours, but that's still not enough. We need to go deeper. Sov warfare should be measured in hours, not days. It's time CCP stops holding the hands of nullsec entities and promotes a fluid, dynamic nullsec.

How can this be accomplished? It's fairly straightforward:

First, flipping an undefended, solitary system should take 2-4 hours, tops if the system is totally undefended and the owners do not form to meet their attackers. Over the course of your average timezone window of activity - 6-8 hours or so - an attacker should be able to flip half a dozen to a dozen uncontested systems in an "all out attack" or "major grind".

Second, the vulnerability of a system to attack should be determined solely by the sovereignty state of its neighbouring systems; it'll only be vulnerable to attack if a neighbouring system is not held by the defender. This creates "front lines" and also prevents an entity's staging system or deep pockets from being flipped within a day - but at the same time, it allows an attacker to concentrate on making a b-line straight for said staging system to deliver a relatively quick killing blow if their attacks are not thwarted.

What will this sort of system accomplish? Nuances need to be dealt with but the overall goal is that far more pressure will fall on the shoulders of territorial entities to keep and maintain their borders whereas now, under Dominion sov, and under the proposed Summer 2015 changes, there is virtually no consequence to failing to protect your space in a timely manner. "Strategic blueballing" and "timer hopping" are far too often utilized by both defenders and attackers and result in wars that are more defined by grinding and non-fights than actual content. Sure, we all hear and read about the "great battles", but what is often forgotten is that these are but unique events in conflicts that are otherwise remarkably tedious and uneventful.

The secondary effect of these proposals via the "connected vulnerability" that means a system only becomes vulnerable if an adjoining system falls (or was never held in the first place) is that it creates tangible "fronts" to a conflict. It adds elements of strategy as both attackers and defenders plan their offense or defense of systems which now become strategically important; pipe and constellation entrances, bottlenecks and so forth.

The third effect is that, in my opinion, this will heavily draw back the motivation behind 'blue donut' coalition forging by making large coalitions impractical and ineffectual. With space able to be lost at a much higher speed, the impetus will be on the actual holders of sov - the alliance that supposes to live in that space - to actually defend their space. Weak, incapable entities, the bottom-tiers, will no longer be able to be propped up by their coalition simply showing up for the most important timers once or twice a week while the owners of that space are otherwise being ravaged 23/7.

In other words, it injects a bit of Darwinism into nullsec, by ensuring that only entities that can actively defend their space actually have space to defend.

Now I'll play devil's advocate. The one major drawback to this system is the perception that it will in fact prevent more wars by making it more dangerous for an entity to leave their home unguarded while they go off to attack someone else. This is, to a degree, true. There's nothing stopping an attacker from themselves being attacked by others. Such is war. Coalitions can help to contain this, but it will also leave the attacker's attacker open to attack.

I don't find this particularly troubling, this chaotic breakdown of sov. I think having an incredibly "weak" sov system, in reference to how easy it is to attack, will shake up nullsec sov life in ways never before seen. I think it will help balkanize nullsec by making large contiguous empires and coalitions and blocs harder to maintain. It will force alliances to turtle, forcing more players to live in smaller areas (and economically speaking, nullsec resources should be altered to suit this). There will be more fights and wars as little pockets of space are attacked and fall.

I'm tired of typing now. What do you think?

That face of yours would scare a Hippo.

Filing this thread under the "Highsec player who doesn't understand much about nullsec" category.

The idea of losing all your space in a single op because the enemy gained brief overwhelming firepower compared to you has got to be one of the worst proposal I have heard in quite a while.

Oh wait nvm, someone else proposed it earlier.

> in nulli for 12 days
> talking **** about highsec players

p sure i have more experience in and far more knowledge of nullsec than you bud.




p sure i know more about reading comprehension than you too considering you didn't seem to actually read my post. I specifically said that a day of uncontested space pillaging (aka roughly a timezone coverage) should result in 5-10 systems flipping, or about a constellation worth. That's hardly "all your space", but it is a significant chunk. And that's kind of the point. An alliance should only inhabit space it can actually defend.

there's two penultimate consequences of this, or courses of action for a current sov holder. Either a) reduce the amount of space you try to defend or b) spend your time bouncing back and forth every day to patch up any sov you lost the previous day. I think logic would dictate an entity would rather compress their space than spend every day in a constant state of defensive war of reclamation. And if they're not taking up as much space, that leaves more space for the little guys. Sure, they can lose it quickly. Sov is a *****. It should be.

Some believe war should happen more than one or two times a year. I know, crazy talk right?

You don't grasp the concept of timezones because you are suggesting that anyone who cannot oppose a full fleet in their off TZ is going to lose everything they own.

Who is going to fight off a fleet of bored CFC, N3 or Brave pilots hitting them in a timezone they are not active in?

If you think people can knock over 10 sytems in one go, then we WILL in fact knock over entire regions. Perhaps you were unaware that there are literally thousands of players in the CFC? If we were to roll through, say, Russian space in US prime, then we would just flatten the lot. Even if they retake it in their prime TZ, all of their sov indexes, upgrades and ihubs would be gone. That, in turn, would make it easier for us to come back tomorrow and do it all again.

Who do you think would get bored first?


I also find it rather amusing that you call me out for making assumptions, then make assumptions about Anhenka without even spending five seconds checking corp history.

I've been previously convinced, in another thread, that RF timers are currently needed. I can't think of anything better that doesn't have major flaws, so I'm sorry but the detractors here are correct, we can't have a Sov system where players can roll in during a Sov holders off-time, and just take systems in a couple hours.

But I do like the "front lines" idea. Could be something to look into.

Um, that's literally the definition of dynamic:

dy·nam·ic
dīˈnamik/
adjective

1.
(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.

Chaos is a good thing. You are incorrect about the rest. Peacetime nullsec entities are atrophied husks of incompetence, whether it's Goonswarm or Nulli. You've clearly never actually been involved in any sovwars, otherwise you'd know the lengths leadership has to go to in order to drum up a bored playerbase to actually do something.

If you'd actually read the post (thanks at least for admitting you did nothing but browse the two bolded parts, way to go bud) you'd have seen I put limitations on the system to approximately 5-10 systems being taken in a "day's work" of uncontested grinding.

Sure, a big group like GSF or whatever could go and **** on all the little guys and their little pockets of sov and they won't be able to do much. That's no different than it is now except the timescales are retardedly elongated. And why would a big entity want to put increasing pressure on being able to hold larger areas of space? Why would a large group want to grab more space when it gets exponentially harder to hold the more of it they grab?



You got tired of the same old crap and yet you seem pretty motivated to try and hold onto it.



I've twice now elaborated on this not being the case. Since you clearly aren't interested in actually reading what I'm saying, and would rather invent my arguments and then argue against yourself, I don't see any reason I should take you seriously.



Not only did you not bother reading my original post, you apparently didn't bother reading my response, either.

This actually represents what an attacker would gain over an 8-hour period (aka one timezone of constant activity) of uncontested assault with two-hour timers:
http://puu.sh/gEMDv/038b2eb455.png

Here is with 4-hour timers: http://puu.sh/gEMMo/ef250ce54c.png

Here is with 8-hour timers: http://puu.sh/gEMO2/88bb432faa.png

And here is the doomsday scenario of having an entire 24-hour period where the attacker has complete and utter dominance of the entire region, with constant multiple fleets out across all timezones for the entire day (in other words, something that has literally never happened) with 2-hour timers, while the defender doesn't so much as form a single siegefleet to try and stem the tide: http://puu.sh/gEMV9/4b208f685c.png

Large wars need a lot of planning, and the large wars that eve provides are unique in the gaming world. Most nullsec sov holders actually live for wars, even the boring bits.
Eve wars contain:
Supply lines and depots
Establishment of beachheads
Multi-stage invasion plans utilizing strategic locations
Convoys
Ship and fleet doctrines
Multiple FULL fleets supposedly acting in concert

No other game requires so much preparation and forethought. No other game can support the sheer numbers in battle that eve can, or the length of such battles, or the scope of the rewards from winning. Nullblocks aren't better at fighting, and they usually admit it. What they have that sets them apart is organization, which is what won them territory, and let them keep it.

What I see in your ideas are the vast armadas being reduced to xena warrior-princess sized armies(~20, however many extras the budget could handle)with improv plans, invasions on the fly. Small gang, unorganized skirmish warfare. Dynamic and directed towards the instant action ADD crowd, no planning needed just go, shoot, flip. Yes, I did read through your wall of text.

Before the "never having been in null" accusation occurs, I've had to fight under the old pos-sov and everything that followed. I have been part of the logistics hauling for invasions, and also fly logi in fleets almost exclusively. I do the support roles which your idea pretty well abolishes.

The current system is not nearly as bad as what it replaced, but your idea is very much the worst one I've forced myself to read through, even beating out the fw method.

Ah, so this IS a troll thread, nothing but personal attacks, claiming that I've never blah blah blah. Posted by a forum alt to a forum alt. Yet my forum alt still has a decent corp and alliance history. Yeah, never been in null.
Bravo sir, well trolled.

for FWplexsov:

I'm told this is the method used by successful FW groups. As you can see it relies on cheapshots like camping people so they don't undock or even log in.

Fights!!