| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Somealt Ofmine
    |
Posted - 2008.09.09 17:56:00 -
[781]
Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 09/09/2008 17:58:39
I wrote up and cleaned up my proposal for "facts on the ground" sov mechanics. Rather than posting it here, since it would take multiple posts, here's a Linky.
Any mechanic that is based on pre-determined, fixed control points is pretty much doomed to failure. There are already entities in the game that could blob a half-dozen points until the servers cry uncle at the same time. Introducing mechanics with multiple fixed control points will only encourage the formation of more of them.
You need to think further outside the box CCP. Sov needs to be based on actual control and occupancy, rather than an artifical "flag" to capture or timer based mini-game. You need to get rid of pre-determined battle points altogether.
Large-scale, playable fleet battles would be great to have, but I think it's way past time to put up the white flag and just admit that they aren't happening. Winning or losing in this game shouldn't come down to who can best tolearate and manage lag.
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 20:44:00 -
[782]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 09/09/2008 17:58:39
I wrote up and cleaned up my proposal for "facts on the ground" sov mechanics. Rather than posting it here, since it would take multiple posts, here's a Linky.
Any mechanic that is based on pre-determined, fixed control points is pretty much doomed to failure. There are already entities in the game that could blob a half-dozen points until the servers cry uncle at the same time. Introducing mechanics with multiple fixed control points will only encourage the formation of more of them.
You need to think further outside the box CCP. Sov needs to be based on actual control and occupancy, rather than an artifical "flag" to capture or timer based mini-game. You need to get rid of pre-determined battle points altogether.
Large-scale, playable fleet battles would be great to have, but I think it's way past time to put up the white flag and just admit that they aren't happening. Winning or losing in this game shouldn't come down to who can best tolearate and manage lag.
There in lies the main problem - demonstrating 'control & occupancy'. As Ive mentioned elsewhere in this thread I agree with SomealtOfmine's basic principal that 'fixed points' are blob magnets if used to determine 'Soveriegnty'.
My personal view is that Soveriegnty is perhaps more intrinsicaly linked to 'political support'. For example:
Let's say pilots could in some fashion indicate their 'support' to a Soveriegn Alliance on entering a star system or constellation. By doing so they (even though they are not part of the Sov Alliance) contribute to a Soveriegnty 'score' and in doing so become 'blue' to that Soveriegn entity.
In the same fashion a pilot who is 'at war' detracts from the Soveriegnty 'score'. Neutral pilots offering no support or opposal either way would have no effect, but might suffer minor sec rating losses for agression.
Now provided the Rate of drain or Increase for the Sov Score is gradual this system could work well. Even if a large blob enters to drain the Sov Score of its adversary it must remain in place - and continue to remain in place - for a considerable period of time: it can't just 'tank rush' and win. And even if it does win it needs support from a '3rd party' or other pilots from outside its Alliance to increase its Sov Score.
Its therefore advantageous for an Alliance claiming Soveriegnty to gather support, welcome traders, smaller corps and even individuals to its space - essentially courting for political support.
C.
Originally by: Tarminic
Your continued whining is somewhat diminished by your continued willingness to give your money to CCP.
|
Surrah
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 22:15:00 -
[783]
Given the updates, this is probably out-dated and worthless. Oh well, here it is.
Why don't you just use the population of a system/constellation to determine sov. How many pilots are in the system per hour, on average, over the last week? This would allow small alliances to claim sov without massive investments. It will also allow a more realistic view of sovereignty as to be in control of space you have to be there.
This would work as follows. Your alliance has moved into a system and taken over. You, as a group are not large, but are fairly active. Over the last 168 hours (thats one week) you averaged a population of 24 pilots per hour in system. That sounds minimal, but you must consider that it considers all 24 hours per day, for the last 7 days. Thanks to downtime, there is at least one hour of 0 population every day.
If you get invaded by a group of 24 pilots from another alliance who stay in your system from downtime to downtime for 2 days straight, at the end of the second day they will have only accrued 6.57 pph (pilots per hour, over the last 168 hours). They don't challenge your sov.
If you get invaded by a group of 468 members of another alliance, and they hang out and harass you and blow up your assets, after 8 hours they have 22.3 pph. After 9 hours they will have 25.1 pph and will initiate a transfer of sov, which I'm assuming will occur at the next downtime.
Say the group of 468 was just harassing you and they leave the system after 9 hours, leaving their pph at 25.1. If no one beats that rate, the attacking group will have sov for the next week, until their occupied hours start to slip off of the 168 hour grid and your group's 24 pph is back above their now 22.3 and falling pph. That is assuming you maintained a pph of 24 the whole time.
This system will allow for not having to deploy Cap ships to gain sov. It will also allow POS killing to be more directed. If you want to take sov, move in, and kill the POS's that allow the current residents to stay in system and keep their pph up.
You would need, however, an option to assign your pph to another alliance. This would be to allow space "rental" and other allaince to alliance agreements.
You should also allow a system that is say, sov 2, to also apply a percentage(say 10%) of its pph to it constellational neighbor systems. This would given an inherent bonus to gaining sov in all systems in a constellation, as each would end up boosting it's self. As system A gets sov 2 it gives an additional 10% of it's pph to system B. After a while, system B will gain sov 2, and give an additional 10% of its pph to its neighbors, systems C and A. In this method, A and B are boosting each other at 10%, and getting back another 1% of that in the return from the other system.
Generating a double cycle of boosting will allow a smaller group to gain a meaningful hold in a constellation, while still making them vulnerable to highly organized efforts of large groups of pilots.
If you go one step further, and install a pph cap(168 hour average, not actually hour by hour) this mechanic won't make big alliances upset proof. In the event of a tie at the cap, sov will go null, then the first to lower the other's pph will win sov.
You should also put a pph minimum for sov to ensure systems aren't being claimed by random traffic. 2 pph should suffice for this.
Additionally, you should put in an inactivity timer to avert afk'ing in station to keep sov up. Ideally it would be some kind of clicky with a countdown before it logs you out. This would help prevent cov ops from being inadvertantly logged, while logging people who aren't at the puter. After 25mins of inactivity, you get a pop up message saying; "You are being logged off in [TIMER]" The timer starts at 5 minutes and counts down. Say a pilot doesn't want to be logged, give them an ESC menu check box; "I wish to not be auto logged, at the expense of not being counted toward my alliance's Pilots Per Hour rating".
|
Zareph
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 14:30:00 -
[784]
Originally by: Surrah
Given the updates, this is probably out-dated and worthless. Oh well, here it is.
Why don't you just use the population of a system/constellation to determine sov. How many pilots are in the system per hour, on average, over the last week? This would allow small alliances to claim sov without massive investments. It will also allow a more realistic view of sovereignty as to be in control of space you have to be there.
My $0.02 on this is you could easily have a large corporation tell 50 people to go sit in a system for a week. They could log on, cloak, go afk and a week later they own the system. I really think due to the 23/7 nature of the persistant EvE universe that any 'capture the flag' type mechanic could be easily exploited by a 'blob' mechanic.
While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. |
bodycollecter
Caldari
Free Galactic Enterprises
Violent-Tendencies
|
Posted - 2008.10.01 14:34:00 -
[785]
Edited by: bodycollecter on 01/10/2008 14:36:06
Well I would go for a triple play.
but before i get into that lets do this.
Pos's are null and void for sov. pos's are just assets that can be destroyed. make them run off ice products alone and forget about pos's thats a failed aspect.
Make sov implemented by an outpost.
Once an outpost is constructed in a constellation it gives you sov 1 after 10 days of the outpost in a system. A sov module/tower can be placed in another system in the constellation.
Once the Sov mod/tower/beacon whichever you want to call it is placed. You can place x amount of defense guns on the sov mod and the station. After 20 days of having the 1st sov mod you can place one more Sov mod in the constellation maxing out at 3 sov claiming structures per constellation. Allowing for Destroyable guns to be placed at gates no more than 4. ( once all three Sov mods are up for 10 days You can construct Capital ships.)
Note: IF Station and 2 Sov mods are up Every system in the constellation is controlled .
In order to take Sov the attacking force must destroy both sov mods and disable station at the same time. Meaning That all three are linked if you attack one by itself the other 2 will repair it. Meaning to take the sov you have to split up the fleets meaning less people in one system.
Once station is set up for Sov you set a timer for when it will come out. Since station and sov mods are linked they will all come out together. Attackers choose time to attack defenders choose time to defend.
Make the Sov mods have to be probed But when Attacked Sov mods create a beacon until it is repaired or destroyed.
This allows for splitting of the fleets. No pos spamming for sove. But makes it more difficult for a fleet to come in and blob it out. They will have to be strategically placed.
anyhow thats my idea
Signed/BC
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION VIDEO |
Darkdood
|
Posted - 2008.10.02 19:54:00 -
[786]
I tend to agree that the whole problem is the capture the flag dynamic creates blob fights that lag servers and generally give the bigger alliances the advantage.
The other flaw I see in the current POS system is that its EASY for any corp/alliance to go to a nearby system setup one tower and claim it. Even if they don't want it at all. Then smaller alliances believe its "taken" and don't try to do anything in that system.
So how about this... Any alliance can claim sov over a solar system. The alliance leaders themselves flag it somehow and claim it. The server then tracks how many pilots from that alliance are actually in the system.
IE you get one point per hour that a pilot from that corp/alliance is in the system. You need a certain number of points to even claim sov at all. If more than one corp/alliance claims it then whoever has the most points gets it for that day. If you top out the current owner for X number of days then sov actually changes or downgrades or upgrades etc...
Look at it like this. You get a vote as to were you call home. That vote is expressed by were you ACTUALLY play the game. That allows your alliance to claim sov. If someone comes into your territory to try and take it you blow them up they are there less time you keep sov.
Seems to me there is a million ways you could represent this idea and a few other people have mentioned similar ideas the bottom line is to have sov determined by who actually lives in that system. Also set a minimum participation to gain sov. Thus the systems that these large alliances (ie goons bob etc) maintain purely because they can make a big blob and overwhelm a smaller alliance go back to default. It forces those large groups to choose what they want to keep and what they want to give up. If they really have enough people(votes) to keep 4 constellations or even a whole region then they can keep it. What they can't do is keep 30 constellations just because they can when needed field a 300 ship blob. That would open up sov in allot of systems that are currently being held by squatters that don't really use it. You can squat but its VERY easy to take sov from them because they are only maintaining the minimum votes. You would know they are just maintaining the minimum because the vote amounts would be public info???
More importantly if they move in on someones territory the defenders might counter that by simply attacking the place the votes were pulled from. Force them to ether defend what they already have or gain the new place etc etc...
An example system...
1 point for entering system(max of 1/day)
5 points per hour flying in system
1 point per hour in system in a safe spot(ie cloaked, inside POS bubble, docked in outpost, etc)
1 point per hour logged out in system
-1 point for losing a ship or pod
It takes 200 point minimum.
Its just an example obviously but see how the advantage goes to the person who actually lives there. One person dual logging with a hulk and a hauler for 4 hours would get 80 points. However a 5 man gang that invaded that system and got blown up would get almost nothing. Thus your territory is truly limited by how many people are in your corp/alliance.
Everything else still applies. You can blow up peoples POS's that have a moon you want. You can still park huge fleets in someones system blow up all there ships and take sov from them.
Yeah sure you can hangout in a cloaked ship and try to blow up the hulk but then you end up with 2 combat ships guarding the miner doubling it to 160 points.
Its scalable and organic. The people that truly live in that place get sov and the advantages of it. If you don't actually live there its VERY hard to claim it. The current system gives no credit to the miners and other people that just go about the daily business of playing. This type system takes 100% of the focus off combat and shifts it 50/50 combat and industry.
Cont...
|
Darkdood
|
Posted - 2008.10.02 20:25:00 -
[787]
Cont...
I say 50/50 because a 100% industrial corp would fail. Why? That hulk and or hauler would get blown up not only causing an isk loss but then he would be inside the station gaining less points plus he'd lose points for getting blown up.
It would also mean that pirates invading your territory and overwhelming you could even make you lose sov without them actually gaining it or even wanting it. Simply because they blow up enough ships to reduce your score below the minimum etc etc. If you can't keep control you don't deserve it.
You could also add rules like...
+1 for blowing up a ship (suicide runs would raise the defenders sov score)
+1 per day per POS
-10 for losing a POS
I'm hesitant to even evolve POS's in the math but you get the point. If you base it on a vote/score for each system you can adjust/balance the math to whatever works well. Everything revolves around the lvl of participation. Not on how big of a blob you can make to overwhelm a control point.
Its also gives multiple ways to attack. You can try out fighting them. You can just sit in station building points the safe way. You can smash there POS's. You can hit and run on there miners. OR... you can do them all...:)
Remember the corp/alliance has to claim it. So a neutral ratting in your space means nothing. He's not building points for an opponent OR taking points away from you unless he blows you up. He's also not making points for you ether. Unless you blow him up...:)
Its would be hard to balance but once you got it setup right it would be a way better system than what is currently being used. If you want to include control point type stuff make outposts attackable etc but the real importance is the points lost or gained by that attack.
Sorry just an idea. Don't mean to rattle on...
|
Darkdood
|
Posted - 2008.10.02 20:50:00 -
[788]
I'd like to add to my idea also that an alliance can only "claim" a max of X systems at a time. Not as a total but meaning system they don't already have sov in. So the rate at which they expand is somewhat limited. It also prevents anyone from just claiming every system in every region and clogging up the math. Say seven systems. Which would be one whole constellation. Certainly enough to get a majority of it to claim constellation sov?
This makes it very clear who wants what because they will not waste those slots on unless/pointless systems.
|
ollobrains2
Gallente
New Eve Order Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 22:18:00 -
[789]
If u can get into a backend 0.0 system a POS and deploy it and not claim it then good luck but most 0.0 alliances are pvp freaks and will probably soon find it anyway unless u use cynos in and out
|
ghost st
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 08:07:00 -
[790]
I believe that the amount of options for sov warfare are too limited, at the moment the only option is to bring a blob, and that there should be more options for pos warfare.
Economy of Size:
The benefits of hording large amounts of space are far greater than the drawbacks.
From an economic standpoint:
The more space you have the more resources you have access to (rats, plexes, moons), and the more secure your trade routes are. The only drawback is the inital cost of the pos hardware, and the pos fuel, which is insignificant compared to the resources they allow access to.
From a pvp standpoint:
The more space you have the more sapce you can safely monitor, you can easily position 'eyes' in a pos and keep an eye on any hostiles that may attempt to attack, which means that attackers are more easily repelled. The poses also provide a buffer zone in the case of sov warfare. There are really no drawbacks.
I think the first thing to do is to make it so that there are drawbacks to holding large space, especially space that you cannot effectively man. Here are a few suggestions for accomplishing this.
- Make it so that poses no longer send sutomated messages when under attack:
This will make it so that an allaince has to man thier space to be able to effectivly mount a defense. Requireing a minimum amount of activity to defend and monitor them. Poses that are in areas of lower activity will be more susceptiable to attack.
*The only messages you should recieve are reinforced notifications, but these should transmit the lowest amount of intel possisble, only listing the system the pos is in, and telling the status of the pos (either dead or in reinforced), reinforcement time shouldnt be given (but maybe the stront level), and no information about the attacker should be given
- Make moon miners susceptiable to attack
Moon mining structures should be placed outside of the pos shield, rather than inside. Making it so that a there is at least a simple level of economic warfare.
- Remove poses from directional scan.
This makes it so poses arent easily discovered, and require some recon and planning beforehand.
These changes will (hopefully )make it so that direct blob on blob encounters are less common, and it makes stealth tactics a valid tactic in pos warfare.
|
|
Tuttomenui II
Gallente
kungfuhammers
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 08:09:00 -
[791]
I have a little idea to add to all the rest im new enough to eve im not really sure how all this works, but I have always thought it be nice to be able to place a POS within weapons range of a stargate, Say you have the highest SOV possible for a system it give you the option to put a POS at stargates. Then to counteract it make it so that Covert ops ships that can fit the Covert ops cloak can activate the cloak while cloaked by a gate so they never uncloak thus allowing them access to jump in other covert ops ships. Makes it harder for enemies to move around in a system you have high SOV in. Plus gets me a cloak that works better, win/win I say. |
KAT3
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 14:00:00 -
[792]
Lets think outside of the box.
1. An alliance holds territory to take advantage of the resources available. Resources fund ships, capital ships and mods for members and fuel for towers. All this is done so that the members in an alliance can go out and have fun pvping, and do some carebearing for isk.
2. Corp and alliance members are not, for the most part, interested in poses, pos warfare, pos spamming or blob warfare. They want to get out in manageable gangs and pvp in lag free conditions.
3. Why can't a sovereignty challenge be determined by killboard stats. A corp or alliance must propose a challenge or a 0.0 war for a given system/constellation/territory. Once this war is properly sanctioned (proper conditions met) a start date is established and fighting commences.
4. Both sides must declare who their participating corp/alliances will be. A corp/alliance can be added to either side's list as long as the name is submitted 48 hours in advance to the start of the upcoming weeks battle, at which point the added group can now participate.
5. Sovereignty in a given territory can have an assigned number of soveigntry points based on established criteria. In order to reach the maximum no. of sov. points available for a given territory, X number of poses must be deployed and onlined. So a given area can have a minimum no. of sov. pts up to a maximum no. of sov. pts. based on a given set of established factors.
6. After a war commences, at the end of each week of battle, the killboard points will determine whether the defenders or the challengers are the winners for the week.
If the defenders are the winners, there is no change to the sovereignty points. If the challengers win, a point is removed from the total number of sovereignty points the defenders have for challenged territory.
7. If the challengers are able to reduce the sovereignty points to 0, then the defenders have lost the territory and have one week to remove their assets. Likewise, the successful challengers have one week after evacuation to begin to establish sovereignty points in the territory they just took over.
8. Ofcourse poses and any deployable structures are fair game during a challenge, but these items do not determine the outcome of the war. This removes pos warfare, pos spamming, etc., as determining factors.
This suggestion was quickly put together and would need alot of fine tuning, but the logic is simple and the idea is to remove pos warfare as a determining factor, and eliminate the majority of blob warefare to boot! It also helps to even the playing field whereas now the challengers have the advantage.
|
Tykkis
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 12:34:00 -
[793]
Various RTS(real time strategy games) have had a good balanced system for years. Why not use the analogy allready invented. Games like Command and Conquer, Warcraft and many more.
1 home base with strong defence that you'd have to blob if you wanna destroy the opposition. You could build POS and other powerful and beneficial structures to controlled constellation.
Multiple small bases that you need to fuel the home base defences and structures(POS, passive turrets, jump bridges, shields...). Small bases have quite little defence so small gangs could take them quite fast or solo the transport ships. Small base would be like a normal moonharvester, container for resources, few weak turrets and shield generator. Say you would have to moonharvest 2 constellations to keep 1 home base online.
You'd have to transfer the resources from moonharvesting base to the home base defence systems. Every turret, shield, whatever would need amount of fuel to keep online. if they go offline, it would take long time to get them back online(like 5 days or so). Putting up a small moonharvester would be quite fast and cheap as they will be destroyed easily.
So you'd have 2 options, either with brute force(and huge losses) or guerrilla warfare to deny resources and then take on the weak base. Or you could just destroy the moonharvester defenses and steal the fuel and keep farming your weak opponents.
|
Funkcikle
Gallente
MicroFunks
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 23:03:00 -
[794]
Use the Faction Warfare occupancy/plex system.
Defenders plex more for more sov points, Attackers plex to reduce sov untill systems vulnerable.
Allow 1 pos to be anchored on the system bunker
Only alliances with Sov can anchor pos.
There, All fixed, no more blobs of weekend warriors, minimul pos warfare, things for small roaming gangs to do.
I expect this to be implement by next thursday, at the very latest.
|
Oli Robbo
Gallente
Galactic Defence Syndicate
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 14:14:00 -
[795]
Why try and fix something that doesn't need fixing ?!
Surely if you want to defend/hold space by following a routine or set of things to conquer, you go and play faction warfare..
0.0 is outlaw space, where anything goes if you have the balls to do it. I think the above comment about activity creating the borders is a valid and good enough point for me. You need to be active to upkeep your pos's which, in turn give you Sov.
This new mechanic will just turn warfare into blob warfare. It will nerf small roaming gangs completely [which is where all the fun is in eve].
If i want to join a massive blob, I just opt in for POS shootings, but i don't because it's boring. I like the adrenaline rush of 1v1 or small fleet engagements.
|
Tae'Lin Hynd
Simply Planned
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 04:35:00 -
[796]
So I have been saying this for a few years now, never posted on it, because i really just am not that wordy of a guy. So here is the idea
People complain that either A. the big alliances are claiming more space then they control and B. there isn't enough nul sec.
So here is a way to address both of these complaints at once. It will also have other effects i believe that will reduce size of some of the larger alliances who, after much pos spam (yeah i know it is work, been there done that) can claim more space then they could ever possibly use.
here it is, i know you all are in serious suspense...
Change sov from region wide to only constellation. Make it where you can claim no more then one constellation. What this will do, is force big alliances to either use the space they have claimed, or split up to control multiple constellations.
Yeah i understand it is a big mechanic to change, not like big mechanics have never been altered before.
Think of what this will do though. This will make an alliance really think of what space they want to control. Also this will make those alliances consider deeply what other alliance they allow to live next door.
Think about the possibilities of conflict this will add. This also will give those smaller alliances a chance to actually put a foothold in a nul sec region, be it a bad one (more of those then better) but this will also change how the logistics of major alliances work.
Most of the alliances that use jump bridges, also have control of the entire space leading out to where they are heading, it is not like they will ever lose a haul on the way there with our without those jumpbridges..think about it. This makes any jump bridges that much more valuable. This makes your space that much more valuable, because you aren' pretending to defend an entire region, but now you are forced to defend you home constellation.
I think this would cause more alliance to hang out in their constellation, because now there is a smaller chunk to defend. as it is now, you could go a day or two without defending a claimed system, till they end somewhere where it really matters if they cap it.
With this change, this would cause a real need to defend you home constellation (not system) from any aggressors. Not like the other night, where flying my alt through bob space (yeah got bored) and i only saw maybe two or three systems with folk in them, whereas the rest of the 60 plus jumps i did were claimed and had bob or friend sov (i know it will get me flamed, but i do enjoy bob for what they have done really not picking on them in particular, using them as example though). 60 jumps though through their sov space, only to see maybe two systems occupied by them with actual folk active.
Shrink down the claimable territory to constellation only. this will open so many great doors, it is an idea i have had bounce in my head everytime someone complains about not enough nul sec. There is enough nul sec, just that none of it is getting used by anyone, even those that claim it.
ps, this is half drunk half spelt out post, i know there would be some issues that would follow an idea like this, but i think it would alter the game into a really fun, goal oriented direction. instead of the pos spam, it would really mean that you have to hold on to that system, yes alliances have held onto LARGE SWATHS of space for years and years. And at times, i would think this to be, somewhat dull. To do as my idea would release whole new style of game play.
Anyway, good idea or not?
|
Aaron Mirrorsaver
R.E.C.O.N.
The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 01:10:00 -
[797]
why not simply remove the reinforced timer crap.
BUFF hp a bit. maybe the defense capabilityies of towers, and remove the whole reinforced thing for SOV poses.
Ok so two types of towers. Industrial tower( can only have moon miners etc on it) can be reinforced, so allow for a defense fleet to save it later on since it has no defences of its own.
second type of tower = a sov battle tower. Give it 2 times the offense capability as as a current large tower, make it have no strontium. So no reinforced mode, it dies it dies...
therefore no back and forth for weeks on a stront timer management, gameplay more hectic, space is still safe unless you get attacked by a large invading force, so you can still go on campaigns elsewhere.
what you think?
------
RECON is recruiting |
missmagicician
|
Posted - 2008.11.12 19:46:00 -
[798]
My take on the idea.
Take a star system lets call it system A. System A is a 0.1 system. With multiple stargates 1 leading to lets call it system B. System B is a 0.0 system. System B has 3 stargates. One leading to system A. One leading to system lets call them C (a dead end system) and another to system D (both 0.0).
Now using stargate jumps rather then stargates needed for sov. Now here is where it links up. To attack sov in system B would require at least 1 already sov owned star jump which leads into system B.
Now a 0.1 or above system has no player owned sov. So anyone in theory can attack the stargate jump (maybe you could need some sort of trade good or certificate etc etc), from system A to system B, but to attack the stargate jump from system B to system C would require sov of at least 1 stargate jump in system B. So to get sov of system C you would first have to attack the stargate jump from system A to system B or system D to system C.
Now to take stargate jump sov would require that you attack the side of the stargate which is not in your sov owned system. I like how pos`s use stront to set reinforced timers maybe the stargates could use something similar to give defenders a chance to muster a defence fleet.
The stargates can be defended by guns/sentrys etc etc which defend the stargate and so only attack those who attack the stargate.
Stargate jump sov changes at down time daily to limit the speed at which systems can change hands.
This would create borders between the big rival alliances and ccp would know where the big battles are likely to take place and could reinforce the nodes accordingly. My technical information is not great but i belive this could reduce lag in the big fleet fights (there would be nothing better then massive lag free fleet fights in my book). Also as you start to take more systems the area of your borders increases making it harder to police.
Atm sov claim must start from empire/your own borders and build up taking stargate jumps.
My idea has every single system has some sort of locked plex based around the true sec of a system as to how difficult/rewarding. This plex must be completed every set time scale (daily/weekly/monthly). It should be pretty simple and it should earn a reasonable reward. The plex will need a key to enter the key could appear in a selected corp hanger as the plex resets.
So using weekly as an example every monday after downtime a key appears in the corp hanger of whoever owns the system, if by the following mondays downtime the plex has not been completed then they lose system sov it becomes a neutral system as per npc space.
It would be good if system sov appeared as to if sov plex has been run or not. Imagine the roaming gangs at a weekend hunting down the guys trying to run the plexs at the last minute.
These plexs should be 1 room full of npcs and a stargate to a beacon or something similar to claim sov for the week.
To work out what would be in that 1 room can be based on true sec.
A formula could be something like eg. -0.06 true sec equals 6mil isk in bountys -1.00 true sec equals 100mil isk in rat bountys. The lower true sec systems are easier to run while the higher ones require bigger fleets and better logistics. imagine running a -1.00 and having to tank 50 or 60 bs rats. You could expand this further.
Now when a corp/alliance has sov of enough stargate jumps they will then have the key appear in there corp hanger, once the sov plex has been run once they would then claim system sov.
It could still use some work and tweaking but just my idea on spicing up the pvp and keeping small gangs worthwhile. 
|
missmagicician
|
Posted - 2008.11.12 20:57:00 -
[799]
Another part the sov plexs could be used also for constelation and for regional sov
|
Camdim
Caldari
The first genesis
INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 05:26:00 -
[800]
Eve and Sovereignty and POSFes part 1
Have been giving this a lot of thought as of late and didnFt even notice this thread.
I have not had time to read the thread so some of my ideas might already be covered in other peoples posts or been forwarded already by others. I did read the two posts on page 16 and 19.
First planets should determine who owns a system. This means that many systems might have several owners and be contested till one person can kick another out of the system.
You take control of a planet by placing a colony on the planet. Each planet should have its own factors that make up the planet. For example atmosphere, land mass, resources, gravity etc. You drop a colony module on the planet and start to develop and grow the colony. At a certain level of population the planet gives you sovereignty points. You can stop some one from gaining sovereignty points by attacking their colony and killing off some of their population or taking over control of the colony.
A colony is built on an uninhabited planet with a colony module.
Stations would become a build able item. It should cost about 1-2 billion for the most basic of services and move up from there. A station could be placed in orbit around any planet that has X population.
How do you take control of a planet? You either kill off all the population or chase off all the defenders and defeat the military.
If you chose the kill off all the population then you start a bombing campaign from space new skills would be needed here and I suggest stealth bombers go in this area for stealth runs on planets. New skills and or ships should be required to do planetary bombardment and new weapons should be made up for this. But not only does a bombardment do damage to the population it also damages the planet moving it further from ideal and destroying improvements on the planet and making it less desirable overall.
The second way would be to send in the marines. These would be transport ships loaded down with combat troops to land on a planet and take it over. For the time being this could be abstracted in a simpler system till the future developments allow us to leave our ships and fight on the planets.
Run combat patrols around planets to protect them would help to fend off attackers and or keeping control of the gates would help. Stations placed in orbit would also help to defend the planets.
To get around the issue of people attacking when others are not available (which is the reason POSFs are done as they are now.) I recommend that each planet and station be setup to be attackable 11 out of 23 hours. The alliance or corporation placing the colony or station would get an option to set the time they can be attacked at placement. That time would be visible to anyone. This is purely a mechanic to stop one group from running over another when they have no people on and not having to have NPCFs to fill in for folks. *
Colony development:
A colony module should be about the cost of a medium-large pos. The medium cost version would be for closer to ideal planets and the higher cost module for less ideal planets.
A terraforming module should be about 1billion or so. The terraforming module brings a planet closer to an ideal habitation level each month. Or till destroyed or turned off. Once placed on a planet it is forever there.
Other modules would be things like factories, farming, parks, military bases, labs etc.
These modules would be designed to increase population growth on the planet as well as the resources provided by the planet.
You could turn a bunch of people into marines in a military base but if you do it to many times your colony might up and vanish.
Colonies should have basic staples that have to be provided for them till they reach a production level/population level that allows them to make those items themselves.
end of part one.
|
|
Camdim
Caldari
The first genesis
INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 05:26:00 -
[801]
Some ideas of production items: Livestock, grain, recreation vehicles, electronic parts etc.
Some item would need to be used as fuel to get the colony started and provided to the colony weekly in order for the population to grow. But after certain modules are built the colony would start producing some of those items themselves for self use and export.
* You could go with NPC ran space forces if the ships are provided and so forth to combat the twe donFt live online issuesv. This would mean that you could form a navy when you have complete control of at least one constellation. The ships would have to built and provided for the navy and the quality of the NPC troops would determine the cost of keeping those ships in space.
POSFes:
The developers kind of gave me this idea. Moons should produce ores just like asteroid belts do. Most moons are usually just large asteroids or groups of asteroids that have merged. Each month a moonFs ore type would change. So you could get a different ore type or it could stay the same. The type of ore a moon would spawn would be from a pool of ores that could be had in that system.
Alchemy would go a few steps further now. Reactions would be based off of mineral types gotten from ice fields and asteroids and moons and colonies. If a colony can produce a resource for reactions so do existing colonies in empire. This gives a more equal access to tech 2 base minerals the quantities used for the reactions are just very large. Giving more use to large transports and supply lines and further reasons to develop colonies and hold systems to mine moons.
A moon mining array is about the size of a small POS tower. But has half the shields and armor of a current small tower. A POS will run for only 10 hours a day. When those 10 hours happen would be up to the person running the POS. A POS would burn fuel just like it does now but only for 10 hours a day. A POS would mine at the mining rate of the person who setup the POS. And a miner could control up to 5 POSFs depending on his level of POS management skill.
A POS could only be attacked during the 10 hours of operation a day. So most POS operators will set that time to be when they or their corpmates are online to defend it.
The other 10 hours a day the POS is down for repairs and refitting and runs dark so canFt be targeted.
If attacked during its hours of operation the POS will defend itself for as long as it can and assuming it is fitted with defenses. Otherwise it can be destroyed by the attacker only during those 10 hours.
Nation building:
When a constellation is controlled by one alliance, that alliance should have the option of forming a new nation/faction. This would open up a whole new level of game play where one nation/faction could declare itself as allied to one of the 4 major nations and would be like Kaldor and other minor factions that belong to certain nations now. This would then give that tnationv the right to place agents commission ship designs as well as commission a new skill for their ships to use for piloting or use a combination of skills for their ship based on the design.
So there are some of the ways I feel would enhance the game play and not be to intensive to add to the game.
End of part 2 of 2
|
von Mannstein
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 17:02:00 -
[802]
Perhaps the biggest problem is the dissapearance of physical logistic chains and through the same mechanics the emergence of the capability to instantly jump vast fleets to any threatened installation. The projection of power in Eve has now reached its absolute limit, while at the same time economic installations are immune to skirmish warfare, and remote resource harvesting installations are for all intents and purposes next door to any manufacturing centre, trade centre or population centre in the region. Indeed for all intents and purposes they are within the same system.
Logistics chains, installation defences and fleet travel capability have conspired to produce Empires that have an effective zero size and a minimum threat level of a large enemy fleet. All facilities and installations have been effectively withdrawn right into the heart of the Empire in terms of distance and defences, and the Sovreignty system requires these to be destroyed in succession.
The net result is that the supply chains of large Empires have been removed from the field of combat, the furthest relevant points of concern are one jump away and the minimum level of vulnerability of any relevant location has been increased to Capital Fleet scale.
These are the factors that conspire to produce the gameplay you see today. The mantra of minimum force for maximum gain is as valid here as it is anywhere, so one need only look at what is being deployed in persuit of results to see the problems. It is very likely that the desire for more conflict with bigger weaponry has resulted in this dramatic contraction of Empire logistics, but in doing so it has reduced the elements of warfare to a near pure expression of economic power.
For the purposes of gameplay it may be a case of introducing weaknesses into these entities, uncovering supply chains from the armour of raw military power and zero effective distance. Increasing the vulnerability of installations to smaller attacks. There is no point in debating mechanics without seeing the strategic big picture. A picture that currently looks like a heavily armoured solar system.
|
Ari Xali
Caldari
Raddick Explorations
BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 08:22:00 -
[803]
Ok, i've not read every post but I have read some and there are excellent ideas around.
Sovereignty is the real issue here. and sovereignty needs to be worked for and looked after.
Sovereignty is about providing security for your corp, alliance and most especially THE PEOPLE OF THESE SYSTEMS.
What do I mean? The systems of 0.0 are not uninhabited, they are just not occupied by the Empires.
So these people will want protection, particularly from the Hostile NPC corps and they will want to buy products from the empires, and sell to them.
Sovereignty can be about supplying services to the people of 0.0 systems.
For example, you have a 100 man corp. You are interested in Constellation Z which has 6 systems.
Your first target is System A. Here you go in and the CEO of the Corporation gets an option on System Sovereignty Contract.
This Contract runs for 1 week or perhaps longer (Varying in length depending upon certain factors to be decided) This contract specifies that the Corporation must supply certain services within certain timeframes, Your corp must kill a Minimum X number of NPC's in system, Must Supply 10,000m3 units of resources from empire to the planet, must export 20,000m3 units of goods from the planet to a specific empire (destinations could be variable i.e. 1 week to Amarr, next to Jita) Must maintain gates (and perhaps some new local structures too)
In return the corp or alliance gets Sovereignty for the period of the contract at level 1. After a predetermined time you can advance to Sovereignty level 2, 3 & 4.
Each level allows you to not only anchor POS's on moons but also structures too like Capital Ship Arrays etc. In addition Outposts can be built in systems only at certain sovereignty level 2 and above, if you lose sovereignty level 2 they can fall into "disrepair and become unusable until sovereignty returns to level 2" sovereignty of the constellation capital will allow you to expand outward and you could at sovereignty level 4, accept contracts for the whole constellation. If you controlled multiple Constellations in a region you could get a regional contract which would give you sovereignty level 5. (level 5 bonuses to be decided)
Now like any contract, it can be declared null & void if the Corp or Alliance does not keep to the terms of the contract. These contracts can then be offered up for new corporations to take advantage of.
However to prevent failure of the contract and loss of sovereignty because the corp could not complete the entire contract, you can have standings. Standings will allow your corp of instead of losing the contract to pay a ISK fine and lose standings with the Planetary Government that issued the contract. When Standings fall below x level you lose the contract.
Contracts would be a bit of work for the Corporation but could have enormous benefits. For instance Accepting the contract could give you a 10% refining bonus in system, an Extra ISK bonus on rat kills. Access to the special moon surveys that pinpoint small reserves of high end minerals (or perhaps special moon minerals that can be refined into Advanced minerals quickly), that you can mine for, Access to frequency's that help find exploration sites in system, and perhaps also Local chat channel would only be available to Sovereignty holders.
I'll turn to how you could challenge sovereignty in my next post.
|
Ari Xali
Caldari
Raddick Explorations
BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 08:23:00 -
[804]
Sovereignty, needs to be a challenge, not simply a question of filling up a pos and disappearing for a week and not returning till you get the Fuel mail.
The sovereignty contract will specify that you need to do certain things to keep your standing to keep the contract. So how do you as a hostile force, take sovereignty away and then gain it for yourself?
When you first accept the contract you will have an automatic standing of 1.0, each week that you fulfil the contract will gain you 0.1 to your standing up to a maximum of 5.0.
Now say Corp A has the contract on System Z, and has held it for 5 weeks. Their Standing is 1.5. Corp B wants the contract and Issues a Contract Disputation Notice (Similar to a war declaration in empire) This entitles Corp B to know the terms of the contract and to vattemptv to fulfill its terms.
Now the contract would specify say that corp A needs to kill 50% of NPC's every day in system. Corp B enters system with 25 ships and proceeds to kill Ships of Corp A. Corp A, because it is fighting Corp B. cannot kill NPC's and therefore fails that part of the contract and loses 0.1 standing with the contract issuer. In additionif corp B kills NPC's then for every Ship they kill 1 kill is taken of Corp A's Daily Total.
Say also that the contract specifies that you must deliver a package to empire at least once a week, If Corp B intercepts the Corp A's Courier and destroys or steals the package then Corp A would again Lose 0.1 of standing. Corp A should be able to avoid the standing loss if they wish by paying a Fine of 100 Million ISK.
If you lose standing to 0.0 then you lose the Sovereignty contract and it gets offered up again. Corp A would have to pay a non compliance fee of say 500 million ISK and Corp B would have First refusal on the new sovereignty contract.
Financial Penalties for losing Standing and Sovereignty would be an essential part of the new contract system as it would mean that Corporations and Alliances would need to be financially prepared for any eventuality
I would also suggest a further quick way of taking away the contract. If you are able to drive all members of Corp A from the system for 24 Hours then the contract would be null and void.
The aim of this would be to have Corporations & Alliances find it far harder to dominate entire regions as easily as they have done, and force them to work together and think about what they are doing with sub-contracts available for mining corporations, putting up POS'es in Allies systems for Capital jump supply networks, Ratting contracts etc...
This contracts system I'm sure would need to work in conjuction with a more Military minded system to be fully effective.
Anyway { hope this helps in your discussions and perhaps sparks ideas elsewhere.
|
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 16:29:00 -
[805]
Originally by: Cailais
Any mechanic that is based on pre-determined, fixed control points is pretty much doomed to failure. There are already entities in the game that could blob a half-dozen points until the servers cry uncle at the same time. Introducing mechanics with multiple fixed control points will only encourage the formation of more of them.
You need to think further outside the box CCP. Sov needs to be based on actual control and occupancy, rather than an artifical "flag" to capture or timer based mini-game. You need to get rid of pre-determined battle points altogether.
Large-scale, playable fleet battles would be great to have, but I think it's way past time to put up the white flag and just admit that they aren't happening. Winning or losing in this game shouldn't come down to who can best tolearate and manage lag.[/quote
There in lies the main problem - demonstrating 'control & occupancy'. As Ive mentioned elsewhere in this thread I agree with SomealtOfmine's basic principal that 'fixed points' are blob magnets if used to determine 'Soveriegnty'.
My personal view is that Soveriegnty is perhaps more intrinsicaly linked to 'political support'. For example:
Let's say pilots could in some fashion indicate their 'support' to a Soveriegn Alliance on entering a star system or constellation. By doing so they (even though they are not part of the Sov Alliance) contribute to a Soveriegnty 'score' and in doing so become 'blue' to that Soveriegn entity.
In the same fashion a pilot who is 'at war' detracts from the Soveriegnty 'score'. Neutral pilots offering no support or opposal either way would have no effect, but might suffer minor sec rating losses for agression.
Now provided the Rate of drain or Increase for the Sov Score is gradual this system could work well. Even if a large blob enters to drain the Sov Score of its adversary it must remain in place - and continue to remain in place - for a considerable period of time: it can't just 'tank rush' and win. And even if it does win it needs support from a '3rd party' or other pilots from outside its Alliance to increase its Sov Score.
Its therefore advantageous for an Alliance claiming Soveriegnty to gather support, welcome traders, smaller corps and even individuals to its space - essentially courting for political support.
C.
Its a nice idea but are you not then restricting players to simply in a certain way.
Should i have the ISK and cap and super cap power to do so. I should have the option of being able to use it as a sledge hammer to keep or take sov. I may not want to ally with anyone (maybe its my alliances ethos or some such) But i actually have the raw numbers and firepower to do make things happen. But I would not be able to maintain or take sov because i wont play nice.
-------------------------------
bring back Eve TV |
von Mannstein
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 23:33:00 -
[806]
Sovereignty, Starbases And The Future.
Eve Online when taken as a whole is an open ended simulator of the relationships between Warfare, Economics, Society and Environment; it is open ended because the employment, utilisation and development of each of those aspects is player determined in response to basic rules and it is a simulator because basic rules and features inherant in the real world exist within Eve.
One of the fundamental features of Eve that plays a fundamental role in the development of subsequent rules and features that determine the basic premise of Eve both mechanicly and as an environment is that it is a game intended to provide entertainment through its simulation. The fact that Eve is a game is the primary consideration that comes above and before all decisions on the implimentation and development of the rules and features of the simulation.
In essence the mission statement of Eve might well be "to bring Realpolitik to the masses in an entertaining way."
With this in mind it is my view that over recent years the struggle to reproduce the facets of realpolitik both demanded and necessary for a simulation and yet to make them entertaining and accessible, as well as dealing with the confines produced by a game and the problems and weaknesses exposed both within the game and its playerbase over the evolution of Eve Online, has resulted in a series of systems and mechanics that neither address the issues in question nor explore nor deliver the depth, richness and counter intuitive simplicity of real world realpolitik.
It is perhaps fair to say that the problems found within the area of the game long considered the realm of simulated realpolitik are a result of reactionary evolution of solutions to questions posed by a long history of development and player activity themselves reacting against the limits of technology, budget, gameplay, playerbase understanding and each other. We have reached a stage where solutions to complex problems are more pressing concerns to players and developers alike than the development of purist realpolitik gameplay. The limits of Eve past defined the direction of its future, and now we find ourselves with tools abundant but gameplay channeled down a reactionary corridor.
Perhaps it is time not for tweaks and subtle changes, but a complete revision of a system that has more potential and flexibility today than it had when it's path was first chosen.
Sovereignty.
Sovereignty in the real world is nothing more than the recognition of the claims of one state by another, for the sole reason that recognising those claims carries greater benefit than refusal to recognise those claims. The benefit, whether ideaological and social, economic, geostrategic etc. are irrelevant to this basic principle.
Sovereignty in Eve is a mechanism developed in reaction to certain weaknesses, demands, problems and concerns that have arisen throughout the evolution of Eve's gameplay. To establish visual representation of political power on the world map; to minimize the catastrophic damage to assets and moral of its playerbase by an efficient Blitzkreig tactic; to fabricate a strategic advantage for superior numbers through time consuming strategic goals; to forcefully produce large scale confrontations between vastly expensive, newly implimented supercapitals; to force the utilisation of its top end content, and the players capable of deploying said content, into underused 0.0 space.
These are a few examples of solutions provided by the Sovereignty mechanics to problems posed by the way in which players would utilise these new features under the old system of gameplay. The fundamental root causes of these problems have not been addressed, the superficial manifestation of consequences has simply been altered.
Continued below.
|
von Mannstein
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 23:33:00 -
[807]
Continued from above.
Sovereignty
Put simply Sovereignty is a mechanical solution to failures in the simulation of the enthralling, challenging, and I might as well say entertaining aspects of realpolitik. Sovereignty gives for example Poland the ability to fight as long, as hard and as violently as Russia but with the same inevitable outcome. It removes the capability for long inhabited regions to fall swiftly and quickly and completely and in doing so it enables CCP to avoid the problems associated with the consequences to the playerbase that experiences dramatic and complete annihilation.
In my view this is the fundamental principle underlying the Sovereignty mechanism. Without the Sovereignty system the then current form of warfare would render 0.0 territorial combat utterly moral destroying to a large proportion of its inhabitants and so fail to adhere to the fundamental principle that Eve is a game developed to provide entertainment.
In essence what CCP has done is to use starbase mechanics to forcefully produce what the environment, game mechanics, and in all honesty and fairness what the majority of the playerbase has failed to do; defend its self, rule itself and attack effectively as political entities.
This point brings me to what I see as a fundamental weakness in the basic mechanics of Eve Online as a territorial combat strategy game. It is a game of movement and chokepoints, distance and supply and nothing further. The environment offers nothing beyond logistics and chokepoints as considerations for battle, thus in general terms the entire Eve Galaxy is like the Deserts of North Africa, the great plains of Russia or the U.S.A or the fields of Western Europe. Despite Sovereignty drawing the process out to extraordinary lengths there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and no hope for the citizens of 0.0 when the Mongol Horde appears on the horizon. The extraordinary stories of historical geopolitical achievement are fundamentally impossible in Eve Online. There is no Great Britain to develop in isolation and strike out with strategic precision from an inviolable base of refuge. There is no Italy to farm vast numbers of manpower, cut off from true threat by distance and geography from the superior and by tactical skill and discipline from the violent and disorganised masses of the brave but militarilly, economically and politically inferior. There are no Greek Islands of idealism, philosophy and economic prowess. There is no Finland of mountains and snow and ice. There is no New World of unimaginable economic and industrial potential, isolated by its position as the boundary between all the Worlds greatest oceans.
The first Great War in Eve was a time of education, exploration, evolution and development of combat skill and the necessities of warfare in Eve. The second Great War was a fabrication of Sovereignty.
Put simply there is just not enough space and time in Eve Online as it is today for what is desired to evolve. The primary goal of every new territorial alliance in Eve is to ratchet up production and player numbers before the inevitable onslaught from the nearest Bigger Boy. The distribution of 0.0 systems is a relic from a bygone era of frigates and cruisers and warp to 15km. They remain unused because only the biggest and strongest groups today can survive that attacks from their neighbours long enough to utilise them, and because they lack the relative value to make such a vast effort worthwhile.
Continued below.
|
von Mannstein
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 23:34:00 -
[808]
Continued from above.
Conclusions
The fundamental problem with Sovereignty right at the very basic level is therefore a problem with the environment. The environment is not condusive to the development, growth and evolution of political entities. The environment does not provide sufficient and varied defences for newcomers and embryonic alliances to establish themselves within niche territories. The arrangement and distribution of 0.0 space is now irrelevant due to the Projection Power of the largest alliances, who themselves are still meat for the grinder of the even stronger alliances despite the facade produced by Sovereignty. The pace of economic and combat development has quite frankly overpowered the social engineering and evironmental aspects of the game. We entered an age of combat ability equivelant to unrestricted intercontinental ballistic missile nuclear warfare some time ago, however the warheads now do damage over time rather than instant annihilation. The social development of alliances and corporations remains equivelant to stone age tribalism. On the one hand we have alliances comparable to modern day superpowers, and on the other we have groups forced to live a migratory and nomadic lifestyle.
The scale of destructive power between 0.0 entities is vastly disproportionate compared to size, combine this to the effective distances within 0.0 and you have an environment that is inhospitable to the vast majority of individual corporations and alliances in Eve, not merely difficult to live in. There is a question to be asked of Eve Online, and that is whether it is intended to be a game of annihilatory warfare between a small number of vastly powerful groups or it intended to be a game of warfare over interests between a large number of political entities. If it is the latter then radical readjustments need to made in the availability and scale of destructive capability, in the effective distances across 0.0 systems, in the distribution of resources, the strategic layout of regions, and the protective influence of environmental factors.
If the longevity of newcomers into political life of 0.0 is a concern for the development team then the destructive power of factions in 0.0 needs to be scaled down, distances need to be scaled up, and warfare for conquest of heartland territory needs to be made costly and difficult enough to be warrented only under the greatest of strategic necessities. Is there any great difference between bitter and hard fought warfare between two superpowers over their very lives with Titans, or bitter and hard fought warfare for possession of a single border system, other than the latter more closely simulates real world realpolitik and provides a greater opportunity for more people to achieve greater things in 0.0 space?
Sovereignty only provides the impression of this type of warfare, it has in no way improved the true survivability of smaller alliances and it has done nothing to encourage either a migration of players into 0.0 nor a wider usage of 0.0 systems. We have seen no real evolution of Eve along the lines it promised several years ago, all we have seen is the evolution of larger weapons and a time consuming process of destroying infrastructure.
Continued below.
|
von Mannstein
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 23:34:00 -
[809]
Continued from above.
Starbases.
Starbases, when they first emerged during Exodus, was the first realisation of the promise that within Eve players could construct something permenant, something based upon their group ideals, something that would firmly anchor their alliance and their values into space. It was extremely basic at the time, but I doubt anyone involved in testing POS prior to Exodus launch, or who launched their first POS did not dream of their own personal Gallente Federation, or a collectively built deep space Citadel region. This promise has vanished for near everyone as weaponry developed at a fantastic rate, fueled by an expanded scientific and industrial component to the game. The fury of total annihilation has swept up starbases in its wake, forcing dramatic reponses from the development team to limit the speed of destruction of expensive and time consuming regional infrastructure.
It is possible that Starbases are perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in Eve. Their role being to accelerate the destructive capability of powerful 0.0 alliances. Their expense making them unusable without the cushion of Sovreignty in the face of Dreadnaughts and Titans. The mechanics and modules of Starbases essentially removing all logistic chains internal to 0.0 alliances, rendering Capital fleets the only combat force of any real effect. If anything Starbases have forced a devolution of warfare within Eve Online, which is a serious issue.
In effect all Starbases have done is accelerate gameplay while diminishing options. They do not add much to what already existed prior, apart from increased grind and micromanagement. They certainly offer few options and opportunities that did not exist before. You now have to conquer 100 stations instead of one or two, you have to mine moons as well as belts, you have to train extra skills and produce more objects before you can use certain ships. On the plus side you don't have to make as many jumps through 0.0 to do whatever it is you do. It is a bit a misleading improvement.
What starbases don't do is defend your key systems. They don't allow an alliance to invest their time and effort in producing the security and safety of Empire space right at the heart of their own territory. The Fortress of the alliance remains wherever its pilots are, wherever its Titans and Dreads and carriers are, and this has been superficially determined by Sovreignty to be the outskirts of your Empire, near some barely profitable moon mining installation.
I don't have much to say about Starbases other than the fact they are symptomatic of the problems I raised earlier, and contributors to the continued escalation of military power and persuit of annihilatory warfare. They offer nothing other than a lot of effort, a shielded Safespot, and a lot of heart ache for groups trying to establish themselves in null sec. The potential of Starbases combined to a rethink of the sheer power and projection cability of 0.0 entities, alongside 0.0 system redistribution could radically reshape Eve, but radical rethinks require radical changes.
Continued below.
|
von Mannstein
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 23:35:00 -
[810]
Continued from above.
The Future.
The Future of Eve and the solutions to these problems seem simple to me, and have very little to do with what I have written above. Tying people down to specific regions is not working in the grand scheme of things. It produces vast wars of grinding annihilation but offers only near utter defeat for the loser, whether the war is between giants of 0.0 or two small relatively similar newcomer alliances fighting over an empty region. We have thousands of migrants in 0.0 moving around near constantly, leaving behind the wreckage of their vain attempt to build anything whatsoever.
The Capital Ship provides the answer, the Titan specifically. It is time to impliment true Capital ships in the tradition of spaceship RTS and allow ships to build each other, allow ships to mine everything, allow ships to build everything and do everything. It is time to make Empires and industry completely mobile. No more stations, no more POS, no more ship yards. Make every single minable resource in every moon and every belt finite and slowly respawning. Make every single industrial process have a specific ship capable of doing that process. Make every Alliance in Eve a mobile self sustaining, self producing Armada akin to those seen in the Homeworld games or the Culture Novels by Iain Banks. Allow complex ships to be produced by smaller specialised industrial ships and lets make all of 0.0 a battlefield and resource depot that is trawled by vast and not so vast fleets of mobile infrastructure.
If there is any way to get people into 0.0 and to give the little guy any kind of fighting chance out there then this is the only method barring a complete rebuild of the game from the ground up. When I first heard of the Titan I thought this was the inevitable direction for Eve Online. Now I am suggesting it.
All of 0.0 will now be viable, whether to hide and replenish, to park the bulk of your industry for a few days, to zoom into and hide as a newbie before you start proliferating like a miniture infection. It wont all be roses, there will be issues with players being unable to log on etc. People having to catch up, but if one single idea can take Eve as it is now and radically reinvent it as a combat, economic, social engineering and environment game where the mechanics do not force newcomers to park themselves and wait for death then surely this it.
Thank you for reading my posts.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |