|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
592
   |
Posted - 2014.07.05 09:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:7 minutes across the universe sure is kind of stupid for a ship like an archon when an interceptor need an hour. Yeah, pretty much this. New Eden is far too small with the current mechanics. More broadly, I WANT to want to go to null. But the current options of join the blob, bow the knee or rent have zero appeal for me. And no, I don't know how to fix it :)
Completely agree with this, the current options are very unpalatable to many I think hence the 80/20 split between other areas and null. WH space has much more appeal to me as it limits the blob/renting mechanics. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
592
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 11:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Zappity wrote:More broadly, I WANT to want to go to null. But the current options of join the blob, bow the knee or rent have zero appeal for me. And no, I don't know how to fix it :) you don't want to go to sov null, then. what's to fix?
What's to fix is the current system where there is no point going to null without joining one of the existing coalitions. People want to be able to try to carve out their own chunk of space but it is currently in a choke hold of the existing groups so there is no point. It's fair enough that the greatest power can exert the greatest control but when this impacts the game by putting people off even bothering with null (about 80% of the players I think?) then it is an issue. CCP want more people in null so there needs to be incentives to do so. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
597
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 19:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Belinda HwaFang wrote:I wrote quite an essay on this subject but sadly through the wonders of forum web apps it was all piped to /dev/null 
TLDR version: 1. People are used to status quo, it's normal to hear them whineif you take away the simply toys they are used to. Look at the outcry from industrialists that they can't just predict their profits by plugging in numbers into EveIPH every day and mass running jobs! 2. To experience some of the magic of EVE Sov, some of the mechanics like Sov levels from the old days , or things which take it out of the control of a small number of supermassive supercapital fleets are welcome. 3. Thank you to the OP for bringing up (again) this important topic. 4. Your ideas could work , but simply removing jump drives all together (without replacing it with something else that is fun) is probably just going to make the (sov) players angry. 5. I choose to live in NPC partly because I see no future in the game in sov. 6. Perhaps this new Rubicon of unexplored space will be the Sov 2.0 , the sov "done right". Let's hope so. -- Fang I hope they allow for no sov whatsoever so the only way you can control the space is with actual pilot and force presence. I also hope that the new space is so unstable it doesn't allow for anything bigger than a BC or BS without tearing it apart due to space environment problems, gravitational flux, giant monsters with a taste for cap ships, whatevers... I guess we shall see.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
616
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 20:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
Shirolayyn wrote:
- replace the static security status of a system by a system that is linked to player activity in the system. The more activity, the lower the security status will become (as pirates find out that there is something worth to plunder). This could be linked to an already existing mechanic of the industry and military status of a system. Effect: populated systems with high military and industry levels get the best anomalies as well, supporting more players than systems with lower populations. On the other side, neglected systems will loose security status with time. Everyone can make his haven everywhere and prosper, and regions deserted of populations literally become a desert.
If the goal is to spread people out more to maintain areas of sovereignty wouldn't it be better to have the sec rating scale the other way? The more people in system and the higher the indexes the higher the security rating...this would make players venture into the empty space for better bounties etc. Then the secure areas (alliance home systems) would become higher sec system and this would fit with S&I activities (it makes no sense for S&I to be better in a warzone...). Of course taxes would go to the sov owner rather than the empires / CONCORD.
Excuse me whilst I wrap myself in foil so that I roast nicely in the incoming flames... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
617
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 23:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:its a little nonsensical that the empires pay capsuleers in 0.0 for killing pirates ... you would think with the empires decline they would do anything too reduce the power of capsuleers
Actually I'd think they would do more to get empire friendly capsuleers onside. Planetary Governershps, make them CONCORD agents (much like making gunslingers deputies in the Wild West), that sort of thing. The only thing that would save the empires from capsuleers from null would be hisec Privateers. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
619
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 09:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
h4kun4 wrote: Ores need to be rebalanced somehow in null, the permanent shortage of mexallon and the senselessness to import it due to fuel pices and the actual obsolescence of Meta 0 425mm Rails after cruis are not good for the economy.
I thought the idea of low mex in null was to make sure people had to move back and forth from null the empire and back. If anything I think we need more of this. The more people that actually jump across systems the more people will see this and want to do the same. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
621
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 22:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Callduron wrote:
Not only is it content for only a very few people but it's more or less pvp free. Occasionally a blockade runner might get caught on a gate but generally logistics is done without generating any pvp content at all. Eve is meant to be a game where the economics feeds conflict but this huge economy of renters and moon goo exists while rarely generating content.
Without picking at rest of your post (which is pretty ok in general) I will have to point out that if you want to kill someone and that someone does not want to get killed it is also a pvp. If no shots are fired it just means the other guy is winning.
Agreed, a point I have tried to make many times myself... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
621
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 07:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
I posted a simple idea in another thread along these lines. How about simply removing sov structures and making system control actually come from controlling the system with players and ships? Perhaps gate control system plexes similar to FW plexes could be used to provide a corp governance over a gate. Control all gates and you control the system. Make it a plex like a deaspace plex and aggressors then need to fight their way through defenses (and can in turn defend their rearguard) to gain control. In addition some kind of structure or module would be required to prevent forces bridging into a system. Make them fight their way in with beachheads at gates etc. Spread the combat across multiple fleets hitting several gates to spread TiDi. Just a few ideas... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
621
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 08:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Arknos III wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I posted a simple idea in another thread along these lines. How about simply removing sov structures and making system control actually come from controlling the system with players and ships? Perhaps gate control system plexes similar to FW plexes could be used to provide a corp governance over a gate. Control all gates and you control the system. Make it a plex like a deaspace plex and aggressors then need to fight their way through defenses (and can in turn defend their rearguard) to gain control. In addition some kind of structure or module would be required to prevent forces bridging into a system. Make them fight their way in with beachheads at gates etc. Spread the combat across multiple fleets hitting several gates to spread TiDi. Just a few ideas... Sorry nothing will change for next 17 months. CCP Please tell me if i'm wrong. It's unfortunate but we have to accept that. There are a lot of issues in the game as important as SOV that need addressing. For instance the anti-social culture in highsec likely causes more boredom and subscription losses than the annoying SOV mechanics.
I have to say that I don't find hisec to be anti-social. I often end up chatting with those I'm competing with for sites etc. I find the idea of being one of the major sov holders renter ***** far more anti-social (unless anybody believes that extortion and absolute control are pleasant behaviour?). I also thought that it was an 80/20 split between hisec/losec/WH folks and nullsec. I would think that statistic shows much more where people currently prefer to be... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
635
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 14:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:Most of these are player made problems.
@Sara Torsa
That is exactly what would happen if more space is added people whould be spread thin.
with today ability to keep sov without any effort an move troops around not even a galaxy ten time what its now would suffice. and then with people spreaded too thin the game would be a lot less fun to play. Quote:
If you study military history you will see that splitting forces is the last thing you want.
You will keep a delay army on one battlearea and then use your main forces to win the other battlearea.
only if your main army can travel fast enough to intercept any invading army from your center. if you cant, you'll need a standing army in every province big enough to be a deterrent to any potential invader.
As far as I can tell from these discussions (those who are in nullsec please feel free to set me straight/clarify) it is the instant power projection that is the problem (if you believe there is one). Standing armies are irrelevant for controlling an area if you can just drop a fleet of titans/supercaps/etc on any given area in a very shprt time. A mechanism that would require the defender of any given space to maintain a presence would make for more dynamic space and give better chances to smaller entities to carve out a chunk of space for themselves.
Maybe a change to the jump mechanism whereby it has a limit on distance as a function of mass. You want to bridge a massive fleet? Then you can only jump it 1 ly. You want to bridge a fleet 5 ly? Then the mass you can jump comes right down (a frigate fleet for instance). People would now have to balance fleet size/composition against range. Large fleets could still be bridged but it would place more assets at risk and at higher cost. Dropping larger fleets of smaller ships would become a more valid proposition. You want to take a huge fleet in to an area you'd better start taking and holding nerby staging areas.
At the very least it might bring a bit more thought to fleet composition and attacks, splitting them over multple systems with a bit of luck. |
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
640
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 16:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:...and big bloob fights ...
Now I can't help wondering exactly what these would entail... |
|
|
| |
|