EVE Search - What determines Sovereignty? An examination of the concept.

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

What determines Sovereignty? An examination of the concept.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 03:18:00 - [1] Sovereignty is often recognized as territory and the ability to control that territory. Territory in the scope of this game is vague û system control is the current setup but it is determined by the control of uninhabited moons. Additionally, at its root it this definition is not specific in how control is defined. So we have the problem of deciding first what territory are we controlling, and second how exactly we are imposing our sovereignty. This thread will look at these two fundamental concepts within the context of EVE and hopefully will present a foundation upon which a proposal can be made for a new game mechanic that clearly and sensibly defines how we control territory. Territory is important to look at first. An alliance wishing to claim sovereignty over a system must essentially control its inhabitants. And unlike empire space where stations are abundant, there are not many places for a systemÆs inhabitants to live other than planets. This is assuming the following: First, it is assumed that moons are all uninhabitable. Second, it assumes that outposts, being controlled by alliances, are primarily built for function (refining, research, service, administration, factory, cloning, etc.) and not for supporting lots of people other than the crew of the outpost. Third, it assumes that any other habitable structure is unregistered and is located in a deadspace location. These three assumptions narrow down the location of the majority of the population of a system to its planets, and as such these should be the focus of territory. I think that exerting control of a 2/3 majority of planets (and major habitable moons should they be included) would give an entity sovereignty of a system. Now, control can be broken down into three fundamental categories: military control, economic control, and cultural control. Typically control would be imposed by planetside government that to some extent controls military, economy, media, or some combination of the aforementioned depending on the governmentÆs personality and basic beliefs. But weÆre a bunch of capsuleers and wouldnÆt bother with petty involvements.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 03:19:00 - [2] Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 10/08/2008 03:20:50 Taking an idea from factional warfare occupancy, control of a planet could take place at a sort of control bunker (call it whatever you like). The owner of the control bunker in effect controls the planet, and ownership is determined by an entityÆs influence over the planet. This is where the 3 forms of control come into play. The entity that has the most forms of control û military, economic, and cultural - is the entity that holds the most influence and is credited with controlling the planet. The mechanic that determines planetary influence could be orbital structures. Military structures would be the hardest to destroy but would provide no benefit to the controlling organization and require many resources. Economic structures would provide an income to the controlling entity and be defendable, but not as hard shelled as a military base. Cultural structures would involve media control and entertainment, fragile and subject to propaganda and psyops infiltration thus requiring the most attention, but providing massive rewards to the alliance surpassing that of economic influence. This allows multiple play styles and forms of empire building. On the defensive, economic infrastructure can be built up with military support, and finally culture can flourish resulting in stronger control. On the offensive, a blitz campaign can occur where only military bases are setup while all other structures are destroyed, resulting in police control most similar to pos warfare. Military superiority coupled with owning the only economic structure would result in control of a planet. Or, an alliance can resort to cultural subversion and economic disruption, practicing guerilla tactics to slowly erode the influence of the current owner. And most interestingly, this allows three entities to compete and essentially be tied on a planet if each focuses on a different form of influence. The exact mechanics arenÆt really complete and would be up to CCP anyway, but a system similar to the influence-control-sovereignty model allows for a wide array of play styles and tactics in gaining territorial control. There is still the option of military only like the current system, but also the option of refining your empire to provide rewards (could be determining factors for level of sov or constellation sov). And now there are ways of overthrowing enemy control in ways other than who has more guns.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 03:19:00 - [3] Soà TL;DR -Sovereignty is defined as control of territory -System sovereignty is determined by majority control of planets. -Planet control is determined by a combination of military, economic, and cultural influence (think Galactic Civilizations but much simpler) Outcomes: -Military blitz is still an option but is not the only option -More options for empire building and reward grooming -I have no idea if it fixes mean scary blobbing but rather itÆs an entirely new vision in looking at sov. After some discussion here hopefully I can cross post this to Assembly Hall. -Fahtim Meidires
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.10 03:49:00 - [4] POSes, as bad a determinant of sovereignty as they are, at least have the virtue of being structures the players want to build and use. Given the lack of NPC civilization in 0.0, PC research and manufacturing is critical, and that happens at POSes, as does the gold mine du jour of moon mining. Of course there are death stars for the combated systems, but the core systems don't take down the POSes because sovereignty is won, they convert them into industrial yards. In order for your vision of planetary structures to be viable in the long term, you will need to make these planetary structures as attractive to build, maintain, and defend as POSes are today. You have ideas for how good they should be, but I don't see any ideas for what they should do. It's nice to talk about planetary culture, but there are literally two implementations of human beings in Eve today - little spacefaring eggs, and the Livestock market category. In order for your idea of cultural control to make sense, you first have to create culture for tens of thousands of planets. Sure, it can be simplistic and generated by computer, but there still needs to be more than just "Planets have people" for this to make any kind of sense. In order for propaganda satellites to have benefits, you first have to figure out what planets are good for besides convenient gravity wells. So you have military, economic, and psychological dominion over a planet, good for you. What does that give you? It's not that this isn't an interesting idea - it very well could be. But I've seen variants on it several times, and nobody has yet seemed to answer the question of what, precisely, planets do. Until that's addressed, this still seems like too much of a pipe dream for my liking. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 03:58:00 - [5] I agree that cultural control was the weakest component and would likely be the first to go if this transitions to the assembly hall. The other two work well though. High defense military satellites provide planet influence, while low defense economic provide isk. Something like that may simplify it all. All of these structures, of course, could killed with medium fleets, the advantage to the defender is the ability to send a crapload of them into orbit; maybe 20 or more, with 6-7 military installations required to gain planet control. If you deploy 20 military satellites the planet will be secure but unproductive, and vice-versa along the scale. Orbital satellites determining planet control, which then determine system sovereignty, would create the 'layers' desired by some.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.10 04:22:00 - [6] Thanks for starting the discussion Fahtim, this is definitely an overall philosophical question that needs to be sorted out. A couple quick thoughts for now with more to come later: It may be helpful to distinguish between Sovereignty as it applies to pod pilots and that of planetary governments. At present capsuleer alliances are pretty independent of dirtside politics (everything we need and value is derived from in-space resources). I think 0.0 Sov is more about capsuleer sovereignty than npcs on the planets (assuming they are inhabited). The really interesting concept you brought up was how economics might play into Sov. That is an unexplored angle and I think something very interesting could come of that.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.10 04:56:00 - [7] Originally by: Fahtim Meidires I agree that cultural control was the weakest component and would likely be the first to go if this transitions to the assembly hall. The other two work well though. High defense military satellites provide planet influence, while low defense economic provide isk. Something like that may simplify it all. All of these structures, of course, could killed with medium fleets, the advantage to the defender is the ability to send a crapload of them into orbit; maybe 20 or more, with 6-7 military installations required to gain planet control. If you deploy 20 military satellites the planet will be secure but unproductive, and vice-versa along the scale. Orbital satellites determining planet control, which then determine system sovereignty, would create the 'layers' desired by some. They would generate pure isk, free and clear? I am about the last person in existence to worry about inflation in Eve, but that starts ringing inflation alarm bells in my head. There's a hell of a lot of planets in 0.0, and putting 20 cash sources around each has the potential to thoroughly warp the monetary system. You're on very thin ice here. And while we're on the topic, I've come up with an idea for a revamp to the sovereignty system significantly less drastic than yours, so I figured I'd mention it. Sov 1: One of POS sovereignty(as current system) or gate sovereignty(of the style Kelstin keeps championing on the Assembly Hall). Grants fuel use reductions. Sov 2: Both of POS sovereignty and gate sovereignty. Grants low-end anchorables(e.g., cynogens). Sov 3: As Sov 2, but must also have Sov 1 in all systems in the constellation. Grants high-end anchorables(e.g., cynojammers), gate usage logging and notification. Sov 4: As Sov 2, but must also have Sov 2 in all systems in constellation and an outpost. Maximum one Sov 4 per constellation. Prevents new POSes from being anchored by other corps without permission, prevents attacks on gate sovereignty. Yes, it is possible for two different alliances to have Sov 1 in the same system at the same time. This is intentional. Let the raiders come in and steal the gates, and it'll give them some status, but in order to win for real they'll have to drop dreads into the mix. Also, the rewards for each level of sovereignty are just things that sounded good at the time. Don't take them too seriously - there's a reason the proposal isn't in the Assembly Hall. ------------------ Fix the forums!
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 06:18:00 - [8] Sov is ep33n A lot of control is about having de-facto sovereignty. If you claim a territory, you claim a territory. No mechanism is required to show you that you own a system where you consistently kick ass. With economic power, there's really no way to combat a market PvP'er. It's just not happening in any meaningful way. I agree it'd be fun to have some way to spray your name on a system like a graffiti artist. I'd like to have something more to do with a medium sized gang than stare for three hours until the enemy decides they've reached critical mass (2x enemy). I wouldn't mind having something like automated miners (OMFG!!!!!!!!!) in a system that are basically like civilians. A representation of your economic power and vested interest in the tidiness of your system. The best way to implement these "civilian miners" I believe would be to randomly spawn freshly logged in players to 0.0 systems. Could give them mining barges or exhumers. Maybe even have them jetcan mine. Haulers. Production people. We could have an entire population of these 0.0 "civilian miners" who do nothing but produce crap and bolster the 0.0 economy of alliances who can keep their boarders non-porous and maintain stability for the citizens. I read something somewhere about what a carebear does, and it seems an awful lot like carebears could be developed into something like this... Just rambling
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 06:54:00 - [9] The civilian miners idea is really awesome. Imagine it works like this: If you own a system and keep it relatively well patrolled and your miners are decently smart, you gain the following benefits: The roids in your space automagically turn into finished goods you can use to win more space. Market activity is increased a great deal and it's much easier to buy/sell goods. You get a huge increase in station fees/refinery action. However, in order to have these civilian miners, you have to keep their hardship level low. The following conditions will reduce their numbers: They lose a Hulk. They lose faith in your ability to hold space and desert you. You impose too strict of laws on them or decide miners are ******ed and nuke them yourselves. Remind you of anything?
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 14:06:00 - [10] Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 10/08/2008 14:05:59 The problem I have with this combined pos/gate sov system is that an alliance that does not visit their system often can lose their status quickly. Also constellations should have nothing to do with sov 3. The problem with these mechanics is the effective stripping of jump bridge networks. Systems that are a link in a jump bridge chain often never see any local stargate traffic. But that doesn't mean the system isn't being used by hundreds of alliance pilots every day. You can't impose stargate control without giving the defending alliance the ability to fit defenses like sentry guns on the gates ( a modest request if gates become important)
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 14:55:00 - [11] Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 10/08/2008 14:55:51 edit This is what I hope to bring to the assembly hall, with a few tweaks from you guys. /edit Also, wrt the economic aspect, planet NPCs and isk generation: Maybe the best way to look at the orbital compound is a strict military standpoint, seeing as the mechanics of cultural and economic are weak in sensibility. However I still think that multiple small structures at planets is better than one big structure at a moon. The deployment of small military outposts in orbit makes it easier for small groups to disable them, but the sheer number of the structures makes it take a long time. Here are a few ideas for military orbital structures: Micro - Military Surveillance Satellite Small - Military Refueling Satellite Medium- Orbital Defense Platform Large - Planetary Defense Headquarters Military Surveillance Satellite - Can be deployed regardless of planetary control. Located on a small, 50km grid. Impossible to find with astrometrics - can only be located by the deployment of your own MSS scan. and too small to hit with cruiser/BS weapons; should take 5 frigates to break shield dps. Allows the pinpointing of Orbital Defense Platforms (max of 5). Small guns. Military Refueling Satellite - Can be deployed regardless of planetary control. Located on a medium-sized 100km grid. Impossible to find with astrometrics - can only be located by an MSS scan. Too small to hit with BS weapons; should take 5 cruisers to break shield dps. Each Refueling Satellite provides fuel for 2 Orbital Defense Platforms (max of 5). Medium guns. Orbital Defense Platforms - Can be deployed unless the defender has an active planetary defense headquarters. Locatable using astrometrics. Easily hit by battleship weapons; should take 5 BS to break shield dps. Requires Refueling Satellites. Alliance with the most Orbital Defense Platforms has control of the planet (max of 5). Planetary Defense Headquarters - Can be deployed when 5 Orbital Defense Platforms are owned and no other active ODP is present in orbit. Prevent the deployment of more ODP. Similar defenses of a medium control tower. Fuel requirements 3x that of an ODP (max of 1). Provides owner with locations of all friendly and hostile surveillance and refueling satellites, without scanning, if 5 friendly surveillance satellites have been deployed. Guns ftw. Instead of the reinforcement timer, each PDH and ODP has 24hrs of fuel. If enough refueling stations go offline, these structure's shields go offline, starting with a PDH if present, when fuel expires. The deployment of new refueling Satellites takes 24hrs to refuel the large structures.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 15:50:00 - [12] Specific mechanics: 24hr timers are completely advantageous to the enemy. Single-grid objectives just make for a quick tour of the system as a single blob. Current POS mechanics basically just give us a good time and place to fight. This really only measures how well a corp can win a giant fleet fight. Should this represent all of what sov is? I don't think so. Should it change hands if you leave home? Not really. Sov currently is awarded when you win a series of POS fights. As a metric of claim to territory, it only means "we won the battle." Something I'm kind of unhappy with is the ability to wear on a large power with small fights. Smaller objectives don't completely solve this. If the objectives can be made very costly even when they're not destroyed outright, then you have a system where a non-interested party can be harassed into leaving a system they don't care about. A sovereign's economic power can be reflected in whether they make enough money to fuel the POS's/deal with transgressions. In the end I'd look for a system where it's possible to cost a lot of ISK to a standing power without driving them out by force. If you can make it expensive to hold space that you want, you can make it a straightforward decision to cede territory you don't want. Of course I'm biased and went after these goals 100% in my thread on CSM =D With the mid-size gang capability to reinforce a POS and the changes to fuel consumption under reinforced, it's much more feasible to cost an alliance enough through headaches and ISK pits that they may rather pack up and acknowledge that you're more interested in the territory. On the flip-side, the grid divisions for POS warfare make it much more viable for that new power to defend their POS's using devious tactics. Even if they still can't win, they might make it much more costly.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 16:00:00 - [13] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Specific mechanics: 24hr timers are completely advantageous to the enemy. Single-grid objectives just make for a quick tour of the system as a single blob. What if the refueling occurred when the defending alliance wanted it to. That way if the refueling satellite was destroyed, the ODP shield would run out of fuel when they want it to. A single blob could not defeat this system unless it was focused only at the main points (which should be a viable way to destroy the system anyway).
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 17:21:00 - [14] Originally by: Fahtim Meidires What if the refueling occurred when the defending alliance wanted it to. That way if the refueling satellite was destroyed, the ODP shield would run out of fuel when they want it to. A single blob could not defeat this system unless it was focused only at the main points (which should be a viable way to destroy the system anyway). What I mean is, unless the goals are simultaneous and on separate grids, you get huge blobs. Yes it's ridiculous to go fly after a little tiny target with a huge blob, but basically that's what will happen. Only way to generate interesting fights is either with Rorquals on either end of an asteroid field with veld, gneiss, and arkonor... Anyway, there's a reason I'm pushing for simultaneous goals. Since a big part of lag is overview lag, I'm pushing specifically for simultaneous goals across multiple grids.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 18:20:00 - [15] Originally by: NanDe YaNen What I mean is, unless the goals are simultaneous and on separate grids, you get huge blobs. Yes it's ridiculous to go fly after a little tiny target with a huge blob, but basically that's what will happen. Only way to generate interesting fights is either with Rorquals on either end of an asteroid field with veld, gneiss, and arkonor... Anyway, there's a reason I'm pushing for simultaneous goals. Since a big part of lag is overview lag, I'm pushing specifically for simultaneous goals across multiple grids. The my big question for you is why do you oppose 'blobs'? There are two different reasons but personally I think both arguments are fundamentally wrong. The first of course is to discourage huge fleet fights. Most proponents of this don't like the fact that if group A has more pilots of similar skill than group B, group A will win the fight. But this is a truth that goes beyond the context of Eve. Sure small fleets should have an impact, but a small fleet should always lose to a bigger fleet of similar ships. Second, the lag-based argument against blobs I think is wrong based on principle. Designing a game mechanic so that it limits stress on the server isn't the right approach to solving the problem in my opinion. You just have to do the best to improve the network capabilities. The fact that the server has a hard time on large single grid fights shouldn't be the sole reason that you're forcing fights to occur on multiple grids.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.10 18:26:00 - [16] Originally by: Fahtim Meidires The problem I have with this combined pos/gate sov system is that an alliance that does not visit their system often can lose their status quickly. Also constellations should have nothing to do with sov 3. The problem with these mechanics is the effective stripping of jump bridge networks. Systems that are a link in a jump bridge chain often never see any local stargate traffic. But that doesn't mean the system isn't being used by hundreds of alliance pilots every day. You can't impose stargate control without giving the defending alliance the ability to fit defenses like sentry guns on the gates ( a modest request if gates become important) This is the heart of the matter I think. The sovereignty system should discourage absentee landlordism, and the way the current system links linear levels of Sov with important abilities like the Jump Bridge results in Alliance asserting that they "need" incredible defender advantages to maintain blanket sovereignty lest they lose one vital ability. Really I think all of these benefits should be completely separate. If you want a Jump Bridge or a Cynojammer in a system, you should just be able to build it, and it should be able to be attacked without having to spam or siege POS to do so. While the Stargate Control portion of my proposal was linked to the invulnerability of Tactical Arrays and POS, the main point was that the three elements could be established seperately if desired, and that having them work together made them stronger. I think sentry guns on gates could be effective and balanced, given the proper rules - make them cheap enough that they can be reasonably destructable, make them only fire on pilots with Aggression towards the Alliance that anchored them, and limit how many can be anchored on a gate. Then they'd be a valuable assist for Defenders protecting their territory, but also attackable infrastructure if the Defender isn't around, and an Alliance could maintain an engineer corps to keep their sentry gun emplacements operable. But the key point here is that the concrete benefits a territory holding Alliance receives should be based on actions appropriate to the type of benefit. Outpost construction would be rightly based on having POS infrastructure to support it, but Cynojammers and Jump Bridges being based on how many POS you have in system is silly, especially because they grant such a huge advantage in the subcapital arena without having to set foot in that arena in the first place.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:26:00 - [17] Edited by: NanDe YaNen on 10/08/2008 19:26:40 Originally by: Fahtim Meidires The my big question for you is why do you oppose 'blobs'? There are two different reasons but personally I think both arguments are fundamentally wrong. The first of course is to discourage huge fleet fights. Most proponents of this don't like the fact that if group A has more pilots of similar skill than group B, group A will win the fight. But this is a truth that goes beyond the context of Eve. Sure small fleets should have an impact, but a small fleet should always lose to a bigger fleet of similar ships. Second, the lag-based argument against blobs I think is wrong based on principle. Designing a game mechanic so that it limits stress on the server isn't the right approach to solving the problem in my opinion. You just have to do the best to improve the network capabilities. The fact that the server has a hard time on large single grid fights shouldn't be the sole reason that you're forcing fights to occur on multiple grids. I don't oppose bringing more ships and thereby having more muscle, but a giant fleet battle with lots of lag, overview or server-side, negates to a great extent whether or not blob A is more skilled than blob B. When dictors are dropping bubbles 200km off target, the fight is almost down to luck of the draw. It's this randomness that I'm against. I would prefer there to be simultaneous objectives across several grids as a method of increasing the impact skill and tactics has on the outcome of a battle. On face value, it seems a lot harder to manage a fight effectively when it's happening in multiple locations, but welcome to the real world. A multi-grid battle will cause FC's of true genius to rise to the top, far outstripping the capabilities of larger groups with less effective command. As we are conditioned to the game as it is, we look at a multi-grid fight like "but! but!!!! I don't want to divide my forces!!!!!!" This is symptomatic of the oversimplified field of combat we've inherited from the early days of Eve. Those who can adapt will move forward. Those with real cunning will have more decisive impact. In the end warfare will be much more exciting and we will all benefit.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:31:00 - [18] Originally by: Kelsin But the key point here is that the concrete benefits a territory holding Alliance receives should be based on actions appropriate to the type of benefit. Outpost construction would be rightly based on having POS infrastructure to support it, but Cynojammers and Jump Bridges being based on how many POS you have in system is silly, especially because they grant such a huge advantage in the subcapital arena without having to set foot in that arena in the first place. How warm are you to the idea of sub-cap gangs being able to reinforce a POS and thus exposing the benefits gained through sov to maintaining de-facto control over the mid-size gang warfare?
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:38:00 - [19] Originally by: NanDe YaNen I don't oppose bringing more ships and thereby having more muscle, but a giant fleet battle with lots of lag, overview or server-side, negates to a great extent whether or not blob A is more skilled than blob B. When dictors are dropping bubbles 200km off target, the fight is almost down to luck of the draw. It's this randomness that I'm against. I totally agree, but the solution must be by improving server capability or by streamlining client-server communications. Changing a game mechanic because the server can't handle it and designing the new one around server capabilities is wrong, and I hope CCP would agree it is against their morals as game designers.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:41:00 - [20] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Kelsin But the key point here is that the concrete benefits a territory holding Alliance receives should be based on actions appropriate to the type of benefit. Outpost construction would be rightly based on having POS infrastructure to support it, but Cynojammers and Jump Bridges being based on how many POS you have in system is silly, especially because they grant such a huge advantage in the subcapital arena without having to set foot in that arena in the first place. How warm are you to the idea of sub-cap gangs being able to reinforce a POS and thus exposing the benefits gained through sov to maintaining de-facto control over the mid-size gang warfare? They can. BS fleets are entirely sub-cap and can destroy a POS.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:43:00 - [21] Originally by: Kelsin But the key point here is that the concrete benefits a territory holding Alliance receives should be based on actions appropriate to the type of benefit. Outpost construction would be rightly based on having POS infrastructure to support it, but Cynojammers and Jump Bridges being based on how many POS you have in system is silly, especially because they grant such a huge advantage in the subcapital arena without having to set foot in that arena in the first place. If sovereignty is independent from the ability to have POS anchorables, then the only benefit point of holding sov is having your name on a map and a small fuel benefit.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:46:00 - [22] Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Originally by: NanDe YaNen I don't oppose bringing more ships and thereby having more muscle, but a giant fleet battle with lots of lag, overview or server-side, negates to a great extent whether or not blob A is more skilled than blob B. When dictors are dropping bubbles 200km off target, the fight is almost down to luck of the draw. It's this randomness that I'm against. I totally agree, but the solution must be by improving server capability or by streamlining client-server communications. Changing a game mechanic because the server can't handle it and designing the new one around server capabilities is wrong, and I hope CCP would agree it is against their morals as game designers. It's a fundamental reality that has no workaround. Sending ship data is an n-body problem. If there are n ships, you have to send n ships locations to n clients. Thus telling clients simply how to display what is going on will scale load exponentially. Performance increases naturally will gain less and less real increase and get harder to achieve. A battle that happens across several grids or a battle that happens in several systems between mid-size gangs trying to ninja-reinforce POS's won't seem any less epic, especially when you listen to several teams in alliance chat all encountering and dealing with their own challenges while you struggle to make headway at your own objective.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:51:00 - [23] Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Kelsin But the key point here is that the concrete benefits a territory holding Alliance receives should be based on actions appropriate to the type of benefit. Outpost construction would be rightly based on having POS infrastructure to support it, but Cynojammers and Jump Bridges being based on how many POS you have in system is silly, especially because they grant such a huge advantage in the subcapital arena without having to set foot in that arena in the first place. How warm are you to the idea of sub-cap gangs being able to reinforce a POS and thus exposing the benefits gained through sov to maintaining de-facto control over the mid-size gang warfare? They can. BS fleets are entirely sub-cap and can destroy a POS. So there can be no fundamental objection to a process that can already take place Score one for towers getting reinforced via the arrays. Not that you ever said you were against. Wondering when I can win your thumbs up on CSM
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:56:00 - [24] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Originally by: NanDe YaNen I don't oppose bringing more ships and thereby having more muscle, but a giant fleet battle with lots of lag, overview or server-side, negates to a great extent whether or not blob A is more skilled than blob B. When dictors are dropping bubbles 200km off target, the fight is almost down to luck of the draw. It's this randomness that I'm against. I totally agree, but the solution must be by improving server capability or by streamlining client-server communications. Changing a game mechanic because the server can't handle it and designing the new one around server capabilities is wrong, and I hope CCP would agree it is against their morals as game designers. It's a fundamental reality that has no workaround. Sending ship data is an n-body problem. If there are n ships, you have to send n ships locations to n clients. Thus telling clients simply how to display what is going on will scale load exponentially. Performance increases naturally will gain less and less real increase and get harder to achieve. A battle that happens across several grids or a battle that happens in several systems between mid-size gangs trying to ninja-reinforce POS's won't seem any less epic, especially when you listen to several teams in alliance chat all encountering and dealing with their own challenges while you struggle to make headway at your own objective. But as a defender I wouldn't be stupid enough to separate my assets but rather would place them all together. I wouldn't let my arrays be separated to my own forces would be split. And I wouldn't let my POS kill itself if nobody was actually shooting it. Furthermore, once the POS shields go down, I would still blob my control tower to protect the armor and structure. So it doesn't even really solve the problem.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 19:59:00 - [25] Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 10/08/2008 19:59:40 Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Kelsin But the key point here is that the concrete benefits a territory holding Alliance receives should be based on actions appropriate to the type of benefit. Outpost construction would be rightly based on having POS infrastructure to support it, but Cynojammers and Jump Bridges being based on how many POS you have in system is silly, especially because they grant such a huge advantage in the subcapital arena without having to set foot in that arena in the first place. How warm are you to the idea of sub-cap gangs being able to reinforce a POS and thus exposing the benefits gained through sov to maintaining de-facto control over the mid-size gang warfare? They can. BS fleets are entirely sub-cap and can destroy a POS. So there can be no fundamental objection to a process that can already take place Score one for towers getting reinforced via the arrays. Not that you ever said you were against. Wondering when I can win your thumbs up on CSM No. It makes no sense to me that a pos go into reinforced without being directly attacked. It's capabilities can be reduced until all the arrays are destroyed, but the POS itself shouldn't go down.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 20:12:00 - [26] Originally by: Fahtim Meidires No. It makes no sense to me that a pos go into reinforced without being directly attacked. It's capabilities can be reduced until all the arrays are destroyed, but the POS itself shouldn't go down. You have to remember, I'm not treating the array as a simple add-on structures. The arrays are additional paths to the POS. Attackers and defenders have ways to influence what happens at the tower via the arrays. It's not like you're attacking something that's entirely separate from the POS. Arrays are indeed part of the POS. If you want to forgo involvement, you simply opt not to install arrays and instead make your towers much more vulnerable to traditional conquest methods. Just went through this in detail over in my proposal thread. By having their own stront timers that do not eat all the stront when they come out of reinforced, the arrays should almost never be destroyed. They're essentially a permanent fixture (unless you're very lazy with refueling) of the POS warfare until the tower is either saved or brought down. From my point of view, such a design characteristic is unavoidable if multi-grid combat is to be a goal. If the objectives can be treated as isolated, they will get blobbed one by one. They have to have some protection (stront timer is like a time-out) from total annihilation until the fight is completely over. They have to have ways of being brought back into the fight to stay relevant. Since bandwidth for fleet battles is an n-body problem, I believe multi-grid combat should be a goal.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.10 20:29:00 - [27] Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Originally by: Kelsin But the key point here is that the concrete benefits a territory holding Alliance receives should be based on actions appropriate to the type of benefit. Outpost construction would be rightly based on having POS infrastructure to support it, but Cynojammers and Jump Bridges being based on how many POS you have in system is silly, especially because they grant such a huge advantage in the subcapital arena without having to set foot in that arena in the first place. If sovereignty is independent from the ability to have POS anchorables, then the only benefit point of holding sov is having your name on a map and a small fuel benefit. To be honest that is preferable to gaining some of these huge tactical advantages simply through POS warfare. In particular the ability to drop a huge gang on top of an enemy roaming force using the Jump Bridge is very powerful, and all the more so because long term the roaming subcap gang can't attack the infrastructure that makes the Jump Bridge possible in a reasonable way. But to your point, there is also the capital shipyards and outpost benefits that ought still to be related to POS construction. Not to mention the normal functions of POS.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.10 20:37:00 - [28] Forgive me for continuing to derail, but what do you think of arrays as a requisite for jumpbridge/cyno deployment? This would expose an alliance's infrastructure for dealing with a roaming threat to that roaming threat. Since a gang of Domi's can reinforce a POS using arrays in a reasonable frame of time, it's immediately possible for a successful roaming campaign to divide an alliance and deny them easy transport if they can't deal with even a small gang.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 20:44:00 - [29] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Originally by: Kelsin But the key point here is that the concrete benefits a territory holding Alliance receives should be based on actions appropriate to the type of benefit. Outpost construction would be rightly based on having POS infrastructure to support it, but Cynojammers and Jump Bridges being based on how many POS you have in system is silly, especially because they grant such a huge advantage in the subcapital arena without having to set foot in that arena in the first place. If sovereignty is independent from the ability to have POS anchorables, then the only benefit point of holding sov is having your name on a map and a small fuel benefit. To be honest that is preferable to gaining some of these huge tactical advantages simply through POS warfare. In particular the ability to drop a huge gang on top of an enemy roaming force using the Jump Bridge is very powerful, and all the more so because long term the roaming subcap gang can't attack the infrastructure that makes the Jump Bridge possible in a reasonable way. But to your point, there is also the capital shipyards and outpost benefits that ought still to be related to POS construction. Not to mention the normal functions of POS. What I'm saying is that holding sov should prevent others from deploying cyno jammers and jump bridges in your space. You have to be able to restrict the build up of enemy infrastructure with some sort of defense. That's why POS works.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 20:49:00 - [30] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Forgive me for continuing to derail, but what do you think of arrays as a requisite for jumpbridge/cyno deployment? This would expose an alliance's infrastructure for dealing with a roaming threat to that roaming threat. Since a gang of Domi's can reinforce a POS using arrays in a reasonable frame of time, it's immediately possible for a successful roaming campaign to divide an alliance and deny them easy transport if they can't deal with even a small gang. Naturally it would take time to respond to a small gang, so as a defender I would make sure such an important piece of logistics would be amply defended so that it takes a long time to disable. Sure there could be more requisites to having a cynojammer or jupmbridge, but I still don't like your reasons for why they have to be off grid. The meta-reason for lag is in my mind the wrong reason, and the in-game reason is too artificial for my liking.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.