EVE Search - Territorial Holdings

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Territorial Holdings

» 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)
DB Preacher	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:31:00 - [1] Fugazii brought up a valid point in this thread: territory claims Quote: tbh and this goes for everywhere not jst delve, but u need to controll the stations for more than a "few days" for it to be claimed by either parties. least 2 weeks or so of 90% control for it to be moved from contested to controlled + warzone. Personally, I have to agree with this p.o.v. and one of the most difficult things in eve is currently to judge who controls territory. It can change on someone's whim ad everyone argues about it constantly. If there were set guidelines for the map makers to go by it might be easier for people to see where staked claims lie. POS Regions The regions with Player Owned Stations in them are, i.m.o., the easiest to decide who controls them. My personal thoughts mirror Fugazii in that, a corporation who wishes to claim a region must control the POS in that region for 90% of the time, for a whole month at a time. When an aggressor wants to be recognised on the map as having taken a region they must be in control of those POS for 90% of the time from the initial invasion. NPC owned station control Tougher to regulate. We saw what happened with PA where by the end of the Great Northern War, that PA had 1/2 corps left hiding in NPC stations unless the area was clear to come out. We couldn't move them and they still claimed the area. Did they control the region for 90% of the time? No, BoB did. However, without Player Owned Stations, it is difficult to judge who controls it. My opinion would be that an NPC station controlled region should remain neutral unless someone builds a POS and claims that system on the in-game map. There are traditionally the stalwart regions and the toughest to break down, therefore they should be the hardest to defend on the map. Other Regions (Pure Blind etc) Similar as the NPC stations. If someone wants to claim it, build a POS and claim it. Otherwise, neutral. The above prolly goes against much of what peeps in BoB would agree with so I'm pretty interested in hearing all sides. so... Thoughts/Comments? (Please leave the flames out of here, I'm only interested in serious opinions and will go directly to the mods in an effort to keep the thread clean) dbp Current RKK Ranking: (CAL4) Soldier Drop by and say hi in Reikoku Forums.
Spinal	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:41:00 - [2] Agreed: POS claiming Space.. thing is do people want to reveal where there pos is, for places like Fade where there is 2 Player Controlled Station that should show who claims what space, i personal would like to so more PCS's in the game could make warfare more intersting if there where ones near Choke Points, EG Pf-346,EC-P8R, HED-GP not in the systems but close by, would cause alliance to be more protective about there space and contoling Straticic Ground instead of sitting in a ICE field mining White glaze all day.
Tholarim	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:45:00 - [3] Edited by: Tholarim on 09/03/2005 09:45:28 I think control is very fluent (sp?) in the world of EVE. And control should not be considered to be a 100% at all times. Your territory on the map is how the world is perceived by the whole eve community. But we all know that from time to time, certain area's are definitly not controlled by the people shown on the map. For example, bob/shinra controlled delve without owning the station cus there was no FA in a million miles around there. But with FA owning the stations, who has control over the region? I think control of space is impossible to get a 100% accurate, the best we can do is aim for perfection but never really reach it
Andromedus	Posted - 2005.03.09 09:56:00 - [4] perhaps if ccp were to improve the ingame map by showing who owns regions like the map here on forums. Then have it continually updated at a time delay of 1 hour intervals or quicker to show presence of force, fighting and all the things that contribute to being in control of space. But that¦s probably to much to ask for.
AvanCade	Posted - 2005.03.09 10:04:00 - [5] So FA space isnt owned by FA but by NPC's ? . Space is ruled by posession, in forces.
Rysse Andrama	Posted - 2005.03.09 10:06:00 - [6] Bottom line is posession is 9/10 of the law.... However what does it actually matter, do people claiming this and that get a nice warm fuzzy feeling that theres is bigger than someone else's?? I thought this was a space game not a, measuring your manhood contest??
CrusherDK	Posted - 2005.03.09 10:27:00 - [7] leaders? may i ask you who are you? I dont see any BoB controlled space in Delve, and like you said, those who pay are lone guys. So quit being a heroes. I seen that you destroyed 2 FA BS, while FA downed yr 2 BS + Crow(podded). Delve is war zone, not your region that you won.
DB Preacher	Posted - 2005.03.09 10:41:00 - [8] Originally by: CrusherDK leaders? may i ask you who are you? I dont see any BoB controlled space in Delve, and like you said, those who pay are lone guys. So quit being a heroes. I seen that you destroyed 2 FA BS, while FA downed yr 2 BS + Crow(podded). Delve is war zone, not your region that you won. I'm not talking about current specific claims, I'm talking about general thoughts on what people think is acceptable guidelines for the map maker to follow so that he doesn't get 895379845 claims for territorial holdings everyday. You have a problem with a specific territorial claim, make a different thread. thx dbp Current RKK Ranking: (CAL4) Soldier Drop by and say hi in Reikoku Forums.
Rytir	Posted - 2005.03.09 11:04:00 - [9] All i got to say is "i agree with this" DBp
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.09 11:22:00 - [10] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 09/03/2005 11:23:31 I see just a few regions that actually are under control on the map atm. Most of the so called controlled space isnt controlled but a warzone more then anything else. It's disused, empty, non-productive and as such worthless space. And better still, the only space that's relatively quiet at the time isn;t so because it's being controlled so well, it is quiet because noone has decided to change that fact yet. Give it a few more months and no main region in 0.0 will be quiet anymore. Only empty or full of war. There currently is vey little reason to be in 0.0. For the first time in a year and a half I've spent more then two continuous days in empire with my main account this weekend. And I'm nto even doing lvl 4 missons. 0.0 is simply boring, useless and full of futile efforts atm. So tbh, I'd say remove all claims from the map in contested zones like fountain, delve etc. Only paint in a colour where no or very little fighting goes on and people actually still mine something or do something else besides shooting eachother for the fun only. Let's all go do lvl 4's. BS will rise to cost 200 million inside of two months and then pvp will have some use again and we can start painting in that map again. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Shin Ra	Posted - 2005.03.09 11:26:00 - [11] So stain is neutral space now? ----------------------------------------- Heinky> Dont mix eve with rl it can be bad for your health
Damo Pendragon	Posted - 2005.03.09 12:01:00 - [12] Edited by: Damo Pendragon on 09/03/2005 12:04:38 Well there are two things here: 1) Identifying areas of the map controlled by factions for the map maker. 2) Alliances / Corps actually owning a region / territory. For 1 the steps DBP outline are pretty good and under current game mechanices probably the best on offer. Personally I would hate to try and decide the current map based on anything other than these facts. I.e. forum time, or flying a ship through the region. But in reality what we need is the ability to close routes and stop travel to regions. For that we need control of jump gates, and dreadnaughts. I invisage (after the coming map changes) a time when players can control a jump point, with a POS fully automated defences and limited jump access. (In fact all that would be required is the ability to build a POS at a gate, but also the dreadnaughts to destroy them). That way these outposts (at stargates or jump drive points), could be regulated in size (say put a maximum size for defences). That way regions could be blockaded and say have massive central POS's with full production and research capabilities. Effectively forming the first real alliances, not the current crap we have. Actually an interesting suggestion might be to move gates, closer together around jump points. I.e. have a jump point and 3 gates around the jump point at 200 km. (But that is an idea for a different debate) Sorry DBP not much to argue with there.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.09 12:01:00 - [13] Originally by: Shin Ra So stain is neutral space now? If there's actually any fighting going on to speak of, or if there are no inhabitants to speak of: yes. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Muthsera	Posted - 2005.03.09 12:32:00 - [14] Seems reasonable. But I'm sure there will be other issues than Stain to follow in this respect. You can't just trow out the long time aspect of Stain and say it's no longer seen as a territorial hold. In my mind it's the greatest hold of territory in eve. SoonÖ
Kcel Chim	Posted - 2005.03.09 13:09:00 - [15] ive seen a few replies claiming "hey but the area x is our space", the topic is general, not about your space our space or whoevers space. He wants to find an official and maybe ccp supported (good ideas for ingame features stated by a few ppl here) solution to the whole "claiming space" movement. Atm everyone can claim space. He just needs to convince the community with a shiny announcement and establish himself for 1-2 month in peace. After that when the alliance is "known" its impossible to "unclaim" the space unless the alliance itself disbands or announces their leaving / merging / defeat. While eve development was in the past close up with what players wanted i personally see exodus as a big flop. The ideas and dreams to "venture out" and own space via pos, sentries and other means just didnt come true. Atm we play the very same as castor, the only difference is that pos are undestroyable (if fueled) savespots. If eve had a working ingame system the alliance warfare would have been much more interesting in the past (with curse around) However i doubt thats in the interest of ccp. By introducing a system there would be winners and losers in eve. The whole universe is more or less build on evergoing conflict till someone is bored and chancels his subscription. Now if we would have winners or losers, how often can you lose before you quit ? Keeping that in mind i rewrite my statement: Exodus is like castor just with a few fancy new ships (which do the very same as the old ones just fill the gasps or are compromisses between 2 classes) mostly useless pos and a bright new ui
sSense Thade	Posted - 2005.03.09 13:23:00 - [16] Maybe just a few game tweaks here and there could solve it. Don't know how plausible they are... Maybe you could make npc stations shootable, and which ever alliance does the most damage in a week gains dictatorship of the station. Nothing else needs to change, but at least then you could see who is the controlling party where-ever. Maybe allowing npc stations to have one volitile office. So every week peeps must dmg the station to gain the office ...not the whole station like conquerables. This could help peeps take office space in empire too. You always guarenteed office space if you fit enough to take it. etc..
Nifel	Posted - 2005.03.09 13:32:00 - [17] Originally by: sSense Thade Maybe just a few game tweaks here and there could solve it. Don't know how plausible they are... Maybe you could make npc stations shootable, and which ever alliance does the most damage in a week gains dictatorship of the station. Nothing else needs to change, but at least then you could see who is the controlling party where-ever. Maybe allowing npc stations to have one volitile office. So every week peeps must dmg the station to gain the office ...not the whole station like conquerables. This could help peeps take office space in empire too. You always guarenteed office space if you fit enough to take it. etc.. So you want alliances to shoot stations all day?:( urgh... "We wield swords for the sound of laughter that used to be there long ago."
KamiCrazy	Posted - 2005.03.09 13:48:00 - [18] ALl these ideas... all these suggestions are only bandaids for the true underlying root cause of the problem You can't kill alliances. In real life, it is very similar, a sovereignty claims an area of land. They make it their own and through some form of consitution or other means they legimitise their claim. There is no "outside" forces which dictate claims, and through wars and civil wars sometimes these claims are contested. But as long as the wider general community accepts the claim of a sovereignty the map is never changed. However, if you remove the institution which runs the sovereignty from power then you effectly dissolve that claim. The claim no longer exists because there is no one left to claim it. There is no mechanic in eve to do this. You cannot topple empires no matter how much damage you inflict. The only way to do so is to make it politically neutered.
DB Preacher	Posted - 2005.03.09 14:04:00 - [19] Kami, that's why I suggested that you have to place POS down to claim a system (once you place POS down, it shows up on the map in-game should you choose it too). It took GIMP something like 30 hours to take down a fully functional POS. If the POS was used as territorial markings, it would make them a target and give them a purpose in the game for both attackers and defenders (imo). I'm not looking for an easy option to end an alliance, I'm looking for a way of making the mapmakers job easier to differentiate between false claims by a corp that takes a station for one day then claims it controls the region and people who actually want to control a bit of territory. Since we don't have an in-game map which mirrors the board-game risk, the out-of-game map is the closest thing we have for a random person coming into the game and seeing who controls what. The in-game territory mechanics have improved since the inception of Eve, especially with the player controlled stations and ofc there is still a long way to go but I'm more concerned with getting general ideas about how to make the guidelines for territory control across to all alliance/pvp groups and general public in eve. (I specify the word guidelines there because nothing should ever be written in stone) dbp Current RKK Ranking: (CAL4) Soldier Drop by and say hi in Reikoku Forums.
Damo Pendragon	Posted - 2005.03.09 14:13:00 - [20] Which was sort of my point, I cant disagree why the guidelines you have outlined. And they should make for an interesting map. But is reliant on people actually wanting to claim space. I personally wouldnt build a POS just to have my name on a map, perhaps some will. But the problem still remains, the map maker can have guidelines, which he/she should definitely stick to. But doesnt stop me coming on the boards and saying I have claimed Yulai (which I have with the help of my new alliance, Concordokken!) and having some people believe me! All in all I think the guidelines for the map maker are good for a bad situation.
Burga Galti	Posted - 2005.03.09 14:14:00 - [21] As far as I can tell it's a matter of perspective, personally I believe there are only 'claims' to territory. Nobody can truely control 'their' territory. If you view the maps not as 'owned' space but rather as areas of activity then the problem is much simpler. You can CONTROL Player Controled Stations, you can INHABIT NPC Stations, you can OWN POS and you can claim INDIVIDUAL systems through them. What you cannot do is control entire regions; what you can do, however, is be active in those regions and hunt your enemies who enter. There are no borders, only battlefields. Tales from the EVE Cluster
DB Preacher	Posted - 2005.03.09 14:26:00 - [22] Originally by: Damo Pendragon Which was sort of my point, I cant disagree why the guidelines you have outlined. And they should make for an interesting map. But is reliant on people actually wanting to claim space. I personally wouldnt build a POS just to have my name on a map, perhaps some will. Well, yeah, we see it everyday in the map thread. Remember back to when the POS was first introduced, Xetic and CA were fighting viciously over HED-GP. I thought one of the funniest and clever things Xetic did around that time was build a pos there. They then claimed they owned HED-GP and when you looked at the in-game map, they DID have sovereignty on the in-game map. CA ofc said they couldn't claim HED-GP realistically. However, CA then went and put up a pos too (did they put up two, I can't remember?) in order to challenge that claim. Now imagine if the actual out-of-game map had taken this claim for sovereignty seriously. Do you think CA or Xetic would have left it at that? Hell no, they would prolly still be fighting over the territory now, or one of them would have been victorious and claimed the territory for their own. With your Yulai claim, no-one can build POS in < 0.4 systems so that would never hold ;) dbp Current RKK Ranking: (CAL4) Soldier Drop by and say hi in Reikoku Forums.
Moominer	Posted - 2005.03.09 15:11:00 - [23] I am relitivly new to Eve, but I really like the way the "control of space" (0.0 alliance space) is up for interpretation and not simply a matter of game-mechanics defining who owns what regions. I have played other mmogs where territory is defined by who captured such and such outpost, and I believe it is much better for an mmog to let the players dictate issues like this, rather than ingame-code saying who owns what. The fact that territorial control is debated is only good for the game and community as a whole, if the in-game map dictates it, half of the "fun" and humanity is lost.
Rehen	Posted - 2005.03.09 15:22:00 - [24] I would like to see npc stations removed from 0.0 and all stations to be made pos's
Dianabolic	Posted - 2005.03.09 16:00:00 - [25] Originally by: Rehen I would like to see npc stations removed from 0.0 and all stations to be made pos's Well, 2 things. Why? And... that has nothing to do with this thread.
Damo Pendragon	Posted - 2005.03.09 16:03:00 - [26] Yeah I see your point DBP. We in CA had a laugh at Xetic at that point as HED-GP changed hands daily and effectively they had a safe spot and that was all. But according to the map they would have sovenrighty (spelling? I have been drinking). Makes for an interesting debate as to whether having a POS signifies having control or whether it just means you have a safe spot in the system or not? Personally I would say the latter. And if that is the case there is no clear way to define who controls what system apart fomr going to each system, luanching probes find where every player is and what they are doing. So is there any point in making a map unless we find someone who is totally impartial and can read the truth behind the crap on these forums. If such a person exists I want to meet them! On a side note I see the call for alliance sentries in the General forum, see what I have started!
Damo Pendragon	Posted - 2005.03.09 16:19:00 - [27] On a side note I am not opposed to the map idea, I think it is great I just think there is always going to be a lot of disgruntled people on what a map shows. Maybe the best guidelines, are show where all major people claim on the map and if it overlaps show it is contested. Probably how it currently works. PS I am still claiming Yulai in my assault frig and Concordokken allies!
DB Preacher	Posted - 2005.03.09 16:59:00 - [28] Originally by: Damo Pendragon Yeah I see your point DBP. We in CA had a laugh at Xetic at that point as HED-GP changed hands daily and effectively they had a safe spot and that was all. But according to the map they would have sovenrighty (spelling? I have been drinking). Makes for an interesting debate as to whether having a POS signifies having control or whether it just means you have a safe spot in the system or not? Personally I would say the latter. And if that is the case there is no clear way to define who controls what system apart fomr going to each system, luanching probes find where every player is and what they are doing. POS are destructable though as GIMP proved. Yes, it's hard work to destroy one but if you want to control a system completely then you have POS at every moon and need to be able to have the upkeep for them. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing though :/ It probably doesn't promote any more pvp and more pvstations (which I think we can all agree is boring as hell). dbp Current RKK Ranking: (CAL4) Soldier Drop by and say hi in Reikoku Forums.
Lallante	Posted - 2005.03.09 17:14:00 - [29] Dude GIMP killed a POS with a couple of small/med guns and no defenders. ANY POS with BS defenders is unkillable. Lall - THE Vocal Minority - ShinRa
DB Preacher	Posted - 2005.03.09 17:57:00 - [30] Originally by: Lallante Dude GIMP killed a POS with a couple of small/med guns and no defenders. ANY POS with BS defenders is unkillable. Ah that changes things dunnit ;) dbp Current RKK Ranking: (CAL4) Soldier Drop by and say hi in Reikoku Forums.

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.