EVE Search - Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 930	Posted - 2014.07.08 23:14:00 - [1] - Quote And what impacts would this have on Low Sec which is arguably at much greater risk in terms of logistics than Nullsec is currently. Should lowsec once again take a shot so Nullsec can untangle its rats nest of shittiness?
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 930	Posted - 2014.07.08 23:25:00 - [2] - Quote Also if this is simply about limiting the power of Capitals and JF and bridges etc. Why not just split all the regions in EVE into ranges that can not be jumped to or bridged to. Example. Tenal > Cobalt Edge. Give Capitals the ability to jump gates, and the only way a capital fleet can go region to region is by jumping through that regional access gate. So you can move about as normal (by todays standards) within any particular region. But moving Region to Region would require you to take gates and Super Carriers and Titans would not be able to bridge into, or jump inter regionally. Unless perhaps CCP gave us the capacity to create a unique player built gate that would facilitate Super Capitals jumping through it or something. Manfred Sideous wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: And what impacts would this have on Low Sec which is arguably at much greater risk in terms of logistics than Nullsec is currently. Should lowsec once again take a shot so Nullsec can untangle its rats nest of shittiness? Those jumpfreighters can no longer just jump past lowsec from edge to edge. They have to pass through. Seems like a stealth boost to me. Because people will want to protect there JF's so you will see escorts that you can fight and kill or extort from. Ya that doesn't really impact LS in that capacity. You would just simply have people...as they do today, Staging in the first lowsec system outside of Highsec, with no way to actually remove those people from that space (unlike null where a starved alliance can and will likely lose access to that space etc.). Ultimately it would lead to a similar problem that Nullsec currently faces with the bigger entities pushing out the little guys. As it is today a small corporation or alliance can be effective in Lowsec because JF's allow them access to the market, changing the mechanics of that simply means guys like PL who sit in Ammake will essentially dominate a entire regional access simply by sitting in Gulm or Houla.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 930	Posted - 2014.07.08 23:34:00 - [3] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Just to reiterate my point here, having NPCs magically run/"exchange" fuel to remote null outposts is a complete Non-starter. Players should have to deliver those topes to your outposts, not NPCs. Player driven economy is important. You should probably rework your idea with that in mind. All those off-racial towers and caps? Players need to supply them and every part of the supply chain leading to them, not NPCs. Having NPC's deliver goods does not limit the player driven market. It simply reduces player service opportunity. Organizations like Black Frog would likely get hit, but people would still buy and sell, create and destroy the same products as they do today.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 930	Posted - 2014.07.08 23:52:00 - [4] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Just to reiterate my point here, having NPCs magically run/"exchange" fuel to remote null outposts is a complete Non-starter. Players should have to deliver those topes to your outposts, not NPCs. Player driven economy is important. You should probably rework your idea with that in mind. All those off-racial towers and caps? Players need to supply them and every part of the supply chain leading to them, not NPCs. Having NPC's deliver goods does not limit the player driven market. It simply reduces player service opportunity. Organizations like Black Frog would likely get hit, but people would still buy and sell, create and destroy the same products as they do today. So we're fine with NPCs magically echanging fuel between Amarr and some god forsaken null sec system, why can't those same NPCs exchange modules, ammo, and ships? Bringing goods to market is as much a part of the market as selling them. You can't have a grocery store without the trucks to bring the groceries to the store. No I am fine with NPCs delivering goods to and from locations in EVE in exchange for some form of equalized commodity. If I buy an Item from the market, the guy who put it on market still gets his ISK. If I sell an item on the market, the guy who buys it still pays me ISK. The only thing being altered is how the item gets from point A to point B. If JD's are reduced significantly in ability, then you will see a stark fall off in delivery services. Or an outrageous influx in pricing by players performing the service. Goods will no longer move from Jita to the far corners of space, because who the hell wants to jump 30 jumps to drop off some power converters to some dude in NS that probably kill you anyway. If you remove the capacity for JF's to exist you must fill that void with a reliable alternative method for getting goods moved around the galaxy. Otherwise your precious player economy will fall apart. You can't just take access of product away from the largest consumers in the game and expect the economy to remain the same as it is today. I think NPC trading should have been implemented long ago anyway. If I buy something from market I should have the following options. Get it myself Pay another player to get it Or select an option to have it delivered by NPC over the course of X number of hours and/or days. If I lose potential for the first 2 options, you better hope I can still get items, or I just won't play because seriously, have you ever tried moving freighters around with ****. Forget about losing your ship, try losing your mind from the sheer irritation that is going 10 jumps, let alone 20+
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 930	Posted - 2014.07.09 00:11:00 - [5] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: No I am fine with NPCs delivering goods to and from locations in EVE in exchange for some form of equalized commodity. You may be fine with NPCs magically teleporting Isotopes between all of the stations in Eve, I however am not. And I seriously doubt CCP will entertain the idea either. Ya but your argument against it is pretty irrational and devoid of any concrete reasoning. Yes delivery groups like Black Frog will see a large reduction in profitability. But they are not at the core of the economy, they are enablers of the economy. The economy doesn't fluctuate depending on what Black Frog does, the economy fluctuates depending on what players create, consume and destroy. I am sure if the idea was fleshed out more than just NPC Trading and actually developed into a concrete system CCP would give it a look, heck lord knows we could use some more ISK sinks in this game. PotatoOverdose wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Get it myself Pay another player to get it Or select an option to have it delivered by NPC over the course of X number of hours and/or days. If I lose potential for the first 2 options, you better hope I can still get items, or I just won't play because seriously, have you ever tried moving freighters around with ***. Forget about losing your ship, try losing your mind from the sheer irritation that is going 10 jumps, let alone 20+ So, we have NPCs providing un-interdictable isotope trade between all the stations of Eve. Wonderful. That's totally not worse than what we currently have. Hell, at least Jump Freighters actually die once in a blue moon. Unless your NPCs go gate to gate in freighters, or cyno to cyno in jump freighters (where players can gank/interdict them), then the proposed system is MUCH* worse than the current one. You know, I never thought I'd have to explain why magical isotope teleporting NPCs are a bad idea, but there you have it. Or you just allow them to deliver from buy orders making players stock the market as they currently do with sell orders, thus making NPCs only fill the role held by a very few individuals in EVE who already transport stuff around with impunity as is.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 930	Posted - 2014.07.09 00:42:00 - [6] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: [quote=Mario Putzo] But NPCs moving goods with impunity will never happen. You know why? Look at how CCP reacted to freighters autopiloting to zero in Hi-sec. You really think CCP will let NPC freighters move topes around with impunity in Nullsec? Sure they will if it means people will continue to play the game. People are leaving the game right now because it is stagnant. CCP has to address the fact that the Dominion Sov experience has run its course. Its done, the people in NS do not want to fight over it anymore, mostly because there is no reason to, and it is relatively impractical. Couple big fights, some ooh and ahh, then several weeks of grinding a region. If CCP seriously wants to address the issues with NS they will need to essentially limit the capacity of current NS entities from what they are today. This means massive changes to how sov works, and the ease of which one can move throughout New Eden. In order to provide a foothold for the next generation of Sov (lets call it 3rd Gen since BOB all but won round 1 back in the old POS days) new entities must be able to establish a foothold with similar equality in accessibility. (Otherwise you just end up back where you are today). Now once you start reducing the ease of transport in EVE, which absolutely must happen to facilitate accessibility for newer entities to emerge, CCP will need to counter balance that with mechanics that still allow NS groups to maintain their relative rate of consumption. If you make the game to tedious for people to acquire basic necessities then you already begin alienating them from day 1. People will not tolerate jumping 30 jumps back and forth in order to acquire minerals, materials or even products. People will just say **** it, and quit because it would be absolute bullshit, and nor is the current method of moving stuff an effective format because it again leaves the current paradigm in NS as is and limits accessibility for new players. So if CCP wishes to retain people, and CCP wishes to grow the game over another decade, then they absolutely would have to consider a variable method of getting Items from point A to point B, because ultimately this game comes down to Create, Consume, Destroy. If those metrics can not be met or maintained, then this game ultimately falls apart until the only guys playing are mining bots who wonder why no one will buy their trit anymore. Is NPC Transport feasible. Yes. Does it have a valid position within potential future game mechanics. Yes. Is it the only solution. No.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 931	Posted - 2014.07.09 01:17:00 - [7] - Quote Cronus Maximus wrote: Quote: NPCs Should Trade 'Topes! Quote: That's not player Driven! Cutting off realistic access to other isotopes is not reasonable, but neither is having to import through dozens of gates. So we want a player driven solution that allows local sourcing of isotopes without invoking magic NPCs or preventing some form of interdiction. Why not alchemy? If I can turn moo goo into different moo goo then surely turning some Nitrogen 'topes into Helium 'topes should be easy. Either have the process incur a small loss, or if you want to allow for greater interaction then require a reactant that can be sourced either locally in mass or imported from the racial area you want to react into. Maybe both these are options maybe only one. In one scenario we have an additional mining operation that can be specifically targeted. Enemy just got back from a long deployment and jumped around a lot? Send in the covops to drive them nuts and put a chokehold on them while you beat their ally who can't get help senseless. In the other we have you guarding your borders to prevent ninja extraction of a resource that if you maintain control of gives you power over your enemies, or a bargaining chip with allies. Onerous? maybe. Content creating? maybe, if the balance is right. 100% based in fake internet science? Definitely. This is just off the cuff so if someone has a different take along the same lines I'd be interested to hear it. And this is a good idea.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 931	Posted - 2014.07.09 01:32:00 - [8] - Quote I still think you need to address the potential impacts on Low Sec. Unlike NS you can't evict people from space to secure an avenue, you can't bubble gates to secure a system, you can't flick on a cyno jammer to protect an asset. or op While I understand that LS is the red headed step child of EVE, its accessibility to industry is much less and more risky than that of NS, or HS, and reducing that further will turn it into even more of a barren waste land.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 931	Posted - 2014.07.09 02:29:00 - [9] - Quote and what of the areas that don't include FW as an option? or should CCP consider expanding on the FW system to perhaps include all LS areas? I think a treaty system is reasonable but the issue becomes more apparent that when the stop of materials flowing from nullsec occurs because of no JFs or what not to bring them to market, exactly what does LS then do with itself? I think more intertrading would be required in the new scheme of things, simply backending all of NS requirements into NS would leave both HS and LS short changed. Perhaps something like the following layout. HS> Mid Tier Minerals (stuff common in LS atm) LS> High End Moon Goo (stuff common in NS atm) High Tier Mins (from NS) NS> Low End Moon Goo (stuff common in LS atm) Low End Minerals.(from LS) This make LS essentially the bridge for required materials. Guys from NS will have to come to LS or deal in LS in order to get High End Goo, and Minerals, as will guys from HS. Guys from LS will be required to deal with guys in HS and NS in order to get low end minerals and moon goo. With the reduction in power projection localized lowsec groups will be more capable of controlling or contesting the moons against Null Sec power blocs, and there should be some synergy established between the regional groups in order to facilitate production. It also draw more people into "open" conflict zones, in the sense HS guys can't simply hide behind Concord, and NS guys can't hide behind cyno jammers and bubbled gates. Everyone would have to come into the no mans land that is lowsec where your protection is essentially limited to the friends you have at the time. I
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 931	Posted - 2014.07.09 03:52:00 - [10] - Quote amber mbd wrote: "take all the high end resources away from nullsec and give them to lowsec" lol and people say the goonies are trying to rig it for themselves. are u for real? What's wrong afraid of actually having to apply risk to get reward? Low Sec is the most dangerous space in the game for POSes and Mining. It should offer the highest end resources. Even more so with the proposed changes in this thread.

Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 931	Posted - 2014.07.09 23:48:00 - [11] - Quote ^ Right because when changing the mechanics of how NS currently operates CCP couldn't ever look at changing the mechanics of how production could be enhanced to help facilitate the changes. Can I use your vacuum mine is broken.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 931	Posted - 2014.07.10 00:00:00 - [12] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Here's the thing though: If I can only move stuff when the blocs are busy touching each other (and even then at great risk), I'm not gonna live in NPC null. Why would I choose to live in a place where my supply lines are interdicted 90% of the time? I'll move to low sec. Is that what we want? People moving out of NPC Null into Lowsec? Because that's what's gonna happen. Better yet, get rid of NPC null altogether, and just make it new conquerable space.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 931	Posted - 2014.07.10 00:25:00 - [13] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: ^ Right because when changing the mechanics of how NS currently operates CCP couldn't ever look at changing the mechanics of how production could be enhanced to help facilitate the changes. Can I use your vacuum mine is broken. So......how much of eve are we going to change to accomodate sov blocs? Well considering that Sov Blocks represent the largest % of accounts (including their lowsec and highsec alts) I would think changing enough to either maintain, or grow the game. Since Conflict is EVE's primary selling point, I would think enough to either add new accessible and engageable conflict scenarios. The game is not working as it is right now, and the single largest consumer of product in EVE gets smaller every day (that consumer is NS). It doesn't take someone with very strong math skills to understand that as NS activity declines, as does the rest of this game. So I would think entertaining massive changes to the games climate to facilitate an increase or at the least maintaining current Nullsec volume would be a very important issue. As I said a few pages ago, if nothing changes, then the only guys left playing will be the Mining Bots wondering why no one is buying their trit. Of course that assumes that NS is the only region to get a look at in a restructuring of EVEs mechanics. The game is old, the content is stale, and it is time for a shake up, and as someone who has pretty much exclusively played in LowSec, fixing NS is #1 on my priority list, because the road to NS is through LS and that road has been pretty freaking barren for the last 2-3 years.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 933	Posted - 2014.07.13 20:09:00 - [14] - Quote You know I was thinking about the last couple days. I don't see an issue with Jump Freighters to be quite honest. They don't project any real power, you still need pilots to be in whatever system the JF goes to. I don't believe JF's are a crutch, but I also don't think removing them provides any real saving grace. In fact removing them would likely amount to a reduction in overall activity. Perhaps this is what you desire in 0.0 I don't know. But removing JF without putting in a reliable metric for moving **** will make certain areas of this game dry up pretty fast. I think that while some of the stuff mentioned is an improvement that JFs are fine as they are in the grand scheme of things. I think when you look at everything, it all comes back to how sov works at its core. Not the ease of moving around, not the ease of getting stuff, thats all symptoms of a problem.Sov control should be based more on activity rather than paying bills and saving timers. In my ideal situation you would have a fleet per region active, with wings in constellations, and fleets patrolling systems. This helps move people around, if someone could for example set up a gate camp in one of your systems, and have a mining op and a ratting/plexing thing going on, they should be able to over time flip control of that system, unless you actively defend it or use it to counter balance what they do. If that was the case you would want as many people out patrolling an area as possible to keep your space clear of infaltrators as well as keep up activity in the region. I think that while reducing the ability for fleets to move so far so fast would be an improvement not only to spreading EVE out, but also allow for smaller groups to play a larger role in sov null. This would lead to a rise in PVE OPS as PVE activity would become a part of dictating sov control. But having more miners or plexers in a system also increases potential PVP activity, ultimately you would need a balance of PVP and PVE in order to maintain control...and if you wanted to control a whole region, or many many regions, you would need to have pilots spread throughout your space, instead of hold up in a few key staging systems. A quick example of trackable activity stats would be similar to what CCP did with the Gecko contest. Track activity through corp or alliance API and each day at down time determine if the API who did the most activity matches the API holding the sov. If it does, the guys keep the sov, if it doesn't it the system becomes vulnerable after the down time, and there is a full day period where people can attack structures, or attempt to reassert dominance in activity.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 933	Posted - 2014.07.13 21:55:00 - [15] - Quote JFs are not the problem, step out of the vacuum for a minute and just look at what a JFless environment will do. People will just stop playing, because building locally will be ***** as ****** as it is today. You either import materials, or you import completed product, because you can not produce everything yourself. The only problem with JF's is it greatly empowers death cloning. Get rid of death cloning and JF's do not have any real offensive threat capacity. The real problem is the sov system. timers most notably. If you can't hold space actively over the course of a day you don't deserve the space indefinitely. Timers completely negate the actual use of space. "We got SBU'd and have a timer, give everyone notice and say be ready to go in 5 days when the only timer that matters is up."
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 933	Posted - 2014.07.15 18:19:00 - [16] - Quote Eve isn't a Universe. It is a Galaxy like the Milky Way, Solar System is part of a Regional Neighborhood is part of a Galaxy is part of a Supercluster etc. http://www.wallpaperfly.com/thumbnails/detail/20120313/science%20outer%20space%20galaxies%20solar%20system%20earth%20milky%20way%20diagram%20solar%20interstellar%20neighborhood%20lo_www.wallmay.com_54.jpg New Eden would take the place of the Milky Way in this picture set. In regards to expanding the size of New Eden. CCP should consider making interregional travel all out of jump/bridge range, except by gate travel. Similar to the connection between Tenal and Cobalt Edge. In addition to this make Capitals capable of jumping gates. In regards to Supers and Titans. It is my strong opinion these get downscaled and become tech 2 branches of Dreads and Carriers, and rebalanced to fit into the Capital ship size. From there CCP can essentially create a rebalanced Capital Ship class, where all 4 ship types perform varying fleet roles, similar to other ship class sizes.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 935	Posted - 2014.07.16 18:02:00 - [17] - Quote SFM Hobb3s wrote: Seeing a lot of huge change suggestions in this thread. Many of them seem to focus on the idea of making holding sov more work...but I really don't think that's the way to go. Making it more work, or more costly, won't change anything. Ever seen one of the coalitions take on an SBU in solely bombers? I've seen it. It's more work, and the masses will willingly do it, resulting in a net zero change. What's needed is a forced technical limitation. It greatly depends on the manner of work required. If CCP was to implement activity based sov control it would force the big blocs to have multiple divisions of people in varying areas all working at keeping sov contention high (similar to FW contention). This would mean instead of having blobs fighting blobs once or twice every few months you would have fleets fighting fleets more frequently that could escalate into large conflicts. If you were required to be active in holding systems (lets say the metrics tracked during the Gekko Contest) you would see something like this. Fleet A responsible for [Region] Wing 1 Responsible for [Constellation] Squad 1 Responsible for [System] (etc) So lets say a big enemy is scouted en route to said region. Squads would form up to wings, and wings would for into the fleet within the region. Should the need arise, neighboring Fleets in other Regions could begin to form up as support fleets. With the increase in PVE activity you would have an increase in PVP activity in order to defend or assault. The level of work is relatively unchanged, the only change is the ease of retention. You could go around an take all the space you want, using makes it harder for enemies to flip it back. So you either defend constantly by using the space for PVE/PVP or you choose to sit in staging system and wait for Jabber to say ok we lost these systems last night, lets go flip them back.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 936	Posted - 2014.07.17 17:10:00 - [18] - Quote Harvey James wrote: add a science ship designed for cyno's and make them the only ship able too carry one.. remove cynos from everything else then increase spool up time on anything jumping through .. thus giving the opponents a chance too react .. -either kill the science ship - or have time too move off or get reinforcements - or time add deploy a mobile cyno inhibitor which cancels any cyno field up in range of it.. Right because the timers over ~5 days isn't enough time to react already. The problem isn't with ships getting from point A to point B. The problem is that you have a week to move those ships there, contest a timer, and reset the whole progress. You need to stop trying to remedy a symptom of a problem. The problem is Sov mechanics, fix sov mechanics and the rest will work itself out. The problem is that Sov contestation is not even remotely impacted by actually playing the game, if people actually had to use space in order to claim ownership of it, you wouldn't have 1K man fleets showing up to every fight, because those fleets would have to be at home protecting easily flipped sov. Making sov easier to hold is not the solution. Making it easier to take is. You shouldn't need 1K dudes to take sov, you shouldn't need 1K dudes to defend sov. Fix that and you will fix the "problem" with power projection.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 936	Posted - 2014.07.17 18:01:00 - [19] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Making sov easier to hold is not the solution. Making it easier to take is. You shouldn't need 1K dudes to take sov, you shouldn't need 1K dudes to defend sov. Fix that and you will fix the "problem" with power projection. Agree. You don't need atomic bomb to kill a fly. It would be good mechanism to thin the "blob". Fleet would have to be spread. Pretty much. CCP needs to give sov a use it or lose it make over. Force people to actually use the space if they want to claim it as their own. Take what they did with FW and apply it to sov control. If you can't actively defend your space by using it...to bad, don't try and hold as much then.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 937	Posted - 2014.07.19 16:57:00 - [20] - Quote Hard to keep the faith when players have been asking for CCP to look at sov mechanics for what, 4 years now? The reason EVE is the way it is, is because of CCP inaction. Instead of addressing real concerns they have rebalanced ship lines a couple time each, and added gimmicky **** that is essentially useless in practical usage situations. Even this industry change is just change for the sake of change. It is already more profitable and efficient to produce product in Nullsec. The changes to industry are not going to make people go rushing to null any more than they do now. In fact all the changes do is "punish" people for not living in Null by making their production slightly less efficient than it was. "Kicking the can down the road" CCP Games.

Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 938	Posted - 2014.07.20 20:19:00 - [21] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: I know nothing of nullsec, so I'll just leave this idea here on the 1% chance it has some potential. Y'all experts just ignore it if it doesn't. Make moon mining equipment be anchorable only outside* of POS shields, with no warning if it's being attacked.* Get rid of moon mining altogether. Get players out in ships gathering T2 raw materials and watch people fight each other, rather than structures. Hell ya. Could even go further and tie moon goo elements into gas and mineral mining using alchemy. Put more people in space.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 938	Posted - 2014.07.25 06:12:00 - [22] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: 1. Choose on of two coallitions you hate most. 2. Go to their backyard. 3. Start harassing their renters. Set siphons. 4. Soon you will find that you're not alone. Other players fight for the same goal. Make friends with them. 5. Proceed to reinforcing enemy POSes. Dont expect you will take them down instantly. 6. Advertise yourself. More people will join you to have a chance to punish the blob. 7. One day, when stars align right and you take down that damn POS that was reinforced for 100 times in a row, you will understand - you are the power. Now sky's the limit. 8. ??? 9. PROFIT! 10/10
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 943	Posted - 2014.08.04 14:32:00 - [23] - Quote Structure timers are the worst part of the game right now. If you aren't around and are not capable of stopping someone from flipping a system over an afternoon, you don't deserve that space...plain and simple. Giving people days, heck almost a week of timers to form up for and fight is the very reason why there are essentially 2 coalitions ruling in NS. It is a very ****** mechanic that doesn't do anything other than force an N+1 mentality and lots of hand wringing over some fictitious issue dubbed "Power Projection" Honestly getting rid of reinforce timers should be the very first step in the process of a sov overhaul.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 944	Posted - 2014.08.04 15:46:00 - [24] - Quote Tchulen wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Structure timers are the worst part of the game right now. If you aren't around and are not capable of stopping someone from flipping a system over an afternoon, you don't deserve that space...plain and simple. Giving people days, heck almost a week of timers to form up for and fight is the very reason why there are essentially 2 coalitions ruling in NS. It is a very ****** mechanic that doesn't do anything other than force an N+1 mentality and lots of hand wringing over some fictitious issue dubbed "Power Projection" Honestly getting rid of reinforce timers should be the very first step in the process of a sov overhaul. How is removing timers going to change anything? It still forces people to have the largest numbers (or as you buzz-worded it, "n+1 mentality"), spread right around the clock, in order to have any chance of holding onto what they've currently got. Removing timers just perpetuates and increases the "n+1 mentality". Don't get me wrong, I think the timers have to change but I do think you're putting way too much emphasis on them. A lot needs to change, not just the timers. If you just removed them it would just exclude all smaller groups completely because anyone could flip the system, not just the 2 big power blocks. EDIT - Not to mention the fact that the big power blocks could steam roller without the timers. You would say goodbye to HERO and Provi as it would take a matter of a couple of days to flip the entire regions without the timers and without serious other mechanic changes to compensate. Well you really said it best yourself: Spread people out. Ideally something like Squads in Systems, Wings in Constellations, Fleets in Regions. Then when an engagement breaks out, the Regional Fleet will collapse in, and if reinforcements are needed a call can be made to neighboring fleets or what not. The secondary goal of course is to provide risk for massive fleets. Currently there isn't really any risk moving 3000 people to the South from the North, the safety net of timers allows for plenty of time to return should your areas come under attack. Moving your fleet across the galaxy should result in a more immediate risk...removing timers provides that risk.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 945	Posted - 2014.08.04 17:57:00 - [25] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Snot Shot wrote: no sov I cannot agree more. But no one will accept eve without sov now. So we have too work something out that will help current situation. As for the supers dropping on lone cruiser. Yes you are right , what im saying that it just should not be so easy to move those supers across regions in the first place. From my perspective whole hotdrops and cyno bridges is nonsense. I would like eve to have some points you can defend in order to secure a part of space. Something impossible with jump drives , titan bridges and after introducing Mobile Depots also with Black Ops. Well defining natural choke points is easy. CCP just needs to increase all regional gates beyond the ly limit for all jump drive options, and then allow Capitals/Supers to jump these Regional Gates. Inside a given region jump drives will be unchanged functionally meaning you can pretty much go where ever and drop whatever in the region. But no more interregional stuff, you must take the regional gate. This kinda knocks two birds with one stone, and leaves somewhat of a defenders advantage within the region. Along with removing timers this makes regional gate systems key to being able to handle security in an area. In doing so however I would think anchorable bubbles would have to be removed. An active gate camp with dictors or hictors should be required to lock down the other side of the gate. In regards to Black Ops, what I would do personally is reduce the total LY distance of Capital ships, and increase the range of LY on Black Ops ships + jump portals. With the Regional Gap set somewhere in the middle. This means you can black ops bridge over the gap, or jump over with your Black Ops ship, but you can not traverse it with titan bridges or other jump drives This would make regional gate systems a key component in holding and taking sov, and essentially dictate territorial control.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 951	Posted - 2014.08.09 14:06:00 - [26] - Quote Lu Ziffer wrote: Adding Systems will change the game if you add enough and make them harder to conquer then anything we have now. I know how fat alliance wallets are and how difficult it is because I was a director in a top 5 alliance. If you make carrier jump 10ly that is about 7mil isk make him jump 10.000 and it will be 7bil isk. This will break even the biggest alliance.There logistics would have to bring 700000m-¦ of fuel just for one carrier. There is no power projection beyond 10000ly. Adding 1mil systems means 90% will not be loaded in 24h, so not really an issue in terms of hardware. In my idea most of the systems would have no stargates, it would be expensive to build them and they will be destructible. With the price increasing with the number of stargates in system and the range of the stargate. A system with a region gate (50ly) and 9 more gates should cost 10^15 isk. And that would just be the beginning of the difficulties in this space. People don't even use the space that exists in the game now, why should we add more space that goes unused. Make sov require people using space in order to maximize control. Use it, or lose it.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1057	Posted - 2015.01.11 20:12:32 - [27] - Quote You know I think Sleepers should just be used as the "spread" trigger for occupancy based sov. They are literally everywhere. Get those buggers attacking infrastructure, let them start by chewing on pocos and poses, then let them move on to Ihubs, stations and tcus. While they should not take things through structure, they can work through shield and armor WITHOUT providing notice to the owner. The longer seekers are left unchecked the larger they grow in number and strength. Meaning over time you will lose sov infrastructure faster, and it will take more to drive them out. This encourages small groups of players to live in systems to clean up sleepers a couple times a day, so they don't become a problem. Which means your control of space will literally become your ability to defend that space. The ultimate goal of sleepers however is unique. If you let sleepers deplete the infrastructure of a system to structure, they will destroy stargates, essentially annexing the system into WH space, as the only avenue back would then be through WH space. Once a group finds the system in WH space, they must then construct a stargate if they wish to reconnect to KSpace. Things they CAN destroy Cyno Beacons Jump Bridges Station Services Players Stargates* Things they can shoot but NOT destroy ihubs tcus stations sbus Sleepers will prioritize hunting Players vs shooting structures, and will engage with a fleet PVP mentality (incursion like). Sleepers will prioritize attacking things they can destroy over things they can not. Sleepers will only destroy Stargates if all infrastructure in system is deemed "destroyed" (either destroyed or in structure.) Sleepers will grow in strength and numbers. Notes if a player is taking a system you still need SBUs in that system. However if Sleepers have inflicted enough damage, you may only need to flip the structures not grind through all the HP and timers of the system. (Alliances will be notified if a system becomes vulnerable as a result of Player interactions.) Sleepers will not provide anything "valuable as loot or salvage"
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1072	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:27:37 - [28] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: It is not about creating some NPC entity to solve player issues. Mechanic is simply broken , and totally not adequate to current of eve universe. I will have to respectfully disagree. In order to make "occupancy" based sov work, you need to have a driver for people to spread out and occupy space. Having an NPC entity or "Nodes" or "sites" is the only way to accomplish this. In order for the rest of the changes to have something to build on, you first must absolutely remove the "lets all live in this one system" mentality. The only way to force that type of change is through some NPC mechanic. Otherwise nothing will change and people will still live solely in one system, and then fleet up when, and only when there is a threat by another PC group, just as it is now.

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.