Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ok maybe not, but I think we should be discussing this a lot more.
The trail of tears that is the aftermath of HED-GP fight has shown the SOV needs to fixed and blobs nerfed NOW rather than later. Neither side really enjoyed the grind that was as long as normal workday, especially when the servers really can-¦t handle the load we can subject them to and the 'fight' ended up to be quite big anti-climax.
I will likely get crucified for suggesting this, but what would happen if the SOV timers were reduced in duration and amount? What if the SOV mechanics would divide the fight outside the target system?
Less and shorter timers
For example what if a systems could be flipped in 24h period? Say ihub has single timer of 24h maximum, a station timer could have two phases, allowing two tries to save the station, maxing at total of 24h too. Owner who can-¦t defend their system within 24h does not deserve to have it.
This would have few implications:
- First it would not allow for big coalitions to ping thousands of dudes for a dogpile for days on advance. This alone has several benefits like reducing server strain, making smaller entities more viable etc.
- Second it would mean alliances would need to live in their space or at least would need to react immediately to defend it, since their whole region could be rolled in just couple days.
- Third it would make taking space thats not being used (either owned by dead alliance or alliance deployed across EVE) faster, allowing smaller entities contest SOV from big coalitions. On the other hand, it will allow big rowing horde to sack regions easier, especially when the owner has given up on defending.
- Fourth it would make SOV more dynamic, as it could change hands quicker and coalitions would not be able to blob the systems as bad and dedicated attacker could inflict lot more damage in shorter time. It would also nerf power projection abit, since you can-¦t just deploy other side of EVE constantly, or if you do it will quickly start taking its toll, economic or otherwise.
Divide (and conquer I guess)
Additionally, what if the SBU-¦s (sov block units) would need to be anchored on the gates outside of system in question, ie. on the other side of the gate?
Implications:
- Server load would balance between several nodes, maybe meaning that setting up in the target system first does not give you too great tactical advantage
- It would still allow undefended system to be taken easily, but it would also give small advantage to the active defenders who could choose if their objective is to kill one(or more)of the SBU-¦s in neighboring systems or try to repair the station, or even win in straight up brawl against hostile force.
- For attacker it would likely mean that they need to split their forces between several systems to guard the SBU-¦s and to attack the station, or very least necessitate the keeping of reserves.
- This would make fights more dynamic, likely reduce server strain a bit and give jump gates more tactical importance, since controlling them would mean you can block party from going from SBU to station or opposite.
Other tweaks that could complement above changes (some of these are bit more tongue in cheeck): -Also changing stront timers on POS to 24h max, making moon ownership bit more dynamic -Some kind of small power projection tweak, limit amount of mass you can bring through a single cyno or increase capital fuel usage comes to mind -Star gate change, allow only certain mass to pass through at once, would mean huge blobs cant travel long distances and would necessiate some tactical considerations when jumping into hostiles (or fleeing from them). -Reduce structure hitpoints by small amount, give capitals/super capitals additional bonuses when shooting structures, but making them immobile if they do.
I realize that is not 100% thought through, nor ideal, but I think we are well past the point that something has gotta change. |
corporal hicks
The Council
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Problem with Sov is it makes no sense whatsoever, lets go out and claim the vast regions of lawless space and keep them lawless and that's the problem.
Your colonizing what has been termed lawless space and in doing so your bringing law to the lawless region but the game mechanics don't reflect that and that's whats causing the problem. Sov should have a side effect that increase's the systems Sec status over time to reflect colinization.
As it is at the moment 0.0 is not about anything but killmails and epeen. There is no empire building, all you can do is claim systems and upgrade them to make them more profitable in some way.
Having Sov increase sec status of the system overtime would solve most 0.0 issues, Alliances would be forced to curtail the amount of space they claim or see it turn into a more civilised society.
Ofc this aspect would be a pipe dream as the Null sec people want everything to work there own way and would balk at the idea of the systems they claim increasing in sec status and that stuff that high sec brings like lower ore's lower complexs and lower level rats, but in reality that's how colinization works.
|
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
I agree complete rewrite would probably yield best results, but I don-¦t see CCP realistically ever doing it again. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
882
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
True, the whole concept of sov is pointless since you're colonizing a space that stays a lawless space just like if you weren't here.
But on a more realistic note, the biggest defense sov holders have currently is the MASSIVE amount of time and ressources that would be required to take the huge amount of systems they have. And the whole point of having sov being preserved by sov mechanics is bad.
So yeah, less structure hitpoints, less timers. Its your space, you should be able to defend it within 24 hours, and even 24 I find it super long. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. |
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
56
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
24 hours is minimum in my opinion, you have to allow for national entities to have SOV and not necessitate everyone to have multi-timezone coverage. Would seem bit hardcore if someones whole space-empire was razed to the ground while they were sleeping, or after they got home after work. |
Julius Rigel
127
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
corporal hicks wrote:Sov should have a side effect that increase's the systems Sec status over time to reflect colinization. And more interestingly, this would result in less-popular systems decreasing their sec status over time, eventually becoming low- and nullsec, and thus empire would be the next silly artificial construct to become a natural part of the sandbox, just the way the entire market was eventually, begrudgingly released from its artificial lower mineral price floor held up by NPC-seeded shuttles.
Consequently, that would in turn make factional warfare less of an artificial construct, in the sense that militia pilots would not be fighting some futile back-and-forth war against each other, but actually shaping the boundaries of empire space by claiming sov for their faction.
LakeEnd wrote:I realize that is not 100% thought through, nor ideal I think an idea ought to be well thought-through before it needs to graduate to the largest public venue that is the forum. I think an idea deserves at least that you are capable of describing in full detail the mechanism that you are proposing, or in concrete terms the factors that you want to change. But that is my opinion, of course. I think it would be nice, for instance, to see some diagrams of what neighboring-system SBUs would look like, how this would interact with different "types" of systems - would dead-end systems with only one neighboring stargate become stronger or weaker? Would it be much harder to defend "nexus" systems that have may stargates? How would this affect intelligence gathering? Perhaps there would be a greater need for it, or perhaps it would be possible to plan and execute a blockade of a neighboring rival alliance entirely without them knowing it, if you simply drop an SBU in a system you control which bordered a system you don't control that only has two gates?
LakeEnd wrote:but I think we are well past the point that something has gotta change. Are we really at that point, though? That's another thing I would like you to do when posting idea threads - cite lots of relevant references so that it is easy to understand the issue your idea is designed to solve.
I'm not intricately familiar with the politics and actual goings-on inside of alliances and coalitions, so admittedly I'm probably missing some crucial insight that sheds light on this, but to use the HED-GP battle as an example, this is what happened from my point of view:
The attackers used the strategy of moving their fleet to the ihub in advance, and were thoroughly fortified, dug in with several layers of bubbles and so on, before the timer expired.
The defenders used the strategy of hot-dropping the attacking fleet at the time the ihub timer would expire.
Already this seems like a mistake on the part of the defenders - in EVE, just as in the real world, there are many advantages associated with having the enemy come to you and fight you on your terms.
Also, I am told by friends that yes, waiting for the timer and dropping the fleet in all at once was a strategical decision made in advance by the commanders, not an emergency reaction.
Sounds a lot like an unfortunate mistake.
The problem then occurred in the form of many capital pilots getting stuck in the jump animation, while their ships had already entered the fight. Which sounds like a technical issue, not a problem with the rules of the game world.
The cause of this battle, as far as I understand, was the defenders' inability to keep the system cyno jammed. The factors in this was the number of jammers and the time it took the defenders to scramble a fleet to defend them. Perhaps it was simply poor management that resulted in too few pilots too late to do anything? Perhaps the root cause of it goes deeper than that - perhaps an alliance / coalition of their size is not large enough to defend a territory of their size, and this would not happen with better security coverage? Perhaps there is a legitimate problem with the mechanical side - as you say, something needs to change?
In conclusion, I think that if you could explain a little more clearly how this particular change (SBUs outside) would alleviate the problem, and reflect on some possible problems it could cause, such as putting even more jump animations that could glitch out into a battle, that would be great. Personally I was visiting HED-GP during the battle, and I had no trouble activating modules, warping around (albeit it slowly), and so on. The only problem I experienced was using the stargates, which might be something you would want to do if the SBUs were on the other side of them. Do YOU like to undock? |
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
well if you get rid of jump bridge networks it sounds like you want the old pos bashing days back when you could go out on a friday night come back sunday and you lost a whole region
p.s. other than the jump bridge network the new system is far better than the old one |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
462
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
Remove titan and jump bridging altogether. This would have a number of positive effects:
1. fleets must now travel to the battle site which means they will now have travel time.
2. This means they will be detected en route,
3. and defences can be deployed before the blob is of server-busting size.
4. hot-dropping is no longer an automatic winning strategy, which means that smaller mobile fleets are more viable.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
#6 I-¦m sorry I am not going to write a pseudo-devblog about the issue. Also most people interested on this issue will understand the issues without need for diagrams or references.
#7 Im not suggesting we get rid of jump bridges or roll back to POS based SOV, don' t know where you got that idea.
#8 That would be really drastic measure, having a HUGE impact on zero zero, and to be again a realist, CCP is NOT going to do that (I believe). Bit smaller nerf to the force projection should be doable. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
477
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Remove titan and jump bridging altogether. This would have a number of positive effects:
The whole point of holding SOV is force projection. Holding/defending regions of the current size (we're pretty close to serenity anyways ) would simply be undoable without the help of a jumpbridge network or a bunch of bridging titans. We are already in the age of bridges everywhere, only a few roamers are left using gates, everyone else sends a cynoporteus anyways and just bridges the fleet to 0, or in more remote areas, they'll bridge three falcons and a few bombers via BLOPS.
If you're arguing that force projection in it's current state is ridiculous, then I fullheartedly agree. Wanna fight? Then go there and fight. But no risk-free travel anymore please.
Also please bear in mind that proposals like that would harm the CFC massively, do you really want that? "I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
Moving pictures: The Enyo |
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
826
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
Bring back POS-based sov. A larger number of timers plus the ability to kite made things much more interesting. If you want to cut down on the sheer number of POSes, tie the sov-claiming POSes to planets instead of moons. It would mitigate some of the problems of both Dominion and pre-Dominion sov. It would at least give us something less-bad to play at while CCP work on re-coding and re-envisioning the whole way nullsec works. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2331
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Bring back POS-based sov. A larger number of timers plus the ability to kite made things much more interesting. If you want to cut down on the sheer number of POSes, tie the sov-claiming POSes to planets instead of moons. It would mitigate some of the problems of both Dominion and pre-Dominion sov. It would at least give us something less-bad to play at while CCP work on re-coding and re-envisioning the whole way nullsec works.
So conquering VFK (for example) would require seventeen separate structure bashes, as opposed to five? (Seven planets. Each POS has an RF timer, so fourteen structure shots there, plus three on the station)
Is shooting structures really that much fun? |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1338
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
I like all of it. Maybe keep jump bridges as a defensive resource as consolation for defensive timers getting heavily reduced.
I'm all for titans getting their bridging role changed to soemthing else, although it does give them some use outside of combat.
SBU's on inbound gates would be cool.
Just gotta add station destructibility! "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
634
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
destructible stations would be nice .. so if you don't want to take that systems SOV you can just destroy it and leave instead.. much shorter timers would be needed for this though so maybe 2-3 hours .. maybe make hacking work on reducing timers.. too allow for fast attacks Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Southern Eullon
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
My suggestion
Only have to anchor 1 SBU in the system, with the same 3 hours timer.
Once the SBU is online the iHub is up for attack, it has the same 3 timers that it does now... except that it and it alone decides who owns the Sov and who owns the station. The iHub is not destroyable, however when you've won the fight for the final timer and Sov is flipped to the attacker all upgrades die with the loss of the system.
Change SBU's in that once they are onlined they can only be destroyed if the iHub is not under attack, meaning you have to destroy the attacker to be able to kill the SBU and restart the process. You cannot defensively SBU.
Get rid of station timers completly, get rid of TCU's.
I do suggest that you keep the 3 iHub timers to be able to be set by the defender of the Sov, within bounderies. |
Dolorous Tremmens
The Scope Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
The timers are there to try to make sure everyone has a chance to defend, and since one time may be inconvenient for many people, they make you do it a few times.
Frank Herbert, writer of dune, wrote in another series of a bureau of sabotage(BuSab), because a hyper efficient government can change too many laws to fast without enough oversight and forethought, so the BuSAB was there to throw sanctioned monkey wrenches into the political machine.
Much the same here, The timers and stages of the Sov system prevent blitzkrieg sov grinding, like back in the bad old POS-Sov days, and give a chance to the defenders. More; The multiple timers promote multiple battles over the same resources, and increased losses mean more market activity, more resources used etc.
SBU's are sort of like garbage bags. You buy them to throw away, but they serve their purpose; Delay and keep the trash mostly in one place.. Get some Eve. Make it yours.
|
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1338
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:00:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dolorous Tremmens wrote:Frank Herbert, writer of dune, wrote in another series of a bureau of sabotage(BuSab), because a hyper efficient government can change too many laws to fast without enough oversight and forethought, so the BuSAB was there to throw sanctioned monkey wrenches into the political machine.
now that is some serious, out-there science fiction. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Iminent- Doom
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:06:00 -
[18] - Quote
i think the sov sec status should change.
you are colonizing lawless space where pirates live/hunt you kill the said pirates when you rat and as such rewarded by bounty payments, i think as players regardless of standings blue red watever kill the pirates (missions/ratting/scan sites) you are infact making the system a little safer so the sec status would go up slightly.
every x pirate ships in x time it goes up by say 0.05
this however would have the effect of making all of null/low sec slowly but surely high sec so a counter marker would have to be included
i would make it if there has not been x kills in the x time you can say the pirates are rallying in the system making them a little more dangerous and decreasing the sec status by 0.05
the overall effect this would have is alliances/corps would have to manage there space to keep good ratting systems
i dont think systems should ever get to high sec status however.
i agree that SBU's should be placed on the gates entering the system rather than in the target system would still be the same amount of sbu's. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
488
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
Get rid of SBUs, or make them deactivate gates. Decouple sov from all structures except the TCU. IHUB does one thing and one thing only: improve the system. Burn it down or not. Your choice.
Stations are stations. Not sov objects. Same as IHUB. They provide a service and something to fight over. Burn it or not. Again, your choice. Free Ripley Weaver! |
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
#14 Destructable stations will likely never happen, the crying of people who lost ALL their stuff (or even portion of it) would lead to new Jita riots.
#15 IMO you suggestion only increases dogpiling into one system onto one grid. That is exactly opposite of what I would like to see happen.
#16 I know what you are saying, but in my opinion timer amounts and lengths need to be shortened. Currently there is 3 day preparation time for station systems, which allows to gather massive blobs of 2000 of their closest friends to defend/attack. 24h should be enough for anyone to organize defense of system, not everyone goes away same time, and if they can-¦t they don-¦t deserve to that station. Sure someone can come and haze down all your region during a weekend, but it would require immense amount of effort, not to mention that if he doesn't stay back to defend said region, its equally easy to take back from him.
#18 again too big of changes for CCP to actually consider on short to medium term.
#19 If you SBU all gates, how would anyone get into the system anymore? Especially if the system is cynojammed and defensively SBU-¦d you could just lock down portions of space where no one could go. Station should have some effect to the defense of the system, but I tend to agree there should be no reason to grind down two massive structures in same system. The station could give other kind of benefits, like give extra timer on IHUB, provide some kind of defensive bonuses within the system for defenders (bit like wormhole bonuses, but smaller) or something completely else. |
|
Iminent- Doom
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:27:00 -
[21] - Quote
i agree my idea woundnt be something that could or would be implemented short term just a idea for the future still dont change the fact that the current sov mechanics are not only a little broken with the fact the server crawls to a halt with 4k players in system / on grid but and the heart of it sov mechanics are real basic giving players next to no real control over there space hell even the ability to anchor 2-3 pos batteries on your gates in your system would be a nice start |
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 07:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Holy punctuation batman.
Anyway, I am more interested on what can be done on relatively short term, since the game is fast reaching a breaking point in my opinion. New SOV system jesus-feature can come later. |
LakeEnd
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 10:12:00 -
[23] - Quote
Maybe one of the CSM representatives care to comment on how high "small changes to SOV" is on CCP agenda after the summit? I mean I realize they are not going to commit on fixing or rewriting whole SOV. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |