These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Crucible Was Great, But...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SmashTech
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2011-12-05 23:03:45 UTC
I'm burned out from shooting structures for two years.

Please design a sovereignty system that doesn't involve only timers and absolutely ******** amounts of EHP, thanks.

I originally tried writing a nice OP about why shooting TCUs and SBUs and IHUBs is stupid and why Eve players desperately need something new and fun to shoot at, but then the gank-monster ate it and I cursed CCP and their terribad forums. So all you're going to get is this.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#2 - 2011-12-05 23:18:37 UTC
I agree - originally, the winter expansion was supposed to be a nullsec revamp, which we didn't see much of.

Anyway -a lot of nice little changes along witha few bad ones were delivered, so I there's enough left to do for summer, as long as they don't start doing 1000$ spaceparbie-jeans for 18 months again...
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2011-12-05 23:22:12 UTC
I agree POS warfare is tired, but what could they possibly replace it with?

It would have to give the owner of the POS a chance to defend it, and it cant just fall over in 30 minutes and be over... So what kind of mechanics do you propose?

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#4 - 2011-12-05 23:24:35 UTC
I don't mind the timers so much, that actually seems to be the fair thing (fair insofar as at least give the guy a chance to log in and watch his **** burn down)

the EHP is teh suck burnin them down as well as repping them up
SmashTech
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-12-05 23:26:23 UTC
Where's the variation on type? Why do they all have 50% resists and countless HP? Why can't you put GUNS ON THEM? Why is there no penalty if no one shows up to defend them? Why aren't there ones with more HP than others? Why are they the sole determinant of sovereignty? Why, why, why...
Jita Alt666
#6 - 2011-12-05 23:31:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jita Alt666
Terminal Insanity wrote:
I agree POS warfare is tired, but what could they possibly replace it with?

It would have to give the owner of the POS a chance to defend it, and it cant just fall over in 30 minutes and be over... So what kind of mechanics do you propose?


Shoot-able ihubs anchored away from defence orientated structures that have level over rides corresponding to the systems military and industrial levels.

Level 5 approx 2.5mil EHP knocking it to level 4 removes the benefits of military and industrial 5 upgrades until its either repped up or passively recharges
Level 4 approx 5.0mil EHP knocking it to level 3 removes the benefits of military and industrial 4 upgrades until its either repped up or passively recharges
Level 3 approx 7.5mil EHP knocking it to level 2 removes the benefits of military and industrial 3 upgrades until its either repped up or passively recharges
Level 2 approx 10mil EHP knocking it to level 1 removes the benefits of military and industrial 2 upgrades until its either repped up or passively recharges
Level 1 - has reinforce timers - you are fighting for sov.

Edit: altering numbers as numbers are a little low
SmashTech
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2011-12-05 23:34:17 UTC
Took me a moment to think about that and then I concluded that it would be an improvement over the current system.
Jita Alt666
#8 - 2011-12-05 23:38:39 UTC
SmashTech wrote:
Took me a moment to think about that and then I concluded that it would be an improvement over the current system.



10 BCs who do 400DPS would take 10minutes or so to knock a level 5 to level 4 and that would knock the number of sanctums/havens down in a good sec system.

1. Defend your space if you wish to make isk off of it.
2. Small gangs are worthwhile.
Shivus Tao
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2011-12-05 23:40:09 UTC
Retooling the ihubs to be the core of system sovereignty is a good idea. It would also enable the addtion of constellation and regional command hubs for a proper feel of home systems.

Jita Alt666
#10 - 2011-12-05 23:44:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jita Alt666
Shivus Tao wrote:
Retooling the ihubs to be the core of system sovereignty is a good idea. It would also enable the addtion of constellation and regional command hubs for a proper feel of home systems.



I've done some modelling on that. The problem I see is "Home System" = Blob Central.

One option I thought could have potential is: link the total EHP of ihubs across a constellation. When the combined constellation ihubs lose the equivalent EHP of a complete level 5 ihub a random ihub in the constellation goes off line.
SmashTech
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2011-12-05 23:47:16 UTC
It would always be "blob central" as you describe it because people are supposed to be living there.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2011-12-05 23:50:55 UTC
That's fine. What you'd want is a SOV system that rewarded active defence, and gives a soft transition between empires. Not the hard wall we see now which is essentially a hard wall you either smash through one system at a time, or you just bounce off of, and means that the only way to do warfare is one fuckoff huge fleet vs another fuckoff huge fleet. No small incursion, no multiple systems strike, etc.

But you also want to make it progressively easier for the defender the closer to home you get.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
mkjkgkvk Melkan
Doomheim
#13 - 2011-12-05 23:57:55 UTC
Shivus Tao wrote:
Retooling the ihubs to be the core of system sovereignty is a good idea. It would also enable the addtion of constellation and regional command hubs for a proper feel of home systems.



Yeah for sure, structures could face resistance penalties for jumps from hubs in some form or other, just to speed the whole damn thing along. dunno how this would affect small alliances with only 2-3 systems. what think?
mkjkgkvk Melkan
Doomheim
#14 - 2011-12-05 23:58:37 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
That's fine. What you'd want is a SOV system that rewarded active defence, and gives a soft transition between empires. Not the hard wall we see now which is essentially a hard wall you either smash through one system at a time, or you just bounce off of, and means that the only way to do warfare is one fuckoff huge fleet vs another fuckoff huge fleet. No small incursion, no multiple systems strike, etc.

But you also want to make it progressively easier for the defender the closer to home you get.


thisthisthis
Jita Alt666
#15 - 2011-12-06 00:03:28 UTC
SmashTech wrote:
It would always be "blob central" as you describe it because people are supposed to be living there.


Yeah I understand that. The problem would be you guys would think:
Don't worry about I30- and 2O9G- let Evoke grind their way through, the constellation hub is JU-, just stack up 200 guys in there at all times and have the Cap fleet ready to jump from where ever they are stationed 2-K?

Amazing its the same as H-W but one for every constellation.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-12-06 00:10:01 UTC
I don't see why it would have to be defined on a pr constellation basis. Why not just go back to the old system and have SOV be descriptive rather than presctiptive? If you want to turtle up in one system when you're attacked, fine, go ahead. Have fun living in ~one system~ then. I'm sure that'll be hella fun. is that not enough? Well, control more systems then.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Jita Alt666
#17 - 2011-12-06 00:14:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
I don't see why it would have to be defined on a pr constellation basis. Why not just go back to the old system and have SOV be descriptive rather than presctiptive? If you want to turtle up in one system when you're attacked, fine, go ahead. Have fun living in ~one system~ then. I'm sure that'll be hella fun. is that not enough? Well, control more systems then.


I understand the concept. I can not picture it in reality. The old system was he who has most pos wins.
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#18 - 2011-12-06 00:16:32 UTC
Sovreignity bubbles that grow for a certain period of time when you control the majority of outposts/planets in a system and takes control of systems when the bubble extends over them. Mostly passive and stops at other alliances borders. Much like Verite Renditions map.

No forcing people to grind as slaves in a system for sov and no shooting or anchroing structures bar outposts. Could involve PI and Dust 514.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2011-12-06 00:17:52 UTC
Fairly certain that the system prior to that was, you control the systems you can keep military superiority over. Kind of like NPC null is now, only you can do more with it.

That would also be a lot more sandboxy in my mind than today's abortion of a SOV system, but I'm not sure we'll ever see that kind of system in conquerable space again. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Jita Alt666
#20 - 2011-12-06 00:20:38 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Fairly certain that the system prior to that was, you control the systems you can keep military superiority over. Kind of like NPC null is now, only you can do more with it.

That would also be a lot more sandboxy in my mind than today's abortion of a SOV system, but I'm not sure we'll ever see that kind of system in conquerable space again. vOv


Ah true. I agree not sure we will see that ever again, because how would we measure that in these heady days of 50 alliance titans on line at a single time.
12Next page