Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 12:35:00 -
[151]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Also, when considering how easy/hard sov is to take/disrupt, it's informative to ask yourself why you're trying to do so in the first place. Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design.
What about pos modules that currently require sov in order to anchor? Especially CSAAs?
|
Zhentor
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 12:37:00 -
[152]
What about the infrastructure upgrades? Will those require sov in the system to be applied, or are they permanent increases no matter if there is sov held in the system or not?
|
Nidhiesk
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 12:45:00 -
[153]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Sorry about the confusion on this matter; it turns out that the design doc was wrong
The onlining time for the System Restore Unit / Disruption Marker is correctly set at 24 hours. The text description and the flowchart in this blog are both using an incorrect value of 12 hours because that's what it says in the design. Which is wrong.
We are having a ponder over whether the claiming unit should be less vulnerable - either moving its cycle to 12 hours, or giving it a longer invulnerable anchoring time and a shorter vulnerable onlining time or similar.
Also, when considering how easy/hard sov is to take/disrupt, it's informative to ask yourself why you're trying to do so in the first place. Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design.
I don't know if it was you or another dev but I'm givin the feeling you want more people in null sec and more populated. In that case, although just a suggestion, I suggest making it easy to claim the system and harder disrupt it.
why harder to disrupt it ? well making it a bit easy for "smaller" corp that can't be in the game 24h. Lots of people here are working very long hours and not everyone is on welfare or school. That way, the disruption covers all timezone giving a chance for the corp to defend it self properly. (notice the word chance hehe)
why easy for taking it ? you guess it, so corps can settle in quickly when its unclaimed. This makes sense to me since CCP gives the feeling they want more people in zero. If it harder (24h or more) this will be a bit harder to do since smaller corp have "USUALLY" less people which don't cover all timezones. so by making it 12h it should be enough.
|
Caldor Mansi
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 13:24:00 -
[154]
While this is not related to this dev blog in particular but... Can you get rid of the Upkeep thing, please?
There is no problem in owning large empty space but that the defending severity of your space does not scale up with the size.
I would say it is better to address the real problem and apply appropriate fixing then doing...'such things'.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 13:28:00 -
[155]
I for one applaud CCP for putting this out to test on Sisi so early, and letting players take part and give feedback. Should m ake for a better overall system that more of us can enjoy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum Core Factor
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 13:43:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Nidhiesk I don't know if it was you or another dev but I'm givin the feeling you want more people in null sec and more populated. In that case, although just a suggestion, I suggest making it easy to claim the system and harder disrupt it.
It already looks like it will work close to what you propose. Claiming an uncontested system is pretty simple - set your claim unit anchoring, and get sov 24 hours later. Depending on how system upgrades are handled, it may even be possible to start setting these up while you're waiting for the 24 hour timer (e.g. if the upgrades only worked when you had sov, I don't see any loopholes to letting them be built any time).
And it sounds like it would be very difficult to "snatch" sov away from an enemy that was actively using a system; you just need to let your guard down for a few minutes, at just one of the gates, for them to be able to blitz your claim module to the ground, and then you have to start the 12 hour countdown all over again. To actually successfully take over sovereignty you'd have to be able to maintain a fairly overwhelming and unwavering combat supremacy for 36 hours (12 + knocking out enemy's claim module to merely drop sov back to neutral). And by combat supremacy I don't just mean a bigger blob; if you park a bunch of short-range battleships on top of the relatively fragile claim disruptor, then long-range ships can come in and take it down from long-range. If you don't have any kind of RR, then a fairly small suicide squad (compared to your own) can probably take down the disruptor before you kill them all. And so on.
Thus it looks like you'll need to have already knocked the stuffing out of the defending alliance, so to speak, in order to disrupt their sovereignty. Disrupting sov in an system with an active, combat-capable alliance looks extremely difficult (which I initially considered a bad thing, but now I think it actually fits in with the desired intentions).
|
Aaron Min
Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 14:00:00 -
[157]
It seems to me that under this new system it is also going to be harder to defend a dead end system with 1 gate and easier to defend a system with 3 or more gates, in my mind that just doesn't seem right.
It also doesn't seem like there is much of a purpose to sov unless you have a station in the system, and then not to control the station, but so you can upgrade the system.
I really think you should make the station invulnerable to flipping until sov is lost. Why bother engaging a station systems sov claimers if I can simply take the station and then all my people can start docking there, repairing for free, loading the location with loads of back up sov disruption markers etc etc.
Gaining sov shouldn't flip the station right away, whatever mechanic you have in mind for flipping the station should stay, but the station should only be flippable when sov is neutral or in your control.
This would make the station (or stations as I'm hoping you do in fact let us build multiple stations in the same system) you last bastions of hope once you loose sov.
|
Sun Liping
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 14:49:00 -
[158]
I am not certain if all of you know that
THE CAKE IS A LIE!!!
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 14:59:00 -
[159]
You know, the past few devblogs have all been awesome.
I have to say that giving everyone every skill at V for a particular test is a great way to ramp up participation.
|
Refazed
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 14:59:00 -
[160]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Sorry about the confusion on this matter; it turns out that the design doc was wrong
The onlining time for the System Restore Unit / Disruption Marker is correctly set at 24 hours. The text description and the flowchart in this blog are both using an incorrect value of 12 hours because that's what it says in the design. Which is wrong.
We are having a ponder over whether the claiming unit should be less vulnerable - either moving its cycle to 12 hours, or giving it a longer invulnerable anchoring time and a shorter vulnerable onlining time or similar.
Also, when considering how easy/hard sov is to take/disrupt, it's informative to ask yourself why you're trying to do so in the first place. Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design.
How do you envision station ownership to be determined and contested? It's a big deal to 0.0 owners since significant assets can be stored in a station.
|
|
Weaselior
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:09:00 -
[161]
Edited by: Weaselior on 17/09/2009 15:10:48 I presume that sov dictates who controls the infrastructure hub? In that case, given that you've said parts of it require station upgrades, what happens when the ownership of the infrastructure hub and the station is split - are those upgrades destroyed? Is the hub inactive when the station and sov are not aligned? Do you lose your cynojammers/bridges if you lose sov? Does the person with sov get those upgrades even without a station?
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:13:00 -
[162]
The design of the sov system is wrong.
It should be easier to defend a dead end system and very difficult to defend a system with many entries. But it is the the contrary. Very very easy to defend a system with many gates and really hard/impossible to defend a dead end system.
But it is to late to change that design, sadly enough.
The 24 hour counter for the claim disruptors to kick in is far to long. Makes it almost impossible for anyone but a super-alliance to attack sov space. Result will be even bigger blobs.
The whole 'sov disruptors online at ALL gate for xxx hours' is wrong. But in the meanwhile you can make a quick addition that would help.
Allow claim disruptors on BOTH sides of the stargate to disrupt the claim. Allow claim disruptors inside and outside the system to affect the system!
This already would be a quick help if a complete change of the system is out of order. I don't know if you guys have enough time to consider a new sov-system approach or if you are only tweaking numbers now at best.
|
Professor Dumbledore
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:18:00 -
[163]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Sorry about the confusion on this matter; it turns out that the design doc was wrong
The onlining time for the System Restore Unit / Disruption Marker is correctly set at 24 hours. The text description and the flowchart in this blog are both using an incorrect value of 12 hours because that's what it says in the design. Which is wrong.
We are having a ponder over whether the claiming unit should be less vulnerable - either moving its cycle to 12 hours, or giving it a longer invulnerable anchoring time and a shorter vulnerable onlining time or similar.
Also, when considering how easy/hard sov is to take/disrupt, it's informative to ask yourself why you're trying to do so in the first place. Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design.
How exactly does sov not have anything to do with holding stations now? That's how it is currently so unless you tell us otherwise and explain it we are totally out of the loop.
It would really be nice to have all of this stuff written down somewhere so we can actually mabye try to understand it.
|
Doytard
Amarr FaDoyToy
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:35:00 -
[164]
Originally by: CCP WeirdFish I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate that the system detailed here is only the first iteration of the new sovereignty and there are more parts yet to be announced and explained. Also that all the mechanics timers and the like are as i explain in my blog subject to change. Don't panic!
I have heard a few devs say subject to change (or not final), and as such have been totally disappointed when subject to change was a) not changed, or b) inadequately changed. Hi how are you
|
Orange Faeces
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:37:00 -
[165]
I have read the devblog and I'm just a tad concerned here. How is this any different than the current system we have? Its essentially the same except without POSs.
How about we make a real change to Sov. and require that any claimed system must have a sovereign system or a station system adjacent to it. This would solve two general things in the current "emergence." First, you can't hop all the way across eve and take other people's sov. Second, you have to grow organically from a claimable station, low-sec, or a station drop.
Simple stuff, CCP. Fallout's blog certainly had some hopeful sentiments about how things need to change, but without making adjacent systems dependent on one-another there is little difference.
O. Faeces
---
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:47:00 -
[166]
So with all these Disruptors taking a day or so to render a system vulnerable to attack does this mean that you'll be able to select the top vulnerable systems at downtime and make sure they're running on reinforced nodes in anticipation of a monster fleet engament?
|
Letifer Deus
Bannable Offense. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:53:00 -
[167]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 17/09/2009 15:54:49 How is the transition between the current sov system and the new one going to work? Are all of the sov 1/2/3/4s just going to drop and it's going to become the space equivalent of the Oklahoma land grab, or what? If yes, what is going to happen to items in place that require certain sov levels (and will require certain "infrastructure" levels afterwards) such as jammers and capital ship assembly arrays?
Originally by: Sophie Daigneau What about pos modules that currently require sov in order to anchor? Especially CSAAs?
Crap you beat me to it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Professor Dumbledore
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:58:00 -
[168]
So with all these crazy radical changes your saying to the plays you better stop ****ing around with the current system and prepare for this new stupid **** right? because that what it looks like to me.
|
GPFS
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 16:19:00 -
[169]
About the new SOV mechanic. Will there be some kind of notification when a disruptor is anchored, for the ally that currently holds SOV in the system? Will the disruptor be visible in the Overview? Or you have to scan like 1k radius from the gate to find out someone has anchored a disruptor? Didn't see someone ask those questions...
|
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum Core Factor
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 16:51:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Aaron Min It seems to me that under this new system it is also going to be harder to defend a dead end system with 1 gate and easier to defend a system with 3 or more gates, in my mind that just doesn't seem right.
I can see that and see where you're coming from. However, if you want to look at it another way, a dead-end system is actually more fragile in terms of sov, since it only has a single link to other systems by which "the sovereignty can flow" (in some handwavy RP logic). If the attackers set up what is effectively a small blockade on that gate, the system is cut off from the rest of your empire. Conversely, a hub system has lots of gates and so lots of redundant connections to the rest of your empire. To break the sov links, an attacker has to sever every connection, which is going to be much harder.
Part of the apparent paradox here is that for the purposes of disrupting sovereignty, the attacking force is actually effectively defending. They anchor their disruption module, and then must defend it for a given amount of time. And as you've rightly said, the system is easier to defend - in this case, for them.
Or in other words, you think of the system as secure because it only has one way in - it's also vulnerable to disruption because it only has one way out.
Quote: It also doesn't seem like there is much of a purpose to sov unless you have a station in the system, and then not to control the station, but so you can upgrade the system.
I believe sov itself is tied to the upgrades; I wasn't under the impression that you required an outpost in the system to benefit from them too (though perhaps they would count as outpost upgrades; I'm sure a future devblog will clarify this).
Quote: I really think you should make the station invulnerable to flipping until sov is lost. Why bother engaging a station systems sov claimers if I can simply take the station and then all my people can start docking there, repairing for free, loading the location with loads of back up sov disruption markers etc etc. ... This would make the station (or stations as I'm hoping you do in fact let us build multiple stations in the same system) you last bastions of hope once you loose sov.
There's going to be a separate mechanic for outpost capture that should cover this. My understanding of taking sov is that it's not something you do as a precursor to a conquest, but something you do near the end once the attempt has been successful. If you needed to take sov to attack a station, then that would be "prescriptive" rather than "descriptive". It would be hard to take control of a system without depriving the owners of the tactical advantage of the outpost; so if you needed sov to do this, you'd essentially have to take it early on (which would be almost impossible with an enemy station in the system from which they could strike at your claim disruptors).
Decoupling the two makes sense if sov is not meant to be the first crippling blow to an enemy's infrastructure as it is now. The situation you describe (take the station first, establish dominance, force the other alliance out, then take sov) is in fact exactly how I understand CCP want things to play out. Again, sov gets claimed "once the dust has settled", not as a precursor to a conflict.
|
|
De Guantanamo
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:05:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Letifer Deus Edited by: Letifer Deus on 17/09/2009 15:54:49 How is the transition between the current sov system and the new one going to work? Are all of the sov 1/2/3/4s just going to drop and it's going to become the space equivalent of the Oklahoma land grab, or what?
look how stupid you are
|
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum Core Factor
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:08:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Orange Faeces I have read the devblog and I'm just a tad concerned here. How is this any different than the current system we have? Its essentially the same except without POSs.
There's a few major differences as I see it:
- The structure to be destroyed has much much less hitpoints, so that it won't require massive amounts of DPS to destroy it. Tactics will outdo capital blobs here.
- No damage from the structures being attacked/defended - ships of all sizes can play a part in its assault (especially with the lower hitpoints).
- Rather than blasting a POS into reinforced and starting a timer, the end of which ends up in a fight - a presence must be maintained in the contested system to prevent your claim disruptor being destroyed.
- Claim disruptor modules probably much much much cheaper than POSes to the point of being nearly expendable - certainly if an enemy suicides a few BSes or a capital to kill one you should be way up.
- No more fuelling logistics to maintain sov \o/
The first few are pretty important - instead of having these huge, barely-destructable armed towers that you had to knock down multiple of, it's now merely about being able to demonstrate military dominance in the system. If you can plant moderately fragile objects in an enemy system and then stop them from being destroyed for 12/24 hours, it's a better indication of system control than having to fire at POSes.
And it allows a more interest contest over the system than getting a mail with the time a tower comes out of reinforced, and hoping your defensive blob is bigger than the attacker's blob - then being forced with the task of repping up the tower.
Having POSes separate to sov claims is nice as well from a "refactoring" perspective; they can be developed a lot more along industry lines without having the dead weight of having to pull in lots of directions and the associated balance issues.
Quote: How about we make a real change to Sov. and require that any claimed system must have a sovereign system or a station system adjacent to it. This would solve two general things in the current "emergence." First, you can't hop all the way across eve and take other people's sov. Second, you have to grow organically from a claimable station, low-sec, or a station drop.
I suspect you have to grow organically anyway, whether the mechanics force you to or not. If you travel all the way across EVE to take sov, it's not simply a case of popping + planting POSes and then cynoing back if they get attacked. You have to maintain a presence there in order to take sov initially, and after that to respond to any counter-claims. I don't think that would be very feasible if you also wanted to maintain presence on the other side of the universe - short of splitting into two groups, which would be similar to creating a coalition of two alliances anyway (which could do this under your proposed system).
Secondly, in the spirit of emergence, surely letting someone try this ridiculously challenging situation is better than outlawing it outright through game mechanics?
|
Southern Suzy
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:09:00 -
[173]
hmm all nice and I wanna test it but please with creaming on top stop throtteling the test patch downloads So wait this is the end of my post allready?
I'm not in multiple alliances to spy! I'm in them so I'll always be on the winning team |
Orange Faeces
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:25:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Gartel Reiman There's a few major differences as I see it:
- The structure to be destroyed has much much less hitpoints, so that it won't require massive amounts of DPS to destroy it. Tactics will outdo capital blobs here.
- No damage from the structures being attacked/defended - ships of all sizes can play a part in its assault (especially with the lower hitpoints).
- Rather than blasting a POS into reinforced and starting a timer, the end of which ends up in a fight - a presence must be maintained in the contested system to prevent your claim disruptor being destroyed.
- Claim disruptor modules probably much much much cheaper than POSes to the point of being nearly expendable - certainly if an enemy suicides a few BSes or a capital to kill one you should be way up.
- No more fuelling logistics to maintain sov \o/
I think you missed the point of FallOut's blog. Its not just that they want to make smaller ships useful for sov. action, but that smaller alliances need to be able to take space. If you don't make sov. growth continuous with current space then the nap-train, in whatever form it takes in the future, just hops over and pops your sov. and you can't get into 0.0. Thats the problem that needs to be solved. Not whether or not you feel useful in your Caracal.
Originally by: Gartel Reiman I suspect you have to grow organically anyway, whether the mechanics force you to or not. If you travel all the way across EVE to take sov, it's not simply a case of popping + planting POSes and then cynoing back if they get attacked. You have to maintain a presence there in order to take sov initially, and after that to respond to any counter-claims. I don't think that would be very feasible if you also wanted to maintain presence on the other side of the universe - short of splitting into two groups, which would be similar to creating a coalition of two alliances anyway (which could do this under your proposed system).
Secondly, in the spirit of emergence, surely letting someone try this ridiculously challenging situation is better than outlawing it outright through game mechanics?
No, you don't have to grow organically in the current system and these sov. rules are exactly the same. Current superalliances have pockets of sov. all over the damn place, grabbing high-end moons and strategic stations. Jump clones make this a completely viable approach.
Complaining that some game mechanic is arbitrary is an oxymoron. The whole thing is arbitrary anyway. So, lets choose some rules that constrain sov. sprawl, and leave the space that you don't need for all the other people who play eve.
oF ---
|
Cayleu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:40:00 -
[175]
Edited by: Cayleu on 17/09/2009 17:45:40
Originally by: Orange Faeces I think you missed the point of FallOut's blog. Its not just that they want to make smaller ships useful for sov. action, but that smaller alliances need to be able to take space. If you don't make sov. growth continuous with current space then the nap-train, in whatever form it takes in the future, just hops over and pops your sov. and you can't get into 0.0. Thats the problem that needs to be solved. Not whether or not you feel useful in your Caracal.
You may have missed how they intend to (attempt to) accomplish this. Its not practical to design a game mechanic that somehow allows tiny alliances to defeat an alliance 20 times their size, and it would be silly to attempt it. Rather, they seem to be trying to make 0.0 available to more people by making it possible for large alliances to improve their space to the point where they dont NEED a lot of space like they do now, combined with making it more inconvenient or expensive to hold huge amounts of space thats not needed. (ie perhaps by having upgrades that improve truesec, quadrupling the number of belts or exploration sites, introducing agents, you may have systems where you can comfortably fit 30 people online at once). If space can be upgraded and defended to the point where a huge alliance only needs 1 region or a few constellations, and you reduce the value of r64 moons to the point where its not worth the expense of holding extra space just for the moons, then perhaps the biggest alliances carve out the best corners to call home, freeing up space for new alliances.
Thats what their "plan" seems to be, whether it is a good idea and/or works or not, whether it encourages people to fight interesting wars or just causes everyone to settle down and stagnate into boring peace, who the hell knows.
|
Orange Faeces
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:57:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Cayleu You may have missed how they intend to (attempt to) accomplish this. Its not practical to design a game mechanic that somehow allows tiny alliances to defeat an alliance 20 times their size, and it would be silly to attempt it. Rather, they seem to be trying to make 0.0 available to more people by making it possible for large alliances to improve their space to the point where they dont NEED a lot of space like they do now, combined with making it more inconvenient or expensive to hold huge amounts of space thats not needed. (ie perhaps by having upgrades that improve truesec, quadrupling the number of belts or exploration sites, introducing agents, you may have systems where you can comfortably fit 30 people online at once). If space can be upgraded and defended to the point where a huge alliance only needs 1 region or a few constellations, and you reduce the value of r64 moons to the point where its not worth the expense of holding extra space just for the moons, then perhaps the biggest alliances carve out the best corners to call home, freeing up space for new alliances.
Oh thats a good point, g00nswarm. The NAP-train absolutely HAS to cleanse all the other alliance that aren't blue from 0.0 because you needed their resources. When no one's space is, in itself, worth enough to conquer it'll be safe to venture sov. claims in 0.0.
We'll all keep that in mind when we're reading your essays on CAOD.
oF ---
|
Cayleu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:05:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Orange Faeces
Originally by: Cayleu You may have missed how they intend to (attempt to) accomplish this. Its not practical to design a game mechanic that somehow allows tiny alliances to defeat an alliance 20 times their size, and it would be silly to attempt it. Rather, they seem to be trying to make 0.0 available to more people by making it possible for large alliances to improve their space to the point where they dont NEED a lot of space like they do now, combined with making it more inconvenient or expensive to hold huge amounts of space thats not needed. (ie perhaps by having upgrades that improve truesec, quadrupling the number of belts or exploration sites, introducing agents, you may have systems where you can comfortably fit 30 people online at once). If space can be upgraded and defended to the point where a huge alliance only needs 1 region or a few constellations, and you reduce the value of r64 moons to the point where its not worth the expense of holding extra space just for the moons, then perhaps the biggest alliances carve out the best corners to call home, freeing up space for new alliances.
Oh thats a good point, g00nswarm. The NAP-train absolutely HAS to cleanse all the other alliance that aren't blue from 0.0 because you needed their resources. When no one's space is, in itself, worth enough to conquer it'll be safe to venture sov. claims in 0.0.
We'll all keep that in mind when we're reading your essays on CAOD.
oF
Hey, I'm only putting up my opinion of what ccp is trying to do, which is pretty obvious based on the blogs. I'm not saying that I believe they will be successful.
|
Caldor Mansi
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:09:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Cayleu Edited by: Cayleu on 17/09/2009 18:05:59 Hey, I'm only putting up my opinion of what ccp is trying to do, which is pretty obvious based on the blogs. I'm not saying that I believe they will be successful.
I am affraid that only conclusion based on latest blogs and presented mechanics is that they don't really have a clue what they are doing :-(
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:28:00 -
[179]
they didnt say their trying to remove nullsec violence or confine aliances to their smaller sections, but alliances tend to defend/kick people out of their controlled spaces faster than unclaimed territory, this isnt meant to aleviate the threat of pirates or lowsec fighting, its to make alliances want more people to come into their regions and help get more cash, its so that alliances might want more carebears on their roster to mine in their capitals to help take advantage of all the upgrades etc that will be possible...
|
Rieger VaunBraun
3P1C F41L
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:34:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Cayleu
You may have missed how they intend to (attempt to) accomplish this. Its not practical to design a game mechanic that somehow allows tiny alliances to defeat an alliance 20 times their size, and it would be silly to attempt it. Rather, they seem to be trying to make 0.0 available to more people by making it possible for large alliances to improve their space to the point where they dont NEED a lot of space like they do now, combined with making it more inconvenient or expensive to hold huge amounts of space thats not needed. (ie perhaps by having upgrades that improve truesec, quadrupling the number of belts or exploration sites, introducing agents, you may have systems where you can comfortably fit 30 people online at once). If space can be upgraded and defended to the point where a huge alliance only needs 1 region or a few constellations, and you reduce the value of r64 moons to the point where its not worth the expense of holding extra space just for the moons, then perhaps the biggest alliances carve out the best corners to call home, freeing up space for new alliances.
Thats what their "plan" seems to be, whether it is a good idea and/or works or not, whether it encourages people to fight interesting wars or just causes everyone to settle down and stagnate into boring peace, who the hell knows.
I could not have put it better myself. I can only hope that your "vision" of what CCP is trying to do plays out. I think it will make 0.0 more accessible to smaller groups and get more people out of empire.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |