Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Piraal
Noir. Suddenly Spaceships.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 22:10:00 -
[211] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:How can you limit human social interaction? You can't.. I mean Coalitions already are an entity that doesn't formally exist in Eve's code, but yet has come to be. There's nothing you can do to make groups not work together.. If they can't do it under an ingame umbrella, then they just set each other blue make a few chat channels and a website, and you're off to the races.. see CFC. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea that you want to happen, it just won't work.
There are game mechanics that encourage bluing everyone around you though. Jumpbridges being the obvious one. If an alliances want to blue up one third, to a half of nullsec, they have friends to call on when they need help which is fine. But that in itself should be the only advantage you should get from bluing up people, not a jumpbidge network spanning half the galaxy also.
A nerf to jumpbridges force projection also assumes there would be a nerf to capital projection. They both need to be nerfed, or they shouldn't bother nerfing ether at all. |
kidkoma
Catastrophic Overview Failure Brave Collective
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 22:46:00 -
[212] - Quote
What constituents 'ownership' of a swath of wild, fringe, lawless space? The idea that concord 'sanctions' ownership doesn't fit with the narrative. To bastardize and quote King Theoden, "Concord, you have no power here."
I think of null, and sov null doubly so as being a mad max style no mans land. A place where anything and everything goes. I want taking, holding and defending sov to represent that.
I would argue for an occupancy based sov system, centered around a 'control' bar. Similar to FW, doing things like ratting, mining, pi, pvp, and missions (Eddie's post on mission running in sov convinced me that missions are the best scale-able income source, better then annoms by far) increase your 'control' of a system. From lets say, arbitrarily 1000 points of base sov control. Each member running PI in that system adds 1 point of sov 'control' running a mission adds 1 point, pvp, whether you win or loose adds 1 point and a kill adds 2 extra.
To hold sov, you need 70% control, again, absolutely arbitrary numbers.
To hold sov, you need 70% control. The system I want would look like this in terms of a conflict over ownership. For the sake of argument, I'll use existing null ententes.
GE- _________________________________________________________________________ |Brave Collective 100% control |
Now, to be honest, Brave is never 100% in control, and BR- is always bright red on the map, which makes me proud of my newbie bros. So the control bar might look something like this. Based solely on people coming for fights, again numbers are arbitrary.
GE- _________________________________________________________________________ |Brave Collective 83% |NC. 13% | -A- 5% | GSF 5%|
But this is the interesting part. If you can push someones control of a system below 70% then the sov drops, and the system becomes contested. If there's a station, the station becomes dock-able to everyone, involved with the fight or not.
GE- _________________________________________________________________________ |Brave Collective 65% | CVA 35% |
This system would also bring into play asymmetrical warfare. You could, under this system mine someones sov away. You could rat or mission run it, you could PI, PvP or otherwise explore its annoms until the space is yours. Since there would be no timers, you couldn't just hot drop it at specific times, you have to be there and use it. Droping supers, well intimidating would be basically useless. Supers really pose no threat to sub caps (cruiser down, good luck catching a frig with fighter bombers and applying dps) and with no grinds, you'd be better off in sub caps pvping for the space.
There would be another interesting side effect. Coalitions would get in each others way when trying to take and defend sov. If an alliance is trying to get their control above 70%, having 5 other alliances there would 'clog up' the control bar. If you were invaded, bringing in friends to pvp would drive your control bar down faster. In this system, having the universe blue and coming to your rescue would mean loosing your space faster.
|
Kraizer793
Absurdity of Abstractions Capital Punishment.
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:30:00 -
[213] - Quote
My opinion, although a pretty unpopular one, is that sov problems are partially the result of our (the players) own doing.
Set aside high HP structures. Even without the desire to drop hundreds of dreads to burn down sov structures, we still ball up and blue up. People are scared to lose, so they always look for ways to become better and stronger. The easiest way to do this is simply with more people. Recruit another corp, blue another alliance, etc. is extremely easy and is the most effective way to avoid losing. There is no reason to not add more numbers, as the most effective counter to a larger force is an even larger force. Guerrilla tactics are hard to pull off when the larger groups are more agile and more mobile than the smaller ones. There's little to no incentive to want to stay as a smaller alliance holding 0.0 sov or to not be a part of a coalition.
I do agree that sov mechanics need a huge change. However, the fact that the benefits of being bigger far eclipse the benefits of being better need to be taken into consideration. Our tendency to pack on additional members when faced with opposition in an effort to ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can win is just as much part of the problem as sov mechanics are. 0.0 isn't something CCP and the CSM can fix alone. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1536
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:53:00 -
[214] - Quote
A bizarre thought on Sov. But what if only certain constellations were 'stable' enough to be controlled. Lore wise you could explain this as the twin stars (All gates need twin stars lore wise) have become unstable, emitting radiation that is harmless to ships, but degrades structures at an unacceptably high speed.
This then creates an environment where your Sov has fire breaks, but someone else can't just come in and snap up the systems and build their own outposts. So you don't need to blue the guy next to you, because there is an entire constellation between you and him (or more possibly) in which there are no staging posts for him to use.
You would have to combine this with some form of active moon mining also, since POS's could be too easily used as staging posts so would need to be included in the 'no permanent structures'.
The aim would then be for Sov to look like a bunch of islands with wilderness around them, making lots of room for people (both residents & day trippers) to run around in that wilderness, without everything being a clear & present danger to the Sov holders immediate activities and possessions. Edit: So basically no blue doughnut is ever possible, you could get a bunch of blue islands, but still have a lot more 'wild' space out there. You can 'control' that wild space if you run 24/7 gate camps, but only by having active pilots in space, no passive controls at all. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5445
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:58:00 -
[215] - Quote
Not to be trolling but has anybody considered removal of all SOV mechanics and "rules" and let the players deal with it?
I hope they have that notion in their minds as they work on SOV perhaps not to go that far but the influence of the consideration might cut down on the arbitrariness of it all. Bring back DEEEEP Space! |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
236
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:58:00 -
[216] - Quote
I have mentioned a civ 4 style sov system with borders before and I will do so again. Pretty much a copy/paste from 2009 so apologies for any outdated concepts I have left in
TLDR version - Outposts/Special PI structures/system time held up to a certain point generates influence - influence creates borders that can cover empty systems and occupied systems on the map eventually converting them to your control. To gain control of a system, you either need an outpost[s] and/or 50%+ planet control through the use of special Pi structures that can be bombarded from space. 50%+ planet control always overrules outpost[s] control. 3 months is the final stage of influence increase from an outpost and/or special PI structures. 51% pos coverage of a system makes it yours but doesn't generate influence. Outpost influence overlap will take 51% coverage systems eventually without need for seige. 100 people in a system will generate a small amount of influence (not enough to take unclaimed systems) which will defend against foreign influence but not stop it. Borders will naturally coalesce forming larger borders along claimed systems close together and will clash with other borders even those of allies.
Verite Renditions Map
Civ 4 is not Eve. However like in the above map (which has been around for some time) it generates culture (influence in the above map) which is used to acquire territory. Barbarians can still invade and so can your enemies. Resources can flourish and wither, natural disasters and golden ages can occur. New structures (wonders) can do marvellous things like increase your culture and bring new things to your table to strike down your enemies and increase your chances of profit and/or survival.
Sovereignity should be based upon outposts, planets and people. Say you replaced the culture of Civ4 with the influence of that above EVE map. To gain the sovereignity of a system you can either have 50%+ coverage of planets in a system or an outpost in your alliances name. POS claimed sovereignity does not generate influence. Outposts/50%+ planet control are above any amount of pos's in a system and generate a fixed amount of influence after one month.
Borders will clash when they meet even those of blues and renters, meaning that sov holding will be a constant source of conflict. It might be possible to declare a system neutral between allies thereby rendering a neutral system as a border stopper, until an ally renders the agreement moot or someone else claims the neutral system.
Any unclaimed system that falls into an alliances influence automatically becomes their territory. After one month an outpost and/or 50%+ planet control generates influence that covers a certain area on the ingame map (like verites map) and systems immediately begin to be claimed (that are not already claimed by 50%+ control and other outposts). After 3 months system time owned influence extends again. 6 Months of an outpost claimed by an alliance is the final extension of influence for one outpost claimed system. If the influence of two alliances meet it creates a natural 3d border (because the eve map is actually 3d). How would influence extend? It could either be distance or just any system in stargate range of a controlled system being naturally converted.
Other things to make things interesting is destructible outposts/stargates. You could potentially take over systems without having any stargate routes into your system, if your influence is good enough, though the problem of enemies rebuilding a stargate[s] into your system/wormholes/problems of exerting force from a routeless system would remain. Now you need a reason to fight, and one could be attracting special agents to your outposts that give out unique ships [like Medusa, concord ones. They can turn up randomly in an outpost or maybe even in space. Blowing up an outpost would blow up an agent but maybe it would be preferable to use influence to gain control of a system with an outpost with the special agent in it? Destroy all stargates but one and then camp while all the pve'r attempts to access the agent. Multiple outposts too. How about moon mining based on PI instead of pos's. Blow up PI facilities on moons with orbital bombardment. Build great works that only one alliance can finish and complete that give influence benefits except when a rival alliance comes and blows it sky-high.
Now the amount of people in any system that does not have an outpost also generate influence. This can slow down influence from a rival to claim a system but it will not stop it. If you have 100 [or whatever] people a day in a system it will generate a small amount of influence but not enough to extend to a star system. People in a system can curtail enemy influence for a month/3 months or so.
|
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 00:46:00 -
[217] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Not to be trolling but has anybody considered removal of all SOV mechanics and "rules" and let the players deal with it?
I hope they have that notion in their minds as they work on SOV perhaps not to go that far but the influence of the consideration might cut down on the arbitrariness of it all.
I like this guy.
I'd also wonder about removing cynosural and bridge mechanics for everything other than black ops.
If you (or an ally) can always instantly respond to any threat no matter how far your arm reaches, there will never be a chance of backstabbing or counter assault. The blob always wins because the blob is everyone that doesn't want to get stomped.... and everywhere...
The ideas for heavily nerfing logistics so that any defense no matter how invested can be overcome with X dps is terrible. Nothing will change except that blobs of cheap ships will replace blobs of expensive ones (with no counter but numbers).
I very much worry that the people feeding the ideas for change to null are those heavily biased to maintaining their monopolies. The goals, even if they can't see it, will end up self serving. Like allowing the fox to come up with a new plan for how to secure the hen house.
This is not to say null changes should be made in mind for anyone to win or lose... the most organized and staffed will always be on top. As it should be.
But you don't ask people that solely exist inside the box to help you find a way to think outside of the box. You simply wipe the slate of preconceptions and make a bold move and find out where it takes you.
I think it's time for a major paradigm shift for 0.0. The most revolutionary moments of eve have been player created, not designed. The more rigid a structure and goal the less realized the rejuvenation will be.
Just delete the mechanics that have allowed the status quo to begin with, make space as massive as a set of stargate jumps have always been, and let the players sort it out.
"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain." |
Atrivox Distinelli
Omega Mining inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 06:55:00 -
[218] - Quote
im a solo player i mine things in my barge i do missions some times.....mainly mine all day...just started doing a little exploring into null sec died but thought it was neeto....i dont understand how what ever op is talking about will affect me. |
Deerin
Federal Navy Special Forces
281
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 08:29:00 -
[219] - Quote
Here are my 5 cents. It is based on the recent theme that CCP have been introducing:
Rise of Pirate Factions.
(I'll give example as Blood Raiders, replace it with other pirate factions as appropiate)
Blood Raiders have begun a massive assault on Delve, Period Basis and Querious regions. They are constructiing many outposts on systems to stage assaults on planets. Their objective is to gain system control on all these regions. They have declared that they will be rewarding those who help them taking control of these regions.
Blood Raider Plexes (like in FW) spawn in those regions. Players that run the timer in plexes need to activate the beacon. Players can chose to activate the beacon FOR or AGAINST blood raiders. Instead of the NPC, the plex bunker has a sentry turret which attacks everyone in range. If a player activates the beacon FOR blood raiders, plex bunker ignores that player. Shooting down bunkers' shield puts it to an invulnerable state for 3-5 minutes, where it regenerates its shield and cannot attack anyone and the timer can be run. Players that choose "FOR" cannot choose "AGAINST" until next downtime and vica versa.
When the plex is captured FOR blood raiders, capturing players get blood raider LP. Defenders get opposing faction LP (Amarr Navy...or even CONCORD) at a reduced rate (like in FW). There will be no tiers like in FW to affect LP gains.
It is basically a contest system like FW with blood raiders at one side and current sov holders on the other. When the contest amount reaches 100, system becomes vulnerable and relevant parties shoot the TCU (same as FW bunker) to help Blood Raiders conquering the system.
When Blood Raiders conquer a system it becomes a NPC controlled system, with a NPC controlled station(if there were any). Plexes will keep spawning in the system so that system may become contested again by running them AGAINST blood raiders.
When systems contest amount reaches 30%, system becomes "CONTESTED". System contest amount cannot rise beyond 30% unless someone places a flag in the system. Those parties who want to capture the system can put their flag in the system, which is done by going to TCU and hitting "contest system" button. First come first serve. Flag gets lost if contest amount drops down from 30%. After this whenever the plexes are captured AGAINST blood raiders the contest amount keeps rising. When system becomes vulnerable and TCU can be shot at. When system flips the new owners will be those who placed the flag.
Maximum system sov level will also be dependent on system contest level. There will be a sov level max depending on contest amount. SOV 5 is only possible on systems with less than 20% contest value. MAX SOV=4 between 20% and 40%, 3 between 40 and 60 and so on.
This is just an idea and can be improved by a lot of things. But I believe it will make small scale gangs more effective in null-sec |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
315
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 10:52:00 -
[220] - Quote
All of you running for a FW-style system, do keep in mind that you most likely will end up in a system where one group contorls 90% of known nullsec and we are back in the situation where we left off. |
|
Hugh Jappendage
THE SHAD0W
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 11:04:00 -
[221] - Quote
TCU's should only be destructible by flying an inty (needs T2 resists esp thermal) down an exhaust port to a central power core to shoot it. This removes the need for supers. Whether the inty makes it back out isn't something I care strongly about.
Inty only has 1 chance (system wide timer seen by everyone) per hour, no 'I'm going back for another run' hero carp...
Inty can only attempt & be successful once more than 50% of the planets in system have been sbu'd by new Planetary Claim Units which are 350k m3 in size.
CCP could put white Crow skins in Nex store....
Disclaimer: I am in no way 'borrowing' an idea from any film I've ever seen that may or may not involve spaceships...
Reset all sov and start from nothing with this method of taking space (starts with Interbus Sov & TCU's)
|
scotayne hawkins
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
36
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 11:37:00 -
[222] - Quote
remove local null that will fix the bot's, sovernity biggest blob will always win so no fixing that |
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
849
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 11:43:00 -
[223] - Quote
MASSADEATH wrote:Being one of the small null sec alliances that fights the CFC and goons daily here is my take.
Even though we have 1300 in alliance and in the range of 60+ capitals we can never field them or we will be crushed. The speed at which the enemy can bridge ships in our area makes most of our capital usage rare and ninja in fashion. (in fact that goes for subcapitals as well)
The JB network allows the enemy to bridge ahead of us even using ceptors, it has basically made gate travel non existant in vast portions of null.
The defensive SBU ability is silly.
and the vast HP to take out structures and multi tiered timers actually makes it every hard for smaller groups to try and disrupt and hurt the enemy. Since they can travel vast distances with their capital forces to defend for timers.
so fast and quick attacks cannot be done. Even though most of the time there is no one around in most of the enemy space, the quick time to build a blob and move it is a huge restriction for small attacking forces.
Most of their vast area lies undefended 99% of the time, however timers allow these much larger numerical forces to bring blobs to bear, compound that with instant travel times for capital and subcapital forces, and it makes it almost impossable for smaller entities to take ground.
The enemy like in any war should have to choose where to place defensive fleets....and by that choice leave areas weak for attack.
Thats not the case now... they are equally positioned to defend everywhere.
I dont think "the alpha" wrecking ball ect is the issue.... the issue is the wrecking ball can be anywhere and everywhere instantly. Especially since they know when and where the timers will be.
I'm not sure if you've ever travelled through the jump bridge network but it's more of a convenience rather than some major strategic asset.
As for timers. They are required or people would have no incentive to have expensive structures in space if they could wake up in the morning and find that a fleet of ninja Dreadnoughts had blown up their capital construction tower during the night. The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
116
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 11:45:00 -
[224] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:
Incursions.. They are finally viable in Nullsec .
I agree on one point: you can make just as much, if not more isk in 0.0 incursion than highsec.
However the issue remains that we still only have 2 or 3 0.0 incursions, so in the respect of being a semi-dependable income source they are not viable and high sec is still king for incursions. To relay the stats on systems by sec status again:
Quote: GÇó 1,212 highsec GÇó 695 lowsec GÇó 3,294 nullsec GÇó 2,498 w-space GÇó 230 dev-space
I'm glad CCP is going to release some sort of dev blog on sov discussion afterwards. I hope that you will go into some thoughts on popular suggestions like farm and fields, more occupancy based sov suggestions and revamps of dominion in it.Thank you for being so considerate of player feedback anyways, it is very much appreciated by players, even if we don't do a good job of voicing it :) |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 12:05:00 -
[225] - Quote
Changes to null sec Sov.
A lot of people are saying nerf this, nerf that. But i think eve is super hard, and there is no need to nerf it eaven more.
rather would be cool to change things, force people to fly small gang, and a massive blobs only for things like station Destructions \o/
People should be able to criple rattion systems by solo players or small gangs, Posted by sokole oko i will try to add the link later.
but it was reinfocing upgrades in iHUb to make them offline for few hours.
small timer like 10-15 min and than 1M EHP or something and upgrades are going offline for few hours.
Less blob grind and waiting for timers, but a good fluid constant fight for dominace.
With new mechanicks, like if there are more than a 5 players within 100km of becon, from the paticular allince timer stop.
And limit the grid like in Tournamets by adding toxic cloud on the grid that will eat 10% of shis hit points per second or something.
loking the sites some how to prevent blobing. 5 players or less from atacking corp/aliance and 5 or less from defending site
ofc than people will lock the sites with some ***** alt's, soo i have no idea whot to do about that ;p, maybe only 5 fleet members could be in the site?
some th
Most important thing is to remove the misndles structure grind and make it posible for very small groups of organized people to hit and take sov from big boy's. And hold the ground by taking the becons if the have stamina to do so.
But some thing should be left for super big fight. and these are stations and some times, ihubs.
taking over ihub when you grind up the system, with small fire power. with all the upgrades, and become the new landlord \o/
i think that would be super cool. people would not be able to hold a mass of empty space. small pvp corporations would be able to take over and hold systems.
i say to thee, no more ***** timers, let's fight for our stuff insted of hiding under the cloud of numbers.
i am sure that Devs will make the right decisions. there is no need to remove Jump bridges etc. etc.
only thing needed is to give players a chance by making the right mechanicks in the game \o/ so the can actualy fight, have fun and become the new legendary wariors.
|
Nobaudee
Nooblets And Gravy
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 12:44:00 -
[226] - Quote
I see a lot of talk about the economics in null.
I would only say Don't Completely Disconnect Null Sec And High Sec.
If it gets to the point where a group can go to null and never need to leave then you will end up with two separate games internally.
Just like there needs to be reasons for high sec dwellers to move to low and null there needs to be reasons for low and null to travel back to high sec, even if temporarily.
Just remember that everything can't be perfect. There should be weaknesses built into systems. It is those weaknesses that keep things flowing. |
Kaiio
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 12:49:00 -
[227] - Quote
Not directly a change to nullsec but i didn't feel like making a new thread for this.
I'm suggesting an idea that breaks the AFK cloaky camping of system, it is ridiculous that 1 person can decide to effectively shut down an entire system by parking someone cloaked in it.
It would go something like this, the sun emits some sort of pulse every random amount of minutes which deactivates cloaks, this would mean that you'd have to be actively behind the computer in order to cloaky camp a system. In order for this effect not to bother active cloaking fleets too much is to start a visible 1 minute timer before the sun emits this pulse.
Just figured i'd throw this idea out there |
thelaststanden
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 13:24:00 -
[228] - Quote
WHEN IT'S ALL DONE AND SAID!
BRACE YOUR SELF FOR SOMETHING SO FANTASTICALLY FANTASTICAL YOU'LL SOIL YOURSELF FROM INTERGALACTIC EXCITEMENT
USE IT OR LOSE IT! KEEP THESES INDEX LEVELS UP! |
Grave Digger Eriker
Grave Diggers Guild
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 13:36:00 -
[229] - Quote
scotayne hawkins wrote:remove local null that will fix the bot's, sovernity biggest blob will always win so no fixing that Have you EVER lived in NullSec? Most bots are in Highsec not Null and removing Local would just turn NullSec into a poor version of Wormhole space. |
Catherine Laartii
Providence Guard Templis CALSF
268
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 13:56:00 -
[230] - Quote
How about this as a sov rebalance:
Rework sov to be similar to FW system grinding, except expanded to where sov goes by constellation, instead of by system; sort of a large-scale "campaign" by the alliance if you will. Taking a page from FW would be a good idea in how the ihub system works there since it's tried and true. Instead of FW timer plexes, in null the basic NPC ownership of a system already goes to the rats who live there, so it would make sense for them to be the ones really owning it, and have the capsuleers pay rent to them (gives renter empires a funny sort of meta). Set it up so the pirate complexes/sanctums or what have you count towards the contested level of the system as complex capping in FW, and if you clear enough of the complexes in one system over time and many spawns, the ihub (or alternate giant fortress thingamajig) goes vulnerable as it works in the other system, and you have to flip it.
The difference from FW at that point would be that the system would remain lost until the entire constellation gets flipped, leading to an incentive for focused "campaigns" in a given area that would appropriately pool alliance and coalition manpower and resources and focus them in a given area for an extended duration. This leaves a nice progression that scales up null from FW lowsec, and allows for easy integration as it uses a lot of the same code and concepts that FW does, minus the whole "Warzone tier" BS we have to deal with.
The sanctums that are being run would pop up on the overview, and would reset after an appropriate amount of time if they were defended properly against the enemy; I'll throw anywhere from 20 minutes to a full hour as a ballpark number for it. Capsuleer "campaigns" as they would be called could also be similar to incursions in that they would be visible on the map, and have a noted system graphics and audio change like the sansha ones do (albeit different). While this is optional, it would help with the immersion, I think. Scannable combat sites would not contest the system.
Decontesting a system would involve running new combat sites in the system called "capsuleer beachheads" with different titles denoting their size. These would be complexes/sanctums filled with a number of mercenary rats that you'd have to clear, and would spawn with scaling regularity in relation to the contested level of a system; same with the local sanctums that would be offensively plexed. Example would be if a system is 10% contested, you'd have a lot more pirate sanctums than beachheads since the enemy just has their foot in the door, and if a system was 90% contested, you'd have a lot more beachheads than pirate complexes, since their forces have been depleted by being hit hard by the enemy.
Pros: -At its core, it's all-out space warfare on a huge scale. Sanctums are big, null fleets are big, and it opens up a lot of avenues for awesome fights. -It encourages organic gameplay -It makes good use of local "terrain" -The mechanics behind it from the bottom up are sound as they extrapolate from FW and incursions and simply scale it up. -It encourages alliances and coalitions to coordinate and focus more coherently and sanely on these "campaigns" -The inherent mechanics would be conducive towards balancing fleet sizes and doctrines, while accommodating for larger blobs in the bashes, and not barring the effective usage of capital skirmishes in the complexes. -It promotes healthy teamwork, as a focused campaign within a given constellation would bring out quite a few players, and would look fairly similar to a hisec incursion or higher in terms of local population demographics.
Cons: -It would be fairly intense, and very resource and time-intensive. Capping a system would require frequent fleets out on both sides, and the potential for clusterf*ckery on ihub bashes would be even more insane than in lowsec, especially if you're giving them more hp than current. -It would be a massive change that would induce quite a bit of chaos and upheaval for alliances that have gotten by renting out their space and slowly grinding sov in a controlled fashion in drawn-out, pre-planned events. It would require an entirely different meta and integrated strategies. -Since station lockouts would apply in the same way as they do in FW, the stability of assets would be a serious concern. Granted, it gives people more incentive to fight over and defend their space, I can see people leaving their stuff behind becoming more of an issue. -There would be a lot of balancing and groundwork to cover to make sure it doesn't get messed up in the same way dominion sov did.
Thoughts? |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1852
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 13:58:00 -
[231] - Quote
Kaiio wrote: I'm suggesting an idea that breaks the AFK cloaky camping of system, it is ridiculous that 1 person can decide to effectively shut down an entire system by parking someone cloaked in it.
... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything?
If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you? +1 |
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:14:00 -
[232] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything? If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you?
2 things off the top of my head
1. Blackops Drops 2. Proper PVP fit ship can gank a PVE ship quickly
|
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
316
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:22:00 -
[233] - Quote
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile wrote:Rek Seven wrote:... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything? If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you? 2 things off the top of my head 1. Blackops Drops 2. Proper PVP fit ship can gank a PVE ship quickly
But if they're AFK, they cannot harm you. |
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:24:00 -
[234] - Quote
If you have a way to confirm they are, in fact, AFK.
|
Absolutely Not Analt
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
114
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:25:00 -
[235] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Heat-seeking Moisture Missile wrote:Rek Seven wrote:... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything? If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you? 2 things off the top of my head 1. Blackops Drops 2. Proper PVP fit ship can gank a PVE ship quickly But if they're AFK, they cannot harm you.
As much as I agree with Adrie, and the others who present ideas for trapping and killing cloakers, I fully expect CCP to do something to nerf the perfect protection that cloaking offers, simply based on the volume of the whine surrounding it. Whether they also do something about the perfect intel of local at the same time is probably up for debate. Eve is a multi player game.-áAnd you are the content. - Ralph King-Griffin Being meh at two things is not better than being great at one. - Lugh Crow-Slave
|
Catherine Laartii
Providence Guard Templis CALSF
269
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:30:00 -
[236] - Quote
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Heat-seeking Moisture Missile wrote:Rek Seven wrote:... How does a AFK cloaked ship stop you from doing anything? If you're worried about him lighting a cyno for his friends to kill you, can't you just use a cyno jam or one of the many other tactics available to you? 2 things off the top of my head 1. Blackops Drops 2. Proper PVP fit ship can gank a PVE ship quickly But if they're AFK, they cannot harm you. As much as I agree with Adrie, and the others who present ideas for trapping and killing cloakers, I fully expect CCP to do something to nerf the perfect protection that cloaking offers, simply based on the volume of the whine surrounding it. Whether they also do something about the perfect intel of local at the same time is probably up for debate. The most likely idea, I suspect, is something ship mountable that lets you track them down, which will deal with the AFK cloakers, but allow the active ones to continue to operate with impunity (as they should). Cloaks using capacitor would be a good way to balance things, I think. Makes some medium and large cloaks along with their t2, and set the cap usage up so that barring covops ships, *most* ships would have trouble staying permanently cloaked unless they had a cap regen rig/mod or two.
Damn that's a good idea; gonna post that as a thread. |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
22
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:33:00 -
[237] - Quote
Make SOV holdable only by corps with active players, remove possibility to have holder corps controlled by alliances. Alliances have to be held together by diplomatic skills, corps become valuable assets instead of more grunts to the meat grinder, corps can be attacked by military force and/or threats/bribes and their sov taken by hostile corps. Cap possible size of corps. In short, empower corps, nerf alliances. Fun chaos and small scale wars and more dynamic playing will ensue!
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1853
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:45:00 -
[238] - Quote
Absolutely Not Analt wrote: The most likely idea, I suspect, is something ship mountable that lets you track them down, which will deal with the AFK cloakers, but allow the active ones to continue to operate with impunity (as they should).
A ship module could work. It could be like a system wide pulse that is sent out that and if the cloaked ship doesn't go through some process to counteract the plus in say 5 minutes, the cloak drops. However, the ship sending out the pulse should not be able to dock, move, jump a gate or be near a pos for around 1-5 minutes after activating such a device. +1 |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Suddenly Spaceships.
189
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:47:00 -
[239] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:If you're going to reconsider the high level goals of the sov mechanics, it would be enormously helpful to have a discussion on what the justifications are for having de jure sovereignty in the first place.
If 0.0 is supposed to be "lawless" space, ownership by fiat (i.e. arbitrary game mechanics) seems to contradict that principle. All of the actual benefits of controlling a system -- and the mechanics that enable it -- could remain in place without the contrivance of a Territorial Claim Unit. In other words, perhaps player groups should be able to build infrastructure hubs, CSAA's, jump bridges, etc., or even plant a pretty flag, in any system at any time. The only requirement for keeping those structures and reaping the benefits would be the ability of owners to defend them. That would be the purest expression of occupancy-based sov.
Just to be clear, this isn't about "fixing" the current sov mechanics. I'm questioning whether they should exist at all. I like the brutal simplicity of it....
Want to hold space? do so by the barrel of a gun. Want to build something? Anywhere? go ahead, but be prepared to defend it with the barrel of a gun.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Jori McKie
Friends Of Harassment The Camel Empire
161
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 15:06:00 -
[240] - Quote
Some time ago, i had some ideas about a dynamic system securtiy especially for PvE rewards, not so much about sov but maybe this could help. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1391139#post1391139
The topic is locked for now. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |