| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Friehgt
   |
Posted - 2005.08.16 19:11:00 -
[31]
This is a great idea. Make it so 0.0 is totally empty. right now durring US play time most 0.0 regions have 2 or 3 people in them so this would mean that of the thousands of people online only those 2 or 3 would be alowed into that space ?? I can see it now you will have to join one of two or three mega corps or you can't leave empire ever.
|
Professor McFly
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 19:29:00 -
[32]
So we have 2 kinds of players, those that want alliances to be able to build something meaningful in 0.0 space, and those who want it to remain 100% lawless and kill or be killed.
|
Doshi Mazir
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 20:03:00 -
[33]
A few people have commented along the lines of "you just want protection so you can afk mine arkonor/bistot/crokite".
That's one of the dumbest arguments I've heard against automated defenses (the idea is not new), for two reasons:
1. Some remote regions already allow you to mine high-ends without fear of hostiles.
2. More supply + same demand = lower prices == cheap ships
Please refrain from using "omghaxsploitafkminers" arguments now.
The whole idea is still that an alliance needs to commit itself to establish any kind of automated defense perimeter. Nobody is asking for 5 mil dreadnaughts here, nobody is asking for jump gate control, nobody is asking for patrolling npc's. So please, stop implying someone is and read before you post.
|
Friehgt
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 20:21:00 -
[34]
How stupid are people ? If you cant protect a region then its not yours . If CCP lets people close off 0.0 to 90% of the player base then this will be eve-offline in no time at all. If you want to control pirates and small groups put up warp bubbles and gank them. If you dont have people online to do that get more members or control less space.
|
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 20:31:00 -
[35]
blob war for teh win.
No more frig in 0.0 - they will be wtfpwned by sentrys.
No more small pirate corps and no more solo raids.
I dont understand why people want to convert 0.0 to empire ? Have no balls but want arkanor ? Wanna do high level complexes with no risk from people ?
The problem is that it is supposed to be risky .
|
Sprak
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 20:31:00 -
[36]
I think there has to be some sort of benefit for claiming soverignty in a region. Although I don't agree that you should be able to put up sentries at all the gates, there should be exceptions to the rule - say, perhaps in a system that you control a Conquerable station or in a system that you have an outpost.
Attaining either one of these is a very hard thing to do and there should be some reward for achieving these. Allowing systems that have POS in them to deploy sentries is a bad idea, because POS are too easily assembled. Systems that are controlled by an empire, however, should be defendable. This would put greater incentive on working as an alliance, and would make alliances, in my opinion, a more important factor in the game.
|
Agnar Koladrov
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 20:48:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Agnar Koladrov on 16/08/2005 20:49:34
Think out of the box for eve`s sake people! (don`t read this with a block of contrete arround for you head)
This wil NOT ever, cut off 0.0 from the players!
This will give power to the people living in 0.0! This will give control to some systems controlled by alliances.
Only difference: IF that alliance doesn`t like you you are screwed!
And some people fear this 
|
Friehgt
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 20:53:00 -
[38]
Great so the 7 or 8 people in 0.0 that the alliances like will have protection from sentries. Everyone else gets ganked at the door. How is that not excluding people ?
|
Professor McFly
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 21:50:00 -
[39]
Gatecamp schedules and patrol shifts ftw then I suppose 
|
Jak'ai
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 02:32:00 -
[40]
I fail to see why people get so up in arms whenever a topic about colonizing 0.0 comes up. It's almost like the automatic assumption is that if it's possible to defend 0.0 space then there will automatically be thousands of systems completely closed off from any players other than the relevant alliance - who will then get stupidly rich while afk-mining ore with no worries in the world.
Flawed assumption IMO. It's similar to assuming that since POS can claim space then there will be no unclaimed space left in 0.0 (looking at a map I see this isn't the case), or with outposts being indestructable there will eventually be outposts around every planet in 0.0 (highly doubtful).
The fact of the matter is that 0.0 space will remain largely unused and empty as long as there is no infrastructure there. Alliances are the only ones who should be able to make that infrastructure (markets, mining, etc) and there has to be at least a minimal automated defence capability to make that happen.
"You can't claim what you can't defend" is valid to a point, but only to a point. POS have automated defences, strong enough to turn back a small fleet but easily taken apart by a determined enemy - system defences would be the same. What would need to be put in place is an equivalent for "reinforced mode" that allows an alliance to muster a fleet to defend their space. If they cannot do it in time, they lose it.
This kind of thing would actually encourage PvP I think. The hardest/longest part is moving around trying to find the enemy. In this case, you know where the enemy fleet will have to be - defenders give up mobility and initiative in exchange for more combat power, same as it's been in every battle in history.
There's nothing to say that defended space remains just like 0.0 either. Maybe as an area stays "settled" for a while it starts to rise in sec status. Logic would say that the higher end 'roids would be mined out in any settled space so they would disappear as sec status rises. Evenually alliance controled space would look like 1.0 Empire space now, mainly Veld and Scord. Of course there's much easier access to 0.0 space and ore (only a few jumps away) so miners would start to wander out that way, but then again that's more targets for pirates and other fighters as the rules of 0.0 apply as soon as you fly outside of alliance secured space.
It sounds to me like allowing fortifications in 0.0 space (at a large cost for the owning alliance) actually adds a heck of a lot to the game, for both small group PvP types and large alliances. How much fun is flying around in gankfleets anyway?
|
Friehgt
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 21:57:00 -
[41]
I'm guessing you have never looked at the eve map. With just a few dozen systems closed off you could eliminate entry to most of 0.0. If you want sage and secure systems stay in empire. Organization in this game is far below any other group game i have played. Thats to be expected as its still a new game. But asking for CCP to give you the tools to do something you are just to lazy to organize is wrong. CCP should provide content to 0.0 but the players should provide security.
|
Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 22:52:00 -
[42]
I'd say actual guns at gates is going too far.
I know I proposed the very same thing a good while ago. But in all honesty I can't see them being justified since they would remove all freedom of movement for any non-blob. On top of that, thje current map gives waaaay to much opportunity to abuse such a sovereignty based system to close of way more then you own sovereign space.
All in all, not good.
However. I could see where support stuff like ECM, Web (not scrambler since there's already warp disruptors) and sensor boost/damp turrets or other area of effect support weapons could be very helpfull in giving defenders and edge when defending their core systems.
A system described in this thread where sovereignty, number of pos and location of the system or even availablity of an outpost influence the deployment of this stuff seems fine to me.
But direct-damaging weaponry cannot be justified imo. That needs to be and remain in the hands of the players.
|
Sprak
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 20:52:00 -
[43]
Bump this idea. I think it deserves more exposure as I think this would bring the feeling of 'empires' into much greater effect.
|
Purask
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 21:23:00 -
[44]
i dont know from where ppl get the idea that having a little bit of automated defence means the end of 0.0 space or "closed" alliance areas.
This whole thing is more in the direction to stop a few frigs/cruisers of hostiles/pirates and could require a POS or even outpost/station.
And it must be repeated again that its simply impossible for any alliance to protect their space effectivly.
Its one thing to stop enemy blobs but its another thing to find the daily solo pirates and catch them.
Seriously saying that alliances should be able to defend their space could be as easily used as to say that POSs shouldnt have defence cause alliances should be able to defend them too, its really nothing different.
Would it be really the end of the world if u would need 1-3 BS as support to break the gate sentry defence in enemy core systems with POSs/Outposts/Stations?
I hear always the argument that 0.0 isnt empire, that might be true on one side but is totaly wrong on the other.
Ofc its basicly 0.0 space but arent alliances and sovereingty meant to change exactly this?
Why do u want to take away the option and tools for alliances to build their own empires.
Atm there is hardly any profit or positive effect of owned space but lots of costs involved in it.
I mean where is the real defence between unclaimed 0.0 space and claimed 0.0 space?
The only difference is the color of the dot on the map and that the chances of running into a particular alliance is higher but thats about it, doesnt feel like a player owned empire at all.
If ur only fear is that the game will run out of unclaimed 0.0 space where u can do things solo then the simple solution is to open up more regions but limiting the alliances in their abilities isnt the right thing to do.
The game has currently one big problem, the NPC empires take away too many systems and players.
All what is happening now in NPC empires should rather happen in player empires which would set their rules in their space and then u would also additionaly have more than enough unclaimed and totaly lawless 0.0 systems (though player empires system wouldnt be a save place at all cause without concord nothing stops u from killing ppl just it wont be that **** easy to get into them).
My impression was always that all what happens in NPC empires is supposed to happen one day in player claimed space ofc with differences but u get the basic idea.
But seems like a lot of ppl consider 0.0 space and especially alliance claimed space just as their personal version of a pvp server which noone is allowed to change.
I hope some ppl realise that if 0.0 space doesnt get populated by the so called "carebears" this community will split in 2 parts.
Empire where we will have all carebears and alliance player alts and then there will be 0.0 space where just big corps/alliances and their friends will live.
In the end this means the Eve universe will feel like its played on 2 servers, the pvp one and the carebear one.
Well some ppl dont mind this but i had more hopes for Eve.
|
Panda Bear
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 23:10:00 -
[45]
I did a mock expansion I called Calypso in General a couple of week ago (got moved to the Idea forum) that somewhat detailed a scenario for bringing law to 0.0 by Corporations/Alliances. The cost should be very steep so that not every Corp/Alliance can "civilize" a area of 0.0 space. Just a single system would cost a huge amount of isk. But to those Corps/Alliances willing to bring "law" to a area of 0.0 the eventual rewards could be enourmous.
It would be voluntary, so an area of 0.0 claimed by a Corp/Alliance need not use the tools in place to bring about "civiliazation" to their area. And it would be all but impossible to "civilize" all or even a majority of 0.0 space. It would cost just to much if done correctly.
Cheerio and good luck on this topic. I predict it will die a fairly quick death.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |