EVE Search - [Issue] Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty System

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty System

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:56:00 - [1] ItÆs been expressed many times by many parties that the current 0.0 Alliance Sovereignty System is in a sub-optimal state, whether it be complaints about the grind of POS logistics, lamenting the need for blob warfare to achieve victory on the Sovereignty battlefield, or disappointment in the lack of strategic objectives achievable by small sub-capital gangs. IÆm defining support for this topic as support for the CSM to open a dialogue with the CCP reps about the state of 0.0 Sovereignty, and to urge CCP to address 0.0 Sovereignty in the following contexts: 1) Shifting the balance of ship classes used in Sovereignty Warfare towards sub-capital classes in some way. 2) Examining the options and incentives for multiple small gangs to participate in Sovereignty Warfare as opposed to single large fleets. 3) Removing the need for POS logistics (construction and fueling, siege and defense) as a critical component to Sovereignty Warfare. Rather than proposing a specific system to replace/revamp Sov Warfare as it currently stands, it makes more sense to begin by opening the dialogue with CCP to find out where we stand, what can be done about it, and how involved the CSM can be in the result. If you support the CSM raising this issue with CCP, please give a thumbs up.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:57:00 - [2] gewns are ruining POS warfare ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:43:00 - [3] A thumbs up from me ---
Sally Bestonge GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:54:00 - [4] wait what how stupid are you. Quote: 3) Removing the need for POS logistics (construction and fueling, siege and defense) as a critical component to Sovereignty Warfare. You want to play pos warfare without having your own pos? this is ***** ****** you need to get out.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:13:00 - [5] I'd much rather see a shorter time for anchoring / onlining things and physically smaller fuel. Originally by: nlewis jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:46:00 - [6] The simplification of POS logistics could fall under this topic. As could completely changing what Sovereignty is based on, so that POSes are no longer part of the equation.
Haakelen United Forces	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:48:00 - [7] Neutral/Mild support. POS logistics simplification is good, reduction of significance of POSes (And thus POS sieges) is good. There's also a number of really horrible ideas that can come out of this heading. So, please, flesh it out more.
Elseix	Posted - 2008.05.28 21:56:00 - [8] I'm guessing there are 20 threads on this subject, but this says just the right amount of nothing.
Kasarandon Suzaku Enterprises	Posted - 2008.05.28 22:54:00 - [9] I'd really like to see sovereignity removed from pos and put on a more diffuse system, making people use the space they hold to have sov in it.
Czanthria Ad Astra Vexillum	Posted - 2008.05.30 03:13:00 - [10] -- Knowledge is Power!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.30 18:36:00 - [11] Originally by: Kasarandon I'd really like to see sovereignity removed from pos and put on a more diffuse system, making people use the space they hold to have sov in it. As an example of what a revamp might look like, I've posted an idea in the Features and Ideas forum: Link Based on translating some currently existing mechanics into a decentralized territory control system that takes the onus off of capital combat and allows for sub-capital small gang combat in territory warfare. Critiques or other ideas also welcome!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.30 19:18:00 - [12] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Kasarandon I'd really like to see sovereignity removed from pos and put on a more diffuse system, making people use the space they hold to have sov in it. As an example of what a revamp might look like, I've posted an idea in the Features and Ideas forum: Link Based on translating some currently existing mechanics into a decentralized territory control system that takes the onus off of capital combat and allows for sub-capital small gang combat in territory warfare. Critiques or other ideas also welcome! Like I said in the other system, this is an incredibly good idea. I'm all for it. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 03:45:00 - [13] So long as number 3 is a part of this agenda, this is an incredibly bad idea. You will only support this if you want to see the game become a **** hole.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.02 04:00:00 - [14] Originally by: Goumindong So long as number 3 is a part of this agenda, this is an incredibly bad idea. You will only support this if you want to see the game become a **** hole. Constructive criticism as always, I see. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Anjinsansa IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.06.02 12:47:00 - [15] This is all very well Kelsin and may have been a nice way to start out sovereingty claims at the beginning of Eve but somehow I cant see your plans ever seeing the light of day. How would you, for example, compensate those alliances who have spent many a year and considerable amounts of isk on building up POS networks and stations in order to claim their own space? What bemuses me about your efforts here though is the fact that your corp/alliance's mission statement clearly tells us that you have no interest in holding or claiming space. So why the time spent telling those of us who do, how to do it better? If you were a space holding alliance putting forth these ideas then they would surely hold more water. But for an alliance who didnt have the caps necessary to remove sov from an enemy during a recent war your words are only akin to a baby flinging its toys from the pram when it doesnt get its own way. It is precisely this type of attempt from your alliance to force a very specific agenda that suits only yourself that irritates me. I do hope that the remainder of the CSM delegates are able to withstand the constantwhining of the new chairman.
Allaria Kriss Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.02 14:23:00 - [16] Posting in a Star Fraction sov-hater thread. Sorry, I had to. Now, to be serious. 1) Agree. Capships Online sucks. 2) Disagree. Smaller gangs are not capable of causing the damage that a large fleet can cause; letting them do so would not be realistic. Yes, you can harass or annoy a faction, but a bunch of people in dinghies with rocket launchers aren't likely to do any lasting damage compared to, say, the entire British Royal Navy. Besides, there are already many advantages that small roaming gangs have in 0.0, just that gaining sovereignty isn't one of them. 3) Neutral towards the idea. Disagree strongly with your proposal. Capturable stargates encourage, no, demand gatecamps. People regularly complain about gatecamps as it is. Anything that gives people a good, valid reason to gatecamp will quickly make 0.0 less safe than downtown Baghdad on Free Firearm Friday as people camp gate after gate to maintain or establish sovereignty. This also means that anyone jumping in is a potential sov threat, since they might see an unguarded gate and call in their friends. You'd NEED a nanoship or an interceptor just to get through the sheer volume of bubblecamps this proposal would generate.
Maus Bailey Maus Bailey Trucking	Posted - 2008.06.02 15:14:00 - [17] Quote: 2) Disagree. Smaller gangs are not capable of causing the damage that a large fleet can cause; letting them do so would not be realistic. Yes, you can harass or annoy a faction, but a bunch of people in dinghies with rocket launchers aren't likely to do any lasting damage compared to, say, the entire British Royal Navy. Besides, there are already many advantages that small roaming gangs have in 0.0, just that gaining sovereignty isn't one of them. In all fairness a single submarine today could turn most of the eastern seaboard into a parking lot, but this is a game and we should just stick to make believe. I think it'd be keen to see small, well coordinated and tailored gangs be able to have some sort of harassment ability when it comes to POS structures. Not to destroy them, not knocking them into 'reinforced' or whatever the term may be but rather into an 'offline' status. For example, ten stealth bombers decloak and unload their volley* into a research or manufacturing structure and warp out before the towers can get a lock. perhaps a special type of cruise missile is called for... a 'shieldbreaker' of some kind, like in Dune. Slow moving and totally ineffectual against ships but can bypass POS shields no problem It's ballsy and it's got a great yarr quotient... staring down all those pos guns which are going to melt you instantly, sneaking into sov space... but it accomplishes sweet *** all. Now, if said strike were to knock that structure into a 'offline' status for ten hours or so, you'd actually be able to conduct a viable 0.0 guerilla campaign that's a little more exciting than using t1 frigs to gank semi-afk miners and ratters.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 15:15:00 - [18] Originally by: Allaria Kriss 2) Disagree. Smaller gangs are not capable of causing the damage that a large fleet can cause; letting them do so would not be realistic. Yes, you can harass or annoy a faction, but a bunch of people in dinghies with rocket launchers aren't likely to do any lasting damage compared to, say, the entire British Royal Navy. Besides, there are already many advantages that small roaming gangs have in 0.0, just that gaining sovereignty isn't one of them. Keep in mind that I'm suggesting multiple small gangs as an alternative to a single large one - not a single small gang instead of a single large one. The idea being you'd still need numbers to take and hold sovereignty, but you'd spread those numbers out across multiple systems/grids instead of having them all focus on one grid and strain the server. Quote: Anything that gives people a good, valid reason to gatecamp will quickly make 0.0 less safe than downtown Baghdad on Free Firearm Friday as people camp gate after gate to maintain or establish sovereignty. This also means that anyone jumping in is a potential sov threat, since they might see an unguarded gate and call in their friends. I guess my response to this is: Isn't 0.0 supposed to be unsafe? Secondly, the popular complaint about the current state of 0.0 sovereignty is that it's mostly empty space with the occasional massive fleet battle in which lag is a large factor. To take those massive battles and spread them out across space and time would ease lag issues and mitigate the ghost town feel of much of 0.0. The general principle is that the required military presence to hold sovereignty advantage in 0.0 should be less hot and cold (due to single timed reinforcement battles) and more a 'patrolled presence' style of control.
Allaria Kriss Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.02 16:56:00 - [19] As to offlining POS modules before the guns can target: What's to stop a group of bombers from doing this over, and over, and over, and over, ad nauseum, until the entire POS is offline? After all, if any opposition arrives, they can just cloak at a safe until the opposition leaves. As to 0.0 being unsafe: Turning it into gatecamp-o-rama as your proposal suggests will make it not only very dangerous, but very dangerous in an annoying way. In other words, don't waste your time with anything not a nanogang, because it won't get through the bubblecamps of people maintaining their sov. Combined with the other SF-championed proposals to remove Local, destroyable outposts, and limiting map information, this would turn 0.0 from empire-building space into a giant free-for-all Counterstrike-with-spaceships clusterf... Well, you get the idea. Kinda like FW testing on Singularity without the free ships. I disagree with your idea of what 0.0 space is intended to be. I would like to see it more dynamic, yes, and I would like to see the larger alliances with massive holdings forced more into working to keep it, but I don't think 0.0 should be quite as dynamic as you do. Disagree on principle I suppose.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:22:00 - [20] Edited by: Kelsin on 02/06/2008 17:22:27 Originally by: Allaria Kriss I would like to see the larger alliances with massive holdings forced more into working to keep it, but I don't think 0.0 should be quite as dynamic as you do. Fair enough. But I'd suggest that there is a way to increase the dynamism of territory holding without adversely affecting the concept of empire building. The proposal I linked leaves the infrastructure building industrial POS side of things intact, but takes the territory-holding tools (Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers plus new additions of Gate-usage alarms) and grants those via a new more dynamic system based on sub-capital combat. I think it's fair to say that powerful tactical tools like the Jump Bridge should be based on an alliance's patrolling presence, rather than long term fixed constructs like the POS, which rely more on logistics and fueling than on active duty combat patrols, especially because the POS shield and reinforcement mechanic lead to massive battles at pre-determined times that necessarily involve Capital ships. While it makes sense to have a pitched battle over a fixed structure, the concept of territory ownership is not based on the outcome of a single conflict, but on a consistent military presence and enforcement on borders and chokepoints. The idea that ownership of territory should be determined by having two massive armies meet on a battlefield and duke it out is a bit outdated, and that's what this seeks to resolve.
Allaria Kriss Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:44:00 - [21] The problem is it turns 0.0 spaceholding not so much into something you do in EVE, but a 40-hour-per-week job that doesn't pay any money. Not everyone wants to spend all their online time running patrols through empty space.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:52:00 - [22] Originally by: Allaria Kriss The problem is it turns 0.0 spaceholding not so much into something you do in EVE, but a 40-hour-per-week job that doesn't pay any money. Not everyone wants to spend all their online time running patrols through empty space. But this problem is tweakable - you can have reinforcement-style timers (as the proposal I linked has) so that when a capture point is contested the defending alliance has a certain amount of time to reset their claim. If they fail to do so they lose control of the point. Under the current system there are no patrols at all, but that doesn't mean the alternative is non-stop patrolling "job-style".
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 18:06:00 - [23] Originally by: Kelsin econdly, the popular complaint about the current state of 0.0 sovereignty is that it's mostly empty space with the occasional massive fleet battle in which lag is a large factor. No, the popular complaints are 1. POS warfare sucks when there isn't a fight 2. There are no realistic goals for small gangs that matter 3. POS are too difficult to put up and take down. For the most part people love big fleet fights. They don't like the lag, but they love the big fights. Quote: Keep in mind that I'm suggesting multiple small gangs as an alternative to a single large one - not a single small gang instead of a single large one. The idea being you'd still need numbers to take and hold sovereignty, but you'd spread those numbers out across multiple systems/grids instead of having them all focus on one grid and strain the server. You can already do this, just attack a bunch of different POS at the same time.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 18:19:00 - [24] Edited by: Goumindong on 02/06/2008 18:24:38 Originally by: Kelsin Fair enough. But I'd suggest that there is a way to increase the dynamism of territory holding without adversely affecting the concept of empire building. would you fools stop using that word. It means "Change". Combat dynamism doesn't ***** mean anything. If you want to see "dynamism" in territory holding then get off your lazy butt and go take it, or go and destroy the towers or make it your own. As far as i can tell there has been plenty of dynamism in combat over the past year[And if you don't believe that, just ask Triumvirate, ASCN, LV, Veritas, Fix, Smash, Roadkill, and all the rest i can't remember]. Anything that "increases dynamism" must, by definition adversely effect the ability to empire build. The problem is not that capitals are valuable the problem is that there are no intermediary benefits for smaller gangs. Fixing one does not mean scrapping the everything else in sov warfare. Quote: I think it's fair to say that powerful tactical tools like the Jump Bridge should be based on an alliance's patrolling presence, rather than long term fixed constructs like the POS, which rely more on logistics and fueling than on active duty combat patrols, especially because the POS shield and reinforcement mechanic lead to massive battles at pre-determined times that necessarily involve Capital ships. While it makes sense to have a pitched battle over a fixed structure, the concept of territory ownership is not based on the outcome of a single conflict, but on a consistent military presence and enforcement on borders and chokepoints. Have you ever even taken down a jammer? They are outside the shields, you don't have to reinforce anything. Same for bridges and generators. You want to take them down get off your butt and do it. If there is a problem with how difficult it is to do then say "there is a problem with how difficult it is to do" and don't say "lets scrap the entire idea of fighting over sovereignty" Quote:** The idea that ownership of territory should be determined by having two massive armies meet on a battlefield and duke it out is a bit outdated, and that's what this seeks to resolve. Are you arguing based on realism now? Seriously
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 19:11:00 - [25] POSes currently grant industrial and sovereignty benefits to their owners. Moving the sovereignty benefits to a different system doesn't mean the epic elements of POS warfare would go away. There could still be POS sieges and Capship warfare - but to gain the Jump Bridge, Cynojammer and some new abilities, Alliances would instead engage in subcapital territory control. Subcapitals engaging in territory security actions adds dynamism where constructing POSes top gain territory fails to, and it provides subcapitals with objectives to maintain the security or overturn the security of a given territory, where POS sovereignty fails to.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:30:00 - [26] Originally by: Kelsin POSes currently grant industrial and sovereignty benefits to their owners. Moving the sovereignty benefits to a different system doesn't mean the epic elements of POS warfare would go away. There could still be POS sieges and Capship warfare - but to gain the Jump Bridge, Cynojammer and some new abilities, Alliances would instead engage in subcapital territory control. Subcapitals engaging in territory security actions adds dynamism where constructing POSes top gain territory fails to, and it provides subcapitals with objectives to maintain the security or overturn the security of a given territory, where POS sovereignty fails to. Alliances will take part in whatever gives them the most benefit. That doesn't mean that its a good idea it means that alliances are rational actors. And holy lord stop using dynamism if you dont know what it means. If you want smaller gangs to have objectives then give them objectives don't remove the entire idea of taking space being a strategic game from the game.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 21:35:00 - [27] The word dynamic (and the made up noun-form I'm using here, dynamism) is very appropriate: the proposal to re-examine 0.0 sovereignty is in response to an overly static sovereignty system. To make it more dynamic without making it a ping-pong of major objectives, we need a broad array of smaller objectives that add up organically to create a larger effect. This is where a distributed-objectives mechanic can really shine. Instead of a linear series of massive lag-inducing battles that is POS warfare, Stargate warfare would be a parallel set of objectives fought on separate grids and in separate systems throughout a region, the results of which would add up to a cumulative effect.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 21:59:00 - [28] Edited by: Goumindong on 02/06/2008 21:59:17 Originally by: Kelsin The word dynamic (and the made up noun-form I'm using here, dynamism) is very appropriate: the proposal to re-examine 0.0 sovereignty is in response to an overly static sovereignty system. To make it more dynamic without making it a ping-pong of major objectives, we need a broad array of smaller objectives that add up organically to create a larger effect. This is where a distributed-objectives mechanic can really shine. Instead of a linear series of massive lag-inducing battles that is POS warfare, Stargate warfare would be a parallel set of objectives fought on separate grids and in separate systems throughout a region, the results of which would add up to a cumulative effect. So you admit you are making up a definition for a word in order justify your argument? There are smaller objectives that add up to create a larger effect. 1. Economic suppression 1. Taking out jammers 2. Taking out bridges 3. Taking out economic POS. 4. Taking out sov holding POS If there isn't enough you just make them easier and add more ability to take out economic structures. Sov warfare isn't static. If you believe that you clearly haven't been paying attention to all the taken space and failed alliances. Its been static on your front, but that has nothing to do with whether or not its static all around. Quote: This is where a distributed-objectives mechanic can really shine. Instead of a linear series of massive lag-inducing battles that is POS warfare, Stargate warfare would be a parallel set of objectives fought on separate grids and in separate systems throughout a region, the results of which would add up to a cumulative effect. 1. Its not linear as you are describing. I know ive been using that word, but a better one would be contiguous. 2. parallel objectives are ********. It promotes blobbing[As you attempt to capture 2 objectives i blob each in order to defend them] and and removes all strategic decision making since all gates are equally valuable.
Tusko Hopkins HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:14:00 - [29] I agree with this topic, sovereignty system needs reexamination. Another problem with sov is that 0.0 alliances usually claim far more space then they actually use, and newcomers to 0.0 do not really have a chance to take on them, with the reinforced timers and the fast capital deployment possible in EVE. I think some game mechanic change penalizing the claiming of space that is not actually being used by the claimer would do good to the game. First alternate to CSM.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:18:00 - [30] Yep I'm happy to support it. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.