| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
   |
Posted - 2009.07.02 21:44:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 02/07/2009 21:44:35
The following is a more complex, but I feel more natural, Sovereignty mechanic so please stick with me through this.
Goals:
Alliance ôsprawlö is curbed: No holding territory/assets on the other side of the galaxy.
Alliances must live in, and defend their own territory.
Territory expansion and control is more realistic.
Fights, of all sizes are encouraged.
Newer alliances have a better chance to gain a foothold in 0.0
A quick overview:
Sovereignty will be determined by planetary colonies. The growth and influence of these colonies will be determined by how well their governing alliance takes care of them.
POSs will have no effect on sov but will become logistic and strategic platforms instead.
Outposts will act as small colonies or seed colonies for the planets they orbit.
Under this mechanic, the only true sovereign systems would be those with colonies. Those colonies radiate an ôarea influenceö that encompasses nearby systems with the size of that area being relative to the size of the colony and its distance from the alliance capital.
I feel this Sov mechanic would work best in an expanded Eve Galaxy with far more 0.0 systems than we currently have but it would still be an improvement even without more space.
It works like this.
Colonies and Area of Influence:
At the implementation of this mechanic, every existing outpost begins to function as a small colony. The alliances in possession of these outposts will be required to declare one of them as their capital.
Each outpost/colony radiates an ôArea of Influence.ö The AoE is the area within which the colony can provide materials and labor that will allow the alliance to run deployable logistics platforms. Currently, we only have POS structures û moon miners, factories, refineries, etcà that would be called DLPs. Hopefully there will be a greater variety in the future but that is for a different post.
The AoE weakens further from the colony affecting the performance of not just DLPs but POS towers as well. Out in the sticks, workers slack off, build time increases, mining output decreases and even tower CPU/Grid is hurt. In and near the colony system, things go much smoother with bonuses to output possible.
The AoE each colony generates depends on the size of the colony and the colonyÆs distance from the capital; too far away and the colony will revolt and have no AoE at all. This captial AoE that controls the span of the entire nation is determined not only by the population of the capital but of the alliance nation as a whole. This AoE will max out before it reaches more than 1/4 across the current eve galaxy but not before the alliance can get uncomfortably close to its neighbors. That brings us to the next topic.
Expanding colonies:
Finding a home:
Much like an individual, a colonyÆs primary needs are security and sustenance. If the governing alliance can keep a colony safe and give it a place to grow, it will do just that.
Finding a spot of the colony is the easiest thing but not entirely simple. Some planets and systems are much better suited to colonization than others. The jewel every alliance looks for will be a planet just inside that not too hot û not too cold distance from the star; perfect for terraforming. The best planets could be as hotly contested as high end moons are now.
In addition, colonists need materials so the more belts and other resources in the system û the better. The colonists do not like having another allianceÆs deployables near their territory. Even if it is a friendly POS, if it is mining, they will gripe about resources.
cont...
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 21:50:00 -
[2]
Keeping it safe:
Security is more difficult. The more faith NPCs have in the allianceÆs ability to protect them, the faster they settle in your colonies. Conversely, if they loose faith in their alliance overlords they may pack up and go back to empire. This mechanic must be able to judge an allianceÆs ability to defend its borders and be as difficult to exploit as possible. Friendly, as well as unfriendly, NPC activity seems to be the best answer.
The first factor colonists consider is alliance military activity (ratting and plexing) in and around their system. Colonists just feel safer with a bunch of friendly warships roaming about doing bad things to any pirates that dare enter their space.
Protecting friendly NPC ships is just as important as killing hostiles. One alliance can harm another just by raiding colony systems and killing all the NPC ships (barges, haulers, etc) they find. The longer they stay uncontested in the system, the more they erode the colonistsÆ confidence. The defending alliance can, however, redeem itself by killing the invaders.
If other players donÆt threaten a colony enough, special NPC pirates will step up to the plate. These NPCs are the special forces of whatever pirate faction roams that area of space and behave more like sleepers than belt rats. They are emboldened to attack by a lack of activity around a colony and if they are not driven away quickly, they will step up their attack. These NPCs will drop capitals, siege colonies and enslave colonists if not stopped. Needless to say, confidence in the governing alliance will fall sharply if that happens. Quick responses will keep colonies growing.
Short absences from a colony system may not lead to an NPC attack, especially if an alliance has a capital fleet sieging one of a neighboring allianceÆs systems. Still, if that fleet is moved to far away, the NPCs will come out to play.
Pets: A friendly alliance can come in and save a neighborÆs colony system from assault by NPCs or another alliance but that will do nothing for the colonistsÆ confidence; they want to see that their governors have the ability to protect their own space.
Getting underway:
With all that out of the way; to expand a colony, there must first be an outpost in place. From there, the alliance can build an orbital elevator from the outpost to the surface. Doing so will allow terraforming stations to be constructed or colony construction to begin if terraforming is not needed.
The colonists will build homes and work centers on their own but the alliance can build government buildings and schools to increase the colonyÆs output. Government buildings with properly skilled player characters in charge of them can increase the AoE a colony generates. Schools, also with players in charge, will increase the number of skilled and expert workers in the colony û more on that later.
Each alliance must designate a capital colony. Not only are capitals special in that they become the center of their allianceÆs territory they also grow faster than other colonies. This growth bonus makes it easier for newer alliances to gain a foothold in 0.0 Large alliances could split up to get more capitals but each part would still have to defend its own space.
I can see more complexities coming into play but nothing that needs to be addressed yet.
Benefits of bigger colonies:
The first and most obvious benefit is a larger AoE around a colony. A larger AoE means more moons in range and more systems where POSs can be set up for building, researching and refining. In addition, the total population of an alliance nation increases the capitalÆs special AoE, allowing colonies to be effective further from the capital. Finally, The number of skilled and expert laborers in the colony gives a bonus to the number of build and research slots in the outpost attached to that colony.
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 21:52:00 -
[3]
Caveats:
Before setting up a colony in its best ratting/mining system, an alliance should take into consideration that the colonists need resources too. The number of NPC barges and haulers roaming around a colony system will be evidence of this.
Mid sized colonies will raise the sec status of the system they are in. That means fewer rats and poor ore. Maxed out colonies will also raise the sec in the nearest system. A maxed capital will raise sec in the nearest three systems. (most capitals will not be maxed out)
Btw: The colonists can take care of the weaker belt rats themselves but will still need help with the special ones.
Conquest and Defense:
With POSs no longer having an influence on Sov, all that is left is to shoot the outpost. The catch is that outposts are now fully armed and operational battle stations that can have guns and other nasty stuff anchored around them just like a POS.
An outpost with no planet side colony has the equivalent power of a faction POS but once a colony begins to grow on the other end of an orbital elevator, it feeds more power to the outpost. A mid sized colony gives an outpost the firepower of three faction POSs and a maxed colony outpost can begin to fit super weapons (One shot a BS). A maxed out (or close) capital can deploy orbital guns that can hit anything in the system. No cyno jammer required in that system.
The only way to assault the larger colonies is indirectly. Kill NPCs in space, destroy logistics, deploy towers and erode the colony. Similarly, most capitals will be unassailable until the other colonies are dealt with.
Once the outposts defenses are down to something a bunch of dreads can handle, it is shot just like it has always been done, only taking the outpost isnÆt the end of it. Even with the primary government office (the outpost) taken, colonists, especially happy colonists, will hold out for some time before they will recognize their new overlords. I can see this lasting anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks for a capital.
Even if the invaders are driven off, loosing control of the outpost erodes colony confidence in their alliance and many of them will head for empire as long as the colony is in enemy hands. The outpost will be that much easier to take next time.
If invaders just want to hurt the enemy alliance, they can target the colony itself and rain fire upon the colonists. The drawback is that the colonists will now hate the attacking alliance and capturing the colony in tact will be next to impossible should they decide to try.
Misc:
Building and refining in a POS will be faster than in an outpost.
The POS interface will be like that of an outpost.
A one time move for alliances with outposts on bad planets?
Should Alliances choose a separate name for their nation?
Colonists have bunkers so even a long siege wonÆt kill them all.
Colonists will send mails about pirate attacks and suspected pirate bunkers.
Colonists can give missions?
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Joe Starbreaker
Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 23:30:00 -
[4]
First thought: Seems like a lot of game content for only twenty or thirty people in EVE to be able to have access to.
Second thought: Where's the profit for the alliance in building colonies? Is it just the ability to set up cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc?
- / buy my alt / - |
Rhohan
Minmatar
Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 23:37:00 -
[5]
I like much of what you said, but...
Some questions:
Will the AOI of other Alliances affect the range or your AOI? Kind of like Rise of Nations? (the sov map has someting like this as well)
Will an Alliance that suddenly grows in power right next to one of your colonies, cause you colony to seriously degrade?
Will all the Stars need a Goldielocks Zone rating? Such as 5-14 AU (which would be a very bright star)
Will there be variable stars, with varible Goldielocks Zones?
Will this just cause some Alliances to break up into smaller pieces? to get more Capitals for their numbers? Is that really bad?
Shouldn't the size of the Alliance, as well as their activity affect their colonies and AOI?
-Rho
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 23:40:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tommy Blue on 02/07/2009 23:40:29
 Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
First thought: Seems like a lot of game content for only twenty or thirty people in EVE to be able to have access to.
Second thought: Where's the profit for the alliance in building colonies? Is it just the ability to set up cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc?
Everyone one living in 0.0 would benefit.
The profit comes from increased sov AoE, which results in profit/ more profit from moon moon mining at least. Don't know if the colonies will be producing isk/materials themselves.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 00:56:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 03/07/2009 00:58:40
Thanks for the responses so far.
Rhohan:
I see the AOI of one alliance indirectly affecting that of another. Both AOI's can overlap but colonists don't like having another alliance's installations near their space so a colony with, say, some non alliance POSs and daily mining ops nearby would grow slower or perhaps even shrink thereby affecting AOI.
So yes, An alliance growing in power right next to your colonies, putting down POSs.. etc and just being active near by could degrade a colony. Not as much as if they were to directly attack it or ships in its space though.
I suppose different stars would have different zones and would need ratings but I hadn't thought much about the terminology. Goldilocks works for me 
I can see alliances breaking up to get more capitals but given that this system forces alliances to be self sufficient to some degree I don't think that would be such a bad thing.
As for the size of the alliance.. Im not sure? Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Tommy: You answered Joe's question as well as I could 
I could see the colonies playing a role in material production or some other kind of industry I just felt such an addition could be addressed later.
Further ideas/ additions/ changes are welcome.
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 14:36:00 -
[8]
Surely there are more than three speed readers on these forums.
Colonies and Capitals |
Masuke
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 18:24:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Caveats:
A maxed colony outpost can begin to fit super weapons (One shot a BS)
A maxed out (or close) capital can deploy orbital guns that can hit anything in the system.
This seems a tad overpowered...
Perhaps have colony outposts that has "linked" turrets (all turrets fires on one target at a time), that can down BS-es in 2-3 salvos.
and perhaps a maxed out capital can deploy sentryguns to asteroid belts, and jumpgates etc, make them have a limited powersource so they are depleted after.. say 48 hours without refulling?
But systemwide hitting capability is a little too much.
"The problem is usually found between the screen and the chair" |
Kazuma Saruwatari
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 19:14:00 -
[10]
I'm sorry but...
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Outposts will act as small colonies or seed colonies for the planets they orbit.
That just sounds like a cop-out to shifting the fire from the POS to the Outpost instead. Even with OP weaponry to deal with BS-level podpilot targets, what decides how this'll affect how people deploy capitals to siege an alliance? All they have to do is basically tank the OP-ed outpost (unless its SO OP that it oneshots capitals, then you'll just get massive whinage) and blast it apart, causing the colonies to pack up and leave en-masse.
You also did not account for the server load of NPC generation in 0.0. Most of what you're suggesting requires more work from TQ to generate the targettable NPC's of the alliance taking care of the space to be protected from rats and actual enemy podpilots.
Coupled with this, how do these NPC's call for help when no one's on? It doesnt help when on off-peak another alliance can field numbers to attack these NPC's in 50man groups when the tending alliance only has 20-30 members on. You forget that not everyone plays in the same timezone as you on EVE. This just sounds like a massive nerf to the defending alliance, who MUST have the numbers to protect their slice of 0.0 from small 5-10man groups to 50-100man ganktrains. Whilst this will be a true test for larger alliances, smaller ones will just fade back into empire, unable to keep up the guard duty.
You also did not specify even rough mechanics for colonies on planets. Considering EVE, you could technically have colonies on all the planets in a system regardless of terraform viability. Ever heard of dome/underground cities? Another copout would just be looking for a system with the most amount of planets and roid belts to support them and sacrificing the sec status in that for sov.
Colony management sounds like more skills and thus SP sinkage. More alts?
just my 0.02isk. Sorry for being rough, but considering how Sov works ingame (and how bloody broken/boring it can be), if someone is going to suggest a better sov system, I'd rather they have a bloody good idea and cover all the bases so as not to get shot down.
-
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 23:24:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 04/07/2009 23:26:48
Thanks again for responding.
The idea by behind the super weapons is that they are overpowered and so attacking a colony becomes a matter of depleting surrounding resources until it can no longer support such defenses.
This is a partial answer to Kazuma's first issue as well. A healthy colony would indeed down dreads fast enough to discourage a direct assault.
The idea here is to replace a week of spamming towers and sieging dreads with a few weeks of smaller fleet fights and eroding resources until the caps are called in for the final assault.
Colony NPCs would increase server load but how much strain would a 6-7 active haulers/barges in each colony system really add?
Attacks during off peak hours would happen just as you say. Fortunately, every alliance has an off peak and such attacks would just be a part of the system.
The part about 100 man fleets is especially good. What may be called for is a system to take attacking numbers into account. How much shame can there be in hiding from that ganktrain after all?
I left planetary mechanics for later posts. I see no problem with multiple colonies and dome/underground cities are good ideas.
I left things a bit rough around the edges partly because I felt I was already pushing things posting as much as I did. My other reason is that I feel such an idea should be a product of the Eve community as a whole. I presented a framework that I hope can be further refined with ideas from others (Rohan for example) and tested under fire from posters like Masuke and Kazuma.
After all, we have to come up with something before CCP goes ahead with this gate madness they are speaking of.
Colonies and Capitals |
Space Divider
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 13:16:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
After all, we have to come up with something before CCP goes ahead with this gate madness they are speaking of.
This. I might be bit unfair towards CCP but I have very little faith that their gate madness will work. (So please CCP, let us players know about your specific plans before you actually start coding them)
I would like to see more strategical approach to alliance warfare and territory holding and your idea certainly has a good direction. One issue is the blobs we are seeing in todays EVE and no doubt they are getting even bigger and heavier. 100 Dreads hammering posses is no longer a major event and whatever the new system will be I hope it takes the ever growing capital ship heavy blobs into consideration.
|
Nikita Alterana
Gallente
Clearly Compensating
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 15:39:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Nikita Alterana on 05/07/2009 15:41:06
i like this idea, a lot, and would definitely prefer it to the gate junk their trying.
EDIT: someone link this in that sov mechanic post
__________________________________________________
I was Amarr before they were the FOTM and I'll be Amarr after it!
I'm also training Minmatar Capitals!
And I eat Lions! |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 15:51:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
After all, we have to come up with something before CCP goes ahead with this gate madness they are speaking of.
Can you give some details on what CCP are intending to go with? Was this in EON magazine?
|
Psihius
Caldari
Russian Falcons
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 15:58:00 -
[15]
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=16#476
&
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=19#542
Read them thought
|
Cailais
Amarr
Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 22:18:00 -
[16]
I strongly support this proposal. The concept of nurturing and to an extent protecting your colonies makes very good sense = the NPC colony is what gives your 'sovereignty' legitimacy.
Harming these npc colonies, through a variety of degrees (destruction of npc shipping, habitats and infrastructure) gives a scale of smaller objectives - reducing the need for massed blob warfare and enabling a 'death by a thousand cuts' approach.
This concept is by a far margin much better than the awful 'gate system' CCP have proposed.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente
Mercurialis Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 02:53:00 -
[17]
TBH this sounds like the AOI from civilizations 3, works well in that game, but Im not sure how well it would work in eve. Would be a lot more interesting though.
Support the DEAD HORSE POS's |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 21:06:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Space Divider
I would like to see more strategical approach to alliance warfare and territory holding and your idea certainly has a good direction. One issue is the blobs we are seeing in todays EVE and no doubt they are getting even bigger and heavier. 100 Dreads hammering posses is no longer a major event and whatever the new system will be I hope it takes the ever growing capital ship heavy blobs into consideration.
Exactly; to a fleet with more than 30 dreads, a POS isn't an exciting battle, it is 10 minutes of boredom until your siege runs out and you move to the next POS.
In attacking a colony, tactical decisions are possible. An alliance can decide if they want to attack a not completely diminished colony and risk loosing dreads or play it safe and keep whittling away. Even mostly powered down, I see it being one exciting and risky fight to replace dozens of boring sieges.
Syberbolt8: I played many hours of Civ I see the Colony AoI being similar with a few notable differences, one being that AoIs can overlap ensuring many fun resource conflicts.
Colonies and Capitals |
Bluestreak2k5
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 21:27:00 -
[19]
I like most things that you said, however I don't like the idea of reaching a max colony.
My suggestion:
No max colony, the longer you hold that capital the larger and larger it becomes, million to billions of citizens. therefore there would be no max super weapons either. However for every X amount of people your colony on the planet had you could deploy an additional defense weapon.
Or you could have the population affect the CPU and powergrid of the outpost. Say like every 10 citizens means 1 more powergrid point. This would make defending and taking capitals much much harder for those alliances that manage to hold them.
Not sure I agree too much with NPC colony miners, but I could definately see a certain amount of isk being generated for each citizen that goes to the corp who owns the outpost.
Also you would have to change the way the POS fuel required goes down according to population. Make it a logarithmic formula, like your ship resistences. Instead of when you reach max capital size.
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 21:46:00 -
[20]
I personally think you have some good ideas, why don't you air it in the Assembly Hall?
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 21:53:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Trent Nichols
After all, we have to come up with something before CCP goes ahead with this gate madness they are speaking of.
Can you give some details on what CCP are intending to go with? Was this in EON magazine?
Ditto, whats this gate madness you speak of?
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 23:35:00 -
[22]
This "gate madness" is explained right here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=19#542
Roughly its about holding X amount of gates which force people to spread out.
|
Nikita Alterana
Gallente
Clearly Compensating
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 07:21:00 -
[23]
posting to bump this cause I find it dumb that ccp is missing this topic but replied to the TITAN R BAD topic # 1468.
__________________________________________________
I was Amarr before they were the FOTM and I'll be Amarr after it!
I'm also training Minmatar Capitals!
And I eat Lions! |
Centurion Vorenus
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 15:39:00 -
[24]
I Think you've really got something with this and i hope ccp takes notice. Also, i like the idea of being able to anchor guns at your station. I never understood why a pos out in the middle of nowhere could be bristling with guns but the giant station in the middle of the solar system was completely undefended. I'd also like to see 0.0 alliance controlled gate guns. Even if its only into and out of your capital static defenses could turn the tide of a battle.
|
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:09:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Tom Peeping on 07/07/2009 16:10:50
it seems as. though this would seriously nerf alliances ability to have diplomatic relations, and that it would prevent "coalitions" of alliances from residing in the same territory. The reason being that there would be "blue" POS's doing moon mining, being safe jump points, etc... You've mentioned that even blue pos's belonging to other groups would cause the colony not to develop as well.
Doesn't this make it so that a coalition of smaller alliances can no longer face the big alliances on equal terms?
Edit... also, it's an interesting idea, but it seems like it might involve a lot of calculations/database information for each colony in game. Won't that hurt game performance in all other areas?
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 23:00:00 -
[26]
My thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I'm getting some good ideas and critiques from what I'm reading so I may end up with a new draft soon - perhaps to post in Assembly Hall.
Bluestreak:
You are the second person who has a problem with maxed colonies so it may be time to change that bit. I suppose a colony would eventually reach a natural maximum if it is just left up to alliance activity and available resources. I'm thinking Ill replace "Maxed out" with "Well established" Anyone else want to weigh in on this?
I see the NPCs as mining/hauling etc for the colony to support its growth though there could be benefits for the alliance as well.
Suggestions for outpost CPU/powergrid and POS fuels sound good to me.
Tom:
This mechanic, by design, would make peaceful relations with neighboring alliances more difficult. Were it to be implemented I wouldn't consider it a complete success until most of 0.0 was on fire.
I see your point regarding coalitions of smaller alliances though. One thing to remember is that alliances get a boost when building up their first colony since capitals build faster. Still, a way to form official coalitions may be needed - only one capital per coalition though.
Calculations would be needed as events happen that affect the colonies but I don't see a need for them to happen any more than once an hour if that.
Colonies and Capitals |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:48:00 -
[27]
Giving this a bump. I would really like to see it go far enough to grab Dev attention.
Colonies and Capitals |
Sturdy Girl
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 20:04:00 -
[28]
I like most of these ideas a lot... but I think they could be improved, and involve more pilots if done slightly differently:
I think that the 'revolt' mechanic and roaming rat npcs should be one single mechanic for simplicity, but with different factions (rat scumbags, and local revolutionaries).
The revolutionaries can either be quashed by simple good governance (so they shut up), or by crushing them mercilessly (they fear you too much). Whereas the rats can also be crushed mercilessly, or can be kept 'on side' by horribly corrupt governance... this could potentially allow for an 'effective' dynamic concord rating maybe.
I think that alliances should only be allowed to build military and infrastructural developments to their colonies... the resources of the planets should be available to the open market, through the influx of NPC corporations... with taxes set by the alliance (although, for prosperity those taxes need to be low, and the market kept as open as possible).
I also think that every colony should have a governor and open ministerial positions, which can either be thrown open to election from the populace (with the risk of being ousted by NPCs or other pilots, but with the possibility of MUCH more productivity) or merely assigned by the executors of the alliance.
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 14:46:00 -
[29]
Bump for an awsome idea
|
Destruction Theory
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 15:06:00 -
[30]
/signed... utterly and completely dead on.. the current mechanic is just appalling. and the gatemadness ccp suggested is pathetic. THE ONLY THING i'm worried about, is again, the extra load it will put on tranquility. but hey ccp get enough money out of us a month, they're payed to make us happy so why don't they just increase tqs power
|
Hrodgar Ortal
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 15:43:00 -
[31]
Some very nice ideas in general.
However a few issues.
Increasing sec of systems that reduce the ore? Doesn't seem like a good system, firstly since sec rating in itself doesn't seem to be the determinant in what ores are in a system.
So in essence what you would do is make a "nation" that can't support it's players as both rats and industry would diminish.
The other issue is that it seems to build on npc's more than players.
Developing space (living there) should be the main determinant in holding sov but the development should imo be more connected to the players rather than a esoteric npc colony.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 20:37:00 -
[32]
Sturdy: Improving the idea is one reason I want to get as many suggestions (like yours) and/or opinions as I can. The other reason is to have this in front of CCP's face as long as possible
Crushing revolutionaries and bribing pirates is an interesting idea. Perhaps doing so could come at the cost of lower colony output/ more vulnerability to attack.
I haven't dealt with governance in depth because it is a complex mechanic in itself. Were this idea to be implemented, I could see such things done in stages. Good ideas nonetheless.
Tommy:Thanks
Destruction: My thoughts exactly regarding the load on tranq. In addition, the load wouldnt be dynamic like fleet movement and battles, it would be constant from day to day.
Also, If it works as designed, this mechanic should split up the current Eve mega wars into smaller conflicts, thereby leading to small conflicts and less laggy blobfests.
Hrodgar:
The increase in sec would only be within a system containing a large colony. The purpose is to prevent macro ratters and micro miners from taking advantage of a colony's defenses.
Still, I wonder How much difference a few macroers would make in systems that would likely be heavily mined/ratted as is. Comments anyone?
If I understand what you are saying about supporting players; A colony's AoI supports player installations like moon mining and POSs to base out of for ratting and mining. A large colony also results in greater outpost build/research capacity.
The NPCs in colony space would be there to add immersion to the game and to test the alliance's ability to defend them from enemy NPCs and players.
Colonies and Capitals |
Cailais
Amarr
Diablo Advocatus
Diablo Advocatus.
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 23:27:00 -
[33]
Something I'd just like to add to this.
I think the idea at its core is good - however I dont think it has to be tied directly to Outpost ownership.
Rather think of star systems as having an NPC 'population' - this is represented by planet colonies, mining outposts, research outposts and so forth (and associated npc ship traffic).
The aim of a sov seeking corp would be to 'win over' the support of this NPC population through the destruction of NPC Pirates, protection of 'blue' NPC shipping and infrastructure, and provision of materials to NPCs (ores, gases, goods etc etc).
This allows for a scale sov - the greater the degree of support the wider the AoI from each element. For example an Alliance's Industrial pilots could literally 'dig for victory!' by providing specialist minerals to NPC micro-stations or similar: in other ways there are multiple routes to achieving sov.
If we add in Agents to this mix it might be possible to gain sov through completing mission tasks, or erode sov by completing mission tasks for 'anti-agents' who work to destabilise a system.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Xianthar
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 00:27:00 -
[34]
heres the thing...anything that does not address the value of high end moons won't change the current problems. Everyone talks about holding stations / outposts but the truth is that most of them are held because it makes protecting high end moons easier/possible logistically. The areas with crap moons tend to have mush higher turn over in ownership because they simple aren't very valuable and thus are not able to fund a substantial defense.
you could implement it such that a POS had to be within a certain distance in LY from a outpost/station and base sovereignty on some sort of presence in the station system such as you have outlined. This would force alliance to not only expand in terms of stations but actually live in those station systems. However, implementing anything of this sort would have a disastrous effect on the T2 market in the short term.
The first step in solving the sov issues has to focus on high end moons first while balancing the effect on the T2 market. Afterwards there needs to be some sort of new incentive to hold stations such as some of the AOI points you've made.
More directly to you ideas: I'd prefer to keep NPC crap out of 0.0, the allure is that its nearly entirely player driven :)
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 01:20:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Xianthar
you could implement it such that a POS had to be within a certain distance in LY from a outpost/station and base sovereignty on some sort of presence in the station system such as you have outlined. This would force alliance to not only expand in terms of stations but actually live in those station systems. However, implementing anything of this sort would have a disastrous effect on the T2 market in the short term.
Thats what the AoI does.
Lets say your alliance owns one outpost w/ colony in system X. Your alliance is doing alright, but that dysprosium moon 6 jumps away would make your alliance operations go a lot smoother. Problem is, your AoI from your colony/outpost isn't large enough to make mining that dysprosium worthwhile due to absurd pos fuel costs and/or decreased moon minerals per hour. For the time being, you'll have to do missions/help NPCs/defend against hostiles and pirate rats/ build more outposts to increase your AoI so that mining that dysprosium makes you a profit.
This keeps alliances from holding vast amounts of valuable moons (unless of course they are sitting on large amounts of them), because they will only be profitable within your limited AoI.
One way to ease the "its not fair that they have 50 r64s in delve while we have 0 in immensea" would be to spread out all moon minerals evenly across eve once, OR make it so moons deplete and respawn somewhere else in eve or somewhere else in the same region.
|
Xianthar
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 01:31:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Tommy Blue
stuff
great in theory, but as i said the transition would destroy the T2 market...
fine with me and i'll just buy out all the dyspo i can a week before the patch and sell it off for 10x a few weeks later. chances are good this will happen to some extent anyway, but requiring proximity to an outpost will be a economic disaster.
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 01:36:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Xianthar
chances are good this will happen to some extent anyway, but requiring proximity to an outpost will be a economic disaster.
Your right, this WILL have to happen one time or another, otherwise all sov warfare is basically static, fighting over these points. Whoever controls more wins. This economic disaster will probably happen, but anything you do to fix moons will result in that. Trent's system provides the ability for multiple corporations and alliances to control smaller amounts of high end moons, instead of the system we have now which encourages fewer larger ones.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 01:56:00 -
[38]
Cailais: I think we are speaking of similar ways to accomplish the same thing.
Your idea assumes the NPCs are already there and there is nothing wrong with that. My idea assumes the they are not and the population must be built up.
I'm not entirely sure about NPC agents but I don't think implementing them or not would affect the mechanic much. If people want them, they should go in.
Everything else sounds just like what I am proposing if I am reading you right. It may come down to personal preference. I like the idea of building an empire from scratch so I presented it that way.
Xianthar:
The idea is as Tommy said, it would redistribute the high ends, not destroy them.
In the short term yes, the market would be chaos, and I'm certain you could find suckers for that 10x marked up dyspro, but soon the sov would sort itself out with new alliances holding the moons and the market would recover.
Moons, are indeed very broken under the current mechanic and I've seen some great ideas posted about how to fix them. However because there are good moon fixs posted but few sov fixs I decided to address sov and not moons.
As for the NPCs, This mechanic would still be entirely player driven. Colonists are NPCs but they are your NPCs. They survive or die based on what their governing alliance does.
Colonies and Capitals |
Artanis Creed
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 02:08:00 -
[39]
The following post maybe a bit unorganized at times:
Npc colonies would have to have some way of supporting themselves, so i understand npc mining ships.
They need a way to defend themselves so why not have a tactical response fleet? The better a colony the more the npcs could mine an the better the fleet's ships would be.
Every so often maybe you could upgrade the ships. Start with x amount of frigates and a cruiser. Higher level colonies could have capital ships. I would say no titans though, maybe one or two dreadnaughts an a few carriers/motherships.
I would venture to say that a set of skills would be created for this type of governing.
An interesting idea would be the ability to launch "expeditions". Mining and exploratory. Exploration expeditions would uncover wormholes an such in the system.
In order to limit them i would say maybe one expedition per 12 hours-1day. They would require funding from the corp. Mining operations would be vulnerable to rats an players, so guarding them would be required and that would tie into "taking care" of your colonies. If your ships get blown up there will be no replacements, thus less return from the operation. Also you would lose whatever ore the ships are carrying. Exploration operations would have a chance of bringing back stuff from hacking an archaeology sites.
ummm... maybe colonies would reduce the material cost an time required to make and research things.
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 18:27:00 -
[40]
Hey Trent, I think you should revise your original idea with suggestions in this thread and post it in the assembly hall soon before CCP decides to head in their direction regarding sov. The winter expansion deadline is approaching fast.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 23:44:00 -
[41]
Artanis:
Colony defense fleets would require some balancing but would certainly add depth and give roaming gangs more to shoot at.
Having the colonies launch expeditions would do so as well. I could see them finding a nest of trouble too beyond what they can handle, thus spawning a complex (distress beacon?) that any alliance member in the system can warp to.
Tommy:
I suppose its about time to do that. I was hoping for some more responses here but perhaps the next draft will fare better.
Still There are a couple items I would like to get some comments for, before I head to the Assembly Hall.
It occurred to me that a stront timer would not work for capturing a station but I had not outlined how this would work.
Slide bar capturing and the mechanic in action:
When an aggressing alliance shoots and captures the station the colony capture bar would appear.
It would look something like this:
CCP>>>______________^_________<EA
- - - - 3D:4H:12M - - - -
The aggressing alliance is on the left, defending on the right.
If the marker reaches the right, the attackers capture the colony, If it reaches the left, the defenders win.
The length of time is determined by the health/happiness of the colony at the time of its capture.
Upon capture of the station the marker begins to move to the right. It is not a stront timer however and the defenders can shoot and retake the station anytime to move the marker back to the left. Similarly, the attackers can take it again. This would motivate alliances to hold the station as far past or before their prime time as they can and would likely result in some good fights.
An alliance trying to take or hold a colony too far from its capital will move the bar at less than full speed.
An alliance trying to take a colony out of its capitalÆs range will not be able to move the bar at all. Therefore, it may hold the station but will not be able to effectively operate POS or any logistics installations. The colony will remain loyal to its alliance.
>>> indicates full speed.
To prevent shenanigans:
The capturing alliance must take the outpost alone. Another alliance can lock down the system but they must down the outpost and its guns alone or the colonists will not recognize the capture.
Following a capture, employment of all player characters involved is tracked for a time to prevent players from jumping in and out to take stations.
Colonies and Capitals |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 23:51:00 -
[42]
Another thing that occurred to me is that perhaps I should have lead off with an illustration of how this mechanic would work rather than going right to the nuts and bolts.
If this does a better job of gaining attention, I will use it as the lead in to the proposal when I post in AH.
Abel alliance has a little used colony system at the edge of its territory. Being on the edge of the capitalÆs area of influence, its own AoI is weak making the surrounding area less usable for the alliance. Often there are not enough pilots in system to counter the increasingly frequent attacks by special (elite?) NPCs.
The unhappy colony actually shrinks in size further reducing its AoI and AbelÆs ability to maintain POSs. The player population in the area drops further. At this point, the colony can support defenses no stronger than a large POS.
An upstart or perhaps displaced alliance scouts the outpost and decides to move in. They capture the outpost with ease and find that the colonists welcome them as liberators - The colony is theirs within 24 hours.
Abel has not lost anything of value to them so they are not in any hurry to try and take it back. For a while, there is peace.
With an active alliance in the area, the new capital grows rapidly. Soon it is putting pressure on some of AbelÆs other colonies, several of which are well within the new capitalÆs AoI.
Abel is now motivated to act or it risks loosing more colonies but the decision is not easy. Unlike when the near abandoned colony fell to a homeless alliance, they face an assault on a healthy capital system.
Scouts report an outpost sporting enough weaponry to down a sieged dread in seconds.
In addition, the timer they would get if they were to manage to capture the station would be long and they would have a slower slide bar speed than the defenders.
Their best option is to try and wear the colony down over time with roaming gangs but can they do it without neglecting the defense of their other colonies?
Colonies and Capitals |
TRD 2371
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 01:25:00 -
[43]
very nice ideas in general
ccp should hire you
|
Ferric Sevic
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 00:13:00 -
[44]
I love this idea, its a very dynamic and integrative approach to sov. It gives something for both large and small gangs to do, all the time, with clear and meaningful rewards for both the defenders and aggressors. That gate camping stuff is just POS warfare re-skinned, your still camping a static target until captured.
|
Yun Cap
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 10:04:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Artanis:
Colony defense fleets would require some balancing but would certainly add depth and give roaming gangs more to shoot at.
And could be a nice oportunity to use sleepers AI.
|
Artanis Creed
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 22:20:00 -
[46]
yay! my fleet ideas seem to be popular
|
Jazric
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 22:58:00 -
[47]
I have to say I think this is a horrible idea.
Have you given any consideration to "pet" corps and alliances. Right now a major draw of 0.0 to smaller individuals is the ability to set up sov and get a reduced fuel cost. A small corp may set up small poses to mine mid end moons, but the only way to make a decent profit at this is to get several and run a large number of reactions to make the final products. When you have 11 large pos's running reactions in a sov three system the fuel savings are considerable.
Your system makes conquering or deploying an outpost a basic requirement for sov. The costs of deploying an outpost are huge and really not financially viable for a smaller operation. To me all I see is a system in which the huge alliance own 0.0 and smaller ones have absolutely no stake.
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 00:14:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Jazric
Your system makes conquering or deploying an outpost a basic requirement for sov. The costs of deploying an outpost are huge and really not financially viable for a smaller operation. To me all I see is a system in which the huge alliance own 0.0 and smaller ones have absolutely no stake.
I see it as the complete opposite. Large alliances/corporations present in 0.0 right now wont be able to hold onto every station and solar system they own. Most of these large alliances will have to decide where they will live, and then cut off sov from the rest of their empire. This leaves lots and lots of open space for new alliances and corporations to take advantage of.
One of your points, however, is very valid. Placing new stations would be much too costly for smaller corps/alliances. Possibly a new structure could be created for this purpose. This new structure would essentially be a mini station that would act just like a station but with less AoI and no facilities (or possibly 1 or 2).
|
Jazric
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 03:27:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Tommy Blue
I see it as the complete opposite. Large alliances/corporations present in 0.0 right now wont be able to hold onto every station and solar system they own. Most of these large alliances will have to decide where they will live, and then cut off sov from the rest of their empire. This leaves lots and lots of open space for new alliances and corporations to take advantage of.
Ok I want to make sure I understand the op.
-Sov would be replaced by AOE
-Current benefits obtained by SOV would instead come from proximity to the source of AOE
-The source of AOE would be outposts
-Anchoring a POS/DLP would either be impossible outside an AOE or so nerfed as to make it worthless
Yes I agree that your system would begin to constrain large alliances to smaller areas, but the areas in between would become a huge wasteland. Yes they would be available for ratting, but in all honesty it isn't to hard to rat/plex in the major alliances systems without them noticing right now. Any type of real mining operation requires some sort of POS.
Originally by: Tommy Blue
One of your points, however, is very valid. Placing new stations would be much too costly for smaller corps/alliances. Possibly a new structure could be created for this purpose. This new structure would essentially be a mini station that would act just like a station but with less AoI and no facilities (or possibly 1 or 2).
Ok so you are describing a small station with many of the functions of an outpost but with limited facilities, we already have that. Its called a POS. The only difference I can see is that it could be indestructible, which in itself opens a whole can of worms. Things that are reasonably priced but static in the game are a bad idea if you ask me.
Setting up shop in a relatively worthless system is pretty easy now. You may have to pay a fee to the local power but as long as you stick to your system and don't stir up trouble you are going to be ok. With AoE suddenly things become more complicated. No way is a major power going to let you set up an outpost anywhere close to theirs. It is to easy for an opposing faction to come and take it and use it as a base of operations. Even your limited AoE structure would have problems if it started to interfere with the AoE of a major power.
Even if this system constrains the space ôownedö by major alliances I don't see how it really fixes anything. In fact I think this plan does more to discourage players from venturing into 0.0 unless they join the super alliances. Have you also considered that all these AOE's are going to be clustered right on the null sec/empire border. Without the ability to create jump bridges out to the more distant portions of null sec you are going to vastly reduce their value.
|
Ephemeron
The Dirty Dozen
Quarantine Zone
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 03:53:00 -
[50]
The proposed mechanic is very interesting. It can open many new opportunities for fun game design. The outposts could generate goods from the planets, there could be some NPC logistics/trade traffic. There could be small tax return based on population size. There could be planetary wars, where players don't get involved directly, but they can assist with supplies and planetary bombardment.
For this to work well in MMORPG, the colonies should be destroyable, otherwise it would just grow and grow until no resources are left and some mega alliance controls everything. Colonies should experience negative growth when they are neglected or there are wars of dominance
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 14:54:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Tommy Blue on 14/07/2009 14:56:14
Edited by: Tommy Blue on 14/07/2009 14:55:54
Originally by: Jazric
Ok so you are describing a small station with many of the functions of an outpost but with limited facilities, we already have that. Its called a POS. The only difference I can see is that it could be indestructible, which in itself opens a whole can of worms. Things that are reasonably priced but static in the game are a bad idea if you ask me.
Except a POS wont influence AoI in this new system. And POSs dont have refitting/repair/insurance facilities.
Originally by: Jazric
Even your limited AoE structure would have problems if it started to interfere with the AoE of a major power.
Well, then it was your fault you placed your station/whatever right next to a major power . Remember that there is a limit to which alliances can expand to. Once this limit is reached, they wont be able to interfere with other sov beyond their own.
Originally by: Jazric
Have you also considered that all these AOE's are going to be clustered right on the null sec/empire border. Without the ability to create jump bridges out to the more distant portions of null sec you are going to vastly reduce their value.
Who said you couldn't create JB to empire from the distant portions of 0.0?
Originally by: Ephemeron
For this to work well in MMORPG, the colonies should be destroyable, otherwise it would just grow and grow until no resources are left and some mega alliance controls everything. Colonies should experience negative growth when they are neglected or there are wars of dominance
Maybe not destroyable, but damagable? I would have to agree. Possibly more capital pew pew?
|
Da'iel Zehn
Ion Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 16:06:00 -
[52]
I like it. Anything to increase player created content has my vote. The only thing null sec has at the moment are POS and Outpost. No NPCs or anything other than pirates.
Add to that Colonies will increase sec status of null sec systems and at .1-.4 alliance gate guns can be implemented. .5 and up gain Alliance NPC fleet ships patrolling like the empire fleet ships and will respond to PvP attacks in player high sec systems. Though will just be NPC fleet ships and not have Concord power.
DZ
--
DZ's website
Got a problem? Talk to my gun.
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 20:07:00 -
[53]
I like the basic concept although there are a lot of refinements I think it would need to be fully workable.
For one - right now there's nothing to prevent a huge fleet from coming in and smashing up the joint (and the superweapons idea is immersion breaking). So, too, is the big battlestation idea.
However, those are nitpicking. I think that POSes should be able to be set up anywhere by anyone, much like now - however they're just stations - they don't give SoV and would impact security if/once found. Jammers should be available to hide them much like in various Empire missions.
Instead of security - or perhaps in addition to it - there should be an income flow to the Corp/Alliance account for their colonies (taxes). Security hits would impact that directly and there should also be security costs in order to keep it flowing.
Finally, in order to keep one big blob from breaking the entire thing, civvies should flee the blob and fly around the system they could be scrammed/killed etc. like any other ship but should scatter and the blob should have to break up to chase them. If the blob should fly from place to place everything there should be gone by the time it got there as its scanner sig is huge. The smaller the raiding force the better chance of catching NPCs napping.
So big blobs could attack POSes etc. but couldn't do much to impact actual SoV/AoI. Breaking up into smaller raiding forces could. Friendly fleet presence could improve security etc. If a blob cannot damage much people aren't going to be overly afraid of it - but if it starts smashing up the economy, another fleet will have to fight it. Basically - fleets would become good for destroying static facilities but couldn't pin down mobile resources or readily shut down economies.
In the end, the base idea is very very very good. It just needs a bunch of tweaks, playtest and more tweaks to find things to break up blobs, improve immersion into the EVE universe and balance out the economic impact.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Jazric
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 22:42:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Tommy Blue
Except a POS wont influence AoI in this new system. And POSs dont have refitting/repair/insurance facilities.
This comment raises serious concerns for me regarding the OP's knowledge of current sov mechanics and player owned structures. POS's have ship fitting, it called a ship maintenance array. POS's don't have direct repair facilities, but it is very easy to swap out what ever you are fitting for a bunch of reps turn them on, go grab a soda, come back and you are good to go. You got me on the insurance but I have yet to see a major need for insurance facilities at a POS.
Originally by: Tommy Blue
Well, then it was your fault you placed your station/whatever right next to a major power . Remember that there is a limit to which alliances can expand to. Once this limit is reached, they wont be able to interfere with other sov beyond their own.
What this means is Alliances would have a vested interest in making sure the area surrounding their AOE is effectively a no mans land. I know this may seem like a small issue but you need to work the numbers. If we say the max effect of an AOE is 3 jumps from the capital and the capital is located in a system with four gates leading out. Each of those first jump system have connections to an adition 1.5 2nd jump systems, and the second jump systems connect to an average of 1.5 third jump systems, giving us a total of 20 systems under AOE. Now we have to consider to maintain this effect you need to keep everything within two jumps of your AOE clear of other players structures. The first level of systems would total 15 systems, and the second level would have 22 systems. This means you need to maintain a 37 system ôbuffer zoneö to maintain a 20 system AOE. How does that help anybody?
Originally by: Tommy Blue
Who said you couldn't create JB to empire from the distant portions of 0.0?
For real? You are proposing the ability to put up JB's in high sec? Ones that have a range that extends half the galaxy? That is absolutely game breaking. Have you even been to 0.0?
Currently you can only place JB's is a system with sov 3 or higher ON BOTH ENDS OF THE JB. This means to JB out to the outer regions you need a chain of SOV 3 systems 5ly apart. Under your single AOE system JB's become effective gone from the game. Your replacement system does the following:
Removes Jump freighters from the game
Removes rorquals from the game
Completely eliminates CCP's long standing policy of a division of resources
ect, ect ect
I can't believe everyone is on this train, there is no way, in its current form its completely wrong. I mean c'mon, go play in 0.0 before you come up with a plan to destroy it.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 23:53:00 -
[55]
Jazric:
Thanks for the critique, Ill see if I can make more sense of this for you.
This mechanic is designed to help those smaller alliances gain territory but they have to be ready to fight for it.
I wouldn't want to completely put pets and roamers out of business however, so Ive thought about the POS situation for non sov holding entities. I'm thinking alliances without colonies could place POS anywhere with moderate fuel requirements (no bonus or penalty) but no logistics structures (mining) and no access for sov holding
alliances.
Tommy's idea of a special structure( a super pos or small outpost) might be a good way to go as well.
As for the space in between colonies becoming wasteland - Check out the number of outposts on the eve sov map. I don't see there being any space at all where someone's AoE will not reach. I guess I should have explained that the max effect of AoE would be greater than 3 jumps. It may weaken by that point but 8 would not be impossible. AoEs are meant to overlap, both allied and non.
Alliances definitely have interest in making the areas at the ends of their territory a no mans land but given how capitals would work, this would not be an easy task at all.
As for jump bridges, there would be no such thing as sov 1,2,3 anymore so the requirement for anchoring one would have to be updated.
btw... I have lived in 0.0 for years now and have seen it as part of a small alliance living out of POSs and as part of one of the major 0.0 powers.
Ephemeron:
I definitely see destroying colonies as an option. Maybe not completely but a round of orbital bombardment from a dread fleet would set them back quite a bit.
The other ideas are very interesting but something I imagine as a later update should the base mechanic be implemented.
Jarvis.
To each his own regarding super weapons (different sci-fi taste?) I look at a POS covered in guns and it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to have an outpost that is being fed power from the colony it orbits armed with much much meaner guns.
Having the NPCS aware of a big incoming blob is a good idea and one that makes sense. They would have their com channels and such a thing would not go unnoticed.
Finally, I'm quite alright with tweaks whether they come from players or CCP. It wouldn't bother me at all to have many of the details left out as long as the base mechanic of AoE is implemented.
I would post better thought out replies but this is the best my sleep deprived brain can manage this afternoon. 
Colonies and Capitals |
Joe Starbreaker
The Fighting Republicans
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 00:17:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Jazric
I can't believe everyone is on this train, there is no way, in its current form its completely wrong. I mean c'mon, go play in 0.0 before you come up with a plan to destroy it.
I'm with Jazric, I can't believe this idea has even reached two pages. This idea is just silly. You're creating an enormous server-busting system entirely composed of NPCs acting and interacting. It's content that CCP would have to spend years programming and that only a few dozen alliance leaders in the game are ever actually going to be able to interact with. And it achieves little except to nerf big alliances (with dreadnought-insta-pop NPC weapons  ) and to make the game easy for small corporations (those that can afford the tens of billions needed to build an outpost, anyway) to claim high end moon minerals without fighting for them.
Whatever happens to sovereignty should be player-based. It should involve all players, not just a few members of each alliance authorized to build POSs. And it should definitely allow the alliances that fight harder and invest more resources to reap more rewards.
I like the stargate idea that CCP has proposed.
-/ the fighting republicans /- |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 00:42:00 -
[57]
Joe:
The server load issue has been addressed in this thread. It will cause some additional Server load but no more than an extra Rat spawn or two and it will be an evenly distributed load.
Also I'm having a hard time seeing where you are coming from in saying only a few people will interact with this system. It would affect every player in a 0.0 alliance and the actions of every one of those players would in turn affect it.
Your line about small corporations taking high ends without fighting for them makes me wonder if you have done more than skim the first post.
I try to see where every post is coming from, even those that disagree with me but your last paragraph doesn't even sound like it is addressing my proposal. I'm sorry but I wish you would give it a better read and then respond.
CCP's star gate proposal does nothing to fix alliance sprawl and replaces boring POS bashing with boring gate camping. Eve needs sov warfare that would bring more of the fun gameplay and less of the grid.
Its a long read, but if you would please look for it, I think I have clearly explained how the colonies and AoE system would do this.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh. I'm a bit tired and probably should have waited until tomorrow to post.
Colonies and Capitals |
Jazric
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 01:43:00 -
[58]
I can see from your alliance that you are no noob to 0.0, in fact I'm sure I could learn a lot from you :-). I also hope you aren't going to tell me that POS's have no ship fitting services.
Originally by: Trent Nichols
I wouldn't want to completely put pets and roamers out of business however, so Ive thought about the POS situation for non sov holding entities. I'm thinking alliances without colonies could place POS anywhere with moderate fuel requirements (no bonus or penalty) but no logistics structures (mining) and no access for sov holding
This would limit pets to ratting, plexing, and mining. While these are nice this is not what pulls these pets out to 0.0 in the first place. Reduced fuel costs, mid to low end moons not worth it to major alliances, System maintence and ownership draw these guys out. You limited POS provides non of these. As soon as you put up an AOE structure you **** off some big power and ôpopö your back to empire.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be willing to defend your system. For a 50 man corp we have a half dozen pos gunners, a couple carriers, can field a mid to low end skilled rr bs squad, and can, for the most part keep random roamers out of our system. A single major alliance could take down our entire operation over lunch, we would fight, and most likely have fun, but we would lose.
What works in our favor is the system we have is relatively worthless, true sec sucks, it does have one r32 moon, and combined with some low sec operations, AND we do all reactions in house, we manage to pull an ok profit. We run over 20 pos's of various sizes and work hard at what we do. We are happy with what we make but a single dyspro moon would put us to shame.
Your system would destroy us. It would send us back to empire mining veld, sure we could keep up our low sec operations but that 25% increase to fuel costs to all of our pos's would hammer our returns.
Originally by: Trent Nichols
It may weaken by that point but 8 would not be impossible.
Please check your numbers, anything within 8 jumps from a capital would cover the majority of a region with a strategically placed capital. I really don't see how this changes much. Some of the major powers would lose space, but I think that most of them would just form coalitions to the same affect we have now. Looking at the current map Goons, AAA, Atlas, MM, Razor, and Tau Ceti are the only alliances this would really hurt. For this to be effective I think you REALLY need to reduce your max AOE.
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Alliances definitely have interest in making the areas at the ends of their territory a no mans land but given how capitals would work, this would not be an easy task at all.
OK, you are really only thinking about major alliance warfare here. Let set up a hypothetical. This system goes into effect. It hits your alliance hard but ok, it hit everyone else to. You take a look at you operations, find a system to deploy your capital and bamm your in business. One dyspro moon is 6 jumps out but you grind your colony, get yourself out to 8 jumps and are in business.
My corp is out scouting for territory and we find a nice system, its got an r32 in it, not a particular valuable one but we can turn a good profit if we get a decent colony going. Its 11 jumps from atlas's capital. Well we get our mini-station deployed build up our colony a bit and we are in business. One problem, our AOE affected yours and now your dyspro moon is producing 5% less per cycle. Now in this hypothetical you tell me how long before a massive fleet comes in and wipes us off the map.
How hard would it be to create an alt alliance for no other purpose than to keep all outlying colonies in a completely defunct state?
Now to actually add to the discussion. How about 4 types of moon mining arrays. Gas miners would only mine the moon gasses, Basic miners could be anchored anywhere but would only mine r8 at 100% and r16 at a reduced percentage, likewise intermediate moon harvesters would mine r8 and r16 at 100% and r32 at a reduced percentage and could be deployed from a specialized industrial POS anywhere. Advanced moon harvesting platforms could mine any material but would require specialized help from colonists and the returns would be directly effected by AOE.
Create a pos structure and call it a system administration link. This link when activated would have all the same effects as sov one and only one could be deployed per system. These ideas would still hurt our system, but it would at least give us a chance to survive.
|
Markus Reese
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 04:51:00 -
[59]
I like the idea of the "livelier" 0.0 sec. If you read fluff, stories like the sansha, is full of that. First issue of alliance coalitions forming. That is an easy one to deal with. Set up a coalition setting. Something that doesn't cost money, and works just like standings does.
Second, resourse allocation. Much in the way there is isk tax, have in some resource allocated to your NPCs. This way you get NPC police in your systems as well. Using the aforementions sov strength will also match your colony strength. This would be advantageous for smaller corps to get in. Come in with lots of money/minerals and buy a border populous, then can build up the local police. This way, if you get attacked, the npcs come and can fight too.
|
Kal Shanai
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 11:46:00 -
[60]
Dont have anything to comment on at this time, i however support this idea, it is clear Trent has been thinking this through thoroughly. I hope this will get some dev-attention, as the gatemadness system will just move the current problems with sov to another place (gates instead of POS's) and wont sort out the fact that 0.0 is utterly dead and lacking immersion. Nullsec should mean you could start your own empire, imo, not just have a chance to suck all the resources out of it.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 00:42:00 -
[61]
Jazric:
Thanks again for explaining your concerns; I think I understand you now. The best answer I can give you regarding pet alliances is to quote something I wrote a couple posts back.
Quote:
I'm quite alright with tweaks whether they come from players or CCP. It wouldn't bother me at all to have many of the details left out as long as the base mechanic of AoE is implemented.
If this mechanic were to be implemented exactly as I would like, your corp's best option would be to form up with other small powers and take a colony for yourselves. I mentioned something about most of 0.0 being on fire a while back.
There are free moons for you to mine only because bloated alliances have more moons than they know what to do with. With more alliances packed into 0.0 those moons will be taken by sov holders.
That said, Other players and CCP may be more concerned about the welfare of pets than I am. As Marcus mentioned, coalitions may be the answer. The same mechanic that could allow small alliances to team up and take a station could easily be used to allow a corp or alliance access to a "landlord"'s AoE and all the benefits it brings. The most important parts of Colonies and Capitals would still work.
As for the size of AoE: Consider that 8 jumps would be a big colony; likely a long established capital. Also, AoE weakens further from the colony so those systems 7-8 out wouldn't be worth much.
Still it may be more balanced to base AoE on the number of systems a colony can support rather than x number of jumps. Singularity testing would be needed.
Also, I like hypothetical situations. The activities of your corp would have a greater effect on Atlas AoE than your POS. Still, if you moved in close enough to our capital system, we would drop our entire cap fleet on your base of operations within a day or two.
However if you and some friends captured a colony on the southeast edge of our territory, it could play out exactly like the scenario I posted here.
C&C in action
Our AoE would probably be overlapping that of Legion and other people we don't like in the north so we would need to keep up our activity there. We couldn't afford to have our capitals stuck on your outpost for a week.
Buffer alt alliances will not work because they must, themselves, defend and tend to the colony or the colony will wither and be easy pickings. If they do that, the colony's AoE will spread and affect their mother alliance's AoE just like it would if it were owned by any other alliance.
The ideas regarding tiers of moon mining arrays are interesting. I would like to see something like this, perhaps not on a traditional pos but as part of special deployable structure (that may be what you are saying.)
Markus:
Taxes, police and a nation building sub game played by an entire alliance are what I would hope the C&C mechanic would evolve into in time but first CCP has to adopt the base mechanic.
Kal:
Quote:
Nullsec should mean you could start your own empire, imo, not just have a chance to suck all the resources out of it.
Exactly.
Colonies and Capitals |
Chiralos
Epitoth Guard
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 09:43:00 -
[62]
I think something like this should definitely be the way Sov goes in EVE. At the highest strategic level it should be about controlling space in order to control planetary populations - either to protect and serve them or exploit and enslave them.
Note that having additional NPC-based stuff in space does not necessarily mean enormously higher server loads. You never have to have NPC fighting each other when no-one is looking or anything like that. You would need more complicated spawning calculations based on the system's "colonisation state", with the colonisation state being updated for events like a spawns, ship kills or POS placement. Expensive in CCP game design and programming time but computationally cheap.
Can you think of a timeline for rolling this out one part at a time ? Because I expect that dropping it all in in one patch is just way too much work and impossibly risky for CCP.
Amarr Victor. |
Tagami Wasp
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 11:35:00 -
[63]
Nice idea, much better than the gate madness CCP is looking at.
Bump.
|
Kal Shanai
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 02:01:00 -
[64]
Bump for a splendid idea, much better than what CCP has proposed
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 21:36:00 -
[65]
Thanks for the bumps.
Chiralos: You asked what is probably the most important question Ive seen so far.
Unfortunately for the past few days, I haven't had the time or presence of mind to answer it.
Now that I was able, I broke Colonies and Capitals apart and came up with the following list.
Initial Implementation in order of importance.
1.AoE mechanic.
2 Colony growth mechanic.
3 Elite NPCs. (Might be possible to implement later.)
*optional* coalition mechanic
Follow up.
4. Friendly NPCs
5. Planet conditions and colony upgrades.
My apologies to some of the posters in this thread. I saw some great ideas but most would be best implemented later - and I hope they would be implemented.
Now to get even deeper into the nuts and bolts and see just what needs to be created here.
AoE mechanic:
POS grid and CPU maximums are a multiple of the base x AoE strength in the system. The same is true for logistics modules like moon miners.
*Overlapping AoE from a non alliance or coalition colony subtracts from the AoE strength in the system. Perhaps (AoE -.2 x non ally AoE)
Colony AoE is a multiple of the colony size and capital AoE in the system. Capital AoE is a determined not only by the size of the capital but of the colonies as a whole. Both capital and colony AoE support a set number of systems and diminish with distance.
Colony Growth mechanic:
Alliance pilots determine the size of the colonies by earning points for the colony through their activity within the system. Only alliance pilots can earn points for their colonies.
Colonies have point goals that scale with their size. If the points generated for the colony fall short of the goal, the colony shrinks. If they exceed the goal, the colony grows. Total points are tallied at downtime.
Colony size determines not only AoE but the grid and CPU of the outpost.
Ship Activity in a system that is within the AoE of a colony generates points (tallied every 15 mins or so) for that colony. If the system is within the AoE of multiple allied colonies, the closest colony gets the points.
For this first implementation, ship activity is defined as modules actively working on asteroids or NPC pirates.
Points based on the amount of ore gathered and value of NPCs destroyed is another option.
Elite NPCs spawn periodically and are worth an amount of points dependant on the size of the spawn and how quickly the spawn is dealt with. If they are not dealt with in a timely manor, the points will go negative.
Elite NPC complexes will spawn and are worth more points. Regular complexes are also worth points but do not have a timer.
Coalitions: If desired, a coalition mechanic could allow small alliances to team up and take a colony or allow ôpetsö to use a larger allianceÆs AoI.
Follow up:
Friendly NPCs to create depth and encourage PVP.
As colonies get larger, more colonist NPCs can be found in space û barges, haulers, transportation. For roaming gangs, these are great targets when there are no players in space. Downing an NPC means negative points for the sovereign alliance.
NPCs will become aware of large fleets and begin to evacuate. The number considered large is relative to the size of the sov holding alliance.
Even when under attack I cant see the server load being greater than an NPC spawn or two.
Planetary conditions: To offset the ability of enemies to damage colonies by attacking NPCs, planets can be terraformed to increase colony size. (lowering the points goal) The effectiveness of terraforming depends on the planetÆs distance from the sun. (A one time planet move may be called for)
Colony upgrades: Schools and industrial upgrades can be built on the colony to increase the laboratory and factory capabilities of the outpost.
Future
Further colony upgrades
More NPC activity.
More alliance benefits
Colonies and Capitals |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 18:11:00 -
[66]
I should be able to turn this into a 2nd draft soon but in the meantime...
*bump*
Colonies and Capitals |
Tommy Blue
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 19:48:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Tommy Blue on 20/07/2009 19:55:58
Originally by: Jazric
This comment raises serious concerns for me regarding the OP's knowledge of current sov mechanics and player owned structures. POS's have ship fitting, it called a ship maintenance array. POS's don't have direct repair facilities, but it is very easy to swap out what ever you are fitting for a bunch of reps turn them on, go grab a soda, come back and you are good to go. You got me on the insurance but I have yet to see a major need for insurance facilities at a POS.
Yes, I have forgotten about the fitting array, I haven't been at a pos with one for awhile. Nevertheless, you cant dock in a POS, you cant use a market at a pos, and you cant feel the saftey at a pos like that of a station, because if your gone for a couple days at a pos, it could be gone when you get back.
Originally by: Jazric
What this means is Alliances would have a vested interest in making sure the area surrounding their AOE is effectively a no mans land. I know this may seem like a small issue but you need to work the numbers. If we say the max effect of an AOE is 3 jumps from the capital and the capital is located in a system with four gates leading out. Each of those first jump system have connections to an adition 1.5 2nd jump systems, and the second jump systems connect to an average of 1.5 third jump systems, giving us a total of 20 systems under AOE. Now we have to consider to maintain this effect you need to keep everything within two jumps of your AOE clear of other players structures. The first level of systems would total 15 systems, and the second level would have 22 systems. This means you need to maintain a 37 system ôbuffer zoneö to maintain a 20 system AOE. How does that help anybody?
I do not really understand where your getting this 37 system buffer zone from. Your AoI will just but up against the next sov holding power. If your two powers come to an agreement, possibly the amount of sov holding stations and the placement of the mini outposts could be negotiated, or a mechanic that allows the spread of AoI to be limited? If the two sov holding powers dont like each other, then they will have to fight it out, either by shooting their sov achieving activities/colonies and stations or actively boosting your own sov AoI.
Originally by: Jazric
For real? You are proposing the ability to put up JB's in high sec? Ones that have a range that extends half the galaxy? That is absolutely game breaking. Have you even been to 0.0?
I just figured out how to display my corp/alliance :) As you can see I do live in 0.0. You are obviously taking what I am saying much to literaly. A JB route can be effectivaly placed from the far reaches of 0.0 (give our Omist for example) to a border empire system. You could effectively reach empire space from Omist without having to jump through 2 conventional gates to get there.
|
Koronos
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 22:46:00 -
[68]
I really like this idea. Of course there are issues to work out and I don't have a lot to add at the moment except that I think you'd have to be very careful about a tax income from the colony creating isk. I think the benefits of a strong colony to all of your other operations should be the reward, but maybe early on while teraforming and expansion was taking place you would need to sink isk into the colony either directly or via purchaseable commodities or both and as the colony got more self-sufficient you would stop having to do that. Makes sense to me from an immersion standpoint anyway.
The other thing I wanted to say though is that I think this could very well work with the whole Dust idea, if it comes to pass, and in fact could make it much more immersive and make much more sense than it does right now in that your activities in terms of terraforming and building colonies could be impacted by the conflicts in Dust similarly to the suggestions about affecting it by npcing and so forth.
In fact, some kind of combination with this idea makes me a lot more attracted to the Dust idea than I was initially.
(http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1152645 if you are just now catching up, like I was).
|
velocity7
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 02:15:00 -
[69]
Sounds like this was well thought out.
Though I haven't been around long enough to give a good sense of how this will affect current 0.0, it would appear that CCP has already taken the initiative and begun similar things starting with Dust 514.
|
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 15:11:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/08/2009 15:12:37
I really like where this idea is going. I think a lot of nuts'n'bolts details would change over time until the system actually worked well, and it'd take a lot of testing, but it seems vastly superior to the gate concept that was mooted a while ago.
How precisely the NPCs work, how precisely the charges scale, these really are details. The core principles of system ownership and how it expands seems far more rooted in actually owning and using space, which is how it should be (interesting that CCP have mentioned planetary ownership for systems for future plans). In addition, it breaks up existing strangeholds over space that is mostly just empty unused space used for holding POSes for sovereignty.
Sovereignty should be as natural as possible, rather than arbitrary mechanics that you end up playing the game just to do. You should own space by owning space, by being there, by doing things there, not how many stations you plonked down, or how many gates you orbited for hours. We should play the game, rather than the game play us.
I agree with Cailais about existing outposts; I'm not convinced they are the right choice for this mechanic. You'd be better off having a custom new approach that really suits what you're trying to do, which can be tailored to scale to allow multiple types of combat and numerous goals. 'Death by a thousand cuts' does indeed seem an appropriate metaphor. In particular I like Cailais' suggestion that there should be multiple routes to sov levels, which allow you to bring different approaches in play to the game, and different approaches in trying to interdict that. Variety is important; ideally every activity that you do in 0.0 should contribute to sov in some way.
In addition, by picking some new approach (e.g. orbital stations at planets, to pick something topical), you have complete flexibility in determining their lifetime, how they are controlled and so on.
___
My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Environmental Effects
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |