Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Ramirez Dora
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 14:03:00 -
[211]
IF you find a way to do that without the possibility for timezone traps I'm all good for it. I do like the idea of multiple factors such as presence, i just don't see any easy way to quantify that, keep it exploit-proof and make it technically possible to calculate without spending a lot of server resources on it. Tough nut this one.
Current focal points, especially in high moon count systems, is still way off scale.
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 14:52:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Ghost Reaper can we get a response from the gms, what ideas they like, what they wnat to test etc????
gr
Like we sad before. We're reading all the posts. It's a lot of ideas to go through, so it'll take some time but we haven't forgotten you .
|
|
Loedem
Minmatar Knockaround Guys
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 15:48:00 -
[213]
Influence:
What if there was a way to weaken sovereignty by simply throwing pure isk at it (kind of like a corporate takeover, in the form of influence...perhaps bringing the NPC factions of the area into the mix in a more hostile UN-like fashion. The reason I'd choose NPCs is that it would be a way to remove ISK from the game while also getting the payee something benificial for the campaign)
Now I'm not sure how isk would weaken defenses or capabilities, but I would put it on a exponential scale so it's not just a matter those with the most isk wins... (eg. 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x...) but more isk certainly does help. And I would simply use this as a means to weaken defenses, but not gain sov...you would still have to fight for it. The individuals or corporation that bribe the NPC faction would also have to have positive standings with that faction.
Siege Towers:
Siege towers work like small towers but with less overall capabilities. Their purpose and design is to launch high-dps to the main tower under siege. They take awhile to anchor, so require good defenses while being put in place near the target tower (~200km perhaps). They can be filled with stront just like a normal tower and be left to siege on their own (abiet less stront than the main tower...there still has to be an agressing force). A siege tower can be incapacitated just like a normal tower...and are designed to fire on very large objects like supercaps and enemy towers...smaller targets will have diminished returns.
Station Control:
Perhaps an element of crippling Sov-related bonuses by attacking service modules at outpost. Not entirely overpowering by itself, but it would be something to do that would require a strategy.
Thunderdome Challenge:
Much like an empire wardec, but more like a contract that is made with the NPC faction of the area, declare a 1v1 (or tourney bracket). Both sides would have to agree on the time and the place. If it is agreed on (using in game form methods) a deadspace instance is created for the specified pilots chosen. Any other pilot entering this deadspace will be shot by NPC guards (concord strength).
This is an idea that helps avoid a drawn out battle for both sides through a mutual sport agreement...they pick the best of their best..their elite..."two men enta, one man leaves!"
Long range ballistic assault:
The idea here is to open assaults from neighboring systems through cyno technology. Thus forcing pilots to split up and move away from the target system to address long range assault POS's. These generally take a long time compared to a direct siege, but some interesting aspects could be thrown in to make it very interesting.
This is a followup to my previous idea...I'll keep thinking on new ones, hope you like em :)
|
Zagum Darkfin
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 16:09:00 -
[214]
Sorry if this off topic but it does play into 0,0 warfare. The problem with Blob/POS warfare is multi-faceted. Changing sovereignty is a major factor to the game play, however lets not forget about the consequences of holding space and fighting for it. Right now Insurance is breaking 0,0 space warfare. No matter how many times you kill a group of players, they always come back because Insurance allows the players in 0,0 recoup the costs of a lost ship very quickly and painlessly. There is not enough financial hardship in 0,0 and finality in our battles thus leading to time consuming boring sovereignty battles.
I propose to remove Insurance from 0,0 space. Who in their right mind would insure a ship in a time of war or in known warzone. All policies are forfeit by an act of war. Spamming players in tech 1 ships all day leads to no real meaningful PVP. It becomes a war of attrition and logistics and not based on skill or tactics. Players are willing to blob systems because there is no real risk to loosing a ship. There needs to be a greater Risk/Reward in 0,0 than the current system.
I would leave insurance for Empire space where there is a legal system in place that an insurance company can recoup costs. In 0,0, there is no legal system besides the one of the gun port.
Please remove insurance from 0,0 space. ..i.. |
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 16:26:00 -
[215]
The other side is;
-more financial imbalance between 0.0 and empire. empire = 40 million per hour with zero risk or effort for everyone 0.0 = low income big costs effect: less people in 0.0
-more farming hours per one pvp hour => less pvp.
-less incentive for low skill characters (T1 ships with cheaper equipment are cheaper to loose due to insurance) to try to fight and compete older characters (T2 ships with expensive equipment are generally expensive to loose and not affected by insurance).
=> And this means low skill (first year?) characters feel they are useless in 0.0 and go grind missions or play WoW.
In general, its good to have 0.0 full of various people strugling to survive, fight and do something rather then empty, with only BoB, TRI, Snigg and other alliances requiring high SP and and much time online from their members.
|
Gripen
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 16:45:00 -
[216]
My suggestion aimed to reduce blobbing during pos assaults which makes POS warfare with large alliances completely unplayable atm. In my opinion it is the only problem of current mechanics but solution described below should also promote smaller engagements during the fight over sovereignty.
1) POS chain: Multiple POSes from different systems can be linked together and if attacked they work like single entity with common hitpoint buffer. If you link two POSes the resulting system will have 2x shield hitpoints and if enemy attacks one you can in the same time transfer shields to the other and slow their progress. Once shield are down every POS in the chain became reinforced for the same amount of time.
2) Concentration penalty: Attacking or repairing multiple of linked POSes must be more effective than focusing on single one. If attacker brings whole his fleet to the one of such linked POS and starts to try to reinforce the chain, defenders can send shield transferring carriers to every other POS and transfer shields there. As a result attackers damage will be greatly lowered because whole incoming damage done to single POS in chain while amount of hitpoints defenders repair will be multiplied by some factor because they are doing it on different POSes at the same time. So attackers can't blob as they simply couldn't break POS chain tank.
So even if no defenders activity attackers will reinforce the chain faster if they split their fleet and attack multiple POSes from chain at once. To make sure that nobody transferring shields to the chain attackers might have strike groups at other POSes. In the end attacking fleet becames a set of groups in different systems and the possibility of smaller fights is there. But what in this case prevents defenders to get their whole fleet and destroy smaller enemy groups one by one?
3) New mobile cynosural jammers and instant siege mode deactivation. If defenders will try to engage some attackers group with their whole fleet this attacker group should be able to evade fight while other groups in other systems will continue to do their job. The key for this scheme to work is the ability for the smaller group to evade fight fast and inability of larger defenders fleet to move around between attacker groups fast. For attackers to be able to react fast dreadnought siege mode should be changed to allow instant (or almost instant) deactivation. For the defenders to not be able to attack very fast bypassing scouts there is a new capital only (or even mothership only) module should be introduced: mobile cyno jammer which will prevent cynofield activation and jumpbridge functioning in the system. Ship with such jammer active will be visible on the overview as warpable object like the cynofield now. So the blobbing for the defenders will not work also and the only effective way to defend the chain is to split and engage multiple attacker groups in different systems at the same time.
4) More hardware: splitting the fleet fights to the multiple engagements in several systems will be useless if all those systems will still be handled by the single server node. Best way to solve this is a modification to load balancer so once POS chain is reinforced all the systems with POSes from this chain mapped to the separate nodes.
Sovereignty and restrictions.
POS chain claims sovereignty in the neighboring systems and protects outposts in such systems from being attacked. Of course there should be a restriction on amount of POSes in the chain. How far POSes can be one from another and how far they will claim sovereignty is up to balance: one chain per region claiming sov in the whole region can be too much but one per constellation is a too close because there should be at least few jumps between the POSes and average amount of POSes in chain should be 5-8. Good idea can be an artificially (by the developers) defined systems where POSes can be set to chained mode.
|
Cker Heel
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 17:04:00 -
[217]
Yesterday I proposed to nerf the tank of control towers, but allow the pos in system or constellation to spider-tank. The objective is to spread out fleets and to make weak POS quicker to kill, but not otherwise change territorial warfare. Here are some details to flesh out the idea.
Nerf the shield hp count rate of a control tower to a fraction of current value. Eliminate shield hardener structures, but add the new remote hardener structure. Aim it so a solo large tower can be reinforced by a solo dread in 2 or 3 siege cycles.
The new remote hardener structure could assist one other tower in system with a huge bonus, say 90% to all resists. Since a tower's hardener bonus extends to all its structures, this will protect all the modules at a POS. Limit number of new remote hardener structure to one anchored at any tower.
The base defense strategy would pair POSes, where remote hardener on tower A boosts tower B, and tower B's hardener boosts tower A. Hardener should be scaled a POS boosted by one remote hardener has tank approximately like today's unhardened POS.
Towers alone in a system will be more vulnerable than now.
Now take a system with 3 towers. If A boosts B who boosts C who boosts A, the status quo is preserved. But a defender could have A boosted by B and C. A will have a great tank, but C is completely vulnerable. If defenders are free to redirect boost, the attackers best strategy is to split up the attacking fleet to attack all 3 towers at once.
The sov level bonus can be used to allow a second new structure: the constellation remote hardener array. Sov bonus can be +1 constellation remote hardener anchorable per system per level. The constellation remote hardener can boost any tower in the constellation (similar UI to jump bridge arrays).
Apply stacking penalty to the assist from these modules, so more than 3 booster is useless. A triple boosted tower could tank a big fleet anyway.
The defense strategy will be to boost whichever tower is under attack to the point where it is impregnable. The offense strategy will be to find a vulnerable tower, or spread fleet evenly across towers. Alarm clock ops could still reinforce towers, but surely defenders will be online to direct remote hardeners after reinforced. Remote hardeners could stay inside pos forcefield and stay online in reinforced. The constellation remote hardeners could be outside shield and vulnerable to reinforced.
The key is only one booster anchored per tower, so each boost is evenly spread, or towers are left vulnerable. Newly taken systems will need hands-on management of boost links. Systems with sov bonus will have the extra constellation remote boosting modules to reduce micromanagement work of defenders.
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 18:04:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Nifel
Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:21:12 I would just like to say a quick comment.
All those people suggesting Stations themselves become the focus on battles; that is a terrible idea.
It just pushes people to blob around the station. I think the key focus on these pos changes should be fleet battles going from one grid to multiple grids breaking up lag and blobs.
There must be some sort of objective that will spread gangs to multiple pos's within a system.
Ill brain storm on this "objective" a bit more haha. Its hard to think of a good incentive to attack multiple pos's simultaneously.
Anything as strong as POS will always get a blob. It's not a problem to have the station as a focus point for huge megafleets as that is one of the selling points of EVE and if it wasn't possible a lot of players simply wouldn't play any longer. What's needed is escalation and one or more incentives to spread out your fleet.
I agree fleet battles are the draw to playing EVE, however, I enjoy 100 vs 100, 150 vs 150 NOT 350 vs 350 super uber lag bomb fleet battles....thats just lame.
See my previous post on "incentives to spread out".
|
Raid
Caldari Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 19:55:00 -
[219]
Huge problem in my opinion is claiming more than you can persoanly defend because you dont have to be there to defend it. Result: Manpower needed to challenge soverignty even on a basic level increases.
Its too easy for alliances to claim 100 solarsystems! Things been to change so that people need to actually occupy the space they have soverignty over. Currently Eve isnt big enough to allow everyone to have their own piece of land. The ease of logistics make claiming 100 systems too easy. You can thank jump drives and jump bridges for that... Theres no such thing as a remote location in eve.
I propose making all starbase guns manual. You need to have people in the system who can man the guns to defend a tower. This will give smaller alliances the opportunity to mess up jump bridge towers and cyno jamming towers in systems the enemy don't even defend. Right now you need 20 dreads or 100 battleships so you dont get killed in 20 seconds. Make people have to defend everything on they own! A gang of 10 people should be able to shoot structures with no hostiles in local! Currently with POS guns you dont even have to be there to fight for your assets.
This would help shrink the number of systems an alliance can hold to only what is defendable.
|
Serena Hennessy
Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 20:31:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Ramirez Dora
Sadly, the sheer amount of number crunching that would require is not feasible. Not to mention it would not be very transparent bringing frustration to both developer and player, allowing for increased abuse of the system and favouring larger > smaller.
You want a system with a reasonable number of deciding variables that can not easily be exploited. Whilst the deciding factor should definitely be presence related I do think the only feasible way is through some sort of structure and not the individual players.
I totally fail to see how. It's one integer for the server to keep track of, per alliance, per system. In fact, the server does this already - instead of counting people, it counts starbases. Changing WHAT you're counting doesn't in itself add load.
The server also already has to check if you're targetable in space. (Inside a shield, cloaked, etc.) So you see, we're not really adding any additional mechanics, just changing the way the information is used.
The server already knows you're in space, if you're targetable, and what system you're in. The only work it has to do is whilst you're in system, increment the variable (allianceXplayerTimer) by howevermany units you've been active when you enter a new session or become untargetable, and then check at downtime to see who has control (which it does already)
I'd hazard a guess that whatever additional load this would incur on the server would be by far overshadowed by the savings from not having OMG 100000vs100000 dreadnoughts shooting a tower at the same time simply to outblob your opponent.
The ONLY reason to have a static structure is to force large-scale battles to occur in a specific place. This is ALSO one of the reasons why the current system is broken - the nodes can't handle the numbers being brought to bear because of this very mechanic. Sure, a better server might HELP delay the appearance of the lag monster, but all you're doing with adding hardware is brinkmanship -> escalating the capacity, which the players then use, so you add more capacity....
And as for favouring Larger vs Smaller? well, we have that already. I spam more POS than you, I win. I have a bigger blob, I win. Rewarding someone from putting more effort (measured in terms of pilot hours) into taking a system seems sound, logical, and concise, and I fail to see where it lacks transparency.... It's kinda hard to notice a rival alliance killing all your guys, podding them, and preventing you from undocking or leaving a pos shield. If they CONTROL the system, give them sov!
|
|
Counterparty
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 00:12:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Serena Hennessy I totally fail to see how. It's one integer for the server to keep track of, per alliance, per system.
So a table of some 300 alliance by 5000 systems. Would this be a daily measure? If averaged over a number of days, such a table has to be stored for each day to calculate running average. Say 10 days. That 15 million integers to track dynamically.
As alliances and systems are added, this table would need to be resized. What happens when pilots and corps join/leave an alliance? Are subtotals kept for them so the alliance total can be corrected? Per system per day per alliance?
POSes are counted once at downtime statically. No data storage is needed at all.
Will all pilots see the daily totals to know if they have to jump back home to keep sov? If so, these tables need an UI element as well. Can they see totals for themselves, their corp, other alliances, other days? For any system, or just the one they are in?
The server and client do not do all this already.
|
ElfeGER
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 00:33:00 -
[222]
I wonder if it would be possible to stacking nerf and share the hp so one large ct = 40m + second adding 20m hp a third 10m hp and so on
each large ct get total/count hp 1 ct 40m hp 2 ct 30m hp each (total 60m) 3 ct 23m hp each (total 70m)
(numbers are just an example) ----------- - reduce light, medium and heavy drone rof (default 2 sec) - server side event filtering for turret and effects - module grouping for less server calls - fix grid loading isses
|
Ramirez Dora
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 01:42:00 -
[223]
Edited by: Ramirez Dora on 17/11/2007 01:42:45 Also keep in mind that anything that forces the attacker to have to spread out his forces must also force the defender to spread out.
If you have a system where POS would be linked up, and let's say, the damage you do to all the POS is the same as the smallest amount you are doing to any one of them (thus forcing spread fire over all of them). Disregarding the need for damage micromanagement for the attacker, a system like this would NOT discourage the defender from blobbing as they could simply bounce from attacking group to attacking group with their entire fleet easily wiping them out.
So, if you're going to force the attacker to spread out, make a strong incentive for the defender to do so too or we'll be seeing a static universe soon
|
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 03:29:00 -
[224]
DEVS DONT SKIP OVER THIS ONE!!!
After reading Goumindong from GoonswamÆs post and his post at the start of this thread.
I had a bunch of ideas that sprang from his main idea in his post.
So I just threw it together and put it in the link below, because i couldnt fit it all in one post.
I think this idea Solves Pos Spaming (well thats of that post i read) More varied types of POS sieges Links Faction warfare with PVP and Soveignty and still works as a bridge into what the devs seemed to have wanted in their DEV blog (part of that was from the post i read aswell) More to do in a POS fight Helps break down the blobbing a bit, and pushes for simultainius POS sieging. Somthing to do after constilation Something for the smaller corps to do Makes smaller forces and ships matter in a POS fight Some benefits for super empires (BOB/GOONS/RA etc) Ways for small corps to try and be recognized (Pirates/RP/AntiPorates etc) Additions for bounty hunters. More insentive for pew pew.
Well its something I think could work anyways.
Most of you wont read this but i would like to hear some feed back.
-----------> Link to my post <----------------
thanks forum buddies
|
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 03:47:00 -
[225]
Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 17/11/2007 03:47:57
|
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 03:48:00 -
[226]
Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 17/11/2007 03:48:06
|
Doomed Predator
Xoth Inc Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 10:52:00 -
[227]
A thing you could do is let POSes be anchorable at planets and only the POSes that are anchored at planets could take/hold/change/whatever soveringty.
Also add XL POS towers which could be anchored at stars overriding all other towers, ofcourse making it the toughest thing to destroy but also very expensive so a system could be take in an large scale battle and not by planting 30 large poses and waiting 7 days.
My 0.02 isk
|
Manufakturka
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 12:10:00 -
[228]
A little polish to Kefira idea:
Noone cares about table sizes, since 100MB means nothing for an EVE cluster which generates 5+GB of data per day.. It's additional processing power that hurts. But, let me show you that it wouldn't be a problem: 1) For PvE, system would stealthy compute another number every 30 minutes. It's still a huge improvement and it wouldn't do so in Empire, so net effect should be unnoticeable. 2) For missions, PvP, manufacturing and invention it's just one DB commit once activity finished (think of it as one more line on the killmail). 3) mining will be a little problematic, but but every idea should have it's implementation challenges:P
Now, a nice idea for tying up Kefira system with current one: Make POS generate sov points, except they would store what they generated. When the POS is blown up, the points it generated would be lost, thus making it non-preferred solution. This way the sov of today get's transfered to new system, but if enemy doesn't really operate in said system, it would be very easy to take it from them.
Few things that should be changed if the system would be introduced: 1) Longer PvE aggression timers, depending on sov status (5 mins for owning alliance, 15 mins for farmers) 2) Scannable cloaked ships. 3) General logoffski timer (warpout to safe in 30/60 seconds as it's now, but stay there for another 3 minutes or so).
To make system more natural, nerf mineral compression to hell so people will be in 0.0 carebearing stuff;-)
To add extra twist, consider inter-alliance jumpbridges. Space claimed would be small and to compensate, ake NAPS actually mean **** (and by say allowing allies of B full use of alliance A jumpbridges cause A is napped with B, we have a nice reason to be careful with creating naplands).
|
Ramirez Dora
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 12:35:00 -
[229]
A system based on # pilots 'active' in system just screams 'exploit me' imho. And trust me when I say that the accuracy of measuring the 'activity' will be the inverse of the needed number crunching, meaning that the more accurate you make it (as to prevent exploiting) the more power it will require. On a MMO scale there is no such thing as 'just another DB write'.
Conquering a system should still be about the 'pew pew' side of things in the end (at least if you ask me). I'm completely for offering other alternatives to conquering a system such as allowing alliances to easily trade or transfer Sov systems they hold to someone else's control (e.g. officially done by the executor of said alliance).
People don't keep growing vegetables in an area that is being fought over, and just like that I really wouldn't want my authority over a system to be determined by how much ore I can mine from a rock. For viable alternatives to come in place we need to both expand the military and political possibilities in Eve.
Basically settling of a system/constellation must be able to progress (ableit slowly) to such a state that a political solution between alliances (regarding said system/constellation) becomes more attractive than simply stomping down the door and shooting anything that moves (which is still the dark, wicked way that is Eve). We would need expanded structure trees, at least basic planetary control (e.g. planet x under your control generates 2 million trit a day placed in silo Y at POS W) and such things as sentry guns, etc. THAT would be the ideal way forward, but it is a long way off and will require a LOT of work, but I have no doubt this is the roadmap that Eve is on.
I mean, noone that holds Sov space right now can achieve anything along the likes of the NPC empires, whilst there is no reason they shouldn't.
Guess I rambled a bit hmm.
|
Garr Anders
Minmatar Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 12:47:00 -
[230]
from the http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewforum.php?f=29 discussion:
What if players could build up such static plexes which hold sovereignty ?
System sovereignty is held by setting up a small complex. To conquer the system you have to enter the plex and achieve certain stages/triggers.
The more systems you have in one constellation, the more stuff/stages/triggers you can add to your complex.
Maybe as a short explanation where I'm coming from. Im an ex SWG and there you had different size of bases, which different numbers of NPCs guarding them. You were also able to set up mine fields and turrets.
To take them down you had to enter these base facing (depending on size) from easy to PvPish strong NPCs and hold the base for a while to get a set of players into the base with very specific skills usually only used for PvEish content to hack the base to self destruct.
Although the NPCs were a heavy resistance already, these bases were usually also guarded and defended by players.
So you had to: + defeat the NPCs guards + defeat the player guards + protect your hacking characters (later there were special hacking characters with multiple skills but due the limited skill distribution in SWG these were very combat weak and not good for anything apart from base hacking ) + occupy the base for awhile to do the hacking (which were of a few puzzles you had to solve but which could took their time) + naturally get out alive
These bases were usually only hack-able during a two hour window only know by the corp itself.
Together with my previous idea
A alliance /corp could set up either several strong plexes to be defended/protected within the siege ----- Garr Anders
|
|
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 15:00:00 -
[231]
I think one of the problems is that Sovereignty doesnÆt have a variety of scope to it at the moment. Fighting over resources seems to be a distant second most of the time. Most of the time its simply because people like to pew pew, or have to form a gang to protect themselves against the pew pew by doing pew pew.
Im actually fine with that, I also think pew pew should be the mainstay of Sov.
There are hundreds of different roles that can be played, and very few of them can be taken to the extent that taking over the universe with a big stick can get you. (even so, what would you do after that) You have miners, bounty hunters, arms dealers, pirates, anti-pirates, inventors, builders, transporters, smugglers, traders, market players, mission runners, role players and loads more. And in each one of those things you can specialize to at least to some degree. But most of those professions listed donÆt have an equivalent scope as PvP sov.
I think that if we can ask ourselves what we want from and least 10 of these professions and introduce an equivalent scope to PvP sov, they will start to tie together and Sov would have to change to encompass them. Or other types of Sov be invented
Bottom line if we know what we actually want from having sovereignty and how far we can push it (realistically speaking). Then we can build a better Sov system.
What do you want sovereignty to actually let you do? And I mean on as epic a scale as you can think of just short of populating planets.
I personally would like to see Sov leap to actual empire scale mechanics. And even the RP have NPC fleets at their side when they fight. û what would you need to do that? Well I posted some ideas in my last post.
|
Maliber
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 16:38:00 -
[232]
Loads of ideas already on in this topic i would like to add another one:
introduce a new module anchorable outside the pos. This module is for claiming sov. There is a maximum number of these modules allowed in a system per alliance. Lets say six. keeping these modules active should require a exponential amount of effort. So anchoring one and fueling that pos is no different then normal. But when you want to anchor 2 in a system the fuel consumtion of both posses that have this module double. Anchoring another one will double the previous amount needed in the system. This is both for normal fuel and reinforced fuel consumtion. Lets call this module the sov module. The module shouldnt be vunerable to disabeling and the maximum amount present for a alliance in a system should be for anchorable. The module stays for a while after distruction to keep people from spamming them. The modules have to be fueled from ouside the pos shield. (maybe even the pos fuel has to be put in this module thats a thing to figure out later)
The rate of this extra fuel consumption has to be tweaked ofcourse doubleing is a bit to much, but the core of the idea is this. Once you escalate into a state of war you will put more of these modules online both you and your enemy will have to put up with the increased amount of logistics. This fueling will have be risky and susceptible to disruption. Besides this the time a pos is in reinforced mode will be shorter if more claiming modules are present in a system. This makes the timing of reinforced posses less of a issue and makes you more vunerable if you try to keep up the max number of claiming modules.
This way its not really a good idea if two smaller corps are warring for sov to put up more than say two modules per corp. It makes them more vunerable and puts a heavy logistics load on them.
But for two mega alliances or factions putting up the six modules can be easily done. It will bring a heavy logistic load with it but this will make the war more suseptable to intrige, tactics and human failure. Its now possible to disrupt these logistics without actually sieging loads and loads of posses and it will get more dynamic. A result will be forced more quicly as the posses will be out of reinforced far sooner so the dispute will drag on for far less time. I dont think blobs are going to be banned form alliance warfare as it is a result of a large amount of people fighting together for certain goals.
The effect of fuel consumption and reinforced fuel consumption could also be depandent in a lesser amount to the ammount of enemy sov claiming modules. This so you have some influence on the reinforced timer of your enemy. for example it could be a valid tactic to turn off all you sov mods to make there posses that you plan to siege come out in the wrong timezone...
A well just a rough idea most of the stuff has to be tweaked but i think you guys get the drift it could easily be combined with the other ideas presented in this thread.
|
TWD
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 17:16:00 -
[233]
Edited by: TWD on 17/11/2007 17:26:20 1) Stations can be placed without sov 2) POS have no effect on sov 3) a POS in a constellation with 1 station is sov 1, 2 stations is sov 2, etc. (can still be contested by hostile POS, but they can't gain sov without a station) 4) Stations get an increase in hitpoints and can be attacked directly 5) When the shields of a station hit 0%, a 7 day timer is displayed with sov 0 to 3, 8 days for sov 4 6) If the station gets repped up to 100% before the timer ends, the timer resets and disappears 7) Otherwise, the station changes hands and gets restored to 100% shields
The benefits of having sov in a system are fuel and POS modules. POS become tools and are no longer mandatory for territorial warfare. |
Jita TradeAlt
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 17:32:00 -
[234]
Edited by: Jita TradeAlt on 17/11/2007 17:34:46
Originally by: TWD Edited by: TWD on 17/11/2007 17:26:20 1) Stations can be placed without sov 2) POS have no effect on sov 3) a POS in a constellation with 1 station is sov 1, 2 stations is sov 2, etc. (can still be contested by hostile POS, but they can't gain sov without a station) 4) Stations get an increase in hitpoints and can be attacked directly 5) When the shields of a station hit 0%, a 7 day timer is displayed with sov 0 to 3, 8 days for sov 4 6) If the station gets repped up to 100% before the timer ends, the timer resets and disappears 7) Otherwise, the station changes hands and gets restored to 100% shields
The benefits of having sov in a system are fuel and POS modules. POS become tools and are no longer mandatory for territorial warfare.
not a horrible idea, but in practice it probably won't result in decent small scale fights. Not to mention that holding stations will just be a matter of having 40-50 carriers parked in dock range with remote shield transfers, not actual fighting. Too easy to just wait your enemy out and there's nothing really forcing battles.
I still think static complexes were the best strategic objectives for small gangs to hit and would give ships such as jump capable black ops ships very nice targets to raid.
|
TWD
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 17:35:00 -
[235]
Then if less or equal to 0 meters from the station, can't remote rep? ;d |
Arenis Xemdal
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 20:20:00 -
[236]
Hello, I really donÆt have time to go over my suggestion with fine tooth and comb, but thereÆs a lot of ideas here that worry me. People donÆt seem to appreciate where we were before POS warfare, and why some things in the current one are good. So I feel compelled to comment on this part of EVE that IÆve participated heavily in. Over 200 tower sieges (with Dreadnought), involving the conquest/defense of several regions if you can appreciate the amount of hours I spent in front of a tower thinking of ways to make this better for everyone.
The following is what needs to be fixed for the next major post-Trinity expansion.
Linkage
Its about 2000 words, if you're bothered enough to read it.
|
Cain Calzon
Caldari Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 21:09:00 -
[237]
can we get an Cancel and Queue system on the POSes? The cancel option is pretty simple. because this happens to me alot, i want to online/offline/anchor/unanchor something and then i accidently selects an array thats next to the real array that i want to interact with. example. i want to online an cyno generator and next to that generator is an offline cyno jammer. i then accidently selects the jammer instead of the generator and selects online. now i have to wait 30m looking at a timer when i could be doing something worth while. a Cancel feature would be good, it cancels what ever its doing and goes back to it previous state.
Queing is another feature to help relief some "grinding of teeth". example, 1 of my towers has gone offline due to i couldnt get to it in time. the current system now is that i have to spend half a day reonlining every god damm arrays. what would be good is an Queue system that i can put on the arrays that i want to online. and also how about an Put Online option that onlines everything that was online previous to when the tower went offline.
|
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 06:32:00 -
[238]
Ok this is pretty straightforward. Not much in the game would have to be changed except some stats and creating one module which doesnÆt have to be balanced.
The Boarding Module allows marines to board a Starbase Structure (not Outpost), offline it and give control of it to your corporation. The boarding ability can only work on a structure when it is in armour.
Bonus: 20% reduction in activation time per Level.
Activation Range 5km CPU: 35 PG: 20 Activation cost: 65 Activation Time: 30secs Ammunition: Marines Capacity: 284m3 Fitting: High Slot
1 unit of marines = 2SLP [to take over a Starbase Structure you must use the relevant number of marines to equal the Structures SLP.
Sovereignty will be based on the logistics of running a system.
By that I mean, every solar system is given a SLL grade. That grade is a representation of what the System is currently worth. Certain landmarks have been assigned SLP grades to represent the components that make up the Systems worth and logistical ability at its current Sovereignty Level.
Sovereignty Logistics Limit. [SLL] (Cannot deploy Starbase Structures if it means going over SLL.
Sovereignty Logistics Points [SLP] are classification of a systems landmarks.
Stargate worth 8000 Planet worth 6000 SLP Moon worth 4500 SLP Asteroid Belts 1500 SLP
Example: 8 planets + 40 moons + 10 Asteroid Belts + 2 Stargates= 156,000 SLL
When you anchor a station structure, it uses up a certain amount of SLL. Each station is assigned an SLP grade Double the base price of all Starbase structures
structures cannot be anchored within Station Shields. (Except for Corporate hangers.) Outpost Worth 50000 SLP Large Station worth 38,000 SLP Medium Station worth 20000 SLP Small Station worth 0 SLP Station Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers or Outpost) 2600
|
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 06:34:00 -
[239]
Sovereignty 1: [Territory] Requierments 30% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers) Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.
How to challenge Sov 1: Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.
Bonus: 20% Bonus Sovereignty Logistics Limit Your alliance is visually represented on the starmap as being the sovereign of the solar system You can only deploy outposts in solarsystems where your alliance holds sovereignty. Outposts and conquerable stations held by your alliance are invulnerable until you lose sovereignty. Your Starbases get 25% bonus to their fuel efficiency. Your alliance is able to anchor capital shipyard production facilities, thus enabling the construction.
Sovereignty 2: [Protectorate] Requierments 35% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers) Territory level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days How to challenge Sov 2: Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: 25% bonus Sovereignty Logistics Limit Cynosural field generator arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system). Scanner arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system).
Sovereignty 3: [Province] Requierments 40% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers) Protectorate level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days
How to challenge Sov 3: Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: 30% bonus Sovereignty Logistics Limit Twinned jump bridge structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system). Cynosural field jammer structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system)
Sovereignty 4 [Constellation Capital] Requirement 45% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers) Province level sovereignty undisrupted for thirty days. Constellation Sovereignty needs to be in effect for your alliance within the constellation.
Constellation Capital Sovereignty Warfare
If one of the following requirements is met, Constellation Capital sovereignty will change to a contested mode:
The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses sovereignty control of the majority of the systems in the constellation.
The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses control of the minimum of three outposts or conquerable stations.
The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses control of the capital outpost or conquerable station.
Bonus: 35% bonus Sovereignty Logistics Limit Sovereignty of the system cannot be contested, and is locked into place until the system is forced to a lower sovereignty level. An idea like this is put into the game then there will be less POS spamming. The Starbase structures are made primary targets along side POSÆs, giving small corps a fighting chance. And I think it might even help a little with blobing, because people will probably go for the POS defences which are weaker, which means they can use less people at once, which means they may split their fleet up into groups to attack multiple stations.
|
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.18 13:16:00 -
[240]
I actually cant see any obvious problems to this idea, So I would people to see if they can rip apart the idea. (Devs feel free to join in the bashing)
Or does it actually make as much sense as i think it does?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |