Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1074
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 16:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism! CSM 6 Activities Summary | My CSM blog |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
181
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 21:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks. |
StukaBee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 22:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks.
Pretty much.
Brute force with massive numbers should be an option, but it shouldn't be the only option in every circumstance. There's more than one way to storm a castle. |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
125
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 23:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
we hate shooting structures. that's the big point. also we need more reasons to need sov.
Lord Zim wrote:It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks. maybe a system like FW ano, the one where you only need to stay near the beacon for the timer to move ? on sov it would mean that you don't need tons of ships, and so could do more than one thing at the same time. of course it would need a good thinking given it will be harder for defense. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
163
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 00:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
More incentive for taking and holding sov. More system upgrades. Perhaps upgrades exclusive to each other so you either have to choose one, or conquer another system.
Incentives for actually populating the systems. Space in 0.0 shoudn't be a bunch of station systems with 100 people at any moment and 50 systems empty 23/7. Ideally this should compact the population of existing large alliances and in turn make room for new ones. The anomaly nerf was a step in the completely opposite direction.
More opportunities for individuals to do things when there's nothing going on on a corp/alliance scale. Anomalies shouldn't be the only way for an individual to make decent income.
Less tedious structure grinding to capture space after the original owners have failcascaded long ago. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 01:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Should be several things to discourage power blocks and power projection.
Also...
/me waves to noobcake |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 09:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Should be several things to discourage power blocks and power projection. By f.ex making SOV easier to take and to lose, so repeating IT Alliance's 2-3 month of "we're dead guys, but we still have our SOV" is going to be difficult since even smallish corps/alliances can take over a system if they're dedicated enough? |
Eperor
Skyforger Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 10:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
1. CCP atleast need alow to anchore more than one station in system for players. 2. Increase all outpost capacity in his bonuses: 2. 1. Amaar station eedto have atbase atleast 50 manufucturing slots and each upgrade makes more them. 2.2 minmatar station to ned more base refining procentage and more slots like 10 at start, and atleast 10 office slots. 2.3 gallente station need more office slots in base stats and manufucturing slots 30 offices at start and 20 manufucturing slots. 2.4 caldari station tha smeneed to increase office count manufucturing slot acount scienc slot count.
Resureces:
Veldspar in 0.0 need some love and low end resure4ces by increasing reprocesing outcomes form thos types off ores (problem how to separete with is mined in high sec with in 0.0) I tink by creating new ore type with is only in 0.0 with holds all low end minerals. Sanctum count need to be increased in systems and balances income form it that its more then incursion income in 1 hour. I tink each system need to have atleast 2 sanctums, if ccp wish keep that imapct from system sec status keep it, by increasing sanctum count in beter systems, and by deacreasing usles anomaly count.
I hade some more but for start wil be inaf this.
P.S. anglis its notmy native language and i lerned it in EVE so sorry about grammar:0 |
Samillian
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 11:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Structure grinding needs to be removed or re-engineered from the ground up as it's a pointless time sink that does a great deal to put players off Null.
Is there a point to Sov anymore? I understand those with the power, skills and money to do moon mining and build super caps gain advantages from it but since the anomaly nerf does anyone else? There needs to be a point to Sov for those of us at ground level, small scale objectives that encourage small gang effort as well as larger scale participation not only on the combat but the industry front.
If players can build and deploy a station they should also be able to watch them burn. |
Jenn Makanen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 13:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Some kind of mechanic to make sov in surrounding systems affect how easy it is to drop the sov in a system? So it makes sense to attack multiple systems at once, rather than just the one?
High sov indexes in adjacent systems makes it harder, low indexes makes it easier. Or possibly have it tied to the change in adjacent sov indexes. so if you have 5 systems around you dropping, you drop faster. |
|
Tahna Rouspel
BWE Special Forces Rage Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 05:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Raid'En wrote:we hate shooting structures. that's the big point. also we need more reasons to need sov. Lord Zim wrote:It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks. maybe a system like FW ano, the one where you only need to stay near the beacon for the timer to move ? on sov it would mean that you don't need tons of ships, and so could do more than one thing at the same time. of course it would need a good thinking given it will be harder for defense.
I concur. I feel like it would benefit the game to have medium fleets (In the hundred) be the optimal way of fighting. I think that problem can be controlled naturally with gameplay feature like the Bomber. Bombers are able to dispatch large fleets; which makes large fleet dangerous.
It benefits CCP to promote smaller fleet since they won't cause as much lag either. If larger fleet are always better, than people will tend toward larger alliances and larger fleet Battle. That will continuously put more strain on the server.
I'm not familiar with the null sec and sov mecanics, but there's definitely a lot of potential. Capture the flag could be interesting - it would remove the 'shooting structure' from capturing sov in a system, but it would still need to be long process (a day or two) to prevent Sovereignty from bouncing every few hours.
Perhaps if Sovereignty could be captured by maintaining an (active - not afk in a pos, cloaked or whatnot) enemy presence in the system. Enemy structures could increase the difficulty of capturing the system, by raising the time required to capture or by increasing the required number of foe in the system to capture it. This would make destroying structure valuable, but not necessary. The Sov holders would need to defend by removing the enemy presence from the system (Promoting fights) and then they could raise their sovereignty 'capture' bar by leaving players there. This would force the sov holder to split their force if they are attacked on multiple fronts. It would make holding large area of null sec difficult.
This means a null sec that has more smaller holders - thus more small fights! Anyway, just a plan. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
197
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 17:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions.
- New location of moon minerals(not all in one region) - Propably new mechanics aka Dominion v2.0 |
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
160
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 18:53:00 -
[13] - Quote
Structures for sov needs to be overhauled.
Sov needs to be more focused.. and power projection minimized. Also there's a current issue where every other system has sov, with pockets unclaimed. Projection pushes those as claimed even on the in-game map.
This allows an allaince to essentially influence twice the territory than they are paying for.
Sov should require "benchmarks" to mantain and hold it, and to have x systems, y conditions must be met regarding other, currently held systems. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
152
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 23:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
StukaBee wrote:Pretty much.
Brute force with massive numbers should be an option, but it shouldn't be the only option in every circumstance. There's more than one way to storm a castle. I'd go further and say that it should be possible to set ones castle up in way that makes storming it head-on equals mass suicide. Or in other words, an entity that specializes in smaller scale conflict should be able to smash a stampeding herd of cattle when on their own turf (yes, I want to re-enact the movie '300' in Eve!) ..
@ Traeb and Co.: You might want to dig up the threads on the subject that were red-hot with activity just prior to the forum switch, if I remember correctly sov was one of the questions CCP asked feedback on.
|
Voddick
AFK
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 00:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
Raid'En wrote:[maybe a system like FW, where you only need to stay near the beacon for the timer to move ?
This is probably the simplest and most elegant solution to countering the "Bring 1000 friends for 10 minutes" solution that is SOV warfare. The higher the SOV level, the longer the timer.
This also gives the defender a chance to actually fight, and requires the attacker to maintain a physical, attackable presence 23/7 (or some other new timer) in the system--else the timer reverses and counts up. A defense fleet has a chance to form up properly (just like the attacking fleet had) and move to counter. More small - med sized fights here as getting 1,000 pilots to stay logged on all day would be near impossible.
Vincent Gaines wrote:Sov should require "benchmarks" to maintain and hold it, and to have x systems, y conditions must be met regarding other, currently held systems.
I would caveat that instead of benchmarks; have alliance member count (paid, non-trial accounts only) determine the number of systems an Alliance can control. Then, increase the SOV cost exponentially:
1-4 systems = 200 mil / month each (10+ members) 5-9 systems = 300 mil / month each (25+ members) 10-20 systems = 500 mil / month each (75+ members)
The numbers are irrelevant and used as an example. They are for the CSM and CCP to agree upon.
The point here is to make SOV blobs more difficult and allow start-up alliances to steak claim in Null. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
152
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 09:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Voddick wrote:This is probably the simplest and most elegant solution to countering the "Bring 1000 friends for 10 minutes" solution that is SOV warfare. The higher the SOV level, the longer the timer.... Having been in FW as an RP'er (read: active plexer) since it started I would very much advise against that. The timer system is badly thought out and poorly implemented, the amount of wasted time is staggering and has turned the plexing scene into one of disposable alt spamming. The only thing that FW might contribute directly is the hull size restriction on plexes, whomever cooked that one up deserves a medal. Sovereignty plexes should lean towards Incursion system with objectives to be handled within each, be it a series of hacks, salvage, EHP grinds or something entirely different .. anything but a thumb-twiddle timer.
Voddick wrote:I would caveat that instead of benchmarks; have alliance member count (paid, non-trial accounts only) determine the number of systems an Alliance can control. Then, increase the SOV cost exponentially:... And what is to prevent the current blocs from still controlling everything? What you are proposing is pretty much what we have now, the amount of "dead space" will just increase as will the amount of slaves/pets to fill some of them.
For any type of ISK based maintenance system to work you must first address the passive faucets which currently allow for a critical mass (read: blob big enough to effectively prevent any fights) entity to hold infinite space..
- Re-introduce the capital system. - Put limits on what infrastructure can be maintained and defended outside of home constellation/region. * if current TZ timers are kept then it could be a linear decrease in reinforcement timers based on range for instance so that a tower on the other side of the cluster has 0hrs regardless of stront. - Counter that with significant boons to be had "at home" (ex: production, defense, harvesting etc.) * Allows for manufacturing centres which may (or may not) develop into trade hubs. Improves local production/viability (helps cut Jita umbilical) and thus the small operation (read: alliances new to null). - Increase maintenance costs by system count and distance. - Give skirmish/roam fleets ability to impact space more than popping haulers and docking ratters up. * Holding space should mean that it requires patrols, a police force if you will. The idea that you can sit by the hearth and only go to war on the weekends to defend your land is stupid to put it mildly.
In short: Early Dominion vision was throttled at birth and what was launched was a shadow of what was announced in the planning blogs. Combat has not been spread out, small gangs have no place, independents don't exist and everything is imported. Even shorter: Almost the entire thing needs to be redone.
|
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 11:07:00 -
[17] - Quote
StukaBee wrote:Lord Zim wrote:It would be nice if taking or losing SOV involved more than 1 side bringing overwhelming numbers for 6 timers. It would be nice if there was actually some incentive to attacking multiple systems with smaller (say, 100 strong?) fleets rather than 1000+, with some sort of tug of war and possibility to actually have feint attacks. Pretty much. Brute force with massive numbers should be an option, but it shouldn't be the only option in every circumstance. There's more than one way to storm a castle. A big part of this is because most structures have stupid amounts of hot points. And you need a load of people if you want to take the thing down in a reasonable amount of time. The new dread mechanics that encourage you to take them out more often might help out with this.
Yeah I can see a decent HP buffer for the initial attack to give the defenders some time to get a home defense fleet up. But when you have a reinforce timer ticking down you already know when the fight is going to happen.
I hear the new PI offices have fewer hit points, and I am interested by the idea of choosing a window of time during the day for it to come out of reinforce.
If the new PI offices turn out to be really popular we might try doing something similar to the current reinforcement mechanics.
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
122
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 14:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Eperor wrote:1. CCP atleast need alow to anchore more than one station in system for players. 2. Increase all outpost capacity in his bonuses: 2. 1. Amaar station eedto have atbase atleast 50 manufucturing slots and each upgrade makes more them. 2.2 minmatar station to ned more base refining procentage and more slots like 10 at start, and atleast 10 office slots. 2.3 gallente station need more office slots in base stats and manufucturing slots 30 offices at start and 20 manufucturing slots. 2.4 caldari station too need increase of office slot count manufucturing slot count science slot count.
Resureces:
Veldspar in 0.0 need some love and low end resure4ces by increasing reprocesing outcomes form thos types off ores (problem how to separete with is mined in high sec with in 0.0) I tink by creating new ore type with is only in 0.0 with holds all low end minerals. Sanctum count need to be increased in systems and balances income form it that its more then incursion income in 1 hour. I tink each system need to have atleast 2 sanctums, if ccp wish keep that imapct from system sec status keep it, by increasing sanctum count in beter systems, and by deacreasing usles anomaly count.
I hade some more but for start wil be inaf this.
P.S. english its not my native language and i lerned it in EVE so sorry about grammar:0
Here's the thing with changing the slots (and refining percentages) -- it's already "hard enough" for industrial types in nullsec since (for the most part, anyway) there's a serious need to have combat-oriented guys protecting your borders and such. This ends up leaving the industrial guys (usually) being looked down on. Yes, I will agree that not everyone does this ... but let's be honest ... as a recruiter you can have one of the following pilots...
Pilot A -- 20M SP in combat skills, only has the basics (i.e. what new players start with) in industry. Pilot B -- 20M SP in industry, can fly cruisers or maybe BCs with T1 guns
Who would you rather have in your crew?
Now, I haven't been in nullsec in a LONG time so things may have changed ... but I remember I got drafted in because I pulled off some near impossible deliveries to a corp (5 dudes in retrievers, I had a hulk/mack ... the order was for lots of oxytopes, and a few mil units of various minerals). After getting in, I was pretty bad at refining in their station (was a 30 or 35% base station) ... so I worked to squeeze every last bit of usable material out of those rocks that I could.
Yeah, I wasn't useful for anything beyond cannon fodder ... but I made myself stand out in my corporation because I was able to refine at essentially 100% out there... I wasn't just "some miner" who was able to supply some materials ... I was one of "the guys" to talk to when stuff needed refined.
Sure, it makes things "easier" all around for indy types if everyone can refine at 100% with less effort ... but there should really be something left in the game to make training skills that high "worth it" (and no, the Elite Certificates aren't really what I'm talking about).
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 16:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
1. Destructible stations. 2. Moving technitium or other rare moon minerals after one month to other 0.0 region. 3. Change Upkeep System. Give chance for smaller corps and alliance. Make much more expensive for corp or alliance if they want upkeep more systems than one. Change every infrastructure upgrades and structure costs when corp or alliance hold more than one.
Example with Advanced Logistics Network cost per 30 days: Just 1.5 billion now if an alliance want to upkeep ALN in five system, because every ALN cost 300 million in every system.
First system: 300 million Second system: 300 million + 300 million from first system = 600 million Third system: 300 million + 600 million from other two system = 900 million Fourth system: 300 million + 900 million from other three system = 1.2 billion Fifth system: 300 million + 1.2 billion from other four system = 1.5 billion
After change; 300 million + 2x300 million + 3x300 million + 4x300 million + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion
First system: 300 million Second system: 300 million + 2x300 million = 900 million Third system: 900million + 3x300 million = 1.8 billion Fourth system: 1.8 billion + 4x300 million = 3 billion Fifth system: 3 billion + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion |
Velicitia
Open Designs
122
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 17:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
@Tiger
It takes a LONG time to stage POS (yeah, getting fixed) and conquer a system, etc. I agree that moongoo should probably deplete at some rate, but monthly turnover is far too fast. |
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
183
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 18:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:1. Destructible stations. 2. Moving technitium or other rare moon minerals after one month to other 0.0 region. 3. Change Upkeep System. Give chance for smaller corps and alliance. Make much more expensive for corp or alliance if they want upkeep more systems than one. Change every infrastructure upgrades and structure costs when corp or alliance hold more than one.
Example with Advanced Logistics Network cost per 30 days: Just 1.5 billion now if an alliance want to upkeep ALN in five system, because every ALN cost 300 million in every system.
First system: 300 million Second system: 300 million + 300 million from first system = 600 million Third system: 300 million + 600 million from other two system = 900 million Fourth system: 300 million + 900 million from other three system = 1.2 billion Fifth system: 300 million + 1.2 billion from other four system = 1.5 billion
After change; 300 million + 2x300 million + 3x300 million + 4x300 million + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion
First system: 300 million Second system: 300 million + 2x300 million = 900 million Third system: 900million + 3x300 million = 1.8 billion Fourth system: 1.8 billion + 4x300 million = 3 billion Fifth system: 3 billion + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion
This will have exactly the opposite impact that you want. In order to maintain a few "useful" systems, an alliance will now have to conquer much more space just to stick a few towers in and leave it alone. And by leave it alone I mean, drop their entire armada on anyone who wants to settle in.
I understand the argument that holding huge areas of space should be more difficult than it is now. But simply making it cost more ISK is not a solution, as the only way to get enough ISK on an alliance level is to conquer more space. Eventually you reach a balance when the space the alliance holds de iure is enough to pay for the space the alliance uses de facto. Ideally, this balance should be achieved without having to hold any space simply to make ISK. All alliance-owned space should be profitable to operate in. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 19:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:@Tiger
It takes a LONG time to stage POS (yeah, getting fixed) and conquer a system, etc. I agree that moongoo should probably deplete at some rate, but monthly turnover is far too fast.
This is only just the basis idea which unable to keep for an alliance the valuable places continuously without fight. The monthly turnover time should be 2 or 3 months or there may be something else.
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 19:48:00 -
[23] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Tiger's Spirit wrote:1. Destructible stations. 2. Moving technitium or other rare moon minerals after one month to other 0.0 region. 3. Change Upkeep System. Give chance for smaller corps and alliance. Make much more expensive for corp or alliance if they want upkeep more systems than one. Change every infrastructure upgrades and structure costs when corp or alliance hold more than one.
Example with Advanced Logistics Network cost per 30 days: Just 1.5 billion now if an alliance want to upkeep ALN in five system, because every ALN cost 300 million in every system.
First system: 300 million Second system: 300 million + 300 million from first system = 600 million Third system: 300 million + 600 million from other two system = 900 million Fourth system: 300 million + 900 million from other three system = 1.2 billion Fifth system: 300 million + 1.2 billion from other four system = 1.5 billion
After change; 300 million + 2x300 million + 3x300 million + 4x300 million + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion
First system: 300 million Second system: 300 million + 2x300 million = 900 million Third system: 900million + 3x300 million = 1.8 billion Fourth system: 1.8 billion + 4x300 million = 3 billion Fifth system: 3 billion + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion This will have exactly the opposite impact that you want. ..... I understand the argument that holding huge areas of space should be more difficult than it is now. But simply making it cost more ISK is not a solution, as the only way to get enough ISK on an alliance level is to conquer more space. Eventually you reach a balance when the space the alliance holds de iure is enough to pay for the space the alliance uses de facto. Ideally, this balance should be achieved without having to hold any space simply to make ISK. All alliance-owned space should be profitable to operate in.
No argument here, and i think you are wrong. Just go and check 0.0 areas now. The big alliances controlled huge terroritories, but when you go there you just see so many empty systems without any pilots. If you cant pay for 30-60 system upkeep cost, because that is too much ISK, you need more renter or smaller corps and alliences there. Thats better against blob and much better for smaller corps and alliances, because it is possible to populate the empty systems so better |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
184
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 00:09:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote: If you cant pay for 30-60 system upkeep cost, because that is too much ISK, you need more renters or smaller corps and alliences there.
No, you'd just drop sov, but keep your moons and still hotdrop the crap out of anyone who tries to get in. This is already happening to some degree; for example check out The Kalevala Expanse or adjacent regions. It used to be much more wide-spread about a year ago. IMHO this is even worse than claiming sov but not really using the systems. |
paradigmblue
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 08:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
I can't comment on some of the larger, alliance affecting issues like Moon Goo and Sov systems. However, from my perspective as a player that was quite active in 0.0 pvp 3 years ago only return this month, much of the complaints that I hear on these forums about the lack of good small-scale pvp and the poor health of 0.0 as a whole can be directly attributed to the redistribution of in-game resources that has occurred during the past few years.
These changes have included the introduction of level 4 missions to Empire, Incursions, the increase in "Gun Mining" and more. All of these changes have a) Created more opportunities for people to accumulate wealth without leaving Empire b) Lowered mineral prices to the point where mining anything but ice in 0.0 is not only unnecessary, but outright foolish.
Now I don't think that giving those who don't want to leave Empire a better game-play experience is a bad thing, and I certainly don't think that removing any of the current options available to Empire dwellers is the way to go. However, to ensure the health of 0.0, people have to be be given a real incentive to take on the risks associated with null space. Currently, those incentives simply are not in place - most players can earn just as much isk in Empire than anywhere else.
How does this relate to the decrease in small-gang warfare? Simply that without an incentive to mine, mission, haul, and rat in 0.0 proportionate to the risk, players won't participate in these activities - and those players were typically the targets for the small gangs of old. What's the point of taking a small gang to enemy space if there aren't missioners to probe down, or mining operations to disrupt. What's the point of forming a defense gang to defend your space if you don't have anything to defend that a small gang can take down?
To add a personal anecdote, newbies in Goonfleet in years past could make a decent amount of money mining Crokite in our old home in Syndicate. The number of miners in the system meant that the space was a frequent target of small gangs trying to disrupt the miners and ratters. This in turn lead to defense gangs being formed, to protect the miners and ratters.
Contrast this situation to today. Most systems can only support one ratter at a time, who will instantly safe and cloak when anyone else comes in the system. Mining is simply not profitable in 0.0, meaning there aren't the frequent mining ops and solo miners like there used to be. Due to level 4 missions being available in Empire, there aren't a high concentration of players traveling near the old 0.0 mission hubs. There simply aren't the targets that there used to be for small gangs.
So, how to fix these issues and 1) Make 0.0 more attractive to players and corporations and 2) Create more emergent small-gang conflict? Here are some ideas:
1) Create different mineral classes for 0.0 space with significantly improved yield. The goal here is not to replace gun-mining, but to make standard 0.0 mining equally if not more profitable. Also increase PI yields from 0.0 (previously unexploited planets should have more resources).
2) Significantly increase the value, difficulty level and re-spawn rate of of 0.0 rats. Currently, most systems can only support one or two ratters at a time - not exactly a target rich environment. Ideally systems could support 4 or more ratters at a time, at an income rate on par with other earning options.
3) Create reasons for miners and ratters to defend the space instead of cloaking or docking up, while simultaneously providing more targets for small-gang pvp . This could be done by creating a new class of anchorable objects. These objects could only be anchored within 100k of a belt, and would come in two types: i) Pirate Beacon - Increases the number and value of Rats and faction spawns in the system. Only one could be anchored per belt, with diminishing returns for Beacons in additional belts in the system. ii) Rat Inhibitor - Once anchored, causes any current rats in the belt to de-spawn, and prevents additional rats from spawning in that belt.
Both of these anchorable objects would have hp comparable to 2x that of a large anchorable bubble, would have defenses equal to low-sec gate guns, and could be set up with basic anchoring skills. This personal infrastructure investment would give miners and ratters a reason to defend their space, make ratting in 0.0 more profitable, make solo-mining viable without relying on a partner to clear out the rats, and give small gangs a target when roaming through 0.0 space.
Though the implementation of these changes, 0.0 would once again be the land of opportunity for players looking to strike it rich, helping balance the risk vs reward equation. More players would be populate 0.0, and would invest isk in 0.0 infrastructure that is vulnerable to small gangs, creating the kind of emergent game-play that is healthy for EVE. Creating opportunity for players, stake for players and targets for players in 0.0 would go a long way into making 0.0 space healthier and more dynamic. |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 09:10:00 -
[26] - Quote
from a miners point of view i need to be able to mine large quantaties of veldspar and other low quality ores with the same way as we are mining high end - with in the safety of hidden belts.
as it stands we mine for arknor to sell to jita to buy veldspar minerals. removing us from the "Null sec being self reliant" Theme please allow us to upgrade our systems to to focus on empire ores. for example if that Spoduman rock in the low end belt was veldspar it would be a large step in the right direction. Would it possible to make Tech II prospecting arrays that would allow us to find hidden belts full of empire ore and less ABC's.
another idea would be the capital mining drone ships that would used Fighter sized drones to mine empire type ores in Null sec ie Minimtar Dozer would be able to mine only Veldspar as if it was a Procurer or mine other ores at like a normal mining drone ie Caldari Dozer would be Scordite Gellentie be Pyrox Ammar be Plag.
In null it is highly dangerous to pull end low end ores, as belts are on the over view and super easy to direction scan a ship and warp to it. Please make mining in null sec focus on production and away from mining for isk.
please keep in mind us miners will have awsome scanning skills if it means we are harder to find. So if it is harder for us to find a belt then it will be harder for PVPers to find us. Would change the game if it was easier to find the higher quality belts than the lower quality ones. Higher the reward, higher the risk.
Ice belts are unique and should stay the same as they are in Null sec.... especially how valuable they are now. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
154
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 09:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:No, you'd just drop sov, but keep your moons and still hotdrop the crap out of anyone who tries to get in. This is already happening to some degree; for example check out The Kalevala Expanse or adjacent regions. It used to be much more wide-spread about a year ago. IMHO this is even worse than claiming sov but not really using the systems. So we make sovereignty of a certain level a requirement for anchoring moon harvesters. Low-sec moons can be moved or some draconian imperial decree can be added to help limit it, like major increase in stront consumption making defense of far away LS moons difficult (governments do like like safety redundancy in the workplace after all).
Personally want the moon system to be abolished completely and products added to PI as reactions, but doubt that will happen any time soon.
|
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 09:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
I think a sorta theme of resources vs efficiency has to be played in Null Sec working its way to High sec, Null sec Theme Greater the Risk Greater the reward. VS Lesser the Risk, less the Loss
Null sec should: Plenty of Ore, to be mined, and can be easily mined in Large quantities. High Sec should where efficiency is easy to come by.
The index of the system should effect the refining, manufacturing, and Research efficiency of stations, as they used the local resources around them to keep them going (No Fuel Costs) and the lower the index the harder it is to find the right people to maintain, and employ to do the refining, building, research to cater to the whims of the Pod Pilot.
Placing upgrades that make the place safer should possibly effect the security level of that area and lessen the resources coming from it. But on the other hand increasing efficiency of all the aspects of the station. In fact lots of upgrades will not only will increase the security of not only the host solar system but the entire constellation. Soon to the point of becoming high sec with out concord. Safer Index upgrades would be Strategic Upgrades like Jump Bridges
Greater the Risk Greater the reward. VS Lesser the Risk, less the Loss Placing upgrades that make the place more dangerous should drop the index Dangerous index upgrades be Military and Industrial Upgrades especially Quantum Flux Generators.
This should see more smaller fluid skirmishes over closer to null sec systems as there is fewer to make safe money.
So instead of the one way though process of Putting a station in every system. Players will start conserving what areas they are going to develop as this drops their resource collection and is making per hour.
Role play seed. I know Bob a Caldari engineer has spent the last 6 years in Null sec for work experience. He is now tired of the risk, low pay, and poor statues living in a Null sec stations working for POD PILOT Dic. He is taking the next shuttle out to apply for a job in Caldari Prime as he can now get a position of value because of his real life work experience.
On another note GÇô Allow players to upgrade an Out Post to a conquerable station and allow out posts to be deconstructed GÇô the owners belongings taken by inter bus to the nearest low sec system.
Not sure what programming would be required, but this require Alliances to choose safety over Profit.
In eve the only thing that should always mean more or bigger is better is the skill points of your character. Out side of that eve should be a give an take of you exchange an easy control empire or a profitable empire. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 09:58:00 -
[29] - Quote
moon mining should stay the same... maybe make more high end moons possibly as the market increases so should the supply.
out side of making some more moons they should stay the same as these are like the small nuggets that people fit over, the item that people will politically let a moon fall of an ally so they can come to the rescue and take over the moon for their own purposes.
Though I Think some Random Moon have a temp store of High tech would be interesting. Something that would change every month. Make it worth while to once in a while to scan down a moon as it may have 1 months supply of value that you can collect before anyone realizes it. A reason to prob moons versus looking up on the 3 rd party sites.
I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Gevlin
SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 10:20:00 -
[30] - Quote
There should be fragile upgrades that can easily be destroyed by a gang of 10 pilots or 1 dreadnaught.
--Structure Upgrades ---->Fuel Conservation Pylon Benefit GÇô Reduce consumption of POS's and Jump bridge in system Incapacitated:- if incapacitated this bonus effect is lost. ----->Modular Shield Booster Array Benefit GÇô Increases all POS modules in system to have a 24% shield resists across the board. Incapacitated GÇô Bonus effect will drop 1% per hour and after 24 hours, the Module can be Repair, but will take 24 hours to online at that time. Once online the defence will increase at 1 % per hour will shield resists are back up to 24%
Military Upgrade Benefit Extra change for rare loot to drop on end bosses in Enoms Incapacitated:- if incapacitated this bonus effect is lost.
Industrial Upgrade ---->Belt Cloak Benefit GÇô Hides belts from over view, requiring the belts to be scanned down. To be found only via prob scanner Incapacitated:- if incapacitated this bonus effect is lost. ----->Code Breaker Code Silo GÇô Benefit --->increase chance of tech 2 BP to be found Incapacitated:- if incapacitated this bonus effect is lost. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |