|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
447
   |
Posted - 2015.03.07 11:53:49 -
[1] - Quote
For those still concerned about the rigid use of 4-hour alliance prime times, please check out some proposed tweaks found here. I believe it would be in everyone's best interest if system vulnerability were linked to how often it were used, making it much easier to contest those that never see a soul.
Of course this is also another reason to fix the current Industrial Index. Something is clearly wrong when the EVE map looks like this:
http://i.imgur.com/n84nWAH.png
Mining needs to make more of an impact on that index, and ideally there should be more metrics that factor in too. Commonly touted ideas include:
- Production jobs
- Moon mining or reacting starbases
- POCO usage
- Research
|
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
454
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:02:02 -
[2] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:afkalt wrote:See my other posts.
My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it. That's nice for you? I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance. So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently. Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix.
All this discussion about alliance-wide programs is a red herring. These are symptoms of flaws in the current state of the game.
SRP and subsidisation programmes were borne directly from sovereignty mechanics designed by CCP to favour the biggest, strongest ships. Both POS-based sov and its successor Dominion made capital ships a necessity for taking and holding space. Such ships have always involved an element of tedium in 99% of ops; waiting around for hours to find out if you're even going to fight anyone does not make for exciting gameplay. Then when these expensive ships are inevitably lost, it's unreasonable to expect casual players to spend weeks replacing them for the promise of more boredom.
It's human nature to take the path of least-resistance, so the result at the end of the day is our current meta; alliances grouping up into coalitions to:
increase the number of expensive ships to defend their territory
decrease the number of expensive ships attacking their territory
generate income to maintain all the expensive ships defending their territory
By removing the capital fleet as the barrier for null-sec entry, these new sov changes are a step in the right direction. Done properly they could even undermine the necessity for having SRP in future nullsec alliances. |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
479
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 11:31:50 -
[3] - Quote
Nyphur wrote:An alternative sov system:Here's a much simpler and more intuitive sov system that still uses most of the proposal:
- There are NO reinforcement timers on any structures. Instead, they're vulnerable to capture during your alliance's vulnerability window.
- Each structure has an ownership rating out of 4 or 5.
- Using an Entosis module to capture a structure takes about 40 minutes and reduces the ownership rating by 1 point.
- Each structure can only lose a maximum of 1 point per day.
- If ownership drops to 0, the structure becomes neutral and can be captured the next day, or ownership switches immediately to the attacker.
- Every day that a structure isn't successfully attacked, it regains 1-2 points of ownership automatically.
- Split the Entosis module into a small Defensive version anyone can use to block capture and a capital sized Offensive version that's required to capture something.
I really like the tug-of-war aspect of this, akin to the old POS-based system but without endless structure shooting. This makes it possible for an attacker to make gradual progress without being dropped back to square 1 for losing a single fight.
The simplest metric here would be to re-purpose the current Strategic Index, and have it increase by 1 for each 24 hour period it's not successfully attacked. As this index is tied to the capture timer, this creates an increasing sense of urgency as each day of failed defense makes subsequent days harder.
The one part I would object to here is the special capital-sized link being required. By far the biggest flaw in both previous sov systems has been the reliance on needing the biggest ships, especially capitals and supers. This sets a barrier for entry into nullsec for smaller groups and implies only the richest side should win.
I would however argue that there should be an element of risk/reward for using more costlier hulls. How about a capture time modifier based on hull type? Low-risk frigates would take twice as long to capture as a battleship, with a slight bonus (perhaps -10%) for capitals. This provides an incentive to use larger ships without making them essential. |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
484
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 13:25:29 -
[4] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:I still don't understand why alliance would fight over sov in the first place?
Bowbndr wrote:
I think the point is to make it so there IS NO point to holding sov anymore. CCP is making it very clear that if it dosent lead to ships going boom they no longer want it in EVE and the only advantage to holding sov long term is if you have a group that can mine it and produce goods for your Corp, alliance or coalition.
It's not so much that there's no point in holding sov, it's that the old motivations which used to drive conflict have gradually eroded over the years and are no longer fresh and exciting.
Back around 2005-2008 the big draw in taking sov was in using the shiny new toys like starbases, outposts, jump bridges and titans to build an empire. You went out to conquer an outpost because it was worth something, both to your alliance and the one you took it from. You built Titans because a single one had a huge effect. This inspired all sorts of groups into null-sec to work together, both building their own empires and destroying others.
Now every other nullsec system has an outpost. Supercaps are commonplace; they're no longer an achievement for a group of players and will soon lack a clear purpose. Inflation has also reduced the relative value of both, and now they're commonly affordable by individuals rather than corp/alliance investments as was originally intended.
Jump drives and bridges have been severely nerfed, and starbases have seen very little change for almost a decade. The whole system Dominion introduced for managing system upgrades was never iterated on, with all sorts of balance issues that persist from the very first day they arrived on TQ. All the tools that used to drive the building and conflicts of empires are stale and decrepit.
What we need is some combination of new toys to play with, and some attention paid to the existing ones to make them fresh again. We've heard so many ideas about player-built stargates, new structures, and generally shaping the space an alliance lives in. Now they need to materialise. CCP needs to drop some fresh sand in the sandbox to encourage players to build new castles, conquer them, or knock them down. Something to drive new empires with, and create new history. The rest will attend to itself. |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
500
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 08:58:34 -
[5] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has
Don't make the mistake of assuming siphons are a money-making mechanic, they're not. Their in-game implementation conflicted with the stated goals CCP laid out and instead we ended up with a griefing mechanic that's deeply unpleasant for both parties and encourages as little conflict as possible.
Siphons could have been amazing content generators, providing a source of income for attackers and combat opportunities for defenders. Instead we got a poorly thought-out game mechanic where both the risk and potential reward for the attacker are low, the required effort from the defender is a horrible chore, and CCP had to fudge the API to make it even barely passable.
Now that Greyscale has departed for pastures new, you may be better off campaigning for siphons to be made useful. This is a much simpler project than overhauling moon-mining (although I do agree that needs to be done also). |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
508
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 14:37:03 -
[6] - Quote
I would like to see more opportunity for using capitals in this system, even if it's not essential to do so.
What if Entosis Links could only deactivate an Infrastructure Hub, and you needed to shoot it or online your own to get rid of it permanently? |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
516
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 14:19:14 -
[7] - Quote
Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch. |
|
|
| |
|