EVE Search - [Issue] Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.15 16:11:00 - [1] Edited by: Kelsin on 15/07/2008 16:13:55 Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp In response to the CCP post here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=819315 requesting concrete proposals to achieve the following ôThe long-term plan for 0.0 warfare is to have multiple layers of goals and objectives instead of all fighting occurring over stations. This would allow small groups to have an impact on the game, instead of needing hundreds of ships to have influence in 0.0.ö This proposal intends to specifically and concretely outline improvements to 0.0 warfare and sovereignty to meet that stated goal. This proposal also intends to hit the following targets for end result Attacker-Defender dynamics: 1) Infrastructure affords Defender advantage - investing in your territory increases your ability to defend it successfully. 2) Time Zone warfare doesn't break the system - i.e. peak and off-peak times for an alliance are mitigated by a need for long term effort to attack/defend territory. 3) Dispersion of forces to reduce lag - Include a mechanic that contains incentives to fight simultaneous battles on different grids or even different systems, to reduce the need/incentive for "blobbing". 4) Objectives for Small subcapital gangs - Include mechanics allowing small gang "harassment" attacks on territory, providing incentive for Defenders to patrol their space. Part 1: The 3 Layers To achieve these goals we will divide the elements of Territory Warfare into 3 Layers, each of which will support different styles of gameplay and provide for different benefits and vulnerabilities for the territory-holding alliance. The three layers of Territory Warfare under this model are: Player Owned Stations - the traditional construction, maintenance and sieging of POSes that currently exists. Tactical Structures - the anchoring of territory warfare structures outside of gravity wells (i.e. not at a POS) that affords a defender advantage. These structures are the familiar Cynojammer, Jump Bridge Array, Cyno Field Generator and System Scanner, and can also include new structures with new capabilities. Under this model these structures will no longer be anchored at a POS, and will not have automated defenses - they must be scanned down and attacked by players in ships, with players in ships coming to the defense of the structures. Tactical Structures will be balanced to require a subcapital fleet in order to neutralize them (by virtue of their hit points), and can be balanced to have a "reinforced mode" to protect them from complete destruction during a defender's off-peak hours. This means a subcapital fleet could assault a Jump Bridge Array and succeed in offlining it, but will not be able to destroy it until (for example) 24 hours later, giving the Defender time to repair and re-online the Structure. During an all-out assault on an enemy territory, Tactical Structures would be attacked by subcapital fleets in order to eliminate certain Defender advantages temporarily. Tactical Structures can also be attacked repeatedly in the long term as a harassment strategy.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.15 16:11:00 - [2] Edited by: Kelsin on 15/07/2008 16:14:41 Stargate Control (Distributed Objectives) - Stargate Control is a new mechanic that will affect benefits across systems as well as entire constellations. By taking and maintaining control of enough Stargates a Defender will be granted certain advantages that an Attacker can eliminate by disrupting control of multiple Stargates throughout a territory. Stargate control is the "first line of defense" in this model of Territory Warfare, with Defenders securing Stargates to signify protection of their borders, and Attackers making incursions by disrupting the Defender's control to signify porous or poorly defended borders. If a Defender maintains control of enough Stargates in their territory, it becomes more difficult for Attackers to make inroads into the Defender's territory. On the other hand, if a Defender cannot maintain control over enough Stargates, logistical efforts within their territory become more difficult as a result of the conflicted borders. Stargate Capture is inspired by the proposal made by CCP Nozh here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=16 A Stargate under this model would have three states: Neutral, Captured and Contested. Once a Defender lays claim to a Neutral Stargate, it becomes Captured, and begins contributing to the Stargate Network of the Defender. An Attacker laying a counter-claim to a Captured Stargate puts it into a Contested state. If a Defender fails to re-claim a Contested Stargate after a certain amount of time (24 hours for example), the Stargate reverts to Neutral status and can be Captured by someone else. Certain Defender benefits will be awarded based on the sum of Captured Stargates only, while others will count both Captured and Contested Stargates to determine if the Defender is awarded the advantage. Stargate Capture would be balanced to allow multiple small gangs operating in different systems to contest/capture multiple Stargates in parallel faster than a single large gang contesting/capturing the same number of Stargates in a linear fashion. A minimum gang size to contest/capture a Stargate would make this a small gang activity rather than a solo activity. In the short term Attackers harass Defenders by Contesting gates and forcing the Defender to patrol their space to maintain a network of Captured Stargates. Also, Contesting some or all local Stargates may be a pre-requisite to attacking or disabling certain Tactical Structures or sieging POSes. In the long term the ownership of Stargates organically reflects the presence and activity of an Alliance in the area. Part 2: Dividing Goals/Benefits Having outlined the basics of the three layers of Territory Warfare, we can take the current Sovereignty benefits and divide them amongst these three layers (as well as add some new tools and benefits for Defenders). By splitting up the defender advantages of territory control amongst a variety of mechanics, defenders and attackers will be encouraged to field multiple forces achieving different objectives, and have the freedom to develop/attack individual elements of the overall territory control paradigm. By making each element of the current sovereignty benefits dependent on a discreet mechanic/objective, Alliances will be free to exercise a greater range of tactics in defending and attacking territory. The following are the benefits currently gained through Sovereignty and the three categories they will be divided into under this proposal (please note that ôSovereignty Levelsö no longer apply to the Top and Middle Layers under this model, only the Bottom Layer uses the "Sovereignty Levels" measure for determining Outpost upgrades etc)
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.15 16:12:00 - [3] Edited by: Kelsin on 15/07/2008 16:15:25 Top Layer Distributed Benefits û Controlled by Small Gang Objectives (Stargate Control): òYou can only deploy outposts in solarsystems where you have Captured all Stargates in the system. òTwinned jump bridge Tactical Structures can be activated, as long as 51% of the Stargates in both the Origin and Destination systems are Captured. òAll starbase control towers are invulnerable and can not be locked. Gained by having 51% of the Stargates in the CONSTELLATION in the Captured state. òYour starbases get a 25% bonus to their fuel efficiency. Gained by having 51% of the Stargates in the CONSTELLATION in the Captured OR Contested state. òA further fuel usage reduction, 30% instead of the usual 25% for all alliance owned control towers in the same constellation. Gained by having 100% of the Stargates in the system in the Captured state, in addition to having the Constellation-wide requirement above. òNEW: A Captured Stargate enables the owner to check the activation logs to see who has used the gate recently and what ship they were in. òNEW: Your Tactical Structures are invulnerable and cannot be locked. Gained by having 100% of the Stargates in the system in the Captured state. Middle Layer Tactical Structure Benefits û Controlled by Fleet Objectives/non-POS Structures: NOTE: there are no sovereignty requirements to gain these abilities beyond purchasing and anchoring the structure involved - but these structures are now anchored in safe spots away from POS defenses and must be defended by ship combat, not automated guns. òScanner arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system). òCynosural field jammer structures can be anchored (Note: Only one may be anchored per system). òCynosural field generator arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system). òTwinned jump bridge structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system). òNEW: Network Security Node can be anchored - this structure collects data from Captured Stargates in the same system and uploads it to the Alliance database. Alliance members may access the Network Security Node to see data from all Nodes owned by the Alliance, allowing them to monitor incursions into their territory. Bottom Layer POS/Siege Benefits û Controlled by POS Construction/Destruction: òYour alliance is visually represented on the starmap as being the sovereign of the solar system. [Actually, this one is kind of hard to assign to one of the three layers now - perhaps some new metric can be figured out that combines POSes anchored and Stargates held?] òOutposts and conquerable stations held by your alliance are invulnerable. Enabled by fulfilling the same requirements as conventional Sovereignty. òYour alliance is able to anchor capital shipyard production facilities, thus enabling the construction of capital ships and super capital ships. Enabled by fulfilling the same requirements as conventional Sovereignty. òAll outposts within the constellation can receive further upgrades. For more information, refer to the outpost upgrades article. òThe system set to be the capital of the constellation can, when the other requirements are met, become the Constellation Capital. Enabled by fulfilling the same requirements as under conventional Sovereignty.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.15 16:13:00 - [4] Edited by: Kelsin on 15/07/2008 16:16:11 Part 3: How It Plays Out With a system such as this in place, we would see a conflict between two Alliances go like this: First small gangs begin disrupting the stargate network of the defender, hampering the fuel efficiency of their POSes (when conflict comes to a region, resources become tighter) and disabling Jump Bridge capability into and out of the target systems. Next Fleets are mobilized to infiltrate the target systems and take down the Tactical Structures that help to defend the POSes. Cynojammers, Cyno Field Generators, Jump Bridges and System Scanners are taken down in anticipation of the siege. Finally the attacker brings in their Capital Ships to siege the defenderÆs POS network û the core of their power in the area. The reinforcement mechanic on POSes and Tactical Structures and the Constesting mechanic on Stargates maintains the time zone warfare protections of the current system, however subcapital forces can still make an impact in the short term by offlining Tactical Structures and Contesting Stargates to pressure a Defender and attempt to overtake their space over the course of time. Conclusion A defenderÆs power is based on their ability to first protect their borders from small incursions, and then to prevent those incursions from snowballing into Fleet attacks on their tactical structures. If they succeed in securing their borders they reap the rewards through the fuel efficiency and Jump Bridge abilities along with invulnerable Control Towers, which give them increased capability to defend the inner Tactical Structures and POSes. An attacker must strip away each layer to weaken the heart of their enemyÆs Empire. Smaller entities can have an impact on larger Alliances by harassing their borders and contesting stargates to disrupt their fuel economy and disable their Jump Bridges. It is also now possible for one Alliance to control the Stargates and/or Tactical Structures of a System/Constellation/Region while another Alliance controls the majority of POSes in the same area û opening up the possibility of implementing a treaty system so a military Alliance could share the their Stargate Control fuel efficiency bonuses with an industrial Alliance in exchange for access to profits from the industrial AllianceÆs POSes. Essentially this proposal seeks to turn the linear POS-only Territory Warfare model into a comprehensive three-prong Territory Control model consisting of Stargate Capture, Tactical Structure deployment/destruction and POS construction/sieging. Each element would be designed to be best attacked/defended by a different force configuration: Capital Ships for POS siege/defense, Battleship Fleets for Tactical Structure warfare and Multiple Small Gangs of Light Ships for Stargate Control. The potential for new Tactical Structures also opens up: Small Hidden Hangars/Re-Supply Depots, Mining/Refinery Outposts, etc. These sorts of Structures could even be employed by very small corps or Alliances in place of a full fledged POS. Turning Territory Warfare into a more modular affair allows for more variety in what an Alliance's territory might look like. Thanks for reading, questions comments and concerns appreciated.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.07.15 16:13:00 - [5] Agreed
procurement specialist	Posted - 2008.07.15 16:23:00 - [6] what about halving a dual layer pos shield. The lesser one is active at fewer than 10 hostiles on grid and uses lesser power. The better one activates in response to capitals or more than 10 of any hostile on grid but consumes a large amount of fuel. This should be balanced but overall favor 9-10 very nicely fitted ships to take pos into a reinforced state or maybe only allow them to take pos shields to 50% before the larger kicks in at its 50%. The basic premise though is that you have a few lesser ships that will possibly be melted by pos guns offer some damage to pos. I like your ideas too. I am just saying this also puts a usefulness for sub-caps into the equation as well.
Zikka Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.15 17:13:00 - [7] Edited by: Zikka on 15/07/2008 17:13:16 Nice idea, well presented. Thumbs up from me. This would also combine with my idea which had ways to harass and weaken POS (but not destroy them) using smaller gangs.
MarleWH	Posted - 2008.07.15 20:03:00 - [8] That sounds fun, but I would also like to see the actual pos system modified as well. rawr.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.15 22:09:00 - [9] very good stuff. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Tareen Kashaar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.15 22:45:00 - [10] I like this. ____________

Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.15 22:52:00 - [11] I'm not sure about all the specific details, but detail work is essentially CCP's domain, not the CSM's. I do like this in principle though. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.16 12:50:00 - [12] Thanks for the supports. I think a strength of this proposal is that the modular nature of it allows for tweaks to different areas - I'd be happy to incorporate some bigger changes to POS themselves if some good ideas are brainstormed, but I'm also of the opinion that simply shifting some of the focus of territory warfare off of the POS will help lower the bar for entry and make territory warfare itself less of a grind. Feel free to give ideas for changes.
Tesseract d'Urberville Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2008.07.16 22:17:00 - [13] I like the Stargate capture mechanic, but as I said about non-POS anchorable structures in another thread: I'm skeptical that non-POS anchorable structures can be both balanced and useful. A non-POS structure that gives significant bonuses would have to require fuel to remain balanced. But this would mean that they would either need to have large fuel bays or require frequent refueling visits. Once you figure that there might be half a dozen or more of these in a system at once, this gets pretty scary: either there's a huge amount of fuel in storage just sitting around the system, which makes those structures very expensive to lose (especially since these structures, not being at a POS, don't benefit from a POS's defenses), or there's a lot of needlessly tedious frequent refueling trips going on. --------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains.
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.07.17 00:14:00 - [14] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 17/07/2008 00:14:06 well thought out idea, I like it :) Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Vaslav Tchitcherine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.17 12:29:00 - [15] Thumbs up. -- Star Fraction recruitment: come join the Yarrletariat!
leich Fritter Transport Co.	Posted - 2008.07.17 13:26:00 - [16] I think this idea is great
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.17 14:32:00 - [17] This is getting closer, but I still couldn't get behind this exact plan. Some of the problems I have with it: The stargate-based bonuses are lost too easily by the defender to timezone games, because the contested state provides no bonus. The only empire that will ever enjoy those bonuses is one with no enemies. The idea talks about "layers", but nothing like an empire border is described here. The idea doesn't address the porousness of sov-holder's borders. Even if a defender has control of a stargate, for example, that doesn't at all inhibit enemy aggressors from using it to enter the defender's territory. We could at least get something like gate guns that side with the entity who has captured the gate. Noone who lives in conq 0.0 is seriously going to go for jump bridge endpoints and cynobeacons being out in empty space away from POS shields. Really the entire "middle layer" as presented doesn't feel right to me. The progression from the stargate level to the tactical structure level is done poorly; as presented you can skip taking stargates almost entirely (only capturing one) and move a BS fleet in to take out, say, the cynojammer. And in fact that's what everone would do: take down the cynojammer, move caps in to own the system, THEN capture the remaining stargates in that system. The idea doesn't really distribute out the objectives to prevent blobbing. There will still be blobs to defend/assault tactical structures (everyone will put all their tactical structures in the same place to make them blob-defensible) and there will still be blobs to defend/assault POS. You added the stargates as an objective that can be captured by many small groups in parallel but they're th least meaningful objective to take. And, you only have to take one stargate to begin assaulting the tactical structures...and the best way to take one target is with a big blob of ships all on that target. So at best you've given an objective of little strategic significance for small gangs/small ships to accomplish in sov warfare, and added an extra step that will require blobbing. I'm not really on board.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.17 15:22:00 - [18] Good points. I think many of these can be addressed in the details - Originally by: Toman Jerich The stargate-based bonuses are lost too easily by the defender to timezone games, because the contested state provides no bonus. The only empire that will ever enjoy those bonuses is one with no enemies. This depends on which bonus we're talking about. The first Fuel Efficiency bonus (the 25% one) is here based on the total of Captured AND/OR Contested gates in the entire Constellation - so an attacker needs to engage in a serious extended campaign of stargate neutralization to eliminate this bonus, and the defender has to actually cede control of a majority of the stargates in the Constellation to lose it. The extra 5% is easier to knock off as you said, because it is based on Captured in-system stargate totals only - but if that proves unfair we can change it. Likewise the Control Tower invulnerability is based on Constellation-wide totals, and while an Attacker could potentially contest more than half the stargate in a Constellation during a Defender's offtime, it can be balanced to require a coordinated force of a certain size operating in small groups simultaneously across the Constellation. We just have to determine how long it takes to capture/contest a gate and what the minimum ships to do it are, and compare that to the number of gates they'd need to take during off-peak hours. Quote: Noone who lives in conq 0.0 is seriously going to go for jump bridge endpoints and cynobeacons being out in empty space away from POS shields. Really the entire "middle layer" as presented doesn't feel right to me. The progression from the stargate level to the tactical structure level is done poorly; as presented you can skip taking stargates almost entirely (only capturing one) and move a BS fleet in to take out, say, the cynojammer. And in fact that's what everone would do: take down the cynojammer, move caps in to own the system, THEN capture the remaining stargates in that system. Some fixes for this could include putting the Bridge and cyno field themselves inside a POS but have them require some kind of "beacon" module that are out on their own and subject to attack. As for skipping past the Stargate Capture phase - maybe the best thing to do is to put Tactical Structure Invulnerability as a Constellation-wide effect, just like the Fuel Efficiency. Then you'd have to first attack a majority of the Stargates in the Constellation before you move in to a specific system to begin picking apart it's Tactical Structures. Quote: The idea doesn't really distribute out the objectives to prevent blobbing. There will still be blobs to defend/assault tactical structures (everyone will put all their tactical structures in the same place to make them blob-defensible) and there will still be blobs to defend/assault POS. You added the stargates as an objective that can be captured by many small groups in parallel but they're th least meaningful objective to take. And, you only have to take one stargate to begin assaulting the tactical structures...and the best way to take one target is with a big blob of ships all on that target. I think maybe the answer here is to make the Tactical Structures themselves distributed - at least for the cynojammer. To jam a system could require 3 active cynojammers somewhere in the system (some minimum distance from one another) and allow a maximum of 5 anchored cynojammers total - so a wise Defender would keep 5 cynojammer modules in system and an Attacker would need to take out 3 of the 5 in order to eliminate the jamming effect.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.17 15:29:00 - [19] Originally by: Toman Jerich I really don't like how easy it is for casual harassment to take down jump bridges. That part of the change starts to get into discouraging people to live in 0.0 period. Under this system JBs would pretty much always be down due to casual harrasment. Think carefully about how hard you want to make life for people who live in 0.0. I can see that the stargate aspects of this proposal will result in a significant contraction in the size of the current 0.0 empires, and that would be a good thing. But territory cannot become so difficult, time-consuming, or tedious (time-zone games) to defend that it becomes very difficult to hold enough conq space to make living that space worthwhile for the number of people needed to defend it. For example, if it takes a population of 50 guys/night just to keep up the jump bridges, POS bonuses, etc in a constellation, but the constellation can only really provide enough income (belts, complexes, moons) to support 30 guys, then that's a problem. Maybe then all bonuses should be based on totaling Captured AND Contested gates, so casual harassment doesn't knock out Defender advantages, but consistent and continous neutralization and capture of Defender stargates by an Attacker would. As far as population support, ideally I'd want it to be balanced so that Defenders have to patrol and reCap stargates about as much as Attackers are harassing/attacking. In other words it will only take 50 guys/night to maintain if there are about 50 enemies/night roaming your territory. And we can balance it so that it is maybe a tad easier for the Defender because of home field advantage, even if it's just because they have access to Jump Bridges to get from place to place. But I would like to hear more about how many people a Constellation can support income-wise and how that can play into this.
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.17 15:30:00 - [20] Not perfect, but damn good. I've been trying to come up with a new sovereignty system ever since FW came out and this is better than anything I've come up with. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)

Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.17 15:34:00 - [21] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 17/07/2008 15:37:33 Thanks for the responses; you described some reasonable improvements. Regarding skipping stargate assaults to attack tactical structures, I think that requiring a constellation-level stargate assault is too much in the defender's favor. I think the right balance falls more on the side of requiring all of the stargates in the system where the tactical structure lies to either be in the contested state or be captured by the attacker. It's a balance-point in the system that can be tweaked. And another concern: Even without bringing timezone differences into this, I think that stargate assault gangs conducting sov warfare (not just looking for good fights) will probably focus on undefended stargates, avoiding patrols, etc. So two suggestions: First, assaulting a gate should require a commitment. It should not be easy to stop the process of assaulting a gate the moment that resistance arrives and flee. I'm thinking about how assaulting a POS with dreads requires a ten-minute commitment (putting them into siege mode) or how popping a cyno requires a commitment. If someone shows up to defend a gate you are attemting to contest, you should have to fight them at least for awhile. Second, I would like some mechanism whereby the members of an organization who have captured gates can tune into a channel that broadcasts alerts about assaults on their gates. Then if the defenders move quickly enough they can force a fight with those who attack their stargates.
Zikka Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.17 16:10:00 - [22] Originally by: Toman Jerich Edited by: Toman Jerich on 17/07/2008 15:37:33 Thanks for the responses; you described some reasonable improvements. Regarding skipping stargate assaults to attack tactical structures, I think that requiring a constellation-level stargate assault is too much in the defender's favor. I think the right balance falls more on the side of requiring all of the stargates in the system where the tactical structure lies to either be in the contested state or be captured by the attacker. It's a balance-point in the system that can be tweaked. And another concern: Even without bringing timezone differences into this, I think that stargate assault gangs conducting sov warfare (not just looking for good fights) will probably focus on undefended stargates, avoiding patrols, etc. So two suggestions: First, assaulting a gate should require a commitment. It should not be easy to stop the process of assaulting a gate the moment that resistance arrives and flee. I'm thinking about how assaulting a POS with dreads requires a ten-minute commitment (putting them into siege mode) or how popping a cyno requires a commitment. If someone shows up to defend a gate you are attemting to contest, you should have to fight them at least for awhile. Second, I would like some mechanism whereby the members of an organization who have captured gates can tune into a channel that broadcasts alerts about assaults on their gates. Then if the defenders move quickly enough they can force a fight with those who attack their stargates. This could be achieved by something as simple as giving stargates a certain amount of POS style powergrid and CPU (for example 200kmw as a maximum and without the POS structure resistance bonus). Then you can anchor a disrupter or a couple of guns at the gate - which are not enough to threaten even a small gang but will harass gate camps and warp scramble one of the attackers. (If hostiles are just flying through they have time to warp off before the scrambler catches them unless flying something really slow). 200kmw would allow a few warp scramblers or one disrupter + maybe on gun to be fielded, nothing massive but enough to slow attackers down. As a downside though that is then assets in space that can be destroyed - and they don't have the POS structure bonus to stop people doing so.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.17 16:18:00 - [23] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 17/07/2008 16:25:59 Edited by: Toman Jerich on 17/07/2008 16:21:03 Originally by: Kelsin As far as population support, ideally I'd want it to be balanced so that Defenders have to patrol and reCap stargates about as much as Attackers are harassing/attacking. In other words it will only take 50 guys/night to maintain if there are about 50 enemies/night roaming your territory. An alliance who is strong in one regional timezone will have to daily repair the damage done in 2-3 other regional timezones when none of them are playing. Think of say a Russion sov holder who every day has to repair the damage done by European, US, and Australian roaming gangs, just to use their jump bridges. Probably none of those enemies are coordinated or even really waging sov warfare. They're typically just going to be guys who are disappointed that they didn't get a fight while roaming or camping a gate and decided to contest a few stargates just for the hell of it. And they'll often be guys who are based out of lowsec or empire and don't hold any conquerable space themselves so you can't even retaliate. That just doesn't sound fun. I don't have a better idea yet. Edit: Possibly the solution is to require some consumable resource for contesting a stargate, analogous to LO for popping a cyno or stront for dreads. So, if someone is going to contest a stargate, they have to have at least planned ahead and brought the resource, and they have to have paid something to acquire the resource in the first place. This way contesting a stargate isn't something you would typically do just on a lark to mess with someone because "Why not, it doesn't cost us anything". It will make the act more...premeditated and intentional.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.17 16:35:00 - [24] Originally by: Toman Jerich First, assaulting a gate should require a commitment. It should not be easy to stop the process of assaulting a gate the moment that resistance arrives and flee. I'm thinking about how assaulting a POS with dreads requires a ten-minute commitment (putting them into siege mode) or how popping a cyno requires a commitment. If someone shows up to defend a gate you are attemting to contest, you should have to fight them at least for awhile. Second, I would like some mechanism whereby the members of an organization who have captured gates can tune into a channel that broadcasts alerts about assaults on their gates. Then if the defenders move quickly enough they can force a fight with those who attack their stargates. Okay I think I have some ideas for these: 1) The act of a gang interfacing with a gate to contest, capture or re-capture it can disable the warp drive of the ships involved. This way if they are interrupted mid-capture, they have to disengage and wait for the warp drive to come back online. 2) The incursion alarm was something I figured would be included with the Network Security Node Tactical Structure - so you could fly out and interface with it to monitor the Stargate Network and see if anything is up. 3) Also, as far as the 3:1 Time Zone difference, I think we can balance that just by having a difference in the time it takes to Contest vs. the time it takes to Recapture a Contested gate. Like if it takes 30 minutes to Contest a gate but only 15 minutes to Recapture it, that helps the Defending alliance out a bit in that regard.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.17 16:38:00 - [25] Originally by: Zikka This could be achieved by something as simple as giving stargates a certain amount of POS style powergrid and CPU (for example 200kmw as a maximum and without the POS structure resistance bonus). Was thinking of something like the following rough idea: The "contest stargate" action has to be performed by four ships positioned no more than 50km from the gate simultaneously for 10 minutes before it succeeds. During that time, none of the ships performing that action can move more than 50 km from the gate, or they blow up. Any extra ships along to support the four ships that are actually doing the "contest stargate" action can do whatever they want. So, if defenders come, those four ships can fight or spidertank or whatever within 50 km of the gate until they finish the "contest stargate" action, then they can leave. Their buddies can leave anytime, or stay and fight. But at least something worth some ISK is committed to remaining near the gate for at least 10 minutes if you want to contest the gate. And maybe make the "contest stargate" action require a specific module that can only be fitted on ships that are worth a damn to keep people from using alpha clones in noob frigates to do the risky part.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.17 16:47:00 - [26] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 17/07/2008 16:46:58 Originally by: Kelsin Okay I think I have some ideas for these: 1) The act of a gang interfacing with a gate to contest... Sounds good. I think that with some dev refinement a plan along the lines of the one discussed in this thread could be fun. I especially like the general mechanism for avoiding blobbing of having a distributed set of multiple attack points for a single structure. For example, to take down a POS you don't shoot the POS; you instead have to take down some % of structures that are related to the POS but all lie on different grids from each other and from the POS. This way both the attacker and the defender have to split up.
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.07.17 17:18:00 - [27] I really love this idea; there were a few similar ideas in the CCP thread, but I think this is better then all of them. Still some balance issues to workout, but we'll have to impliment the system and deal with those as they come. I think it might be even cooler if you could when you've captured an entire region (have sov over all constellations) then you could elect to have a system with an outpost as the "Region Capital." This would entitle that systems constellation to be immune to any attacks on gates. This will then force an attacker to take another constellation rather then just go right for the jugular. I have not been involved in Sov warfare in a long time, so I'm just throwing this out.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.17 18:45:00 - [28] Thanks guys - here's what is slated to be added/modified at the moment: Stargate Capture Make the Tactical Structure Invulnerability Benefit harder to disrupt. Currently thinking: TS Invulnerability is held as long as 100% of the in-system Stargates are Captured OR Contested by the owning Alliance. (in this way an Attacker would first engage in a Constellation-wide small gang effort to disrupt Defender Stargate Control. As soon as a Defender allows a Contested Stargate to lapse to Neutral status, that system's Tactical Structures are vulnerable to attack, and the battle moves to a System-wide effort to destroy TSes) Second, flesh out the capture/contest/recapture mechanic as follows: Capturing or Contesting a Stargate requires X (let's say 10) ships in proximity to the gate to interface with it for Y (let's say 30) minutes. This interfacing disables the warp drive of the ships in 60 second cycles - so if you break off the interfacing because of enemy attack, it will be up to 60 seconds before warp drives come back online. A Defender recapturing a Contested Stargate requires only half the normal time (so 15 minutes in this example). Tactical Structures First, Jump Bridges and Cyno Field Generators are put back inside a POS's shields for transit safety purposes. Instead, in order for them to operate they require "Jump Bridge Beacons" and "Cyno Field Generator Beacons" placed in safe spots away from gravity wells. Second, Tactical Structures cannot be placed within less than 1 AU of another Tactical Structure of the same name. Third, change Tactical Structure's function as follows: Instead of placing a single Structure to create the effect, a system requires 3 active TS's of a given type to generate the given effect. A maximum of 5 TS's of a given type may be anchored in a system. Thus a Defending Alliance will choose to anchor the maximum of 5 TS's of a type, and Attackers will need to eliminate 3 or more in order to neutralize the effect. For more discussion There has already been talk of the interaction of the Cynojammer and the Jump Bridge - should they be mutually exclusive? Only mutually exclusive in regards to capships?
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.07.17 19:13:00 - [29] Originally by: Kelsin For more discussion There has already been talk of the interaction of the Cynojammer and the Jump Bridge - should they be mutually exclusive? Only mutually exclusive in regards to capships? Perhaps allow a non-cap ship sized jump bridge, then make cynojammers and "Capital" Jump bridges exclusive. This allows defending gangs to roam easier and prevents one side from having a capital blob while another is forced to use conventional ships
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.17 22:47:00 - [30] Updated the OP's with the changes discussed - changed Tactical Structures to Tactical Arrays to better describe their distributed nature. Also added more detail about how Stargate Capture works.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: 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.