Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Apollo Gabriel
Domini Lex Talionis Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 20:44:00 -
[1]
Hello All,
Forget about the current and or past systems. How SHOULD it be done? We are in a sci-fi game, so how would future militaries claim ownership? What would it enable them to do?
Please share your positive suggestions, there are plenty of places for the other ones,
Apollo TO CCP: The implicit promise of polished quality keeps me playing through the rough times. Don't let the Trolls keep you from your goals. |
Apollo Gabriel
Domini Lex Talionis Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 04:44:00 -
[2]
Bueller? TO CCP: The implicit promise of polished quality keeps me playing through the rough times. Don't let the Trolls keep you from your goals. |
chopper14
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 04:53:00 -
[3]
Well, how kind of you to ask. no one has ever asked me that question before.
First. I would assign New concord to only protect people in npc corporations. (calm down bunnys because it only gets way worse from here.) I would assign old beatable concord to the rest. Yes! In my eve as soon as you signed up to a corp, your fluffy little bunny status would go right out the window.
as a tradeoff I'd probably make it so a weaker version of old concord that would rush to a npc players aid in low sec with the response stepping down with the sec status of the system. while the rest of the population recieve the normal gate and station backup as it is now.
as a big fat bonus I'd move all missions except the training ones to low sec starting with the lvl 1's in 0.4, lvl 2 in 0.3, lvl 3 in 0.2, lvl 4 in 0.1, and the lvl 5's to 0.0 with the plexes following suit.
I would also make the public belts in high sec pretty much worthless (in minerals and rat loot/salvage) and make it so mining and industrial missions started with agents in 0.1 gradually stepping up into an Empires good graces and her best private belts (yes I just brought high end mercoxite etc into high sec, but its highly scanable and still Gankable). I'd leave high sec belts more for training purposes than anything while seeding the low sec belts. See not only would this make people feel safer going to low sec. it would force them while their still young and teachable!
This would affect sov in a subtle passive manner.
Second. NPC corporations would activly defend their territory I'd take away anything that stops you from building and upgrading in high sec and make it so if you dont have the standings they dont say "you cannot build as you do not have adequate standing" and change it to "OH REALLY!!" Even if you had the sec and decided to add an illegal upgrade say a cyno jammer. and as soon as you anchor they blow you up and chase you out of their space. (at least in 1.0) With 1.0 being really aggressive, and gradually stepping down their response making it bearly tankable by the time you get down to .4 and just some sissy raids by the time you get to .1 To make this work would mean that the lower the sec the longer it would take for them to detect your station and a randomizer would come into play. In 1.0 you prolly wouldnt even get it fueled in .4 you might go unoticed for months etc.
In adition a gallente pilot going from say gallente space to ammar or caldari space while the two are gallente empires enemies, would be a bad idea. unless you had managed to create a positive sec standing with all involved you would get a response equal to your sec status with that nation no matter if your in a npc corp or not. suplemented by pvp faction warmongers and their human element I have a feeling being one of the races would finally come with a sense of nationalisim. jumping into another empires space might be stopped by a text box "are you sure you want to enter hostile space?" or if their not at war it could say be the same as the low sec warning.
third. In 0.0 id say a future military would probably do what everyone is already doing DEFENDING THE GATES! I'd add a layer to the plannet interaction where if they had met every other requirment they could colonize a plannet/or moon capable of sustaining life.
It would come complete with planetary bombardment and plannetary defense patch with all the same fixings at impirium gallactica with its eyes set on encarna, which aught to be simaler to fallout 3 as far as avatars and movment etc.
Once a corporation hit this level of sov they would no longer be considered a corporation but a new empire and would be given the chance to change their nations name from oh.. hello kitty corp to say.. HTFU empire? and as an empire they would be able to set standings for who can and cant jump through their system which would be regulated by war deccing pg1
|
chopper14
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 05:01:00 -
[4]
empire gate control would be dependant on war deccs basically paying the gate gods to turn their enemies away
but hold on im just holding my place while I write the rest at my liesure.
|
killerco
Gallente Sons of Anarchy. Death Rhubarb
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 07:58:00 -
[5]
Edited by: killerco on 01/08/2010 07:58:28
Originally by: Apollo Gabriel Hello All,
Forget about the current and or past systems. How SHOULD it be done? We are in a sci-fi game, so how would future militaries claim ownership? What would it enable them to do?
Please share your positive suggestions, there are plenty of places for the other ones,
Apollo
It would be fun too have the old station ping pong games back so no sov stations always funerable
|
Naomi Wildfire
Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 15:48:00 -
[6]
Pretty easy mechanism that would grand sov changes everyday without needing rediculus fleets to shoot millions of HP.
One structure, activate it, hold out till the timer runs out and sov changes. Fast placed terretorial warfare.
Sov isnt very important to me, you can rule over unclaimed systems or plant pos' too.
|
Apollo Gabriel
Domini Lex Talionis Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 15:53:00 -
[7]
Chopper you've got some interesting ideas there ... I realize the high sec changes help harmonize your 0.0 vision, but let's focus on 0.0
For a while now I thought it would be great to have Sov claimed by an actual PRESENCE in space, but that is completely boring to have a 300 pilot fleeting sitting there trying to claim the system.
So how do we actually *claim* a system? I have no direct experience with the current or old mechanics other than reading and discussing with people who have claimed under both and no one seems to like either. TO CCP: The implicit promise of polished quality keeps me playing through the rough times. Don't let the Trolls keep you from your goals. |
Naomi Wildfire
Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 16:02:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Naomi Wildfire on 01/08/2010 16:06:19 Current System: Plant Soverenity Blockade Units and wait 3 hours (if someone has sov already) SBUs go online if not shot down and Terretorial Claim Unit is vulnerable. Shoot the TCU till the shield reinforced mode kicks in. Wait Shoot the TCU till the armor rf mode kicks in wait Shoot the TCU till the struc rf mode kicks in wait kill it
If theres an IHUB in the system the same procedure counts for that. I can be wrong about the struc RF mode and maybe theres and additional 3h for anchoring. I dont care much about it so i dont know how it works in full detail.
POS Sov Warfare: Spam more POS' in a system then your opponent and click the claim button.
http://evelopedia.com/en/wiki/Sovereignty_%28Mechanics%29 detailed article on how it is now
|
Apollo Gabriel
Domini Lex Talionis Etherium Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 16:16:00 -
[9]
Naomi,
Thank you for this post, I just re-read what I said and my language was unclear, a problem I seem to have often on the forums : (
What I was meaning to ask was how *SHOULD* we claim sovereignty to make it fun for all?
Best, Apollo
Originally by: Naomi Wildfire Edited by: Naomi Wildfire on 01/08/2010 16:06:19 Current System: Plant Soverenity Blockade Units and wait 3 hours (if someone has sov already) SBUs go online if not shot down and Terretorial Claim Unit is vulnerable. Shoot the TCU till the shield reinforced mode kicks in. Wait Shoot the TCU till the armor rf mode kicks in wait Shoot the TCU till the struc rf mode kicks in wait kill it
If theres an IHUB in the system the same procedure counts for that. I can be wrong about the struc RF mode and maybe theres and additional 3h for anchoring. I dont care much about it so i dont know how it works in full detail.
POS Sov Warfare: Spam more POS' in a system then your opponent and click the claim button.
http://evelopedia.com/en/wiki/Sovereignty_%28Mechanics%29 detailed article on how it is now
TO CCP: The implicit promise of polished quality keeps me playing through the rough times. Don't let the Trolls keep you from your goals. |
chopper14
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 05:43:00 -
[10]
You are a vague bunny,
I've given it some thought. (real thought this time)
I still stand by most of what I said for 0.0, especially the part where the owner of the "colonized" systems can choose to make their gates send you through their gate system withought actually entering but instead sending you to the next gate on your route.
The only real change I'd make to my idea is that instead of attacking the gate to get in, you use the blockade units. When you anchor it, it begins to pick the gate.
Pick one gate for entry. Would make it possible to go in and attack what you want like pos guns or planetary defenses, but leaving the actual colony and pos etc Invulnerable.
Pick 51%. And you can blow up everything, but can't completley destroy the colony.
Get 100% ownership of the gates to completely remove former sov.
It would be kind of like one of those games where you have to pick a lock to go to a particular room. Could add another layer where the more colonies you have in a system the higher the skill, and the higher tech lvl SBI to pick it.
However if the gate wasn't Locked but was allowing people through it would be the same as now except the SBU would act like a foot in the door preventing the system owner from locking the SBU'd gate.
Inside a Locked gate system the targets like pos, and colonies would be as vulnerable to attack as they would be in the 51% scenario.
(read this part very carfully) This locked gate system wouldn't stop a ship from jumping in if they didn't have their cyno jammer up and running, nor would it stop a fleet from exiting WH space into a system that has chosen to opt for the lock their gates VS the invulnerability route ( how it is now). Leaving their pos and planetary defenses vulnerable to possible WH attacks, corporate betrayal and the like.
After thought. They could even add a expensive skill intensive heavy on the CPU gate hacker module. It could only be fit to certain covert ops ships. These would only work from inside a locked system, and could be used to temporarilly unlock the gate, as long as the ship was within short range and the module was active.
The module could be named after the type of virus it uses to gain access to the gate, maybe a "TROJAN".
A locked sytem under attack from any number of Trojans would revert to the "51%". Rules above.
This would make it possible for the following convo to happen.
" [WH explorer]. Hey buddy, how much would you pay to jump a fleet Into NC's home system?
[SC Admiral]. After what they did to us in H-W? Name your price.
[WH explorer]. How about 2 bill ?
[SC Admiral]. We can spare that.
[WH explorer]. Really?
[SC Admiral]. Yep. Just cleared it with my CEO.
[WH explorer]. Great! That's double what NC offered me not to let you in."
See. Eve can be as fun as we want it to be.
The southern coalition admiral above may opt to jump a fleet through asap mayby bringing his own gate hacker pilot to help them escape if it goes bad. If he doesn't have access to one he may bring some probes and exit through a WH. Or he may opt to remain inside that Scorched system and be a bane to his enemies existance making his own sov. system unusable probably causing the besieged populations to revolt if not retaken in a timely manner.
|
|
Beer Monk
|
Posted - 2010.08.08 06:50:00 -
[11]
You want my opinion? Fair enough. Here goes.
I've been playing EVE for over 5 years (yeah another alt reply cry me a river flamers) and I've been around the block a few times. In the beginning nullsec was little more than a playground with no incentives other than no penalties or fees to PvP. Then came T2,moons with exploitable resources the brilliant idea of a T2 BPO lottery and of course came dreadnaughts all in a day when even battleships were something of a rare sight. Sov was introduced by way of towers and soon all hell broke out. Perks like Constallational Sovereignty too. This is fine and dandy to those dictating how things roll in the alliance,where funds earned from the moon mining are dispersed or expended. But while this is all fine and well the guys at the bottom of the totem are shafted.
This IMO was/is a critical flaw in nullsec opertunity for the majority of EVE players. Most startup corps and alliances will go to lowsec and temper themselves with basic principals of non-consentual butseks er I mean PvP and moon mining operations where after about 6 months to a year they have the experiance needed to take a stab a nullsec. But there were a number of problems for those new players and their upstart alliances. There was no room on the map for new alliances to fit among the super alliances and coalitions yet a massive percentage of the space was used for little more than moon exploitation. What was worse is many were not accepting additional corps and is some cases not accepting new pilots or only accepting specific pilots. People looking to rat and mine were turned away. " LOL go back to empire carebear" was common. That resulted in a lot of quitting by many players who had hit that wall. I have seen endless 'I quit' threads ont he forums and in fact most of the players in my start time range have quit the game. Many even as recent as 2 years ago have quit to never log in again. Its funny to laugh and ask "can I have your stuff?"and even print that on stuff you sell until you realize your player base isnt growing as well as it should or you cannot keep a player base beyond a certain and predictable timeline then its a matter of great worry to both the comany and its shareholders as CCP is a publicly traded company.
So CCP introduces faction war and adds perks to lowsec. This becomes a testbed for taking and losing sov in nullsec. With a template in hand CCP goes to work implementing this into the game with perks for the common pilot. Gone is sovereignty by starbases and in is sov by TCU's and Ihubs.The notion among upstart alliances with these changes is the major alliances will downscale their claims to a practical number of systems allowing room for new alliances they can ally with or fight with either way. All is well it seems. Systems can be upgraded and pilots can rat and mine. The common player can now be productive to an alliance! There will be more room on the map!
Well not quite. While ratters are a taxable asset they arent required. Moons provide the isk the alliances need and only a small handfull of systems need be upgraded to keep their PvPers content although alliance income covers most PvP expenses to those players. The real issue is that most of the systems these alliances claim still go largely unused save for the moons they hold,in some cases seeing no activity from the holding alliance for weeks on end. Sovereignty is still being used as nothing more than a fuel discount to line the coffers of alliances while other alliance are barred the remaining exploitable value of the system.The major alliances have simply adapted to the alteration of the sov mechanics and vast tracts of space are still barred to the player base.
The levels of military and industrial development are dictated by player activity in upgraded systems. I believe the level of strategic development should also be dictated by player activity in the claimed systems as well and I believe the fuel discount should also be based upon each level of development. If I had my way strategic would have a 0-5 scale. At 0 your claim is by default vulnerable and there are no benefits. At 1 you get 5% fuel discount and it goes up by 5% per level.If your players stop paying attention to the system the strategic development starts to drop along with any other upgrades you may have. This would render a more dynamic game world and force taking only what one can actually exploit and maintain/protect. And since we are on this subject I'd like to see other perks to the level of strategic along with this change. Sentry guns. 1's 2's and 3's. Each class and the number to be anchorable at gates and outposts correlating to the strategic level. These ARE empires afterall and that is a bonus or perk long overdue to them.
|
Beer Monk
|
Posted - 2010.08.08 07:09:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Beer Monk on 08/08/2010 07:12:42 I'm certain this idea will come with as much backlash and anxiety as the first major change but as a REAL corp CCP's long term goal should be one of more than simply handing out free patches and content every 6 months. Getting new players to fill in where others fall off will last only so long. Granted a large number of players are the type to play a short duration and quit because EVE is a harsh game of winner keeps all there are a much larger portion who quit after a year because they hit the affore mentioned wall of stubborn and set in their ways alliances and there is a rather unwelcoming image one has to get past when confronting long term play in this game.
CCP needs to think how it will go about changes to make the nullsec community as a whole more in depth. There shouldnt be a strictly PvP land and strictly carebear land. I and most of the average pilots prefer a blend of this. They and their corps want to participate in the building and maintaining of an empire! They want to PvP,they also want to rat and explore. Its this desire to enjoy more than one aspect of the game and the alliances lack of such need that clashes my friends. Its not healthy for a solid long term player base.
Soverignty should be based upon player activity not simply a fee.
|
chopper14
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 04:55:00 -
[13]
Maby it's just the beer but the monk makes sense. It should matter if you don't have the tz coverage to honestly have an alliance. I still stand by my idea but I see the value here. I've seen low sec systems that are almost impossible to stay in for any length of time. I've shadowed them to see when is a better time to come back and found that with the ones who are fully worthy of owning a system there is no good time just a shift change. Anything less is just a siege.
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec manufacturing disaster
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 10:56:00 -
[14]
SOV is a funny thing..
In real life there really is only two things that decide who governs.
Who controls, and patrols the land, and especially the borders. In EVE this would be claimable gates. With lock out and passage fees/tolls. Second is who has and administer the systems services. This would be who sets the fees for docking and usage of stations.
The simple way would be to make claiming a time based fortification. So you claim the gates by shooting down its defences. Then you upgrade the SOV by claiming the next tier. Each tier gives you access to deploy more defences and build and anchor more units and services.
Then its merely a question of balancing the features and functions of the gates, and the stations.
A small addition to the above..
Gates, moons, planets and gates should have decayable warpin locations. You should only be able to warp to zero on high sec locations or locations you have bookmarks to, and these should "decay" due to the slow movements and changes in location.
If we added a system to be able to send and share updated bookmarks using mails or local chat, then route and intel trading would become interesting, also scanning down systems and sending the fresh intel would be of value.
Last you could upgrade the autopilot with a script like feature that made it possible to make a list of locationcs using bookmarks, and maybe even specific features like docking and jettison using specific modules.
A ccp developed "automation" system could be controlled better then current "EULA" breaking ones. Since EVE is at a large part a SLOW simulation game, a bit of automation might really make things more entertaining.
Tycoon wannabe go here: SCC Lounge cocktails and Dreams. |
Kestrix
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 12:25:00 -
[15]
In my opinion Sov should not be dictated by POS TCU or anything else. Alliances should just have to attack each other not attack and defend static objects as this simply creates an enviroment where the bolb rules and lets alliances claim large swaths of space yet leaving it by and large unused. Instead Sov should be governed by two things. Active members in a system and infrastructure eg POS and arrays and outposts. If an alliance is not active and investing in a system it can't claim Sov. Also I'd like to see outposts become destructable thus making it possible to totally remove an alliances infrastructure making it implosible to live out their, forcing the members to abandon that system.
Thats what I think about Sov. |
JohnPaulJones
Caldari Valhalla Naval Corp IMPERIAL LEGI0N
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 03:45:00 -
[16]
The idea that sov is held entirely by player activity seems to be a popular one. I must say I like this idea.
|
Caius LiviusCerso
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 05:43:00 -
[17]
guns on gates and stations.
|
Saul Elsyn
INTERSTELLAR ENTERPRISE
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 05:48:00 -
[18]
Hmm... I personally think that keeping sovereignty should require the suppression of the local pirate forces, without capsuleers out there it would be their space.
That way if people don't play in that space, don't kill NPCs in that space. It reverts to the NPCs...
Not sure how feasible that would be, or how you'd incorporate fights over sovereignty with that system... perhaps the destruction of player structures in the system... I really dislike timers, it seems to break immersion rather badly.
|
Daedalus II
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 08:27:00 -
[19]
This isn't as creative as some of the other suggestions, but more an addon on the current system to make it more interesting:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1278615
|
Beer Monk
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 09:50:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Beer Monk on 20/08/2010 09:55:45 Daedalus II
Quote: 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 love how the idea of integration and REQUIREMENT of other types of players is catching on. Suddenly we also want a piece o the pie. Suddenly we are as critical to security and well being of the homeland as the guy flying the Nyx or Avatar.
|
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 14:39:00 -
[21]
Hard cap on 1 system per corp, corp must have at least 100 members to qualify.
|
D'rhall
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 15:16:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Beer Monk Edited by: Beer Monk on 20/08/2010 09:55:45 Daedalus II
Quote: 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 love how the idea of integration and REQUIREMENT of other types of players is catching on. Suddenly we also want a piece o the pie. Suddenly we are as critical to security and well being of the homeland as the guy flying the Nyx or Avatar.
This is excellent, except add in that ihub upgrades should be targettable items (like station services but less hp so roaming gangs can incapacitate them) and perhaps planetary orbitals (from PI) also.
Furthermore make it so the indices must total 1 or more to RETAIN sov. This will force people to actually use their space and more importantly bring back some purpose for smaller roaming gangs AND the need to defend against them rather than hide and wait for them to pass !!
|
Alan Kell
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.20 15:28:00 -
[23]
Easy solution to all the sov problems?
Give jump gates hitpoints. Kill the jump gates and anchor your own to take sov.
Ditch the SBUs and make it possible to anchor jump gates instead.
Sov is based on keeping TCU or station and at least 1 jump gate(or jump bridge) alive.
If all jump gates are destroyed, access is by wormholes only.
More w-space ftw! Make fleet fights smaller with reduced access and the large scale problems go away.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |