Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 17:47:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Matrixcvd on 05/08/2008 17:47:02 Purpose: To encourage active gameplay, attempt to reduce lag, and improve combat for sovereignty throughout 0.0. Develop a solution which does not overly change current mechanics to minimize testing and implementation times.
Problem: Current 0.0 game mechanics require large fleets to achieve goals for invading forces. Large fleets cause significant loads on client/server, rendering game-play difficult due to lag. Logistics are required to maintain large POS networks to hold sovereignty in contested areas. Small corporations/alliances have little to no ability to affect 0.0 sovereignty outside of joining larger alliances/power blocks thus increasing the potential for unplayable server conditions.
Proposal:
1. Investigate significant decreases of HP for POS, POS anchorables, and station services. Purpose: To mitigate large groups of pilots shooting stationary objects for excessive times, excessive in this case being 20 minutes (arbitrary) (Advantage: Aggressor). Less HP requires less time to incapacitate, less time required to repair (Advantage: Aggressor and Defender). Multiple POS/Outpost installations could be engaged at the same time, reducing the number of concentrated pilots, possibly improving server conditions (Advantage: Aggressor/defender). Investigate an increase in the number of POS Gunners per tower, but a ship may only be targeted by 1 POS gunner at a time (5 modules max as current) (Advantage: Defender).
2. Investigate increasing POS fuel storage Purpose: Decrease amount of logistic runs per tower (Advantage: Defender). As with reducing the amount of time shooting stationary targets, if you were to increase the amount of fuel stored for POSs, less time would be required to operate POS networks. The ramification is that these towers would be holding more resources and their importance would increase. Again the goal is to increase and enhance combat, not shoot stationary objects or excessively inundate pilots to haul resources.
3. Move Cynosural System Jammer away from POS. Required anchoring location must be greater than 1 AU from any outpost or anchored POS. Purpose: Decrease major fights at POS grids where lag and poor server conditions account for any percentage of destroyed ships, balancing aggressor and defender capabilities.
Closing Remarks: These changes would allow small gangs to actively participate in 0.0 without overly skewing combat toward the aggressor. SOV holders would be less burdened by logistical runs, but would be required to actively defend their POS/SOV installations affecting large NAP power blocs. These proposed changes would not significantly change the core game-play mechanics, potentially mitigating the possibility of bugs, and other unforeseen consequences.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 18:28:00 -
[2]
Definite steps in the right direction here - particular with cyno jammers moving away from POS and reduced hit points on attackable objects.
Supported
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 18:32:00 -
[3]
The Cynojammer suggestion in particular has my vote.
|
Tarminic
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 19:15:00 -
[4]
1. Supported - BUT only as long as POS warfare is tied to system sovereignty.
2. Also agreed
3. Definitely agreed ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Ivena Amethyst
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 19:22:00 -
[5]
i think if structures had a hp reduction ppl would still bring a blob to take them out more ships = more dps = faster to take down the target + faster to finnish the job more ships = more targets for the enemy to defend against + more friendlies to shoot at enemies
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 20:00:00 -
[6]
Whatever solution there is for the sovereignty problems, it has nothing to do with MORE shooting/repping of structures.
It'll NOT encourage fights any more than current status as people will STILL bring a blob. Why? Because they don't risk loosing ships then!
Invent something that makes people want to shoot each other in small groups instead.
Not supported!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 20:17:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kerfira Whatever solution there is for the sovereignty problems, it has nothing to do with MORE shooting/repping of structures.
It'll NOT encourage fights any more than current status as people will STILL bring a blob. Why? Because they don't risk loosing ships then!
Invent something that makes people want to shoot each other in small groups instead.
Not supported!
So Kerfira, where are you getting the idea that this is suggesting more shooting of structures? Wouldn't reducing the hps of them just mean less shooting off structures?
I'd be interested to hear what you think a good way to get small ship combat into the Sov equation would be, but I don't think you're actually reading any of these proposals because your comments are consistently off the mark.
|
Mira O'karr
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 20:24:00 -
[8]
good start
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:35:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Matrixcvd on 05/08/2008 21:36:32 Edited by: Matrixcvd on 05/08/2008 21:35:23
Originally by: Tarminic 1. Supported - BUT only as long as POS warfare is tied to system sovereignty.
Exactly Tarminic. Keep all the old rules with large towers, and the whole sov system intact. Just tweak it to see if a moar dynamic battle is better for everyone, from small alliances to the mega-alliances. Shift the emphasis away from time consuming shooting stationary target thus repping those targets, and endless fueling runs and moar time shooting, and strategic planning.
Originally by: Kerfira Whatever solution there is for the sovereignty problems, it has nothing to do with MORE shooting/repping of structures.
It'll NOT encourage fights any more than current status as people will STILL bring a blob. Why? Because they don't risk loosing ships then!
Invent something that makes people want to shoot each other in small groups instead.
Not supported!
If you give people the ability to affect assets all over an alliances SOV space, that is doing something, if there are no station services, then you can't do anything sitting in station, which provides you more incentive to go out and fight.
More gunners at towers mean more people are doing more things, with what we already have. Nobody has to "invent" new unusual or useless mechanics to drive combat, the impetus for combat is to affect other people. I would envision a wide range of new buisness oppertunities for mercenaries as small gangs can go around affecting POS installations in 0.0 and in empire.
Of course people will still have the option to blob, nothing short of strict traffic controls will prevent that, but the catch here is that if moar can be done with less, who is really going to sit around and wait 2 hours for people to show up when they can go out and get stuff done themselves?
|
Bane Glorious
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 23:48:00 -
[10]
1 and 2 I can support, but 3 is going overboard. There are more conventional (and technically feasible) ways to nerf cynojammers than that which will be more balanced for both attacker and defender anyway. |
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 23:54:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Baaldor on 05/08/2008 23:54:09 I can digest this one a bit easier.
Have no real input about #3. Except maybe adding a BOPS role to possibly take it out.
|
Pezzle
Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 05:28:00 -
[12]
1. Under this proposal there is no incentive not to Blob. Now structures will die even faster. Cap ships online must be addressed to successfully alter tower combat mechanics, just lower hp on structures will encourage blobs playing steamroller. One of the factors stopping the steamroller right now (outside the jammer) is the time commitment. Until the solution is found tampering with that commitment will make larger problems. Nerf focused fire? That is a dangerous door I would rather not open. 1000 gunners at a tower unable to focus fire is not an advantage at all.
2. There was a fuel cell idea floating around that could make tower upkeep less mind numbing. Keeping the cost up (or some sort of economic impact) is important. What ever happened to that idea?
3. I see no mention of how the Jammer is defended? Again, moving these modules around is not a solution. How does any of this encourage smaller gangs?
Cannot support this proposal, sorry.
|
RDevz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:48:00 -
[13]
1) I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. While the comedy 25 hardener POS needs to go, small gangs shouldn't be able to take space quickly. Going by the backstory behind alliances not being allowed to join up in factional warfare, it seems that 0.0 empires are meant to be just that - as powerful as some of the NPC corporations. The time taken to take out a POS allows the defender time to rally a fleet and get online.
2) Oh god yes. My only concern is that this decreases the opportunity for causing diplomatic incidents by stealing stuff from an offline POS.
3) Surely a simpler solution to the cyno jammer would be to either:
- bump the system sovereignty requirement to 4, so only true "Region Capitals" get protection, with a valid route to taking the system available (take out outpost systems that are unjammed, killing off sov 4 in the capital, disabling the jammer);
- keep the sov requirement at 3, but to bump the power / cpu requirements to cripple its control tower's defenses; or
- prohibit any POS modules other than the control tower and the jammer being anchored at that moon.
This would solve the major problem of the POS wiping out fleets while they load the grid, while not forcing any major changes in.
4) Didn't Jade say that he wasn't going to bring any 0.0 ideas forward because he "can't get consensus and wah wah wah I want to be relevant in 0.0 warfare"?
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: RDevz 1) I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. While the comedy 25 hardener POS needs to go, small gangs shouldn't be able to take space quickly.
Small gangs wouldn't be able to take space unless the owner of the POS fell asleep or forgot about it, or was too busy doing other things, either way, I didnt touch stront timers in the proposal. You get the mails, you show up and whoever is more strategically placed wins the day. And there are very rarely any times when the defender actually shows up to defend the POS when its being attacked initially. 90% of the fights occur when the tower is coming out of reinforced. Thats when its most important for organization.
The purpose of lowering HP on all POS/Anchorables/Station Services is to allow small gangs to initiate the combat. To be able to dictate where combat for SOV or installation disruption can occur. This isn't allowing a small gang to dictate the outcome, thats up for both parties to deciede by putting critical combat assets when the towers come out of reinforce.
Originally by: RDevz
3) Surely a simpler solution to the cyno jammer would be to either:
- bump the system sovereignty requirement to 4, so only true "Region Capitals" get protection, with a valid route to taking the system available (take out outpost systems that are unjammed, killing off sov 4 in the capital, disabling the jammer);
Some good ideas on the cyno jammer but its simply easier to move it away from the tower all together, if the POS is there the shields are still on the defender side, reducing lag on grid to just ships is the goal, and thats why moving the jammer is the best option. Also keeping things simple for testing purposes almost makes moving the cyno jammer so blatantly obvious it goes without argument.
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 23:47:00 -
[15]
For 1) would you leave dread damage alone?
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 02:28:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Pnuka For 1) would you leave dread damage alone?
i think some sort of scaling can be done for the tower after reinforced. my main point is to look at the strategic initiation and targeting utilizing small gangs as apposed to the destruction of the towers,
|
RDevz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 07:55:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Originally by: RDevz 1) I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. While the comedy 25 hardener POS needs to go, small gangs shouldn't be able to take space quickly.
Small gangs wouldn't be able to take space unless the owner of the POS fell asleep or forgot about it, or was too busy doing other things, either way, I didnt touch stront timers in the proposal. You get the mails, you show up and whoever is more strategically placed wins the day. And there are very rarely any times when the defender actually shows up to defend the POS when its being attacked initially. 90% of the fights occur when the tower is coming out of reinforced. Thats when its most important for organization.
The purpose of lowering HP on all POS/Anchorables/Station Services is to allow small gangs to initiate the combat. To be able to dictate where combat for SOV or installation disruption can occur. This isn't allowing a small gang to dictate the outcome, thats up for both parties to deciede by putting critical combat assets when the towers come out of reinforce.
The trouble is that 25 people really shouldn't be threatening a SPACE EMPIRE in the first place - the taking of space shouldn't be easy. It shouln't be quick for a small gang, and it shouldn't allow a bunch of nanoHACs to run around and have a chance of actually mattering in the grand scheme of things. If you're willing to commit a large number of BSes or dreads to the line, then you should be able to do some damage. If not, then you should be harassing, but not on a level where you can do damage to the infrastructure.
Quote: Some good ideas on the cyno jammer but its simply easier to move it away from the tower all together, if the POS is there the shields are still on the defender side, reducing lag on grid to just ships is the goal, and thats why moving the jammer is the best option. Also keeping things simple for testing purposes almost makes moving the cyno jammer so blatantly obvious it goes without argument.
You really shouldn't tailor nerfs to reducing lag. You're gonna have to end up fighting at a POS at some point - it's unavoidable. By bumping the sov requirements, you avoid the need for a jammer takedown at all - simply conquer and hold one or more of the outpost systems in the constellation for a week, and the jammer becomes just another offline object in space.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 14:57:00 -
[18]
Originally by: RDevz The trouble is that 25 people really shouldn't be threatening a SPACE EMPIRE in the first place - the taking of space shouldn't be easy. It shouln't be quick for a small gang, and it shouldn't allow a bunch of nanoHACs to run around and have a chance of actually mattering in the grand scheme of things. If you're willing to commit a large number of BSes or dreads to the line, then you should be able to do some damage. If not, then you should be harassing, but not on a level where you can do damage to the infrastructure.
This is why we need territory control to be based on layers. Dreads and BS fleets would be needed to dig deep and root out heavy infrastructure like POS. But part of what it means to control territory should also be based on light infrastructure that smaller groups are meant to attack, and that changes hands more fluidly.
The current system is entirely binary - you are either fielding Dread fleets and sieging POS to impact Sovereignty or you aren't impacting it at all. What Sovereignty needs is a more gradual progression from minor impact all the way up to the big impact of Dreads taking out POS, and the level of Defender benefit a territory holder has should be based on how well they are defending their territory, from the minor impact stuff all the way up to POS warfare.
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 16:07:00 -
[19]
Edited by: The Economist on 09/08/2008 16:08:45 Some pretty terrible ideas and premises there.
Especially that you're basing proposed changes around server performance......by that logic it would make sense to introduce a system cap of 100 people. Which would of course be ridiculed.
CSM: This so called council got elected by 5.7% of the player base! (12678 votes)
Who the hell are they going to represent??? |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 16:29:00 -
[20]
Technological limitations can and should be considered when devising a game mechanic. The Economist is just wrong.
|
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 16:31:00 -
[21]
Edited by: The Economist on 09/08/2008 16:32:55 Then I propose a system cap of 100, sharding of the server and the removal of drones.
CSM: This so called council got elected by 5.7% of the player base! (12678 votes)
Who the hell are they going to represent??? |
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 16:34:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kelsin Technological limitations can and should be considered when devising a game mechanic.
Disagree completely. Realism and believability withing the context of the EVE universe should be much more important. Letting game design be dictated by technical limitations leads to artificial game mechanics.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 16:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Kelsin Technological limitations can and should be considered when devising a game mechanic.
Disagree completely. Realism and believability withing the context of the EVE universe should be much more important. Letting game design be dictated by technical limitations leads to artificial game mechanics.
The reinforcement timer is an artificial game mechanic, and far more unbelievable within the context ot the EVE universe than anything in the OP.
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 16:58:00 -
[24]
Originally by: RDevz
The trouble is that 25 people really shouldn't be threatening a SPACE EMPIRE in the first place
First I am glad you identified a reasonable number. Second, thats your opinion, and again, threatening isn't the right word as I keep saying. Affecting and taking part is the concept. You are only threatening the space when the defender fails to show up, or is too busy, or can't actually maintain the space.
Originally by: RDevz
- the taking of space shouldn't be easy.
Neither should the defending of space be easy and you shouldnt expect lag/tedium to be on the defenders side.
Originally by: RDevz
It shouln't be quick for a small gang, and it shouldn't allow a bunch of nanoHACs to run around and have a chance of actually mattering in the grand scheme of things. If you're willing to commit a large number of BSes or dreads to the line, then you should be able to do some damage. If not, then you should be harassing, but not on a level where you can do damage to the infrastructure.
I thought some of your collegues were suggestion that roaming gangs already have a part in the grand scheme of things. And if you are incaping and disrupting station services and moon/research/industrial operations by reinforcing towers, you harrassing, not destroying or damaging anything. If they are such small gangs, then they really shouldn't be a problem, then would they?
Originally by: RDevz
You really shouldn't tailor nerfs to reducing lag. You're gonna have to end up fighting at a POS at some point - it's unavoidable.
I am sorry but that statement is inexcusable and totally ridiculous. Everything should be done to maximize gameplay and to ensure the integrety of the game for all players and not allow game mechanics that favor a few to dictate the quality of the EVE cluster for everyone else. Current SOV mechanics are in direct conflict with the ability of the cluster to handle the demands of players which are just following the rules given. This isn't a nerf, this is an adjustment to let people actually play the game in more conditions than are currently availible.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 20:21:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 09/08/2008 20:24:06 Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 09/08/2008 20:21:52
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Kelsin Technological limitations can and should be considered when devising a game mechanic.
Disagree completely. Realism and believability withing the context of the EVE universe should be much more important. Letting game design be dictated by technical limitations leads to artificial game mechanics.
The reinforcement timer is an artificial game mechanic, and far more unbelievable within the context ot the EVE universe than anything in the OP.
True, but a bad analogy. This was implemented due to a real-world limitation, not a technical one. Also, strontium does exist in the Eve universe.
This doesn't mean I think reinforcing is the best way to conquer the time-zone difference, rather I'm simply saying it is an acceptable compromise until a better system is found. (Define better:) I would only support a new mechanic if it moved further away from artificial on the in-game realism scale, which I have not seen in any propoasal that is based upon server, processing, or bandwidth limitations.
In that category, this proposal is pretty good. Part 3 though - for what in-game reason must a cyno jammer be located so far from the POS?
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 02:58:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Kelsin Technological limitations can and should be considered when devising a game mechanic.
Disagree completely. Realism and believability withing the context of the EVE universe should be much more important. Letting game design be dictated by technical limitations leads to artificial game mechanics.
First off, your position is ridiculous. Realism? How can the word "real" or any derivative exist in an internet space ship game? Second, do you have to go back to the very beginning of computer games and look at every game box and read what it says, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, comes to my mind; I do believe for the last 30 years, game developers find system requirements to have a profound impact on the development of software where its ubiquitous throughout all aspects of game making. Now I didnt graduate from Digipen, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out your statement defies all logic.
While minimum system requirements are advised for the client machine, so to should the limitations on game mechanics, which are tools by which players interact with the EVE cliente and cluster. It is impossible to find poasts on CAOD on the first forum page that deal with fights where Lag is not mentioned, where CCP=Lag and all other derogatory references to poor server performance is not mentioned. IMPOSSIBLE.
The goals of the proposal are to hit 3 points.
1. Simplified changes to encourage small gang activity within the current system of SOV in 0.0 2. Mitagate game play which leads to mundane tasks, less refueling of towers, less time shooting stationary objects 3. Investigate the impact of those changes on the effectiveness of loading grids with massive numbers of players and decrease the importance of lag as an active participate for the defender
More intuitive outcomes of the proposed changes, are what most major blob fest, nap alliances would fear by reducing the impact of isolated SOV/System contests. Huge implications to how alliances govern there space are clearly evident. If at anyone moment, installations can be attacked with real consequences, calling upon action, Alliances may wish to stay home to protect those assets leading directly to the end of huge nap mega blocks as corporations and alliances of all sizes can engage assets on a more balanced playing field. These are the ultimate goals. To encourage, self sufficiency and serious and deliberate politics, not "phone a friend alliance politics" which is currently in EVE.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 03:08:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires True, but a bad analogy. This was implemented due to a real-world limitation, not a technical one. Also, strontium does exist in the Eve universe.
If distributed objectives were programmed into the game the way strontium was, they too would exist in the Eve universe. It's all contrived to the point that contrivance carries little meaning if it's in the interest of good game design.
Quote: In that category, this proposal is pretty good. Part 3 though - for what in-game reason must a cyno jammer be located so far from the POS?
The jamming interferes with life support systems on the Station. Voila!
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 03:29:00 -
[28]
Basically my point is that game mechanics designed around meta-game problems is less than desirable, personally. It works, yes. But it feels more like artificial restrictions than an organic, emergent system.
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 03:40:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Basically my point is that game mechanics designed around meta-game problems is less than desirable, personally. It works, yes. But it feels more like artificial restrictions than an organic, emergent system.
we are talking Hit Points, they were given too many, imo, and they should be reduced. The whole point of station services and anchorables outside the POS was to give small gangs the oppertunity. CCP just gave them too much... I understand what you mean about restrictions, like you can't carry full haulers in a carrier, only charges and scripts, but reducing HP is nothing like that
|
Dapanman1
Amarr Beets and Gravy Syndicate The InterBus Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 03:49:00 -
[30]
Move moon miners outside shields and decrease their HP; Boom, something for my small gang to shoot when the residents dock/pos up. Anoying for the defenders that chose not to defend, but doesn't cripple their infrastructure, it is a small roaming gang afterall.
Agreeing with tarminic on #1 as well, big battles should be forced eventually.
Jammer away from poses is a nice idea, perhaps only at planets (planets without stations even?). Those shiny pos modules and shit make the grid load a *****. Sig removed for inappropriate content.~~~Applebabe |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |