Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Aggro Bot
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:29:00 -
[181] - Quote
Lore to back the needs of the people.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=376126 |
ShadowandLight
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
277
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:29:00 -
[182] - Quote
Many (myself included) are unhappy with the state of 0.0, but in a sandbox game how can you stop major groups from making Non-Aggression Pacts with each other without ground level changes to Sov.
I just have zero faith in the proposed changes
"More NPC stations"
- ok cool fine... It would help smaller gangs have a place to hide, and it would also help provide a convenient staging ground for the 500 man coalition rolling into your back yard.
"Occ. based sov"
- so renters will fill the void and if your not blue or renting, your sov structures you just paid 20b for are gonna die... sorry pay up or GTFO.
"Increased Player Density"
- means groups will have to join larger groups to hold their sov and cause further hegemony around EVE.
This will do absolutely zero to break up EVE into smaller groups and encourage more fighting (which I assume was the point of this farce). I can only think that CCP has something else in the pipeline to break up Nullsec and the larger rental empires are trying to get ahead of it with a popularity contest.
If you base 0.0 Sov holding off the number of members (so that smaller groups can have sov)what stops a larger group from walking in and nuking the Sov structures you just paid for?
I'm not even sure what the popular opinion states is the problem?
Is it a lack of fighting? Entities got creative, decided it was better to keep their space then possibly lose it. They needed the income to keep building supers, buy plexes etc.
What incentive is there to fight? The income from renters is a major motivator to do nothing, R64's never "run dry" nor change location and holding region x is pretty much the same as holding region y. The only groups to stay relatively neutral is Stainwagon (sovless), Black Legion (sovless) and Providence (soon to be sovless if N3/PL cared enough to take it).
I can get behind the NPC stations to a point, but thats about it. If you want to shake up 0.0, you need to go to the root of the problem and that is one word.
Income. http://eveservers.info/index.php?topic=123.msg126#new A fully functional Server platform dedicated to your Corp / Alliances IT needs!
|
Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:32:00 -
[183] - Quote
shut up shadowandlight I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
375
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:35:00 -
[184] - Quote
Venetian Tar wrote:shut up shadowandlight
seconded |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:36:00 -
[185] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts.
The Rules: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
As clarification for the move (apparently this seems necessary): This is a proposal for a change in game mechanics. As such, it belongs in F&ID just as any other proposal in that direction. Regardless who wrote it, the rules of the forum are the same for everyone. And please refrain from any further discussion of forum moderation. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Wilhelm Arcturus
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:40:00 -
[186] - Quote
Seems like a reasonable set of broad goals without an attempt to dictate actual game mechanics. |
Thead Enco
Radio New Vegas
213
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:40:00 -
[187] - Quote
KuroVolt wrote:Don't see the signature of any of my coalitions leadership.
I reject this agreement by default!
I'm sorry but I reject having to use "KOS Checker" prior to BLAPPING. o7 #yolo
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |
Securitas Protector
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
60
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:54:00 -
[188] - Quote
Agree, CCPPLS do this |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
956
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:01:00 -
[189] - Quote
Until all coalitions disband and do standings reset you will NOT see small alliances in 0.0 again.
The proliferation of titans and super caps is the exact reason small alliances do not go to 0.0 or the fact that they have to rent space from someone or suck the proverbial !#%@#% of someone else to get space.
So if you really want small alliances to come out there CFC, N3 and others. Reset your standings. Let's see how much 0.0 changes when your power coalition blocs are gone. |
Nariya Kentaya
The Pulsar Innovation Surely You're Joking
1551
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:08:00 -
[190] - Quote
So, more NPC 0.0 space WITHIN conquerable regions, basically provide a safe haven for whatever fleet wants to **** on or harass anyone they want within a couple jumps of anywhere, so how does system defense, or the entire point of SOV, even come into play here? cause "untouchable safe haven for the guys who are just waiting to **** on us with their fleet 4-5 jumps from our space" does not "conquerable regions" mesh
also, occupancy SOV always bothered me, basically you want a system that will advertise for you what systems have the highest density PvE (because lets face it, there will NEVER be enough PvP in a system someone wants SOV in to outdo PvE in ANY index), just so it can get perma-harassed/camped/roamed by every shitlord in a massive blob alliance already?
neither one of these will change anything with nullsec, every fight will still be "form fleet with blues" followed by "camp/**** on smaller guys trying to make their way in nullsec until they quit or agree to throw away their identity and join a big blob empire" or "OH **** OH **** those arent little guys they have roughly the same number of people as us, stand down, go home, we wasted 5 hours"
none of that will change, in fact, these 2 changes in particular will make it even EASIER for the big guy to take a warm smelly dump on whatever little guy they want. |
|
scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
226
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:09:00 -
[191] - Quote
Does this mean VFK will be NPC space? |
Levarris Hawk
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:13:00 -
[192] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:
... The only groups to stay relatively neutral is Stainwagon (sovless)....
I like how when Stainwagon failcascades its way back to Stain they use terms such as "sovless" to explain away how bad they are.
_A_ is ____
<3 |
ShadowandLight
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
277
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:25:00 -
[193] - Quote
Levarris Hawk wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:
... The only groups to stay relatively neutral is Stainwagon (sovless)....
I like how when Stainwagon failcascades its way back to Stain they use terms such as "sovless" to explain away how bad they are. _A_ is ____ <3
pick your next group to ride the coat tails of? http://eveservers.info/index.php?topic=123.msg126#new A fully functional Server platform dedicated to your Corp / Alliances IT needs!
|
BinaryData
Fatum Imperium
36
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:27:00 -
[194] - Quote
I agree with about 80% of this. I firmly believe that sov costs should be based upon the alliance size. The larger the alliance, the more costly it is to hold sov. With that said, I'd tie the system/constellation activity into the cost of sov.
Alliances like Goonswarm have billions to **** away at whatever they want. They also hold some of the best sov there is. This would also promote smaller alliances to pick up sov in null.
I like the responses that this has received, but I'm wary of anythingg GSF puts up, we all know how they had sov mechanics changed the last time. Least, that is how the story is told. |
Reshah
Fearless Little Tea Cups
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:31:00 -
[195] - Quote
+1 |
jaon43
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:31:00 -
[196] - Quote
+1 ccp pls |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:37:00 -
[197] - Quote
Really any change CCP could make would start up a lot of conflict for a while.
The trick is to get that going for the very long term. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer] |
Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:43:00 -
[198] - Quote
+1 |
Darion Akachi
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:44:00 -
[199] - Quote
+1 |
Jayne Fillon
418
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:45:00 -
[200] - Quote
Supported! Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI. |
|
Chopper Rollins
Lantean Empire
963
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:47:00 -
[201] - Quote
Sounds like the shitlord blobs want to be fed tourists. -1, bad precedent, CCP getting nagged 24/7 anyway.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good. |
Janus Pimco
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:57:00 -
[202] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:So, more NPC 0.0 space WITHIN conquerable regions, basically provide a safe haven for whatever fleet wants to **** on or harass anyone they want within a couple jumps of anywhere, so how does system defense, or the entire point of SOV, even come into play here? cause "untouchable safe haven for the guys who are just waiting to **** on us with their fleet 4-5 jumps from our space" does not "conquerable regions" mesh
also, occupancy SOV always bothered me, basically you want a system that will advertise for you what systems have the highest density PvE (because lets face it, there will NEVER be enough PvP in a system someone wants SOV in to outdo PvE in ANY index), just so it can get perma-harassed/camped/roamed by every shitlord in a massive blob alliance already?
neither one of these will change anything with nullsec, every fight will still be "form fleet with blues" followed by "camp/**** on smaller guys trying to make their way in nullsec until they quit or agree to throw away their identity and join a big blob empire" or "OH **** OH **** those arent little guys they have roughly the same number of people as us, stand down, go home, we wasted 5 hours"
none of that will change, in fact, these 2 changes in particular will make it even EASIER for the big guy to take a warm smelly dump on whatever little guy they want. Agreed.
I think the first most important step is to contraint power projection. If this first vital point is not firmly established. changing other things will make no difference. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
153
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:59:00 -
[203] - Quote
I Approve this message fully. |
Sslink
Intergalactic Fight Club Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:00:00 -
[204] - Quote
When I first heard about the concerted effort to try to shift nul sov to a more occupancy based model, I penciled out some thoughts. With my current schedule (IRL and game job), I haven't had a ton of time to work this into a full scale proposal, but I thought I would go ahead and post some thoughts in raw form.
Basically I think the most practical way for developers to apply these types of changes, is to utilize and mirror existing game mechanics and code. I am by no means a programmer, but this seems a logical conclusion, so I think it is best to try to consider what existing game features could be used and/or copied to accomplish the desired results.
So here are some features I think could work well:
Occupancy Index: A mathematical equation that factors PVE activity (npc kills, ore mined, etc.), industrial (manufacturing, refining, possibly rented offices, etc..), and PVP activity within a system (i.e. a measure of home defense, possibly weighted heavily). The Occupancy Index is directly tied to a system defense modifier that would have the following possible affects:
Variable EH of sovereignty Structures: A low OI might result in a negative EH modifier, where a high OI might result in a positive EH modifier. Pretty straight forward, but an un-utilized system may be a very easy thing to grind through, vs. a very heavily utilized system.
Variable, Variables On Timers: Example, a station or IHUB timer set to X time already has a variable + or - hours from selected time. A very low OI might result in a much wider variable to the + or - hours (i.e. making it FAR more difficult to control exit timers). It might be possible to have a high enough OI to result in a + or - 1 or 2 hours, where a very low OI might result in a station or IHUB timer to come out + or - 8 hours from set time. IMO, this is one of the MOST important defensive features. Timer control and the inherent offset time zones of most opposing forces is one of the key factors. Not maintaining a high enough OI in ALL of your systems, presents a tactical vulnerability for an invading force to capture a foothold and expand.
Variable Sov Bills: Low OI could result in surcharge to sov bills, and very high OI could result in a discount. IMO, something like this should make it cost prohibitive to hold vast swathes of unoccupied space.
Additional Benefits of high OI: Things like fuel bonuses for home towers, possible expanded online time for SBU's (another defensvie features), etc... Possibly even a combat bonus for high OI (i.e. truly occupied space is easier to defend with bonus to tank, damage, etc...), etc...
Cap on Low OI systems: To avoid entities from holding vast quantities of un-utilized space, it may be possible to put a cap on how many OI zero systems an entity can hold (possibly as a percentage of member count, or something).
Adjacent System OI Bleed Over: Some form of "bleed over" of OI to adjacent systems. So basically a high OI in system X, would provide a small boost to adjacent systems, to provide significant tactical advantage to holding interconnected space, and to make expansion more logical (i.e. creating borders between smaller entities, and increasing the importance of maintaining alliance with tactically positioned allies).
OI Jump Fuel Consumption Bonus: Possibly a reduction in capital jump fuel required to jump between two systems with high OI held by the same entity (i.e. another benefit of occupancy). This could provide a large tactical advantage to holding Medium to Large sized pockets of thoroughly utilized space.
Well, those are some raw thoughts on the HOW. As to WHAT, I thoroughly support the above statement.
I wish I had more time to develop a more complete proposal, and/or participate in things like this, but the above seems relatively practical utilizing current (or presumably easily inserted) game mechanics, and IMO in some form (possibly using some or all of the above) would produce the desired result. Most importantly the above changes allows for some incremental integration of features, giving room to make ongoing "tweaks" to the equations and weighting of OI factors and results over time (an important feature for a major modification to our wonderful sandbox).
That's my .02. Fly Safe |
Akatenshi Xi
Elite Shadow Society
33
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:30:00 -
[205] - Quote
I'm glad you all went to the trouble to make this letter and make the original post, however if anyone was really worried about the opinion of a few nerds who lead a pack of other nerds they probably would have called you by now. Saying they are interested in your opinion and have asked you previously yet haven't done anything sort of underscores this so don't go that route with me.
For all the years I've played EVE Online the support from CCP staff has been lackluster at best making me feel as if I could get better service from the local Union Mission in downtown. How many thousands of players have to ***** about how ******** the SOV system and many other things in this game before DEVs and other CCP staff actually ***DO*** something about it?
Continually they have released expansion after expansion with ***NEW*** content instead of fixing what has been broken for years. Who's bright idea was it to make apparel for characters and then sell it for real money? They should be fired and made an example of as well as the person who okay'd them to do it.
CCP should fix all that is broken before even considering releasing a single grain of new content - French Localization Included. |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:43:00 -
[206] - Quote
I endorse, support and recommend this product and/or service. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
103
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:45:00 -
[207] - Quote
I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.
What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead? |
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:55:00 -
[208] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.
What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead?
I don't know what game you play but less than a year ago the CFC and Rus super cap fleets laid waste to the flagship fleets of PL and N3. We did exactly what you ask of us. You might of heard it, it was the Bloodbath at BR5. Did this change anything apart from the price of Tritanium in Jita? No, the largest sov holding alliances in game are the PL and N3 renter allicances. Sonething else needs to change. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get. |
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
261
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:55:00 -
[209] - Quote
Hell yes. X |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9922
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:57:00 -
[210] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.
What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead?
I don't know why you think you get to have an opinion about this. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |