EVE Search - State of Warfare in 0.0 - Improving the reasons to fight

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

State of Warfare in 0.0 - Improving the reasons to fight

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ShadowandLight Amarr Doom Guard Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.07.22 20:20:00 - [1] I posted this originally on Scrapheap, but I wanted to make 100% sure the CSM / CCP reads the topic. Their were also many good points brought up on the Scrapheap forums. -------------- tl;dr - ThereÆs no real reason to invade space anymore. Eve 0.0 space has become CCP's version of racial equal opportunity employment. While it might be "fair", its boring and threatens to ruin the game. I find it interesting looking back through the years about players motivation to fight for space in 0.0. Specifically I reflect upon goals centered around Alliance's economy and how that has been effected as the years have gone on. The move I dive into the past and present, the more I begin to realize that maybe the current 0.0 economic method is broken and their needs to be a new "incentive" for major alliances to slug it out. If you can make good isk in your back yard you dont need to take over someone elses space. War SHOULD BE Profitable for the winning side Problems new and old - Dys moons - Alliances used to fight over Dys moons. Worth over 10b each back before Dominion capturing a few of them in a campaign was worth your time and effort. There were a set number ( over 130 ) that while is alot, just 10% would pretty much cover all PVP efforts made by an alliance. CCP however decided a few patches ago that these moons were too profitable in the hands of only a few alliances. A proper decision I might add. They introduced Alchemy and also eventually revamped the materials list for t2 ships. In turn T2 ships have come down maybe 10-15% in pricing. ( Hulks have gone up, but thats because its easier to mine in 0.0 and make good isk. Supply and demand. ) Tech Moons - more of them but worth less then Dys moons. They are worth 1/4th Dys moons old value and are the new bottleneck in t2 production. Either way, not worth the time and effort for full force invasions. Plexing - CCP added with Dominion the ability for almost all 0.0 space to be upgraded with ISK producing mods. While this balanced out isk capabilities in 0.0 ( which to be honest was hugely un balance and unfair ) it added a further level of not having to capture other space to make a profit. Game Play - Lets face it, the state of large fleet fights in 0.0 is badly broken. Dead titans reappearing, entire capital fleets being stuck loading grid... Its ugly and is just another huge energy sink why people dont want to get involved in taking over peoples space. POS's Vs New Sov Mech - This is basically in simplest terms Strategy / Resilience vs Brute Force. In the old days people spent 24 / 36 hours in one time POS spamming systems to prevent the attacker from getting 51% more pos's in a system then the defender. It required huge dedication, isk and coordination. Now, if you get Attacker X > Defender Y in # of pilots and make sure they attend only 6 operations, you get the entire system. After getting your butts kicked a few times the defender will give up and the attacker basically steam rolls the entire system. I do not see the new mechanics as an improvement to the game. ------- "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 Hoist the Colors!
ShadowandLight Amarr Doom Guard Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.07.22 20:20:00 - [2] Solutions Fixing 0.0 war fare is not going to be easy. Yes, we always have the old standby of the north and south hating each other. However that only goes so far. I firmly believe that without solid economic incentives people wont want to invade other peoples space. The incentives donÆt have to be drastic, but I have a few ideas. 1) Fix the game - If people could actually slug it out with 500 v 500 on each side and have a good semi lag free fight it would go along way. I know the arguments that if they X bring 500 Y will bring 700. Its true, we will keep hitting technical walls in terms of fleet sizes and the servers ability to handle it, but as CCP is well aware we have headed in the wrong direction. Another point, get some creative thinking going with CCP and players and possibly come up with a system that requires simultaneous participation from multiple forces in different locations at the same time. In simple terms, find a way to split up the large fights into smaller ones that have to happen before a system is taken. Its one way to reduce the fleet numbers. 2) Provide economic incentives - Dys moons were a incentive. Now adays, there is no reason economic reason i can see for 0.0 enitys to attack each other. A simple idea would be if a system is put under siege, the defender gets x2, x3 , x4 ( pick a number ) of increased economic production for x number of days. If the attacker wins, they get an even higher economic increase for x number of days. Attacking a system should be harder (IE require more ISK to accomplish ) then defending. This is NOT the case now, but CCP could fix that with some creativity. ( please dont count the cost of SBU's, what a joke ) 3) Get creative - Maybe certain systems every month or 2 would spawn rare ore or rare PI stuff. Something that would make it worths people's time to invade and take over. In short, War should be fun and profitable. However in the current state of affairs I dont see many reasons ( other then Role Playing and hate for each other ) to invade. If corrected, Eve could really gain a huge part of its personality back. ------- "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 Hoist the Colors!
MukkBarovian Caldari The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.07.22 20:26:00 - [3] Tech moons are particularly awful. They appear in the north instead of being evenly spread around becasue they are the northern racial moon. Basically makes me beleive some CCP employee(s) live in the NC and felt like buffing it up a bit. Having fleet fights more laggy than they have been in the past is just a sign of incompetence.
Ichera Caldari Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.07.22 20:29:00 - [4] So what your saying is that someday there will be a giant NAPfest in 0.0 where everyone lives in peaceful harmony and gets along.... and Empire will become a lawless downtrodden mess... with suicide ganking and griefing for all... Well that sounds about right.
ItsmeHcK1 Minmatar The Tuskers	Posted - 2010.07.22 21:11:00 - [5] Originally by: ShadowandLight Solutions In short, War should be fun and profitable. However in the current state of affairs I dont see many reasons ( other then Role Playing and hate for each other ) to invade. If corrected, Eve could really gain a huge part of its personality back. Well, Eve IS an MMORPG... (Note the RP in there.) Not that I don't agree with you, btw.
Imigo Montoya Gallente Hysterically Unforgiving	Posted - 2010.07.22 21:19:00 - [6] Edited by: Imigo Montoya on 22/07/2010 21:20:14 Originally by: ShadowandLight War SHOULD BE Profitable for the winning side I'd like to address a particular flaw here - historically, the winning side is often in worse economic shape than the losing side. This often comes about by the fact that in order to win a war, sacrifices need to be made. I do however fully agree that there needs to be incentives to initiate conflict or else the best part of the game will wither and die. What I see coming out of the Dominion changes is a whole lot of large entities giving up space to be used by smaller entities. What I'm hoping, and it might be a long term thing (and what I think CCP were aiming for), is that we will see more people inhabiting 0.0, which will inherently produce more conflict. The latest QEN showed that only a tiny portion of the population of EVE live in 0.0, which is a damn shame.
Sarrgon Caldari Avalonians United The Shadows.	Posted - 2010.07.22 21:28:00 - [7] Biggest thing IMO is fixing the lag and node issues, most larger alliances atm feel it isn't worth it to start a big war till it is fixed. Which is hurting the economy cause they aren't buying up extra minerals, ice and ship / fittings and such to fuel the war effort. Most don't care about the politics in 0.0, they just want a enemy to shoot at, glory for there corp / alliance saying they are winning battles and taking systems. And for new CAOD content, since the big war up north ended, CAOD got boring, use to love to read CAOD when I needed a good laugh But fixing the lag and node issues will help fix some problems Eve is currently facing. Though I think some new 0.0 regions would help out also. All the answers we need are inside of us.
Berikath Caldari Vires Quod Iunctum	Posted - 2010.07.22 21:41:00 - [8] IMO- how 'bout some mechanic to in some way limit the level of engagement possible in a system based on infrastructure/defense abilities. E.G- Each small POS in system allows for 1 more attacker, medium allows 2 more, large allows 4 more, and each defender allows 1.25 more attackers. Ships larger than BSes count as more than 1 person (attacker or defender); say, carrier = 3, mothership = 5, titan = 15 or something. That way, a small but skilled corp can stand a chance at defending a system against an alliance, since the alliance can't hot-drop 3 supercaps against a single POS... but a sustained attack by the alliance would still be very difficult to defend against (since we all need to sleep SOMETIME). Maybe, for each player over the attacker limit, players get a 5% resist buff to all and POSes get a 2.5% resist buff to all. Maybe figure attackers/defenders by the number of people in system who have aggressed against other players. That way, an alliance could have a bunch of players available to react, but not actually be over the limit and get penalized for it. Sure, it might be hard to implement, and it would probably **** off big alliances... but it would make fighting for system control much more INTERESTING and, dare I say, even.... fun? Cuz really... hot-drop-blobbing sucks for defenders (not much of a defense against it, if you're small) and seems like it must kinda suck for attackers too (wooo! I just attacked some noobs with 4 of my bestest cap-ship-pilot buddies!... again.... and they just rolled over and died... again...)
islador Gallente Frontier Explorer's League	Posted - 2010.07.22 22:40:00 - [9] The boy has a point! The biggest factor is without a doubt the lag, I'm sure everyone remembers that 6 or 7 month stint a year or so go, i think it was around trinity, where we were seeing 500+ vs 500+ fights all over an the game wasn't missing a beat. That was awesome. If CCP can get the game back to that, people will start shooting again, everyone craves a fight, though some may prefer to fight rocks. After lag, you've got the incentives ShadowanLight was refering too, there really arn't any worth mentioning anymore. Tech moons arn't up to snuff and are north only for the bulk of it like Mukk said. Dysp moons are in the **ter compared to the old days, and rat quality is irrelevant thanks to Dominion's "oh hey, lets spawn more!". As best as i can see it, the only way to really bring back incentives to large scale warfare is to create more alliance scale isk fountains. Moons used to provide this, but with the new balances they no longer do, and lets face it, everyone likes the cheaper t2 boats anyways. I don't have anything that doesn't sound stupid, but this has been kicking around in my head for a while as a means to add NPC interaction to the game. NPC Coalitions CCP tried desperately to bring some interaction to the game with the Sansha invasions, and while it made for a few days of cool news stories and brought some depth to the game, it was more or less a swing an a miss. Now what if an alliance was able to buddy up with an NPC faction to help rid that faction's home space of the "dreaded" capsuleers? Lets take AAA and IT as our examples. So Molle's finally done with the russian's and wants to invade, so he starts talking to a True Slave, basicly a GM assigned to player relations. They start drawing up invasion plans to free Catch from the bastard capulseers, the lines are drawn in the typical manner, we'll invade here, you invade there, when its all said and done we take this chunk an you get that one. All straight forward, the NPC space now becomes conquerable NPC space, much like the conquerable stations of old, and the GM, acting as a Sansha leader has them erect POSs, and get production up and running, basicly, creating a little rat empire ripe for the taking. This would allow for NPCs to become a wild card in 0.0 politics, fielding capital fleets, ancient jovian super weapons, and all those lovely faction ships complete with concord assigned bounties in a desperate bid to reclaim their space. This would force the defending party to decide whether to take on the rodent invasion or the player invasion, each with it's own benefits, players go on killboards and don't make ya feel like a **** for dieing in the fight, while the rats spit out isk like all hell. Each faction would require a single GM's attention more or less full time, and would begin to operate like an alliance, well, an alliance with a spawn command. This would allow CCP to bring new depth to 0.0 politics as well as add NPC interaction in a way that benefits 0.0. Once they set this up it would undoubtably be a hop skip an a jump to staging similar empire invasions (Sansha army at Jita 4-4 drool) Not to mention you'd have this little NPC hot spots popping up for smaller alliances to rush into and try to establish a foothold, getting isk for each POS, SBU an whatever else downed in the invasion. This system would require some awareness of the GM's assigned to it, the last thing we need is someone attacking a POS only to have 400 blood raider titans spawned on top of their 40 man dread fleet. Note: To keep it at the corp and alliance level it would most likely be necessary to tweak how "invasion bounties" are handled, perhaps depositing directly into the corporate account? Actually, thats bull****, corps can raise tax that way players can still go do small carebear ops in the NPC's space.
Musical Fist Gallente NAP Coalition	Posted - 2010.07.22 23:45:00 - [10] OMG a decent WIDOT thread I suggested what you said but then 0.0 blobbed me on the forums much like what they do in game they created alts lagging out my thread with crappy comebacks I like where this thread is going you truly deserve to be promoted to 'Docked Elite' much like your leaders Only read half of it but agree with all of it. -- Recruiting now open!!
kra torii Minmatar United Systems Navy Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.07.22 23:47:00 - [11] Good post. This is a serious WIDOT post ~~
Facepalm Amarr Battlestars Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.07.23 02:23:00 - [12] Posting in a most excellent WIDOT. thread.
Just fearless Caldari Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.23 03:48:00 - [13] Edited by: Just fearless on 23/07/2010 03:49:27 agree the problem is imo that you have to pay for space to concord? does that make sense to anyone 0.0 = pay concord 0.0 just is who can rent more space as we where talking about in corp chat here in PHA "alliance only kill themselves now". + add some more regions maybe? + bring moons value back to full. + no paying concord for stupid sov? + fix legg my 2c
t0xicAngel Caldari Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.07.23 04:02:00 - [14] Well, this guy definitely does receive a promotion for this WIDot post. Nothing much to say here because it is all true, and 100% that paying concord for our sov was a miserable game design choice considering the point of 0.0 is ~there is no concord~ I mean what they gonna do send the concord mafia to come bust my kneecaps if i don't pay my "rent". No, you just derp lose sov.
Marconus Orion Amarr D00M.	Posted - 2010.07.23 04:10:00 - [15] Edited by: Marconus Orion on 23/07/2010 04:12:23 Have moons change. A 30 day cycle on a moon that is being mined the whole time would be something like this: 5 day change which during those 5 days each day the ratio of old mineral vs new mineral goes down by 20% per day. So on day 1 it would be 80% cad and 20% tech. Day 2 is 60% cad and 40% tech. So on and so forth that on day 6 it is now 100% tech. The 100% tech would last for 20 days. This is of course if it is being mined the whole time. On day 26 we would start to see the introduction of a new mineral that was depleted somewhere else in the universe. So lets say it would be 80% tech and 20% cobalt. You get the idea. This would bring back moon probing as a profession and give incentive to go after moons that show evidence of going from a so so element to the flavor of the month in demand element. But of course, I expect any current high end moon holders to flame this will their mains and alts and put out an alliance wide mail for everyone else to do the same. That is just one idea I have on what would help out 0.0. Not to mention give low sec a boost. Flame on. EDIT: If no mining is happening, then the cycle freezes on whatever it was and does not continue. All in all I think it would be a simple to implement. Maybe we will see if CCP does anything like that in the next 12-18 months.
Lykouleon Gallente Trust Doesn't Rust Mostly Cookie	Posted - 2010.07.23 09:04:00 - [16] Assembly hall is that way -----> Quote: CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
Leina Kubyeshev Amarr Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.07.23 09:35:00 - [17] Originally by: Marconus Orion Edited by: Marconus Orion on 23/07/2010 04:12:23 Have moons change. A 30 day cycle on a moon that is being mined the whole time would be something like this: 5 day change which during those 5 days each day the ratio of old mineral vs new mineral goes down by 20% per day. So on day 1 it would be 80% cad and 20% tech. Day 2 is 60% cad and 40% tech. So on and so forth that on day 6 it is now 100% tech. The 100% tech would last for 20 days. This is of course if it is being mined the whole time. On day 26 we would start to see the introduction of a new mineral that was depleted somewhere else in the universe. So lets say it would be 80% tech and 20% cobalt. You get the idea. This would bring back moon probing as a profession and give incentive to go after moons that show evidence of going from a so so element to the flavor of the month in demand element. But of course, I expect any current high end moon holders to flame this will their mains and alts and put out an alliance wide mail for everyone else to do the same. That is just one idea I have on what would help out 0.0. Not to mention give low sec a boost. Flame on. EDIT: If no mining is happening, then the cycle freezes on whatever it was and does not continue. All in all I think it would be a simple to implement. Maybe we will see if CCP does anything like that in the next 12-18 months. Dynamic Moon Resources is an awesome idea. Very well thought out +1
Ardetia Caldari Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.07.23 10:10:00 - [18] Originally by: Marconus Orion Edited by: Marconus Orion on 23/07/2010 04:12:23 Have moons change. A 30 day cycle on a moon that is being mined the whole time would be something like this: 5 day change which during those 5 days each day the ratio of old mineral vs new mineral goes down by 20% per day. So on day 1 it would be 80% cad and 20% tech. Day 2 is 60% cad and 40% tech. So on and so forth that on day 6 it is now 100% tech. The 100% tech would last for 20 days. This is of course if it is being mined the whole time. On day 26 we would start to see the introduction of a new mineral that was depleted somewhere else in the universe. So lets say it would be 80% tech and 20% cobalt. You get the idea. This would bring back moon probing as a profession and give incentive to go after moons that show evidence of going from a so so element to the flavor of the month in demand element. But of course, I expect any current high end moon holders to flame this will their mains and alts and put out an alliance wide mail for everyone else to do the same. That is just one idea I have on what would help out 0.0. Not to mention give low sec a boost. Flame on. EDIT: If no mining is happening, then the cycle freezes on whatever it was and does not continue. All in all I think it would be a simple to implement. Maybe we will see if CCP does anything like that in the next 12-18 months. definitely a game changer, definitely makes things more interesting but could be alot more work for people who already got eve as a second job but, best idea ive heard in a while
Hemmo Paskiainen Gallente Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.07.23 10:20:00 - [19] Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen on 23/07/2010 10:21:21 Originally by: MukkBarovian They appear in the north instead of being evenly spread around becasue they are the northern racial moon. Basically makes me beleive some CCP employee(s) live in the NC and felt like buffing it up a bit. They do, how else do they get titans respawn and have sister node knowlage to lag out systems while not even being in it
Marconus Orion Amarr D00M.	Posted - 2010.07.23 10:45:00 - [20] Originally by: Ardetia definitely a game changer, definitely makes things more interesting but could be alot more work for people who already got eve as a second job but, best idea ive heard in a while Well the last thing that is needed is to make POS work more hell than it already is. Then again, due to the trust factor, most alliances have just a few people doing POS work and they are overloaded and thus the feeling of it being a job. It's all about delegation I guess. But in the end, what I suggested is a hell of a lot better than static ISK printing machines that high end moons are now. And to those *****ing about "Assembly Hall is that way." crap. Changing high end moon goo definitely has to do with corporations and alliances so STFU.
cain82 Caldari Universal Exports Inc.	Posted - 2010.07.23 11:03:00 - [21] My suggestion is letting moon harvesting beeing more like plexing, let a found moon of specific type pump out a certain amount of moon goo, then despawn and reappear somewhere else for the probers delight. This would balance the regions and give alliances incentive for attacking regions which are traditionally deemed worthless...
Adeptus mecanicus Caldari The Flaming Sideburn's	Posted - 2010.07.23 11:22:00 - [22] Originally by: cain82 My suggestion is letting moon harvesting beeing more like plexing, let a found moon of specific type pump out a certain amount of moon goo, then despawn and reappear somewhere else for the probers delight. This would balance the regions and give alliances incentive for attacking regions which are traditionally deemed worthless... suggested that maybe a year ago on the assebly hall and lets just say the ppl owning high end moons was not keen on that idea, tho what you suggest will make eve less static and maybe even encurage more ppl to settle and fight over low sec tbh. also adding agents to 0.0 stations might be a idea of the criminal agent type like sanshas or serpentis (if you add a certain module to your outpost ofcorse), In addision allowing the ship maintinance bay live up to its name.......yes doing maintinance on your ships and drones and mods, it will make a POS even a better home to corps and alliances that want to live in 0.0 but dont care to setup/claim/pay/nap to use a outpost Recruitment
Marconus Orion Amarr D00M.	Posted - 2010.07.23 11:26:00 - [23] Originally by: cain82 My suggestion is letting moon harvesting beeing more like plexing, let a found moon of specific type pump out a certain amount of moon goo, then despawn and reappear somewhere else for the probers delight. This would balance the regions and give alliances incentive for attacking regions which are traditionally deemed worthless... Disappearing and reappearing moons would be a little immersion breaking don't you think? Not to mention what happens to the POS when the moon disappears?? The element on the moon changing randomly like plexes would be enough. I also think that any alliance, blue or not, that upgrades next to your system that you have upgraded should have a negative effect on your upgraded system. What ever level they have takes away from yours and vice versa. So at best the two neighboring systems would be 50% of the max level. You get the idea. No more blue for 50 jump crap unless you want side effects on your border systems. What would keep those two blue alliances from just merging to one bigger alliance? Leadership and member egos. Anyways, back to useless posting in COAD... (probably what I put above included )
Minigin Caldari Trinity Corp WE FORM VOLTRON	Posted - 2010.07.23 11:28:00 - [24] yes i agree... there arnt enough incentives to nap up and form super coalitions as it is. lets reintroduce more! . THE ORIGINAL COLOUR POSTER! Revisal > Nice job trying to troll me but luckily I'm smarter than you. :D
Marconus Orion Amarr D00M.	Posted - 2010.07.23 11:37:00 - [25] Originally by: Minigin yes i agree... there arnt enough incentives to nap up and form super coalitions as it is. lets reintroduce more! Egos is your friend good sir.
Adeptus mecanicus Caldari The Flaming Sideburn's	Posted - 2010.07.23 11:44:00 - [26] Originally by: Marconus Orion Originally by: cain82 My suggestion is letting moon harvesting beeing more like plexing, let a found moon of specific type pump out a certain amount of moon goo, then despawn and reappear somewhere else for the probers delight. This would balance the regions and give alliances incentive for attacking regions which are traditionally deemed worthless... Disappearing and reappearing moons would be a little immersion breaking don't you think? Not to mention what happens to the POS when the moon disappears?? The element on the moon changing randomly like plexes would be enough. think that the moon wont dissapear but you mined all the moon goo it has. one way to do it and still encurage ppl to claim sov is: none sov system with high end moon holds maybe 25k then its drained and respawns somewhere else in region sov system with high end moon will have 50k will respawn in constelasion. claimed sov system depending on level of sov will have more goo on the moons per level of sov and on lv 5 the high end will respawn in same system. limegreen dude: i think this might encurage even more broken naps and backstabbing due to the flexibillity non static moon goo represent Recruitment
Nostradamous Caldari Di-Tron Heavy 1ndustries	Posted - 2010.07.23 12:05:00 - [27] Edited by: Nostradamous on 23/07/2010 12:05:30 Im interested
cain82 Caldari Universal Exports Inc.	Posted - 2010.07.23 12:41:00 - [28] Originally by: Adeptus mecanicus Originally by: Marconus Orion Originally by: cain82 My suggestion is letting moon harvesting beeing more like plexing, let a found moon of specific type pump out a certain amount of moon goo, then despawn and reappear somewhere else for the probers delight. This would balance the regions and give alliances incentive for attacking regions which are traditionally deemed worthless... Disappearing and reappearing moons would be a little immersion breaking don't you think? Not to mention what happens to the POS when the moon disappears?? The element on the moon changing randomly like plexes would be enough. think that the moon wont dissapear but you mined all the moon goo it has. one way to do it and still encurage ppl to claim sov is: none sov system with high end moon holds maybe 25k then its drained and respawns somewhere else in region sov system with high end moon will have 50k will respawn in constelasion. claimed sov system depending on level of sov will have more goo on the moons per level of sov and on lv 5 the high end will respawn in same system. limegreen dude: i think this might encurage even more broken naps and backstabbing due to the flexibillity non static moon goo represent Yeah, that's the idea.. Disappering moons would be somewhat silly :O The fundamenal principle should resemble mineral extraction in the real world: E.g. resources do run out forcing corporation/alliances to either reinvest in new site, or invest further in expanding existing operation to maintain profitable output.
cain82 Caldari Universal Exports Inc.	Posted - 2010.07.23 12:50:00 - [29] But still with a limit to the total extracted resource possible to extract before a new source must be found ...
Snaut Minmatar Beach Boys Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.23 13:13:00 - [30] Originally by: Sarrgon Biggest thing IMO is fixing the lag and node issues, most larger alliances atm feel it isn't worth it to start a big war till it is fixed. Which is hurting the economy cause they aren't buying up extra minerals, ice and ship / fittings and such to fuel the war effort. Most don't care about the politics in 0.0, they just want a enemy to shoot at, glory for there corp / alliance saying they are winning battles and taking systems. And for new CAOD content, since the big war up north ended, CAOD got boring, use to love to read CAOD when I needed a good laugh But fixing the lag and node issues will help fix some problems Eve is currently facing. Though I think some new 0.0 regions would help out also. This
Deva Blackfire Amarr LOST IDEA C0VEN	Posted - 2010.07.23 14:10:00 - [31] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 23/07/2010 14:13:22 Originally by: Marconus Orion Edited by: Marconus Orion on 23/07/2010 04:12:23 Have moons change. A 30 day cycle on a moon that is being mined the whole time would be something like this: 5 day change which during those 5 days each day the ratio of old mineral vs new mineral goes down by 20% per day. So on day 1 it would be 80% cad and 20% tech. Day 2 is 60% cad and 40% tech. So on and so forth that on day 6 it is now 100% tech. The 100% tech would last for 20 days. This is of course if it is being mined the whole time. On day 26 we would start to see the introduction of a new mineral that was depleted somewhere else in the universe. So lets say it would be 80% tech and 20% cobalt. You get the idea. This would bring back moon probing as a profession and give incentive to go after moons that show evidence of going from a so so element to the flavor of the month in demand element. But of course, I expect any current high end moon holders to flame this will their mains and alts and put out an alliance wide mail for everyone else to do the same. That is just one idea I have on what would help out 0.0. Not to mention give low sec a boost. Flame on. EDIT: If no mining is happening, then the cycle freezes on whatever it was and does not continue. All in all I think it would be a simple to implement. Maybe we will see if CCP does anything like that in the next 12-18 months. Proposed pretty much same thing when CCP was still in draft stage with new SOV system and it was called ******ed and stupid, and noone would like to run after new moons every few months. And suddenly exactly same idea is generally accepted? Lol. I rly cant understand people in this game... or they are just so effin blind they cant predict anything past what they will eat as a next meal... As for my idea: just plain and blunt mineral switch every 3 months. 1 month was IMO too often (it takes goddamn week to take over system when its defended) and would be hard to pay itself back. Reasons exactly same as in your post: back to moon mining, ability to ninja mine before "big boys" get to it, forces sov wars/wars over moons. Reason against: moons are kinda worthless now. Still imo better to force some conflicts rather than have 100% stagnation.
HenkieBoy Minmatar Best Path Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.23 14:41:00 - [32] Just introduce a bounty the attacker will receive when it captures a system. The longer the system is owned by a corp/alliance the higher the bounty. For the RP part: The bounty will be paid by an anti-concord faction that wants chaos in the universe
Deva Blackfire Amarr LOST IDEA C0VEN	Posted - 2010.07.23 15:01:00 - [33] Originally by: HenkieBoy Just introduce a bounty the attacker will receive when it captures a system. The longer the system is owned by a corp/alliance the higher the bounty. For the RP part: The bounty will be paid by an anti-concord faction that wants chaos in the universe And you dont see how it can be exploited? At all?
SheriffFruitfly Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.07.23 15:26:00 - [34] Originally by: Snaut Originally by: Sarrgon Biggest thing IMO is fixing the lag and node issues, most larger alliances atm feel it isn't worth it to start a big war till it is fixed. Which is hurting the economy cause they aren't buying up extra minerals, ice and ship / fittings and such to fuel the war effort. Most don't care about the politics in 0.0, they just want a enemy to shoot at, glory for there corp / alliance saying they are winning battles and taking systems. And for new CAOD content, since the big war up north ended, CAOD got boring, use to love to read CAOD when I needed a good laugh But fixing the lag and node issues will help fix some problems Eve is currently facing. Though I think some new 0.0 regions would help out also. This Good thing ccp has 70 devs working on station-walking, eh? __________________________________________________________ Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Ezekialous Amarr Void Angels Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.07.23 15:53:00 - [35] I would like to see the 0.0 rental system developed, that would make space worth fighting for, the more space you have the more you can rent out, but much like most CCP promises they never materialize into anything .. Still waiting for my 5th subsystem module CCP :)
HenkieBoy Minmatar Best Path Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.23 15:54:00 - [36] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: HenkieBoy Just introduce a bounty the attacker will receive when it captures a system. The longer the system is owned by a corp/alliance the higher the bounty. For the RP part: The bounty will be paid by an anti-concord faction that wants chaos in the universe And you dont see how it can be exploited? At all? Sure I do.. just make sure the system is more worth for the defenders then for the attackers. But the topic is about the incentive for the attackers, not how to prevent exploits ;)
Hyveres Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.23 16:07:00 - [37] Edited by: Hyveres on 23/07/2010 16:07:32 Basicly fix the worst lag for 3-600 man engagement on nonreinforced nodes. Before dominion you saw a ton more capital engagements.. since hotdropping was not suicidal. Today you have a worst case scenario with a couple of hundred people taking down a pos using caps + support. Gather up and hotdrop and as your ships load the system you have the wonderfull blackscreen experience meaning that the guys already in system just get a nice round of turkeyshooting. This means that a ton of situations which led to fights and dead capital ships before dominion simply does not happen anymore since one side decides the hotdrop is simply too damn risky. "Subtlety is a thing for philosophy, not combat. If you're going to kill someone, you might as well kill them a whole lot." - Vulcan Raven, The Last Days Of Foxhound
Hyveres Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.23 16:10:00 - [38] Oh and while a lot of people talk of the 1k+ fights, these engagements were rare, so while they got the headlines the higher number of smaller engagements was where most of the shiplosses happened. "Subtlety is a thing for philosophy, not combat. If you're going to kill someone, you might as well kill them a whole lot." - Vulcan Raven, The Last Days Of Foxhound
n0thing Gallente Executive Intervention The Spire Collective	Posted - 2010.07.23 16:13:00 - [39] Fine post. Signed, please, CCP Devs, take a look at current warfare shape, we need something that will light 0.0 up!! ---
Marconus Orion Amarr D00M.	Posted - 2010.07.23 17:18:00 - [40] So basically: 1. Slay the Lag Monster, obvious there ofc. 2. Make moons dynamic in the since they change as they are mined, the duration of the change is subject to debate but all in all I think it would encourage some pew. Not to mention I like the idea of some low sec entity trying to hack it there and them having some nice moon goo income start to flow in. It would be interesting to see how what conflicts it would cause. 3. System upgrades affecting neighboring alliances/corps that are not in their alliance/corp in negative ways. There is no way that any super mega alliance would last long at all considering the infinite amount of egos in this game. Imagine them all trying to be roommates? Creating conflict is what we need and I think that would be a nice start. Signing off on a surprisingly non-fail WIDOT thread.
Spurty Caldari D00M.	Posted - 2010.07.24 13:13:00 - [41] Edited by: Spurty on 24/07/2010 13:16:49 A) wrap space back on itself (top of the north enters bottom of the south etc) B) some space is too cheap, some space is too expensive for the harvest you can expect to yield. FIX ME C) gates and switching sessions. Seriously, please, get rid of this concept. Put both sides of a gate on a single node, you session change while in warp or not at all. Jumping in and dying during session change, makes me want to go play instanced dungeons in some kiddie game. D) sov, the concept is 'ok', but seriously, it takes too long to war over it. E) RF timers, no longer than 6 hours (MAX) yupe, 6 hours. You have all day to play, you should be able to make progress!! Waiting days for timers to exit = everyone wants to play a different game until 20mins before the op. So it doesn't favour people that can't play all day long. Boo Hoo, get some friends and delegate some responsibility. F) Mods on 0.0 Structures, when was the last time we saw innovation here? All we seem to see is deprecation of mods. Make it more fun. Allow CPU upgrades and stuff. Rock/Paper/RF timer/explosion routine is dull G) T3 frigates. Make using 10 ~ 20 frigates more fun by offering ways to bluff / counter the usual 40man BC gang blob that forms to camp you. H) more ships please, even if they are t1, get more ships out into the game. Sleeper / Thukka faction frigates lawlz .. something! I) Tax people jumping through gates owned by players (incite some sort of reason to want to go to war and take this space for your own). 0.0 is pretty stagnant to be honest. Only reason sov is won or lost is down to the current owners walking away. Why do they walk away? Scared? (NO), there just isn't enough incentive to actually bother to keep it or to take sov. Players without SOV are penalized ZERO. This is a HUGE incentive not to get sov. Bit obvious really. Make it cost them. Inverse of that, give alliances the ability to set a tax rate that affects all corps. The pay out here is that this is the rate corps are feed profits from sov. Probably need to 'draw' pictures to explain that one better. Basically, want to make sure 'everyone' in a corp / alliance receives isk. Forces corps / alliances to cut the slack and makes people 'want' to contribute. At the moment. if you get it then .. well .. there is not enough reward for the weeks of work per system, so you end up losing people, who would prefer to do plexing as at least they are doing something rather than staying about purely to fight. Not everyone sees value in effort made to keep or retain the space. Don't think moons are a very good way to make ISK either. Bit dull really. All these planets are just slightly odd looking asteroid belts. Certainly not going to feed ISK to every man / woman in your corp is it? Only the 'FEW' get the ISK. Does nothing to inspire people to 'work'. Make 0.0 very very lucrative. I don't mean putting missions in there, I mean, make people wandering around 0.0 rich! Don't force them to have to scan down things for hours. Reward them sure, for exploration, but make it so that someone just out in a PVP ship, can get some riches without needing to log in 2 other alt accounts and never end up PVP'ing. Make 'story line events happen' out there, roaming ships can come across the spoils of the war. Basically, I'm agreeing with the points the OP has made, the above are my uncooked thoughts about how to improve the game. Pick each one up, give it a shake. There's some merit in each. I know they are strangely 'foreign' to this game we play. THATS WHY I LIKE EM ;-) Game needs something 'new' in all of these areas. /me gets back to his holiday NAPS: forcing you to play 'their' game
HalfArse Gallente Imperial Syndicate Forces En Garde	Posted - 2010.07.24 16:52:00 - [42] allowing sov holders to put a tax on gate activation would be cool - it would make high traffic systems worth alot of money and wouldnt favor any given region. Wartargets would be exempt from tax tho so if you wanted to atk a system with a massive fleet youd have to declare war or give your enenmy alot of money when you arrive :P
Sandwich PvP Caldari The Maverick Navy IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.07.24 19:48:00 - [43] Easy fix. Make stations destroyable.....Can't be done until 30 days after you've taken sov. Have a chance for all loot stored in station to drop. You know how people like to have expensive toys in 0.0, think about the drop possibilities. Yes killing a station you have captured may seem like a huge waste, and you'd certainly want to avoid blowing up random stations that people don't store stuff in, but under the right circumstances, capturing and killing a station could make an alliance instantly rich.....seems like that would provide the type of incentive you want. Personally I like the idea of taking a serious risk, and reaping a serious reward, but that's just me. The only fight worth fighting is the one you should lose.
n0thing Gallente Executive Intervention The Spire Collective	Posted - 2010.07.25 00:17:00 - [44] Originally by: HalfArse allowing sov holders to put a tax on gate activation would be cool - it would make high traffic systems worth alot of money and wouldnt favor any given region. Wartargets would be exempt from tax tho so if you wanted to atk a system with a massive fleet youd have to declare war or give your enenmy alot of money when you arrive :P Sir, you propose to kill the roam/skirmish pvp completly? ---
Nexo92 Caldari Method of Destruction The 0rphanage	Posted - 2010.07.25 06:44:00 - [45] Posting in a ShadowandLight thread :)
TheMahdi Amarr Space Explorations and Excavations Galactic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.07.25 13:01:00 - [46] Pretty simple really. Modify the way infrastructure upgrades work, instead of having many many fully upgraded systems that all yield the same amount, easily sustaining the entire EVE population in a fraction of the space available... Use an existing mechanic, system truesec should affect the quality of the benefits from upgrades. So -1.0 systems are still far superior and perhaps even cost less (RP factor: CONCORD has less influence in lower truesec). Also return static DEDs but increase respawn/adjust rewards and create a ** ton more interesting ones. Readjust the way exploration sites spawn and their rewards (which are pretty weak at the moment in general and way too random) to once again be more profitable in certain hot spots - you know, actually make EXPLORING that region of space worth while. But these are just my gripes about 0.0 PvE mechanics, the lag should be foremost priority so that anyone will give a ** about any changes.
Mujen Minmatar TopHat Inc. Ta8ula Rasa	Posted - 2010.07.25 13:12:00 - [47] Originally by: TheMahdi Pretty simple really. Modify the way infrastructure upgrades work, instead of having many many fully upgraded systems that all yield the same amount, easily sustaining the entire EVE population in a fraction of the space available... Use an existing mechanic, system truesec should affect the quality of the benefits from upgrades. So -1.0 systems are still far superior and perhaps even cost less (RP factor: CONCORD has less influence in lower truesec). Also return static DEDs but increase respawn/adjust rewards and create a ** ton more interesting ones. Readjust the way exploration sites spawn and their rewards (which are pretty weak at the moment in general and way too random) to once again be more profitable in certain hot spots - you know, actually make EXPLORING that region of space worth while. But these are just my gripes about 0.0 PvE mechanics, the lag should be foremost priority so that anyone will give a ** about any changes. I agree with the last statement. A common complaint is CCP adds more features without making fixing any existing issues. I'd like to see lag tackled first, then go forward with ways to reinvigorate 0.0.
Mathkrraa Gallente Blue Republic	Posted - 2010.07.25 15:46:00 - [48] Originally by: Nexo92 Posting in a ShadowandLight thread :)
Makthrraaa Caldari Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage	Posted - 2010.07.25 15:47:00 - [49] Originally by: Nexo92 Posting in a ShadowandLight thread :)
Shamis Orzoz Minmatar Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.07.25 17:29:00 - [50] The dominion lag machine is the number one reason why big wars aren't happening as much these days. I think the best way to keep 0.0 regions balanced while also creating real incentives for invasions would be to give each region unique resources that are required for production. If one region cuts the supply of said resources, they could drive up the prices and become rich, but they would also create a strong desire for others to invade their space. Most regions have something unique about them now, but it is nothing substantial enough to make any real difference in alliance level politics.
Morrn Gallente Heaven's Avatars Without Remorse.	Posted - 2010.07.25 22:05:00 - [51] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz The dominion lag machine is the number one reason why big wars aren't happening as much these days. I think the best way to keep 0.0 regions balanced while also creating real incentives for invasions would be to give each region unique resources that are required for production. If one region cuts the supply of said resources, they could drive up the prices and become rich, but they would also create a strong desire for others to invade their space. Most regions have something unique about them now, but it is nothing substantial enough to make any real difference in alliance level politics. The potential there could be awesome. If the resources were used to make useful things EVERYONE could use, 0.0 AND empire, maybe people in empire would pay an alliance to invade a region in order to keep the supply of resources flowing to empire.
Apollo Gabriel Caldari Domini Lex Talionis Etherium Cartel	Posted - 2010.07.26 02:40:00 - [52] Off the cuff brainstorming What if System Rent was based on how many neighbors you had? If there are Four Sov V systems with X range of you, it costs more to claim sov? That makes the big guys stronger, sort of a cultural victory a la Civilization III it would also make it harder for pets to exist, as your might would push them out in time. Flame On Best, Apollo Don't let the trolls, keep you from your goals.
stevieisbest Caldari Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.07.26 06:02:00 - [53] Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Off the cuff brainstorming What if System Rent was based on how many neighbors you had? If there are Four Sov V systems with X range of you, it costs more to claim sov? That makes the big guys stronger, sort of a cultural victory a la Civilization III it would also make it harder for pets to exist, as your might would push them out in time. Flame On Best, Apollo im pretty sure the whole point of the last expansion was to make mega alliances weaker. not stronger like you say your idea is suggesting
Haniblecter Teg Gallente F.R.E.E. Explorer The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.07.26 12:21:00 - [54] Originally by: Ardetia Originally by: Marconus Orion Edited by: Marconus Orion on 23/07/2010 04:12:23 Have moons change. A 30 day cycle on a moon that is being mined the whole time would be something like this: 5 day change which during those 5 days each day the ratio of old mineral vs new mineral goes down by 20% per day. So on day 1 it would be 80% cad and 20% tech. Day 2 is 60% cad and 40% tech. So on and so forth that on day 6 it is now 100% tech. The 100% tech would last for 20 days. This is of course if it is being mined the whole time. On day 26 we would start to see the introduction of a new mineral that was depleted somewhere else in the universe. So lets say it would be 80% tech and 20% cobalt. You get the idea. This would bring back moon probing as a profession and give incentive to go after moons that show evidence of going from a so so element to the flavor of the month in demand element. But of course, I expect any current high end moon holders to flame this will their mains and alts and put out an alliance wide mail for everyone else to do the same. That is just one idea I have on what would help out 0.0. Not to mention give low sec a boost. Flame on. EDIT: If no mining is happening, then the cycle freezes on whatever it was and does not continue. All in all I think it would be a simple to implement. Maybe we will see if CCP does anything like that in the next 12-18 months. definitely a game changer, definitely makes things more interesting but could be alot more work for people who already got eve as a second job but, best idea ive heard in a while Makes all space the same. Why fight over moons when a typical region has 300-500 moons. ----------------- Friends Forever
Apollo Gabriel Caldari Domini Lex Talionis Etherium Cartel	Posted - 2010.07.26 15:39:00 - [55] Originally by: stevieisbest Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Off the cuff brainstorming What if System Rent was based on how many neighbors you had? If there are Four Sov V systems with X range of you, it costs more to claim sov? That makes the big guys stronger, sort of a cultural victory a la Civilization III it would also make it harder for pets to exist, as your might would push them out in time. Flame On Best, Apollo im pretty sure the whole point of the last expansion was to make mega alliances weaker. not stronger like you say your idea is suggesting Perhaps my post was not clear, yes it would make them "stronger" but only in the sense that it would make being their neighbors tougher, so peaceful borders would need many buffer systems between them. Unused resources always spur fighting. Don't let the trolls, keep you from your goals.
UGWidowmaker Caldari freelancers inc -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2010.07.26 21:25:00 - [56] bahhh just make it so u get killpoints for each kill u make in 00- those point u can use for something... OMFG I am the widowmaker stay tuned.
NARDAC Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.07.26 21:50:00 - [57] Under the old system, the amount of profit in a system was not based on the number of people living and working there. Your system generates X ISK a month, then splitting that cash 10 ways is better than splitting it 100 ways. And, there was no reason for an allaince not to own, but barely use large number of systems. In short, the old way discouraged 0.0 alliances from inviting new players and corps into their territory. CCP did not like that the mechanisms were discouraging alliances from inviting more people into these alliances' territories. So, they make a new mechanic. The more people working a sytem, the more profitable it is. Okay, now virtually any system can be profitable, so why fight over systems. And, they add rent to systems to encourage the big allainces to invite more corps in to run systems. CCP gets what it wants, but there becomes less reason for mega alliances to fight. Ooops. So, the question has to be phrased like this. How does CCP alter the 0.0 system sovereignty rules that: 1) makes the profitability of a system related to the number of people living in it and working in it to encourage alliances to bring in more people. 2) makes alliances only hold systems they are actively working, encouraging them to bring in more corps to work the remaining systems. 3) still gives alliances reason to attack other systems. What is the solution? Then, there is this whole other issue. Let's say you have an alliance that is trying to invade another alliance's territory. You are going to be doing a lot of hit and run PVP. You're migratory, hitting targets of oppertunity while your targets are fixed, trying to mine, rat, plex a fixed set of systems. Let's say you break the will of the enemy, get a lot of their corps to leave looking for safer places to work, and are able to actually take over their territory and become the new sovereign power. Oooppsss... Now all the people that joined your alliance to get easy PVP start to get disgruntled because all they can do is sit in your systems trying to defend against raids by whomever has decided they want to use fast and loose gorilla tactics to PVP a fixed target.
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe	Posted - 2010.07.27 08:37:00 - [58] Edited by: Camios on 27/07/2010 08:44:55 I don't agree on some point: Quote: POS's Vs New Sov Mech - This is basically in simplest terms Strategy / Resilience vs Brute Force. In the old days people spent 24 / 36 hours in one time POS spamming systems to prevent the attacker from getting 51% more pos's in a system then the defender. It required huge dedication, isk and coordination. Now, if you get Attacker X > Defender Y in # of pilots and make sure they attend only 6 operations, you get the entire system. After getting your butts kicked a few times the defender will give up and the attacker basically steam rolls the entire system. I do not see the new mechanics as an improvement to the game. Your opinion on the new system is the same that CCP had when they introduced it. They thought it would have made the game more dynamical and it would have made conquest campaign shorter. But CCP were wrong. It's very easy to understand why: the attacker has to attend 6 times with numerical superiority and he wins. But if he fails once he has to start back from the beginning. And the defender has a lot of advantages: he can use cynojammers, bridges, and choose when he wants to fight. The reality is that the outcomes of wars are not decided on the battlefields. When the attacker wins, he does because he managed to disrupt enemy's orgnization and will to play with boredom, espionage stuff, and the like. I completely agree with people that say that server performance is the problem. This is not felt by the fleet commanders, this is felt by the grunt in his fleet battle BS or whatever that wants to shoot while his modules are stuck. Of course, he does not find lag fun, and thus the will to participate to fleet warfare is quite low. The only solution I see is to study a system that achieve this Quote: a system that requires simultaneous participation from multiple forces in different locations at the same time. In simple terms, find a way to split up the large fights into smaller ones that have to happen before a system is taken. Its one way to reduce the fleet numbers. Basically, my ideas are these: The attacker in the current system is the one that has the greatest difficulties. The attacker would benefit a lot from the participation of their pilots and allies Pilots would participate more if the environment was less laggy, because they want fun! So the attacker forces would get benefits from having less lag. Theoretically, a way to improve server performance would be to attack N systems at once, having N fights on N different nodes. But unfortunately, this is never going to happen because the defender can concentrate his forces and wipe the different attacking forces one by one on different episodes.
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe	Posted - 2010.07.27 09:13:00 - [59] Edited by: Camios on 27/07/2010 09:16:21 There are some other possibilities, but this is the simplest I see in order to allow the attacker to attack multiple system at once, thus reducing server performance problems. The fact that this revolves into rebalancing the attacker/defender advantages is inevitable, and btw if we want more wars and a more dynamical nullsec we need to incentivate the attacker and make nullsec more unstable, there is no other way. That is, half of the 0.0 players will probably whine about any change that makes it more dynamical (that means unstable).
Red Boss Gallente Zombicidal Mania Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.07.27 09:46:00 - [60] I think everyone is misconstruing the problem. The issue is that people don't fight because there's no reason to/it's more hassle than it's worth. I personally think the following are a problem: 1) Null is too profitable. You can simply hang out in w/e upgrades system you hang out in and just do sanctums in your carrier/mom. It's an obscene amount of isk compared to most other activities and it's essentially afk-able. 2) When you want PVP, you just JC to w/e hotspot system you have a JC in, or you just fly 15-20 jumps out to wherever it is you like to go for pvp against people that do the same. The goal is always to get a few kills and have some GFs, not to actually accomplish anything. 3) The combination of easy isk farming + easy pvp in null atm means that you never have to do anything after you've gotten your little corner area. 4) For the big powerhouses, you just grab a whole lotta space, rent it out, and get rich, while your members follow steps 1-3. 5) Conquering stuff is too hard. Systems take forever to take, and because reinforcement timers are on a timer (doh!) the defender knows what time to spam an assload of people into the system thus creating wtfbbqlag. Or vice versa. Whoever gets 1352646 people there first and waits out the timer wins. That's a ******ed system. Imagine during WW2 if when we landed on normandy and took the beach, the bunkers went into reinforced and the germans were like ok, we'll bring some reinforcements, just hold on yanks. IRL war doesn't work like that. Any reasonable concept of war shouldn't work like that.
Red Boss Gallente Zombicidal Mania Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.07.27 09:55:00 - [61] My proposed solutions: 1) Especially in regards to issue 5, I think that conquering systems should be easier. For example, when Alliance1 attacks Alliance2 in SystemA, it should take approximately a few hours to finish the attack. This is reasonable, as that's the amount of time it would take to, you know, disable the infrastructure in a star system. When they're done, AllianceB should lose sov, and the system would revert to contested. During a time period of X hours/days, the system's sovereignty switches slowly from B to A. So if the timer is 2 days, allianceA takes system, 6 hours later, they own 1/8th of the sov there (while it's still contested) and B owns 7/8ths. At that point if B attacks back and establishes "dominion" over the system, they own 7/8ths, and will need 6 hours to (1/8th of 2 days) reclaim sov. If it's made possible that a reasonable but not enormous fleet can establish this "conquest", then 100-200 man fleets can hit up multiple systems' sov, and disable the systems, thus encouraging multi-pronged assaults, juking/faking, actual attrition warfare and smaller fleets duking it out. The defender could of course sort out each system one by one with a massive fleet, but then the other fleets could continue advancing. The strategic level upgrade of each system should give the TCU some teeth and more HP, and maybe prolong the contested timer. So for example, if your border systems are only at lvl1, you would only have a few guns on it and enough EHP for a dozen dreads to knock it out in a a few hours. On a lvl5, you'd have the equivalent of a couple of death stars and would take half a day to knock out, while the contested timer would be almost a week long (just making up numbers to illustrate). 2) In line with the previous idea, have every constellation require a central TCU. If that TCU is knocked out, all the sov in the entire constellation is knocked out. Makes sense and adds more strategic resources to fight over. 3) When a system is conquered, all the previous upgrades except strategic ones should transfer. Voila, reward for taking a badass system; you got a badass system. All upgrades at 5, rent it out to someone. That's lots of profit to be made from war all of a sudden. 4) I love the destructible stations idea. I'd take it a step further and say that stations should be destructible even before the system is put into contested mode. Talk about crippling your enemy. Boom headshot your lootz. 5) Any POS mining in a system that isn't owned by the people who own the POS gathers resources at a reduced rate (25% would be my initial reaction). There is another incentive to hold systems, and take them, or at least to deny them. 6) The level a system can reach in upgrades should be tied to the number of systems you own in that constellation and/or region. Additionally, the degeneration rate of systems military/industrial levels should be higher if your alliance holds less systems. 7) Fix teh lagmonstar.
gazthenailer Caldari Mortis Angelus	Posted - 2010.07.27 10:38:00 - [62] Edited by: gazthenailer on 27/07/2010 10:39:00 Edited by: gazthenailer on 27/07/2010 10:38:37 After many years in this game people keep complaining about all kind of bull-sit. Everything from Titans being able to DD to Ore prices being to low. At the same time we all have seen how CCP continues to put time where is not needed. For example, station walking, dust etc. Things that in a perfect eve universe would be good maybe even awesome. But as you all know this is not the fact. We know the game have its flaws and features aka bugs. But what surprise me is how CCP and the player base keep playing the same game play year after year. Eve is ALL about NAPS* and people wanting to blob the other side to death in order to gank a ship here and there. Worst is to kill the node/s so you can kill a whole fleet and then brag about it in CAOD. This game would be so much greater if we all had to depend on our own abilities to survive as one entity/corp or just as an alliance. I would like to see the following changes. * Limit the amount of corps within an alliance to 4-5. This will focus everyone to find proper corps to co-work with in order reach greater goals. * Change the corp member limit to 200, this means at the most an alliance will have 1000 members. This will also keep the fights smaller and way more fun for both sides. * Remove naps from eve universe, if you can't survive in 0,0 as a corp/alliance you should not be in 0,0. Just this three changes will lead to. * Less lag when fighting * More smaller alliances fighting over space and it would be easier for new formed alliacne to get a foot into 0,0 * More pvp in 0,0 * More fun I know there are ****ed people always coming with excuses but as long the player base don't change the attitude it won't help how much or little CCP do to improve the game. As a side note: Titans are the new battleships, maybe CCP should introduce like always a bigger ship kill all the ridiculous titans we have in game. Maybe a Death-star ship that can create black holes or something :) Ps! If you want to be part of a lag free, laid back game play with pvp as focus. Join our info channel called Mortis Info.** MORTS Recruitment post

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.