EVE Search - [Proposal] 0.0 small gang incentive

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] 0.0 small gang incentive

» 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)
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:22:00 - [1] I've been reading the latest CSM meeting minutes found here: http://www.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2010/CSM_CCP_Meetings_18-20_02_2010.pdf It seems like people want more small scale warfare incentives. For this some sort of target would be needed. Station services were mentioned in the CSM notes. My suggestion is to connect the ratting index/mining index to the strength of the system, essentially meaning that the more industry you have in the system, the tougher it is to take over. This means the industrialists will indirectly help keeping the system secure and will therefore have a value to the 0.0 alliances that currently only value fighting power. Say for example that we take max(ratting index, mining index) and give that many bonus reinforcement timers to the ihub of the system. This would mean that a brute force attack of a system would be very cumbersome and time consuming with high ratting/mining index. The smart attacker however comes in weeks in advance in smaller teams and reduce the ratting/mining index through attrition. When low enough the main fleet is brought in to easily take over the system. I think this would both promote small gang warfare and reduce blobbing to some degree. It would also discourage AFK alliances and encourage 0.0 alliances to take in more industrialist players to keep their indices as high as possible in all their systems (not just the core systems).
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:51:00 - [2] Edited by: XXSketchxx on 03/03/2010 13:51:50 I like the concept of "attrition warfare" but this really doesn't support "small gang warfare" so much as 'gank the carebears." edit: unless people actually "defend" their carebears...or the bears reship and fight the insurgents...idea has potential _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:02:00 - [3] Originally by: XXSketchxx edit: unless people actually "defend" their carebears...or the bears reship and fight the insurgents...idea has potential Yeah the implicit idea was that the alliance would have to protect its industrialists to keep their high indices. A "they can defend themselves" stance wouldn't be positive for them as it directly influences the security of the system if all the industrialists just pack up and leave for a safer area.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:11:00 - [4] Sounds like a good idea. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:15:00 - [5] Edited by: Malcanis on 03/03/2010 14:15:13 Originally by: Sokratesz Sounds like a good idea. Link the hub index strength to the reinforce timers. The weaker the index, the more variable the timer. EDIT: could also vary the iHub hitbpoints as well.
Taudia Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:19:00 - [6] I like this idea.
Seraphina Oriana The White Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2010.03.03 15:28:00 - [7] Yeah, I like it. Tales of the Clan Oriana - http://www.clan-oriana.com
Cheeva MekTor Incarnation of Evil	Posted - 2010.03.04 10:17:00 - [8] I like it you'd think the few thousand posts on CAOD about all the lag would be an incentive as well lol.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.03.04 10:39:00 - [9] This is a good idea. Not perfect and needs tweaking but good enough for CCP to think about stuff like this and try it out. I would like a small gang objective that didn't involve taking over sov, but still hurts the enemy (killing ratters don't count as that is zzzz pvp). CCP has been promising small gang objectives for years and we haven't gotten any, my new theory is that CCP thinks a 200 man BS fleet is a small gang. Small gangs hooray, big blobs booo, more people in 0.0 heck ya. Support! Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.03.05 19:31:00 - [10] I approve of this bump!
Liol Wongsta The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.03.05 21:55:00 - [11] Actually a sensible suggestion.
Furb Killer	Posted - 2010.03.06 09:22:00 - [12] Also gives alliances more reason to use their space, i like it
Fille Balle Ballbreakers R us	Posted - 2010.03.18 22:14:00 - [13] Originally by: Furb Killer Also gives alliances more reason to use their space, i like it Not to mention give pve'ers a reason for being in 0.0 (beyond making isk), and give alliances a reason for having them there. It's not the great solution to move all pve'ers out of highsec, but it's a good step in the right direction. /Supported
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.18 22:19:00 - [14] If what you are saying is popping ratters/miners in a system impacts the system industry/military levels. This is a good idea.
Pian Shu Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.03.18 22:57:00 - [15] Originally by: Bagehi If what you are saying is popping ratters/miners in a system impacts the system industry/military levels. This is a good idea. What he is saying is that ratters and miners are now a valid part of the defense strategy for a system, but that they will need to be defended for this to work. And that preventing them from doing their thing will make the system easier to take a little later on. Actually popping them has nothing to do with it. It's an incentive for sovereignty holders to man (or woman) up and defend their right to rat and mine rather than dock up or move to a different system. And that should mean more real fights can be had rather than simple ganks -- and that's a good thing.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.04.08 17:25:00 - [16] Bumpage
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.05.21 07:50:00 - [17] I've heard a lot of people complain about how boring the current sov system is with many reinforcement timers and a lot of waiting. In my opinion that's another good reason to change it to a system like this. Say that you have exactly as many reinforcement timers as the system industry/military index. At index 1 there will only be a single reinforcement timer, meaning half as much waiting as today. But at index 5 it will be 5 reinforcement timers, pretty much impossible to break through, and very boring to even try.
Corbeau Lenoir ZER0. IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.21 10:17:00 - [18] Edited by: Corbeau Lenoir on 21/05/2010 10:16:43 I like this idea. Leave the possibility to attack systems with the current cumbersome timers, but also allow to use this attrition warfare to lower timers or to make them more unpredictable. And to capture the system, you'll still need large fleet anyway. So, basicly, something to do for both large fleets and small gangs. Win-win. Really, really good idea. Supported. Vote me for CSM5!
Mkah Mvet Chumly Incorporated Beyond-Control	Posted - 2010.05.21 13:28:00 - [19]
AlexK100	Posted - 2010.05.21 15:35:00 - [20] very nice idea
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.21 22:08:00 - [21] Originally by: Corbeau Lenoir Edited by: Corbeau Lenoir on 21/05/2010 10:16:43 I like this idea. Leave the possibility to attack systems with the current cumbersome timers, but also allow to use this attrition warfare to lower timers or to make them more unpredictable. And to capture the system, you'll still need large fleet anyway. So, basicly, something to do for both large fleets and small gangs. Win-win. Really, really good idea. Supported. This.
Ashina Sito Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2010.05.21 23:38:00 - [22] The general theory is sound. This is how 0.0 should have been operating in the first place. My CSM Election Announcement
Charlemeign BESTIAL CARNAGE Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.05.21 23:49:00 - [23] Or we could just completely blob out the ****ing systems and slowly take it over. Ya, rite.
Grarr Dexx GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.05.22 01:42:00 - [24] The idea holds a lot of merit. But, in order to be balanced, it should be a much lower base system strength, so that the maximum strength can be around what we have now. It's already incredibly hard to take over systems as is. ___
Di Mulle	Posted - 2010.05.22 19:25:00 - [25]
Harlequ1n The Hegemonising Swarm	Posted - 2010.05.22 19:38:00 - [26] Good idea.
Imigo Montoya	Posted - 2010.05.22 21:00:00 - [27] This would also further encourage active use of systems which was an objective of Dominion.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.05.22 21:06:00 - [28] +1
Halsoy Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.05.23 03:42:00 - [29] I like this idea very much. --------------------
pc dude Ghosts of Ragnarok	Posted - 2010.05.23 06:19:00 - [30] this is a really good idea. i approve. like someone else said, make sure it's not any harder to take than it is now

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.