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.

Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.18 02:06:00 - [31] Originally by: Lieutenant Isis 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 If you're going to do it that way, just have "Jump Bridge" = subcapital, and use a cyno generator module for capital movement. They can jump already, just need to give them a target. And of course, cynogens and cynojams would be mutually exclusive. ------------------ Fix the forums!
BlondieBC 7th Tribal Legion	Posted - 2008.07.18 08:42:00 - [32] I like this idea. I think that doing exploration sites should also fit into sovereignty benefits. I find the plexes in Faction warfare very enjoyable, and would like to see this in 0.0. The big thing is to reduce POS sieges. Sieging a POS is like watching paint dry.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.18 16:02:00 - [33] I would also like to potentially flesh this out with some improvements to POS logistics to compensate for the reduced importance of POS in the overall territory warfare picture. Please toss some ideas my way about what might tie into this system that would make fueling etc. less of a grind.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.18 22:39:00 - [34] Deploying a POS in a system should require the deploying organization to have captured 100% of the stargates in that system. This will reduce the number of POS that people will feel the need to deploy to hold sov. Less POS deployed means less of a logistic burden. Basically, every POS should have a productive purpose: mining, research, or production. Not to be a big sov-holding gunned-out deathstar that does nothing but stake a claim and eat fuel.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.19 03:34:00 - [35] Originally by: Kelsin I would also like to potentially flesh this out with some improvements to POS logistics to compensate for the reduced importance of POS in the overall territory warfare picture. Please toss some ideas my way about what might tie into this system that would make fueling etc. less of a grind. Two things come to mind. One, this proposal largely eliminates the need for death stars, meaning that said death stars don't need to be fueled. Two, fuel pellets. I don't fuel POSes, so I can't say much more definitively, but it seems like those two would reduce a lot of the burden. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.21 12:01:00 - [36] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Two things come to mind. One, this proposal largely eliminates the need for death stars, meaning that said death stars don't need to be fueled. Two, fuel pellets. I don't fuel POSes, so I can't say much more definitively, but it seems like those two would reduce a lot of the burden. Someone posted an idea in the minutes for this topic about a structure that would take care of or help with POS fueling. We could add a Supply Depot structure to this - maybe that would allow you to keep a large supply of fuel in a central location in system, and drones could ferry it out to all your POS in system as needed? Then the drones and the Supply Depot could be a target for raiders to attack, but if your territory is secure it dramatically lessens your need to refuel. Anyone more familiar with POS logistics that can tell me if that would be helpful?
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.07.21 14:37:00 - [37] The idea looks to be headed in the right direction. I like more objectives with more volatility for individual objectives. The relationship that needs to change to make the sov changes really have impact is that whatever minor goals are put into place need to have diminishing returns for both the attacker and defender. That's how you make it where ten pilots in ten gangs are more advantageous than a hundred guys in one fleet. What comes to mind in 5s when I think of this kind of thing is a more DoD type scenario. Gates operate like flags. Getting there in a Domi and pounding on the objective for an hour with drones will get the job done. A few pilots can do it faster. A lot of pilots can't do it better, especially when they could be hitting other objectives. Not suggesting specific mechanics, just that whatever objectives are in place need to be more numerous and more volatile, while still remaining tied to a low volatility buffer that prevents timezone issues. The current system is for a few POS's (which should be serving starbase roles, not sov roles) to be in low numbers and have low volatility. They also serve as skirmish points and timezone buffers. Thus all activity is centered around the POS's, which also serve as death stars, and so only blobs with capships are really important in sovereignty contests.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:08:00 - [38] Originally by: Toman Jerich Deploying a POS in a system should require the deploying organization to have captured 100% of the stargates in that system. This will reduce the number of POS that people will feel the need to deploy to hold sov. Less POS deployed means less of a logistic burden. Basically, every POS should have a productive purpose: mining, research, or production. Not to be a big sov-holding gunned-out deathstar that does nothing but stake a claim and eat fuel. Exactly, I expect that under this system the POS will be used for practical purposes rather than for territory control itself, so they'll only be set up for industry and base of operations purposes instead of as sov-holders.
Hilder G.E.A.R.	Posted - 2008.07.22 16:47:00 - [39] Nice proposal that moves broadly in the right direction. I share some of the concerns over certain details, but with a bit more balancing this should work
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2008.07.27 10:22:00 - [40] Edited by: Kazuma Saruwatari on 27/07/2008 10:24:45 The idea of committing forces to try and contest a stargate is indeed required. The idea of disabling warp drives of the gang/s involved in stargate capture is very very good. It is both commitment-inducing and a great way to get some small-gang PvP, something I believe everyone wants. The idea of having the timer based on ship sizes is not as attractive. Also, having 10 ships as a number to induce stargate capture is a bit on the high side. Smaller gangs are faster, and can hit many more gates all at once, and less numbers scattered across more nodes = less lag. Perhaps the timer could be based not on ship sizes, but the amounts of ships in the gang that interfaces with the stargate to induce the Contested status. 5 Ships could take as long as 1 hour to induce Contested status, whilst 10 ships could cause contested status in as little as 30 mins. Any more and you could have penalties like the timer taking far longer than 1 hour... This would indeed give both the Attacker and Defender incentive not to field too many units, but just enough so that the timer penalties for having too many ships would be reduced. It is also a good limiter on blobbing, thus, less lag, more pewpew. Also, I've just thought of the resource required to capture stargates: Soldiers! We have them in the market, they're available from NPC's, and they're currently used for fluff. Why not put those grunts to work? This would also go hand-in-hand well with any other plans CCP has for Ambulation, being able to watch your soldiers, and/or command them in an RTS format aboard a capturable ship/station. 2mil isk in. -

Sykes Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.27 11:14:00 - [41] Supported.
Jeirth Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.07.27 14:05:00 - [42] Supported if it could be done in such a way as to be timezone neutral.
MirrorGod Heretic Militia	Posted - 2008.07.27 15:59:00 - [43] I'm interested in any mechanic alike to factional warfare which discourages blobbing through the general idea that different zones or even just tasks can be completed only by certain shiptypes, which in FW is Minor: T1 frigs, Destroyers Medium: T2 frigs, T1 cruisers, below Major: T1 BC, T2 cruiser, below Unrestricted: Everything I can't tell you how excellent this works to divide blobs, both my own and hostile, to fight in more of a skirmish/small gang manner which of course results in less lag. Oft my gangs will be among 3 or sometimes more plex's and will net a good ammount of kills in the process. Ofcourse, NPC plex's aren't needed in low-sec, and implentation in a serious manner requires mor detail than I care to investigate here. But the simple idea that large gangs are given incentive to divide and be more mobile is brilliant. Save Small Gang Warfare
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.28 14:58:00 - [44] As this is up for discussion by the CSM in their next meeting on Sunday, please chime in with any feedback or ideas.
Fahtim Meidires GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:55:00 - [45] Originally by: MirrorGod I'm interested in any mechanic alike to factional warfare which discourages blobbing through the general idea that different zones or even just tasks can be completed only by certain shiptypes, which in FW is Minor: T1 frigs, Destroyers Medium: T2 frigs, T1 cruisers, below Major: T1 BC, T2 cruiser, below Unrestricted: Everything I can't tell you how excellent this works to divide blobs, both my own and hostile, to fight in more of a skirmish/small gang manner which of course results in less lag. Oft my gangs will be among 3 or sometimes more plex's and will net a good ammount of kills in the process. Ofcourse, NPC plex's aren't needed in low-sec, and implentation in a serious manner requires mor detail than I care to investigate here. But the simple idea that large gangs are given incentive to divide and be more mobile is brilliant. Tactical Arrays could be restricted by ship class. Alliances would be given (some) freedom over which size they want to build. Minor TA has no requirements. Medium TA requires 1 Minor in system. Major TA requires 2 Minor or 1 Medium. Unrestricted requires 1 Major, 2 Medium, 1 Med 1 Minor, or Three Minors. This system forces smaller complexes. The defending alliance would have access to them, attackers would need to scan them out. The defending alliance can make all 5 TA small sized to force a frigate assault, but would only be able to defend with frigs. The larger the TA, the more resources required but also more defenses can be added. Construction would take place by first dropping off the acceleration gate, then moving construction materials through that gate (industrials can use all gates). Freightors can only go in unrestricted, making those TA the most heavily defended but also the most vulnerable. I have a feeling the occupancy system was a trial run for 0.0 mechanics, so it makes sense to look at how the current FW mechanics can be transferred. Also, great work OP!
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.01 19:37:00 - [46] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 01/08/2008 19:37:56 I'm against any form of "capture the flag in space". This is Eve not Counterstrike. While I welcome the discussion of any ideas regarding improvements to 0.0 they should be creative and within reason. Nobody is going to want to play capture the flag on 1000 gates every single day. If you want to play capture the flag join factional warfare. While there aren't many in 0.0 completely happy with the status quo I don't see anyone racing to play capture the flag in FW either and abandoning their space. I'll read the proposal again and give it significantly more thought, but here's a counterthought for you in the meantime. 0.0 is hard. Building a corp that is capable of holding it is hard. It's supposed to be that way. It's not going to be everybody's bag and MANY of you are going to fail at it or be incapable. It's a reward not a birthright. There's nothing about Eve that entitles you to 0.0. Perhaps I could offer some more suggestions regarding gate control which are more reasonable once I've digested it a bit. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:10:00 - [47] Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts?
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:12:00 - [48] Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? because the chair of the CSM like to abuse his power?
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:14:00 - [49] where's the thumbs down. This is a horrible idea. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
facialimpediment Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:14:00 - [50] Edited by: facialimpediment on 01/08/2008 20:14:42 Chances are that the people demanding a 0.0 revamp are the people that would never survive 5 minutes in 0.0, much less have actually been in 0.0. Shocking development. If you're going to demand a thorough revamp of 0.0, ask the people that live in 0.0 about how it currently functions, rather than a group of people that have absolutely no idea how it actually functions. I stopped playing Counterstrike for a reason and if this capture the flag in space nonsense goes through, the sound you'll be hearing is the massive amount of 0.0-player subscriptions being canceled because empire people didn't know what they were talking about and broke the 0.0 game.

Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:16:00 - [51] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'm against any form of "capture the flag in space". This is Eve not Counterstrike. While I welcome the discussion of any ideas regarding improvements to 0.0 they should be creative and within reason. Nobody is going to want to play capture the flag on 1000 gates every single day. If you want to play capture the flag join factional warfare. While there aren't many in 0.0 completely happy with the status quo I don't see anyone racing to play capture the flag in FW either and abandoning their space. I'll read the proposal again and give it significantly more thought, but here's a counterthought for you in the meantime. 0.0 is hard. Building a corp that is capable of holding it is hard. It's supposed to be that way. It's not going to be everybody's bag and MANY of you are going to fail at it or be incapable. It's a reward not a birthright. There's nothing about Eve that entitles you to 0.0. Perhaps I could offer some more suggestions regarding gate control which are more reasonable once I've digested it a bit. I don't disagree. But I think there's an important difference between "win this mini-game and you own this space" and "exert control over important locations to reap a benefit from them". I also think the counterstrike-in-space or capture-the-flag analogies are weak in general and certainly don't apply here. The principal concept at work with the Stargate Capture portion of the proposal is that one of the building blocks of sovereignty is exerting control over borders and routes of travel within your space. In the absence of that control, the assertion of sovereignty is harder to make. In game terms what it really comes down to is - if you have enemy gangs infiltrating your territory undisputed, can that territory really be said to be yours? To specifically address the "1000 stargates a day" question: Keep in mind that recapturing is only necessary when a gate has been contested. So the amount of recapturing a defender would have to do would be directly related to the number of enemy gangs they allow to roam through their space. In addition, the specific times involved can be adjusted to tweak how long it takes to disrupt a defender's control - maybe Stargates need to have a 48 hour Contested period instead of 24 hours, to give Defenders more time to respond, etc. I do think the strength of the overall proposal is that sovereignty becomes a more modular affair that includes POS warfare as well as establishing military infrastructure outside of POSes and general patrols and gate control, so it more realistically models all the things a territorial power needs to do to hold on to their space rather than making it about just one thing.
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:18:00 - [52] of all the mindless shit in 0.0 we're forced to deal with, you want to play capture the flag now with stargates. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:19:00 - [53] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:21:00 - [54] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'm against any form of "capture the flag in space". This is Eve not Counterstrike. While I welcome the discussion of any ideas regarding improvements to 0.0 they should be creative and within reason. Nobody is going to want to play capture the flag on 1000 gates every single day. If you want to play capture the flag join factional warfare. While there aren't many in 0.0 completely happy with the status quo I don't see anyone racing to play capture the flag in FW either and abandoning their space. I'll read the proposal again and give it significantly more thought, but here's a counterthought for you in the meantime. 0.0 is hard. Building a corp that is capable of holding it is hard. It's supposed to be that way. It's not going to be everybody's bag and MANY of you are going to fail at it or be incapable. It's a reward not a birthright. There's nothing about Eve that entitles you to 0.0. Perhaps I could offer some more suggestions regarding gate control which are more reasonable once I've digested it a bit. I don't disagree. But I think there's an important difference between "win this mini-game and you own this space" and "exert control over important locations to reap a benefit from them". I also think the counterstrike-in-space or capture-the-flag analogies are weak in general and certainly don't apply here. The principal concept at work with the Stargate Capture portion of the proposal is that one of the building blocks of sovereignty is exerting control over borders and routes of travel within your space. In the absence of that control, the assertion of sovereignty is harder to make. In game terms what it really comes down to is - if you have enemy gangs infiltrating your territory undisputed, can that territory really be said to be yours? To specifically address the "1000 stargates a day" question: Keep in mind that recapturing is only necessary when a gate has been contested. So the amount of recapturing a defender would have to do would be directly related to the number of enemy gangs they allow to roam through their space. In addition, the specific times involved can be adjusted to tweak how long it takes to disrupt a defender's control - maybe Stargates need to have a 48 hour Contested period instead of 24 hours, to give Defenders more time to respond, etc. I do think the strength of the overall proposal is that sovereignty becomes a more modular affair that includes POS warfare as well as establishing military infrastructure outside of POSes and general patrols and gate control, so it more realistically models all the things a territorial power needs to do to hold on to their space rather than making it about just one thing. Why do you want this change to go through? As we all know star fraction isn't a 0.0 entity and you've sunk down to mercenaries by wardeccing goonswarm. Your CEO Jade constantine and our CEO darius johnson are both CSM delegates. Do you think this is something a guy his JC's position should be doing?
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:21:00 - [55] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:23:00 - [56] Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op? Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:23:00 - [57] Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. But guys, guys I wardecced you I count for something
Nevada Tan	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:26:00 - [58] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op? WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT PS: Schild says hi. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I have done a bad thing.
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:26:00 - [59] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op? How about you explain why you thought wardeccing another CSM's alliance was a good idea? I don't usually read this shit forum, so I don't know if you've tried to justify your decision.
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:27:00 - [60] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op? I already said its crap what more do you want to me say? "His" vision is way to specific to mean anything it should be a very general statement something along these kinds of lines. The Current Sovereignty Mechanics with pos warfare are antiquated and should be changed. The only reason to hold space to get access to moon's there should be more benefits to owning space.

Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:30:00 - [61] This is a great idea. I've been looking for a way for CCP to completely destroy EVE and have to restart everything in EVE 2.0. Then again, EVE 2.0 would probably be just as bad.
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:33:00 - [62] Originally by: Yorda This is a great idea. I've been looking for a way for CCP to completely destroy EVE and have to restart everything in EVE 2.0. Then again, EVE 2.0 would probably be just as bad. maybe they'd buff assfrigs in eve 2.0 rite Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:35:00 - [63] Originally by: Aprudena Gist I already said its crap what more do you want to me say? "His" vision is way to specific to mean anything it should be a very general statement something along these kinds of lines. The Current Sovereignty Mechanics with pos warfare are antiquated and should be changed. The only reason to hold space to get access to moon's there should be more benefits to owning space. Actually the broad version of this topic was discussed in Iceland and CCP said in this minutes thread that they wanted to hear more specific proposals from the community. I'm happy to include constructive feedback. Earlier in this thread people contributed some valuable feedback that I think really improved the proposal.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:36:00 - [64] Originally by: Dramaticus Originally by: Yorda This is a great idea. I've been looking for a way for CCP to completely destroy EVE and have to restart everything in EVE 2.0. Then again, EVE 2.0 would probably be just as bad. maybe they'd buff assfrigs in eve 2.0 rite One of these days assfrigs will get buffed and be the overpowered ship, just you wait.
Anubis Nefertiti	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:37:00 - [65] Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction I mean no offense, but i belive that 0.0 advice should be made from corps and groups that LIVE in 0.0, i mean if you dont appear on the influence map, then you dont know enough specifics about 0.0 to suggest changes. I myself have never left empire and know so little about 0.0 life that it would arrogant to impy major changes to 0.0 life when i dont know what im talking about. Just my input.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:40:00 - [66] Course by that logic only people talking about nano ship nerfs should be those that fly nano ships or know how to fight them right ? Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Annaliese Witschak Galgorth's Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:40:00 - [67] Edited by: Annaliese Witschak on 01/08/2008 20:41:31 Edited by: Annaliese Witschak on 01/08/2008 20:40:30 If I wanted to play Battlefield I'd play Battlefield not Eve Online. Originally by: Jade Constantine Course by that logic only people talking about nano ship nerfs should be those that fly nano ships or know how to fight them right ? It helps if you have experience with what you're talking about. Otherwise you end up with EFT-warriors like Goumindong.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:42:00 - [68] Originally by: Anubis Nefertiti Edited by: Anubis Nefertiti on 01/08/2008 20:37:53 Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction I mean no offense, but i belive that 0.0 advice should be made from corps and groups that LIVE in 0.0, i mean if you dont appear on the influence map, then you dont know enough specifics about 0.0 to suggest changes. I myself have never left empire and know so little about 0.0 life that it would be arrogant to impy major changes to 0.0 life when i dont know what im talking about. Just my input. I think the only criteria on which to judge a proposal is the content of the proposal itself. I'll certainly continue to incorporate constructive feedback.
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:43:00 - [69] Originally by: Jade Constantine Course by that logic only people talking about nano ship nerfs should be those that fly nano ships or know how to fight them right ? Because people have to fight against them? I dont understand the nano problem myself there are plenty of ways to counter them. 0.0 is supposed to the the thing you do when you a big alliance to have affect on the game. If you can't cut it in the current 0.0 then you should not be trying to change its ways just so you can participate.
Telender Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:48:00 - [70] I can appreciate the attempt and I like that you are trying to break up the blob, however the proposal shows a lack of experience in 0.0 and a lack of understanding of how 0.0 works. If I understand the gate section properly you would basically allow any small gang to run around contesting gates and making defending space based largely on "how many gangs you allow to run through your space." Gangs run through space all the time. This would make defending your gates require a near-constant defense gang and you still wouldn't be able to drive out these gangs. If you owned a single system or two this seems potentially feasible but even then you'd need to basically have a gang committed to running around chasing people off and "reclaiming" gates all the time.

HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:48:00 - [71] Originally by: Jade Constantine Course by that logic only people talking about nano ship nerfs should be those that fly nano ships or know how to fight them right ? Yes and by that logic you shouldn't be posting 5 page diatribes with an alt of yours trying to fake support with your small empire corp.
Marketing Agent	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:49:00 - [72] While some of this idea could be implemented if this whole idea was implemented in it's current state I would just go around all day constesting space in my cloaked insured t1 ships.
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:53:00 - [73] Hey CCP don't forget to send DED mails everytime a stargate is contested
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:56:00 - [74] Originally by: Telender If I understand the gate section properly you would basically allow any small gang to run around contesting gates and making defending space based largely on "how many gangs you allow to run through your space." Gangs run through space all the time. This would make defending your gates require a near-constant defense gang and you still wouldn't be able to drive out these gangs. If you owned a single system or two this seems potentially feasible but even then you'd need to basically have a gang committed to running around chasing people off and "reclaiming" gates all the time. Under the current proposal Contesting a gate requires a minimum number of ships and a certain amount of time, and the Contested period is intended to be of a sufficient duration to give Defenders adequate time to Reclaim a Contested gate. I think those factors combine to avoid the need for a constant defensive effort, but do require a consistent defensive effort - which I think is valid. The times needed to Contest a gate and the length of the Contested period can also be tweaked to afford Defenders a larger window to either directly attack an enemy gang contesting a gate or to come along later to Reclaim a Contested gate.
Maitsu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 21:08:00 - [75] Edited by: Maitsu on 01/08/2008 21:13:14 This is far too much hand holding in 0.0. The whole idea of 0.0 is cut throat players and large alliances. You empire dwellers whined about it and got Faction Warfare to help tide you over, now you want to dumb down 0.0 so your small alliance can take part? Either get some allies and try to etch yourself out a part of it, or just play faction warfare for that 0.0 feeling. To a lot of us out here the whole draw is the epic feeling of a large space battle, while it may end up a slide show it's still fun to take part. I don't see much reason to play if you are going to dumb it down to WoW Battlegrounds in Space. Instead of ruining 0.0 why don't you propose to create a new type of lowsec where this can occur? Maybe have the rewards of this area be between 0.0 and lowsec. Leveling the playing field between big and small alliances for a sandbox style game is pretty absurd. Especially since this game is still around due to all of the happenings of the great war in 0.0 and random articles and coverage that spawned from it, a lot of new players joined from hearing about how epic it was. Take that away and you are left with a pretty substandard MMO in space.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 21:18:00 - [76] Introducing a broader array of elements to territory control doesn't change the harsh and brutal character of 0.0 warfare. If anything, taking the battles beyond just POS to take place around Stargates and Tactical Arrays as well only presents the opportunity for more and better combat.
Xanuf GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 21:29:00 - [77] Edited by: Xanuf on 01/08/2008 21:37:02 Originally by: Kelsin Under the current proposal Contesting a gate requires a minimum number of ships and a certain amount of time, and the Contested period is intended to be of a sufficient duration to give Defenders adequate time to Reclaim a Contested gate. The issue that I, personally, draw with your "gate capture" proposal is not the number of ships required to capture a gate or the time required to capture a gate, but the concept of gate capture itself. You accept the conclusion drawn by CCP that 0.0 warfare is one dimensional, and you are trying to remedy that. However, gate capturing only artificially creates more dimensions. You are substantially adding to the boredom and tediousness of 0.0 warfare, not removing it. All you are doing is forcing people to play, what is in essence, a glorified game of capture the flag in order to prevent their space from being compromised by a roaming gang of 10 people. You shouldn't force people to participate in capture the flaggate in order to maintain a serious claim in a region. 0.0 claims should be maintained through tangible logistic efforts(POS maintenance), and the ability to defend your logistics supply lines. People don't patrol their space because when they are attacked, they are attacked by a serious force. This mechanic would only serve to encourage griefing by small corps to harass 0.0 occupants rather than to encourage a need to patrol space. If you would like to encourage small gangs in the area of both offense and defense, you should relate it to these logistics supply lines. Bubbles in 0.0 and their resulting gate camps is an exceptional example of an effective means of doing so, which disrupts the flow of people and all kinds of supplies into 0.0 without drastic measures, such as jump capable ships. It would be nice to fix 0.0 warfare to be less boring, but this would only at to the tedium rather than take away from it. Edit: I am not defending 0.0 warfare in its current state, I do think it gets repetitive to shoot at a corp's pos's all day every day in an effort to capture a region, and that 0.0 should be looked at. But maybe you should look at the causes of the boringness(everything in 0.0 being related to sov, and sov being exclusively related to pos's), rather than the symptoms(people only fight over pos's so we should create more things you have to do to protect your pos's).
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 21:44:00 - [78] Originally by: Xanuf You shouldn't force people to participate in capture the flaggate in order to maintain a serious claim in a region. 0.0 claims should be maintained through tangible logistic efforts(POS maintenance), and the ability to defend your logistics supply lines. People don't patrol their space because when they are attacked, they are attacked by a serious force. This mechanic would only serve to encourage griefing by small corps to harass 0.0 occupants rather than to encourage a need to patrol space. If you would like to encourage small gangs in the area of both offense and defense, you should relate it to these logistics supply lines. Well, two responses here: First, the call by CCP was for a layered model that presented small ship objectives that are independent from POS warfare, and I don't believe that attacking POS logistics is a viable outlet for small ship combat. In addition, it doesn't fulfill the request for layers, because it's still all about POS. Second, there's no comparison to capture the flag - that game bears no functional resemblance to what is proposed here.
SouljahBoy	Posted - 2008.08.01 21:51:00 - [79] [X] <--- X here if you do not want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on.
Phaeton Prime Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 21:55:00 - [80] Edited by: Phaeton Prime on 01/08/2008 21:57:26 Edited by: Phaeton Prime on 01/08/2008 21:55:32 Chucking out the current sovereignty system is not what CCP seems to be asking. Giving small ships a role doesn't have to change into FW gameplay in 0.0. 0.0 is about building space castles and conquering said castles. Small ships already have a role in PVP but due to CCP's function creep design philosophy - bigger has become better. CCP needs only to change this by buffing small ships and reintroducing some REAL advantages to flying small ships. Not change the gameplay to account for errors in game design. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This proposed change seems to be too drastic a change to all the 0.0 entities that have built or conquered 0.0 space merely to let others who couldn't succeed under the present mechanics to now be able to play a role.

Goatface Man GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:00:00 - [81] Edited by: Goatface Man on 01/08/2008 22:01:38 Quote: 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. Quote: Life Cycle of a Stargate: Neutral -claimed by Defender, after 24 hours changes to Captured -contested by Attacker, changes to Contested -after 24 hours, unless Defender Reclaims, changes to Neutral (If Defender reclaims during the 24 hours, immediately reverts to Captured) Minimum Ships required to Capture/Contest/Reclaim a Stargate: 10 Times to Capture a Neutral Stargate/Contest a Captured Stargate 10 Battleships: 30 minutes 10 Cruisers/Battlecruisers: 40 minutes 10 Frigates/Destroyers: 60 minutes Times to Reclaim a Contested Stargate 10 Battleships: 15 minutes 10 Cruisers/Battlecruisers: 20 minutes 10 Frigates/Destroyers: 30 minutes Quote: To initiate a Capture/Contest/Reclaiming the ships must be within 5km of the Stargate. Once the action has begun the claiming ships must remain within 30km of the Stargate or be discounted from the claiming totals. Additional ships may join the claiming action, but if the total claiming ships drops below 10 the action is canceled and reset. In addition, performing a claiming action requires the disabling of on board warp drives for 60 second cycles for the duration of the action. If the action is canceled or the claiming ship moves out of range, the current cycle must complete before warp drives come back online. Thus, ships attempting to claim Stargates are vulnerable to ambush. So, from the main points: to conquer any space, you need a big enough gang to take the stargate initially, this is given as 10 people. Now, taking this gate pretty much involves sitting very still in a confined location, making you a sniper's wet dream. If you're moving, you're going to be turning a lot, and there's no danger of you warping out while Mr Rokh sits at 200-odd km off slinging fire at you. Along with that, if you do only have 10 people, or only a few more you can be neutered by any sort of suicide tactics. After all, as long as the defenders get you below 10 people there, they're golden. So in the end, it becomes a war of attrition, which means it just starts to come down to who can field more (appropriate) ships. Now at this point, you will probably say something like "Yes, but while this is happening they can be attacking a bunch of other gates as well!" Well whoop-de-****ing-do. So instead of a big fleet fight involving 250 ships on each side, you get one group dropping small gangs on a series of gates, and a big fleet of people on the other side travelling between them, with a group of 10 newbies trailing behind in cruisers reclaiming the gates they've just wiped clean (assuming they were held long enough to even flip). The only way to keep a gate will be to have enough ships to defend it. The only way to do that will be to have a blob. Eve is mobile warfare, not static. Sticking a fleet of 100 people in one system doesn't stop that same fleet being 30 systems away in 10 minutes time. Then, even when you DO successfully claim a gate, you then have to hold it for 24 hours so their gang can't come in and retake it in half the time it took you. So that fleet not only can come and wipe your small gangs off the map, it has TWENTY FOUR HOURS to do it in. You can't blob a gate for 24 hours? Then you can't hold, or even take, 0.0 space. Hooray for reducing the impact of timezones! I completely fail to see how any of this will make 0.0 a more viable option for smaller, newer corps.
Narciss Sevar Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:05:00 - [82] This whole thing sounds terrible and wouldn't really increase the purpose of small gangs.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:16:00 - [83] Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 01/08/2008 22:30:07 This proposal still suffers from the same problem as it did last time you posted it and when Nozh posted it before: Gatecamping is boring. Gatecamping is more boring than POS shooting, because at least the POS shoots back. Its become a necessary evil because its one of the few ways for players to catch hostiles and force them to fight (or at least gank careless haulers and ratters), but enforcing gatecamping on the attackers not as a means of stopping the defenders getting in but slotting in a boring first step to unlock a boring second step is not progress in the development of POS warfare. -----------
RDevz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:35:00 - [84] Yes, I can't wait to play Domination / Capture the Flag in space. This is a wonderful idea, and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be considered to be as annoying as hell for anyone that wanted to have more than two or three constellations under their control. In fact, this entire proposal seems to want to force people to run around fighting fires, instead of engaging in large-scale epic combat that (when it's not laggy) is actually fun. Of course, the reason for suggesting this becomes clear when one considers The Star Fraction's stellar record at interstellar combat. I'd be willing to wager that this fine product from the Jade Constantine Nonsense Factory goes the same way as his wonderful and well-thought out proposal to blow up outposts.
Hrin Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:39:00 - [85] This sounds pretty boring actually. And how would this increase small gang warfare? It would just encourage people to camp gates for 10 minute spans. Attackers would do it in their prime, defenders in their's. What's the point? It seems like this is just meant to be an annoyance for 0.0 space owners. Star Fraction should try to own some 0.0 space before making attempts at changing the structure of 0.0 . In the future I hope anyone making proposals about 0.0 to be familiar with it first.
facialimpediment Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 23:05:00 - [86] Edited by: facialimpediment on 01/08/2008 23:05:27 Originally by: Jade Constantine Course by that logic only people talking about nano ship nerfs should be those that fly nano ships or know how to fight them right ? Hi, I am a member of [worthless alliance I've never heard of] and I want to get involved in 0.0. My alliance is pretty terrible, but I want to control some 0.0 space and the last time I tried, I got blown up :( These rules are completely unfair and as CSM fuhrer-for-life, I want you to completely re-work 0.0, ignoring all those other details like "good alliances" because [worthless alliance I've never heard of] deserves a shot! ----- ps I would like to completely blow up the rules of empire because I don't like how it currently works because [worthless alliance I've never heard of] thinks its boring in empire
Kvarium Ki Legion Du Lys GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 23:27:00 - [87] The entire thing about stargates is terrible, all these timers are terrible. Quote: Thus it is an AttackerÆs goal to eliminate 3 of the 5 units in a system in order to bring down the effect. In this way Attackers and Defenders have the option to split their forces and attack multiple units simultaneously. If you really think this is going to happen, specialy if the structures are in the same system, you really don't have a clue.
Baaldor Caldari Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 00:16:00 - [88] This would be like fu***ing herding cats. This is the best example of soul destroying micro management that you can possible come up with. POS warfare is butt numbing now, this will be the nail the coffin. I have seen Alliances trying to drum up support broadcasting their CTA and deploying the "AIRWING!!" I have see them actually schedule times to patrol their borders. It lasted less than a week. Every one got tired of it. It made the game suck for them. Look if you don't have the balls or resources to take my space then you need to go back and drop a pair and start building up. Otherwise you can do what every other merc and hostile alliance gang does. Grief the locals. That is by far much more fun than staring at a gate or playing capture the flag.
Aiko Intaki	Posted - 2008.08.02 00:26:00 - [89] I don't play in 0.0, but agree with your general aims: Quote: 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. I disagree with your method of achieving it. Frankly, it's too focused on a straight-up military notion of attack and defend. I'd rather see a system that took into account a number of measurable achievements on a per system basis, each suited to different play stiles in EvE online - PvP losses inflicted, NPC bounties collected, mission LP earned, POSes maintained, quantity of ore mined, complexes run, etc. The alliance "winning" the majority of metrics for any given week takes control of that system for the following week (or whatever time period is used). To keep constellations from flipping too quickly, you could classify any controlled system in which all adjacent systems are also controlled as being "invulnerable" for the week. If that resulted in too few contested systems, you could make an exception for "dead end" systems with only one adjacent system and keep them vulnerable to take over at any time. The general idea would be to spread alliance forces out along the edge of their controlled area, and prevent blobbing by presenting numerous play style tasks beyond straight PvP which are ill-suited to blobbing. Because control is fought along the edges, large territories progressively become more difficult to maintain control over. Small alliances strictly focused on small areas of space would be able to compete well against larger alliances with vast resources (controlling large areas of space) because of the multiple different metrics used to determine sovereignty. It seems to me (again, admittedly as a 0.0 spectator) that you would stand to bring more people out of high sec by directly appealing to these different play styles as an element of sovereignty warfare. PvP components would still be there, both as tracked metrics directly contributing to determining system control and as protection forces allowing the less-PvP centered pilots to continue working away at the less-PvP centered metrics with minimal disruption. I dunno, a system which doesn't solely revolve around fleet and gang PvP seems far more attractive to me. At the very least I think it would stand to make 0.0 more attractive to the empire dwellers. Ambulation tie in - The ability to display which benchmarks are under threat in contested systems on the tactical map.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 00:34:00 - [90] Responding to a few points: 1) Gatecamping is boring! Holding a position within enemy territory will be as exciting or boring as the enemy makes it. The capture and reclaiming times can be tweaked to create a maximum incentive for Defenders to interrupt a gate capture rather than wait for it to be complete to reclaim it, and Contest period durations can be adjusted to reach the right rate of turnover in a conflict between two forces battling for control of a territory, whether they are in the same time zone or not. By moving a portion of the sovereignty benefits away from POS logistics and onto small ship patrols via Stargate Capture, POS logistics can be simplified to reduce the tedium of maintaining a large POS network. Lower the territory control benefit derived from POS and the accompanying work required can also be lowered. 2) Distributed objectives are stupid! Too much running around/Blobs! The contesting of stargates across a constellation or region turns what would be a series of individual fleet conflicts into an ongoing battle for dominance in an area over days or weeks. In addition to the single fleet fights over POS we can introduce an additional layer of small scale combat that is measured in small doses across a large space over a long period of time. Small scale combat can now make an impact on the sovereignty of an area - though small scale combat alone will still never dislodge a sitting power, it can however weaken and harass it. Which leads us to... 3) This is just to make it easy for small/lame alliances to compete with big/awesome ones! Clearly a small alliance cannot destroy or dislodge the holdings of a larger, equally well coordinated, alliance under this proposal. It may be that a large alliance currently holding large amounts of uncontested territory through the current system would see new vulnerabilities appear with the implementation of a system like this. However given proper organization and the right informational tools (which are provided for in this proposal) a well coordinated large alliance should be able to maintain control over a large area of space and exploit its resources much in the way they do now. It is not the intention of this proposal that large alliances should suddenly become untenable, and balancing tweaks of the numbers in the proposal should be made with an eye towards preserving the capability for a talented and organized alliance to maintain territory equivalent to their needs. Overall the intentions of the proposal are clearly defined in the OP, and those intentions are part and parcel to what would be communicated to CCP. There should be no fear of hidden agendas within the details of the proposal, as the overriding principal communicated here would be to make adjustments as necessary to meet the criteria listed at the start, and it would be pretty silly to think that a small adjustable detail would override the broad mission statement.

Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 01:03:00 - [91] I'll also just reiterate that I definitely want to hear feedback on how the goals outlined at the beginning of the proposal can be better achieved, and what might make the whole thing more appealing to anyone on the fence about it. Obviously nothing is set in stone and nothing presented to CCP is ever going to be implemented without proper balancing. I do think that this proposal achieves the goals set out during the Iceland meeting especially in regards to layering sovereignty warfare and providing objectives for small ships. Some of the best changes were the result of community feedback, so I hope if anyone has concerns they can offer some quality ideas for how to resolve them.
Hortoken Wolfbrother Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.08.02 01:07:00 - [92] Like some stuff here, especially moving cyno jammers away from poses so they have to be defended manually. Doesnt fix the problem of supercaps remote reppng them, but at least exposes them to much more risk, and its a step in the right direction. THeres definitly some stuff in here that wont work as is though, but might with some adjustment. Its something ill support since it does take a step in the right direction imo.
Gorfob Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 01:10:00 - [93] Reads like it was written by someone who has no idea of how tedious 0.0 is already. Oh wait....
Goatface Man GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 01:13:00 - [94] Originally by: Kelsin The capture and reclaiming times can be tweaked to create a maximum incentive for Defenders to interrupt a gate capture rather than wait for it to be complete to reclaim it, and Contest period durations can be adjusted to reach the right rate of turnover in a conflict between two forces battling for control of a territory, whether they are in the same time zone or not. So a large alliance will either wreck a smaller one in one time zone or in many. If you cut the time limits, you make it time zone dependent. Domination in one leads to victory in that time zone, which can be overturned in the next. This leads to stalemate, boredom, and just going through the motions to repeatedly shift the "winner" at a certain gate without opposition. Or, it leads to complete victory for any alliance that can overwhelm it's enemy round the clock, OR just in their prime. After all, if you can swamp them in their prime time, without it being yours, you can certainly screw them over out of it. Alarm-clocking will only do so much. Then, if you leave the time limits, you also make it time zone dependent. As soon as your attendance drops, theirs overwhelms. It will just remain, as it has been, about who can get the most people on the field at the correct time. Nothing you have said so far will in any way affect that. Quote: The contesting of stargates across a constellation or region turns what would be a series of individual fleet conflicts into an ongoing battle for dominance in an area over days or weeks... Small scale combat can now make an impact on the sovereignty of an area - though small scale combat alone will still never dislodge a sitting power, it can however weaken and harass it. This also just sounds like replacing the current boredoms of POS warfare with a higher class of boredom. Instead of sitting for an hour shooting a pos while you hope the enemy fleet arrives so you actually get a fight, you sit for half an hour on one of many different gates while you hope the enemy fleet doesn't arrive, because you can't run away without completely and utterly wasting the 25 minutes you've sat there. Unless, of course, you're blobbing, which this is supposed to avoid. Quote: Clearly a small alliance cannot destroy or dislodge the holdings of a larger, equally well coordinated, alliance under this proposal. Blah blah blah, blah blah... This entire paragraph basically says "people who are capable of holding 0.0 now, will probably be capable of holding it in the future". Well done. Large corps/alliances that have made friends with other large and capable coprs/alliances will not suddenly fall apart. The reasons they survive now will be the reasons they survive in the future. They have friends, they're not ****s. Not as a whole anyway. The individual members can be. Quote: it would be pretty silly to think that a small adjustable detail would override the broad mission statement. Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad. Small corps fail in non-NPC 0.0 not because there's some massive imbalance in the code that automatically favours larger ones, but simply because the larger ones exist. A small group of people who only play in three or four hours out of the day WILL get kerb-stomped by a multi-national alliance who are present all day. If they couldn't, it wouldn't make any sense. If two corps the same size can fight over objective fairly, then another corp on one side will take objective two unchallenged. If corps three through five join up as well to cover all time zones, they WILL have periods on the clock without opposition. If you somehow nerfed huge alliances, all that would happen is that the alliances would form and organise out of game, as they currently do anyway. The game is just not built to be friendly to people who cannot make some **ing friends.
Alexi Kalashnikov GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 01:25:00 - [95] Yes, let's allow those who have no holdings in 0.0 and little experience decide how 0.0 should be revamped: beautiful. I agree there is change, but I do not in any way shape or form agree with the methods or proposals you have put forth. Additionally, I would encourage those who have a stake in 0.0 already to come up with a proposal else the empire sloth who has had everything handed to them by CCP will destroy it.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 01:49:00 - [96] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 02/08/2008 01:49:27 I think the proposal would be improved if the barrier-for-entry for sov warfare were a little higher, so that beginning the opening moves of assaulting someone's space is something that a group of people has to organize and set out intentionally to do. Re-reading the proposal, I think that contesting stargates is still at the "Oh, why not? We're here anyway" level of accessibility. If a group of guys has the ships at the gate and things are quiet enough, they can do it. Even if they initially set out just to gank ratters or whatever. I think that the ships who are actively contesting the stargate need to be consuming some kind of resource while they do so, just like dreads consume a resource while they're sieged. It should also require a specific midslot module. This way, if a group of people want to get into the sov warfare game, they have to prepare to do so before they undock and not just on a lark.
Mith'raw'nuruodo Varion Galactic Revolution Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.02 01:57:00 - [97] Okay, this is a serious question. If this change were to go through wouldn't it make 0.0 pretty much just an extended version of faction warfare? I'm not a huge fan of faction warfare already, so I would hate for it to be a mandatory thing to do day in and day out, and without the perks of factional warfare. As of now there are very few real perks to living in 0.0 space and by implementing a need for gate camps around the clock you would drive people away from 0.0 faster than even POS warfare could. Seriously, leave the 0.0 discussion to those who actually live in 0.0
Selene Duran Caldari Outer Rim Jobs	Posted - 2008.08.02 02:03:00 - [98] If you turn EVE's 0.0 warfare into a gigantic clone of a World of Warcraft battleground, I'm going to cancel my accounts. Just sayin. Its the terrible logistical requirements of 0.0 warfare that keep people playing this game as opposed to any other MMO out there. Everyone whines about it because it can be a tital pain at times, but to be honest when you make things too easy you end up with a game like Planetside-- you go spend an hour or two fighting for control of a few conquerable facilities, and as soon as you lock down all the facilities on one continent and move to another, 2 people sneak in behind you and capture half the facilities back. Its the large scale and unforgiving nature of 0.0 combat that provides the sense of risk, actual teamwork, and satisfaction when you curbstomp other alliances. Allowing roaming HAC gangs to cripple hard-earned infrastructure in 0.0 space through a series of 10 minute drive-bys is not a way to encourage people to move out of empire. I'd think providing additional benefits to sov holders while maintaining the same (or at least a similar) system for conquering space would be a better approach.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 02:06:00 - [99] Also, about the timezone games: The stages of contesting a stargate should more closely mirror POS mechanics. But it would be too tedious to load stargates up with a resource that determines when a stargate changes states. Here's what I'm thinking: Defender has captured the gate. They have configured the gate with their primetime, 0:00 evetime. Captured -Attacker contests the gate. They configure the gate with their primetime, 12:00 evetime. Upon mouse-over, the gate indicates that it will come out of the Contested state at 6:00 evetime -- the midpoint of the Defender's and Attacker's selected times. Contested -At the midpoint of the Defender and the Attackers primetimes (6:00 eve), the gate automatically changes to: Neutral -The gate can be claimed in the normal way by either the Attacker or the Defender, whichever gains supremacy at the gate first for long enough to do so. However, if neither side captures the gate within 12 hours, it automatically reverts to Captured by the Defender. Captured by whoever wins the gate, or the Defender if noone even tries. So this way, contesting a gate is basically setting an appointment in the future with your enemy for PVP. And if a serious attacker brings a fleet of 300 people to contest 30 gates simultaneously in one night such that they all hit neutral at near the same time, then it's going to be damn tricky for defender to pick where to send a blob. This also gives everyone the option of trying to game the time they configure into the stargate for a timezone advantage, which takes some intelligence. And by the way, CCP cannot be sending out a mail every time a gate changes state. No evemails.
GuardianVale GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 02:13:00 - [100] Dat's a lot of words over 0.0 from someone who's never been there. Keep up the good fight!

Stevens DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 02:41:00 - [101] Here is a new requirement we need: Only people who have spent a serious amount of time living in 0.0 can propose changes to the way 0.0 warfare works.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 02:59:00 - [102] Originally by: Toman Jerich Also, about the timezone games: The stages of contesting a stargate should more closely mirror POS mechanics. But it would be too tedious to load stargates up with a resource that determines when a stargate changes states. Here's what I'm thinking: Defender has captured the gate. They have configured the gate with their primetime, 0:00 evetime. Captured -Attacker contests the gate. They configure the gate with their primetime, 12:00 evetime. Upon mouse-over, the gate indicates that it will come out of the Contested state at 6:00 evetime -- the midpoint of the Defender's and Attacker's selected times. Contested -At the midpoint of the Defender and the Attackers primetimes (6:00 eve), the gate automatically changes to: Neutral -The gate can be claimed in the normal way by either the Attacker or the Defender, whichever gains supremacy at the gate first for long enough to do so. However, if neither side captures the gate within 12 hours, it automatically reverts to Captured by the Defender. Captured by whoever wins the gate, or the Defender if noone even tries. So this way, contesting a gate is basically setting an appointment in the future with your enemy for PVP. And if a serious attacker brings a fleet of 300 people to contest 30 gates simultaneously in one night such that they all hit neutral at near the same time, then it's going to be damn tricky for defender to pick where to send a blob. This also gives everyone the option of trying to game the time they configure into the stargate for a timezone advantage, which takes some intelligence. And by the way, CCP cannot be sending out a mail every time a gate changes state. No evemails. I like the idea of setting an appointment for PvP with your enemy. But averaging the times inputted by the Defender and then the Attacker gives most of the control over the appointment time to the Attacker though, which runs counter to the way POS sieging works and I think gives too much power to the Attacker. Would it not be fine for the Defender to just set the "appointment time" on each gate they control? The other downside I see is your default outcome once a gate is contested being that it reverts to Captured (Defender) if nobody touches it again. I guess this is debatable, but something I like under the proposal's system is that a Contested gate goes Neutral if nobody touches it again, so there is some entropy towards neutrality - I think it's important that there is a way for a Stargate to go back to it's original Neutral state. So is there a way to reconcile those two things? Appointments for PvP, even broad ones, would be good - but how do you have that without requiring an Attacker to essentially attack twice, which is already a feature of POS warfare and doesn't seem appropriate for small scale PvP.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 03:03:00 - [103] A+ on this troll thread Kelsin. I think the assembly hall needs more of this, eve-o is pretty boring in general with no one doing anything of significance.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 03:17:00 - [104] Originally by: Kelsin So is there a way to reconcile those two things? Appointments for PvP, even broad ones, would be good - but how do you have that without requiring an Attacker to essentially attack twice, which is already a feature of POS warfare and doesn't seem appropriate for small scale PvP. Here's an option for this: Defender captures Stargate and sets a "Failsafe Time". This is the time of day at which the Stargate will revert to Neutral if it becomes Contested. If an Attacker contests the Stargate, it goes into Contested mode and cannot be interacted with until the Failsafe Time. At that point it returns to Neutral and anyone may Capture it. The downside here is that the Defender now has to show up at a specific time to be sure to recapture the gate. That's good for setting appointments for PvP, but it puts the burden of meeting those appointments on the Defender, which may not be something we want for Stargate Capture, since I think it serves better as an incentive to patrol and engage in random PvP rather than set time PvP. But I'd be interested to hear what Toman thinks. Also the idea of Attackers needing to prepare in some way is interesting. I'd avoid a specific skill being needed, but potentially fitting a particular module or needing a particular type of resource could be useful. Still, there's something to be said for any ship being able to do it just because they are there. Perhaps an alternative can be devised, but I'd leave the option open for it to go either way in presenting it to CCP.
Goatface Man GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 03:22:00 - [105] If I wanted to set a **ing appointment for combat, I would build a ing time machine, dress in a ing frock coat and travel back to the **ing 1700's so I could slap the uncouth with my glove and meet them on the heath at dawn. If you can't turn up to defend your space, or find someone who will do it for you, you shouldn't have it.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 03:40:00 - [106] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 02/08/2008 03:41:51 The point really is for it to mirror POS mechanics. The averaging of times that I used approximates the effect of strong timing. In POS-killing, an attacker reinforces the POS and then everyone gets a timer to see when to show back up for a fight. The downside of how it works for POS is that the defender has to stront and rep towers. "Stronting" and "Repping" jumpgates is not appropriate for this distributed small-gang stuff, but the "appointment-making" aspect of POS-fighting is. See, the fun is if the mechanic motivates people to actually fight each other. That's why the attacker needs to show up twice, and it's why the timing mechanism tries to find a time for the gate to hit neutral when both sides of a cross-timezone conflict might be able to get a few people to show up. I don't think that people will like the mechanic if the only way to get fights is to patrol the space or camp contested gates, because those two things are kind of boring and because it won't pull enemies from different timezones to the same place and time. You don't want the Defender to have total control over the time that the gate hits neutral, because then an attacker in another timezone would have to alarm clock to take a gate.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.08.02 03:43:00 - [107] Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 02/08/2008 03:44:29 The problem with this proposal is it requires wayyy too much time investment just sitting at gates doing nothing. It's already bad when we have gangs that go out and sit for hours at gates waiting for dreads to slag towers. It's also a bit too easy for small gangs to become nuances. I want small gang warfare to be viable, but this seems too much. There's no encentive to actually fight. Instead of big fights all your ever going to see is small 10 man gangs running around -trying- to avoid each other and find some out of the way gate to contest just to anoy people, and then 10 man gangs comming in after they leave/log to reclaim the system. And imagine logging on in the morning to find out that some roaming gang contested half your systems for fun (having no intentions of taking over the space) at 3am in the morning and now you've got to spend all day going and sitting at them to recapture them. Sure, fine, chalk it up to a new system. But then it happens again and again and again and befor eyou know it you're logging on eve just to gate sit and do nothing else. It's a very boring mechanic and does nothing to promote fighting or make things interesting. It's an interesting proposal, but 00 needs more than this. It needs fights, not timesinks.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 03:49:00 - [108] Originally by: Kelsin The other downside I see is your default outcome once a gate is contested being that it reverts to Captured (Defender) if nobody touches it again. I guess this is debatable, but something I like under the proposal's system is that a Contested gate goes Neutral if nobody touches it again, so there is some entropy towards neutrality - I think it's important that there is a way for a Stargate to go back to it's original Neutral state. This increases the cost in vigilance needed to hold space beyond what's currently required. If that's part of the proposal, then the space needs to made more valuable. You see? You can't make the space require more effort to hold without also making it more worthwhile to hold it. Currently "random pvp" has no effect on anyone's ability to hold sov in their space. To the degree that it's going to under this proposal, the space needs to become more valuable.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 03:57:00 - [109] Originally by: Toman Jerich This increases the cost in vigilance needed to hold space beyond what's currently required. If that's part of the proposal, then the space needs to made more valuable. You see? You can't make the space require more effort to hold without also making it more worthwhile to hold it. Currently "random pvp" has no effect on anyone's ability to hold sov in their space. To the degree that it's going to under this proposal, the space needs to become more valuable. True, but this comes down to two things: 1) what 'vigilance' type activities can we remove from POS warfare to make up for adding some in another form to Stargate Capture, and 2) what benefits are governed by Stargate Capture that justify that vigilance. I mean, what if you didn't have to refuel POS? Would that be a fair tradeoff for having to patrol space? What about additional bonuses that help in territory control? Does that make having to patrol more worthwhile?
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 04:15:00 - [110] Originally by: Kelsin True, but this comes down to two things: 1) what 'vigilance' type activities can we remove from POS warfare to make up for adding some in another form to Stargate Capture, and 2) what benefits are governed by Stargate Capture that justify that vigilance. I don't really know how to suggest a trade-off like that. Just to be clear, what we're talking about here specifically is the defender making the effort to recapture gates that have gone neutral and that the attacker has given up on. I just don't see the fun in it, but I can see the tedium in it. I'm really about the mechanics being fun and encouraging fights. One thing I like about POS fights is that they can be planned for. If we have kited an enemy POS and reinforced so that it comes out in our prime, we know we can show up at that POS at that time and have a good chance of getting a fight. People can plan a schedule around that, and organize. What I was shooting for was a small-gang version of the same mechanic, such that you don't have to cast about hoping for pvp in a small gang, but rather have a system that make it...almost schedulable. A lot of people like how the flow of POS warfare works. Just don't like the fact that you have to be in a sniper BS in a 200-person fleet in a system that's lagged to hell because there are 500 guys in it, just to matter.

Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.02 04:24:00 - [111] Originally by: Toman Jerich What I was shooting for was a small-gang version of the same mechanic, such that you don't have to cast about hoping for pvp in a small gang, but rather have a system that make it...almost schedulable. I see where you're going with that. What concerns me is that if you try to have a way to schedule small gang fights, a single small gang can't make any impact on a larger entity - even just minorly inconveniencing them - because to do so they have to show up at a predetermined time and place where a huge enemy force could be waiting for them. What can be done about that?
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 04:40:00 - [112] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 02/08/2008 04:41:49 Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Toman Jerich What I was shooting for was a small-gang version of the same mechanic, such that you don't have to cast about hoping for pvp in a small gang, but rather have a system that make it...almost schedulable. I see where you're going with that. What concerns me is that if you try to have a way to schedule small gang fights, a single small gang can't make any impact on a larger entity - even just minorly inconveniencing them - because to do so they have to show up at a predetermined time and place where a huge enemy force could be waiting for them. What can be done about that? The quick answer is that the defender has to show up whether the attacker is small or not, because if they don't then even a small attacker could cost them a gate. If the defender is forced to plan, organize, and show up in force to re-capture a contested gate, then the small attacker has had an impact that, in my opinion, is generous given their size. The PVP is schedulable under your system as posted in the OP as well. The attacker determines the schedule: It's 24 hours after they contest. All I'm really doing is making the scheduling a compromise between attacker and defender so as to match-make some combat and limit the playing of timezone games. This way the schedulable PVP won't all be at 4am on a workday for me.
Telender Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 04:47:00 - [113] Arguing over the details of a fundamentally tedious and unlikely to be coded idea is a worse idea. There are some sub-components of this proposal that seem like a good idea like the getting the cyno jammer away from a deathstar POS. This could easily be achieved by simply jacking up their PG requirements to not allow anything else on the POS instead of asking CCP to code anchorable jammers in space away from moons. Much more likely to get coded that way.
Lumen Atra GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 05:52:00 - [114] Originally by: Jade Constantine Course by that logic only people talking about nano ship nerfs should be those that fly nano ships or know how to fight them right ? By definition, yes. If a person has never flown a nano ship or combated a nano ship, then by definition, they know nothing about the nano ship, and therefor, anything they state is pulled from their imagination of how they think things work. If people never encounter a nano ship, either as their own vehicle of assault or as an enemy, then the mechanics of it are of zero consequence to them, and as such, their view is completely irrelevant when talking about game balancing issues. So yes, only those that have reasonable experience with what is at issue should be proposing changes. Don't take this as saying that ideas shouldn't be given, as that would be quite foolish and would result in stagnation at some point. However, this isn't an idea to spruce up 0.0 warfare, it is an idea to completely change it. There is a big difference, as one deals with the content of the warfare, whereas the other deals with the actual mechanics.
Lumen Atra GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 06:16:00 - [115] Edited by: Lumen Atra on 02/08/2008 06:17:32 Originally by: Kelsin This proposal intends to specifically and concretely outline improvements to 0.0 warfare and sovereignty to meet that stated goal. This proposal 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. Your ideas reflect a course to achieve your goals, and to that end, you have come up with an elaborate, if rough, design. The issue is your goals. Goal 1 - Definitely a good idea. The defender advantage, currently, is a very basic design and quite limited in actual scope and variety. Goal 2 - Time zone issues is partly a meta-game issue. I personally feel such things should not have that great of an impact, as the real world and the game world really should be separate. On the other hand, there is a reason this exists, and the reason is pretty simple: it is a game and people that play the game want a chance to play. Hence, putting a tower into reinforced is attacker's time, where as when it comes out of reinforced is supposed to be the defender's time. This is simply so that alliances that cannot realistically be around 24/7 actually have a chance to accomplish their own gameplay goals. Therefore, dispersing whatever mechanics so that time zones aren't as big of a factor is definitely a good thing. Ultimately it will always be a factor, but the effect can be lessened. Goal 3 - Your end result is poor, as you stated. Using game mechanics to reduce lag is backwards. You have blended real life into the game world, which is always bad. The goal of multiple fleets should have absolutely nothing to do with performance issues, which should be a completely different issue that CCP works on such that ANY tactic used, be it multiple fleets across eve or one huge ass 2000 person fleet battle on the same grid, is viable. 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.
Telender Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 06:23:00 - [116] I'd have to disagree with you there Lumen. I think game mechanics could be fundamental to performance issues. If it is more advantageous to have many smaller fleets accomplishing various objectives then the tendency for everyone to glob in one spot would be reduced greatly. This might not be easily achievable, but the possibility exists.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 07:48:00 - [117] The Star Fraction do not live in 0.0 space, and hence should not be having any say whatsoever in any 0.0 Space Proposals. Voting no.
Deldrac Bat Country Aegis Militia	Posted - 2008.08.02 09:58:00 - [118] 24 hours is too short a period for contesting. And the abscence of any need to do something at a particular time (rather than at some point in 24-48-72 whatever hours) makes it most unlikely that players will ever meet to pvp. Further, anything that allows the attacker to pick the time of a defence results in alarm clock raids that are no fun for anyone. Finally, to avoid that turning into pos warfare, but-at-gates, you probably want to force all the gate attacks to run simulateneously, splitting up fleets. If we were to go down this road, you would have to set a rule that any gate in contested drops out of contested after an hour if all the system gates are not also contested. Once all the gates are contested, a system wide strontium/reinforced mechanic starts up, defining the time when the final system defence is going to happen. Attacker needs to win more than 50% of the gates at the specific time they come out of reinforced to take the system. POSs should transmit defensive benefits to the gates, so if the attacker wants to go pos shooting before gate camping, I guess they can. Even with the modifications I'm suggesting - I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, I'm just trying to make suggestions to move it from 'game breaking', up to 'decidedly dubious'. As it stands, not supported because the proposal causes more problems than it solves.
Bielsibub Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.08.02 12:57:00 - [119] Edited by: Bielsibub on 02/08/2008 12:58:39 0.0 needs to made easier to capture, hold, and needs things that make holding that space more profitable/worthwhile. The gate contention thing is rediculous. This would make it absolutely impossible to hold space without complete timezone coverage, and is a pretty rediculous idea. Making 0.0 space significantly more annoying to attack and defend and manage is all it needs to be completely worthless and not worth a damn to actually hold. If you'd ever lived in 0.0 you might know this. Since you seems to know next to nothing about 0.0 life, it's no wonder you might think this a good idea. Just because you've repeatedly failed miserably at 0.0 war....... this isn't going to make it easier. Here's some things that ACTUALLY need fixing, maybe the CSM could work on making improvments to the already existing game instead of thinking they know how to re-engineer part of it they know nothing about. []LAG []POS setup times are rediculous. []Fix jumpbridges so they only accept ozone and nothing else []Keep exploration sites from de-spawning when your connection is interrupted. Even a 5 minute timer would be fantastic for this. []0.0 options that make space more profitable, (belt miners/system salvagers/something? []Cyno Jammers are overpowered []Stop ***ing people who have spent months training into advanced ships only to have them nerfed. Come up with a game plan and stick to it, rather than constantly shifting shit around to make things "fair." If you're tired of nano-gangs of ECM, then train into something to counter it, don't whine and complain until daddy makes the bad men stop touching you.
Elistara Eldore Light Sparkle Development GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.02 13:07:00 - [120] Originally by: Kelsin The capture and reclaiming times can be tweaked to create a maximum incentive for Defenders to interrupt a gate capture rather than wait for it to be complete to reclaim it, and Contest period durations can be adjusted to reach the right rate of turnover in a conflict between two forces battling for control of a territory, whether they are in the same time zone or not. So a large alliance will either wreck a smaller one in one time zone or in many. If you cut the time limits, you make it time zone dependent. Domination in one leads to victory in that time zone, which can be overturned in the next. This leads to stalemate, boredom, and just going through the motions to repeatedly shift the "winner" at a certain gate without opposition. Or, it leads to complete victory for any alliance that can overwhelm it's enemy round the clock, OR just in their prime. After all, if you can swamp them in their prime time, without it being yours, you can certainly screw them over out of it. Alarm-clocking will only do so much. Then, if you leave the time limits, you also make it time zone dependent. As soon as your attendance drops, theirs overwhelms. It will just remain, as it has been, about who can get the most people on the field at the correct time. Nothing you have said so far will in any way affect that. Quote: The contesting of stargates across a constellation or region turns what would be a series of individual fleet conflicts into an ongoing battle for dominance in an area over days or weeks... Small scale combat can now make an impact on the sovereignty of an area - though small scale combat alone will still never dislodge a sitting power, it can however weaken and harass it. This also just sounds like replacing the current boredoms of POS warfare with a higher class of boredom. Instead of sitting for an hour shooting a pos while you hope the enemy fleet arrives so you actually get a fight, you sit for half an hour on one of many different gates while you hope the enemy fleet doesn't arrive, because you can't run away without completely and utterly wasting the 25 minutes you've sat there. Unless, of course, you're blobbing, which this is supposed to avoid. Quote: Clearly a small alliance cannot destroy or dislodge the holdings of a larger, equally well coordinated, alliance under this proposal. Blah blah blah, blah blah... This entire paragraph basically says "people who are capable of holding 0.0 now, will probably be capable of holding it in the future". Well done. Large corps/alliances that have made friends with other large and capable coprs/alliances will not suddenly fall apart. The reasons they survive now will be the reasons they survive in the future. They have friends, they're not ****s. Not as a whole anyway. The individual members can be. Quote: it would be pretty silly to think that a small adjustable detail would override the broad mission statement. Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad. Small corps fail in non-NPC 0.0 not because there's some massive imbalance in the code that automatically favours larger ones, but simply because the larger ones exist. A small group of people who only play in three or four hours out of the day WILL get kerb-stomped by a multi-national alliance who are present all day. If they couldn't, it wouldn't make any sense. If two corps the same size can fight over an objective fairly, then another corp on one side will take objective two unchallenged. If corps three through five join up as well to cover all time zones, they WILL have periods on the clock without opposition. If you somehow nerfed huge alliances, all that would happen is that the alliances would form and organise out of game, as they currently do anyway. The game is just not built to be friendly to people who cannot make some **ing friends. Quoted for truth.

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:

Zanarkand Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.03 00:31:00 - [151] Originally by: Entelechia 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. I agree.
Poluketes GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 00:37:00 - [152] Originally by: Kelsin 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. Non-linearizing territorial combat isn't a bad idea. It's also not an inherently good one. Current POS warfare is boring. Your solution would only make it more boring. Please tell me how your system would improve the game for current and prospective 0.0 alliances rather than NPC 0.0/Empire-based raiding alliances. If it wouldn't make life better for the people who seriously engage in sov warfare, your solution doesn't fix the problem. And if you want alliance activity to play a roll in sovereignty then require a real activity, like that someone rats/mines/manufactures stuff in each system for X hours per day. Sitting on a gate hoping an enemy will show up to end your boredom isn't real activity, it's invented busywork, and being able to muster up 10 ships to sit there isn't a measure of small gang prowess. Given the 24 hour timespan in which the attackers and defenders can revisit the gate, it's unlikely they'll ever bump into each other. And if hostile ships do show up when defenders are nearby, it'll be reported in intel channels and the defenders will arrive with a lot more than 10 ships. In either case, you're hardly promoting small gang fights. Small gang fights are great. But there wouldn't be any more of them under this proposal than there are now.
Kerfira	Posted - 2008.08.03 00:58:00 - [153] Edited by: Kerfira on 03/08/2008 00:59:11 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. Have you ever BEEN to 0.0??? Nobody will split their force, because the first one to do so will loose! Fleet A is opposing Fleet B. Both are the same size. The FC of Fleet A foolishly decide to split his force in two to attack separate targets, Fleet A1 and Fleet A2. Fleet B stays together and obliterates first Fleet A1 and then Fleet A2, with trivial losses for Fleet B. People will NOT split forces unless absolutely forced to, and there's nothing in your proposal that will do that. All your suggestion is doing is giving us more structures to shoot (hooray..... NOT!).... 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.
Telender Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 01:11:00 - [154] Edited by: Telender on 03/08/2008 01:11:29 Hey look...BoB and Goons are agreeing on something. Maybe that is a sign that the people in this thread who haven't spent time in 0.0, have never had to grind round the clock to gain and keep space and don't actually defend territory should ask more questions. Jade seriously, you proposing this and using your position to put it to the front of the CSM agenda is rediculous. If you were interested in "chairing" a body that actually put forward some reasonable ideas rooted in the reality of 0.0 you'd contact the directors of various 0.0 existing bodies and get their input first. This looks like it got hashed out on the Star Fraction forums and then rushed here. Defending 0.0 shouldn't be tedious it should be difficult. There is a difference.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.03 02:03:00 - [155] Originally by: Poluketes And if you want alliance activity to play a roll in sovereignty then require a real activity, like that someone rats/mines/manufactures stuff in each system for X hours per day. I disagree with the idea of giving sovereignty benefits on the basis of ratting, mining or manufacturing. Alliances shouldn't be trying to out-mine one another in order to win control of space. Exerting control over Stargates is surely better than that. Stargate control is intended as a reflection of an Alliance's open space dominance. If you are capable of entering an area and holding a position on a Stargate in the face of the enemy, it's a demonstration of military power. The issue with POS construction as the only source of sovereignty benefits is exactly what is described a few posts above - territory control becomes a question of whether one Alliance can build structures faster than another can tear them down. In an isolated 24 hour period, it may be unlikely that any two small gangs would clash. But this conflict model should be viewed over the course of many days and weeks. The Alliance that is better able to deploy a consistent force across a Constellation over the course of days and weeks is the one that will end up with control. When two Alliances try to do that over the same Constellation, they will inevitably come into conflict. Again remember that it is not a requirement for a territory holding Alliance to constantly camp gates - they will only need to deploy their small gang forces when an enemy Alliance is making a play for their space. And when that enemy Alliance is consistently contesting Stargates the Defending Alliance will need to field small gangs on a consistent basis to counter that, and those small gangs will inevitably encounter each other over the long term.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 02:34:00 - [156] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 03/08/2008 02:37:02 Try to address this Kelsin: The current large 0.0 powerblocks have invested trillions of ISK into empire building. The leaders of those alliances have invested untold hours organizing, motivating, and leading their members, and often doing a tremendous amount of no-fun, tedious drudgery to get where they are. Building a major sov-holding alliance is no walk in the park. For those who hold that status, it's been a multi-year climb against continuous difficult opposition. Every POS erected represents a missing day from a person's life spent doing something that is intrinsically un-fun, on top of hundreds of millions of ISK expended. Each major empire has hundreds of POS deployed, holding sov. And that's only the beginning. On top of that, there has been the effort to design and construct jump bridge networks, logistics schedules and systems, deploy outposts, construct capital fleets, supercaps, etc. Each 0.0 empire represents a tremendous investment of time, effort, and resources. And, because 0.0 space is not really intrinsically valuable, the only real reward is to be able to say that you've done and are still doing it. Well, that and the opportunities to fight huge ****-off fleet fights with the biggest and most expensive ships in the game. Now explain why a gang of ten random people who have paid no dues and made no investment in empire building should be able to fly in from lowsec and even scratch the paint on a 0.0 empire's sov on a lark. If you can do that, maybe some of the opposition to your ideas will die down. That's what pretty much noone believes you understand. Serious business, hurf blurf, etc.
Goatface Man GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 02:50:00 - [157] Originally by: Kelsin The Alliance that is better able to deploy a consistent force across a Constellation over the course of days and weeks is the one that will end up with control. When two Alliances try to do that over the same Constellation, they will inevitably come into conflict. You're still just saying the side with the most members and the best coverage will win. Well, assuming both sides have equal tolerance for tedium and inactivity. Just sitting there on a gate isn't a display of military power, it's a display of how easily amused your members are. You want to display military power, go and make something explode. If you're just sitting still, you are the opposite of a threat. You are out of the game, you are avoidable, your firepower is not being applied against something someone might actually care about. Quote: they will only need to deploy their small gang forces when an enemy Alliance is making a play for their space If you live in 0.0, you are generally either invading or being invaded. Or both at the same time. Someone will want your resources, you will want someone else's, there are not enough to go around. Never mind all the small gangs that run into alliance held space from empire just to **** about. You talk about it as though having hostiles in your space is a rare thing. The only real fights this will start will be between the power blocks, and they will only fight in force. You are in effect putting forward ideas that would make big alliances MORE dominant, giving them whole new ways of steamrolling through small corps, and yet it is members of those big alliances who are objecting to it. Perhaps you should think about that fact. And you STILL haven't come up with a reason for why anyone would counter a bunch of small stationary groups with anything other than a blob.
Delrik Johanian	Posted - 2008.08.03 03:17:00 - [158] Originally by: Kelsin 3. Stargate Capture - Stargate Capture is a new mechanic that will affect benefits across systems as well as entire constellations. Stargate control is the "first line of defense" in this model of Territory Warfare, representing the DefenderÆs level of ôboots on the groundö patrols. Defenders secure Stargates to signify protection of their borders, and Attackers disrupt the Defender's control to signify porous or poorly defended borders. If a Defender cannot maintain control over enough Stargates, logistical efforts within their territory become more difficult as a result Yea I kind of get what you're saying. Maybe add a little to the logistical effort in that they have to keep these stargates out in the middle of no where fueled up in order to operated and costs a little bit to jump through them dependant on say, the mass of the ship (being how much fuel it would take to launch ### kg object xxx lightyears or something.
Despina Lukas	Posted - 2008.08.03 03:47:00 - [159] I think that 0.0 needs more stuff to do. I've never been there, but it sounds pretty boring and desolate to me, like going to some place in the African desert. For one thing, it sounds like there's absolutely nothing for RPers like myself to do. I was thinking that there could be some kind of Space Pleasure House structure that an alliance could deploy in 0.0. Refined ladies like myself could perch there entertain the the big imperial leaders with witty discussions about current events and psycho-sexual warfare. And maybe our practiced hands could rub away some of the stress of all that tedious POS set-up and logistics wink. Oh, and the Pleasure Houses could generate income for the alliance that possesses them -- just dump a steady stream of income into the old alliance wallet as long as they're running. How about that! It's kind of like an outpost, but it can only be destroyed and not captured. And you can't refit your ship or access the market there or anything. Well, there would one particular black market you could access :) I think this would make 0.0 a more profitable, civilized, and pleasurable place to live.
EIixibren EVE Time-Code Sellers Union	Posted - 2008.08.03 03:52:00 - [160] Edited by: EIixibren on 03/08/2008 03:52:19 edited

Batlovod GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 03:55:00 - [161] Edited by: Batlovod on 03/08/2008 03:55:24 Edited by: Batlovod on 03/08/2008 03:54:57 Originally by: Despina Lukas I think that 0.0 needs more stuff to do. I've never been there, but it sounds pretty boring and desolate to me, like going to some place in the African desert. For one thing, it sounds like there's absolutely nothing for RPers like myself to do. I was thinking that there could be some kind of Space Pleasure House structure that an alliance could deploy in 0.0. Refined ladies like myself could perch there entertain the the big imperial leaders with witty discussions about current events and psycho-sexual warfare. And maybe our practiced hands could rub away some of the stress of all that tedious POS set-up and logistics wink. Oh, and the Pleasure Houses could generate income for the alliance that possesses them -- just dump a steady stream of income into the old alliance wallet as long as they're running. How about that! It's kind of like an outpost, but it can only be destroyed and not captured. And you can't refit your ship or access the market there or anything. Well, there would one particular black market you could access :) Women in EVE are just spacewhorse for the men in EVE to keep us going. Lend me your body for the evening, I wish to Ravage you through the night before I set off to take over another region in the morning. I expect dinner be ready when I get home
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.03 03:56:00 - [162] Originally by: Toman Jerich Now explain why a gang of ten random people who have paid no dues and made no investment in empire building should be able to fly in from lowsec and even scratch the paint on a 0.0 empire's sov on a lark. If you can do that, maybe some of the opposition to your ideas will die down. That's what pretty much noone believes you understand. Scratching the paint is very different than totaling the car. I think that this proposal still very much rewards the kind of long term efforts the current 0.0 alliances have made to build their empires. What it changes is creating a layer on top with more give and take than the rigid and linear POS warfare. POS warfare continues to be the anchor for Alliances - and maybe it is misleading that I have the Stargates being the indicator of Alliance sovereignty on the map, I went back and forth over whether to keep that under the domain of POS or not. That is why I think it's really ridiculous that many of the recent detractors in this thread have asserted that this somehow favors small Empire based alliances over the current 0.0 sov holders. If you really read the proposal there's nothing in it to indicate that. The Stargate capture mechanism simply allows for a certain amount of back and forth via small gang pvp that a system based entirely on POS does not. I certainly don't intend to upend the existing powers with this proposal, and nothing within it would lead to that. The folks here claiming that would be the result are revealing more about their own prejudices than anything reflecting the actual content of the OP. What this does change is that it provides a suitable role for small groups of subcapitals to make an appropriate impact on the terrain of 0.0. An appropriate impact, which is not a huge impact but also not a complete lack of impact. Outposts, supercaps, capital fleets and POS infrastructure will continue to be vital to any serious development of a 0.0 empire, and there is nothing within this proposal that contradicts that assertion. In fact something that I think turned out really well with this is that it provides for a lot of flexibility in terms of how an Alliance can affect the terrain around them using all those assets. I understand that the current POS warfare is viewed as no-fun tedious drudgery, and that is precisely what we're looking to mitigate here by diversifying some of the POS Sov benefits into other forms. So again, to say that this proposal somehow takes the grand and epic nature of 0.0 territory warfare and reduces it to 10 noobs conquering all of Goon space by gatecamping them into submission is a poor (willfully poor in some cases) mischaracterization of what is actually in the OP. It just isn't so. "Layers" is the name of the game here, and there is a place for a small scale pvp layer to go alongside the capital ship sieging and epic fleet fights. It in no way replaces those, it just distributes a few of the benefits onto some new systems in order to increase the fun and variety of the territory warfare process.
Romulus Silvia Amarr Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 05:16:00 - [163] wow, the op presents such a dumb idea that i think im going to be canceling my account now. star faction, you win.
Poluketes GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 05:36:00 - [164] Originally by: Kelsin Stargate control is intended as a reflection of an Alliance's open space dominance. If you are capable of entering an area and holding a position on a Stargate in the face of the enemy, it's a demonstration of military power. Except it isn't. Locking down a stargate 23 hrs/day might be a demonstration of an attacker's power. But as long as it's uncamped sometimes and defenders can go through, an attacker having the gate camped even 12 hours straight per day would be effectively irrelevant to the defending alliance. And given capitals' ability to jump and Titans' ability to jumpbridge, even having it locked down 23 hrs/day would hardly be life-changing. It simply doesn't matter that a group of 10 or even 100 hostiles is sitting on your gate if they're not shooting anyone/anything. If small attacking gangs want to show their power, why can't they kill the defending alliance's ratters and miners and damage the defenders' ability to make money? Slowly bleed defenders dry and challenge their ability to hold space indirectly, through their wallets? That's what small gangs excel at. Why do they need to excel at contesting sov directly too? Originally by: Kelsin And when that enemy Alliance is consistently contesting Stargates the Defending Alliance will need to field small gangs on a consistent basis to counter that, and those small gangs will inevitably encounter each other over the long term. Yes, the defenders would field gangs but they wouldn't be small gangs. If 10 ships can kill the attackers, 100 ships will kill them faster and with fewer losses. Nothing in your plan encourages small gang fights. Originally by: Kelsin I certainly don't intend to upend the existing powers with this proposal, and nothing within it would lead to that. The folks here claiming that would be the result are revealing more about their own prejudices than anything reflecting the actual content of the OP. I haven't seen anyone saying that your proposal would change the face of 0.0. Everyone who's in 0.0 now has demonstrated their ability to put up with the boredom of POS warfare. They'd be able to put up with the boredom of your proposal too. But we kind of like playing EVE and actually fighting people and don't want to be bored to tears forced to perform meaningless tag-the-gate logistics rituals concocted by someone who's never experienced 0.0 sov warfare. The way to make it less boring is to make it simpler and faster, not more complicated and drawn out. Originally by: Kelsin That is why I think it's really ridiculous that many of the recent detractors in this thread have asserted that this somehow favors small Empire based alliances over the current 0.0 sov holders. The stargate portion of your proposal favors raiding NPC 0.0/Empire-based alliances because they're the only ones who wouldn't be bored to death by it. Conquering space will take even longer and be even more boring for attackers than it is currently. Defending space will require drawing straws to see who gets stuck with the equally boring job of re-tagging Contested gates everyday. I personally think activity is an interesting way to calculate system control. If you don't like ratting/mining/manufacturing, pick something else that the defenders should be doing anyway in their space. If defenders are legitimately nonactive in a system, it makes sense they'd have less control there. But being forced to camp gates when no hostiles are in sight isn't legitimate activity. It's a boring artificial pain in the ass. We have fundamentally different experiences/inexperiences with conquerable 0.0, so we're never going to agree. I'll go away now. Just please read through your proposal and imagine the most boring it could possibly be. Then imagine it being that boring for a month straight. People in 0.0 are guaranteed to have that month of solid boredom 10x as frequently as the good fights you're hoping to encourage.
Kerfira	Posted - 2008.08.03 10:35:00 - [165] Originally by: Poluketes I haven't seen anyone saying that your proposal would change the face of 0.0. Everyone who's in 0.0 now has demonstrated their ability to put up with the boredom of POS warfare. They'd be able to put up with the boredom of your proposal too. But we kind of like playing EVE and actually fighting people and don't want to be bored to tears forced to perform meaningless tag-the-gate logistics rituals concocted by someone who's never experienced 0.0 sov warfare. The way to make it less boring is to make it simpler and faster, not more complicated and drawn out. This!! The OP talks about adding layers, but what we definitely don't need is more layers of tediousness and boredom. It has already been demonstrated with station services that having more structures to shoot doesn't encourage fights, it encourages blobbing (because that way we can get the boring part over with faster). In short, the OP's suggestion is: 1. Not adding anything to the game that isn't already there. 2. Not adding anything that would encourage ship vs. ship fighting. 3. Adding more boredom in a game that needs LESS! 4. Encouraging blobbing 5. Totally out of sync with what actually happens in 0.0. 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 - 2008.08.03 11:29:00 - [166] Stargate control is about presence. An Alliance contesting a Stargate is saying "we're here and we claim this space." A Defending Alliance recapturing a gate is saying "no, we still occupy this space." If you have a series of border systems that are being repeatedly contested, it shows that another Alliance is frequently bringing a sizeable gang into that space. But what about this: Suppose an additional benefit of a Captured Stargate is that you can set an 8 hour period each day during which it cannot be Contested. That way the system would be resistant to seeing opposing gangs miss each other entirely, and an attacker wouldn't be able to Contest during an Defender's off-peak hours, increasing the risk and likelihood of fights. I think that would solve many of the issues brought up.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:41:00 - [167] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 03/08/2008 13:47:13 Originally by: Kelsin But what about this: Suppose an additional benefit of a Captured Stargate is that you can set an 8 hour period each day during which it cannot be Contested. That way the system would be resistant to seeing opposing gangs miss each other entirely, and an attacker wouldn't be able to Contest during an Defender's off-peak hours, increasing the risk and likelihood of fights. I prefer the change that I outlined here, which accomplishes the goal you outlined, but more effectively. I don't think that the defender making its stargates invulnerable to one continent of players of its choosing is the answer. A euro alliance shouldn't be able to force a US alliance to alarm-clock just to start assaulting their sov. In my suggestion, the attacker can attack in his timezone, and then the defender and attacker split the difference between their timezones for the deciding fight over who controls the gate. That encourages fights and limits the effect of attacking outside of an opponent's primetime. And it's about as fair as you can get. It's probably a good idea to use the 'workflow' of POS assault wherever you can, because 1) the players understand it and generally think it's a fair system, and 2) CCP came up with it and are likely to support its reuse. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. There's a reason that in the current game we can't set our POS to be invulnerable to one continent of players. Edit: An alternative would be to let the defender choose the time when a stargate leaves the contested state and can be claimed for one side again. That would also mirror current tower stronting mechanics, where the owner of the POS tries to time it so that an assaulter tower comes out of reinforced in his prime. The gate would never be in the contested state for more than 24 hours.
Kerfira	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:49:00 - [168] Edited by: Kerfira on 03/08/2008 13:55:22 Originally by: Kelsin I think that would solve many of the issues brought up. It'll do precicely...... NOTHING! Not diving too deeply into the fact that most smaller alliances has like 6 hours where they can field significant numbers, you're also basically saying: Let's turn gates into POS we can shoot for very small benefits! They'll no more encourage small gang fights than anything else in the game, for the simple fact that more > less! Any revamp of 0.0 combat mechanics needs to encourage ship-to-ship fights, and your mechanic doesn't. The prevalent mindset (and game mechanics) will see something like this happen with your suggestion: Lets say the defender has like 40 people online who're prepared to participate in PvP. a. If the attacker got more people than the defender, he'll blob them together and take out the gates without the defender being able to do anything. If he splits his force, he may be able to do it quicker, but risks losses. b. If the attacker got less people than defender, he not be able to stay for the time it requires to take down a gate (unless both sides got 100+ ships). c. If they got more or less the same amount, we may get a fight, but we would get one ANYWAY if they just roamed into the defenders area (unless both are too scared to lose ships in an equal engagement). In none of the cases has your mechanics made any change to anything. This would happen too if the attackers went to attack a station service. You suggestion tries to emulate a capture-the-flag situation in a FPS game, but you fail to take into account that the objective here isn't to capture the flag and win on points after 20 minutes. The objective is to kill the opponents ships which contrary to a FPS game doesn't respawn automatically (or without effort). Nor do the game start from fresh after the 20 minutes. Since a blob is better at doing this than a small gang, the blob will remain! In essence, your suggestion will not work because the preconceptions you base it on are wrong! 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 - 2008.08.03 14:21:00 - [169] Originally by: Toman Jerich In my suggestion, the attacker can attack in his timezone, and then the defender and attacker split the difference between their timezones for the deciding fight over who controls the gate. That encourages fights and limits the effect of attacking outside of an opponent's primetime. And it's about as fair as you can get. It's probably a good idea to use the 'workflow' of POS assault wherever you can, because 1) the players understand it and generally think it's a fair system, and 2) CCP came up with it and are likely to support its reuse. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. There's a reason that in the current game we can't set our POS to be invulnerable to one continent of players. Edit: An alternative would be to let the defender choose the time when a stargate leaves the contested state and can be claimed for one side again. That would also mirror current tower stronting mechanics, where the owner of the POS tries to time it so that an assaulter tower comes out of reinforced in his prime. The gate would never be in the contested state for more than 24 hours. I'll go back and try to work something like this into it - you've made a strong argument in favor of using a reinforcement-esque mechanic to ensure that ships meet in combat and going in this direction would allow the amount of time it takes to contest shorter. I think your second suggestion of letting the Defender simply set the time at which a gate will become available for Capture should it become Contested would be simplest and give the Defender the best opportunity to field ships in defense of their holdings. In theory Attackers would contest a number of gates throughout an area and when their vulnerability times hit return to one or more of them to make a play to capture it. I regret not having a way for fallow territory to return to neutral status though. Is there a way to bring that in? p.s. Kerfira - I don't know where you're getting the "shooting structures" bit. You may want to actually read the OP.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 14:36:00 - [170] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 03/08/2008 14:39:05 Originally by: Kelsin I regret not having a way for fallow territory to return to neutral status though. Is there a way to bring that in? I think that in practice 'fallow territory' would be so rare that I would leave it up to the devs so that they can code it whichever way is easiest. I'm not sure that there has ever been a case where an attacker conquered a space-holder and then left the space fallow. At the very least some third party would show up and claim the space in short order. What I mean is that if it's easier for them to leave out the bit of code that says "Hey, this gate has been neutral for 6 hours. Who was the last defender? Ok, that guy now has the gate in the captured state again". Then that's fine, because I don't think that code would be executed very often at all.

Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.03 14:47:00 - [171] Edited by: Kelsin on 03/08/2008 14:47:14 Originally by: Toman Jerich Originally by: Kelsin I regret not having a way for fallow territory to return to neutral status though. Is there a way to bring that in? I think that in practice 'fallow territory' would be so rare that I would leave it up to the devs so that they can code it whichever way is easiest. I'm not sure that there has ever been a case where an attacker conquered a space-holder and then left the space fallow. At the very least some third party would show up and claim the space in short order. What I mean is that if it's easier for them to leave out the bit of code that says "Hey, this gate has been neutral for 6 hours. Who was the last defender? Ok, that guy now has the gate in the captured state again". Then that's fine, because I don't think that code would be executed very often at all. Yeah that's fair enough - I agree that it would be unlikely for territory to be uncontested by anyone. I've revised the details about how Stargates are captured in the OP to reflect your suggestions and I think it'll work well. Let me know what you think.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 14:58:00 - [172] Ya, it looks translated correctly. I think you should also add to the proposal what I wrote earlier about requiring a resource expenditure and maybe a special midslot mod to perform the gate-contesting action, analogous to how dreads go into siege. So now I think the proposal draws out sov warfare into a longer process (kinda bad), but adds something that small gangs and small ships can do (kinda good) and has some ideas to reduce the number of ships on grid for some parts of sov warfare (good) while leaving in a stage for huge ****-off fleetfights with big expensive ships (good). So, it could be worse.
Murodeeznuts GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 16:09:00 - [173] Out of curiosity, are CCP allowed to step in and tell the CSM that certain ideas are not worth discussion and that they should be stricken from the agenda? Because this is one of them. Stop trying. This has a 0% chance of success because it involves a empire-dweller suggesting sweeping changes to a part of the game they have no experience in.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.03 16:19:00 - [174] Originally by: Entelechia 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. And Jade is right; it is totally unreasonable to silence ANY opinion or proposal that is constructive. If you have a better idea, post it; don't just sit here and knock down ideas you don't think have any merit simply based on where the player hangs out in game.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.03 16:22:00 - [175] Originally by: Toman Jerich Building a major sov-holding alliance is no walk in the park. For those who hold that status, it's been a multi-year climb against continuous difficult opposition. Every POS erected represents a missing day from a person's life spent doing something that is intrinsically un-fun, on top of hundreds of millions of ISK expended. Then why exactly do they do it if it's "inherently un-fun"? Seems like if that was the case, alliance's wouldn't bother. There must be something entertaining about it.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.03 16:25:00 - [176] Originally by: Toman Jerich Now explain why a gang of ten random people who have paid no dues and made no investment in empire building should be able to fly in from lowsec and even scratch the paint on a 0.0 empire's sov on a lark. If you can do that, maybe some of the opposition to your ideas will die down. That's what pretty much noone believes you understand. Ok, it's the same way that ten random Iraqi "insurgents" can strike fear into the hearts of the most powerful military in the world with improvised, homemade explosive devices.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.03 16:42:00 - [177] Originally by: Toman Jerich I think you should also add to the proposal what I wrote earlier about requiring a resource expenditure and maybe a special midslot mod to perform the gate-contesting action, analogous to how dreads go into siege. If possible I'd like to keep the pre-planning component of the Stargate Capture part confined to forming a gang of sufficient size (and consisting of members of an Alliance) - as I think that does serve as a light barrier for entry without adding in a whole new module or resource. But I'll put it as a parenthetical suggestion just to keep the idea in play. One thing I do think would be interesting would be to allow Hacking to play a role in Stargates - perhaps hacking would allow a ship or ships to use the Stargate without being recorded in the activation logs, or allow someone to see what the Failsafe timer is set to before they contest it.
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 17:15:00 - [178] Good job wasting CSM time which could be spent on true improvements and fun, trying to fulfill your corp's and ceo's shortcomings. 3) Dispersion of forces yields better results than concentrated forces - Include a mechanic that contains incentives to fight simultaneous battles on different grids or even different systems, to reduce the need/incentive for "blobbing" and encourage small scale PvP. Kelsin, you have no clue what or how many ships are needed in current 0.0 warfare do you?
Goatface Man GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 17:15:00 - [179] Edited by: Goatface Man on 03/08/2008 17:15:40 Let's return to the now altered OP. One single time zone alliance attacks another single (but different) time zone alliance during their prime time, sending in small gangs to capture 5-10 of their stargates. The gates come out of their reinforced mode in the defenders prime, all at the same time. There ensues a desperate rush to make something happen in a single 5 minute window, because if you think people won't use whatever is necessary to do this shit as quickly as possible, you're wrong. Now, this is the defender's prime. He can probably fight off the entirety of the attacker's available fleet without too much hassle at this point. It's quite possible that the total amount of ships his enemy can field now will be smaller than the amount he could send out to claim gates earlier, they won't be stealing them all. Assuming at least one side actually wants to keep these gates, one of two things happens: The defenders choose to split their fleet and try to reclaim all the gates. The attackers don't, in the knowledge their combined fleet in this time will mash any of the splinters. They annihilate a small group and claim a stargate. The rest are reclaimed but this is of no real consequence, this entire affair has only taken about 30 minutes out of the day. Option two: The Defenders bunch a majority of their fleet, definitely saving one or two specific stargates, but potentially losing the rest. The attackers either bunch and claim a single gate, or spread to try and claim more than one. If the attackers bunch, they better hope the defenders don't know where they're going. If they spread, the defenders not in the main fleet can form suicide or sniping teams who try and keep these gangs to under 10 people while the fleet moves around mopping up. Whatever happens, once this is all over, the gates have been claimed and the attackers have buggered off again, the defenders in their prime reclaim those gates they lost and probably a few of the attacker's for good measure. The whole cycle then repeats in the attackers prime, and each side trades a few stargates every day with no real gains or losses. If the two alliance primes match, you're doing nothing but adding a buffer to how POS warfare currently works. The attacker finds out the timing of the enemy gates, they arrive in system in force just before this time and lock it down. They capture the gates, wait a few minutes for the timer to kick in, capture the gates again, and then nuke the jammer if there is one. It's just a Cyno-jammer attack with a 15 minute warning for the defenders. If two big alliances fight, they'll probably just stalemate. Cyno-jammer attacks will come with an extended warning. Gate capture gangs in un-jammed systems can be easily countered by cyno-scouts watching the gates as they come out and a Titan online to bridge in a defence fleet. The same method can be used to get capturers on any gate that's not being defended when you're invading. Then you'll get claim spamming. Send out a few hundred pilots to claim every single gate in an enemy's space that they can get at. Announce to the universe that you have done this and when the gates come out. Laugh as your enemy struggles to defend 50 gates simultaneously while you invade along with whoever else can find 9+ friends and feels like travelling down from empire to stick the boot in to those terrible people in their big alliances. Of course, if you try and avoid this by letting them time every stargate individually, it's insanely in the defender's favour. Just give yourself 10 minutes at each gate, and you can rotate the fleet between them. Set four hours a day as "prime" and that's a good 25 gates you can defend without any major problem. This idea will do nothing other than make the already drawn out process of POS warfare take even longer.
Xelloss Metallum	Posted - 2008.08.03 17:31:00 - [180] Originally by: J Kunjeh 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. Alt of the OP spotted.

Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 17:39:00 - [181]
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:06:00 - [182] Edited by: Kelsin on 03/08/2008 18:15:01 Originally by: Goatface Man One single time zone alliance attacks another single (but different) time zone alliance during their prime time, sending in small gangs to capture 5-10 of their stargates. The gates come out of their reinforced mode in the defenders prime, all at the same time. There ensues a desperate rush to make something happen in a single 5 minute window[...] [...]one of two things happens: The defenders choose to split their fleet and try to reclaim all the gates. The attackers don't, in the knowledge their combined fleet in this time will mash any of the splinters. They annihilate a small group and claim a stargate. The rest are reclaimed but this is of no real consequence, this entire affair has only taken about 30 minutes out of the day. Option two: The Defenders bunch a majority of their fleet, definitely saving one or two specific stargates, but potentially losing the rest[...] Whatever happens, once this is all over, the gates have been claimed and the attackers have buggered off again, the defenders in their prime reclaim those gates they lost and probably a few of the attacker's for good measure. The whole cycle then repeats in the attackers prime, and each side trades a few stargates every day[...] Right. And as the attackers knock out single stargates here and there, they open the door for attacks on Cynojammer Arrays because the Array invulnerability is lost when one of the Stargates in that system is captured by the Attacker and this moves the battle to fleets within individual systems, which in turn opens the door for attacks on POS within systems that have their Jammer Arrays knocked out. That seems to work pretty well. What are the flaws?
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:15:00 - [183] Edited by: Pnuka on 03/08/2008 18:16:01
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:16:00 - [184] Idea was rejected in the CSM meeting.
Nevada Tan	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:23:00 - [185] Oh dear, that means Star Fraction will remain as irrelevant, Empire-hugging wannabes. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I have done a bad thing.
Telender Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:24:00 - [186] Sanity prevailed.
Batlovod GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:26:00 - [187] Originally by: Telender Sanity prevailed.
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:26:00 - [188] Originally by: Nevada Tan Oh dear, that means Star Fraction will remain as irrelevant, Empire-hugging wannabes. Not gonna learn about 0.0 in Crielere Star Fraction.
Delrik Johanian Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:28:00 - [189] no guys I participated in faction warfare I think I know a enough about 0.0 and these changes were neccesary
RDevz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:40:00 - [190] Originally by: Nevada Tan Oh dear, that means Star Fraction will remain as irrelevant, Empire-hugging wannabes. That was always going to happen, even if this change had been voted in.

Goatface Man GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 18:44:00 - [191] Originally by: Kelsin Right. And as the attackers knock out single stargates here and there, they open the door for attacks on Cynojammer Arrays because the Array invulnerability is lost when one of the Stargates in that system is captured by the Attacker and this moves the battle to fleets within individual systems, which in turn opens the door for attacks on POS within systems that have their Jammer Arrays knocked out. That seems to work pretty well. What are the flaws? The flaw is that the cynojammer would be better protected than it is now.
namesarehard	Posted - 2008.08.03 19:30:00 - [192] All I see in this thread is The Star Fraction (and empire corp) wanting to get into 0.0 without having to do any work. These idea's are awful and no one with any sanity or understanding of 0.0 should support it. If you want to get into 0.0 then work for it like everyone else out here had to. Don't just change the game around to fit what you want and screw everyone else over.
Tress Macneille Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 19:51:00 - [193] purest strain ownage
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:04:00 - [194] Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission. I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM. I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty. Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Toolbert Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:18:00 - [195] Edited by: Toolbert on 03/08/2008 20:18:44 Originally by: Jade Constantine Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission. I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM. I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty. Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future. First we need to come up with an agreement on what the problems with 0.0 even are. If you actually lived in 0.0 you would understand that its not that simple and writing up even a list of problems that aren't going to cause a ton of debate is a huge undertaking. Then we need the proposition to come from people who actually live in 0.0. Incase you didn't notice, this whole thing was shot down by a lot of people because I mean an empire corp telling us whats wrong with 0.0? You've got to be kidding.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:21:00 - [196] Originally by: Jade Constantine Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission. I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM. I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty. Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future. Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps? Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:47:00 - [197] Ah well, thanks for the input Toman and to all who gave constructive criticism.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:03:00 - [198] Originally by: Jade Constantine Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission. I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM. I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty. Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future. It didn't fail because of the composition of the CSM. It failed because you couldn't get your coalition to show up for the meeting, or alternatively because you put the issue on the agenda without making sure that your coalition would be present to support it. If Dierdra, LaVista, and Serenity had been present it probably would have passed; hell, Dierdra voted to support on the first page of the thread. Basically it failed because you are inept and clumsy and do not know how to use your chairman powers to your advantage. I'm glad that you've given up on putting forward proposals to revamp the system though, because it's a complete waste of time for anyone involved. For the people who actually live in 0.0 to even reach a consensus on what the problems are would take weeks of work. Then weeks of additional work reaching a consensus on the solution. And then the issue would have to be discussed with CCP. Then they'd have to discuss it internally, and then the solutions would actually have to be developed, tested, and deployed. All in all no results from the effort would probably be seen for over a year (because CCP has plenty else going on besides this issue), and by that time a new CSM would have handed off an entirely different proposal. And god only knows what else would happen in the game over that time; lag could be solved for all we know. Issues this big are nothing more than opportunities for fun theorycrafting and to build castles in the air. By the time any 'visionary' proposal issued by the CSM can become reality, there will be a better game out there to play anyway.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:05:00 - [199] Originally by: Kelsin Ah well, thanks for the input Toman and to all who gave constructive criticism. np. Gave me something to do while waiting on my shit to compile. Coming up with the proposal was more fun than playing the results of it would have been.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:07:00 - [200] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps? To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on. End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!

Josemite SXyCreW CODE RED ALLIANCE	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:15:00 - [201]
facialimpediment Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:33:00 - [202] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps? To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on. End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways. Can we impeach you?
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.03 21:45:00 - [203] Originally by: facialimpediment Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps? To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on. End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways. Can we impeach you? Thats one of those things you weren't very good at Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.03 22:14:00 - [204] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 03/08/2008 22:15:41 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps? To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on. End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways. The idea was bad. It was a horrible HORRIBLE idea. Someone not agreeing with you or yours doesn't always insinuate dogmatic response or some grand conspiracy. Sometimes you're just wrong. Happens to the best of us. Simply because a discussion doesn't go your way does not mean it's not fruitful. I believe that there are ways we can look at the 0.0 issue holistically, I just don't think the proposed solution was a good one. A majority agreed. The solutions to the issues of 0.0 are not to change 0.0 into factional warfare or make it so that 15 dudes can take down the sov of thousands. These solutions and the responses from some in the meeting greatly underestimate the amount of work and effort required to hold space today. It's been quite trivialized to be frank. It's no fault of the people doing so. It's just ignorance. I'll repeat it again because it bears worth repeating. There is no ENTITLEMENT to 0.0. It is not anyone's right. It takes a GREAT deal of work and effort to take and hold space and most are simply not up to the task. That is NOT a bad thing. You already have factional warfare with control points in the game. If that excites you nothing is stopping you from playing there. To be honest, in the meetings we've had a lot of the talk about "blobbing" and "multiple objectives" exist today. Small gang work exists today and believe it or not gasp it happens every day in 0.0! Eve is a sandbox and it is YOU who are limiting yourself. Not the mechanics. There's a lot that could be changed but I think what bears looking into is what makes the barrier of entry into 0.0 so high? hint It's not stargate tag. It's logistics. It's management. It's leadership. It's will and effort. Two of those can be made easier and less painful via mechanics. The other 3 are nobody's fault but your own. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Kerfira	Posted - 2008.08.03 22:24:00 - [205] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps? To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on. End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways. Have you considered the possibility that the reason this was rejected was that the idea itself was horrible? Adding a layer of boredom on top of another layer of boredom isn't an improvement!!!! If your corpie is so brilliant, why don't you have him think up something that'll encourage PvP instead of PvE (which is all structure shooting really is...). 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.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.03 22:49:00 - [206] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: facialimpediment Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps? To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on. End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways. Can we impeach you? Thats one of those things you weren't very good at That's one of those things that wasn't an option. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Pherusa Plumosa Minmatar Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.04 01:34:00 - [207] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Eve is a sandbox and it is YOU who are limiting yourself. Not the mechanics. ME? coughcough points at hamsters Originally by: Darius JOHNSON There's a lot that could be changed but I think what bears looking into is what makes the barrier of entry into 0.0 so high? The barrier of entry into 0.0 is not the problem. It is the 0.0 warfare itself. It is slow, it is static, everyone is bored if it comes to Pos-warfare. I didn't like most of the OP's proposals, because it slows down Eve-Combat even more. We don't need more forced on mechanics to capture space, we need tools in our sandbox to spice up 0.0 warfare again, stuff which adds more tactical depths than lag/no-lag. __________________________________________________
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.04 03:35:00 - [208] Originally by: Pherusa Plumosa The barrier of entry into 0.0 is not the problem. It is the 0.0 warfare itself. It is slow, it is static, everyone is bored if it comes to Pos-warfare. I didn't like most of the OP's proposals, because it slows down Eve-Combat even more. We don't need more forced on mechanics to capture space, we need tools in our sandbox to spice up 0.0 warfare again, stuff which adds more tactical depths than lag/no-lag. Do you have an example? "Stuff" is a bit hard to quantify. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Visakoth Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.05 03:11:00 - [209] Reading that wall of text was bad enough, so having not read any other posts, this idea is terrible. All this talk about not requiring numbers to do stuff so that small corps can do stuff in 0.0 is dumb. Doing these things may not require many people, but you will lose to the person who brings 2 or 3 times as many assets with cap support. tl;dr Blobbing is impossible to fix unless you limit the number of people in an area. Someone else will always have more ~~cannon fodder~~ people.
Enyka Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.05 12:09:00 - [210] Originally by: Kelsin Scratching the paint is very different than totaling the car. I think that this proposal still very much rewards the kind of long term efforts the current 0.0 alliances have made to build their empires. What it changes is creating a layer on top with more give and take than the rigid and linear POS warfare. The war is not broken, it does not require fixing. The ways we wage the wars are not set in stone, the give and take is all in the creativity and tactical planning of the corporations and alliances engaging in them. These proposals to completely revamp 0.0 combat are un-needed. We're going backwards here. The gates idea is just wrong if anything else. If people want to own a gate they have the ability already, sit on it with a gang, done. If anything is to be discussed for revamping intergalactic warfare, it should be streamlining the system that is in place before going in a completely different direction. What you're talking about is like building a kit car for say an old muscle car, and then half way through when its almost ready to run, you decide you'd rather have an exotic sportscar kit, but instead of finishing what you had and then adding something else thats cool to the collection, you just start throwing crap from the exotic car, onto the muscle car. In the end you end up with something ugly that barely works if it does, when you could have had the most solid muscle on the block. Layers is the name? Okay... we have layers of functioning material thats got a few wrinkles. IRON IT OUT. Small gang PvP being compared to Capital large scale engagements... I'm not sure you're playing to much anymore, if you want to get in a gang with a bunch of rifters and go have a good time, you can. If you want to get into a badger with smartbombs for kicks, you can. If you want to have 100 rifters fight 100 merlins, this can be achieved as well. The layers you were yapping about are in place, only they're more accurately called roles, and each ship has one, and each object in the space our ships roam in has one too. Frigates are designed for small gang operations, logistics harassment, and tackling, the player has more than enough option to stay in a frigate for their entire stay in EVE and enjoy it. The roles of Capital ships are to fight in large scale operations. Look at Concord on a gate, frigates, ewar, logistics, battleships, cruisers, battlecruisers, each ship has its role. For every player/pilot there is a goal, for every ship/game mechanic there is a role. Focus on making the system in place shine, then see what accessories and remodles should be done. Because there are a lot more complaints about minor stuff, then there is the entire system.

Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.05 13:09:00 - [211] Originally by: Enyka Frigates are designed for small gang operations Since it seems this discussion is still going on, I'll reply. In large scale combat, it is true that most every ship can fulfill a role. But that's not what CCP asked that the CSM address. CCP specifically called for a layered model of 0.0 sovereignty warfare that includes territorial objectives for small subcapital gangs, in addition to capital and fleet objectives. That is what the OP provides. The assertions many of you are making about what this proposal entailed are flat out incorrect. Nothing in the OP hands 0.0 sovereignty over to "small empire alliances" or nonsense like that. It simply restructures how the existing sovereignty benefits are granted so that some remain governed by POS, some are governed by non-POS structures designed to be assaulted by large fleets, and some are governed by large numbers of distributed objectives (in this case Stargates) designed to be conquered by many small groups acting in concert. I appreciate that some feel the current system works fine. But CCP didn't ask that question. They said they want to change it, and this has to be viewed in that context.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.05 15:28:00 - [212] All that needed to be done to "revamp 0.0 SOV" was to lower HP across the board and increase fuel bay capacity, and possibly move cynojammers away from POS towers. Lag is the death in all fleet fights. Lag comes from large gangs. Large gangs come from the necessity to shoot mindless objects for long periods of time. Everything must be done to limit Lag, and Boredom If you reduce POS HP/Anchorables/Station Services, there is less to take down, less time to rep it back up. More targets can be hit at the same time requiring moar attention paid to your home systems and valuable POS installations. Moar time at home, means failure alliances won't be able to napfailtrain all over the place because they might be hit next. You increase the fuel bays, to reduce logistic runs, which are boring, but providing moar assets and isk into each tower. You move the Cynojammer away from teh tower and it becomes a becon of contesting, this negates lag for being on the side of the defender as it is now with the POS getting free kills to desynched pilots. With this, no major changes to SOV need to take place. 0.0 becomes a constant battle ground. All is good.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.05 16:13:00 - [213] Originally by: Matrixcvd All that needed to be done to "revamp 0.0 SOV" was to lower HP across the board and increase fuel bay capacity, and possibly move cynojammers away from POS towers. Lag is the death in all fleet fights. Lag comes from large gangs. Large gangs come from the necessity to shoot mindless objects for long periods of time. Everything must be done to limit Lag, and Boredom If you reduce POS HP/Anchorables/Station Services, there is less to take down, less time to rep it back up. More targets can be hit at the same time requiring moar attention paid to your home systems and valuable POS installations. Moar time at home, means failure alliances won't be able to napfailtrain all over the place because they might be hit next. You increase the fuel bays, to reduce logistic runs, which are boring, but providing moar assets and isk into each tower. You move the Cynojammer away from teh tower and it becomes a becon of contesting, this negates lag for being on the side of the defender as it is now with the POS getting free kills to desynched pilots. With this, no major changes to SOV need to take place. 0.0 becomes a constant battle ground. All is good. Please write up your proposal as an ISSUE matrixcvd and I'll support it and add it to the agenda once its stood for 7 days. (deadline for public discussion prior to august 17th meeting means you'd need your ISSUE post up on the assembly hall by sunday 10th 16:00 hours at the latest. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.05 16:36:00 - [214] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 05/08/2008 16:38:11 It seems to me that an alliance holding enough territory should be able to disallow any ships specified or generally out of their alliance, not possessing the right signatures/codes, from using stargates that are deep enough in their space or secured by some other means. The only ability to circumvent this would be through either hacking a gate, or by using covert jump bridges. Or hell, you could simply introduce passcodes! Yay for infiltration/spying ops! Generally though, your original suggestion is excellent, and I am all for this.
Echthalian Martian Productions	Posted - 2008.08.05 18:13:00 - [215] I read 1/3.....bad idea after bad idea. Sounds like faction warfair on stargates....boring.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.05 18:15:00 - [216] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Matrixcvd All that needed to be done to "revamp 0.0 SOV" was to lower HP across the board and increase fuel bay capacity, and possibly move cynojammers away from POS towers. Lag is the death in all fleet fights. Lag comes from large gangs. Large gangs come from the necessity to shoot mindless objects for long periods of time. Everything must be done to limit Lag, and Boredom If you reduce POS HP/Anchorables/Station Services, there is less to take down, less time to rep it back up. More targets can be hit at the same time requiring moar attention paid to your home systems and valuable POS installations. Moar time at home, means failure alliances won't be able to napfailtrain all over the place because they might be hit next. You increase the fuel bays, to reduce logistic runs, which are boring, but providing moar assets and isk into each tower. You move the Cynojammer away from teh tower and it becomes a becon of contesting, this negates lag for being on the side of the defender as it is now with the POS getting free kills to desynched pilots. With this, no major changes to SOV need to take place. 0.0 becomes a constant battle ground. All is good. Please write up your proposal as an ISSUE matrixcvd and I'll support it and add it to the agenda once its stood for 7 days. (deadline for public discussion prior to august 17th meeting means you'd need your ISSUE post up on the assembly hall by sunday 10th 16:00 hours at the latest. done http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=840235
Virgo I'Platonicus Ex Eventus Corpi	Posted - 2008.08.05 19:20:00 - [217] Support. <3
Kerfira	Posted - 2008.08.05 19:58:00 - [218] Originally by: Matrixcvd With this, no major changes to SOV need to take place. 0.0 becomes a constant battle ground. All is good. No.... It becomes an even more constant shoot/repair-structure-ground.... Whatever solution there is for the sovereignty problems, it has nothing to do with MORE shooting/repping of structures. It'll NOT encourage fights any more than current status as people will STILL bring a blob. Why? Because they don't risk loosing ships then! Invent something that makes people want to shoot each other in small groups instead. 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.
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.05 20:24:00 - [219] OK as far as I know this is somewhat dead unless Jade and CO. decide to circumvent everyone and force it upon CCP anyway. But if CCP and everyone else wants to create "layers", putting layers of crap on a issue to compound the problem makes no sense. When someone calls an OP no one says "Oh we just need a few guys". You get what you get and run with it and make it up as you go along. There are already small gang stuff going on anyway. Enhance that. We have already been addressing the BOPS issue. Put that in place with the layers stuff CCP want. BOPS in it self if a layer. Incorporate that. Attacking ones infrastructure is not hitting gates and the like. The true life blood is the pilots. Small gangs are designed to disrupt day to day null sec life. You will do 100 times more damage killing a Jump freighter or killing a few miners and ratters, than you will ever do taking down a POS or assaulting a gate. That is a layer. Both tactical and RP. It already exists. This is contesting your targets military prowess and infrastructure. Not shooting a structure. Enhance what we have that works currently. Fix or minimize the boring shit. And THEN build upon that. Building a house on a pile of shit just makes a bigger pile of shit.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.05 20:58:00 - [220] Originally by: Farrqua There are already small gang stuff going on anyway. Enhance that. We have already been addressing the BOPS issue. Put that in place with the layers stuff CCP want. BOPS in it self if a layer. Incorporate that. I'm just pointing out what CCP asked for. There may be plenty of small gang stuff to do in 0.0, but they wanted small gang stuff that affected Sovereignty. A lot of folks who had a problem with this didn't understand that context. As for the "it's always better to blob" argument, here's the element you're missing: More pilots is better, except when the additional pilots could be more useful elsewhere. That's how you break up the blob - you give them diminishing returns on their pilots beyond a certain point, and give them a more efficient way to use those additional pilots on another grid. In my proposal you need 10 pilots to capture a gate, but after 10 you don't capture the gate any faster. Maybe you bring a few extras as backups, but once you get into the 25-30 pilot range, you have to start asking yourself if it's not better to run two gangs at the same time in order to capture twice as many gates in the same amount of time you have devoted to the op. That's one way to disincentivize blobbing, and it's a sound principle but one that many didn't seem to get.

Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.05 21:52:00 - [221] Here is the part you are ignoring or not getting. Players do not want to shoot structures. Shooting structures suck. Its boring. Players do not even think about those only if they have to and then its pretty much..meh. And trying to enforce a set number of players to do anything is restricting game play. And to think that we can sit here and theory craft tactics for any one group to follow is silly. CCP should not dictate how tactics are played out. We as player set that standard. That is why we see so much failure amongst alliances because BoB or someone else slams them with something they do not expect or using tactics on the field they came up with. That allows players to be creative. Making someone do something by some set of number of players to contest an objective is pretty much 2 dimensional board game thinking. Make the BOPS proposal with he ability to bring in enough ships and dps to to attack the CYNO jammers. You have surprise, tactics and contesting SOV. You don't have to have an over complicated micro managed 3 layer system. Just keep it simple to allow the players to choose what they will and will not do. Do not put more structure warfare in the game. Make the current structures much more vulnerable requiring more player response to defend. And you still missed the point of what the real infrastructure of any alliance or crop is. It's the pilots. They are who you attack.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.05 22:39:00 - [222] Originally by: Farrqua Here is the part you are ignoring or not getting. Players do not want to shoot structures. Shooting structures suck. Its boring. Players do not even think about those only if they have to and then its pretty much..meh. I agree with that. But there's no more shooting at structures in this proposal than there currently is in game - how is your complaint relevant to this proposal? Quote: And trying to enforce a set number of players to do anything is restricting game play. And to think that we can sit here and theory craft tactics for any one group to follow is silly. CCP should not dictate how tactics are played out. I don't think this is a valid argument at all. The nature of every module and mechanic in the game has an impact on tactics. Nothing I've laid out locks a group into a particular set of tactics, in fact it provides the framework for a variety of methods. The choice to make a freighter an easy target if unescorted prompts players to use scouts and escort ships - is it valid to complain that this is shoe-horning players into a particular tactic? Of course not. Likewise with any other game mechanic currently in this game or any other - the basics are laid down and players adapt around them. Quote: And you still missed the point of what the real infrastructure of any alliance or crop is. It's the pilots. They are who you attack. I agree. But in territory warfare you also take over territory. This model gets more pilots into the field where they can attack and be attacked by one another, as opposed to just making single heavy excursions or incursions to construct or siege a POS. This adds a broad pilot presence across the held territory in addition to that, making held and contested territory more populous.
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.05 23:20:00 - [223] By dictating the number of and the type of ships needed to take anyone objective is constrictive and unrealistic. This is dictating tactics. You are telling them you have 4 choices, pick one. Ok this is whats going to happen, some naivete pilot believing that this is what they have to do, will form a gang just as you spelled out. Now the response force to agrees said attacking team trying to take that gate is going to get swarmed. because they are going to CTA and every body and their brother will show up boil into the system. The attacking team has been given the high hard one with out a reach around. The attacking team is going to say screw this, I am either going to show with a fleet next time or just go harass the ratters. You might get ohh maybe 3 or 4 days of teams actually following that ship requirement before you have blob wars on gates. I see what you are doing. You are creating a method to solve a problem. But it has not solved it just created more hurdles and drawn out the game play. You are trying to put your self in the place of alliance leaders as stating this is what "I" would do and this is what CCP wants. By putting layers on something that is boring (POS warfare) just means that it is 3 layers of boring.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.05 23:51:00 - [224] Originally by: Farrqua By dictating the number of and the type of ships needed to take anyone objective is constrictive and unrealistic. This is dictating tactics. You are telling them you have 4 choices, pick one. I don't think saying you need 10 ships (of any size) to effect a gate capture is any more restrictive than needing Dreadnoughts to take down a POS or a Battleship fleet to eliminate a Cynojammer. Quote: Ok this is whats going to happen, some naivete pilot believing that this is what they have to do, will form a gang just as you spelled out. Now the response force to agrees said attacking team trying to take that gate is going to get swarmed. because they are going to CTA and every body and their brother will show up boil into the system. The attacking team has been given the high hard one with out a reach around. The attacking team is going to say screw this, I am either going to show with a fleet next time or just go harass the ratters. You might get ohh maybe 3 or 4 days of teams actually following that ship requirement before you have blob wars on gates. If the Attack can field enough ships to divide their forces, one group can capture gates while another distracts the Defending blob, etc. Then the Defender will have to respond by distributing their forces better to counter the multiple small gangs the Attacker is fielding. I could see an Attacker counter-blobbing if they felt they could destroy a Defending force outright, and gain increased freedom to continue contesting gates, but a savvy commander might choose to evade the Defending blob in order to contest more gates if he is outnumbered. But the mechanics are there to give incentives to field multiple forces instead of a single blob.
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.06 00:04:00 - [225] Why in the world would any one split there forces. It makes no sense. The way covops and intel works now avoiding a gang is pretty tough if they are hunting you. And if you take time to sit at a gate to capture it you are asking for a beating, especially if they are currently hunting you. Look man, I have seen first hand certain (dead) alliance's doing the CTA spilt forces thing. And they get boned. Every time. When you call in for fire on a target you do not call in just enough to get the job done. You call in enough to obliterate.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.06 00:11:00 - [226] Originally by: Farrqua Why in the world would any one split there forces. It makes no sense. The way covops and intel works now avoiding a gang is pretty tough if they are hunting you. And if you take time to sit at a gate to capture it you are asking for a beating, especially if they are currently hunting you. Look man, I have seen first hand certain (dead) alliance's doing the CTA spilt forces thing. And they get boned. Every time. When you call in for fire on a target you do not call in just enough to get the job done. You call in enough to obliterate. In some cases it would make sense to do it - it just depends on how far apart you're going to split them, like how many jumps away. If the travel time between groups is longer than the time it takes to capture a gate, or one group can stall the blob sufficiently to let the other one accomplish its goals, then it makes a lot of sense. Yeah, in a single system that takes 20 second to cross with your blob, there's no advantage to splitting up - but if you have groups operating all across a Constellation or Region, hitting gates where the enemy forces are not and evading or skirmishing with them when the blob shows up, that can work. It just depends on how the system is designed. My point is that there is a distinct potential for great use of tactics given the right mechanics, and that much of the current conventional wisdom doesn't HAVE to apply to a proposal like this, though many people just assume that it does.
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.06 00:33:00 - [227] Edited by: Farrqua on 06/08/2008 00:33:51 Kelsin, I will give you credit for the work you put into your proposal. I do recognize the fact you did work this out the best you could. The presentation left too many angles for objection. Keep your readers / audience focused on a few points and each point should be understood with in the first two or three sentences. This will give the opportunity for others to expand off the bullet points. By putting out too many working parts someone somewhere will attack it and not vote for it or completely misunderstand what you are driving at. Which a lot of players will look at it and think that this will be as complicated as what is written. You gave the option for others to expand. But there was so many things to look at it you saw frustration. You might not be able to put all three layers on at once. It might be too much. You might have to install one layer at a time and then only add the next layer once you see the first one working.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.06 01:20:00 - [228] Originally by: Farrqua Edited by: Farrqua on 06/08/2008 00:33:51 Kelsin, I will give you credit for the work you put into your proposal. I do recognize the fact you did work this out the best you could. The presentation left too many angles for objection. Keep your readers / audience focused on a few points and each point should be understood with in the first two or three sentences. This will give the opportunity for others to expand off the bullet points. By putting out too many working parts someone somewhere will attack it and not vote for it or completely misunderstand what you are driving at. Which a lot of players will look at it and think that this will be as complicated as what is written. You gave the option for others to expand. But there was so many things to look at it you saw frustration. You might not be able to put all three layers on at once. It might be too much. You might have to install one layer at a time and then only add the next layer once you see the first one working. That's very good advice, I appreciate that. I think you're right and the big picture was obscured by some of the little bits. Also I appreciate the critiques, it helps pinpoint what is the core of the idea and what can be tossed for clarity. These sorts of things do need to hit the right balance between detail and big picture.
Deldrac Bat Country Aegis Militia	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:10:00 - [229] Farrqua is right ofc, but there is a fundamental problem with the direction of the OP as well as many problems in the detail, this proposal reduces the focus on internet spaceship pew pew, and instead presents logistical micromanagement as an alternative 'battlefield'. Logistics isn't that much fun - and there is already too much of it involved in holding 0.0.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.06 19:20:00 - [230] Originally by: Kelsin There may be plenty of small gang stuff to do in 0.0, but they wanted small gang stuff that affected Sovereignty. A lot of folks who had a problem with this didn't understand that context. I may have missed the meeting where CCP asked for a way for small gangs to impact sov. I understood the context. I just find the idea stupid and thought the proposal was bad. Part of the challenge of conquering space is putting together the forces to do it. If you lack the capability to acheive step one why should you be able to scratch a dent in sovreign space? You are not entitled by virtue of the subscription fee to success in conquerable space. All you are entitled to is the opportunity and a (semi) level playing field to compete with the rest of the subscribers. I also agree with the other poster and have said so repeatedly both in CSM meetings and in Iceland. In a lot of cases your opportunities for small gang warfare WITH AN IMPACT are there. You simply aren't doing it. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM

Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.06 20:36:00 - [231] Edited by: Matrixcvd on 06/08/2008 20:37:19 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Kelsin There may be plenty of small gang stuff to do in 0.0, but they wanted small gang stuff that affected Sovereignty. A lot of folks who had a problem with this didn't understand that context. Part of the challenge of conquering space is putting together the forces to do it. If you lack the capability to acheive step one why should you be able to scratch a dent in sovreign space? You are not entitled by virtue of the subscription fee to success in conquerable space. . If the servers could handle all the people brought to a fight then what you are saying makes would be ok. But if 50 people come to fight 150 at a tower, nobody is going to deny that when lag hits, every single time, without fail the side with the moar pilots avaible will win because they will have a higher number playing and not desynched. The primary reason SOV should be looked at is because you have to shoot for long periods of time, large numbers of pilots = lag, and sitting around or being desynched and lagged out is no fun. In the end this is a game and if the core mechanic only suites the masochistic thats not really a game then is it? Small gangs should have as much viability to affect game politics as large gangs. Balancing the desires of mega alliances while providing interesting content to smaller alliances is no different than any other aspect of the game. Just cause you can befriend 10000 people doesn't make your subscription any moar important or game play experience any moar special The other side is that, just because a lot of people can get togther doesn't give them the right, any more than the small,
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.06 21:20:00 - [232] Edited by: Kelsin on 06/08/2008 21:20:41 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I may have missed the meeting where CCP asked for a way for small gangs to impact sov. The CCP-CSM Minutes "0.0 Sovereignty Issues" http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=819315 is quoted in the first post in this thread: Quote: The 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.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.06 21:45:00 - [233] Originally by: Matrixcvd In the end this is a game and if the core mechanic only suites the masochistic thats not really a game then is it? Small gangs should have as much viability to affect game politics as large gangs. Balancing the desires of mega alliances while providing interesting content to smaller alliances is no different than any other aspect of the game. Just cause you can befriend 10000 people doesn't make your subscription any moar important or game play experience any moar special The other side is that, just because a lot of people can get togther doesn't give them the right, any more than the small, FYI, you'll have one hell of a time trying to convince a Goon of the correctness of that last part. As for what you're trying to say at first, I think that can just be called off as plain wrong, if what you're talking about is game politics on a large scale. Small scale? Yes. Maybe. We want the smaller corporations to be able to perhaps chip away at some larger entity with planning and cleverness and opportunity. And you should implement mechanics that allow even small companies to claim ground, if they've got the balls and the strength to do it. But this does not change the fact that most people don't. And that in the face of the monster-alliances, most everyone will back out at even a hint of retaliation. Perhaps most of all because it's so damn easy in the game to find out just who did what and where and when. And where to find them. Changing the last part of the equation, that the alliances might have a harder time to track and punish certain offenders, if they are smart enough, will probably be a more realistic turn. Yet still, nothing should really take away the power of a big alliance, presuming that they can co-ordinate and organize well enough. Anyway, to me this mostly just points out that you need to think past politics mostly, and introduce some new sort of tactics or entity; small, hard-core gangs and strike forces that operate independently and without attackable points or assets to lose, being paid off by mother/contractor corporations... And that's quite achievable with the current game mechanics. If there's anything that might upset skirmishing warfare as it's seen in EVE, it's the ability to restrict the access to space, via 'lockable' gates that have to be hacked or circumvented. And I think that this is an idea that should be clarified and brought attention to...
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.06 21:51:00 - [234] Originally by: Matrixcvd Just cause you can befriend 10000 people doesn't make your subscription any moar important or game play experience any moar special The other side is that, just because a lot of people can get togther doesn't give them the right, any more than the small, Yes actually it does and it always will. There will never be a mechanic that can change that truth. You may not like it. I may not like it. But bigger will always be better and there is no way to change that and still present anything remotely resembling a "sandbox". Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.06 21:52:00 - [235] Originally by: Kelsin Edited by: Kelsin on 06/08/2008 21:20:41 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I may have missed the meeting where CCP asked for a way for small gangs to impact sov. The CCP-CSM Minutes "0.0 Sovereignty Issues" http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=819315 is quoted in the first post in this thread: Quote: The 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. I didn't write the notes. This is actually in some ways contrary to what was actually said. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.06 21:58:00 - [236] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Kelsin Quote: The 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. I didn't write the notes. This is actually in some ways contrary to what was actually said. Well the discrepancy between the published minutes and your memory aside, this was the context of the proposal, clearly outlined at the start.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.06 22:14:00 - [237] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Yes actually it does and it always will. There will never be a mechanic that can change that truth. You may not like it. I may not like it. But bigger will always be better and there is no way to change that and still present anything remotely resembling a "sandbox". Quite true, but... Shouldn't it depend on the situation? Sometimes, a level of autonomy and self-control, and most of all of inconspicuousness and the lack of having to worry about retaliation, is greatly favorable to a massive front and assets that are easy to strike at. The two reasons this is not the case in EVE is because 1) You really need a Dread or two if you want to incur some palpable losses, and 2) Because it's damn easy finding out who executed a certain attack, and tracking them down. Both reasons aren't really in line with real life...
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.07 00:30:00 - [238] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Yes actually it does and it always will. There will never be a mechanic that can change that truth. You may not like it. I may not like it. But bigger will always be better and there is no way to change that and still present anything remotely resembling a "sandbox". Quite true, but... Shouldn't it depend on the situation? Sometimes, a level of autonomy and self-control, and most of all of inconspicuousness and the lack of having to worry about retaliation, is greatly favorable to a massive front and assets that are easy to strike at. The two reasons this is not the case in EVE is because 1) You really need a Dread or two if you want to incur some palpable losses, and 2) Because it's damn easy finding out who executed a certain attack, and tracking them down. Both reasons aren't really in line with real life... In real life 10 hippies blocking a highway don't cause the town to secede from the state and fall under their control. RL analogies have no place in a videogame. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.07 00:32:00 - [239] Originally by: Kelsin Well the discrepancy between the published minutes and your memory aside, this was the context of the proposal, clearly outlined at the start. Sorry the minutes are incorrect and you wasted your time. They are open to mini-games in ambulation. I'm sure you could cook up something original, interesting and not at all game breaking to propose there. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.07 02:14:00 - [240] Understandably a lot of people are resisting any additions that look like entitlement to 0.0. We don't want to WoW it up and give everyone a chance. However, all the action is happening on the same grids, and this has been shown to be a problem for a number of reasons. Moves to break up sov conflicts and provide more potential for harassment techniques to impact a sovereign power to the point that they opt to cede unwanted territory would be desirable. However, they should in no way function to give everyone a piece of 0.0 as a participation ribbon. Where we can start this move is by providing more benefits to sovereign powers and more opportunities to fortify their space and ease its maintenance at the expense of more exposure to smaller gangs. Risk equals reward. All action to rely on these systems is voluntary. The final goal is to break up the overall conflict of each individual POS to several grids, with more direct attacks carrying more significance, but where less direct attacks can prove disruptive if left unchecked. In short: 1) More defense afforded by outposts 2) Ferry drone system to ease POS to POS logistics 3) POS self-maintenance and repair that has more granularity and exposure than the POS itself. 4) POS vulnerability across a more spread out system of objectives that will nominally incapacitate a POS that is experiencing repeated attacks on it's infrastructure. 5) Capability to restore a POS's functionality across a more spread out area of objectives. To start, I would like to see more stability for large alliances within their own territory wherever they have taken the time to put up some wallpaper and fix shingles on the roof. The single best way to add more stability to the 0.0 occupants of sovereign space is to increase the defenses afforded by outposts such that dwellers can use them as a buffer between engaging every roaming Vagabond and going out to meet the enemy. This system should rely on the integrity of POS systems to deploy and maintain, thus skirmish warfare can remove this capability. To lower the maintenance requirements, add a system of ferry drones that can move resources from starbase to starbase. These drones would carry fuel from caches, mined product to reactors, and finished reaction products to final storage location. All POS to POS traffic. Thus every POS in your system can be maintained from a central location if you maintain the routes for these drones and go hunt down lone invaders. These ferry drones themselves should be able to be disrupted by attackers, thus breaking down the automatic flow of logistics and increasing the amount of interaction required to POS structures. Give POS's satellite structures that occupy another grid, an array of systems that operate to lower fuel requirements, supply added functionality to the POS, and work to repair it. Imagine the energy sifter from Predator. A wounded POS collects aid from these satellite structures. When the POS is at full capacity, it has more grid and CPU available and has lower fuel requirements. The array structures receive remote invulnerability from the POS via stront supplies that can be restocked via the ferry system. Attacks against this array will slowly drain the capability of a POS and eventually render it unable to function as a full deathstar. Other POS's in the system will attempt to provide stocks to the POS that is under attack, again via the ferry system. Allow a defender who has successfully repelled the attackers and lowered the amount of roaming presence capability to re-deploy more ferry drones and array structures. In this way, POS warfare can be waged in smaller steps or all at once. Winning the slow war requires engaging small gangs and winning across multiple fronts. Skirmish by skirmish, the system can be made vulnerable or continue to be reinforced by defenders. Small objectives tied to POS warfare that don't upset existing 0.0 powers. There you have it.

Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:10:00 - [241] They are several very simple solutions that have been brought up and casually ignored by jade and co because they dont make life easier for them. I honestly don't believe Kelsin or Jade has ever lived in 0.0 for an extended period of time if they are seriously suggesting that a small gang of people should be able to disrupt a sovereign alliance. There are so many inherent flaws with their proposal its mind boggling the Goons and BoB agree about it yet they continue to strut this idea like its perfect. We could compare soverign 0.0 alliances to NPC factions. They have gun emplacements on stargates to prevent small invasions. If you want to allow a small gang to attempt to contest Sov maybe there should be guns there that people could man to oppose them more effectively. This change not only removes any defender advantage that should be gained it actually gives the attacker an advantage. 24 48 or 72 hours for sov and then back to neutral. You intend for an alliance to have to patrol their entire space every (3) day to make sure not a single gate has been contested with no benefit of having to do such a task other than looking pretty on the map. The benefits of 0.0 hardly out weigh the difficulty of holding it let alone justify putting more meaningless tasks for the players to perform. Some of the good suggestions would include: Splitting up POS attacks to require multiple grids at once. It doesn't reduce the blobs required to do it but at least changes them all having to be on the same grid at once to succeed. Making POS more like small outposts to allow smaller alliances/corporations the ability to establish a foothold. The biggest issue for small corps is that they cant move out and set up base without using NPC outposts or renting space. The requirement for outposts is one of the biggest barriers of entry to 0.0 at this time. Making it worth smaller alliances/corporations time to even come out to 0.0. Right now besides the lowest true sec systems and the rarest moons 0.0 has nothing to offer. Last I counted there were 24 -1.0 systems in the whole game so maybe a few hundred that could produce money at the same rate as level 4 missions in high sec (ignoring the safety issue). Moons are more often run by alliances than single players to help fund the alliance so you can hardly count those for individuals let alone the small alliance trying to start out. High end asteroids are starting to move back up in the market but they are still a long way off the original base values (obviously everything is more expensive but comparitevely) ccp placed in the game.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:17:00 - [242] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 07/08/2008 03:18:43 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Sorry the minutes are incorrect and you wasted your time. They are open to mini-games in ambulation. I'm sure you could cook up something original, interesting and not at all game breaking to propose there. 0018 0.0 Sovereignty Issues CCP has been discussing 0.0 and sovereignty internally for the past year and discussed many issues already. They found that Player Owned Station (POS) warfare is a very limited mechanic, and that it revolves around the amount of dreadnoughts and other capital ships in the fleet, while small ships only serve as support instead of being able to accomplish small objectives on their own. The 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. Nathan (CCP) said that he does not believe that current large-scale fleet combat is interesting for the participants, mainly due to focus fire. Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) commented that current 0.0 PVP is siege warfare, people stick to established fortresses and do not venture beyond the gates. His suggestion was to include mechanics that encouraged sovereignty holders to patrol their space, and have ways for roaming gangs to peck at undefended systems and steal resources there. The issue of logistics was also discussed. Alex stated that current POS logistics required an alliance to have powergamers that managed them around the clock. He proposed to make 0.0 appeal to a wider audience by removing these repetitive activities that required powergaming. Shayne urged CCP to consider mechanics that would provide more synergy between the industrial and combat aspects of 0.0. CCP said that they would have to balance short term achievements to the long term empire building. If people could easily destroy in a day what took months to build up, this would be unfair. But on the other hand, it should not be too hard to smoke out established entities. They agreed however, that the current time sinks in POS warfare are too long. This issue has been put on the rolling agenda, and CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty. *** Thats the minutes on the 0.0 Sov topic. If you had an issue with this you should have said something during the review sequence. As it is we reviewed it. CCP reviewed it. It was officially signed off and it certainly reflects my memory of the discussion. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:26:00 - [243] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON In real life 10 hippies blocking a highway don't cause the town to secede from the state and fall under their control. RL analogies have no place in a videogame. Well, that's putting it in a rather crude and dramatic (not to mention convenient) analogy. I was talking something more along the lines of a dozen or so well-coordinated marines holding a choke point against a few hundred insurgents. Of course they'd get overrun, but with timing and the advantage they might cause the enemy heavy losses and achieve some small goal anyway, without too heavy losses themselves. But if you don't want me to talk RL analogies, sure. Let's put it this way then; it's mostly empty space anyway. A few planets and stations and asteroid belts are not alike a city. Few people are going to notice, and it's not going to upset the power balance in the region dramatically anyway. Not until that gate becomes an important route of some kind. Because it's basically all about the gate. It's the only object that has to remain constant, unharmed and controlled throughout the entire situation. Look, it... just seems more appropriate and proper RP-wise that you can claim and hold a gate, locking it down or taking control of its systems in some way at least. That's not going to to keep a stronger foe from booting you from it or hacking it and sending a strike force through, or from using a covert jump bridge to hop in and **** you up the ass, and then giving you the finger, going 'F*ck off! This is our territory!'.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:26:00 - [244] Originally by: Stevens Some of the good suggestions would include: Splitting up POS attacks to require multiple grids at once. It doesn't reduce the blobs required to do it but at least changes them all having to be on the same grid at once to succeed. Answered the first suggestion very handily in my previous post. Implement POS satellite structures off-grid that can be repped or attacked to hinder or expedite the progress of reinforcing/destroying the tower. This would allow attackers and defenders to keep forcing each other to move back and forth to locations simultaneously during the battle and make it so that one main blob cannot simply sit on the POS as effectively and a well coordinated mobile force can apply more forces where required with trade-offs for splitting up that make it not the voluntary "I'm divided! Conquer me!" action that it is now. Likely during a large battle part of the force would try to remain hidden and defeat would mean outmaneuvering the committed forces and forcing the other side to play their hand and give up any surprise advantage. On the flip-side, taking advantage of an attacker could mean instead making swift attacks against their own infrastructure while they were mobilized with the goal of creating more disruption at home than could be caused against a single POS being dropped into reinforced. These would be very healthy changes to Sov warfare. Tempted to push the ideas in a separate thread if they are so counter to the OP.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:29:00 - [245] Originally by: Jade Constantine The issue of logistics was also discussed. Alex stated that current POS logistics required an alliance to have powergamers that managed them around the clock. He proposed to make 0.0 appeal to a wider audience by removing these repetitive activities that required powergaming. Shayne urged CCP to consider mechanics that would provide more synergy between the industrial and combat aspects of 0.0. CCP said that they would have to balance short term achievements to the long term empire building. If people could easily destroy in a day what took months to build up, this would be unfair. But on the other hand, it should not be too hard to smoke out established entities. They agreed however, that the current time sinks in POS warfare are too long. This issue has been put on the rolling agenda, and CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty. How about instead of having a slap-fight over what was said in minutes reading what I just posted. I handed you a solution to these issues on a silver platter. Easier logistics? Check. Split up objectives where smaller ships can play a role? Check.
Stevens Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:33:00 - [246] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Stevens Some of the good suggestions would include: Splitting up POS attacks to require multiple grids at once. It doesn't reduce the blobs required to do it but at least changes them all having to be on the same grid at once to succeed. Answered the first suggestion very handily in my previous post. Implement POS satellite structures off-grid that can be repped or attacked to hinder or expedite the progress of reinforcing/destroying the tower. This would allow attackers and defenders to keep forcing each other to move back and forth to locations simultaneously during the battle and make it so that one main blob cannot simply sit on the POS as effectively and a well coordinated mobile force can apply more forces where required with trade-offs for splitting up that make it not the voluntary "I'm divided! Conquer me!" action that it is now. Likely during a large battle part of the force would try to remain hidden and defeat would mean outmaneuvering the committed forces and forcing the other side to play their hand and give up any surprise advantage. On the flip-side, taking advantage of an attacker could mean instead making swift attacks against their own infrastructure while they were mobilized with the goal of creating more disruption at home than could be caused against a single POS being dropped into reinforced. These would be very healthy changes to Sov warfare. Tempted to push the ideas in a separate thread if they are so counter to the OP. I am sure many 0.0 entities would support this so I highly recommend it.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:44:00 - [247] Originally by: Stevens I am sure many 0.0 entities would support this so I highly recommend it. I sense funky resonance. Will continue to spread funky vibes and unconditional breakdancer prosperity to the Eve universe. Proposals are in this post. Threadjacking. Want to clean up the idea a bit and then open up a new thread maybe.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:45:00 - [248] Originally by: NanDe YaNen How about instead of having a slap-fight over what was said in minutes reading what I just posted. I handed you a solution to these issues on a silver platter. Easier logistics? Check. Split up objectives where smaller ships can play a role? Check. Go post it as an Issue in its own right and lets get people debating it. If it looks good to go after a decent discussion I'll be happy to get it up on the agenda. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Hitachi Morimoto Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.08.07 04:12:00 - [249] full of win and awesomeness. (Frigate captain) Come on, people! we can beat the evil with love! -------------------------------------------------- If tomorrow technically doesn't exist until it happens, then doesn't that beg the askin if today didn't exist yesterday?
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.07 05:07:00 - [250] As part of hijacking this thread in preparation for forking, going to get some groundwork fleshed out. 1) Ferry Drone System Simplifies starbase logistics and provides the lowest level goal for a roaming gang. Drone Source/Cost Drones are manufactured from materials available in any veldroid and quite cheap. BPO's are available at the scale of marshmallows in a box of Lucky Charms. The value is in what they carry. The cheapness is to signify that you attack them to disrupt things, not inflict lasting wounds, and to make sure that implementing them on a large scale is quite easy. This should result in a large availability of low-hanging fruit to a roaming gang, miners or not. Stay at home tactics cannot protect your logistics operation. Drone Vulnerability Drones are very convenient, but also very vulnerable. They warp from one POS to the next and come out of warp to a few clicks outside the bubble, and my god are they slow. In times of peace, they are your friend. To the pirates you ignore, they are an income source. Drone programming Drone programming should be very easy as to not be worse than the problem. The simplest thing I can come up with is to have simple scripts. One for need, and one for availability. Every time you launch a POS, initiate a harvest, or start a reaction/refine, a script pair is generated for every material/fuel required/produced. The pair are tied together, and exist really as one item. You can store a value in either the need or the demand script. The value tells the drones to either maintain a certain level at one location or to ship a certain amount to another location when it becomes available. To complete the drone route, take the need or supply script to another POS structure where you want the material to go. The server looks at all pairs of scripts, compares availability/need to search for compatible matches, and dispatches drones to attempt to fill all shipping requirements. Drone Usage Instructions To put fuel in all the POS's in a system, set the need scripts for those POS's to the desired value and place the availability script into a hangar array where you will deposit fuel. Ship fuel to that POS. When the drones detect a POS has less than it needs and that there is a registered supply where some is available, they will move it from one to the next. To do moon mining and ship the materials to a single reactor, program the availability script with the appropriate sized bite of moon material and place the need script in the destination POS's desired module. Whenever a cycle is mined, the drone(s) will go to work moving it to the POS with the need script. The system could be made much smarter. I don't think anyone would oppose this, right down to balancing fuel levels smartly and working around cycle-time differences for different modules. **************FUN TIME!********************** So, you know your enemy is having a field day on a good moon, and that they're shipping the product to a hangar array at 11-5 POS. You would go roam them, but they like stay-at-home tactics and all you would normally do is scare the miners back to the station. Look at the Paladin...docking up safe and sound. Time to go raid! If they won't fight, mess with their logistics and steal their moon loot! Since you know the route, you can jump in on grid using the same route as the drone. Wait for the drone(s) to make their run. Put up a bubble. Pop the drone as it comes out of warp 400km away from the POS. Scoop the refined product. Drone after drone will continue trying to service the order, each one dropping you more loot. Scoop to hauler/carrier. Go home. At the very least, you can make their POS fueling nightmare just like it is now. One by one, fuel bay by fuel bay. Every bit of this system is voluntary. It can make life a lot easier. It comes with a price.

NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.07 07:27:00 - [251] 2) POS Modulation Array Off-grid POS satellite structure. Sized arrays for sized POS's. Four arrays per POS. One at 12 o'clock (towards star) 3, 6, and 9 o'clock. Each one is a few thousand km away from the control tower. Current POS needs to be cut down a bit stats-wise but able to be made even stronger than current through the addition of arrays. The whole package will have many benefits to the holder, but will come at the price of increased exposure to more mobile threats. Roleplayer Garbage The POS Modulation Array creates a field between the control tower and the array which captures flux in the gravitational tide to create a powerful energy source. The array also acts as a defensive structure by boosting the control tower shields remotely through the energy capture field interface. Benefits You want to have them because they vastly increase your defensive options as well as making it possible to field a much more resource friendly, even fiercer death star that will take longer to go down. You also want these because they will draw small gangs like a bug-zapper for you to go PvP with in a non-boring fashion =D Drawbacks You want to attack them because they're more accessible and will slowly bleed the POS if your smaller attacks are left unchecked. Intimacy =D To establish lots of goals for small gangs to harass the POS in a costly fashion that prepares for the final assault and makes lots of fun happenings around the POS, there should be a complex relationship of small transactions between the POS and its arrays. POS Reinforced To preserve the current relationship where timezones can't allow a 3am alarm-clock raid to change sov, when the POS goes into reinforced, the arrays go into reinforced as well, thus there's no new advantage to attacking a POS after it's in reinforced. The POS Modulation Array Life Cycle You deploy the tower, and deploy what you want it to support on its own PG. You deploy the arrays, they warp off and deploy, and you set up what you want them to support on their supplemental power grid. Because the deathstar has about twice current powergrid, assaulting it head on without touching the arrays would be a nightmare. A few gunners would make fast work of dreads and the remote shield boosting would work completely to counter even a very large fleet. The ammo and stront requirements alone would be huge. The process of reinforcing POS's will be much more challenging to large fleets if they insist on the old road to stront timers. To create a system that would be really fun for ships of all sizes, string out everyone's forces over a large area, and provide diminishing returns for both sides to blob, I've come up with some preliminary ideas. Proposed Super Tower-Array Intercourse! The tower tries to heal arrays using repair drones (which warp around and can be intercepted) and shield bursts drawn from it's own shield buffer. Indirect attacks on the arrays can thus be used to reinforce the tower. Each array diverts its power to creating a shield burst to add to the tower. The bursts start off as little targetable blue dots that coalesce into a bigger ball that grows geometrically. Repping these bursts causes them to grow much faster. They can be hunted down easily in the early stages by small ships. The arrays will go into individual reinforced with a high shield recharge rate and capability to receive repairs. This is simply to make it impractical to remove the arrays before the tower is gone. Can hold them down, but cannot take them out entirely. Defenders of course encouraged to attack the weakest link. To give a tip for the attacker when it comes to diminishing returns, attacking an array will cause the tower to start building up a shield burst, regardless of how much damage you do after you trigger the repair. A free 1m HP hit to the tower if you can shave a few hundred thousand off an array. =D
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.07 12:58:00 - [252] Edited by: Kelsin on 07/08/2008 12:59:38 Nan - can you clarify how your idea eases logistics? Is it just that these off-grid structures reduce the fueling requirements of the POS they're linked to? What substance are they ferry drones moving back and forth and where does it originate? EDIT - oh whoops, I saw it - so the drones allow you to have a single drop off point for your fuel in a system, and they distribute it as needed to all POS in system.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:36:00 - [253] The idea of the drones is to allow a higher level of non-involvement in POS logistics IF you can keep the roaming threats tamped down and hunt down Black Ops etc. It's completely voluntary, so if you're under constant attack, you just do POS logistics the old way. I imagine it as the perfect trade-off. If you do more PvP on your borders and in territory sweeps, (something fun) you can have less POS fueling/resource moving to put up with. I'd like to see them implemented such that anything that has to be ferried from one POS to another in normal operations can be relegated to the drones and leave Sov powers to fight in combat ships instead of putting around in hauler Rorquals. Easing Fuel Requirements As far as arrays lowering logistics requirements, have them lower the fuel consumption. Imagine them as...giant wind turbines that power the POS in a green peace friendly method. They also can divert their power to boosting the POS shield. I haven't come up with numbers yet because I'm not sure where to start balancing. I'd like the numbers to be at levels where the eased normal fuel consumption is somewhat balanced against being able to be trickily reinforced by a smaller gang. In normal ops, it requires less fuel, but if you use stay at home tactics, a few unanswered BS's will actually raise your fuel bill and eventually disrupt moon mining. Combat Operations I'm thinking a lot on how to implement the Sov warfare side of this. I haven't really worked out the best system for the arrays when damaged. Not sure if the reinforcing model or the incapacitation model is better. For purposes of ensuring the arrays stay in the fight for the final POS showdown (functioning as fight decentralization mechanisms) I like the reinforced model better. Rough Draft of Array Reinforcement Model Whenever an array is damaged below 25% shield, it goes into a shield-recharging reinforced. This requires stront and the POS will attempt to recharge the shield more quickly using its own shield buffer. While in reinfoced, the array does not lend any power, but instead diverts its energy to recharging its own shield. Thus an array that is left to heal itself will resume grinding the siege process to a hault. Any arrays that are online will begin charging up a shield repair burst to send to the POS. Imagine fireflies made of shield energy that's being corralled into a single ball. It starts off as a series of smaller targets that float around at frigate speeds and then coalesce into a larger and larger target before attaining the appropriate size and being dispatched to the POS at a few km/s. The size should be sufficient to make it a capital f*$&! up to ignore the arrays, as if fighting against a group of triaging carriers. Since the bursts are targetable, they are nice little sites of constant skirmish activity between enemy and friendly support during siege. Since the arrays can be used to suck the life from the POS, they are a small-gang target for combating stay at home tactics as well as a way to fight the POS warfare at the small gang level while keeping your full hand hidden in a safespot until the final tower attack is ready to begin or you choose to engage forces at a particular array. Much more room for feints and quick charges. Probably a lot of ways to do this, but the implementation should be well thought out such that the arrays are part of the tower fight and can't be blobbed individually as stepping stones on the way to the tower. They should be continuous sites of engagement and require movement from array to array to counter enemy actions at other arrays. The goal is limited commitments and slow escalations across several grids with the threat of being outmaneuvered when one's forces are totally committed too early. About ready to start work on an actual proposal.
Ioan Metorsky Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.07 17:07:00 - [254] This is a reply to the idea of expanding sovereignty warfare to include objectives for small ships and small gangs. This proposal is terrible. I am not in favor of giving frigates, cruisers, and small gangs expanded roles in fleet operations. Frigates already play an essential role in large engagements: tackling. Cruisers also have an essential role: support, meaning anti-tackler, repair, or anti-anti-tackler. Small gangs even have a role, even though they are not usually in a separate gang from the main fleet: camping gates and stations while the main fleet attacks a POS. Small gangs also play an essential role outside of major fleet engagements by disrupting enemy logistics. In fact, this job is essential to achieving ultimate victory, even if it doesn't get much glory. Please do not turn 0.0 sovereignty conflicts into "capture the flag" or short-duration "take and hold" contests. I came to EVE for the experience of being part of a vast, intergalactic conflict between major political powers, and that's exactly what I get with the current implementation of sovereignty warfare and major fleet engagements. The finer details of the sovereignty warfare mechanics need tweaking, but not to the extent of diminishing the scale of the conflicts.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:25:00 - [255] Originally by: Jade Constantine 0018 0.0 Sovereignty Issues CCP has been discussing 0.0 and sovereignty internally for the past year and discussed many issues already. They found that Player Owned Station (POS) warfare is a very limited mechanic, and that it revolves around the amount of dreadnoughts and other capital ships in the fleet, while small ships only serve as support instead of being able to accomplish small objectives on their own. The 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. Nathan (CCP) said that he does not believe that current large-scale fleet combat is interesting for the participants, mainly due to focus fire. Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) commented that current 0.0 PVP is siege warfare, people stick to established fortresses and do not venture beyond the gates. His suggestion was to include mechanics that encouraged sovereignty holders to patrol their space, and have ways for roaming gangs to peck at undefended systems and steal resources there. The issue of logistics was also discussed. Alex stated that current POS logistics required an alliance to have powergamers that managed them around the clock. He proposed to make 0.0 appeal to a wider audience by removing these repetitive activities that required powergaming. Shayne urged CCP to consider mechanics that would provide more synergy between the industrial and combat aspects of 0.0. CCP said that they would have to balance short term achievements to the long term empire building. If people could easily destroy in a day what took months to build up, this would be unfair. But on the other hand, it should not be too hard to smoke out established entities. They agreed however, that the current time sinks in POS warfare are too long. This issue has been put on the rolling agenda, and CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty. * Thats the minutes on the 0.0 Sov topic. If you had an issue with this you should have said something during the review sequence. As it is we reviewed it. CCP reviewed it. It was officially signed off and it certainly reflects my memory of the discussion. Thank god you linked this to me I have no idea where to find the minutes... This is contrary to what was stated in some cases. I don't expect your memory to be any less reflective of your obvious narcissistic disorder than anything else so I'm not surprised to hear you say that. It was pointed out in the meeting (and not reflected in the minutes) that small groups today ALREADY can have an influence in 0.0 and do, whether you want to admit that because it's inconvenient or not. It was also pointed out that there will never be a way to prevent "the guy with the most ships wins", among other things. I know because I contributed to that discussion. I didn't have a problem with the minutes until someone decided to take the editorialized and abridged conversations we had and use them as a mandate to do something which wasn't requested. What's your point? Originally by:** Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:29:00 - [256] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 07/08/2008 04:52:00 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON In real life 10 hippies blocking a highway don't cause the town to secede from the state and fall under their control. RL analogies have no place in a videogame. Well, that's putting it in a rather crude and dramatic (not to mention convenient) analogy. I was talking something more along the lines of a dozen or so well-coordinated marines holding a choke point against a few hundred insurgents. Of course they'd get overrun, but with timing and the advantage they might cause the enemy heavy losses and achieve some small goal anyway, without too heavy losses themselves. But if you don't want me to talk RL analogies, even if you do yourself, sure. Let's put it this way then; it's mostly empty space anyway. A few planets and stations and asteroid belts are not alike a city. Few people are going to notice, and it's not going to upset the power balance in the region dramatically. Not until that gate becomes an important route of some kind. Because it's basically all about the gate. It's the only object that has to remain constant, unharmed and controlled throughout the entire situation. Look, it... just seems more appropriate and proper RP-wise that you can claim and hold a gate, locking it down or taking control of its systems in some way at least. That's not going to to keep a stronger foe from booting you from it or hacking it and sending a strike force through, or from using a covert jump bridge to hop in and **** you up the ass, and then giving you the finger, going 'Fck off! This is our territory!'. The RL analogy was used to illustrate how ridiculous yours was. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. If you want to control gates go do it. The code's already in the game. Originally by:* Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:40:00 - [257] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I didn't have a problem with the minutes until someone decided to take the editorialized and abridged conversations we had and use them as a mandate to do something which wasn't requested. What's your point? It's pretty clearly requested: Quote: CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty. It's also clearly stated that CCP wants objectives for small ships on their own as opposed to simply support roles: Quote: CCP has been discussing 0.0 and sovereignty internally for the past year and discussed many issues already. They found that Player Owned Station (POS) warfare is a very limited mechanic, and that it revolves around the amount of dreadnoughts and other capital ships in the fleet, while small ships only serve as support instead of being able to accomplish small objectives on their own. It really doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. If CCP didn't include your comments in the minutes, it may be because they don't agree with you.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:01:00 - [258] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 07/08/2008 19:02:21 Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I didn't have a problem with the minutes until someone decided to take the editorialized and abridged conversations we had and use them as a mandate to do something which wasn't requested. What's your point? It's pretty clearly requested: Quote: CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty. It's also clearly stated that CCP wants objectives for small ships on their own as opposed to simply support roles: Quote: CCP has been discussing 0.0 and sovereignty internally for the past year and discussed many issues already. They found that Player Owned Station (POS) warfare is a very limited mechanic, and that it revolves around the amount of dreadnoughts and other capital ships in the fleet, while small ships only serve as support instead of being able to accomplish small objectives on their own. It really doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. If CCP didn't include your comments in the minutes, it may be because they don't agree with you. How about you stick to what you know? I was there. You weren't. Did they want to explore other methods? Sure. So do I. Was it explicitly stated that sov warfare should change in any one particular direction? No. A high level idea was floated in the 20 minutes we were allowed for the topic of fostering a bit more variety. It was never stated that an additional mechanic was required which would allow 10 people to challenge the sov. of thousands. Ever. You put together a proposal that is creative. Nothing wrong with that. I don't like the proposal and find it unworkable, but that shouldn't take away from the work you've done. That took effort and that's a good thing. :edit: We don't need to go crazy trying to assume as law the editorialized and abridged version of a greatly abridged discussion on a very large topic. That would be stupid. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:05:00 - [259] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Matrixcvd Just cause you can befriend 10000 people doesn't make your subscription any moar important or game play experience any moar special The other side is that, just because a lot of people can get togther doesn't give them the right, any more than the small, Yes actually it does and it always will. There will never be a mechanic that can change that truth. You may not like it. I may not like it. But bigger will always be better and there is no way to change that and still present anything remotely resembling a "sandbox". Here is where i link the concepts I am talking about. specific simple changes to sov mechanics The purpose is not to allow small groups to control the tempo or politics of 0.0. And this isn't about allowing people the "right to exist in 0.0" This is about allowing small gangs to impact 0.0. The huge HP in POS/Anchorables/Station Serivces require long times, large numbers of caps, or extremely large numbers of pilots to carry out in reasonable times. THose three senarios bring with it, unplayable lag. The situation devolves into, "Huge blob is needed to put a system into contension, the only response is to bring an even huger blob" ANd thus, the huger blob succeeds because the lag/desynch not necessarily because of tactics. If smaller gangs can contest SOV, disrupt money making operations and hit installations affecting life in 0.0, alliances would need to seriously think about where they put their resources, and who they can afford to help. Buisness in empire opens up as mercenaries can strike 0.0 alliance installations, Mega alliances stay home and can't help each other by bringing everyone they have to 1 system as a number of installations and or systems resources are in contention and the whole structure of 0.0 is aligned to the ones who can help themselves and strategically align with partners who are capable, not by getting the most people but by building the best coalition. thats what the goal should be. This is what 0.0 should be, from a political and combat standpoint, and nobodies specific birthright.
Ioan Metorsky Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:26:00 - [260] Edited by: Ioan Metorsky on 07/08/2008 19:26:46 Originally by: Matrixcvd If smaller gangs can contest SOV, disrupt money making operations and hit installations affecting life in 0.0, alliances would need to seriously think about where they put their resources, and who they can afford to help. Buisness in empire opens up as mercenaries can strike 0.0 alliance installations, Mega alliances stay home and can't help each other by bringing everyone they have to 1 system as a number of installations and or systems resources are in contention and the whole structure of 0.0 is aligned to the ones who can help themselves and strategically align with partners who are capable, not by getting the most people but by building the best coalition. thats what the goal should be. This is what 0.0 should be, from a political and combat standpoint, and nobodies specific birthright. Small gangs already impact 0.0. A well-organized and determined gang of tech 1 and 2 frigates, destroyers, and cruisers can cripple an alliance's general population (the pilots trying to make money by living, producing, ratting, and exploring in the alliance's space). In fact, by impeding the member-level income-generating operations of an alliance, these small, roaming gangs make a valuable and necessary contribution to a sovereignty conflict with that alliance. It makes sense that putting a solar system in contention requires a large fleet and major logistics operations. Solar systems aren't small (although they are the smallest unit of sovereign territory in this game), and they should require a major fleet of capitals, battleships, and support to control. The issue here shouldn't be "how can we can make this game have a less grand scale," but "what can be done to get the technology (i.e., the software and hardware) to support properly CCP's vision of a grand scale space conflict?"

Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:54:00 - [261] Originally by: Ioan Metorsky Small gangs already impact 0.0. A well-organized and determined gang of tech 1 and 2 frigates, destroyers, and cruisers can cripple an alliance's general population (the pilots trying to make money by living, producing, ratting, and exploring in the alliance's space). In fact, by impeding the member-level income-generating operations of an alliance, these small, roaming gangs make a valuable and necessary contribution to a sovereignty conflict with that alliance. Killing ratters and periodically camping gates to look for targets by random gangs does not affect 0.0 politics/SOV and has very little impact as people will just wait till the threat is ceased and then continue. Concerted and deliberate attempts to affect or disrupt those assets valuable to 0.0 alliances can only be done by hitting station serivces and POS installations. There is no way what your saying is true. For member level, its the station services, if they can't med clone, refine, fit, members have a serious problem. At the alliance level its the towers used to control SOV, act as safe points for members, act as resource gathering, etc. So I do not aggree with what you are saying here one bit. Originally by: Ioan Metorsky It makes sense that putting a solar system in contention requires a large fleet and major logistics operations. Solar systems aren't small (although they are the smallest unit of sovereign territory in this game), and they should require a major fleet of capitals, battleships, and support to control. You are clearly missing the point, and I dont know how else to explain this to you. The only time the system or installation is in contension is when it comes out of reinforced. I am clearly making the destinction between the initial attack and the actually fight for the installation as 2 separate events. The way small gangs can take part in 0.0 combat is to address the selection, and initiation of an attack on 0.0 installation/station services. Fleets are then used to destroy/control the installation/SOV. Thus, the members wishing to finish off, or control SOV would need sufficient resources. Originally by: Ioan Metorsky The issue here shouldn't be "how can we can make this game have a less grand scale," but "what can be done to get the technology (i.e., the software and hardware) to support properly CCP's vision of a grand scale space conflict?" The grand scale sucks, it doesn't work, there is no grand scale at 1 Frame Per Second and for the majority of pilots in 0.0 who complain on a daily basis that the lag is killing their play, clearly somethign with the mechancis needs to be done. You dont wait around for the technology to catch up to finally compliment current mechanics, the current mechanics weren't useful when they were deployed. THe whole purpose of the station serivces and moving the anchorables outside shields was so that SMALL GANGS COULD engage these targets. But at the last second, CCP balked, and gave them ridiculous HP to make it not worth the while or realistically for large fleets/caps. Thats what needs to be addressed as a primary concern and as a secondary concern the ability of alliances to gang together for the simple goal of defeating lag/desynch by simply inducing it and/or achieving a larger percentage of players actually participating on grid. SO sorry, nobody here wants to sit and wait for the technology to catch up, and if it did it still wouldnt completely address the lack of interest small gang PVP has with regards to alliance matters in 0.0. I dont dissaggree that small gangs shouldn't be able to destroy installations and command SOV. What I am saying is that small gangs could have the role of initiator in 0.0 being able to dictate points of contension and provide a real impact, not just ganking ratters who are falling asleep or AFK.
Ioan Metorsky Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.07 20:22:00 - [262] Originally by: Matrixcvd Killing ratters and periodically camping gates to look for targets by random gangs does not affect 0.0 politics/SOV and has very little impact as people will just wait till the threat is ceased and then continue. Concerted and deliberate attempts to affect or disrupt those assets valuable to 0.0 alliances can only be done by hitting station serivces and POS installations. There is no way what your saying is true. For member level, its the station services, if they can't med clone, refine, fit, members have a serious problem. At the alliance level its the towers used to control SOV, act as safe points for members, act as resource gathering, etc. So I do not aggree with what you are saying here one bit. Tell that to the alliances PL camped into their stations until Goons showed up to take sov. Some of those alliances were practically into a failure cascade freefall before we even started shooting POSes. Originally by: Matrixcvd You are clearly missing the point, and I dont know how else to explain this to you. The only time the system or installation is in contension is when it comes out of reinforced. I am clearly making the destinction between the initial attack and the actually fight for the installation as 2 separate events. The way small gangs can take part in 0.0 combat is to address the selection, and initiation of an attack on 0.0 installation/station services. Fleets are then used to destroy/control the installation/SOV. Thus, the members wishing to finish off, or control SOV would need sufficient resources. I guess I am missing the point, because I still don't see why frigates and cruisers need more roles than they already have. Either the small ships are in a large fleet playing their roles in a large fleet engagement (tackling, anti-tackling, or repairing), or they're in a small gang running around somewhere doing something essential to the overall conflict (or even just roaming about and having fun). Originally by: Matrixcvd The grand scale sucks, it doesn't work, there is no grand scale at 1 Frame Per Second and for the majority of pilots in 0.0 who complain on a daily basis that the lag is killing their play, clearly somethign with the mechancis needs to be done. You dont wait around for the technology to catch up to finally compliment current mechanics, the current mechanics weren't useful when they were deployed. THe whole purpose of the station serivces and moving the anchorables outside shields was so that SMALL GANGS COULD engage these targets. But at the last second, CCP balked, and gave them ridiculous HP to make it not worth the while or realistically for large fleets/caps. Thats what needs to be addressed as a primary concern and as a secondary concern the ability of alliances to gang together for the simple goal of defeating lag/desynch by simply inducing it and/or achieving a larger percentage of players actually participating on grid. SO sorry, nobody here wants to sit and wait for the technology to catch up, and if it did it still wouldnt completely address the lack of interest small gang PVP has with regards to alliance matters in 0.0. I dont dissaggree that small gangs shouldn't be able to destroy installations and command SOV. What I am saying is that small gangs could have the role of initiator in 0.0 being able to dictate points of contension and provide a real impact, not just ganking ratters who are falling asleep or AFK. Asked and answered. There will never be a better alternative than bringing more ships to the battle than your opponent. Given this fact, CCP should be focused on working on their code and beefing up their hardware, not scrapping a system for which 85% of the work is already done.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.07 20:34:00 - [263] Edited by: Matrixcvd on 07/08/2008 20:35:03 Originally by: Ioan Metorsky I guess I am missing the point, because I still don't see why frigates and cruisers need more roles than they already have. Either the small ships are in a large fleet playing their roles in a large fleet engagement (tackling, anti-tackling, or repairing), or they're in a small gang running around somewhere doing something essential to the overall conflict (or even just roaming about and having fun). WHy are you confusing "small fleet" with small ships? The diversion is not necessary. Nobody said anything about frigates and cruisers, you are confused big time. Originally by: Ioan Metorsky Asked and answered. There will never be a better alternative than bringing more ships to the battle than your opponent. Given this fact, CCP should be focused on working on their code and beefing up their hardware, not scrapping a system for which 85% of the work is already done. Again, you are bringing up things that have nothing to do with revamping 0.0 for the sake of providing gameplay back to where it should be? THere are other proposals with less changes, in fact all i offer to change is simply reduce HP on station services/POS/POS anchorables, and move the cyno jamm away from the POS. pretty simple, nobody would be scrapping anything. Again, your not even addressing the issue here just spouting off stuff...
Ioan Metorsky Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.07 20:52:00 - [264] Ok. You bring your small fleet to shoot at my POS, which is all that's necessary now that you've lowered structure HPs. But I bring my slightly larger fleet to prevent you from destroying my POS. You, realizing that I've brought more ships and can destroy your fleet before you can destroy my POS, get more ships into your fleet. Obviously, I'm going to do the same. Next thing you know, the node is crashing. Gee, your changes really solved that problem. It's not the hit points of structures, the amount of fuel in the towers, or the position of a cynojammer that are the problems here. Changing those things does nothing to change the facts that you will still need more ships than me in order to win and that we will both keep bringing ships until we exhaust our available resources or the node crashes. Fix the network infrastructure, and everything else falls into line.
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:02:00 - [265] Originally by: Matrixcvd Killing ratters and periodically camping gates to look for targets by random gangs does not affect 0.0 politics/SOV and has very little impact as people will just wait till the threat is ceased and then continue. Concerted and deliberate attempts to affect or disrupt those assets valuable to 0.0 alliances can only be done by hitting station serivces and POS installations. There is no way what your saying is true. For member level, its the station services, if they can't med clone, refine, fit, members have a serious problem. At the alliance level its the towers used to control SOV, act as safe points for members, act as resource gathering, etc. So I do not aggree with what you are saying here one bit. You are so way off base I am surprised you even said that knowing TRI and the tactics like PL, BoB, Goons and the like employ. Are you that unaware? Its not about the POS's or anything else. The biggest thing you do is to hit there real infrastructure, the pilots. You stop them from mining, running supplies, and making money you have effectively taken away the means to keep there POS's running and building more materials. Without the support of the pilots all this crap about POS's are meaningless. After they been hit by these gangs enough all the bears go to empire. And then after that the morale drops in the crapper and then failcascade!! If it was not effective no one including TRI would never ever had used it or create depts just for this. Most of the gangs roaming 0.0 are not lark gangs. Some are. But most are not. They are there for a purpose and they are very successful. This attitude does not surprise me however, (from someone from TRI, yea a little) most players would not know what these gangs were if they came up and bit them in the ass. Even then they are not aware. They just *** about nano-cloacking *gots.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.07 22:38:00 - [266] Originally by: Matrixcvd If smaller gangs can contest SOV, disrupt money making operations and hit installations affecting life in 0.0, alliances would need to seriously think about where they put their resources, and who they can afford to help. Buisness in empire opens up as mercenaries can strike 0.0 alliance installations, Mega alliances stay home and can't help each other by bringing everyone they have to 1 system as a number of installations and or systems resources are in contention and the whole structure of 0.0 is aligned to the ones who can help themselves and strategically align with partners who are capable, not by getting the most people but by building the best coalition. thats what the goal should be. This is what 0.0 should be, from a political and combat standpoint, and nobodies specific birthright. This is definitely the debate that needs to be had. To me the heart of the question was always "Does territory control have to be focused only on POS?" While there are certainly plenty of ways to improve POS warfare, I believe CCP's goal is not to simply put more variety into POS warfare, but to expand Territory Warfare to be more than just about POS. And that means that some of the hard benefits that come from owning space (fuel efficiency bonuses, the ability to anchor certain territory-shaping structures, etc) must be derived from objectives achieved by different activities than just constructing and sieging POS. That's the context I wanted to have the discussion of this proposal in, but I think there's a lot of disagreement about whether that context is even desirable in the first place, so it's good that it's being brought up now. To me, territory-shaping abilities that are governed by small-gang objectives or non-Capship objectives can exist alongside territory-shaping abilities governed by POS warfare. I think it makes sense for POS to govern industrial benefits, and for a system like Tactical Arrays to govern individual system protection-type abilities like Cynojammers and System Scanners. A small-gang objective system (like capturing stargates) would be useful alongside those other two to reflect broad in-space military presence across whole Constellations. Now at this point some people say "Well why don't we just fix POS warfare?" And that's where I agree with the CCP statement that POS warfare is inherently too limiting in terms of its need for Dreads and large numbers of capships to be a truly comprehensive territory control system. It would work fine as one part of a territory control system, but it's unwieldy when it tries to be the whole thing. Obviously the current 0.0 powers are good at POS warfare, and know a lot about it. But that doesn't mean that it is the best system all by itself for territory control. Figuring out the best territory control system, based on the direction CCP has said they wish to go, is going to involve thinking beyond the current system. It will certainly benefit from the input of those engaging in POS warfare, but we need (I think) to acknowledge that the goal is to create something bigger and greater than just POS warfare, as opposed to simply improving it, and direct our thinking and debate with that in mind.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.07 23:29:00 - [267] Originally by: Ioan Metorsky It's not the hit points of structures, the amount of fuel in the towers, or the position of a cynojammer that are the problems here. Changing those things does nothing to change the facts that you will still need more ships than me in order to win and that we will both keep bringing ships until we exhaust our available resources or the node crashes. Since we are discussing tactics about my proposal, this simple fact of bringing moar ships at least has the prospect of being negated. Multiple Systems can be hit at short time, large fleets take time to mobilize and move and are easily engaged while enroute, but are extremely difficult to engage when amassed at a lagged out tower. And your simple thesis that small gangs already have plenty to do with SOV in 0.0 is about as misguided and ludicrious, further noteworthy coming from a person in a 5000 man alliance. Originally by: Farrqua You are so way off base I am surprised you even said that knowing TRI and the tactics like PL, BoB, Goons and the like employ. Are you that unaware? Its not about the POS's or anything else. The biggest thing you do is to hit there real infrastructure, the pilots. You stop them from mining, running supplies, and making money you have effectively taken away the means to keep there POS's running and building more materials. Without the support of the pilots all this crap about POS's are meaningless. After they been hit by these gangs enough all the bears go to empire. And then after that the morale drops in the crapper and then failcascade!! If it was not effective no one including TRI would never ever had used it or create depts just for this. Most of the gangs roaming 0.0 are not lark gangs. Some are. But most are not. They are there for a purpose and they are very successful. This attitude does not surprise me however, (from someone from TRI, yea a little) most players would not know what these gangs were if they came up and bit them in the ass. Even then they are not aware. They just *** about nano-cloacking *gots. As for the impact of terrorizing a SOV holders entire region, killing ratters/destroying disrupting logistic chains, that doesn't sound like small gang combat, in fact its the exact opposite. It sounds moar like moving 1 alliance into the doorstep of another, completely different senarios and therefore your analysis is fail
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.08 01:43:00 - [268] Originally by: Matrixcvd As for the impact of terrorizing a SOV holders entire region, killing ratters/destroying disrupting logistic chains, that doesn't sound like small gang combat, in fact its the exact opposite. It sounds moar like moving 1 alliance into the doorstep of another, completely different senarios and therefore your analysis is fail [/quote Ok you obviously are apart of a new TRI that no longer uses that sort of doctrine any longer. My condolences. And no that is not moving an entire alliance and you know it. bops/guerilla gangs are specifically designed to do just that with minimal amount of forces and away from any sort of fleet support. And you know that too. I am confused by your posts. It does not speak of someone that has been in that type of organization with the understanding of alliance/null spec operations. Must be a new player with an old character.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.08 02:31:00 - [269] Originally by: Farrqua Originally by: Matrixcvd As for the impact of terrorizing a SOV holders entire region, killing ratters/destroying disrupting logistic chains, that doesn't sound like small gang combat, in fact its the exact opposite. It sounds moar like moving 1 alliance into the doorstep of another, completely different senarios and therefore your analysis is fail [/quote Ok you obviously are apart of a new TRI that no longer uses that sort of doctrine any longer. My condolences. And no that is not moving an entire alliance and you know it. bops/guerilla gangs are specifically designed to do just that with minimal amount of forces and away from any sort of fleet support. And you know that too. I am confused by your posts. It does not speak of someone that has been in that type of organization with the understanding of alliance/null spec operations. Must be a new player with an old character. pretty hilarious, and likely a troll but dont know it yet.
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.11 17:26:00 - [270] Originally by: Matrixcvd And your simple thesis that small gangs already have plenty to do with SOV in 0.0 is about as misguided and ludicrious, further noteworthy coming from a person in a 5000 man alliance. Let me help you with this. 5000 man alliance is a myth, at most 1000 people are active with maybe half of those held with people that have 5 accounts each, and of those, we get excited when 200 show up for a fleet fight. That's across all the GS corporations, not just GF itself. Wander around goon sov. space and you get excited if you see more than 30 people in local because something must be going on. How about you check the attitude at the door and quit insulting the obvious trolls. I love this game, it's one of the most brutal close to real life things out there. However the anti-goon sentiment from some people has gotten to a point of ridiculousness. It's like anything a person with the goonfleet tag says is worthless and a bunch of people who have not invested any time/energy to the null sec space other than to spend time in NPC space running missions until they puke for some leet item feel we should change this into a ridiculous capture the flag or lame WoW reference here. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.

Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.11 17:43:00 - [271] The biggest challenge we have here is this: people play this game simultaneously all over the world 23/7. However, they all don't wake up, do their thing, and then play all at the same time because it's not the same time all over the world. This in and of itself creates an awesome dynamic. There are whole regions of space that are 'owned' by someone that if you entered at the right time would be like a tour of a ghost system. Go into Delve some time after 0200 ET and be surprised by empty system after system. The core problem we have with this mechanic is that there isn't a Euro, East US, Central US, West US, ANZAC, AP, India server where people log on, stay on, and log off close to the same time. There are entire swaths of time where short of doing something ridiculous to play internet space ships like stay up 24 hours, or alarm clock an operation at 3AM, or something else crazy outside your normal lifes schedule that you can't do. So the POS mechanic of reinforced, and reinforcing timers, and the strategy that has evolved around those needs to be kept in any sovereignty system that comes out of this discussion. A capture the flag mechanic CAN NOT SOLVE THE 23/7 problem. This is more like a play by mail chess game. moves made, pieces put into place, and the execution of that strategy over time is what wins or looses the system. The main problem in the mechanic is this. To reinforce a POS and to defend a POS from being reinforced are extremely imbalanced. Attacker of POS that is online: Jump in an overwhelming number of capitals, or if a cyno jammer is in place an even LARGER number of battleships and you blow up guns, then shoot POS until it's reinforced. Option #1: Come back in x time and do it again Option #2: Camp said thing until the timer runs out blowing away anything that tries to repair any defenses/ships in order to keep said system. GF experiences both of those, with Option number 2 being the much maligned Delve campaign. Having participated in the taking of, and then loss of QY6 I can say that I'd be amazed if people weren't physically ill afterwords due to the number of people that did the 24 - 30 - 36 - 48 hours of no sleep in an effort to out camp the next guy. That's today's POS Warefare in a nutshell. How do you fix it? Easy: Nerf stuff. Make dreads worthless, make carrier repair blobs worthless, overpower the guns so they can 5-shot someone, there are lots of ways to make this so ugly that you effectively destroy fleet lag fests. I mean the United States of America didn't hot drop 75 dreadnoughts with 50 carriers that spider repped them on Japan. Logistically impossible due to the manpower needed for this. Capital ships are controlled by one person, and one person only. They mash buttons just like the frigate pilot does. The mechanic is identical. The buttons they mash just happen to do a crap ton more damage. Or they happen to repair a lot better than the other guy. or whatever. But at the core it's one person doing it instead of a concert of people with functions to do just like you have on a 'real world' capital class ship. This person just happened to either been round long enough, figured out how to make a ton of money in the game, or has nothing better to do with their money than throw it at time card buying/selling so they could get said ship. Why not revisit the capital class as a true multi-player ship? You have a pilot that makes it go. You have individual gunners, you have engineering/power management, you have defense systems, and you have pilots of smaller ships that the larger ship deploys. These are corporate owned assets instead of individual assets.... Will this **** people off? yes, undoubtedly. Will people leave? yes most likely. That's not FAIR! whatever. I mean look at the screaming you have around the speed changes that are coming. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.11 18:16:00 - [272] Originally by: Zareph Why not revisit the capital class as a true multi-player ship? You have a pilot that makes it go. You have individual gunners, you have engineering/power management, you have defense systems, and you have pilots of smaller ships that the larger ship deploys. These are corporate owned assets instead of individual assets.... Will this **** people off? yes, undoubtedly. Will people leave? yes most likely. That's not FAIR! whatever. I mean look at the screaming you have around the speed changes that are coming. First let me say this, its hilarious to have someone call me out on alliance tags when lookin at mine. Second, you take a Goon concept, Capture the flag, you imbed it into the brains of 5000 people and now everytime, revamping 0.0 comes up you get " IT CAN'T BE LIKE CAPTURE THE FLAG 23/7" "NO WAY 0.0 SHOULD BE CAPTURE THE FLAG" , "people shouldn't get to play out in 0.0 just cause they subscribe and certainly not CAPTURE THE FLAG IN SPACE" Now, back to the mindless dribble. Your suggesting a total reworking of the game, which is about as far from productive as just randomly disconnecting 70% of people in a lag system to help the cluster recoup... And you haven't even identified the biggest challenge properly. THe biggest challenge is the technology, if people could actually fight on grid, and lag wasn't an issue, then the best people would win and the garbage player/alliances would fold. But you add lag to the side of the defender, and then tedium and boredem to the side of the aggressor, and you get the status quo, alliances with lots of people doing lots of boring stuff and thats why you have people up all hours of the day and night just to make up the difference. I want to see slight changes to give the aggressors better options, defenders more options at the POS with additional gunners, less logistic runs to towers, but for pete sake bring the HP down so you dont need mega fleets to do attacks within reasonable times. Small changes to the current system are all that are needed, not wide sweeping revisions of the SOV concept, no new modules no special useless SOV mechanics added, fix it a bit for simplicity and testing..


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