|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 Nyrram    |
Posted - 2005.10.16 20:19:00 -
[121]
Yes, I see the problem, all I said was that your suggestions for solving it were not viable.. and for the record, gate camps are as boring for those in the camp as they are for the ones jumping into the camp, they are just a necessary part of controlling the space... I, personally, enjoy PvP fights, but totally hate gate camping... hours and hours of boring waiting, punctuated by a mass jump of enemy forces, and the quick decision of numbers.. can we beat them or do we have to run.. boooooooooooooring.. unless you get a nice balanced group of fleets and a glorious extended fleet battle.. but that's rare. Ask yourself why alliances 'have' to be strict about who they let in to 'their' space. Especially those groups who have active hostilities with other groups. Alliance members are out enjoying themselves in alliance space.. mining, NPCing, whatever. If you, as an alliance cannot offer at least some security for those members, then you are in trouble. If you allow neutrals into your space, then those neutrals can scout out your current operations for your enemies. This is the base reason for the NBSI policy held by many alliances. But why.. why.. why... should we be so concerned about neutrals scouting us? Well, it's because we can't offer any security that doesn't involve someone actively being there in the space. We can't offer PvP cover for mining operations that don't involve our force being there. We can't offer PvP cover for NPC hunts that don't involve our force being there. We can't offer PvP cover for training ops that don't involve our force being there. You want numbers? How about this.. Their fielded fleet force: 45 ships.. combo force of bships/cruisers/frigs Our fielded fleet force: 75 ships.. combo force of bships/cruisers/frigs We have superior numbers to them.. yet, we can't split our force to defend each and every operation going on in our space, as each smaller sub-fleet would be crushed by theirs. Current game mechanics require us to guard the entrance into our space, to ensure that spies don't get in to scout our operations, and to defend against potential invasion. Now, why are alliances carving out entire regions as 'their space'? Because they can.. there are FAR too few entrances into 0.0 to discourage this. If each region had 10 links from empire, it would be much more difficult to guard all entrances into an entire region, and 'camping' forces would be forced to locate other points to guard important operations. But this alone is not enough, because it swings the balance of advantage from the defenders to the attackers. Defenders should always have advantage over attackers. Remember, the purpose of region control is to protect the assets that are currently working in the region that can't defend themselves. You concentrate your forces on the gate camp limiting access to the region, and thus ensure at least some security for your members in the region. If an enemy force slips in the back way, you must then move at least a partial force to engage. If you move your entire fleet force to one alliance operation, then you have effectively offered 0 cover for all other ops that may be in effect. -- Nyrram |
 Nyrram Minmatar Quam Singulari Lotka Volterra |
Posted - 2005.10.16 20:19:00 -
[122]
Yes, I see the problem, all I said was that your suggestions for solving it were not viable.. and for the record, gate camps are as boring for those in the camp as they are for the ones jumping into the camp, they are just a necessary part of controlling the space... I, personally, enjoy PvP fights, but totally hate gate camping... hours and hours of boring waiting, punctuated by a mass jump of enemy forces, and the quick decision of numbers.. can we beat them or do we have to run.. boooooooooooooring.. unless you get a nice balanced group of fleets and a glorious extended fleet battle.. but that's rare. Ask yourself why alliances 'have' to be strict about who they let in to 'their' space. Especially those groups who have active hostilities with other groups. Alliance members are out enjoying themselves in alliance space.. mining, NPCing, whatever. If you, as an alliance cannot offer at least some security for those members, then you are in trouble. If you allow neutrals into your space, then those neutrals can scout out your current operations for your enemies. This is the base reason for the NBSI policy held by many alliances. But why.. why.. why... should we be so concerned about neutrals scouting us? Well, it's because we can't offer any security that doesn't involve someone actively being there in the space. We can't offer PvP cover for mining operations that don't involve our force being there. We can't offer PvP cover for NPC hunts that don't involve our force being there. We can't offer PvP cover for training ops that don't involve our force being there. You want numbers? How about this.. Their fielded fleet force: 45 ships.. combo force of bships/cruisers/frigs Our fielded fleet force: 75 ships.. combo force of bships/cruisers/frigs We have superior numbers to them.. yet, we can't split our force to defend each and every operation going on in our space, as each smaller sub-fleet would be crushed by theirs. Current game mechanics require us to guard the entrance into our space, to ensure that spies don't get in to scout our operations, and to defend against potential invasion. Now, why are alliances carving out entire regions as 'their space'? Because they can.. there are FAR too few entrances into 0.0 to discourage this. If each region had 10 links from empire, it would be much more difficult to guard all entrances into an entire region, and 'camping' forces would be forced to locate other points to guard important operations. But this alone is not enough, because it swings the balance of advantage from the defenders to the attackers. Defenders should always have advantage over attackers. Remember, the purpose of region control is to protect the assets that are currently working in the region that can't defend themselves. You concentrate your forces on the gate camp limiting access to the region, and thus ensure at least some security for your members in the region. If an enemy force slips in the back way, you must then move at least a partial force to engage. If you move your entire fleet force to one alliance operation, then you have effectively offered 0 cover for all other ops that may be in effect. -- Nyrram |
 TimW |
Posted - 2005.10.16 20:26:00 -
[123] I believe this suggestion would bring more people through low sec space. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=236787 |
 TimW |
Posted - 2005.10.16 20:26:00 -
[124] I believe this suggestion would bring more people through low sec space. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=236787 |
 Nyrram |
Posted - 2005.10.16 21:03:00 -
[125]
This is the mindset that alot of people have.. it is also the mindset that will guarantee 0.0 will always be empty. Read more and you might see why. ------------------- So what is the solution to all of this? It was the dream that we had of carving out our own 'empire' space in 0.0... building space stations that have the services of NPC stations, and being able to protect those assets with automated security forces. What is the biggest single complaint about 0.0 space? Ask anyone who works in 0.0 alot.. and a hint, it's not all the "non-consensual" PvP.... Give up? It's the lack of infrastructure.. Main Entry: inĀfraĀstrucĀture Pronunciation: 'in-fr&-"str&k-ch&r, -(")frõ- Function: noun 1 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization) 2 : the permanent installations required for military purposes 3 : the system of public works of a country, state, or region; also : the resources (as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity What is our current solution to this problem? PoS and Starbases.. both significantly flawed for specific reasons: PoS - Usable by all friendly units, which is very good, but requires constant guarding, or at least the ability to muster forces quickly to defend. Since it is realatively easy to conquer (provided no player resistance and a large force), it has the potential to change hands frequently. VERY bad choice to use as primary base of operations, as there is no guarantee your assets located there will be available to you in the morning, and there is absolutely no guarantee that once your assets are no longer accessable that they will ever be available to you again.. (I still have millions in assets in PoS lost when Curse Alliance fell way back when.. unavailable to me and likely always will be) These are also placed by CCP, and aren't exactly where you want them. Starbase - While destroyable, difficult to do so, which is good since they are astronomically expensive. Extremely expensive to maintain (bad) and require items to maintain them that are not buildable or readily available in 0.0 (HORRIBLE). Automatically defended by anchored weapons (VERY good). Major drawback is that you can't really offer many of their services to friendly or neutral units. They have a force shield which can't be penetrated physically except by use of a password.. give out that password to many people and you soon have a problem of infiltrators who can get into the field and destroy mounted structures. They have a password for access to storage, but that password also can bring down the entire station? (or at least that's how I've heard it works).. plus, if you give someone access to storage, they can take anything there.. very bad. In essence, this becomes a "small group of trusted friends" base of operations, not something an entire alliance can readily use. So why is infrastructure important? Ask yourself what the base of the EVE economy is... what drives everything? No, it's not ISK.. No, it's not minerals.. No, it's not blueprints.. No, it's not PvP.. Think "Market".. what has to exist for the Market to exist? Stations, of course... but that's not the actual answer either. The answer is: stability. Let's say you are a miner, and that in the system you use, there are two stations. One of those stations offers a 10% boost in minerals, but has a 10% chance that when you undock, something will go wrong and you will explode... would you use that station or the other station? Aside from ingenious people who use noob frigs to cart ore into that station.. noone would use it.. why? It's unstable. Let's say you are an NPC hunter. You have ammo supply, ships, minerals/mods from kills, etc in a station.. would you want that station to be able to be easily conquered? Of course not. -- Nyrram |
Nyrram Minmatar Quam Singulari Lotka Volterra |
Posted - 2005.10.16 21:03:00 -
[126]
This is the mindset that alot of people have.. it is also the mindset that will guarantee 0.0 will always be empty. Read more and you might see why. ------------------- So what is the solution to all of this? It was the dream that we had of carving out our own 'empire' space in 0.0... building space stations that have the services of NPC stations, and being able to protect those assets with automated security forces. What is the biggest single complaint about 0.0 space? Ask anyone who works in 0.0 alot.. and a hint, it's not all the "non-consensual" PvP.... Give up? It's the lack of infrastructure.. Main Entry: in+fra+struc+ture Pronunciation: 'in-fr&-"str&k-ch&r, -(")frS- Function: noun 1 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization) 2 : the permanent installations required for military purposes 3 : the system of public works of a country, state, or region; also : the resources (as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity What is our current solution to this problem? PoS and Starbases.. both significantly flawed for specific reasons: PoS - Usable by all friendly units, which is very good, but requires constant guarding, or at least the ability to muster forces quickly to defend. Since it is realatively easy to conquer (provided no player resistance and a large force), it has the potential to change hands frequently. VERY bad choice to use as primary base of operations, as there is no guarantee your assets located there will be available to you in the morning, and there is absolutely no guarantee that once your assets are no longer accessable that they will ever be available to you again.. (I still have millions in assets in PoS lost when Curse Alliance fell way back when.. unavailable to me and likely always will be) These are also placed by CCP, and aren't exactly where you want them. Starbase - While destroyable, difficult to do so, which is good since they are astronomically expensive. Extremely expensive to maintain (bad) and require items to maintain them that are not buildable or readily available in 0.0 (HORRIBLE). Automatically defended by anchored weapons (VERY good). Major drawback is that you can't really offer many of their services to friendly or neutral units. They have a force shield which can't be penetrated physically except by use of a password.. give out that password to many people and you soon have a problem of infiltrators who can get into the field and destroy mounted structures. They have a password for access to storage, but that password also can bring down the entire station? (or at least that's how I've heard it works).. plus, if you give someone access to storage, they can take anything there.. very bad. In essence, this becomes a "small group of trusted friends" base of operations, not something an entire alliance can readily use. So why is infrastructure important? Ask yourself what the base of the EVE economy is... what drives everything? No, it's not ISK.. No, it's not minerals.. No, it's not blueprints.. No, it's not PvP.. Think "Market".. what has to exist for the Market to exist? Stations, of course... but that's not the actual answer either. The answer is: stability. Let's say you are a miner, and that in the system you use, there are two stations. One of those stations offers a 10% boost in minerals, but has a 10% chance that when you undock, something will go wrong and you will explode... would you use that station or the other station? Aside from ingenious people who use noob frigs to cart ore into that station.. noone would use it.. why? It's unstable. Let's say you are an NPC hunter. You have ammo supply, ships, minerals/mods from kills, etc in a station.. would you want that station to be able to be easily conquered? Of course not. -- Nyrram |
 Nyrram |
Posted - 2005.10.16 22:30:00 -
[127] The solution? Player Built Stations.. not player OWNED stations, but ones actually built by us. Upgradable to offer all the services of NPC stations, and automatically defended by upgradable defenses, including gate/station/wherever sentry guns and destroyable NPC defenders. People seem to have this bug up their butt that any group who can't immediately offer a force large enough to destroy an attacking force is undeserving of whatever they are defending. This is actually complete nonsense and is contrary to the idea in warfare that the attacker is always at the disadvantage. For example: Their largest POSSIBLE coordinated attacking force: 35 ships Our largest POSSIBLE coordinated attacking force: 400 ships Wow, we are much larger than they are, right? But we can still lose a PoS to them quite easily if they attack late at night when noone is around. Maybe you say "more power to them for picking the right time.. you should have defended better".. that's the usual response actually.. but it's crap. If each player is on for an average of 4 hours, it would take 200 players over the course of the day, doing nothing but sitting on the resource, to defend that resource over the entire day against a potential force of 35 pilots.. The sad truth is that no significant effort will ever be made to build a market or produce items in an environment that is not stable. And current dynamics offer not only no stability, but ensure instability in the 0.0 infrastructure. The solution is player-carved Empires, with sentry guns, security forces, etc. The choice as to what do do with those defenses lays entirely with the people in charge of them. They can defend neutrals attacked in that space, or ignore agression against non-friendly targets. They can be set to automatically assault war targets who encroach on that space. They can be set to ignore aggression by alliance members, or to enforce alliance non-violence policies on those members as well. They can be set up to attack anyone that violates the sanctity of that space by firing on anyone not authorized to be there (though this might not be a good idea to allow, possibly offer a warning to the encroacher, then firing after a delay?). Only once a stable infrastructure and economy is in place will anyone other than PKs come into high-risk areas.. you can't build a market around uncertain market points, and the more market points, the better, as far as the economy is concerned. And it would be beneficial to those carving their empires to allow neutrals to use their space, because they add tax to your coffer, and are offering products to your market, which just makes your infrastructure that much more reliable. -- Nyrram |
Nyrram Minmatar Quam Singulari Lotka Volterra |
Posted - 2005.10.16 22:30:00 -
[128] The solution? Player Built Stations.. not player OWNED stations, but ones actually built by us. Upgradable to offer all the services of NPC stations, and automatically defended by upgradable defenses, including gate/station/wherever sentry guns and destroyable NPC defenders. People seem to have this bug up their butt that any group who can't immediately offer a force large enough to destroy an attacking force is undeserving of whatever they are defending. This is actually complete nonsense and is contrary to the idea in warfare that the attacker is always at the disadvantage. For example: Their largest POSSIBLE coordinated attacking force: 35 ships Our largest POSSIBLE coordinated attacking force: 400 ships Wow, we are much larger than they are, right? But we can still lose a PoS to them quite easily if they attack late at night when noone is around. Maybe you say "more power to them for picking the right time.. you should have defended better".. that's the usual response actually.. but it's crap. If each player is on for an average of 4 hours, it would take 200 players over the course of the day, doing nothing but sitting on the resource, to defend that resource over the entire day against a potential force of 35 pilots.. The sad truth is that no significant effort will ever be made to build a market or produce items in an environment that is not stable. And current dynamics offer not only no stability, but ensure instability in the 0.0 infrastructure. The solution is player-carved Empires, with sentry guns, security forces, etc. The choice as to what do do with those defenses lays entirely with the people in charge of them. They can defend neutrals attacked in that space, or ignore agression against non-friendly targets. They can be set to automatically assault war targets who encroach on that space. They can be set to ignore aggression by alliance members, or to enforce alliance non-violence policies on those members as well. They can be set up to attack anyone that violates the sanctity of that space by firing on anyone not authorized to be there (though this might not be a good idea to allow, possibly offer a warning to the encroacher, then firing after a delay?). Only once a stable infrastructure and economy is in place will anyone other than PKs come into high-risk areas.. you can't build a market around uncertain market points, and the more market points, the better, as far as the economy is concerned. And it would be beneficial to those carving their empires to allow neutrals to use their space, because they add tax to your coffer, and are offering products to your market, which just makes your infrastructure that much more reliable. -- Nyrram |
 Nyrram |
Posted - 2005.10.16 23:22:00 -
[129] So what about specific suggestions? I've been covering abstracts really, but here's basically how I see it layed out: Stations: The center of everything is the station. There should not be one single type of station, however. Smaller stations would be cheaper, easier to build, easier to maintain, but also easier to destroy or conquer. The largest station would be the 'hub' of everything, and would be practically impossible to destroy, requiring a massive effort over many days to conquer. It would also be required that a hub station be built before any smaller stations. Cost: largest hub station: virtually insurmountable. Take the cost of putting up a large starbase and multiply by 100 or so. This should not be easily attainable by a single entity.. it is an alliance-wide effort. Corps will be much less likely to bail on an alliance if they personally dumped 10 bil into the station's creation. Smaller stations are cheaper, but cannot be deployed more than x jumps from a hub station (range increasing as station size decreases), and have the drawback of being easier to destroy. (smallest station conceivably destroyed in one-half day of constant massive assault as opposed to several days). Stations are upgradable to larger size once built, provided that all range requirements are met for the upgraded station size. Built stations come standard with no station modules (refining, refitting, etc) and these modules are available as upgrade packs. Maintainence: Station maintainence would be significant, yet not prohibitive. This is another nod to stability, since it does no good for the station services to keep going offline because of insane maintainence costs. The investment in a station is the initial cost, not the maintainence. Once built, a station is a money maker, not a money taker. Sovereignty: Once a hub station is built in a system, no other hub stations can be built there. Sovereignty of a system goes to the entity with the most station points in the system. Smaller stations offer fewer station points than larger stations. Sovereignty loss does not disable defenses. Sovereignty affects the following: 1) All station owners are allowed to build defenses around their station(s) in a system, regardless of sovereignty. The station owner's NPC ships will deploy around their station as well if required. Anchoring of defenses in positions not around a station, however (IE gates, asteroid fields, moons) is possible only when you are sovereign in that system. Any of these defenses already deployed before sovereignty is lost will operate correctly, but if they are destroyed, you won't be able to rebuild them. 2) NPC deployment. NPCs will never attack defenses of another entity. Defenses will never attack NPCs either. NPCs will always deploy around a station, regardless of system sovereignty. NPC deployment in other areas of the solarsystem (belts, gates, middle of nowhere) are dependent on sovereignty. 3) Taxes. Taxes from NPC bounties and market transactions go to the sovereign of the system. There are actually two market 'taxes' to consider.. first, the tax offered to the sovereign government of the system, then there is a 'market fee' levied by the station in question, which is completely separate. Sentry Guns: Sentry guns can be placed anywhere in the system by the sovereign of that system. Anywhere, including asteroid belts, gates, and the middle of nowhere. The catch is that each station has only a limited number of sentries that can be associated with it.. want all your sentries around your station for better defense? Then there are none available for gates, etc. Sentries require no maintainence on-site, other than repairing damage.. maintainence is payed for in station. -- Nyrram |
Nyrram Minmatar Quam Singulari Lotka Volterra |
Posted - 2005.10.16 23:22:00 -
[130] So what about specific suggestions? I've been covering abstracts really, but here's basically how I see it layed out: Stations: The center of everything is the station. There should not be one single type of station, however. Smaller stations would be cheaper, easier to build, easier to maintain, but also easier to destroy or conquer. The largest station would be the 'hub' of everything, and would be practically impossible to destroy, requiring a massive effort over many days to conquer. It would also be required that a hub station be built before any smaller stations. Cost: largest hub station: virtually insurmountable. Take the cost of putting up a large starbase and multiply by 100 or so. This should not be easily attainable by a single entity.. it is an alliance-wide effort. Corps will be much less likely to bail on an alliance if they personally dumped 10 bil into the station's creation. Smaller stations are cheaper, but cannot be deployed more than x jumps from a hub station (range increasing as station size decreases), and have the drawback of being easier to destroy. (smallest station conceivably destroyed in one-half day of constant massive assault as opposed to several days). Stations are upgradable to larger size once built, provided that all range requirements are met for the upgraded station size. Built stations come standard with no station modules (refining, refitting, etc) and these modules are available as upgrade packs. Maintainence: Station maintainence would be significant, yet not prohibitive. This is another nod to stability, since it does no good for the station services to keep going offline because of insane maintainence costs. The investment in a station is the initial cost, not the maintainence. Once built, a station is a money maker, not a money taker. Sovereignty: Once a hub station is built in a system, no other hub stations can be built there. Sovereignty of a system goes to the entity with the most station points in the system. Smaller stations offer fewer station points than larger stations. Sovereignty loss does not disable defenses. Sovereignty affects the following: 1) All station owners are allowed to build defenses around their station(s) in a system, regardless of sovereignty. The station owner's NPC ships will deploy around their station as well if required. Anchoring of defenses in positions not around a station, however (IE gates, asteroid fields, moons) is possible only when you are sovereign in that system. Any of these defenses already deployed before sovereignty is lost will operate correctly, but if they are destroyed, you won't be able to rebuild them. 2) NPC deployment. NPCs will never attack defenses of another entity. Defenses will never attack NPCs either. NPCs will always deploy around a station, regardless of system sovereignty. NPC deployment in other areas of the solarsystem (belts, gates, middle of nowhere) are dependent on sovereignty. 3) Taxes. Taxes from NPC bounties and market transactions go to the sovereign of the system. There are actually two market 'taxes' to consider.. first, the tax offered to the sovereign government of the system, then there is a 'market fee' levied by the station in question, which is completely separate. Sentry Guns: Sentry guns can be placed anywhere in the system by the sovereign of that system. Anywhere, including asteroid belts, gates, and the middle of nowhere. The catch is that each station has only a limited number of sentries that can be associated with it.. want all your sentries around your station for better defense? Then there are none available for gates, etc. Sentries require no maintainence on-site, other than repairing damage.. maintainence is payed for in station. -- Nyrram |
 Nyrram |
Posted - 2005.10.16 23:40:00 -
[131] NPCs: Extremely controversial is the idea of auto-deployed NPC defenses. I, for one, am very much in favor of them, so long as they are destroyable and limited. Sort of like a 'CONCORD-Lite' to use to offer some stability in your space. It is an exhaustable resource, so as not to grant 'immunity' to the system. Each station has a limited number of resource points to allocate to NPC defenses. Battleship NPCs use more points than frigs, and elite frigs use more than basic frigs, etc. These points can be redistributed however you wish, to build your force however you wish in whatever concentration of whatever ship class you wish. You can even set what size 'spawn' to use in relation to the attacking force strength, and allocate 'squads' that spawn together, etc. Preferably, total points that can be allocated are not purchased with ISK, but earned over time, with an absolute ceiling on total forces being reached after a year or so. Once ships are destroyed, then new ships must be purchased and placed in the pool... 5k for a frigate, 1m for a bship, whatever.. (not actual built ships, but their imaginary npc counterparts) NPCs should be expensive, but not so expensive that an attacking force will destroy more ISK worth of them than the losses they suffer themselves. Why is this important? Because without it, you will never get your Exodus. People will never leave stability for instability in the numbers you need to support an actual economy. If they can't be assured at least some protection while they perform whatever task they are wanting to perform, they won't bother. And if the entire market has the potential to be turned upside down in one night by a coordinated assault of a few enemies of the region.. then it won't ever build up in the first place. Why do alliances have to cut their space off from the world? Because currently it's the only way to ensure at least some security to their members in the area.. -- Nyrram |
Nyrram Minmatar Quam Singulari Lotka Volterra |
Posted - 2005.10.16 23:40:00 -
[132] NPCs: Extremely controversial is the idea of auto-deployed NPC defenses. I, for one, am very much in favor of them, so long as they are destroyable and limited. Sort of like a 'CONCORD-Lite' to use to offer some stability in your space. It is an exhaustable resource, so as not to grant 'immunity' to the system. Each station has a limited number of resource points to allocate to NPC defenses. Battleship NPCs use more points than frigs, and elite frigs use more than basic frigs, etc. These points can be redistributed however you wish, to build your force however you wish in whatever concentration of whatever ship class you wish. You can even set what size 'spawn' to use in relation to the attacking force strength, and allocate 'squads' that spawn together, etc. Preferably, total points that can be allocated are not purchased with ISK, but earned over time, with an absolute ceiling on total forces being reached after a year or so. Once ships are destroyed, then new ships must be purchased and placed in the pool... 5k for a frigate, 1m for a bship, whatever.. (not actual built ships, but their imaginary npc counterparts) NPCs should be expensive, but not so expensive that an attacking force will destroy more ISK worth of them than the losses they suffer themselves. Why is this important? Because without it, you will never get your Exodus. People will never leave stability for instability in the numbers you need to support an actual economy. If they can't be assured at least some protection while they perform whatever task they are wanting to perform, they won't bother. And if the entire market has the potential to be turned upside down in one night by a coordinated assault of a few enemies of the region.. then it won't ever build up in the first place. Why do alliances have to cut their space off from the world? Because currently it's the only way to ensure at least some security to their members in the area.. -- Nyrram |
Draenor Thalander |
Posted - 2005.10.17 00:56:00 -
[133] Yes, 0.0 space needs stability to draw people. As for one of your points about NPC defenses, instead of points, what if the station owner has to purchase and maintain a fleet of ships for the NPCs? This puts more stress on having a strong economy at the station to support the procurement and outfitting of these ships. However, since they're NPC controlled and therefore stupid, the ships could be auto-insured for free or some other way to encourage their use. Otherwise it would be too easy to bankrupt a corp by blowing up these NPCs. Still, making it manufacturing based would make 0.0 economy more important (and profitable). |
 Draenor Thalander |
Posted - 2005.10.17 00:56:00 -
[134] Yes, 0.0 space needs stability to draw people. As for one of your points about NPC defenses, instead of points, what if the station owner has to purchase and maintain a fleet of ships for the NPCs? This puts more stress on having a strong economy at the station to support the procurement and outfitting of these ships. However, since they're NPC controlled and therefore stupid, the ships could be auto-insured for free or some other way to encourage their use. Otherwise it would be too easy to bankrupt a corp by blowing up these NPCs. Still, making it manufacturing based would make 0.0 economy more important (and profitable). |
 Aralon |
Posted - 2005.10.17 18:41:00 -
[135] I understand that all of the alliances have a major problem when it comes to defense. Also, I understand that mechanisms to correct defense problems have not been put in place by CCP. As I said in my post, opening up hundreds or thousands of access points will not correct the problem. What it would do is scale down the area that alliances could control easily making the manpower to space ratio a little bit more realistic. This is not saying that I think that alliances should have no way to defend thier borders and I think that CCP needs to desperately work with the alliances to figure out some solutions. I think that the Concord-lite idea is fantastic. I think that automated turrents in alliance zones also would be a great idea. Both of these ideas would tremendously help defenders. The greater issue is still not handled though. The shoot on sight policy would still be a better option for alliances if they were given everything they needed to stabilize thier nation. The only argument I could even possibly mount against that is trading becomes a viable option for 0.0 and Empire players alike. At the end of the day I don't see that as enough of an advantage for an alliance. It even can create a problem by creating a point of attack for an enemy. Isolationalist policy is very effective if you can provide all your own needs. I guess that CCP needs to realize that alliances are the only hope and the current bane to a 0.0 expansion. With this in mind, CCP may want to talk it out with the larger alliances to see what could help the shoot on sight policies. Also, they may want to see how could the alliances actually help facilitate a 0.0 expansion. Most of the alliance members are hardcore players that have been playing for a long time and using that experience could help everyone. |
 Aralon |
Posted - 2005.10.17 18:41:00 -
[136] I understand that all of the alliances have a major problem when it comes to defense. Also, I understand that mechanisms to correct defense problems have not been put in place by CCP. As I said in my post, opening up hundreds or thousands of access points will not correct the problem. What it would do is scale down the area that alliances could control easily making the manpower to space ratio a little bit more realistic. This is not saying that I think that alliances should have no way to defend thier borders and I think that CCP needs to desperately work with the alliances to figure out some solutions. I think that the Concord-lite idea is fantastic. I think that automated turrents in alliance zones also would be a great idea. Both of these ideas would tremendously help defenders. The greater issue is still not handled though. The shoot on sight policy would still be a better option for alliances if they were given everything they needed to stabilize thier nation. The only argument I could even possibly mount against that is trading becomes a viable option for 0.0 and Empire players alike. At the end of the day I don't see that as enough of an advantage for an alliance. It even can create a problem by creating a point of attack for an enemy. Isolationalist policy is very effective if you can provide all your own needs. I guess that CCP needs to realize that alliances are the only hope and the current bane to a 0.0 expansion. With this in mind, CCP may want to talk it out with the larger alliances to see what could help the shoot on sight policies. Also, they may want to see how could the alliances actually help facilitate a 0.0 expansion. Most of the alliance members are hardcore players that have been playing for a long time and using that experience could help everyone. |
 Arnt |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:24:00 -
[137]
My ability to evalute situations sometimes amaze me. Oh, and I forgot to add : AND bounty hunting AND traveling times Now maybe I'll be bit more constructive, let's see what we have in this thread... |
 Arnt |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:24:00 -
[138]
My ability to evalute situations sometimes amaze me. Oh, and I forgot to add : AND bounty hunting AND traveling times Now maybe I'll be bit more constructive, let's see what we have in this thread... |
sonofollo |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:30:00 -
[139] two words SIMPLE PLANETARY INTERACTIONS AND COMPLEX PLANETARY INTERACTIONS AND U WILL HAVE YOURE EXODUS |
 sonofollo Caldari Doomheim |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:30:00 -
[140] two words SIMPLE PLANETARY INTERACTIONS AND COMPLEX PLANETARY INTERACTIONS AND U WILL HAVE YOURE EXODUS Im a happy little camper now - CCP 4tw. |
 Sir Bart |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:38:00 -
[141] Some people have said that your SS should drop if you kill in 0.0... that wouldn't make sense, that's what 0.1 to 0.4 is about.... however it gives me an idea: Right now we have 3 phases of space A) 1.0 to 0.5 - concord, lots of stations, protective turrets and SS penalities if you harm people B) 0.4 to 0.1 - no concord but still there is protective turrets and lots of stations and SS penalties if you harm people. Note: the protective turrets here will not attack pirates unless they have committed a recent act of aggression. C) 0.0 - no concord, no turrets, no SS penalties, very few stations, agents destroy your faction standings.... bleh. What we need is a bridging gap between B and C. I propose that 1/2 of our 0.0 space be changed to 0.1 with these terms: 0.1 space has no concord, no turrets, but it does have SS penalties and lots of stations (and agents that are not gonna trash your faction). This would be safer than 0.0 b/c not many people are willing to let their SS drop to -10.0 and since there would be so much 0.1 space, people could live the 0.0 life in a less hostile environment. (rats, roids and complexs would not be as good as 0.0 though). -Sir Bart (pirate), Cold Sweat (0.0 member of STAIN alliance); Dustin (know-it-all). |
 Sir Bart Vendetta Underground Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:38:00 -
[142] Some people have said that your SS should drop if you kill in 0.0... that wouldn't make sense, that's what 0.1 to 0.4 is about.... however it gives me an idea: Right now we have 3 phases of space A) 1.0 to 0.5 - concord, lots of stations, protective turrets and SS penalities if you harm people B) 0.4 to 0.1 - no concord but still there is protective turrets and lots of stations and SS penalties if you harm people. Note: the protective turrets here will not attack pirates unless they have committed a recent act of aggression. C) 0.0 - no concord, no turrets, no SS penalties, very few stations, agents destroy your faction standings.... bleh. What we need is a bridging gap between B and C. I propose that 1/2 of our 0.0 space be changed to 0.1 with these terms: 0.1 space has no concord, no turrets, but it does have SS penalties and lots of stations (and agents that are not gonna trash your faction). This would be safer than 0.0 b/c not many people are willing to let their SS drop to -10.0 and since there would be so much 0.1 space, people could live the 0.0 life in a less hostile environment. (rats, roids and complexs would not be as good as 0.0 though). -Sir Bart (pirate), Cold Sweat (0.0 member of STAIN alliance); Dustin (know-it-all). |
 sonofollo |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:40:00 -
[143] or open up jove space |
sonofollo Caldari Doomheim |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:40:00 -
[144] or open up jove space Im a happy little camper now - CCP 4tw. |
Arnt |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:43:00 -
[145] Edited by: Arnt on 18/10/2005 02:09:21
With the current 0.0 only a fraction of the agent runners will move. A good part of them will move back to empire after some time. It will also be very badly interpretated by some people : "Yeah again more content for those 0.0 pigs"/"Why they take that away from us?". Is to be done, but not first.
and Get rid of multi-region chokepoints! Very few changes since launch on this matter. Do NOT expect anything significative from CCP. I do not clearly understand what they tried to build with this map, but they will not give up their initial plan easily.
Logical consequence of the actual game systems.
And in this risk vs reward equation, CCP calculates in ISK, which is an absolute non-sense. In MMOs the only currency is time. And Empire consumes less time than 0.0. |
Arnt |
Posted - 2005.10.18 01:43:00 -
[146] Edited by: Arnt on 18/10/2005 02:09:21
With the current 0.0 only a fraction of the agent runners will move. A good part of them will move back to empire after some time. It will also be very badly interpretated by some people : "Yeah again more content for those 0.0 pigs"/"Why they take that away from us?". Is to be done, but not first.
and Get rid of multi-region chokepoints! Very few changes since launch on this matter. Do NOT expect anything significative from CCP. I do not clearly understand what they tried to build with this map, but they will not give up their initial plan easily.
Logical consequence of the actual game systems.
And in this risk vs reward equation, CCP calculates in ISK, which is an absolute non-sense. In MMOs the only currency is time. And Empire consumes less time than 0.0. |
 Arnt |
Posted - 2005.10.18 02:08:00 -
[147]
You are in this working on the "more rewards to attract" part of the equation. From what I've read you propose to create small pockets of secure space separated by unsecure space to force travelling through it and lower the pression on the central empire zone. It's logical, and indeed security in the zone you establish yourself is a subject to look at, but I think CCP wants those area to be completly player driven and not NPC driven. Don't you think that if players were able to add a layer of security to some parts of this lawless space it could achieve roughly the same result? |
Arnt |
Posted - 2005.10.18 02:08:00 -
[148]
You are in this working on the "more rewards to attract" part of the equation. From what I've read you propose to create small pockets of secure space separated by unsecure space to force travelling through it and lower the pression on the central empire zone. It's logical, and indeed security in the zone you establish yourself is a subject to look at, but I think CCP wants those area to be completly player driven and not NPC driven. Don't you think that if players were able to add a layer of security to some parts of this lawless space it could achieve roughly the same result? |
 Arnt |
Posted - 2005.10.18 02:12:00 -
[149]
This is so true.
Again the notion of security. |
Arnt |
Posted - 2005.10.18 02:12:00 -
[150]
This is so true.
Again the notion of security. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page | |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page | |
Originally by: Aralon| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20250925/1119 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. |
| 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. |