| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ometiclan
Republic University
   |
Posted - 2008.06.17 14:48:00 -
[1]
Now that we've had an empire region added for mission based pvp, there should be more 0.0 regions added to allow space for newer alliances. I've noticed that lately, there are no more frontier areas where newer alliances can gain a foothold before being ousted by the larger more predatory alliances.
In my view, the EVE galaxy is much to small to be called a galaxy anyway. Its been mentioned in this forum before that the EVE galaxy is about the same size as a globular cluster, something that would orbit our milky way. However this is somewhat untrue. A globular cluster has such a name because it has a shape similar to taht of a sphere or globe. The EVE galaxy is mostly flat. Its diameter maybe comparable to a globular but it does not have a lot of thickness.
If CCP could add say 5 or 6 new regions above empire and 5 or 6 below, I believe that would bring the EVE galaxy into a form that is truely a globular cluster. And yes I've heard all the jabber about the EVE map actually being in 2D. But honestly, as far as computers are concerned, if a point is defined by 3 co-ordinates, it's 3D. There is no "real" 3D that exists in RAM. :)
How bout it guys? What does everyone think of adding 10-12 new 0.0 regions above and below empire?
|
CrayC
CrayC Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 15:15:00 -
[2]
Adding more 0.0 would NOT make room for new alliances. The older, more established ones, would simply take control of them as well as their current sapce. Sad, but true...
|
Rogen DarHeel
Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 15:34:00 -
[3]
I highly disagree. The drone space has not been taken over. There are all new alliances there save one. IRON. My corp was one of the first in the drone space and it was months at least, before we heard of any interest from the other alliances in our space. Months after that we barely saw the first scouts. It wasn't until a year later, when we left, that alliances like intrepid crossing and DMC claimed in whole regions.
DMC of course has been ousted along with chaos incarnate and other alliances have appeared to taek there place. FIX was a so called bigger alliance and they had no look after the regions had finally been populated. Now however, the drone regions are much like old 0.0, crowded and mined out, at least in those systems that are worth mining in and ratting in.
The amount of logistic support that is needed for one alliance to claim in a far flung 0.0 region to also claim in a new 0.0 region that is no where near them is enourmous. It is not that easy to just take an 0.0 region if your base of supply is 60 jumps and 4 cyno towers away. Smaller newer alliances who are not tied to an old 0.0 region can move in and pos up much faster than an older alliance.
You also have to remember that players in old 0.0 regions are comforatble there, making ISK, POS'ing and pvp'ing. Some of those guys won't want to move. Further, entire 0.0 alliances also may not want to claim in a new region. That is why we left our 0.0 alliance to strike out into the drone regions. They actually disagreed with us and said that they had no business there and that we shouldn't be going. This alliance is IAC, a very respected very pvp capable bunch. But we wanted to see the new frontier so we left that alliance.
So I still say taht a lot of new space will give newer smaller groups a chance at 0.0 and provide some much needed 0.0 newness. :)
|
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 18:14:00 -
[4]
0.0 already is far larger than empire, and yet holds only 20% of the Eve population.
|
Tyaleia
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 18:44:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tyaleia on 17/06/2008 18:44:07
It holds 20% because of the ruthlessness. It's not a bad thing, but you have to realize not everyone wants to deal with player pirates (and a constant HIGH risk of ship loss) all the time.
Speaking as a newbie who doesn't feel ready for all that for quite some time (but I don't intend to hide in empire forever)
- - - -
 Originally by: "Brian Beatty"
"I prefer to think that the chip on my shoulder gives the monkey on my back something to play with."
|
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 18:56:00 -
[6]
Exactly. People aren't staying away from 0.0 because of lack of space, but because they do not want to risk their ass(ets).
|
Rogen DarHeel
Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 20:10:00 -
[7]
Doesn't lack of space mean that there are pirates hanging around everywhere? Which in turn means that you can't go into 0.0 without running into a pirate? Which then means that we need more space so that doesn't happen so often?
The Milky Way has 400 billion stars in it.. with multiple star gates at each star thats over 1 trillion star gates... giving tons and tons and tons of unoccupied virgin-to-pirating space. No I am not saying this is feasible in the EVE environment but a "galaxy" is the thing that we are flying around in. It should be somewhat close to the real thing... giving LOTS of space for you to NOT be pirated in.
Of course piracy is the last thing on my mind. If you go to 0.0 you better go with friends no matter where you go. That's juts how EVE is built. The most valuable asset to lose in EVE is friends. Not ISK, not ships, not towers, ..friends. Where one fails 2 or 3 or 5 or 5.. will succeed. But this is off topic...
More regions? I vote yes! :)
|
Darcha
Dark Production Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 21:18:00 -
[8]
there is a valid point that since eve started only the already existing drone regions have been added, and now a single empire region. The drone regions are big, but it's still crowded.
On the other hand it's much easier to say that the problem described here has nothing to do with overpopulation, it's a matter of a bunch of large alliances sticking together ramming every 'small' group out of 0.0 making it unplayable for anyone not willing to collaborate with them.
[semi-offtopic]
in contrary to groups like the MC, who keep the game interesting by turning on another powerfull group, BoB in this case, some alliances don't play the game to play the game, but just to be in control of as much space as possible.
In less then 1 year, one group (prolly a few aliances) will be in control of all of 0.0 (happened on the china server too)
This essentially is screwing over the game and in the end, CCP will loose lots of real players to money-makers, if u know what I mean.
[/semi-offtopic]
______________________________________
"There are NO bugs in EVE, just oversights"
----- Oveur and TomB, EvE fanfest 2006 |
Ashan Sul
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 22:03:00 -
[9]
i'm not so worried about that. IF, at that time, 0.0 space gets monopolized completely, i'm sure CCP will think of something to unclog the above said monoploy and allow others to take a piece of 0.0 for themselves. Worst case scenario, they'll just use some kind of deus-ex machina to make things move
|
Rogen DarHeel
Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 22:11:00 -
[10]
With the above comments, I really do think more space is the answer. A LOT more space. What if so much space was added that the current EVE galaxy is only 20% of the new one? It would be improbable that any group would have all the new space controlled in at least 2 years. If you want to stop something from being monoplized you have to make it very hard to monopilize it, ergo LOTS of space. So much so that the logisical nightmare involved in getting to that space alone is enough to deter a group that already has control elsewhere. And space should be that way. The maximum carrier jump distance is 15 light years.. That's not even enough to get to the nearest star from earth!
Yes Yes! More regions CCP!! :D
|
Hakuriu
Freedom Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 22:31:00 -
[11]
Here's an idea: Add a dynamic component to the mechanics to allow for the discovery of new systems.
From "The earliest jump gates and the first inter-stellar travelers":
Quote:
Only in recent years with the coming of jump drives capable of jumping between systems with no jump gates in them is it possible to overcome this time-consuming prelude to inter-stellar traveling via jump gates and still today dozens of gate construction ships are enroute to a distant system.
So here's what I propose:
- Introduce a new NPC astronomical exploration corp with astronomy research agents.
- Players would need to train an appropriate skill (astronomy) to use the agents.
- Similar to the old BPO lottery system, players would have a remote chance of actually discovering an uncharted system, which would be delivered to them in an encoded document similar to a blueprint.
- Perhaps the newly discovered system could be named by the player discovering it, or alternatively automatically generated by the agent (ala xd4-y).
- The coordinate documents could be copied, with copies allowing limited trips to the system via cyno. The original document would allow unlimited trips. This provides opportunity for financial scenarios ala the current BPO/BPC market, as well as a logistical component for moving fleets into the new system.
- Cyno towers could be erected in the new system to allow for a more stable form of transit to the new system.
- A new capital industrial "gate construction ship" could be introduced to allow for stargates to be built in the new system. The training and cost would probably be a bit north of a rorqual to make it attainable by small aliances but difficult enough to require a considerable effort to achieve.
- Once a stargate is erected in the new system, a matching stargate would need to be built in a charted 0.0 (and possibly low sec) system to connect the charted universe to the new system. The alliance could only erect a stargate if they owned an inactive stargate to connect to, to avoid unusable gates laying around everywhere.
- Stargates would be permanent (like outposts) once erected, and under the control of the alliance that erected it with similar privileges as outposts - use rights, fees, etc. Although not as expensive as outposts, stargates should still require a considerable amount of isk and effort to erect.
- The coordinate documents would always allow for cyno travel into the system, regardless of stargate ownership. Also, players could always cyno out of the system to a charted system without a coordinate document, to avoid being trapped in uncharted space.
- Once both stargates were erected and activated, the system would become charted and visible on the map. This charted status would allow for unrestricted cyno travel to and from the system without need for coordinate docs.
Haven't spent a lot of time on this, so feel free to pick it apart.
http://freedom-incorporated.com |
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 00:09:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Hakuriu
Edited by: Hakuriu on 17/06/2008 22:40:22
Here's an idea: Add a dynamic component to the mechanics to allow for the discovery of new systems.
From "The earliest jump gates and the first inter-stellar travelers":
Quote:
Only in recent years with the coming of jump drives capable of jumping between systems with no jump gates in them is it possible to overcome this time-consuming prelude to inter-stellar traveling via jump gates and still today dozens of gate construction ships are enroute to a distant system.
So here's what I propose:
- Introduce a new NPC astronomical exploration corp with astronomy research agents.
- Players would need to train an appropriate skill (astronomy) to use the agents.
- Similar to the old BPO lottery system, players would have a remote chance of actually discovering an uncharted system, which would be delivered to them in an encoded document similar to a blueprint.
- Perhaps the newly discovered system could be named by the player discovering it, or alternatively automatically generated by the agent (ala xd4-y).
- The coordinate documents could be copied, with copies allowing limited trips to the system via cyno. The original document would allow unlimited trips. This provides opportunity for financial scenarios ala the current BPO/BPC market, as well as a logistical component for moving fleets into the new system.
- Cyno towers could be erected in the new system to allow for a more stable form of transit to the new system.
- A new capital industrial "gate construction ship" could be introduced to allow for stargates to be built in the new system. The training and cost would probably be a bit north of a rorqual to make it attainable by small aliances but difficult enough to require a considerable effort to achieve.
- Once a stargate is erected in the new system, a matching stargate would need to be built in a charted 0.0 (or possibly low sec) system to connect the charted universe to the new system. The alliance could only erect a stargate if they owned an inactive stargate to connect to, to avoid unusable gates laying around everywhere.
- Stargates would be permanent (like outposts) once erected, and under the control of the alliance that erected it with similar privileges as outposts - use rights, fees, etc. Although not as expensive as outposts, stargates should still require a considerable amount of isk and effort to erect.
- The coordinate documents would always allow for cyno travel into the system, regardless of stargate ownership. Also, players could always cyno out of the system to a charted system without a coordinate document, to avoid being trapped in uncharted space.
- Once both stargates were erected and activated, the system would become charted and visible on the map. This charted status would allow for unrestricted cyno travel to and from the system without need for coordinate docs.
Haven't spent a lot of time on this, so feel free to pick it apart.
Well, what is stopping me from NOT charting the system at all? I mean once I have the "BPO" version of the chart? I will make a copy, leave the original in Empire, move to my uncharted system by myself or with my alliance mates, and have a perfectly safe 0.0 ratting ground or moon mining, since I can use titans and carriers to move stuff in and out w/o any risk whatsoever.
Why would I build a gate to a pocket of 0.0 where I can go to at any given time w/o anyone able to follow me or mine? Why allow any danger to enter the system when leaving it uncharted is so much safer.
Unless I misunderstood.
|
Hakuriu
Freedom Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 00:17:00 -
[13]
Crap, you must have replied just as I was moving my post to this new thread. I'll answer you over there.
http://freedom-incorporated.com |
Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 02:15:00 -
[14]
What we need isnt new .0, but more ways in and out of the existing gateway .0 regions. When you have 40-50 systems that can be controlled through 2 or 3 chokepoints, youre bound to have problems and adding new regions like that will just have the existing alliances with the means to gatecamp take over those too.
_________________
[IMAGE REMOVED]
-- aka Cpt Bogus --
Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 02:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Del Narveux
What we need isnt new .0, but more ways in and out of the existing gateway .0 regions. When you have 40-50 systems that can be controlled through 2 or 3 chokepoints, youre bound to have problems and adding new regions like that will just have the existing alliances with the means to gatecamp take over those too.
I agree as far as we need 0.0 divided into a small number of cul de sac that is fairly easily defendable, but a small territory. In other words the smaller the territory the easier it becomes to defend, like a castle. To the point that it might be impossible to take down. Fine by me, the impossibility of taking down a well defended cul de sac - so long as it is SMALL.
At the moment, you are correct, large alliances can have a stranglehold on large sawtsh of territory with very little ability on the part of the attacked to get through, or on the part of a "new" travaler for that matter.
A smaller defendable "stronghold" cul de sac systems is much better, and would give an opportunity of more diplomacy and bigger wars, because eventually even the most highest castle will have to fall if all the neighbors decide that one is bad for the neighborhood.
|
Rogen DarHeel
Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 17:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jinx Barker
Edited by: Jinx Barker on 18/06/2008 03:14:00
Originally by: Del Narveux
What we need isnt new .0, but more ways in and out of the existing gateway .0 regions. When you have 40-50 systems that can be controlled through 2 or 3 chokepoints, youre bound to have problems and adding new regions like that will just have the existing alliances with the means to gatecamp take over those too.
I agree as far as we need 0.0 divided into a small number of cul-de-sac that is fairly easily defendable, but a small territory. In other words the smaller the territory the easier it becomes to defend, like a castle. To the point that it might be impossible to take down. Fine by me, the impossibility of taking down a well defended cul-de-sac - so long as it is SMALL.
At the moment, you are correct, large alliances can have a stranglehold on large sawtsh of territory with very little ability on the part of the attacked to get through, or on the part of a "new" travaler for that matter.
A smaller defendable "stronghold" cul-de-sac systems is much better, and would give an opportunity of more diplomacy and bigger wars, because eventually even the most highest castle will have to fall if all the neighbors decide that one is bad for the neighborhood.
Sounds like an idea that can be tested well in new regions! :) I'm eally just pushing for more systems, to the point of the EVE galaxy being very simliar to a real one. I dont like the idea of a space mmo that doesn't try on some level to mimic actual outer space. Especially when doing so will do nothing but its players.
|
Rogen DarHeel
Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 22:15:00 -
[17]
Don't pay attention to the linked threads. Those are a bit off topic. The cul-de-sac idea is quite good, however I don't know how that will work in old 0.0. ANy ideas anyone?
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 22:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Rogen DarHeel
Don't pay attention to the linked threads. Those are a bit off topic. The cul-de-sac idea is quite good, however I don't know how that will work in old 0.0. ANy ideas anyone?
Well, a cul-de-sac system would have:
1) No Cloaking
2) Cyno-Jammers
3) Single large layer of Dead Space/or number of Dead Space Pockets (where POS+Moon maybe located) - within which a moon with POS + Station is located.
4) Actual Gate that can be cycled on and off, or that goes through cycles of on/off the cycles can be affect somehow?
No alliance can hold more than 2x cule-de-sac systems - but thats exploitable by making new alliances and just setting them blue... so not sure how it would work.
But system of highways will have to be reset where cul-de-sac systems are available....
Basically give ability to a small group to hold out against the large one if they so wish - so long as the are they are hold is miniscule, compared to an area that can be held by a large force.
In other words, the larger the area the harder it is to hold it, to the point of not able to hold it at all, and the smaller the area the easier it is to hold it, to the point of being invincible, but locked completely in that area for the duration of the invasion.
|
Joe Starbreaker
Starbreaker Frigateers
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 22:34:00 -
[19]
Somebody posted an idea recently that players should be able to warp somehow to the systems between the stargate-linked, Concord-patrolled systems on the map. In the backstory, only binary star systems can have stargates, so in fact there are many, many stars in between the stars.
The proposal was that advanced exploration tools would allow players to find these stars and warp to them. Such a warp might take several hours or even several days. The poster proposed that players be allowed to build stargates in these systems and add them to the network.
My counter-proposal was that neither jump drives nor stargates should work on these systems, they should be permanently off-network. This would allow dedicated players to stake out little territories of their own. They could set up POSs, mine minerals, manufacture stuff, fight rogue drones (no other rats would make sense), and fight little localized wars without the option of easy escape via stargate. Basically you get more sandbox, but you have to work hard to keep it going.
.
Seeking frigateers!
|
Lugburz
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 22:58:00 -
[20]
Its funny how we are supposed to be in space ships flying through space..... shouldnt we be able to fly and fly and fly and fly? theres no deep space probes or ships, theres no un owned space.... wheres captain kirk? oh...um..sorry wrong place, no one cares- gank squads rule and they like it like that thats why they joined the mega corps, some just prefer to be sheep and get led....
personally yes 0.0 space isnt that crowded but all (and i mean ALL) entry points are, simple solution is make more entry gates, could just seed them in but they would have to be scanned for and bookmarked?
|
Rogen DarHeel
Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 15:10:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Somebody posted an idea recently that players should be able to warp somehow to the systems between the stargate-linked, Concord-patrolled systems on the map. In the backstory, only binary star systems can have stargates, so in fact there are many, many stars in between the stars.
The proposal was that advanced exploration tools would allow players to find these stars and warp to them. Such a warp might take several hours or even several days. The poster proposed that players be allowed to build stargates in these systems and add them to the network.
My counter-proposal was that neither jump drives nor stargates should work on these systems, they should be permanently off-network. This would allow dedicated players to stake out little territories of their own. They could set up POSs, mine minerals, manufacture stuff, fight rogue drones (no other rats would make sense), and fight little localized wars without the option of easy escape via stargate. Basically you get more sandbox, but you have to work hard to keep it going.
Hmm the idea has merit. However, I'm sure that once a small corp finds these areas, why would they leave? And how does the market work in empire? DO they need to continually warp for days to get back to buy something they might need? It is very interesting tho.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 18:43:00 -
[22]
There is plently of space in Eve. The problem is that most it is not being used to do anything. Eve needs new space mechanics more than it needs more space.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Rogen DarHeel
Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 19:48:00 -
[23]
Well it's true there is a lot of crap space in EVE 0.0 . Why would I POS an -0.1 system when I can POS a -1.0 system.. oh right becomes BOB and goons own most of them and other big alliances own the rest. What good is having tons of space no one wants. I'm not saying that there should be more good space per region, just more regions with the same amount of good space each. As I said before, my corp was one of the first in the drone space. We have a -1.0 systemed POS'd and we made tons. With the drone regions and other regions fully owned there is pretyy much not chance of this happening, unless a lot more regions are added. :) The EVE community is growing all the time. The idea of more space should always be considered.
|
Empyre
Domestic Reform
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 20:10:00 -
[24]
i don't think more regions would help nor hurt anything but markets. i would however love for ccp to do something that combats the mentality that has people mindlessly coagulate into the alliance that controls the most 0.0 space. there needs to be more realistic options to get people into 0.0 than that or 1) Start moving assets, 2) Lose it all to bigger blob, 3) Goto 1.
You're doing it wrong. |
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 21:16:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Somebody posted an idea recently that players should be able to warp somehow to the systems between the stargate-linked, Concord-patrolled systems on the map. In the backstory, only binary star systems can have stargates, so in fact there are many, many stars in between the stars.
The proposal was that advanced exploration tools would allow players to find these stars and warp to them. Such a warp might take several hours or even several days. The poster proposed that players be allowed to build stargates in these systems and add them to the network.
My counter-proposal was that neither jump drives nor stargates should work on these systems, they should be permanently off-network. This would allow dedicated players to stake out little territories of their own. They could set up POSs, mine minerals, manufacture stuff, fight rogue drones (no other rats would make sense), and fight little localized wars without the option of easy escape via stargate. Basically you get more sandbox, but you have to work hard to keep it going.
you would set up a manufacturing or refinery outpost and upgrade it to the other one. if there were a couple of linked systems offgrid you would put 1 of each up. then you would have your corp industrialists make hull and mostly t1 modules. when enemies arrived you would be lesser equipped but fighting them off would mean breaks for several days and any deployment to take your fortified space would require extreme resources if capitals also had to disappear for a week just to get to your system and get back.
the industrialist in me would love this. we already produce most everything our corp needs much of in t1 variants. hauling in the t2 components or t2 items would be done by people anyway just a more extreme version of empire import services.
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 21:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
There is plently of space in Eve. The problem is that most it is not being used to do anything. Eve needs new space mechanics more than it needs more space.
This is exactly what I was driving at... it is the "space allocation" or "space mechanics" or whatever one wants to call it, is that problem.
|
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 21:33:00 -
[27]
every alliance wants space to make profit in.
every alliance wants a buffer zone of unihabited space as buffer between it and its enemies.
every alliance needs a ton of space to reach sov levels to protect their space.
every alliance wants to deny potential enemies from gaining space and becoming a bigger threat.
this means that very little space is unused as at worst a buffer zone for new people to try and live in. the sov mechanics are only part of the issue. people will work for their own power and protection.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 23:39:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jinx Barker
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
...
This is exactly what I was driving at... it is the "space allocation" or "space mechanics" or whatever one wants to call it, is that problem.
Ideas in my sig if you care to examine them.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Rogen DarHeel
Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 16:34:00 -
[29]
These are all very good points. However if the "space mechanics" aren't going to change, then we simply need more space.. since most of it is being used as the "buffer zone", the point of this thread. Can anyone argue that we DON'T need more space?
|
Zirconium Blade
Ass Pounding Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 17:35:00 -
[30]
We do not need more space.
Eve is designed so that large groups of organized people can do whatever they want. Of course these large groups want the best things. If you also want these things, you must organize a larger group.
If you want to change that, you might as well make your own game because you will have to change every fundamental aspect of Eve to get what you want.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |