Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Ixion Defence Systems Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 04:12:00 -
[31]
There is definitively a need for CCP to look 0.0 sovereignty mechanics. Even trying to make it more diffucult for a single entity to hold large portions of space. ------- Nobody can be exactly like me. Even I have trouble doing it. |
Buck Starchaser
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 04:33:00 -
[32]
[Thumbs Up]
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:35:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Tusko Hopkins 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.
Tusko I think this is an excellent point. The mechanics of sovereignty really should accurately reflect the usage/patrolling of space by the the controlling entity - so a revamp of sovereignty would want to have in mind mechanics that result in space being marked as "owned" by alliances that are frequenting that space, and unfrequented space should easily default to unclaimed status.
|
Tarun Thred
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 22:51:00 -
[34]
Sovereignty really needs to reflect an entity's ability to control space with ships, not their ability to put up pos.
tt
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 23:37:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Tusko Hopkins 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.
Tusko I think this is an excellent point. The mechanics of sovereignty really should accurately reflect the usage/patrolling of space by the the controlling entity - so a revamp of sovereignty would want to have in mind mechanics that result in space being marked as "owned" by alliances that are frequenting that space, and unfrequented space should easily default to unclaimed status.
That is boring and static it results in players who want to keep space having to have a job to maintain it. POS logistics are bad enough as it is there is no reason to go and make everyone do **** like that.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 12:58:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Goumindong That is boring and static it results in players who want to keep space having to have a job to maintain it. POS logistics are bad enough as it is there is no reason to go and make everyone do **** like that.
There's no need for territory holding to "be a job" in the sense of a massive time sink. But an entity that claims to "own space" should have a player ship presence in that space to maintain that claim. If the population of supposedly held space is more often enemy than ally, that should be reflected in the sovereignty claim.
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:12:00 -
[37]
What sort of impact will this have on coalition forces that often patrol each others' space, or small alliances patrolling the space of a bigger partner they're allied with?
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 21:17:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss What sort of impact will this have on coalition forces that often patrol each others' space, or small alliances patrolling the space of a bigger partner they're allied with?
Maybe a new Sov system could include a way for mercenary and coalition Alliances to act on behalf of the territory-holding entity.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 00:07:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong That is boring and static it results in players who want to keep space having to have a job to maintain it. POS logistics are bad enough as it is there is no reason to go and make everyone do **** like that.
There's no need for territory holding to "be a job" in the sense of a massive time sink. But an entity that claims to "own space" should have a player ship presence in that space to maintain that claim. If the population of supposedly held space is more often enemy than ally, that should be reflected in the sovereignty claim.
wait, so it shouldn't be a job but it should be?
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 05:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Allaria Kriss What sort of impact will this have on coalition forces that often patrol each others' space, or small alliances patrolling the space of a bigger partner they're allied with?
Maybe a new Sov system could include a way for mercenary and coalition Alliances to act on behalf of the territory-holding entity.
Wouldn't that require a huge amount of work, coding, and scripting that could be better-used elsewhere? It's essentially writing an entirely new, from-scratch sovereignty system. There are many more thought-out proposals that could use this sort of attention right now.
|
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:19:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss Wouldn't that require a huge amount of work, coding, and scripting that could be better-used elsewhere? It's essentially writing an entirely new, from-scratch sovereignty system. There are many more thought-out proposals that could use this sort of attention right now.
CCP is already looking into changing the sovereignty system and devoting resources to doing so - it's simply in the playerbase's best interest to get the CSM asking questions about how that is progressing and finding out what impact our thoughts and ideas can have on it.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 16:03:00 -
[42]
Look at the mechanics in 0.0 yes. Considering them in the method suggested by this proposal? NO.
I will touch on point 2 and 3 raised.
2) allows small gangs methods to impact sov warfare in a meaningful way. I love small gang fighting, I really do, but the specifics proposed will not correct the problem. Whatever your small gangs can do my big gangs can do better. Even if you concentrate your forces on the minimum number of points needed to take an objective your opponent needs only focus on one or two that you attack and destroy you, problem solved. I see a great deal of pointless chasing back and forth, cloaking and waiting for the right afk moment etc. In other words, not actual fighting. The fact is you can wear down alliances with fading tactics without changing a thing.
3)remove tower logistics from sov warfare. Sorry, attacking logistics should be viable. While I can agree that tower logistics should be streamlined as to make them less of an absolute burden they should remain important to the sov system. It is a weakness that your opponent can exploit.
Groups that have been willing to sustain a long and determined presence in enemy territory can get results. We have seen it. The tactic may not be as effective against various entities but it is viable. Creating artificial victory conditions will only add unwanted dimensions to the game. Players logging in at 35 minutes till downtime swarming gates to flip sov or knock modules in system offline because these victory points cannot be defended 24/7 will not improve the situation OR somehow make small gangs magically superior.
This system actually decreases the risk of attacking forces and increases the risk of holding forces. Either hit the logistics hampering the enemy (this proposal wants to remove the sov/logistics link) put up the forces needed to get the job done (this proposal creates new artificial goals that can be effectively sniped by fewer people which would give even larger groups greater power) or maintain the battlefield presence and wear down your foes.
Most of us do not labor under the illusion sov war should be easy and it does need corrections but under no circumstances should we be narrowing down the choices to ping pong and first person shooter like beacon holding.
Hopefully we can convince the representatives that this specific suggestion should not be considered by CCP.
No Support!
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 16:15:00 -
[43]
Let me point out that the example proposal is just that - an example. The topic at issue here is whether the CSM should get involved in CCP's re-examination of Sovereignty.
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 16:23:00 -
[44]
I confess that I don't know a whole lot about sovereignty and the dynamics of POS warfare myself, but I do hear a lot that the current mega-alliances holding sovereignty over much of 0.0 have used the existing POS-based sovereignty framework to create very high entry barriers to new alliances attempting to cut themselves a slice of territory. It seems reasonable to reexamine it.
I like the idea of having to maintain a player presence in claimed territory to maintain the claim, which will promote more efficient use of 0.0 territory by pilots by increasing the number of alliances with territory and shrinking those territories to more practical and defensible sizes.
Naturally, mega-alliances have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo, so I hardly expect them to rally behind this idea.
--------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:11:00 -
[45]
Way overdue for revamping ---------- |
Vantras
Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 18:11:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Vantras on 05/06/2008 18:12:10 Ah yes! Another post in the CSM section about re-shaping EVE to meet Star Fraction's playstyle.
Next <issue> "Making nano ships faster and cloaking more effective-improving EVE for the little guy".
Interestingly enough in the two CSM agenda = Star Fraction threads ive read so far-the Goonswarm has had the most rational and reasonable posts. There is no question that SOV could use some improvement (much like 0.0 could enjoy some more dynamism) however the Jade Fraction agenda is so remarkably self serving its rather shocking that it is permitted to continue unchecked. I do truly hope folks will continue to realize that Jade's role as Chairman of the CSM should not = Jade's role as head of the Star Fraction Alliance and its specific playstyle.
This would be like watching the goonie members championing more blob tactics, more super alliance play stayles in every suggestion. Or perhaps the BOB member posting about how under powered titans are. Or watching Hardin posting thread after thread about improving roleplay. You folks were elected to represent all of EVE-not pet projects, not pet play styles.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 18:42:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville I like the idea of having to maintain a player presence in claimed territory to maintain the claim, which will promote more efficient use of 0.0 territory by pilots by increasing the number of alliances with territory and shrinking those territories to more practical and defensible sizes.
One thing I'd like a re-examination of Sovereignty to address would be guarding against the kind of current scenario we have where an Alliance "owns" a large area of space, but it's generally very empty of players and the "ownership" is not reflected in terms of player presence.
This would be rectified by devising a system where player ship presence and activity is more closely linked to the ownership mechanic - so that areas of space that are generally very empty are unowned, but more populated areas are more likely to be under the control of those who populate them.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:32:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Kelsin Let me point out that the example proposal is just that - an example. The topic at issue here is whether the CSM should get involved in CCP's re-examination of Sovereignty.
Actually no, this proposal wants sov looked at in very specific contexts. While sov should be examined I cannot support that context or agenda or the examples cited, as such I cannot support this issue.
I hope enough reps can see the downside and not support this either.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:39:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Pezzle Actually no, this proposal wants sov looked at in very specific contexts. While sov should be examined I cannot support that context or agenda or the examples cited, as such I cannot support this issue.
I hope enough reps can see the downside and not support this either.
I'll point out that CCP representatives are already on record as pursuing alternative sovereignty mechanics. There is a sticky in the Features and Ideas about it. I think it would be foolish to want to stick our heads in the sand and not get involved in what the outcome of that pursuit is. But yes, the topic does involve certain contexts - although they are broad and commonly agreed upon.
|
Vantras
Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:40:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Pezzle Actually no, this proposal wants sov looked at in very specific contexts. While sov should be examined I cannot support that context or agenda or the examples cited, as such I cannot support this issue.
I hope enough reps can see the downside and not support this either.
I'll point out that CCP representatives are already on record as pursuing alternative sovereignty mechanics. There is a sticky in the Features and Ideas about it. I think it would be foolish to want to stick our heads in the sand and not get involved in what the outcome of that pursuit is. But yes, the topic does involve certain contexts - although they are broad and commonly agreed upon.
If this is true then there is no reason whatsoever for this issue to be brought up. If they are already working on it-what do we expect to contribute to the discussion? Or are you asking for specific support for your very specific approach to the problem? In a differnt thread Jade-our esteemed chairman and your boss, is trying to force a bad idea into the CSM agenda by saying "Whats wrong with at least bringing it up". Assuming that is the point of Jade's leadership-to surface ideas that CCP might be overlooking. I see no reason for this item to be on the agenda. As you dutifully and acurately point out -CCP is already aware and working on the problem.
|
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:49:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Vantras If this is true then there is no reason whatsoever for this issue to be brought up.
I think you're in a small minority if you aren't interested in knowing how CCP is going to handle a revamp of Sovereignty and having some input in the process.
|
Ikar Kaltin
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:00:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Vantras If this is true then there is no reason whatsoever for this issue to be brought up.
I think you're in a small minority if you aren't interested in knowing how CCP is going to handle a revamp of Sovereignty and having some input in the process.
The purpose of the CSM is to bring to the ears of CCP what the player base wants them to hear and adress.
If they have already heard and are adressing the issue then why exactly do they need to be told what they already know?
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 00:18:00 -
[53]
Yea this another one of those "I heard from the g*****vine" things. I want to actually know what they are addressing. I could not find anything about this topic by the Dev's, could you please link the source?
Also your proposal seems very tedious and scripted. Bruce tried this patrol bit, and the players got over it pretty quickly. It becomes a grind.
I have read other threads like this, and a lot of the push comes from players that feel they are entitled space that the Big alliances are not using.
I am sorry but G, ONE, FOE, m0o, BoB, LV, RISE, TRI GOON, PL, RAZOR, SMASHKILL and many others started small and in empire that developed a plan, had some set backs and followed through with hard work and determination. From what I am reading you want to lower the bar for corps that do not have the will or effort to try to make it work.
The alliances are special because they all had a plan and succeeded on the "hard level".
I would be interested in seeing what the Dev's have on the board to address the POS issue. Because you are eluding to the "fact" that they are working on the issue to give your proposal some kind of credibility.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:38:00 -
[54]
One idea I'd like to bring up the CSM because unlike a goon I know who thinks they aren't reading they are.
anyways
Quote: 3) Removing the need for POS logistics (construction and fueling, siege and defense) as a critical component to Sovereignty Warfare.
I've had one idea I've really liked and I want to see what the CSM thinks.
Basicly make it so you can build planetary bases. This bases run POS logistics. With the basic idea being that you have to build hualers and you have to stock pile fuel at the base. (the base is in space and can be attacked by the way)
SO basicly you build this base, you build ships, you stockpile fuel.
Now the hualers you built become NPCs that refuel POSes for you even when your off line, using the stock pile, meaning you have to stock pile just one place, not 40.
They only refuel within system or only that planets moons.
The other thing is those hualers will be attackable, thus you could get a small gang and take out hualers thus hurting that allainces POS services.
The only other thing I want to bring up is removing POSes from SOV would be the best idea IMO. Replacing it with planetary control.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:41:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Farrqua Yea this another one of those "I heard from the g*****vine" things. I want to actually know what they are addressing. I could not find anything about this topic by the Dev's, could you please link the source?
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=635828
Quote: A lot of you seem to want to patch up the old system, which is what we've been doing ever since it was released. Many of the ideas you've posted would indeed improve the current mechanics. However, we think it's pretty much broken at the core. The sovereignty system doesn't "feel right". Just to show you how much of a change we're willing to consider I'll post a little draft of one of our ideas.
Borders:
From wikipedia: Borders define geographic boundaries of political entities or legal jurisdictions, such as governments, states or sub national administrative divisions. They may foster the setting up of buffer zones. Some borders are fully or partially controlled, and may be crossed legally only at designated crossing points.
EVE has borders; this is where most fights take place and what really matters when holding systems. Stargates are borders; weĈve got different types of borders. Within constellations, between constellations and between regions. We want to create a new system to improve the dynamics of space dominance and make the borders actually mean something. The current mechanism is flawed and the task to gain control over systems, constellations and regions is a tedious timesink that no one seems to likes.
Capturing:
Claiming space would revolve around capturing gates. In order to claim large areas of space you'd have to start small and "spider out". You'd start by capturing a system, then a constellation and finally a region. An attacking entity would have to follow the same trend, by first disrupting the control of the region, then the constellations one by one, and finally the systems.
In order to increase the possibilities of fun and well coordinated battles, as well splitting up blobs, we want to introduce simultaneous goals in 0.0 warfare.
* Capturing a system would require a presence at every gate.
* Capturing a constellation would require a presence at every constellation gate.
* Capturing a region would require a presence at every region gate.
Disrupting control over a system, constellation or region will require presence at multiple gates, but obviously not all of them, since then the defenders could just blob up at one of the gates.
Capturing will probably not be hit point based, as that goes against the anti-blob objective. We'll probably want to introduce a system where a certain amount of ships needs to be present to take over the gate. We could base it on ship size, so you might need 20 crows or 10 ruptures or 5 battleships (Random numbers) to begin the take over. We could also scale it, so you need very many people to capture region gates, a bunch of people to capture constellation gates and just a hand full to capture a system gate.
Of course there will also have to be a "reinforced" system. The defenders should be able to choose when to defend.
Border control:
Is something missing from EVE. We want give the sovereigns the ability to monitor and defend their borders. Allowing them to anchor defenses as well as tools to see who, when and what has been using the gates. The sentry guns will primarily be gate defenses, they'll have high locking times and will have to be manned by players.
We'd probably only want anchorable objects at region and constellation gates. Outpost systems could get beefed up gates etc.
Treaties:
Although IĈm sure weĈll have evolved somewhat in 20k years, currently borders and peace are negotiated through treaties. We want treaties to work like free form contracts, but with regards to space and gate control.
An alliance holding every constellation except for one
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 08:54:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Kelsin Let me point out that the example proposal is just that - an example. The topic at issue here is whether the CSM should get involved in CCP's re-examination of Sovereignty.
Oh is this the issue? Then my opinion, is GTFO CSM.
First reason: How come no one really knows the definition of dynamic (except Goum)? Anyone who has taken a basic physics course can tell you that dynamics is the study of objects and energy in motion or continuous change. So when you say something like you don't want station ping-pong, you want something dynamic, you do realized that having a station change hands many times in a week would be very dynamic and that you look like you don't know what you are talking about, right?
Second reason: The almightly Chariman of CSM (Jade Constantine) gave a simple "I support this" answer. Are you aware of the discussions on other forums like Mothermoon copied here? Are you a massive sov holding alliance? Do you have any ideas? What are your thoughts? A simple "yup, ok" repsonse is a slap in the face to all the people in CSM who want to take it seriously. Many more people like mothermoon give out lots of helpful ideas in the ***appropriate*** place and do so without being asked or elected and knowing that their ideas probably have a snowballs chance in hell of making it into the game. But they all add in much more thought and time and effort than the csm chairman, nice. Grats all, grats all.
I gave the CSM a fair shot, but all these terrible reponses by CSM members gives me the attitude of GTFO out my game you whiners.
Also, IBTmitnal
Originally by: CCP Casqade Please refrain from making assumptions on game mechanics and then presenting them as facts before testing them yourself.
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:01:00 -
[57]
I really think the whole sov issue needs to be looked at, using pos as the sov holding tool allows the big alliances to run around the whole map, grabbing profitable moons and being able to defend them with capital and supercapital fleets thanks to jump bridge networks. At some point, the big alliances will own all the profitable moons and control who gets what in the way of t2 ships by controlling the t2 product market. While the specifics need to be discussed in depth, the issue needs to be addressed.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:48:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Farrqua I would be interested in seeing what the Dev's have on the board to address the POS issue. Because you are eluding to the "fact" that they are working on the issue to give your proposal some kind of credibility.
Please see the dev post Mothermoon quoted a couple posts after yours.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:35:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Kelsin Let me point out that the example proposal is just that - an example. The topic at issue here is whether the CSM should get involved in CCP's re-examination of Sovereignty.
Oh is this the issue? Then my opinion, is GTFO CSM.
First reason: How come no one really knows the definition of dynamic (except Goum)? Anyone who has taken a basic physics course can tell you that dynamics is the study of objects and energy in motion or continuous change. So when you say something like you don't want station ping-pong, you want something dynamic, you do realized that having a station change hands many times in a week would be very dynamic and that you look like you don't know what you are talking about, right?
Second reason: The almightly Chariman of CSM (Jade Constantine) gave a simple "I support this" answer. Are you aware of the discussions on other forums like Mothermoon copied here? Are you a massive sov holding alliance? Do you have any ideas? What are your thoughts? A simple "yup, ok" repsonse is a slap in the face to all the people in CSM who want to take it seriously. Many more people like mothermoon give out lots of helpful ideas in the ***appropriate*** place and do so without being asked or elected and knowing that their ideas probably have a snowballs chance in hell of making it into the game. But they all add in much more thought and time and effort than the csm chairman, nice. Grats all, grats all.
I gave the CSM a fair shot, but all these terrible reponses by CSM members gives me the attitude of GTFO out my game you whiners.
Also, IBTmitnal
well hey maybe I should run next time
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:45:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Vaal Erit First reason: How come no one really knows the definition of dynamic (except Goum)? Anyone who has taken a basic physics course can tell you that dynamics is the study of objects and energy in motion or continuous change. So when you say something like you don't want station ping-pong, you want something dynamic, you do realized that having a station change hands many times in a week would be very dynamic and that you look like you don't know what you are talking about, right?
There are several definitions of dynamic - one relates to physics as you mentioned. The others are:
2. Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market. 3. Marked by intensity and vigor; forceful. See Synonyms at active. 4. Of or relating to variation of intensity, as in musical sound.
Clearly, #2 is what we're talking about here - the antonym of static.
While I recognize that a certain level of dynamics would be so chaotic and back and forth as to be labeled "ping pong" - that doesn't mean the only other option is trench warfare.
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Second reason: The almightly Chariman of CSM (Jade Constantine) gave a simple "I support this" answer. Are you aware of the discussions on other forums like Mothermoon copied here? Are you a massive sov holding alliance? Do you have any ideas? What are your thoughts? A simple "yup, ok" repsonse is a slap in the face to all the people in CSM who want to take it seriously. Many more people like mothermoon give out lots of helpful ideas in the ***appropriate*** place and do so without being asked or elected and knowing that their ideas probably have a snowballs chance in hell of making it into the game.
I am aware of that discussion, and if you read it you'll see my posts in that very thread - in fact I referred to it and linked to it at the start of the example system linked in the OP :)
Frankly, I don't see why either of these reasons you cite support not inquiring as to what CCP's plans are for Sovereignty and how much input the playerbase can have via the CSM.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |