Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 62 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
582
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:41:00 -
[241] - Quote
Xolve wrote:I like how all of you assume that making gross changes to the way capitals navigate the known game world will somehow have some mystical ability on players way to undermine even the best changes, to simply make more jumps, or to just quit playing this awful game.
"Power Projection" was a neat catch phrase during the CSM, but when most of the nullsec populace is capital ready (in many cases with several racial variants at that) what you're experiencing isn't 'power projection breaking the game' it's the influx of more and more players with higher and higher skill points.
Making Sov cost more might do something to break up huge swathes of space owned by a single entity, but if the space is unused in a 40k man coalition, why is going to be more desirable to a much, much smaller group? Bad space is bad.
There was a lot more to this, but the forum ate it (twice); this is the draft, and I can't be ****** to re-write it all again. TL;DR Tinkering with Sov, sure; ******* with jump drives, meh.
We don't buy capitals because we think " Wow I can cross the Universe fast " I would like to think we train and buy them because we think " Wow these things are big and cool and they make cool explosions and I am in awe of their destructive power" . Changing the way in which they travel does not affect that assumption.
For my alliance Pandemic Legion if my suggested changes were to happen I could see us sliding back into the mercenary role. We would base from Lowsec as we do now dominating the immediate area until a Nullsec group contracted us. We would then mobilize and organize logistics and prep what assets we need to complete or perform the mandate of our contract and move to the contract area. It would be a task to get there and setup not something we do willy nilly or with just a few cynos and jumpfreighters. Consequently our sphere of influence would be tied to where we are operating.
For Goonswarm Federation they would have to shrink their sov holdings to what they could reasonably manage , use and afford. They wouldn't be able to redeploy their whole force to other parts of the galaxy because if they do so and leave they're space unused. Unused space would become more expensive and easier to take. This would limit Gfed's sphere of influence.
I used PL and Gfed as examples as we are both seen as some of the great power of Eve. @EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
Arronicus
Caldari Navy Reconnaissance
1085
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:43:00 -
[242] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:read and see what is fun to implement
key is make TCU the focus, no more need of other sov flipping structures like SBU
TCU enables upgrade of system resource architectures directly and it must be anchored inside a POS. TCU onlining and offlining requires 72 hours, TCU upgrade paths requires 72hours per cycle. each alliance/corp can hold on to a maximum of 5 TCUs (so in effect 5 systems max).
Ah, and here we are, back to the 'If a huge alliance can only hold sov in 5 systems, that will fix the blue doughnut' argument. Please see the extensive list of well thought out replies as to why this will not only have none of the intended benefit, but will stifle new alliances, and make the idea of 'carving out your own tract of space' less of an appealing aspiration. |
Mr Rive
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:44:00 -
[243] - Quote
Manny is right. People should stop arguing with him. He knows more about this game than you |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
582
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:45:00 -
[244] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Xolve wrote:
Making Sov cost more might do something to break up huge swathes of space owned by a single entity, but if the space is unused in a 40k man coalition, why is going to be more desirable to a much, much smaller group? Bad space is bad.
There was a lot more to this, but the forum ate it (twice); this is the draft, and I can't be ****** to re-write it all again. TL;DR Tinkering with Sov, sure; ******* with jump drives, meh.
It is not only sov that is the problem. If we tie up costs to sov we jusut split the alliances within a coalition, not the coalition itself. If we could make life be more expensive the more blues you have that would result in the ideal solution, the problem lies in how to do it in an elegant way that is not easily circunvented. That is why I proposed (rough and very very initial idea) that the alliance manteinance bill be tied to the number of player owned outposts it is allowed to dock
This is a arbitrary limit even if its dynamic in its application. It can be gamed by creating alt alliances. So that way you only control a set amount of stations for the cost to not be driven up. Instead you tie sov cost to usage. If you use it its cheap if you don't its expensive.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
Mr Rive
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:46:00 -
[245] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Dirty Sanchezco wrote: The coalitions are a ruse set up to keep people interested in protecting those isk generation sources, both sides are so big now that it doesnt matter whose blue or red to who, because they all know that no one will attack the other's income, because that would be financial suicide.
you're dumb coalitions exist because to not join a coalition, or to have a coalition noticeably weaker than the other guy's, means you're going to get crushed and booted out of 0.0 they exist because as much as everyone hates them everyone knows they need them - or they're TEST and no longer own space
Youre calling me dumb but you basically said the same thing i did. Coalitions need coalitions to control moons. That's the end of it. They need to control space. Why do they need to control space? Moons. Nice work saying exactly what I did brah. |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
184
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:52:00 -
[246] - Quote
I would like to chime in that Cyno mechanics in general are extremely 'bad gameplay'. The way it is now, you are forced to use throwaway alts to move capitals around. Does CCP really believe this is good design? I understand that a percentage of accounts, especially from old and established players and/or alliances, make up a good portion of subscriptions, but it's a real slap in the face.
And just to get on the nostalgic train...I too remember the 'old days' where everything was localized and exciting. I patrolled 3WE-KY for 3 months making sure the supply lines to the first Fountain Alliance were clear. It was the major choke point into fountain; the link to Delve wasn't created then. We had convoys of 30 bestowers, properly escorted...and m0o would still hit them. Fun was had by all.
Eve is very small now. As much as I like Wormholes...it only adds to it. Moving to another part of Eve was a "big deal". Venal seemed like an exotic destination from Fountain for example.
But having things too localized kills populations as well. CCP would be wise to remember this. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
90
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:52:00 -
[247] - Quote
Hopefully the new space focuses on 'the little guys' and not huge coalitions. Who knows how CCP will set up the new space, but I'd bet that they are looking at all the ideas being discussed here. I see it as the testing grounds for fixing the rest of Eve's sov/projection problems.
The potential is there for sure, for meaningful space that can be held and secured by small groups. Player built/controlled stargates would likely be the first big step in stopping a huge coalition entering the system dead in its tracks. Hopefully the builders of the gates will have some measure of control, ie, force mass limits that recharge after certain amount of time (allows for small roaming both ways), to downright turning it off for a period of time.
I hope in these new systems they disallow cynos and jump drives altogether, but still make it possible for a super to exit or enter the system via the player-build stargate (make it so one super uses up the entire mass limit for that period of time). Or disallow supers in the new system altogether, I'm cool with that too.
As for the gates being destructable...make it so that the gate has to go through reinforcement timers on the Other side first, before the outside of the gate is vulnerable. Destruction of the gate could leave the surviving occupants forced with teaming up to do what they can to build a new exit gate...for which the other end could open up in a worse or better place than before... Suddenly, Eve becomes KRULL!!!!
Also I'd like to see logging off outside a station in these new systems be a death sentence...your ships still does emergency warp...but stays in system until you log back in.That should discourage long-term cloaky campers.
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
508
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:53:00 -
[248] - Quote
Mr Rive wrote: Youre calling me dumb but you basically said the same thing i did. Coalitions need coalitions to control moons. That's the end of it. They need to control space. Why do they need to control space? Moons. Nice work saying exactly what I did brah.
i said a reasonable and sensible thing
you and your sockpuppet said a dinsdale-esque rmt conspiracy theory
i did not in any sense say the same thing you did, and your idea about moons is stupid as well: you're outdated on the source of alliance wealth, and you are conflating having space at all with moons
basically you have no idea what you're talking about and the discussion would be exactly as productive if we replaced any of your posts with a randomly selected dinsdale post |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
583
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:54:00 -
[249] - Quote
jack1974 wrote:A few pages in and it is nice to see the conversation evolving. In my opinion the main problem will nullsec, AND THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH NULLSEC, is the sov mechanics. I'm no expert at creating rules but I feel the solution is simple: Speed up all timers so a system can change owners in less than a day. Example: Alliance B could destroy Alliance A's station in under 18 hours(6 hour reinforcement timers). Potential Situation: Ally B knows that Ally A has a horrible USTZ and an even worse Aussie TZ. Ally B waits for Ally A to have a bad EUTZ showing so they begin to siege a strategic hub. Unless Ally A pulls a rabbit out of their @ss their station is lost. How is this a solution? Alliances today rule out strategic hits/death blows because you can see them coming from a mile away. With todays mechanics Ally A would reinforce Ally B's station on a wednesday. Ally B now has 3 days to plan its defense for the weekend. 3 days to move cynos, dictors, etc. WAY TOO MUCH TIME. In current times, as we learned from Germanys Blitzkrieg, the faster you can hit the better! Advanced Situation: Coalition A needs to remove Coalition B from a region. They alarm clock on a Monday after DT for their coalition to reinforce and now CAPTURE every system in said region by Monday night. Come Monday afternoon Coalition B would be backpedaling due to the abrupt, vast attack on their space. Either they pull together numbers within the next 12 hours to defend every system or they face to lose all of their hardwork. Que Mannies solution: Stations can be destroyed(assets beamed to lowsec/jita) If a coalition did a deathblow to another alliances main station, the defender would then logistically have to get all of their assets back out of lowsec/jita to the frontline again That would be a pain and people would gladly defend their turf to prevent the extra work. All together this solution would do the following: require all alliances to be on high alert at all times SOV wars to be more FPS like, high death/action logistic networks ready to retrieve lost assets from destroyed stations potential more cap use(='s greater chance of cap loss)(more fuel usage) more wars as alliances run the risk of losing their entire space in a week or two(nowadays 1 system a week)
Due to timezone restraints there has to be timers of at least 24 hours. You would not wan't to hold sov with mechanics where you go to bed and then wake up and its gone.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
Cherry Yeyo
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:57:00 -
[250] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:This is a arbitrary limit even if its dynamic in its application. It can be gamed by creating alt alliances. So that way you only control a set amount of stations for the cost to not be driven up. Instead you tie sov cost to usage. If you use it its cheap if you don't its expensive So then you just fill the space with renters and we're back to square one
Until living in and using space for YOURSELF and your members is more profitable, fun, beneficial and entertaining than renting it out and unsubbing is addressed, all this power projection talk is just bandaids on a bigger problem. |
|
Mr Rive
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:57:00 -
[251] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Mr Rive wrote: Youre calling me dumb but you basically said the same thing i did. Coalitions need coalitions to control moons. That's the end of it. They need to control space. Why do they need to control space? Moons. Nice work saying exactly what I did brah.
i said a reasonable and sensible thing you and your sockpuppet said a dinsdale-esque rmt conspiracy theory i did not in any sense say the same thing you did, and your idea about moons is stupid as well: you're outdated on the source of alliance wealth, and you are conflating having space at all with moons basically you have no idea what you're talking about and the discussion would be exactly as productive if we replaced any of your posts with a randomly selected dinsdale post
Where the income comes from is irrelevant quite frankly. The fact remains to get large amounts of income, you need space to do it. While it remains profitable to hold large swathes of space, you will still get massive coalitions.
You can make edgy posts at me all you like, but I know more about the politics of this game than you, and manny certainly knows more than me, so why dont you moonwalk back to VFK into another 1000man fleet to defend a POS against 50 guys where you belong, okay buddy? |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
587
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:03:00 -
[252] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:With the timer discussion, I think another thing that's been forgotten is the distinction between tower timing (takes some effort to get the timer right) and the new system of preset timers. I am not convinced that the "set time, timer is within the variance based on that time" is a better idea than the old system of tower timing where there were things like ******* up stront timing, or the ability to kite towers.
+1 @EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
Varrakk
Burning Napalm
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:05:00 -
[253] - Quote
Moon income (depletable moons) and renters needs to be dealt with.
Worm Holes would still be a very efficient logistics backdoor. |
Orontes Ovasi
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:17:00 -
[254] - Quote
The mere omnipotence of current sov-holding coalitions in regards to their own assets is a major issue with sov as well. The removal of structure mails and a reversion to a more decentralized sov system (POS structure or something akin to POS sov in that there were multiple objectives that might be coming out at once) would place a limit on the ability of major sov blocs (N3 and the CFC) to project power.
IE, if you are living in Querious you shouldn't be able to know your POS in Black Rise is reinforced a mere 10 min after it is attacked without at least logging in a toon. The same sort of logic would apply to sov. However, sov itself needs to change because the current structure favors the human inclination to form massive groups designed to pulverize any enemy. POS sov would at least allow multiple timers over the course of a day to come out and put the same system at risk and at least discourage the dropping of 900~ people over and over. Whereas as it stands, systems (or the sov mods vital to it) are only really vulnerable every few days. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
511
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:21:00 -
[255] - Quote
Mr Rive wrote: Where the income comes from is irrelevant quite frankly. The fact remains to get large amounts of income, you need space to do it. While it remains profitable to hold large swathes of space, you will still get massive coalitions.
You can make edgy posts at me all you like, but I know more about the politics of this game than you, and manny certainly knows more than me, so why dont you moonwalk back to VFK into another 1000man fleet to defend a POS against 50 guys where you belong, okay buddy?
I can assure you you're going to get nowhere trying to chestbeat about how much more you know about the game and the metagame than me, and that you keep making basic errors about the politics and the metagame while doing so is not helping you.
The issue is you think coalitions are all about income protection. They're not. They're about survival. With EVE as it exists today, any fight can easily have the entire universe show up. As a result, you need to be assured that in any fight that matters, you can call on at least half the universe. If you can't, you get crushed like a bug. If you start getting crushed your only real option is to grovel and beg admittance to the other coalition (certainly not on equal terms of course, but enough that you get the help you need). Just look at TEST in the Fountain war.
That's it. Income is irrelevant. Income is not all that important to alliances: isk is necessary to do a lot of things well, but isk doesn't actually buy you all that much. Goonswarm had close to double the income it had during the tech era than during the last year. Goonswarm is considerably more powerful now nonethless. Income is nice to have but if you double the CFC's income you won't double it's power.
Plus, your "Income is the only thing that matters!" idioticy has the subtle implication that PL is essentially part of the CFC just like any other member is because PL and the CFC don't **** with each other's income (within certain defined terms). Anyone who knows anything about the politics of this game would double over in laughter at the idea. Your idea that moons are the only income that matters, then your claim to know more about the politics of the game, is stupefying given that your coalition is currently supported by renters, not moons. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
587
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:22:00 -
[256] - Quote
Cherry Yeyo wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:This is a arbitrary limit even if its dynamic in its application. It can be gamed by creating alt alliances. So that way you only control a set amount of stations for the cost to not be driven up. Instead you tie sov cost to usage. If you use it its cheap if you don't its expensive So then you just fill the space with renters and we're back to square one Until living in and using space for YOURSELF and your members is more profitable, fun, beneficial and entertaining than renting it out and unsubbing is addressed, all this power projection talk is just bandaids on a bigger problem.
Perhaps some renters still would exist. However its still based on what I can reasonably travel too and protect. So If a renter system in cobalt edge is in reinforced mode and comes out @ 18:00 and a system in the spire comes out @ 18:15 I can only defend one because I cannot make it between those 2 points in time. This is where the power projection nerf comes into play. My sphere of influence is dictated by the fairest measure ( Time). Everyone everywhere will be affected fairly by the same rule.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
Cherry Yeyo
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:32:00 -
[257] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Perhaps some renters still would exist. However its still based on what I can reasonably travel too and protect. So If a renter system in cobalt edge is in reinforced mode and comes out @ 18:00 and a system in the spire comes out @ 18:15 I can only defend one because I cannot make it between those 2 points in time. This is where the power projection nerf comes into play. My sphere of influence is dictated by the fairest measure ( Time). Everyone everywhere will be affected fairly by the same rule But what made you have a timer in Cobalt Edge and The Spire? Wouldnt it make sense to live in one constellation, one region, one pocket? No, it doesnt make sense because theres not enough value in that space.
OK, let me get more space! More space = more renters = more isk
Why do alliances need isk? To guard their sandcastle or kick over someone elses |
Mr Rive
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:32:00 -
[258] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Mr Rive wrote: Where the income comes from is irrelevant quite frankly. The fact remains to get large amounts of income, you need space to do it. While it remains profitable to hold large swathes of space, you will still get massive coalitions.
You can make edgy posts at me all you like, but I know more about the politics of this game than you, and manny certainly knows more than me, so why dont you moonwalk back to VFK into another 1000man fleet to defend a POS against 50 guys where you belong, okay buddy?
I can assure you you're going to get nowhere trying to chestbeat about how much more you know about the game and the metagame than me, and that you keep making basic errors about the politics and the metagame while doing so is not helping you. The issue is you think coalitions are all about income protection. They're not. They're about survival. With EVE as it exists today, any fight can easily have the entire universe show up. As a result, you need to be assured that in any fight that matters, you can call on at least half the universe. If you can't, you get crushed like a bug. If you start getting crushed your only real option is to grovel and beg admittance to the other coalition (certainly not on equal terms of course, but enough that you get the help you need). Just look at TEST in the Fountain war. That's it. Income is irrelevant. Income is not all that important to alliances: isk is necessary to do a lot of things well, but isk doesn't actually buy you all that much. Goonswarm had close to double the income it had during the tech era than during the last year. Goonswarm is considerably more powerful now nonethless. Income is nice to have but if you double the CFC's income you won't double it's power. Plus, your "Income is the only thing that matters!" idioticy has the subtle implication that PL is essentially part of the CFC just like any other member is because PL and the CFC don't **** with each other's income (within certain defined terms). Anyone who knows anything about the politics of this game would double over in laughter at the idea. Your idea that moons are the only income that matters, then your claim to know more about the politics of the game, is stupefying given that your coalition is currently supported by renters, not moons.
wow so many words so little said.
It DOES NOT MATTER where the income stream is coming from. AS LONG AS IT IS PROFITABLE to hold large areas of space, large coalitions will form to hold it.
Do you really think eve politics has changed so much in a year and a half that my vastly superior knowledge to yours doesnt matter any more? Please, I help set the foundations up for the coalitions that exist today. I'm one of the people that's responsible for the way eve is right now. I know most of the big players on first name basis. Gudfites went out of the window a long time ago, and are only a ruse so that big powerblocks can have safe spaces to build supercaps and build big wallets so that when they lose them all they can just build another round. That's how its worked for the past 6 years. People get space rich, and coalitions keep having the excuse to have big coalitions.
|
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:34:00 -
[259] - Quote
I could not agree more that power projection needs to be nerfed severely. It's the only way you'll get truly epic fights that actually mean something. Meaning comes from effort invested, not from numbers.
How about allowing a single character to move more at once, but make the move itself considerably slower and more dangerous?
Imagine carriers/freighters could carry 10 times what they carry now, but moving from the north to the south would take days and requires traveling through every damn system. With some bad luck, by the time you arrive, it turns out your best friends are stabbing you in the back... It would make conflicts slower and somewhat more predictable.
Other than that, I believe sov warfare should be very "minimalist". As few sov structures as possible.. no need for cyno jammers and what not. The main advantage defenders should get is that they're already there and nicely stocked on ships and ammo. If the attackers handle the logistics well, then props to them.
Logistics should be a team effort that requires a proper fleet to guard the convoy. It should involve fighting your way there.
But...there is a fundamental flaw in EVE's industry design: industry is more complex than it should be (too many different components) and anything T2 requires components from all regions.
This encourages trade, sure, but at the same time obliterates any possible local identity. What if the great wildlands provided all raw materials needed for the production of minmatar T2 ships? I am dreaming now, but that is the kind of flavour EVE industry sadly lacks. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
590
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:39:00 -
[260] - Quote
Cherry Yeyo wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Perhaps some renters still would exist. However its still based on what I can reasonably travel too and protect. So If a renter system in cobalt edge is in reinforced mode and comes out @ 18:00 and a system in the spire comes out @ 18:15 I can only defend one because I cannot make it between those 2 points in time. This is where the power projection nerf comes into play. My sphere of influence is dictated by the fairest measure ( Time). Everyone everywhere will be affected fairly by the same rule But what made you have a timer in Cobalt Edge and The Spire? Wouldnt it make sense to live in one constellation, one region, one pocket? No, it doesnt make sense because theres not enough value in that space. OK, let me get more space! More space = more renters = more isk Why do alliances need isk? To guard their sandcastle or kick over someone elses
Ok so just to be clear I am replying under the rationalization that my suggested changes were implemented. So first any space I own or control must be utilized or it becomes more expensive and easier to conquer. Secondly the space I do control has to be in a proximity of what I can reasonably protect. This is affected by the size of my alliance what assets I can bring to bare and the time in which it takes for me to get there. You see I might be able to take a system far away and I might be able to rent it. But protecting it means I need to be able to get there to do so. By doing so I might not be able to protect a system I own somewhere else. Now if I am a larger alliance perhaps I can have fleets in 2 or 3 different places. But being a larger alliance I will need more space to utilize to support my larger player base. So you see it still comes down to what can I utilize what can my sphere of influence cover.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
|
Jen Seltier
New Eden Alt Corp Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:41:00 -
[261] - Quote
This topic has been discussed many times with many different options discussed.
i like the direction and the acceptance of this stand point so far with several parts to it.
however i believe finding the middle ground is the key.
I believe their should be no rental empires/buffer zones and no jump bridge/jump beacon networks to move 200 men across the whole of EVE in 10-20 minutes. i have done that, we even got to the fight in its early stages due to tidi and we raped the hostile fleet, it was a blast yet soooo over powered.
Quote: Jumprdrives limited jumprange to adjacent system only. (lightyear distance is irrelevant)
Limiting jump drives is a must, the range of this limitation is the major question. I believe 1/2 to 2/3 reduction is optimal to really reduce the ability to switch region easily without the use of a gate. the ability to use a gate would need to be added as suggested.
Or the other option or even combined fix, is to extend the time between jumps. At this time, the time between being able to jump is completely based of capacitor, if you have a cyno/beacon chain ready. A timer should be enacted which means that you can only use a drive drive/bridge once every 10 minutes, with the exception being blackops which would have a set % reduction on this timer, i suggest 75% to 90%.
Quote: All capitals can use stargates. Agreed in order to enable them to switch regions if needed.
Quote: Jumpfreighters gain bubble immunity Agreed, however with the exception that they can not jump from high sec directly. A jump drive can only be activated from low sec or below if this change was to occur.
Quote: Regional Trade NPC is created to exchange racial building materials for other racial building materials. i agree within reason and with a price increase, however i still do believe the logistic chains and industrialists should be able to cover this without much issue and is therefore not needed. My questions to this option is: where would this trade happen from? NPC station? so adding NPC stations to sov only areas?
the rest i completely agree with. Stations should need to be stronted, with a max of 36 hours if max fueled and must be refueled to enact the second timer, and shield regen or it just sit there waiting to be destroyed. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
592
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:51:00 -
[262] - Quote
Onnen Mentar wrote:I could not agree more that power projection needs to be nerfed severely. It's the only way you'll get truly epic fights that actually mean something. Meaning comes from effort invested, not from numbers.
How about allowing a single character to move more at once, but make the move itself considerably slower and more dangerous?
Imagine carriers/freighters could carry 10 times what they carry now, but moving from the north to the south would take days and requires traveling through every damn system. With some bad luck, by the time you arrive, it turns out your best friends are stabbing you in the back... It would make conflicts slower and somewhat more predictable.
Other than that, I believe sov warfare should be very "minimalist". As few sov structures as possible.. no need for cyno jammers and what not. The main advantage defenders should get is that they're already there and nicely stocked on ships and ammo. If the attackers handle the logistics well, then props to them.
Logistics should be a team effort that requires a proper fleet to guard the convoy. It should involve fighting your way there.
But...there is a fundamental flaw in EVE's industry design: industry is more complex than it should be (too many different components) and anything T2 requires components from all regions.
This encourages trade, sure, but at the same time obliterates any possible local identity. What if the great wildlands provided all raw materials needed for the production of minmatar T2 ships? I am dreaming now, but that is the kind of flavour EVE industry sadly lacks.
This was why I "threw" the trade NPC into my suggested changes. I know its not a perfect idea but I think it could be fair if it was based off market values. Perhaps someone has a better idea I am all ears. If we were to nerf power projection and create a nullsec that wasn't reliant or dependant on the tether to empire there would have to be some mechanism in which things could be acquired that are not obtainable locally. Thats was the basis of my idea for a trade NPC. Perhaps this Trade NPC is a upgrade you install into a ihub or perhaps a upgrade to a station. Perhaps that upgrade could be disabled or interrupted by the Hacking minigame. Also you would restore it by the hacking minigame. These are conflict drivers and ways in which small parties could create chaos and trouble.
The Trade NPC would basically work the way a villager works in Minecraft. You trade goods and you get a good you need/desire. The exchange rate would be based off the median value of the item you offer for trade versus the item wish to receive. Rounded of course so if you want Hydrogen Isotope and you have Helium Isotope for trade and the Hydrogen is worth 500 a unit and the helium is worth 1000 per unit then the resulting exchange would be you get 2 units of Hydrogen for your 1 unit of Helium. Perhaps a transaction fee ( isk sink ) is also exchanged that can then be modified by trade skills. Perhaps in player owned stations the owner gets a cut of the NPC fee.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10600
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:04:00 -
[263] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:CHANGES Jumprdrives limited jumprange to adjacent system only. (lightyear distance is irrelevant) All capitals can use stargates. Jumpfreighters gain bubble immunity One Jumpbridge per system can only connect to adjacent system (lightyear distance is irrelevant) Regional Trade NPC is created to exchange racial building materials for other racial building material lol what a gigantic crock of **** No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1205
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:05:00 -
[264] - Quote
Just a few thoughts.
Premises 1. Sprawling empires are bad. This is bad because it makes it more difficult for smaller entities to get into the null game. 2. Dependence on a large number of players/allies to survive is bad. There is only one logical endpoint to this after a period of coalescence: two enormous coalitions which balance each other (see point 1). 3. Alliances would not form coalitions if they did not have to. I am assuming that lack of fights and a desire for independence would be enough to stop coalition formation if point 2 (i.e. survival) was solved.
Actions 1. Nerf power projection. 2. Institute GÇÿdynamic true secGÇÖ to increase rewards for active space and decrease rewards for inactive space against an unmodified sec. 3. Institute GÇÿdynamic defence indexGÇÖ to increase the defensibility of active space and decrease defensibility of inactive space. Somehow.
Results Rental empires will be maintained as long as it is possible to defend multiple parts of your empire simultaneously over great distances. Nerfing power projection will increase the probability of successful rebellion and territorial wars. This will continue until the optimal empire size is achieved, i.e. small enough to adequately defend all borders.
Alliances need the ability to grow GÇÿupwardGÇÖ instead of sprawl GÇÿoutwardGÇÖ and this must include both rewards and defence. A GÇÿtallGÇÖ, active alliance should be very difficult (impossible?) to dislodge from a small area of the map. If an alliance chooses to grow upward (focus their activity in a smaller area of space) then they should attain greater income (GÇÿdynamic true secGÇÖ), preferably player-generated rather than moon-generated. They should also attain greater security as a natural consequence of concentrated force but also from sov mechanics (the GÇÿSomehowGÇÖ above), allowing them to defend against a stronger force (GÇÿdynamic defence indexGÇÖ).
Conversely, if an alliance chooses to grow outward then their reward is rental income. Power projection nerfs mean that such an alliance would be inherently unstable, vulnerable to coordinated attacks.
A potential problem with this approach is that an active rental alliance would also grow in defensive strength. Maybe that is alright if the renter would need to be involved in sov defence. If they are strong enough and good enough to repel a strong invader then the chance of rebellion would also be increased. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
593
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:09:00 -
[265] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:CHANGES Jumprdrives limited jumprange to adjacent system only. (lightyear distance is irrelevant) All capitals can use stargates. Jumpfreighters gain bubble immunity One Jumpbridge per system can only connect to adjacent system (lightyear distance is irrelevant) Regional Trade NPC is created to exchange racial building materials for other racial building material lol what a gigantic crock of ****
Exactly what kind of crock can you elaborate please?
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
512
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:11:00 -
[266] - Quote
Mr Rive wrote: wow so many words so little said.
It DOES NOT MATTER where the income stream is coming from. AS LONG AS IT IS PROFITABLE to hold large areas of space, large coalitions will form to hold it.
Do you really think eve politics has changed so much in a year and a half that my vastly superior knowledge to yours doesnt matter any more? Please, I help set the foundations up for the coalitions that exist today. I'm one of the people that's responsible for the way eve is right now. I know most of the big players on first name basis. Gudfites went out of the window a long time ago, and are only a ruse so that big powerblocks can have safe spaces to build supercaps and build big wallets so that when they lose them all they can just build another round. That's how its worked for the past 6 years. People get space rich, and coalitions keep having the excuse to have big coalitions.
like i said, income really isn't as important as you think it is and that you think income really matters this much shows you don't get at a basic level how things work. income is great, gives you things to fight over, but at the end of the day survival is what drives the meta of coalitions, not income. income is merely a tool.
gudfites never went out the window because it never actually existed
and there are few people who have as useless knowledge as someone who has been out of the game for years and doesn't really understand what's going on and just keeps saying crazy things about BACK IN MY DAY while everyone just rolls their eyes at the senile grandpa and politely ignores him to avoid causing him embarrassment. however that's really only PL people who are required to do that at this point so you should probably just post there and cease embarrassing yourself by trying to post as one of the big boys when you don't even know who the current ones are. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
593
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:11:00 -
[267] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Just a few thoughts.
Premises 1. Sprawling empires are bad. This is bad because it makes it more difficult for smaller entities to get into the null game. 2. Dependence on a large number of players/allies to survive is bad. There is only one logical endpoint to this after a period of coalescence: two enormous coalitions which balance each other (see point 1). 3. Alliances would not form coalitions if they did not have to. I am assuming that lack of fights and a desire for independence would be enough to stop coalition formation if point 2 (i.e. survival) was solved.
Actions 1. Nerf power projection. 2. Institute GÇÿdynamic true secGÇÖ to increase rewards for active space and decrease rewards for inactive space against an unmodified sec. 3. Institute GÇÿdynamic defence indexGÇÖ to increase the defensibility of active space and decrease defensibility of inactive space. Somehow.
Results Rental empires will be maintained as long as it is possible to defend multiple parts of your empire simultaneously over great distances. Nerfing power projection will increase the probability of successful rebellion and territorial wars. This will continue until the optimal empire size is achieved, i.e. small enough to adequately defend all borders.
Alliances need the ability to grow GÇÿupwardGÇÖ instead of sprawl GÇÿoutwardGÇÖ and this must include both rewards and defence. A GÇÿtallGÇÖ, active alliance should be very difficult (impossible?) to dislodge from a small area of the map. If an alliance chooses to grow upward (focus their activity in a smaller area of space) then they should attain greater income (GÇÿdynamic true secGÇÖ), preferably player-generated rather than moon-generated. They should also attain greater security as a natural consequence of concentrated force but also from sov mechanics (the GÇÿSomehowGÇÖ above), allowing them to defend against a stronger force (GÇÿdynamic defence indexGÇÖ).
Conversely, if an alliance chooses to grow outward then their reward is rental income. Power projection nerfs mean that such an alliance would be inherently unstable, vulnerable to coordinated attacks.
A potential problem with this approach is that an active rental alliance would also grow in defensive strength. Maybe that is alright if the renter would need to be involved in sov defence. If they are strong enough and good enough to repel a strong invader then the chance of rebellion would also be increased.
This person gets it. /applaud
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
185
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:12:00 -
[268] - Quote
Clones need to be thrown into the mix about power projection as well. Although not usually important right now on a mass scale...any attempt to curb power projection will see clones being gamed pretty heavily. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10600
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:12:00 -
[269] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:CHANGES Jumprdrives limited jumprange to adjacent system only. (lightyear distance is irrelevant) All capitals can use stargates. Jumpfreighters gain bubble immunity One Jumpbridge per system can only connect to adjacent system (lightyear distance is irrelevant) Regional Trade NPC is created to exchange racial building materials for other racial building material lol what a gigantic crock of **** Exactly what kind of crock can you elaborate please? Making the game tedious and unenjoyable, obviously. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2410
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:18:00 -
[270] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:The entire in game economy relies on the Jump Freighter making logistics not more of an absolute pain in the ass than it already is. If my JF was limited to jumping 1 system at a time I would strait up unsub my accounts. Its funny the economy got along just fine before jumpfreighters.
Sure and the economy 100 years ago got on just fine too. Of course, it did not and could not support a standard of living like we see today. There is one very simple rule anyone who takes any economics course should learn. Everything comes with trade offs. Everything. I'm not sure you've fully explored the trad offs inherent in your suggestion here.
For example, various items would become more scarce as there would be increased risk in moving stuff around. From empire to null and vice-versa. At the very least that increased risk will mean sometimes stuff does get blown up. As scarciity increase price will go up. If price did not go up then some people would not undertake the actions necessary to provide those items (risk vs. reward calculations).
And who would be less harmed by an overall increase in the price level...older more established characters....often the very same people in the older, larger and well established current null sec entities.
I get what you want to accomplish here and I even applaud your attempt to take on the issue. But instead of making logisitics in Eve even more like a second or even full time job...might I suggest you find ways to that result in more utilization of space and creating content via positive incentives vs. negative ones?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 62 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |