| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Caldari
R.E.C.O.N.
The Firm.
   |
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:47:00 -
[1]
I've been saying it for a long time, and I still think I'm correct: We need at least 4 more NPC 0.0 regions like Curse.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
R.E.C.O.N.
The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 09:26:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Malachon Draco
I don't know if more 0.0 space is an answer. Scarcity is a good driver of conflict, and with a greater abundance of space, that would be reduced.
If they are going to introduce more space, I would suggest designing it carefully. Two things in particular.
1. Make it deep 0.0. And far away for capitals, so there are few places from where you can jump to it. Making it logistically harder to get to might discourage big alliances from immediately taking the space, and give smaller determined alliances a chance to set up shop.
2. Design the regions so that they have defensible pockets. If you want people to rat and mine in space, or to build outposts, it would be ideal if each region has 2-4 pockets of 6-8 systems, with each only 1 or 2 entrance systems. For a smaller alliance, I think its less daunting to try and take a single, more easily defended pocket than have to mine and rat in more vulnerable pipe systems.
More sov space for alliances to play POS games? No. You're right, that won't solve anything.
More Curse/Stain style NPC space for people to play a different 0.0 game? Well... maybe. It's worth a try.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
R.E.C.O.N.
The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 09:28:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Zackalwe
Edited by: Zackalwe on 10/12/2008 09:07:22
I think it would be beneficial to wait for the next expansion, to see how that impacts the big alliances.
The next expansion "T3" should relieve some of the problems we are seeing. The big alliances are going to be fighting over "wormhole space" to try to control T3. Which will leave oppertunity for smaller alliances to get a foothold in 0.0
Strategically speaking, how will these wormholes be any different from r64 moons? Large alliances hold moons in nearly empty regions already, via jump-bridge networks.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
R.E.C.O.N.
The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 11:04:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Zackalwe
Originally by: Minigin
yes that would be fantastic for all of 2 months until a super coalition decides to move close to the edge of that space and effectivly control the entire thing.
i used to complain to alliance leaders about having too many standings... i think it would be prudent and fun of ccp to remove standings from the game.
Darknesss > viva le revolution!
tbh.
I dont believe you can move closer to wormhole space, its only accessed by the wormholes, which I presume shift about every now and then. (This is the only way exploration can be continually tied to wormholes is if they are not permanent).
Its also possible that the wormhole space itself isnt permanent.
The point being that large, existing jump bridge networks make it easy, fast and cheap for tier 1 coalitions to move huge blobfleets that will utterly crush any fleet that isn't fielded by a comparable tier 1 coaltion. The wormhole just adds one more jump.
|
| |
|