Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Finch Ronuken
Promethean Laboratories The Methodical Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 20:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
The null-sec sovereignty mechanic is awful and destroying EVE.
This idea has been mentioned and discussed before and I'm sure it'll be debated again. There has been a lot of lamenting about large coalition players being bored and quitting the game GÇö only wanting to come back six months later in the hopes that something has changed. Fingers have been pointed and blame passed around, but I find that there has been too few solutions provided and way too little CCP attention on this topic.
As I am not quite a new pilot nor an older pilot, but an average-aged pilot in EVE, I have enough experience and insight to know certain game mechanics, albeit not all of them... After spending a good deal of time in null-sec in a smaller Alliance, I've come to understand a few things about null-sec sov.
1) It's busted and doesn't work 2) It's starting to ruin the game 3) It's a big let down for any of those bleary-eyed pilots that envisioned flying off into unknown systems (i.e. not w-space) in search of real exploration and content, only to be let down by knowing ahead of time who's going to gate-camp you, which areas are hostile and which are friendly, etc. I joined EVE years ago to search the unknown and discover the universe.
This is why I've turned my attention to coming up with ideas on how to fix a major issue with this game. There's a really obvious answer to this problem that no one wants to address because it involves dismantling the sense of security you receive when your Alliance/Corp is allowed in a coalition. Appropriately, no one wants that to happen to themselves and thus this hasn't been brought forward (to my knowledge).
The problem with null-sec and the simple solution surrounds "status", i.e. whether you are blue/red/neutral to someone else in your coalition. This is (from my understanding) the core mechanic of creating a coalition: adding an alliance (at the alliance level) to blue status. We must address the heart of the matter to directly GÇö treat the problem, not the symptom.
Three Part Idea: What I propose is that there should be a mechanism that forces "status" to expire regularly and create some sort of cost for increasing status.
1) What if coalition-alliance status expired say once a month or once a week. Think about this for a second. What would happen if all of CFC's alliances (not to point fingers - it's just a huge coalition) were all of a sudden neutral to each other??? It reset every week. First it would start off with a couple friendly killboardsGǪ then over time, people would get tired of having to re-add alliances/corporations to blue status on a weekly basis. Large coalitions would break-down into smaller, but more tightly-knit coalitions. That's the idea at least.
2) There should also be some sort of "penalty" for increasing the status of an alliance GÇô i.e. like a tax paid to Concord. If an alliance would like to blue another alliance, they need to pay a significant tax to Concord as a "processing fee" to update systems and allow all the privileges of having blue status. Going the other direction, what if bounty payouts were larger against those that are red to you??? That would actually make bounty-hunting a little more interesting and create an incentive for people to have more reds.
3) There should be a more appropriate limit to the size of corporations and alliances (i.e. notice I didn't say coalition as this was addressed in the first two points). To prevent super-, mega-sized corps/alliances from being formed, there should be a hard limit or a meaningful tax paid on a regular basis to Concord based on the size of corp/alliance. First level would be small sized corps pay essentially no tax per pilot on a monthly basis, but then gets exponentially larger with additional pilots. Either the previous or some other mechanism that makes managing larger and larger corps/alliances harder by requiring control to be spread-outGǪ (i.e. opportunity for Awoxers).
I realize this is a controversial topic and there's a lot of heated feelings regarding it. Please provide constructive ideas as fixing the obvious problem with null-sec is in everyone's best interest.
keep flying and stay shiny!!! |
Carmen Electra
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
1104
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 20:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
We really don't need another thread on this. eve is dying |
Finch Ronuken
Promethean Laboratories The Methodical Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Please read the suggestion.
More posts the better. Maybe CCP will actually do something. keep flying and stay shiny!!! |
Icarus Able
Revenant Tactical
444
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Use the search function. Your ideas have been put through before, and tbh are just annoying. People would still do it.
To truely stop large alliances forming we need something that breaks MalcanisGÇÖ Law.
Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of GÇÿnew playersGÇÖ, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Same theory is applied to trying to make small gangs more viable. |
Carmen Electra
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
1111
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Finch Ronuken wrote:More posts the better. Maybe CCP will actually do something. No eve is dying |
Tweek Etimua
The Paragons
67
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
-_- oh here we go.
Sand box rule #1. You want something to happen then go do it. I find it difficult to beleive that so many people in null sec are fed up with null and still sit there letting some one else tell the how to play. All the nullsec'ers should just rally up and start shooting shtuff. |
Finch Ronuken
Promethean Laboratories The Methodical Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:Use the search function. Your ideas have been put through before, and tbh are just annoying. People would still do it.
To truely stop large alliances forming we need something that breaks MalcanisGÇÖ Law.
Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of GÇÿnew playersGÇÖ, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Same theory is applied to trying to make small gangs more viable.
Actually - I did use the search function. And no, the solution has not been provided before GÇö at least from the webpages that I could find.
And this idea does actually break MalcanisGÇÖ Law as proposed in the second and third parts. Wish people would actually read before trolling...
Why troll - if you don't want to partake in a constructive discussion, then just move along. What's the point??? keep flying and stay shiny!!! |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8898
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
So, we're crying about how other people are allowed to have more friends than you are? Yeesh.
Oh, and reported for redundant topic, and for trolling since you decided to whip out insults on the first reply. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Carmen Electra
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
1119
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Finch Ronuken wrote:Typical troll from Goonswarm. Please actually read the suggestion. More posts the better. Maybe CCP will actually do something. You made a thread about "Null-Sec Sovereignty" and you think I'm in Goonswarm? eve is dying |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
4402
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Finch Ronuken wrote:Three Part Idea: What I propose is that there should be a mechanism that forces "status" to expire regularly and create some sort of cost for increasing status.
1) What if coalition-alliance status expired say once a month or once a week. Think about this for a second. What would happen if all of CFC's alliances (not to point fingers - it's just a huge coalition) were all of a sudden neutral to each other??? It reset every week. First it would start off with a couple friendly killboardsGǪ then over time, people would get tired of having to re-add alliances/corporations to blue status on a weekly basis. Large coalitions would break-down into smaller, but more tightly-knit coalitions. That's the idea at least. Or they would just another way around the mechanic. Setting Alliances to blue doesn't make a Coalition. That's just an easy game mechanic to avoid friendly fire.
Coalitions exist through collaboration and cooperation between people. Coalitions represent relationships. The mechanics to manage that are much more out of game than in game.
So if status expired, it would just be a huge pain in the backside mechanic that no one would appreciate and a new way would be found for Coalitions to avoid friendly fire. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
. -á<- Argue this, not this ->-á( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
688
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote:Finch Ronuken wrote:Typical troll from Goonswarm. Please actually read the suggestion. More posts the better. Maybe CCP will actually do something. You made a thread about "Null-Sec Sovereignty" and you think I'm in Goonswarm? what part about his posting DOESN'T scream "i am competent and know things about nullsec"
better implement it all right away |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
4411
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote:You made a thread about "Null-Sec Sovereignty" and you think I'm in Goonswarm? That is quite funny.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
. -á<- Argue this, not this ->-á( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) |
Alphea Abbra
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
782
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
Okay, some pointers: Making it more tiresome to establish friendships won't suddenly disrupt coalitions. It might add more workhours to keep them running, so the large coalitions will need to add a few of the able bodies into administrative roles. Smaller coalitions don't have endless surplus of able bodies. They would fail under the administrative pressure. Brilliant deduction there.
If standings were more limited, you might see more kos-services like the Provibloc one, but standings would still be used. You could turn it into a no-larger-group-than-25, but then what would be the appeal of EVE at all? I mean, yes, you could ruin the game entirely and thus get rid of coalitions. Good work figuring that out.
And - taxes for membership? Fair enough. I'm a part of the S2N part of the N3 rental organisation. How much should we pay per member for the entire coalition? Yeah we have that number. Even the arbitrary doubling of it. I guess I am aware of two other organisations able to raise that kind of money. PL and CFC. Who else? Well, now you have gone from 5 to 3 (Or 4 to 2, depending on how you view N3-PL). Nice job breaking it even more.
No, what your excrements from a male bovine idea doesn't take into account is that coalitions are not the problem, rather the symptom, if you even want to call it that. Groups in EVE has evolved, and new groups naturally can't keep up with those that have survived 3, 6, 9 or soon 12 years of competition. Face those facts, please.
No, your ideas are not even close to consideration for a solution, if any problem exists. Here's what you ought to do: 1: Identify problem(s) - that will mostly be symptoms. 2: Identify the causes of those problems. 3: Determine possible solutions to the actual problems, not plaster on the symptoms. 4: Determine the probable effects (Alongside ripples further out) of those solutions. 5: Weight pros and cons.
Now, you have skipped 1, botched 2 and 3, and I have yet to see 4 and 5. Why should I listen to anything you might offer, you haven't even done your homework! |
Bel Tika
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
304
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 22:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
If the solution was as simple as systematically dismantling CFC for the sake of it im sure CCP would have done it or the dismantlement of any null coalition for that matter, didnt they actually increase the size because of Brave?? if thats the case im guessing they consider size to be not a problem
On the other hand im sure the situation regarding Null is not as easy a fix as most ppl like to make out, this coming from someone who has absolutley no idea about null so has a very invalid opinion on it |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
409
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 22:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
Finch Ronuken wrote:Typical troll from Goonswarm. Please actually read the suggestion. More posts the better. Maybe CCP will actually do something.
No troll, your suggestion isn't very good. Limiting the size of organizations is not the solution. Tying sov and how easy it is to take being linked to system usage metrics is by far the best option. Unused space can be taken and held by those who do use it. Smaller organizations can take and maintain sov. No more multi million hit point grinds through the space of long dead entities. Those who do invest in space have a much easier place to defend. It would kill off sprawling empires where many of the systems contain nothing.
It's easier to understand when you live in sov and try to take someone else's what the problem truly is. More space, artificial limits on organizations or breaking the standings system is counterproductive. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11112
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 22:25:00 -
[16] - Quote
Finch Ronuken wrote:Typical troll from Goonswarm. Please actually read the suggestion. Thanks for discrediting your own knowledge of nullsec. Now I don't have to bother reading your suggestion. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
833
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 22:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
Finch Ronuken wrote: The null-sec sovereignty mechanic is awful and destroying EVE.
This idea has been mentioned and discussed before and I'm sure it'll be debated again. There has been a lot of lamenting about large coalition players being bored and quitting the game GÇö only wanting to come back six months later in the hopes that something has changed. Fingers have been pointed and blame passed around, but I find that there has been too few solutions provided and way too little CCP attention on this topic.
As I am not quite a new pilot nor an older pilot, but an average-aged pilot in EVE, I have enough experience and insight to know certain game mechanics, albeit not all of them... After spending a good deal of time in null-sec in a smaller Alliance, I've come to understand a few things about null-sec sov.
1) It's busted and doesn't work 2) It's starting to ruin the game 3) It's a big let down for any of those bleary-eyed pilots that envisioned flying off into unknown systems (i.e. not w-space) in search of real exploration and content, only to be let down by knowing ahead of time who's going to gate-camp you, which areas are hostile and which are friendly, etc. I joined EVE years ago to search the unknown and discover the universe.
This is why I've turned my attention to coming up with ideas on how to fix a major issue with this game. There's a really obvious answer to this problem that no one wants to address because it involves dismantling the sense of security you receive when your Alliance/Corp is allowed in a coalition. Appropriately, no one wants that to happen to themselves and thus this hasn't been brought forward (to my knowledge).
The problem with null-sec and the simple solution surrounds "status", i.e. whether you are blue/red/neutral to someone else in your coalition. This is (from my understanding) the core mechanic of creating a coalition: adding an alliance (at the alliance level) to blue status. We must address the heart of the matter to directly GÇö treat the problem, not the symptom.
Three Part Idea: What I propose is that there should be a mechanism that forces "status" to expire regularly and create some sort of cost for increasing status.
1) What if coalition-alliance status expired say once a month or once a week. Think about this for a second. What would happen if all of CFC's alliances (not to point fingers - it's just a huge coalition) were all of a sudden neutral to each other??? It reset every week. First it would start off with a couple friendly killboardsGǪ then over time, people would get tired of having to re-add alliances/corporations to blue status on a weekly basis. Large coalitions would break-down into smaller, but more tightly-knit coalitions. That's the idea at least.
History lesson for you. Alliances were around before there was an official mechanic for them to work. "Wait what?" Orgabizations like IRON, Phenonx, XF, Stain, Curse, all existed BEFORE there was an official alliance mechanic. This would change nothing. As then all you would do is use out of game tools and ingame standings to have informal alliances.
Quote: 2) There should also be some sort of "penalty" for increasing the status of an alliance GÇô i.e. like a tax paid to Concord. If an alliance would like to blue another alliance, they need to pay a significant tax to Concord as a "processing fee" to update systems and allow all the privileges of having blue status. Going the other direction, what if bounty payouts were larger against those that are red to you??? That would actually make bounty-hunting a little more interesting and create an incentive for people to have more reds.
This again fixes nothing. See my response to #1, you would mearly use out of game tools. CVA has a neat out of game tool that checks if you are red. It uses no game mechanics. So this does nothing, as it would be avoided and gotten around.
Quote: 3) There should be a more appropriate limit to the size of corporations and alliances (i.e. notice I didn't say coalition as this was addressed in the first two points). To prevent super-, mega-sized corps/alliances from being formed, there should be a hard limit or a meaningful tax paid on a regular basis to Concord based on the size of corp/alliance. First level would be small sized corps pay essentially no tax per pilot on a monthly basis, but then gets exponentially larger with additional pilots. Either the previous or some other mechanism that makes managing larger and larger corps/alliances harder by requiring control to be spread-outGǪ (i.e. opportunity for Awoxers).
See #1 again. They would just break up into smaller corps like they used to before the mega corp skill came about. Goons had like 4 different corps for all there members when they came into being. CCP saw that was stupid so made a new skill so they could combine. So going back to this again solves nothing, they would just make smaller corps to avoid your tax and use out of game tools to manage.
Quote: I realize this is a controversial topic and there's a lot of heated feelings regarding it. Please provide constructive ideas as fixing the obvious problem with null-sec is in everyone's best interest.
In closing, you posted in the wrong damn forum. And number two, there is no controversy, this idea is crap, and stupid. Seriously think your idea ALL the damn way through before you go spounting off whatever crap you came up with while drunk.
*damn i'm bitter today lol In a room full of dumb blondes, EvE is the smart red head on the other side of the room.-á Lots of men like dumb blondes, and not everyone will like the smart red head, but she doesn;t need to change to be a dumb blonde.-á She is perfect how she is.-á Thats EvE vs other mmo's.-á You either like the red head, or you don't. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
708
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 22:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
I can see how standings renewal would create chaos and I suppose that would create problems for alliance coalitions that get trigger happy at the drop of a hat but the root of the problem with Null is it's mostly garbage.
Over the years CCP have removed so many ISK sinks and before this manufacturing index sink, the only one in place was the Sov bill. The Sov bill that gets higher and higher as the index goes up. In my view most of Sov is not paying for its index fee and if you throw in the cost of all the infrastructure, not in ISK either but in time, you will find most systems were a complete waste of time. Burdens to the people who developed them, burdens to the people who babysit moons and reaction POS systems for T2 production.
The reason the conspiracies exist about most of Null being run by CCP alts is not because they are control freaks. It's because the systems are so painful and eye bleedingly boring, only someone being paid would consider running Null logistics. It's terrible gameplay and boring. Imagine being responsible for even the smallest of aspects of Null. Putting Liquid Ozone in all the jump bridge arrays on a daily basis. Drag and drops, jumps and jumps, fill the industrials, drag and drops. Hoping someone took the time to mine the damn ice so you don't have to buy it from the bots. I'd rather wash my nuts with broken glass. |
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
834
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 23:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
I might as well...
From my experenince in null, as an alliance leader (failed and mothballed) and as a line man, I agree with CCP in that there is no 'one fix to fix all of null' it will take a lot of little things working together.
My biggest issue was not so much 'power projection' for honestly I think it should be easier to move large forces between systems for fights. As the longer it takes to move, the more boring it gets. Its the fact that before dominon and even now that a system can not keep up with more then a handful of players. Dominion was suppose to make it so null could house 200 people per system easily, but we all know that's not the case.
I see the problem as being that, inorder for an alliance to make any money, you need MANY systems. I'll use my own experience as an example:
Shortly after the Battle of 49-U with IAC/RZR/AAA vs. Fix, my alliance Brotherhood Of Steel (BOS) took over the system of Z-UZZN and the surrounding systems. We held it for about 2 months I think, and were the largest alliance of the new occupiers for Qurious (99% industrial however). The first issue I found out quickly was each corp wanted 'a good moon' to mine, and there was not many. I had to do lotteries and a reservation system to hand them out. Also belts were mined out fast, and the ratters would argue over the better sec systems to rat in. We were steam rolled by BoB and aborbed into IAC shortly before Tyraxx was kicked out and IAC went down the tubes (Net 7, my corp, saw the writing on the wal.. no actually I have a pet peeve that if I don't know whats going on I go nuts, so I bounced)
Then I made TLB a few years later with my sister corps and BoS founders. We wound up renting right after dominion (a director planted a flag without a approval and we just kinda went with it) We quickly saw that the belts spawns could not keep up witht eh demands of the one mining corp we had (these guys could mine out a system a day) and saw that the ratters would fight over wrecks and sanctums. It quicly became apparent that we needed more then 1 system to surivie. We would up moveing to Wicked Creek and renting from atlas. We then spread ourselves too thin, over spent on upgrades, lost 2 mom's (rest in peace my nyx =() and got scanned for iskies. Long story you can look it up.
I came to the conclution that inorder for 0.0 to be less stagnate, the activity of the system should be tied to sov, i.e. you don't use it you lose it. But that null had to be able to accomidate more people with less space. If you could actually have 200 people working a system with no issues, then you would not really need 5 regions.
I ofc don't have the answers, but I think old ideas like system wide asteroid belts (Exodus) Removal of moon goo and moving it towards an active system (Ring Mining or my own Comet Mining idea [stolen Exodus idea]) Would make some improvements. The abbilty to have lots of ratters would help too.
Sov should me detemerened by use and by battles. So if say TLB owns HED and Goons want it, they engeane us in a war and if they defeat us the sov starts to switch, but if we come back and counter we can switch it back (kinda like how FW warfare works.) Honestly the best thing would be to make 0.0 able to really have MORE people live in one system. AND have moon goo not come from moons. PI as an example, in a decent system I can finish a full chain off the planets in that one system. I don't need 7 other systems, but with moon mining, I might need 6-8 different systems to complete a chain. This encourages me to take sov of systems i'm never gonna use, and to rent them out as I;m not using them, I just want them for that moon that's there.
No this is not well thought out, just kinda running with a thought. Yes I hijacked a thread.. meh. No I won't fix spelling, off work so i'm going home, learn to read Reaperese or ignore my post. In a room full of dumb blondes, EvE is the smart red head on the other side of the room.-á Lots of men like dumb blondes, and not everyone will like the smart red head, but she doesn;t need to change to be a dumb blonde.-á She is perfect how she is.-á Thats EvE vs other mmo's.-á You either like the red head, or you don't. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3327
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 00:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
Quote:17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.
As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread. Thread closed. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |