EVE Search - Future of null-sec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Future of null-sec

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.07.12 16:36:00 - [1] With CCP already working on and planning to implement the much needed sovereignty changes to 0.0 later this year, I started thinking what made the current system such an abomination. The conclusion I reached is that the major contributor to the extreme tedium that is POS-borefare is the NPC market availability of POS's/modules and their prices. The thought experiment: Imagine if you will what 0.0 would look like if everything 'POS' was five (or more) times as expensive, but with less fuel costs. - The 'down payment' needed to establish oneself would put a natural dampener on expansion. - We would have more compact/contracted but more numerous entities inhabiting 0.0, addressing one of the large grievances - it is so empty out there. - With fewer towers the capital fleets of today would never have reached the (lets face it) ridiculous numbers, there would simply not have been any need for 100+ dread blobs. It is my hope that whatever system CCP ends up with, factors in the availability/pricing of equipment so that we avoid what ended up breaking the current system. I sincerely hope that the system CCP implements manages to resuscitate/invigorate 0.0 life. Until then I will be honing my skills in FW.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.12 16:38:00 - [2] Your idea is a huge boost to incumbent powers.
Borb Mizzet Gallente Black Serpent Technologies	Posted - 2009.07.12 16:45:00 - [3] How will this stop people who have 12+ dyspro mooms? Not to meniton it would make sov claiming much harder, and less people would want to move out to 0.0 because they don't want to risk a 5 billion isk tower.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.07.12 17:37:00 - [4] Originally by: DevBlog The Winter Expansion We will be reporting on the winter expansion as it draws closer. All I can say, is that it is focused on sovereignty and you will not be able to walk in it. Check on the dev blogs in the weeks and months to come for more updates. The section from the Devblog that made me think. Originally by: Malcanis Your idea is a huge boost to incumbent powers. There is no idea, otherwise it would be posted in the appropriate section It is merely a "What If" scenario I conjured up to try to make heads and tails of the 0.0 borefare and a caution to CCP so that we don't end up with more of the same but in a different colour. Originally by: Borb Mizzet How will this stop people who have 12+ dyspro mooms? Not to meniton it would make sov claiming much harder, and less people would want to move out to 0.0 because they don't want to risk a 5 billion isk tower. It won't stop people with 12+ moons, not should it. If they have the firepower to protect their assets then they deserve them. More expensive towers would probably not have allowed a single entity to claim all that space in the first place. The problem the low tower prices represents is that people don't even bother protecting most of their towers since it is much easier and cheaper to anchor a new one while the enemy the kills the old (moon count permitting of course). The 5B you refer to is the 5x applied to a current "deathstar" .. those make no sense unless on a sensitive moon or as sovereignty tower, if you deploy a "deathstar" today you are probably an alliance on offense/defense and ISK mist likely not a concern. Ratting POS' would still be perfectly viable, doesn't take more than a small tower and a hangar. The old days are coming to an end. Sovereignty as we know it will be defunct with the winters patch and ALL towers may well be changed in some fundamental way compared to present system.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.07.12 19:08:00 - [5] Your conclusion lacks context, and any serious understanding of how POS evolved with time. 1. POS started out as ultra cheap, and totally impossible to kill. However, they were also useless in territorial warfare, lacked any real industrial capability and a total nightmare to upkeep. 2. The first thing CCP did was reduce the fuel and logistical burdens. But they were still unprofitable thanks to agents continuing to drop T2 components like candy. 3. Agent T2 component drops were finally killed, and POS given basic sovereignty capabilities. Thus is the end of conquerable station ping-pong and the start of viable starbase industry AND empire building. 4. POS were still dirt cheap, 25mil for smalls and 100mil for large. People (read: RA v1.0 vs The Five) started carpet bombing offline small towers which still contributed the same points to sovereignty. The first version of POS trench warfare is born. 5. Then POS were price adjusted to cost four times as much, large towers superseding any number of smalls. POS spam still continued, only with large deathstars. Starbases were still impossible to kill. Only thing that kept it in check was the absurd logistics of maintaining a large number of towers with only bestowers and iteron mk5's, all having to travel 40+ jumps through 0.0. 8. Dreads came out in Cold War (summer 2005) and finally made towers vulnerable when undefended, even though it took many more months to actually start the ball rolling. 10. However, Carriers came out in RMR shortly after (winter 2005), and gave a monstrous boost to POS logistics. This would become the start of POS spam warfare v2.0. RMR also massively boosted the industrial capabilities of POS. 11. EC-P8R campaign in spring 2006 showed a big enough dread force with big enough stamina could raze dozens of deathstars. Every alliance is in an arms race for the best capital fleet as industrialists no longer have the luxury of ignoring pvpers. POS spam still a superior tactic, but no longer a dominant one. 12. Fast forward one year to Revelations 2 (spring 2007?), capital and supercapitals are prolific enough but CCP decides you shouldn't be able to drop right on someone's main HQ system while ignoring all those other captured systems. Say hello to cyno jammers and tiered sovereignty warfare rules. POS trench warfare 3.0 is about sov 3, timezones, hot drops and strontium management. The one good change in Revelations 2 is that you can finally use BS fleets to deal with POS if you need to. In addition, starbases have become even more relevant for industry through invention (t2) and reverse engineering (t3), and the fact that you can put them in empire to absolve yourself of the lab shortage issues. I think the original price of towers should've been ten times what they were, or about 1bil. That's today's equivalent of 20bil+. But then, had they done that POS would have evolved differently. The historical trends show that POS, like most high end tools, were proliferated and commoditized down towards the low end. Raising the price now doesn't revert that, and imbue POS with greater meaning/balance/fun. It doesn't even curb the spam tactics, which are still incredibly important and powerful. The solution is to get anti-POS warfare into a state where its as common and integrated into regular warfare as possible. A state where its as mainstream as POS themselves. Despite how ******ed an expansion Revelations 2 ultimately was, getting BS involved was an important first step. Following up on that doesn't mean scrapping the whole system, or pointlessly reshuffling things like you're trying here. It only smacks the reset button on five years of painfully slow evolution. I'm not optimistic or stupid enough to believe the new starting point isn't going to require going through the same five years of effort. I mean, just look how much progress there has been in FW since its release. Or supercaps. Or outposts. Or.. yeah.
Shi Lang Gallente Hiigaran Central Command	Posted - 2009.07.12 20:30:00 - [6] What are the current planned changes to nullsec? Smert ili Slava!
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.07.12 20:55:00 - [7] Good question. If you got $15 to spare, let us know too.
Jamyl TashMurkon Amarr	Posted - 2009.07.12 21:10:00 - [8] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Good question. If you got $15 to spare, let us know too. i read it, there were many many words, even more pictures...but yet...they didnt actually say anything
buttesauce	Posted - 2009.07.12 21:19:00 - [9] Edited by: buttesauce on 12/07/2009 21:24:30 theres nothing wrong with 0.0 other then the sov mechanics being so boring! either way you will never control space because you will just spend all your time living scared in empire while you post on the forums about how tough it is... if you want the space get out and start shooting people and pos. edit: and one of the major reasons why alliances control so much space is being the majority of it is pretty terrible space, both useless for ratting and mining. If every system in 0.0 had the chance for decent rats and had ABC ore (and then even better ore was created for the good truesec systems) it would reduce the amount of space an alliance needs. it would also allow small corps to survive in small backend systems which normally would have bad trusec, no good ores, and poor rat quality.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.07.12 22:48:00 - [10] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Your conclusion lacks context, and any serious understanding of how POS evolved with time..... Awesome post, thank you. And no I do not have the whole history only from RMR onwards which is when I joined. But even with the full story I do not see anything that would go against what I concluded; that tower prices/availability is in large part the root of the 0.0 problem. If they had been significantly more expensive the tower spam we know and love would have been curtailed leaving more room for smaller entities. As with all what-if scenarios is will remain speculation though. The coming changes (and no I do not have/read EON) should move the sovereignty mechanic away from static structure while keeping them as necessary elements in generic infrastructure (manufacture and bridges for instance). With POS' not necessary for taking over an area then you need a new paradigm for them as well. Another tricky part is capitals. If sovereignty is to be decided mainly with conventional ships then what function do you assign the tens of thousands of capitals in-game currently? I for one am glad I will not be in front of the firing squad as game designer in this case, far too many threads that can unravel and too many assets on the line And again, I am not proposing any changes whatsoever, this is a thought experiment to try to suss out what went awry with the sovereignty/pos mechanics. My aim is to get the people responsible thinking 'big-picture' so we can avoid the half-arsed solutions that take years to fix. Cynojammers -> BS blobs -> more Titans to counter -> dread blobs ... as much as I love being on grid with trillions worth of ISK it's just not fun in my world. Then again, perhaps I have suffered some brain damage from orbiting all those timers .....

Kerfira	Posted - 2009.07.12 22:55:00 - [11] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida But even with the full story I do not see anything that would go against what I concluded; that tower prices/availability is in large part the root of the 0.0 problem. If they had been significantly more expensive the tower spam we know and love would have been curtailed leaving more room for smaller entities. As with all what-if scenarios is will remain speculation though. The ones with the money is the big entities... Make the towers more expensive, and the small entities struggle even more. What needs to change is the balance between the utterly easy task of putting up one or more POS, and the horrendously difficult task it is to take them down. THAT is what keeps 0.0 so static... 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.
Rellik B00n Lethal Death Squad	Posted - 2009.07.12 23:12:00 - [12] Eve has null-sec?
Kessiaan Minmatar MicroFunks	Posted - 2009.07.13 00:03:00 - [13] The philosophy should be 'The more you have, the harder it is to expand' Right now the opposite is true - the more you have the easier it is to conquer and hold more, so you see everyone banding into a relatively few big power blocs. Given that EvE has like 350,000 subs now (give or take, I'm quoting that from memory), we should see several hundred independent nullsec entities, not just a dozen or so with thousands of pilots each. I don't know how to fix the problem, but simply raising the bar isn't the answer. It needs to be easier - a lot easier - for a small corp to take and hold a single system, and much harder for a big alliance to hold 100 of them.
IsoMetricanTaliac 2 Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.07.13 04:45:00 - [14] All I can say is that 0.0 warfare as a whole has become very boring with the mega-naps & meg-alliances fielding mega-blobs that ends with mega-lag & a game that you become a spectator in because of it. This is causing a never ending stream of players who have had enough of the 0.0 BS & are going back to empire space. There are a lot of things that need to be changed when it comes to 0.0 & I guess we can only hope that the Sov changes are the first of the required changes that happen. Is it possible to give smaller alliances a better chance while also making it harder for the big alliances? I don't think it is but if it can be done lets hope CCP do it.... Until then maybe FW will see a rise in player numbers as all the PVP fun is there you just don't have the added cost of the up keep of 190 POS's or however many a big alliance has in space at the one time. In a Time When Many Will Seek Death, There Will Always Be Those Like Me Who Won't Mind Helping Them Along Their Way!?!
Xiaodown Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2009.07.13 06:02:00 - [15] Originally by: Kerfira What needs to change is the balance between the utterly easy task of putting up one or more POS, and the horrendously difficult task it is to take them down. THAT is what keeps 0.0 so static... Bingo, winrar. If you have a cyno alt that can anchor a pos and a carrier to jump it out, you can sneak out into a system, and for a cost of about 2 bil, put up a deathstar in the middle of the night, in about 2-3 hours. This is countered by needing 50+ billion worth of ships and up to three or four DAYS to take the pos down. It's like building a dog house for your puppy, and spending $100 on the parts and a saturday afternoon nailing it together, and then when it's time to move away, you have to rent a bulldozer and hire a crew of 50 iterenant workers at a cost of $3,000, and it will take all week to take it down. Fix that imbalance, and you'll go a long way towards the bigger issues. Unfortunately, without making dreads super cheap (bad) or towers super expensive (worse) or not having a strontium timer at all (even worse), I don't really know how to fix it. I think that soverignty has painted its self into a corner and really has nowhere to go now. Would be funny to not have stront timers, though. The phantom dread fleet, jumping around the galaxy, demolishing empires in the dead of night... --
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.07.13 07:20:00 - [16] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Awesome post, thank you. And no I do not have the whole history only from RMR onwards which is when I joined. But even with the full story I do not see anything that would go against what I concluded; that tower prices/availability is in large part the root of the 0.0 problem. They're a problem, but nowhere near as relevant as you seem to think it is. Great balance is achieved with a series of small tweaks, not one huge overhaul or one surgical change. If it was possible to fix the majority of player grievances with a single stat change, you can bet I would've pointed it out ages ago. Originally by: Hirana Yoshida If they had been significantly more expensive the tower spam we know and love would have been curtailed leaving more room for smaller entities. As with all what-if scenarios is will remain speculation though. Big entities spam fewer towers as a consequence of your change, but then so do smaller ones. For the end-game pvp it changes absolutely nothing. All it does is raise the barrier to entry at the low end. One mistake and you're set back a lot further, which only promotes further consolidation of 0.0. Why take the risk when you can join a coalition? Its exactly the same mindset we see today, only magnified to even worse levels. Long story short, you made some assumptions here that aren't entirely based on human behaviour. Originally by: Hirana Yoshida The coming changes (and no I do not have/read EON) should move the sovereignty mechanic away from static structure while keeping them as necessary elements in generic infrastructure (manufacture and bridges for instance). With POS' not necessary for taking over an area then you need a new paradigm for them as well. Moving away from structures is taking us back to the past. The only reason so many people think its a good idea is because they haven't experienced the ridiculousness of the alternative. CCP Greyscale has "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome in that EON article, like so many other people. Its easy to forget the good points of the current system, when you're only focused on the bad. When the conquest of territory requires the destruction of structures with real value, then the conquest of territory comes at a financial loss for the defeated. Capping points, winning points, or planting flags has the aria of irrelevance more commonly felt in Factional Warfare and Station Services. Originally by: Hirana Yoshida My aim is to get the people responsible thinking 'big-picture' so we can avoid the half-arsed solutions that take years to fix. Erm, they've been thinking about the big picture for years. Their actual problem is getting lost in the details. Its easy to say that sov warfare should be fun, territory meaningful, and battles epic. Its another to actually implement it. Only a dev whose been involved in every aspect of 0.0 for years would understand the problems on an intuitive level. That person can then implement change with confidence, instead of compromise. I don't know much about CCP Greyscale's background as a player, but given the t20 drama, I would be surprised if any devs were relevant and deeply involved in anything anymore.
Kezzle	Posted - 2009.07.13 07:41:00 - [17] Originally by: Kessiaan The philosophy should be 'The more you have, the harder it is to expand' Truth. Logistics needs to get harder faster than your territory expands. Maybe having older stations need more fuel or different other resources, or systems need more stations the longer they've been held by the same Alliance.
buttesauce	Posted - 2009.07.13 08:47:00 - [18] Edited by: buttesauce on 13/07/2009 08:47:23 logistics does get harder the more you expand. the poses dont fuel themselves and the more you expand, the quicker your logistics pilots will burn out. believe me fueling poses sucks. having to fuel like 5 or more regions, even split between a bunch of people, would be soul consuming. you guys are just suggesting measures which are more controlled and artificially limit what people can do. if people want to control a ton of space they will put in the effort to do so, regardless of any measures CCP implements. if you really want to get a lot of people into 0.0, allow constellations to support a small alliance instead of requiring most of the region. give most systems decent ore and rats and i'm sure more people will move out. if ccp does anything, they should allow players to make the npc pos fuel and stop npcs from seeding it. allow players to react atmospheric gas to produce oxygen with a waste byproduct, allow us to make coolant out of atmospheric gases and hydrocarbons. enriched uranium would require mercoxit and some minerals to make the rest of the npc goods would require R8s to produce. robotics would require titanium and tungsten, along with some regular minerals mechanical parts would require cobalt and scandium, along with some regular minerals allowing players to make the npc goods would both allow players to live outside of empire and it would make mining R4s and R8s (extremely common moons) more profitable and make systems with poor moons at least useful as fuel production systems.
Rameus Luxmaar Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel	Posted - 2009.07.13 18:28:00 - [19] Originally by: buttesauce Edited by: buttesauce on 13/07/2009 08:47:23 logistics does get harder the more you expand. the poses dont fuel themselves and the more you expand, the quicker your logistics pilots will burn out. believe me fueling poses sucks. having to fuel like 5 or more regions, even split between a bunch of people, would be soul consuming. you guys are just suggesting measures which are more controlled and artificially limit what people can do. if people want to control a ton of space they will put in the effort to do so, regardless of any measures CCP implements. if you really want to get a lot of people into 0.0, allow constellations to support a small alliance instead of requiring most of the region. give most systems decent ore and rats and i'm sure more people will move out. if ccp does anything, they should allow players to make the npc pos fuel and stop npcs from seeding it. allow players to react atmospheric gas to produce oxygen with a waste byproduct, allow us to make coolant out of atmospheric gases and hydrocarbons. enriched uranium would require mercoxit and some minerals to make the rest of the npc goods would require R8s to produce. robotics would require titanium and tungsten, along with some regular minerals mechanical parts would require cobalt and scandium, along with some regular minerals allowing players to make the npc goods would both allow players to live outside of empire and it would make mining R4s and R8s (extremely common moons) more profitable and make systems with poor moons at least useful as fuel production systems. If there was a petition to make ^^this^^ happen I would sign it as I'm sure many others would as well. Shadow Cartel is recruiting PvP corps! Immortalis Inc. is recruiting pilots!
MasterEnt	Posted - 2009.07.13 20:49:00 - [20] Originally by: Kessiaan The philosophy should be 'The more you have, the harder it is to expand' Really? Not really how empire building works. EVE or RL, just against the natural way of things. Where do you start that metric? By what logic? At 10k ISK, 10 million.... a billion?

Zeerover DeadSpace Exploration and Investigations	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:55:00 - [21] Originally by: Xiaodown Bingo, winrar. If you have a cyno alt that can anchor a pos and a carrier to jump it out, you can sneak out into a system, and for a cost of about 2 bil, put up a deathstar in the middle of the night, in about 2-3 hours. This is countered by needing 50+ billion worth of ships and up to three or four DAYS to take the pos down. It's like building a dog house for your puppy, and spending $100 on the parts and a saturday afternoon nailing it together, and then when it's time to move away, you have to rent a bulldozer and hire a crew of 50 iterenant workers at a cost of $3,000, and it will take all week to take it down. The phantom dread fleet, jumping around the galaxy, demolishing empires in the dead of night... I think you're just right on this one. If there was a viable scorched earth tactic, were one could do a Sherman's March to the Sea with the phantom dread fleet, then the EVE sov game would become much more dynamic. It should always be easier to burn things down than to build things up.
jade ronin Minmatar Appetite 4 Destruction The Firm.	Posted - 2009.07.13 22:44:00 - [22] so if you make the pos's ten time more expencive then what happens to all the moon materials? ... this will criple any t2 or t3 production. The sov mechanic will have to be taken away from pos's and moved to something else otherwise you will raise the cost of all the parts for t2/t3 and nobody wants that.
Soulita Gallente Inner Core	Posted - 2009.07.14 01:48:00 - [23] I used to run a POS and the refuelling annoyed the hell out of me. Was very pleased when some peeps blew it up and took the hassle away from me. My heartfelt condolences to the poor chaps who have to maintain more than 1 POS...
Armoured C Gallente Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.14 02:44:00 - [24] Originally by: Borb Mizzet How will this stop people who have 12+ dyspro mooms? Not to meniton it would make sov claiming much harder, and less people would want to move out to 0.0 because they don't want to risk a 5 billion isk tower. qft and sov is boring so long as you have to drop 20 towers to do anything my lasers were so hot comming out of aggression alliance they melted the ship from such prolonged use
buttesauce	Posted - 2009.07.14 03:00:00 - [25] i just want to be able to make pos fuel out of R4s! that would be so helpful, it sucks buying fuel from npcs! plus it would make another form of moon mining.
Armoured C Gallente Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.14 03:01:00 - [26] I would prefer if future sov wont contain POS's at all. It is very boring.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2009.07.14 03:29:00 - [27] Just remove Sov altogether, IMHO. Replace sov requirements for particular POS modules with long delays in onlining. POS gets put into reinforced, jump bridges and CSAA get put offline and require another month to get back online. Supply chain vessels are virtually indestructible since they just jump straight to the POS, so make the POS the vulnerable portion of the supply chain. Guerilla warfare will have meaning :) Yes, terribly simplistic, and needs a bit of work.
Nadarius Chrome Celestial Horizon Corp. Slightly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.07.14 03:37:00 - [28] Just to comment on the suggestions about making POS modules or fuel player-manufacturable. That would remove one of the few effective ISK sinks from the game and would be an incredibly bad idea.
Armoured C Gallente Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.14 03:39:00 - [29] Originally by: Mara Rinn Just remove Sov altogether, IMHO. Replace sov requirements for particular POS modules with long delays in onlining. POS gets put into reinforced, jump bridges and CSAA get put offline and require another month to get back online. Supply chain vessels are virtually indestructible since they just jump straight to the POS, so make the POS the vulnerable portion of the supply chain. Guerilla warfare will have meaning :) Yes, terribly simplistic, and needs a bit of work. Supply chain vessel are actually at more risk jumping to there POS. I have seen many die at the pos through the jump becons and portals. These objects have to be anchored so far away from the pos. Also if you have had a inty circling the POS structure all day to make it use up it ammo you can gank people that are comming through the jump portals.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2009.07.14 04:04:00 - [30] Originally by: Armoured C Supply chain vessel are actually at more risk jumping to there POS. I have seen many die at the pos through the jump becons and portals. Jump without a scout, suffer the same fate as the freighter pilot accidentally jumping into lowsec.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.