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

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)
Garregus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 14:37:00 - [121] You can't present a fundamentally flawed idea and then say "well just fix it for me." It is analogous to ****** saying "Ok guys lets gas all the jews but im open to suggestions, maybe firing squad instead?" Your idea, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, will not work. It creates more boredom, creates bigger time zone problems, and creates a ton more lag (logging every jump for every alliance member jesus) It contradicts the very goals you state that your trying to fix. Superimposing your small empire corp onto 0.0 just plain wont work. tl;dr stop killing jews
Jarvis Hellstrom The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:12:00 - [122] What a superb set of ideas! Soooo signed! May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk (Old Egyptian Blessing)
Tempus Iskander	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:15:00 - [123] Very good set of ideas and just whats needed to improve 0.0 warfare. The 3 layers of defense fights is a brilliant way to break up blobs and give everyone things to do. I'm not sure the people saying they don't like this idea have read the first posts in the thread. Support!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 16:31:00 - [124] Originally by: Lumen Atra Whatever your third goal here is, it should have nothing to do with lag. As such, it is clear you want to reduce blobbing, so you should have a good, relevant, game play reason for wanting to reduce blobbing. Ultimately, this won't work anyway. The simplest way to defend or attack is with overwhelming power. Play any RTS, and you will see this happen. Even if you divide it up so that there are multiple fleets, the alliance goal will still always be to maximize the size of that fleet. What I am getting at is this is a pointless goal (the point of trying to stop blobbing, not necessarily creating incentive to use multiple fleets). Goal 4 - This already occurs, although it doesn't always have an effect on sov. Also, NOBODY is going to want to PATROL space. Even if patrolling is sitting on every gate that leads into your territory, nobody wants to do that. That is a boring mechanic and a complete waste of a person's time. If anything, there should be an automated system that tells an alliance when a red enters into any of their systems. But god help us if you actually envisioned patrol routes. Playing security gaurd on the off chance that you'll get action is not fun. If you want action, you seek it out. As for giving subcapitals more to do, I doubt anybody can actually complain about that. Variety is the spice of life, and anything to break monotony and still be meaningful should be welcomed. I think the third goal of creating incentives to field multiple forces is just worded improperly - avoiding lag-inducing blobs is meant to be a beneficial side effect and I shouldn't have put that as the main point, instead incentivizing the splitting up of large forces is meant to be a way to keep small gang objectives small gang friendly to resist the "more is always better" concept. So if you want to go into enemy territory and knock out a few of their stargates, you're encouraged to divide your 30-man fleet into 3 and cover more territory than stay as a single 30-man group. Likewise a massive 200-man invasion is better off dividing into many smaller groups to be more effective. The fact that many isolated small encounters would be less prone to lag than single massive encounters is just a beneficial side effect. Regarding patrolling: Some have a misconception that this proposal requires Defenders to constantly patrol. The work of the Defender is to perform maintenance on their Stargate Network in exchange for sov-style benefits. The amount of maintenance is directly related to the amount of attacks on their Stargate Network. In secure and peaceful areas, no Stargate maintenance is required at all. In porous and poorly secured areas, Defenders will have to recapture Stargates that Attackers have contested.
Deldrac Bat Country Aegis Militia	Posted - 2008.08.02 17:50:00 - [125] Edited by: Deldrac on 02/08/2008 17:50:49 I think part of the misunderstanding is because you keep referring to the two sides as 'attackers' and 'defenders', when actually what you propose doesn't make any combat likely at all. It isn't attackers and defenders, it's just people running about capping gates at times when the other team isn't online.
Kerfira	Posted - 2008.08.02 18:04:00 - [126] Edited by: Kerfira on 02/08/2008 18:17:21 Don't like it for the simple reason that EVE sovereignty combat should be about shooting ships, not shooting structures. There's already all too much shooting/repairing of structures in the game (damn station services)... Do you know how boring it is to shoot structures? Do you know how boring it is to repair them? You probably do... Why the hell do you want more? Remember that the large majority of EVE players don't want to fight even fights, and there really is nothing in here that FORCES you to fight. So what will happen when someone attacks your structures is one of two: 1. You can not gather a larger force, so you wait until they go away and repair the damage in your TZ. 2. You can gather a larger force, so the enemy runs away. What'll determine the outcome of the 'war' is not who're the best fighters. It'll be who tires first of shooting/repping structures. Something like this is not going to encourage combat as it'll work just like shootable services do. The blob shooting them will be bored, and the blob who come later to repair them will be bored. Forget about the 'split forces' thing. It is not a matter of "Can be done quicker if force is split!", it is a matter of "Can be done safer if force is not split!". Sovereignty of a constellation should be determined by the activities (successful combat being a large part) performed in the constellation. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 18:14:00 - [127] Originally by: Deldrac I think part of the misunderstanding is because you keep referring to the two sides as 'attackers' and 'defenders', when actually what you propose doesn't make any combat likely at all. It isn't attackers and defenders, it's just people running about capping gates at times when the other team isn't online. There will always be times when one side is online and another isn't, and any sov system - including the current one - allows actions to be taken by each side in that situation. Acknowledging time zone issues isn't a flaw, it's a necessity.
Pherusa Plumosa Minmatar Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.02 18:22:00 - [128] Originally by: Kelsin 2. Tactical Arrays - the anchoring of territory warfare structures outside of gravity wells (i.e. not at a POS) that affords a defender advantage. These Arrays govern the familiar Cynojammer, Jump Bridge Array, Cyno Field Generator and System Scanner effects, as well as new capabilities. I support this Quote: Stargate Capture Benefits: ... ò All starbase control towers are invulnerable and can not be locked. Gained by having 51% of the Stargates in the CONSTELLATION in the Captured state. Boosting defenders side (again) is not the way to go. I thought we all learned from cynojammers and stuff, that it helps small alliances to survive, but it makes bigger alliances nearly invulnarable. So how should smaller alliances ever get space? Boosting defence makes Eve more static and booring. Quote: ò NEW: 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. Reducing the effort for reconnaissance, the need for scouts and intel isn't a good way to bring more tactical depths into a game. Reducing intel to a quick glance into a logfile (and connecting it to bacon or similar lame makro shit) is boring Quote: ò A 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. In the ages of jumpbridges, logistics are easy as hell. making them easier and removing the need for "carebears" does not concur with the "3 layers". Quote: ò NEW: Your Tactical Structures are invulnerable and cannot be locked. Gained by having 100% of the Stargates in the system in the Captured or Contested state. considering the reclaim time, surprise attacks on Tactical Structures are impossible and fight would be about blobbing contested gates. The Contestet Gate stuff is a pure defence boost. If a gate falls should give either: a) Advantage for attackers for holding a gate. Just neutralising a colour is an extra step to break sov and is no real benefit b) Drawback for defenders for loosing a gate. Just making Pos stuff attackable is no drawback, because it is the situation as it is now. So please no more defender boosts. Make Eve more dynamic again. __________________________________________________
Necrophorus Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.02 18:51:00 - [129] i dont like the ideas that make 0.0 warfare even more in the favor of the defender. moving out jammers,jbs and co to none defended points and have to fight for them is actually a great idea and u then have to do something to keep ur comfort alive that u gain from these structures. i would like a change in the gate system, so that if the enemy claims (not just contest) 100% of the gates in a system, every tower of the defender should go into reinforce. this would make cap blobs not the only way to deal with poses after a system is already in the hand of the enemy (it takes 48h to claim a gate, that should have give the defender more than enough time, to bring back control over at least 1 gate). it will make it possible for small entities to fight for 0.0 space, even if they cant field a big dread fleet to take down a defended deathstar. ___________________________
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 19:06:00 - [130] There are definitely arguments to be made against too great a benefit in Defender advantage, but also in favor of providing interesting tools for Defenders to encourage ship to ship combat. I do think that the level of Defender advantage under this model is pretty tweakable, both in terms of the exact numbers on specific benefits and what the benefits are tied to. At the basic level the idea is to introduce a Constellation-wide small gang vs small gang battle into the formula for territory control (as well as taking system-wide benefits out of the POS and putting them into Tactical Arrays in open space). I'd be interested in hearing more about what people think appropriate levels of Defender advantage are. The philosophy that went into the distribution of benefits under the OP is that an Attacker begins their invasion of the Defender's territory by dispatching small gangs to spread throughout the Defender's territory and begin a campaign of contesting claimed gates. If the Defender cannot either hold their borders and destroy these small gangs or keep up in the maintenance of the contested gates, vulnerabilities begin to appear within specific systems, where the Tactical Arrays can then be targeted by the Attacker. I'll also point out that this model was created under the assumption that Cynojammer Arrays will be incompatible with Jump Bridge Arrays - which is another topic entirely but one that seems to be on track to happen.
J Kunjeh	Posted - 2008.08.02 19:28:00 - [131] I really like what I've read here so far. I support! I wish I could add my own perspective on the matter, but being that I'm a new pilot with zero null-sec experience, I don't have much to say.
Pherusa Plumosa Minmatar Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.02 19:46:00 - [132] Originally by: Kelsin I'd be interested in hearing more about what people think appropriate levels of Defender advantage are. if you add advantages (but please no bacon 2.0) for defenders, there should also be risks in taking gates, so that the defender has the choice to enjoy the advantages and take some risk or leave the gates neutral. that would be one option. I would like gates to be something like frontlines. If your stuff is within your frontline, you have bonuses, if your stuff is behind the frontline, you should have drawbacks or the attacker should have advantages. I like the idea of "conquerable" gates, but this new feature should add more dynamic into gameplay, it should be no additional feature for fortress building. __________________________________________________
Deldrac Bat Country Aegis Militia	Posted - 2008.08.02 19:53:00 - [133] Originally by: Kelsin I'd be interested in hearing more about what people think appropriate levels of Defender advantage are. Current system has defender advantage about right. In fact, only thing really wrong with the current system is that CCP's severs can't support it.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.02 19:56:00 - [134] Why does it not surprise me that the Goons are against this idea?
Zanarkand Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.02 20:30:00 - [135] Originally by: Kelsin The philosophy that went into the distribution of benefits under the OP is that an Attacker begins their invasion of the Defender's territory by dispatching small gangs to spread throughout the Defender's territory and begin a campaign of contesting claimed gates. If the Defender cannot either hold their borders and destroy these small gangs or keep up in the maintenance of the contested gates, vulnerabilities begin to appear within specific systems, where the Tactical Arrays can then be targeted by the Attacker. Why should the attacker waste their with small gangs instead of just blobbing it up?
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 20:34:00 - [136] Originally by: Zanarkand Originally by: Kelsin The philosophy that went into the distribution of benefits under the OP is that an Attacker begins their invasion of the Defender's territory by dispatching small gangs to spread throughout the Defender's territory and begin a campaign of contesting claimed gates. If the Defender cannot either hold their borders and destroy these small gangs or keep up in the maintenance of the contested gates, vulnerabilities begin to appear within specific systems, where the Tactical Arrays can then be targeted by the Attacker. Why should the attacker waste their with small gangs instead of just blobbing it up? Because 10 ships can capture a stargate as quickly as 50 or 100, it's faster to divide up. An Attacker might choose to blob and contest gates one at a time depending on how they expect the Defender to react, but they can cover more ground more quickly acting as independent teams.
Pherusa Plumosa Minmatar Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.02 20:47:00 - [137] Edited by: Pherusa Plumosa on 02/08/2008 20:48:32 Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Zanarkand Why should the attacker waste their with small gangs instead of just blobbing it up? Because 10 ships can capture a stargate as quickly as 50 or 100, it's faster to divide up. An Attacker might choose to blob and contest gates one at a time depending on how they expect the Defender to react, but they can cover more ground more quickly acting as independent teams. Besides small changes, i don't see a real effect on current blobbfare. Just a 3rd barrier (gatecontrol) is added to conquer space, which doesn't include blobbing. Besides separating tactical modules from POS (I support this!) game mechanics nearly stay the same. You have single points of interests (POS, modules )which you blobb one by one. It doesn't fix the primary problem. Boring blobbfare. __________________________________________________
Poluketes GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 20:50:00 - [138] Your proposal introduces another layer of pointless chores on top of POS warfare without fixing 0.0's underlying problems. No 0.0-holding alliance, no matter how large or small, is going to enjoy staring at potentially dozens of gates for 30 minutes every 24 hours. The only people this proposal would help would be Empire- or NPC 0.0-based roaming gangs who want to shit up conquerable 0.0 space but have no long-term plans to hold it. This isn't going to open up space for newbie alliances in 0.0. Big alliances will still find ways to hold onto their excessively large territories under your proposal, no matter how many ridiculous hoops it forces them to jump through. Until 0.0 resource distribution is addressed, the game will continue to force 0.0 alliances to hold huge territories to survive and grow. Throwing new structures at the problem isn't going to make room for new alliances in 0.0 or suddenly make existing alliances give up large fleet warfare. Roaming gangs and small scale warfare absolutely need bigger roles in 0.0, but conquerable 0.0 mechanics should be designed primarily to benefit people who live in/want to live in conquerable 0.0, not NPC 0.0 and Empire dwellers out to make conquerable 0.0 as miserable as possible. Can you point out one real benefit that your proposal would give a 0.0 alliance/potential 0.0 alliance? Because it sounds like a lot of mind-numbing work for no reward. It's not going to promote small scale warfare - if 3 tactical arrays need to be killed, big alliances will send in 3 fleets of 100. Originally by: J Kunjeh Why does it not surprise me that the Goons are against this idea? I realize I'm in Goonswarm so I'm biased, but honestly any reasonable changes to 0.0 will be pretty good for Goonswarm and BoB and RA and all the other top alliances by definition. If the game didn't reward alliances with numbers, multiple time zone coverage, correctly fit ships, good leadership, and good diplomats, something would be seriously wrong.
Karol Octavia	Posted - 2008.08.02 21:03:00 - [139] Originally by: J Kunjeh Why does it not surprise me that the Goons are against this idea? Heh goons are doing well with the current balance of power they don't want to fight for their moonz.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 21:07:00 - [140] Responding to the above points: Keep in mind that this isn't just adding a layer on top of the current POS sov system, it is also redistributing many of the sovereignty benefits currently gained through POS construction into these two new systems. Destroying POS is still the final blow to an Alliance's infrastructure, but an Alliance's ability to exert control over their territory is now dependent on their small scale subcapital PvP ability as well - something I'd argue is indeed a benefit to sitting Alliances, assuming they have members that enjoy small gang PvP. And because it isn't just adding a layer or barrier to entry but actually redistributing Sov benefits across three layers, it opens up the battle for territory control to a multiple front system where each front governs a different portion of the Defender advantages. This proposal doesn't confer any particular advantage or disadvantage to small Alliances or large ones. It just takes the currently linear nature of territorial combat and decentralizes portions of it, as well as hinges several of the broad benefits of sovereignty on player population activities within the claimed territory. Any Alliance of any size that can maintain a consistent in-space pilot presence in an area will be competitive under this system, such that the territory controlled via Captured Stargates will reflect the active in-space population of the claiming Alliance.
Stevens DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 21:09:00 - [141] Originally by: J Kunjeh Why does it not surprise me that the Goons are against this idea? Maybe because we have spent years more than you in 0.0 and know what the real issues are unlike the OP and yourself. Originally by: Karol Octavia Originally by: J Kunjeh Why does it not surprise me that the Goons are against this idea? Heh goons are doing well with the current balance of power they don't want to fight for their moonz. Because you know we hold like 8 regions which 90% of the systems are shit compared to high sec mission running. This is the core issue that Alliances need massive amounts of space to get space decent enough to live in. If you reduce the space people need to live (make it more worthwhile which I can't see any reason it shouldn't be more worthwhile than highsec missions) and make POS more like small Outposts it would easily allow smaller corporations the ability to live in 0.0.
Kei Masuda	Posted - 2008.08.02 21:12:00 - [142] Originally by: Stevens Originally by: J Kunjeh Why does it not surprise me that the Goons are against this idea? Maybe because we have spent years more than you in 0.0 and know what the real issues are unlike the OP and yourself. Originally by: Karol Octavia Originally by: J Kunjeh Why does it not surprise me that the Goons are against this idea? Heh goons are doing well with the current balance of power they don't want to fight for their moonz. Because you know we hold like 8 regions which 90% of the systems are shit compared to high sec mission running. This is the core issue that Alliances need massive amounts of space to get space decent enough to live in. If you reduce the space people need to live (make it more worthwhile which I can't see any reason it shouldn't be more worthwhile than highsec missions) and make POS more like small Outposts it would easily allow smaller corporations the ability to live in 0.0. Lol you want to keep it super easy to defend AND make 0.0 more profitable heh, nice balance there chap!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 21:21:00 - [143] Originally by: Stevens This is the core issue that Alliances need massive amounts of space to get space decent enough to live in. If you reduce the space people need to live (make it more worthwhile which I can't see any reason it shouldn't be more worthwhile than highsec missions) and make POS more like small Outposts it would easily allow smaller corporations the ability to live in 0.0. I see no reason why this proposal can't include an analysis of how much population 0.0 space needs to be able to support vs. how much population is generally required to hold it - that kind of input would be a great thing to add and I'd be happy to include some general recommendations that the economic viability of 0.0 space be readdressed. Part of the purpose of developing a new sovereignty system based on player population is to avoid vast swaths of unpopulated space. Perhaps claimed territory could even offer financial benefits greater than unclaimed territory.
Baaldor Caldari Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 21:37:00 - [144] Originally by: Kei Masuda Lol you want to keep it super easy to defend AND make 0.0 more profitable heh, nice balance there chap! This statement is a "tell" that you are completely clueless and have no idea what is going on. Nice alt troll post btw.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 21:54:00 - [145] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 02/08/2008 21:56:17 Originally by: Kelsin I see no reason why this proposal can't include an analysis of how much population 0.0 space needs to be able to support vs. how much population is generally required to hold it - that kind of input would be a great thing to add and I'd be happy to include some general recommendations that the economic viability of 0.0 space be readdressed. You just have to look at what 0.0 can provide that lowsec and highsec can't. Rare moon minerals High-end ores Officer gear Deadspace gear The average ratter can make more running level 4s in highsec on an alt in an NPC corp than by ratting in 0.0 on their main. The 'real' money to be made in 0.0 is tied to the selling of things that have a capped demand. 0.0 makes money when empire and lowsec folks buy that stuff from people who live in 0.0. So CCP needs to have their pet economist look at the total revenue from the sales of those items, not including sales that end up right back in 0.0. Then subtract out the amount of money spent on maintaining 0.0 empires: POS-related costs, jump fuel costs, costs for building ships to defend space, etc. Then divide the remainder by the number of people living in 0.0. The per-capita income needs to exceed the per-capita income of highsec mission runners; otherwise we're all better off financially running missions in safety. There's no way to really do the math when alts and multiple accounts are considered, besides the fact that a huge amount of high-value moon mins end up in stuff that is destroyed in 0.0 fleet flights anyway (it just goes through Jita first so we can pay the salestax moneysink). How about they keep making the space more and more worthwhile every patch, and we'll know they've got right when there's never a time when a 0.0 empire isn't getting attacked by a newcomer trying to take that valuable, valuable space. When it becomes universally more advantageous to attack your neighbor for his space than to hold hands and live in peace.
Zanarkand Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.02 22:39:00 - [146] Originally by: Kelsin Responding to the above points: Keep in mind that this isn't just adding a layer on top of the current POS sov system, it is also redistributing many of the sovereignty benefits currently gained through POS construction into these two new systems. Destroying POS is still the final blow to an Alliance's infrastructure, but an Alliance's ability to exert control over their territory is now dependent on their small scale subcapital PvP ability as well - something I'd argue is indeed a benefit to sitting Alliances, assuming they have members that enjoy small gang PvP. And because it isn't just adding a layer or barrier to entry but actually redistributing Sov benefits across three layers, it opens up the battle for territory control to a multiple front system where each front governs a different portion of the Defender advantages. This proposal doesn't confer any particular advantage or disadvantage to small Alliances or large ones. It just takes the currently linear nature of territorial combat and decentralizes portions of it, as well as hinges several of the broad benefits of sovereignty on player population activities within the claimed territory. Any Alliance of any size that can maintain a consistent in-space pilot presence in an area will be competitive under this system, such that the territory controlled via Captured Stargates will reflect the active in-space population of the claiming Alliance. The benefits you are talking are not worth fighting for, at least for the defender. Pretty much everyone would just wait them out. It would not encourage alliances to defend systems, because there would not be any serious long-term financial risk. The risk is there only if you can potentially lose the stations/poses, meaning the enemy is bringing in big fleets with caps against you... You would need something like 100-200 people to keep a 10+ gang 23/7 and have the gates in something like 5 system on your side. At what do you get for that? Very bored pilots and the defender needs to use a bit more fuel for poses and reroute their jumpbridges.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 22:47:00 - [147] Originally by: Zanarkand The benefits you are talking are not worth fighting for, at least for the defender. Pretty much everyone would just wait them out. It would not encourage alliances to defend systems, because there would not be any serious long-term financial risk. The risk is there only if you can potentially lose the stations/poses, meaning the enemy is bringing in big fleets with caps against you... You would need something like 100-200 people to keep a 10+ gang 23/7 and have the gates in something like 5 system on your side. At what do you get for that? Very bored pilots and the defender needs to use a bit more fuel for poses and reroute their jumpbridges. There is no financial damage in the Stargate Capture layer, but disrupting a Defender's Stargate Network creates vulnerabilities in their Tactical Arrays and POS networks - as well as increasing the fuel costs for POS. I'm not sure what you mean with your example - there's no reason an Attacker would need to sit on a gate 23/7. The better strategy would be to continue moving through a Defender's territory and contest more gates, to strain a Defender's ability to recapture them, draw their small ship forces out into the open for potential ambush, and wear eventually wear holes in the Defender's Stargate network to generate opportunities to strike at Tactical Arrays and POS.
Entelechia Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 22:49:00 - [148] Edited by: Entelechia on 02/08/2008 22:50:18 The first thing I noticed when reading this thread, is that everyone patting Kelsin on the back and giving him dap for his "totally awesome" idea, are in corps and alliances I've never heard of and have absolutely no political sway in the 0.0 arena. I find this telling. That said, this proposal does nothing, absolutely nothing, to fix the real problems in 0.0. Jade seems to think it's unreasonable for us to ask that people who don't participate in 0.0 warfare not post four page long proposals on how to completely change an aspect of the game we participate in, yet it's quite clear from this proposal that the poster really has no idea how deep space warfare or politics works. If anything, this proposal makes many of the problems in 0.0 worse. Basically, to solve the problem of POS warfare boredom, you've introduced even more boredom. Instead of trying to string people out, and force them to sit on gates needlessly for huge chunks of time, we should be finding ways to make attack and defense faster, more brutal. There should be serious penalties for not being able to defend your strategic infrastructure. Perhaps introduce some Shadowbane style scheduling so that alliances of different time zones can coordinate for weekend battles, but make the act of not defending your infrastructure more painful, more quickly. As it exists today, using "blue balls" to bore a large invading alliance in to leaving you alone is a viable tactic. If you put up enough POS's, and make them chew through them while you don't defend, you can go long stretches of time without losing anything valuable, and perhaps cause the attacker to simply get bored and leave. This is what needs to be fixed in 0.0. If you don't defend your space, you should lose it, much more rapidly than you do today. Perhaps some changes to the way reinforced works could facilitate something like this. If you actually show to defend, then you should be able to hold out for longer periods of time. The best defended nations in the world would fall in short order if there were no defenders to man the figurative battlements. Along this line of thought, holding 0.0 space needs to be made worth defending your strategic locations. If getting booted back to empire is "not so bad", then changing all the 0.0 mechanics in the world isn't going to solve the boring POS warfare problem.
Goatface Man GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 22:55:00 - [149] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Zanarkand Why should the attacker waste their with small gangs instead of just blobbing it up? Because 10 ships can capture a stargate as quickly as 50 or 100, it's faster to divide up. An Attacker might choose to blob and contest gates one at a time depending on how they expect the Defender to react, but they can cover more ground more quickly acting as independent teams. It's faster, and it's massively easier to counter. If a few people from any one gang die, the rest of the gang's time is completely wasted. One half-competent drive-by ends your capture attempt. Never mind that, as I've previously stated, you're affixing people in one small area for an extended period while placing no restriction on the opposition. Your multiple "time-saving" gangs can be countered by one mobile defence team. A well organised one of which would probably include a nice mix of DPS, ewar, tackling and repair, and would probably outnumber your capture gang about 2:1. Your gangs will need to be bigger to defend against it, meaning they'll use even bigger gangs to fight you and woo-hoo, a spiralling blob war. Besides which, you still haven't explained why the defender should even waste their time reacting. Nothing happens immediately, so just let the attackers send their small gangs to do nothing for 30-60 minutes. When they leave, you can just pop in and reclaim them in half the time. The only way to avoid it would be turning gatecamps into semi-permanent affairs, and one thing the game doesn't need more of is hanging around doing sweet **** all while you wait for an arbitrary timer to count down. Reduce the conversion-time to make the retaking of gates more urgent: kill single time-zone alliances. Leave it as it is: kill single time zone alliances. I still have not seen a single explanation from you about how this makes smaller corps more capable, or how being forced to spend hours just sitting on a gate would in any way make the game more entertaining.
Lomono GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 23:26:00 - [150] Edited by: Lomono on 02/08/2008 23:26:46 Originally by: Kei Masuda Lol you want to keep it super easy to defend AND make 0.0 more profitable heh, nice balance there chap! If it "super easy to defend" for Goonswarm, why is it not "super easy to defend" for everyone else? :snypa:

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.