Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Beldarann
Gallente Akuten Shi DeStInY.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 09:33:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Beldarann on 08/12/2008 09:34:00 I've played Eve since December '03 and 2 days ago I went past the 5 year mark. And I'm seriously wondering and a worried about the future of this game which though it frustrates me sometimes I still very much enjoy.
The problem as I see it is that Eve is polarising into basically two power blocks who I think within a not too long period of time will control all of 0.0. Sure there are different alliances but these alliances are gonna basically come down to either being NC friendly or GBC friendly.
I worry that this game is gonna grind itself into stagnation, where any attack on one alliance will result in the entire power bloc that alliance was in nuking the hell out of the aggressor.
Of course then the way alliances will fix this is to attack as a power bloc, but of course the defender has a significant advantage as NC proved recently and as Bob proved at the beginning of this year. Then of course you factor Titans into it and DD'ing people trying to take jammers down in an already laggy system because of the numbers people felt they had to bring to even have the remotest chance of success.
Any small alliances out there that try to avoid choosing a side would likely either have to choose an power bloc to side with or get their backside kicked by one of them. In other words this game is well on the way to being run and controlled by literally a handful of people who control the power bloc's.
I do think there is a danger of us seeing a time where skirmishes may be as much pvp as people can hope to see, large battles for space wont happen because the defender has the advantage and the attacker wont be able to bring a force sufficient to unseat the defender. All this means horrible stagnation for the game.
People can say what they like but this is happening, the recent history of Eve proves it, and I honestly don't know what can be done to stop it.
Anyway just wanted to put down what I was thinking. I've tried to leave smack outta this post though so if you're gonna reply, try and make a thoughtful post the smack only makes you look like an idiot.
|
Barbaro55a
Caldari Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 09:48:00 -
[2]
WeLcoMe to Eve, mAke friEnds oR doN't hAVe aNY disPRo.
|
Reverand Pastor
Caldari Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:00:00 -
[3]
I hear people raging about the state of eve all the time, What is missing is solutions to the problem. Having said that I believe a new sov system is in order as pos's have made this game grind to a halt at times. Among other things jump clones, titan bridges etc, give unprecedented logistics to cover huge space in short time. Its a neccesary evil in the game and blaming alliances for playing the game thats put in front of them is not fair or correct. You play the hand dealt nothing more nothing less.
|
Vanessa Vasquez
Caldari Lyonesse. KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:00:00 -
[4]
I agree with the op, but there's nothing to change that. Though the "problem" has nothing to do with power blocks. What you'r talking about is just, that size matters. You'll see exactly the same thing when small alliances fight. The bigger one wins, it's that simple.
And yes, it is sad!
|
pi314159265
Caldari DOOMSDAY. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:07:00 -
[5]
Yes, I totally agree. I miss the old MC and Outbreak etc... Just basically a handful of guys who really made headline news or freelancers. But this game is developing into a much tougher for pilots of small groups to freelance.
I think CCP should do something to these moon minerals or whatever. Just provide less incentives for people to form up a huge napblob and more incentives for small groups of pilots who choose to keep their autonomy in a sense. Thats my 2 cents. "Spreading The Superior Culture and Knowledge For The Glorious Nation of Khazikstan..." |
Kal'Kalagan
Minmatar Aggressive Tendencies Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:18:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Kal''Kalagan on 08/12/2008 10:23:46 The answer is simple, remove jump bridges and the jump bridge ability of Titans. Traffic will re-appear in the pipes, more small gang warefare will take place. Alliance will be forced to reduce their space holdings if they want to effectively defend them. Small alliances will have a chance of remaining independant and warefare will gradually become inter-regional gain as oppssed to the 3 massive power blocks controlling pretty much everything.
Jump bridges and Titans have ruined a lot of good stuff in Eve thats for sure. . Combined with capital blobs skill is no longeer the major factor in Eve, its who can bring the most numbers - thats got to be wrong.
|
Milkman Dani
Gallente RuffRyders Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:19:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Reverand Pastor I hear people raging about the state of eve all the time, What is missing is solutions to the problem. Having said that I believe a new sov system is in order as pos's have made this game grind to a halt at times. Among other things jump clones, titan bridges etc, give unprecedented logistics to cover huge space in short time. Its a neccesary evil in the game and blaming alliances for playing the game thats put in front of them is not fair or correct. You play the hand dealt nothing more nothing less.
Rev, make a great point, the sov system needs to change from pos's to something else, maybe some sorta bunker control system within the system, I don't know. I think that the sov system needs to change in a way so that the pos's we do set up in systems that alliances control, would then allow for the cap ship building and other stuff. Solutions would have to come from the people who are currently running the power blocs, since they are the ones that are ultimately doing what's being done. CCP ought to get all these alliances leaders into a meeting or something and come up with some ideas, then the dev team works with them to get something tested. At the rate right now, we're all sitting in pos's waiting for something to happen, that won't happen, or watching as our enemies come in with massive caps fleets to take out posses.. Seriously, I don't think there's anyone out there that likes killing pos's just to put up more that will end up getting blown up anyway.
Anyway, I would much rather see cap fleets and sub cap fleets beating on each other over system sov instead of pos's. Shooting cyno jammers are important because they keep the system clear of enemy caps jumping in, so that won't stop. Killing pos's for the sov is just ******ed to me, and feel we need a better system, that's all I'm trying to say.
|
Wollari
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:35:00 -
[8]
Yes, but poses still produce a huge amount of ISK. And if this won't change too, the posses will still be something big to fight for and keep alive.
If someday the Sov Holding Feature would be removed from the posses to something different, perhaps we should combine Sov with pos mining. For example: a moon harvester will only give max 25% of their minerals if the alliance don't hold sov and 100% with Sov 3 ( 50% with Sov 2 and 75% with Sov 2)
Then the alliance must keep the sov to hold the moons and make the big money out of their space. This will keep the fights for sov but moves the fights from the pos warfare to something different.
I know that then most calculations for reactions will fail, but you must have a goal to fight for, and it should not be pos warfare.
I would rather fight for something that my opponnent would get lesser money out of their moons. It should also be possible to let the sov drop from 3 to 2 if an assault to a single sovereignty holding point was successful and a full drop if you've had a successfull assault on several points. so you've the time to get it back to 3 in a shorter time rather then 6 weeks.
|
Elfaen Ethenwe
Caldari Infusion.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:41:00 -
[9]
The bunker control idea, thats been tested in FW has from my involvement in it proved to be pointless as it just encourages large blobs to bounce from bunker to bunker to defend them. The abolishment of jump bridges is the most effective way ive seen of re-introducing traffic to 0.0 and thus the gankfleets of small corps would be reborn. I dont think you can stop people napping everything within 5 regions as both powerblocs seem to have done, if thats how they wish to survive then thats there choice. money is obviously more important to those people than the pvp aspect. Im not critising that choice, but it isnt one i would follow. Because of this, the pvp alliances have had to replicate this 'nap to blob' attitude to compeate.
Some corps and alliances do still do small scale roaming, but the limitations on this make fights non existant. Good small scale pvp corps can ''raid'' pritty much any region in 0.0 and get out alive but the targets open to you and the point where you have to run are much earlier now the nano nerf has come into play and its all about how quickly you can get into warp.
It'd be very nice if eve became acessable to all again, not in a way that low sp players are as effective as high sp players if they group up and blob enough (which has been ccp's idea of dealling with the sp gap for years now, which in turn has caused the problem) but instead some form of ballanced pvp, that doesnt require blobtastic fleets to achieve basic objectives.
Its not as simple as NERF THE BLOB!! it needs real thought and real solutions. Something ccp has never managed, but ill also note that no one has ever come up with.
<><><>Together we gank, devided we pop<><><><>
|
Firkragg
Amarr Blue Labs Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:45:00 -
[10]
to be fair eve has pretty much always been a case of a couple of power blocks facing off against eachother. There is still small alliance fighting happening (off the top of my head i can name shade taking immortal dragons stations as one). The problem in eve atm isnt the big fights, they are fine. The hard bit is the lack of objectives for small gangs. CCP has so far claimed that stations services and pos mods outside stations were to give small gangs something to do but really you still need a big fleet for these.
|
|
BogWopit
Amarr The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 10:59:00 -
[11]
How about removing the entire standing system and the only thing you get to see is if a pilot is in your corp / alliance or not.
Just a thought.
|
Kal'Kalagan
Minmatar Aggressive Tendencies Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:02:00 -
[12]
Back in the day we in Veritas had so many fights in the N-Rael to Scalding pipe with Red Alliance. We'd have travellers usning the pipe and so would they - they'd always be action there 24 hours a day in one form or another. The of course there were the freighter escorts which were always the catalysts for big fights and of course the plex's.
Nowdays everyone just jumps to whereever it is they need to go. No real risks involves at all. Jump Freighters and increasing carrier cargo bays to take BS's made it worse. If you want to fight you go to someones home systems and run the risk of getting blobbed, DD's, capital blobbed and probably all of the above. Small gangs have no chances in these situations and with little traffic in the pipes due to jump bridges its a fairly dull existance in most Eve regions.
If it wasnt for regiosn like Curse or Syndicate I'd probably have quit by now.
|
Goberth Ludwig
Caldari North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:05:00 -
[13]
Jump freighters, Jump bridges, Carriers, and now the new Outpost Sized Gates everywhere; you have to be really lazy or dumb to lose a ship travelling nowadays.
- Gob
|
K3nsh1ro
Caldari Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:05:00 -
[14]
this game is becoming boring and boring how the days pass
|
Misanth
Amarr RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Black Legion.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:21:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kal'Kalagan Back in the day we in Veritas had so many fights in the N-Rael to Scalding pipe with Red Alliance. We'd have travellers usning the pipe and so would they - they'd always be action there 24 hours a day in one form or another. The of course there were the freighter escorts which were always the catalysts for big fights and of course the plex's.
Nowdays everyone just jumps to whereever it is they need to go. No real risks involves at all. Jump Freighters and increasing carrier cargo bays to take BS's made it worse. If you want to fight you go to someones home systems and run the risk of getting blobbed, DD's, capital blobbed and probably all of the above. Small gangs have no chances in these situations and with little traffic in the pipes due to jump bridges its a fairly dull existance in most Eve regions.
If it wasnt for regiosn like Curse or Syndicate I'd probably have quit by now.
I was there, in Veritas, as well. Things were alot different in the size of gangs fighting yes, but there's not only the jumpbridges (pos/sov system in place) and titan jumpbridges that made logistics 'too easy'. It's a couple of other aspects as well.
POS was spammed then for another reason. The old system pre-sov was simply way better. Yes you could take a station in short time while roaming. Yes, there was no real fortress feeling when defending. But it was equally easy to take it back. And what was worth anything, was plexes. Today you want moons, and you won't lose an outpost if you don't lose sov warfare. I.e. everything that matters now is your POS, which generally is best fought at/defended with caps, which needs a support fleet, etc.
Imho the best way to make a more fluent 0.0 would simply be to remove the whole sov system that was implemented then. Moon minerals is too valuable as well. And we need more entry routes in 0.0, the bottlenecks should be in low sec. More entry points, less worth in moons, no sov system (anyone can build their supercaps anywhere, as long as they can keep their pos alive, will open opportunities but also create fights).
Outposts will be vulnerable. POS won't be the bread and butter. No jumpbridges. No cyno gens on POS, etc.
But no, even back in the time we're talking about, there was discussions about powerblocks taking over EVE. This game isn't dying. It's just way too easy to defend things, and it promotes blobbing in 0.0. Apart from that the game is fine.
|
hawat92
Gallente Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:21:00 -
[16]
Edited by: hawat92 on 08/12/2008 11:24:09 First, Destiny is a Triumvirate alt corp if I'm not mistaken. No smack here but the point is important.
Sov system is certainly kind of boring. CCP said they were brainstorming about it (and that is scary considering). But.
Eve Online is a politics game as much as a commerce game, an NPC one and a pvp one (I don't talk about industry, I'm allergic). If you want to be part of the game in 0.0, you nowadays have to : 1 - be able to align a cap fleet 2 - have some friends who might help you do so / protect its deployment.
Am I happy with the polarisation of the fronts ? I would be more as a pilot if i had multiple targets / small fun stuff.
But Eve is not that atm. You want to wreck havoc and **** off everybody ? You pay the consequences and live in NPC regions. Plenty of money to make ratting here and you can continue ****ing off people ; though the lack of structure / objectives may discourage your pilots in the long run. You want to enjoy 0.0, its moons, the protection of its sov system ? You play it fair to the players. Nowadays, it means engaging oneself in the conflict which has driven Eve for a long time now between GBC "I want to control all of 0.0" and its opponents, "us carebears in caps".
As long as this conflict, which can be felt through all Eve activities, runs free, such is the game. Polarisation of Eve politics shall last a bit because it has to. Then we may see once more smaller conflicts, probably.
Npc space, low sec and empire are pretty much open to everyone.
|
Shadowsword
Gallente Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:29:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Kal'Kalagan Edited by: Kal''Kalagan on 08/12/2008 10:23:46 The answer is simple, remove jump bridges and the jump bridge ability of Titans. Traffic will re-appear in the pipes, more small gang warefare will take place. Alliance will be forced to reduce their space holdings if they want to effectively defend them. Small alliances will have a chance of remaining independant and warefare will gradually become inter-regional gain as oppssed to the 3 massive power blocks controlling pretty much everything.
That wouldn't work. With the overlord/renter scheme introduced by Bob, whatever the logistical strain is, there is no hard limit anymore to the amount of space you can control. Who care if some renter get is ship ganked because he didn't pay attention to intel? The really important logistic would be under heavy escort anyway, or not easily gankable.
Your proposal would change nothing besides making logistics even less fun that it is right now.
OP: It's been like that since a long time already. It was already that 18 months ago, when the RSF and NC had an unofficial anti-bob defensive agreement, and when Bob, bob pets and LV were cooperating together. ------------------------------------------
|
Nyveg
Minmatar n0thing Inc. Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:32:00 -
[18]
I agree that jump-freighters, -portals, -bridges etc. have been taking the edge off.
|
Vasili Z
Minmatar Foundation Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:33:00 -
[19]
I for one like seeing that one alliance on the map can hold various regions all over Eve and not have to worry about defending them because they have thousands of pilots on call from countless friendly alliances. -------
If you fit ECM, you're not a pvper. |
darth solo
Caldari Celestial Apocalypse Resurgency
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:46:00 -
[20]
i totally agree. his post is actually spot on.
the large alliances that have the isk making moons get more powerfull each day and buy titan after titan, they have more isk than they can spend. and isk wins wars.
When titans dual doomsday 1-5 man cruiser gangs u know that we have a serious problem, hi PL o/.
im staying away from 0.0 politics for quite a bit, it just isnt that much fun.
d solo.
|
|
Malcanis
Caldari R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:47:00 -
[21]
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.
|
DrDooma
Minmatar 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:50:00 -
[22]
In the case that you described, a battle of attrition will be thought with one side eventually loose more then the other and then we back to where we are now or where we were a year ago when D2 collapsed.
So sit back and enjoy the show or even better, make your own.
|
cheese monkey
Minmatar Pangalactic Industries Incorporated Strength in Numbers.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 11:59:00 -
[23]
iused to think about that the game, but then i realised that there is actually more to eve than holding sov. dont tell goons tho.
|
thoth foc
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:02:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Bog***it How about removing the entire standing system and the only thing you get to see is if a pilot is in your corp / alliance or not.
Just a thought.
Personally I like this idea, but i dont really think it would solve the problem..
i dont think there is an obvious simple answer..
------------------ x-DSMA (Menta) x-CA (OMEGA/BOS) x-.5.(ATUK) BOB (DICE) |
Fred0
Caldari Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:03:00 -
[25]
Reintroduce nano bs if you want more small scale combat. Nothing encouraged small scale pvp more than the fun factor.
Other than that EVE is a political game just as much as anything else. You can't disregard that aspect unless you want to set yourself up to fail at the endgame. Also I see plenty of new, young alliances coming up and looking to claim space. Some of them will succeed just as todays space-holders started somewhere aswell. It just takes more time and dedication since the competition is ever increasing. --- "Cutting Edge 4 Life" |
Splash Whale
Gallente Ctrl-Q Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:04:00 -
[26]
A proper solution to this, as has been stated by numerous of people, is more NPC 0.0 space and making logistics for large 0.0 sov empires harder while not making the smaller ones impossible for small groups.
Introducing NPC 0.0 between empire space to split up it's regions would therefor be a good thing. It will make eve less hub-centralized and shift alot of the trading to different locations, thus making it harder to just get all the fuel for POS to the wanted location in deep 0.0 space.
There is just too much 0.0 space that can be contested at this moment, and 0.0 space with sovereignty is usually extremely quiet apart from the ratting systems. NPC 0.0 on the other hand is always alive and kicking with alot of smaller PvP going on. More people will move into the npc 0.0 simply because it is more fun and it wont be as supercrowded as current 0.0npc is. Huge blobs will decrease in size and everybody is happy. ----
When in doubt, Ctrl-Q. |
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:10:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Fred0 Reintroduce nano bs if you want more small scale combat. Nothing encouraged small scale pvp more than the fun factor.
Other than that EVE is a political game just as much as anything else. You can't disregard that aspect unless you want to set yourself up to fail at the endgame. Also I see plenty of new, young alliances coming up and looking to claim space. Some of them will succeed just as todays space-holders started somewhere aswell. It just takes more time and dedication since the competition is ever increasing.
I don't entirely agree with you Fred. Yes, Eve is a political game, but you act as if it requires mastery at diplomacy to get a big coalition together. Generally, its a lot harder to keep the number of 'allies' down. Triumvirate is perhaps a bit of a special case, with the attitud we regularly display on forums and ingame, but I doubt it would be difficult for us to join an existing powerblock if we wanted to.
And none of the young alliances will be able to claim space unless they join one of the powerblocks, that I am certain of.
As for changing the game, its possible, but I doubt CCP would want to go for it. What CCP could do is: remove warp to 0, remove jumpportals and jumpbridge networks and make sovereignty usage based instead of POS based. That would force alliances to stay much closer to home, thus reducing the size of conflicts. And it would also remove the necessity of helping each other. With all the fast transport possibilities, an enemy in Fountain could already be considered a potential threat to Tenal and Branch. If fleets can no longer move so fast, then you don't need an ally 30 jumps away to protect yourself.
|
Shadoo
Gallente North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:23:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Shadoo on 08/12/2008 12:24:29 Introduce more NPC 0.0 stations and sov in existing regions that do not have them currently. Add quality agents and unique content to those stations and consider some kind of reward (in standings, etc) to empires currently residing in those regions.
Encourage roaming alliances by giving them NPC stations to base from deep within enemy territory, limit Sov 3 systems, nerf highend moons and limit the offensive abilities of titans.
Let people fortify their outposts if they so wish, but introduce a penalty to ratting/mining/exploration if you choose to claim sov (and jam).
You can still effectively live & have fun as a nomad alliance today, thou your options are pretty much limited to Stain, Delve, Fountain, Venal, Outer Ring, Pure Blind, Curse and Syndicate. What's common amongs those regions?
And yes -- some people have too much isk and if you go to Delve or Stain -- you better be prepared for it or end up like Darth said if you don't know how to handle living outgunned, outskilled and outmanned. But if you know how to handle yourself -- you can have a grand ol' time with pvp 23/7 and great loot.
Originally by: Malachon Draco
And none of the young alliances will be able to claim space unless they join one of the powerblocks, that I am certain of.
And yet you've been proven wrong already on this thread -- all you have to do is look at Cloud Ring.
|
Fred0
Caldari Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:24:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
I don't entirely agree with you Fred. Yes, Eve is a political game, but you act as if it requires mastery at diplomacy to get a big coalition together. Generally, its a lot harder to keep the number of 'allies' down. Triumvirate is perhaps a bit of a special case, with the attitud we regularly display on forums and ingame, but I doubt it would be difficult for us to join an existing powerblock if we wanted to.
Maybe you're right. I'm just gonna comment at one bit. "get a big coalition together" - It requires an endless amount of work to coordinate 5 alliances well, the more you add the more difficult it gets. Add in some ego's on a couple of sides and it will never work unless you smack them down hard.
Besides, nothing could be easier than standings but standings really are just like wedding promises, it's after the ceremony that the work really starts. Because after that you have to live with eachother and then you get pets that starts to **** in the spouses sandbox and god knows what. :)
Anyways, not my intention to derail this. So I'll fade back now again. --- "Cutting Edge 4 Life" |
tikki
Caldari Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:26:00 -
[30]
I totally agree that moving gear around now is very easy and practically risk free. The advent of Carriers, then Jump Bridges and titans and finally Jump Freighters means that those holding space can move assets around risk free.
Therefore the only threat is a huge powerblock taking their space....hence encouraging a big napfest.
A lot of the fun careers, such as skirmish warfare gang, have therefore been seriously affected by this.
I miss the days where an alliance was forced to move assets through space to get them to the destination.
Website MI killboard |
|
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:34:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Fred0
Originally by: Malachon Draco
I don't entirely agree with you Fred. Yes, Eve is a political game, but you act as if it requires mastery at diplomacy to get a big coalition together. Generally, its a lot harder to keep the number of 'allies' down. Triumvirate is perhaps a bit of a special case, with the attitud we regularly display on forums and ingame, but I doubt it would be difficult for us to join an existing powerblock if we wanted to.
Maybe you're right. I'm just gonna comment at one bit. "get a big coalition together" - It requires an endless amount of work to coordinate 5 alliances well, the more you add the more difficult it gets. Add in some ego's on a couple of sides and it will never work unless you smack them down hard.
Besides, nothing could be easier than standings but standings really are just like wedding promises, it's after the ceremony that the work really starts. Because after that you have to live with eachother and then you get pets that starts to **** in the spouses sandbox and god knows what. :)
Anyways, not my intention to derail this. So I'll fade back now again.
You're certainly right that making a big coalition work together is a lot harder than just gathering one. And while I don't appreciate your tendency to go for huge blobs and avoid other fights, for the coordination you achieved during the Tribute fights with BoB I think you certainly deserve respect. On the other hand, once you gather 100-200 caps and a sizeable supportfleet for every big operation, do you really still need a lot of coordination?
|
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:38:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Shadoo
Originally by: Malachon Draco
And none of the young alliances will be able to claim space unless they join one of the powerblocks, that I am certain of.
And yet you've been proven wrong already on this thread -- all you have to do is look at Cloud Ring.
Sorry, regions that don't even yield enough revenue to fuel the towers needed to hold Sov don't really count, especially if they have no strategic significance. Who would even want CR? And the moment one of the powerblocks even looks at it, the alliance there will fold.
|
Shadoo
Gallente North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:41:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Shadoo
Originally by: Malachon Draco
And none of the young alliances will be able to claim space unless they join one of the powerblocks, that I am certain of.
And yet you've been proven wrong already on this thread -- all you have to do is look at Cloud Ring.
Sorry, regions that don't even yield enough revenue to fuel the towers needed to hold Sov don't really count, especially if they have no strategic significance. Who would even want CR? And the moment one of the powerblocks even looks at it, the alliance there will fold.
Perhaps your answer gives a clue to what is wrong with 0.0 EVE. Can you spot it?
|
sakana
Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:42:00 -
[34]
solo/small gang is still possible regardless of what everyone says, it's just that back in the day it used to be much easier because people were a lot more stupid. yea people use jump bridges/titan bridges these days, but unless your pvp thrills come from sitting on a gate for hours hoping for something to jump in, i don't see the problem there.
if you are part of one of the large power blocs, or in association with them, it can easily appear that there is nothing else going on in eve, but thats bull, theres still plenty of small alliances fighting in 0.0 and empire.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:45:00 -
[35]
Peace will lead to carebearship.
Carebearship will lead to downfall.
It happened in the past, it will happen in the future.
Only those who constantly steel themselves through the fire of war will stay alive. A small determined force can kill a large horde slacking carebears.
Don't worry
|
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 12:51:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Shadoo
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Shadoo
Originally by: Malachon Draco
And none of the young alliances will be able to claim space unless they join one of the powerblocks, that I am certain of.
And yet you've been proven wrong already on this thread -- all you have to do is look at Cloud Ring.
Sorry, regions that don't even yield enough revenue to fuel the towers needed to hold Sov don't really count, especially if they have no strategic significance. Who would even want CR? And the moment one of the powerblocks even looks at it, the alliance there will fold.
Perhaps your answer gives a clue to what is wrong with 0.0 EVE. Can you spot it?
Crappy 0.0? /me shrugs. Whole different discussion.
|
Tertius Caedes
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:02:00 -
[37]
There is only one Solution. Remove Standings from Game!
|
Red Gabba
Minmatar Peace Love n Harmony
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:09:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Red Gabba on 08/12/2008 13:16:00 I personally think the edge was taken off this game when they solved the book mark problem with warp to 0 on gates and stations, bubbles were a good counter in .0 space but with the introduction of jump bridges and other logistic solutions, some alliances can make it from the edge of empire to the edge of known space without even seeing a jump gate.
I remember getting up at 5am to scout a hauler full of minerals from omist to empire once, sixty odd jumps, huge risk but massive rewards, now the rewards are the same but the risk is nearly zero. The feeling of isolation when in .0 space needs to be re-introduced and the risks upped.
I think once that is done the power blocks will become smaller again, more localised because the logistics of supporting your friends in the north when your in the south will just not be worth it, or east west, you get the idea, of course this would need to be done with a overhaul of the sov system in place, sadly ive no ideas on that one.
As a after thought.... Transports.... next to useless now?
|
Fitz Chivalry
Gallente eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:11:00 -
[39]
I don't know, 6 months or so ago I was convined that BoB/GBC was going to end up controlling the whole of 0.0, now look at the present situation.
There are too many fragile egos in eve for coalitions to last forever and (as has been seen many times) a lot of alliances/corps are too depedent on 1 or 2 people and if thy were to leave the game for any reason then even the largest alliance or strongest corp could quickly implode.
|
Red Gabba
Minmatar Peace Love n Harmony
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:13:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Fitz Chivalry I don't know, 6 months or so ago I was convined that BoB/GBC was going to end up controlling the whole of 0.0, now look at the present situation.
Funny thing is, if there was no power blocks, they might have done.
|
|
Lord Zoran
Caldari House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:15:00 -
[41]
i won't say much except eve used to be more fun......
|
Feyn Tekar
Caldari The Polaris Axis New MagnaDyne Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:27:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Red Gabba
Originally by: Fitz Chivalry I don't know, 6 months or so ago I was convined that BoB/GBC was going to end up controlling the whole of 0.0, now look at the present situation.
Funny thing is, if there was no power blocks, they might have done.
ummm...gbc is a "powerblock". was even bigger at its highpoint than the nc blob
|
Banlish
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:32:00 -
[43]
I've been around since carriers were first introduced and the first outpost was deployed. And it was kinda inevitable that the game would eventually go this way. The alchemy idea fell flat on it's face when they introduced it with the 20 to 1 ratio so using it is unprofitable in any moon material and/or product. But it usually takes 6 month 'chunks' for CCP to realize that something isn't working and/or 100 pages of players '/signed' a thread for them to consider it messed up.
Now, we come to the recent wars and yes it is indeed becoming 'Capital Ships OnlineÖ' but that isn't a bad thing since it was a very long skill path and very expensive to get those ships assembled/acquired. Those pilots and/or alliances went through the work and effort to get all those assets/ships and they 'should' reap the rewards in some fashion.
I believe however just like POS warfare was 'sorta' fixed with POS gunners that large scale fights will need a new infusion of tactics or ship classes to combat the 'uber' capital blob that I think is becoming quite common these days. It happened on the Chinese server and within I think 6 months of 0.0 being introduced over there one alliance controlled everything in the game. Now we stand on that edge and are peering into it. There are indeed other alliances and entities in this game still, but as was said if certain factions/alliances decide 'that region/moon/constellation will be mine' there isn't much the owners will be able to do about it. Cloud Ring is indeed a good example, PL owns the good moons there. Other alliances are fighting over the stations but in the end the stations will end up costing those alliances per month instead of making them isk. They *might* make a profit if they do alliance ops, explore hard, work the 'leftover' moons or *shiver* ice mine. But (and nothing against who's fighting there) PL will keep those moons, with 5 (some say 6) titans and a simply 'large' capital fleet those alliances will not be able to take those moons from PL. PL will always get a fair warning of at least 24 hours and with alts parked there could have the timers set exactly how they need. The only solution *might* be to just hit the tower as often as possible and make it unprofitable, but in that action PL would probably just wipe Cloud Ring clean and install more pets. But sov mechanics are something I think players will work on more these days as it's showing just how broken they are.
As for the capital blobs, I think it might be time to look back to naval technology, and find out why massive battleship (dreads) fleets weren't viable and ways to replicate that here. Off the top of my head 2 things came to mind.
U-Boats, basically relying on speed and packing just a few shots that would seriously cripple a battleship (dread) these ships were cheap, quick and you could field dozens or a hundred of em for the cost of a Battleship (dread) maybe a ship with the ability to launch capital torps or capital size slugs (yet weak) would be a good solution. And no SB's aren't a good solution, a dread can tank dozens of those all day long and laugh. And with 200+ dreads that means the SB blob doesn't work. If they could outrun, or seriously hurt the swarms of fighters assigned to them that would be an added bonus.
(cont)
Atlas Head Diplomat CEO - Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Carebear Pvper?!?!? |
Banlish
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:33:00 -
[44]
Destroyers Between Battleship and Dread I believe there is a giant gap, and no I don't think capital pilots should be rendered useless, BUT they shouldn't be able to 'Tank rush' like in CC Red Alert. Which is what we are seeing now. So if an enemy deploys just one ship in mass quantities I think it's just pretty obvious the NPC factions would come up with a ship to combat that simple strategy. Destroyers wouldn't be as big as dreads but would be bigger then battleships. A dread in siege has a problem hitting a target, make these ships deal out maybe 1/2 or 1/3 dread damage for 1/4 or 1/3 the cost of a dread. They couldn't go toe to toe with any dread and 3 to 4 battleships would put a serious hurt on it, but it would deal comparable capital damage for a low cost. And if someone dread blobs and doesn't support those ships with a sub capital fleet they should begin to take losses because there is a glaring hole in their tactics which is simply being exploited.
Not sure if it's a ideal solution but I think it might 'even up' the playing field a tad now that 1,000 people in a system is possible.
Subs Yes we have cloaking battleships and such now, but their non functional from what everyone is saying and their ability to combat a capital blob is non-existent. If someone wants to deploy a dread/carrier fleet with no support whatsoever then fine, make a ship that can weave in and out of the lines (Within limits) that exploits this mercilessly. Lobbing semi capital grab slugs for a low cost. They can cloak up even after being targeted if they waste a 'shot' of fuel or whatever, of course fast ships would uncloak them all over easily but if none are deployed then this ship would rule the stars.
Everyone here that's played other games has seen those same games 'broken' with one unit bought in extreme excess and lobbed at other another player or computer as a way to quickly 'win'. That's begun happening here, will CCP recognize that? Maybe, this technology that's been around since WWII would be introduced as a way to keep combat and territorial control from stagnating without 'nerfing the hell' out of existing tech.
Like I said before, capital pilots shouldn't be punished for having their ships, they should simply be encouraged to have supporting pilots around as the game was intended. We've all seen 5 to 10 dreads get massacred on a POS by non capital assets because they lacked support, why then shouldn't it occur when that method is deployed on a larger scale. The answer is, it should.
I hope people will take this as intended, I am not looking to 'punish' those that have put in long hours and effort to train correctly. I do believe however that just like almost any other game if someone wants to beat a very straight forwards strategy then there should be that option without having to spend more isk then god to do so.
Make it cheap, make it trainable and make it available soon and you won't see multi region control by single alliances. Or POS's held all over EVE by one alliance as drawn out fleets would get massacred without deploying a balanced fleet would be death to those hard won capitals.
TL:DR version: Lets not nerf caps, lets just make it so smaller and newer ships make 'tank rushing' a costly solution.
I left out all smack, and hopefully this will only add to the (actually good for a change) debate that's happening in this thread so far. Hope it helps.
-Ban
Atlas Head Diplomat CEO - Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Carebear Pvper?!?!? |
Kurt Ambrose
Caldari Point Blank.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:46:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Kurt Ambrose on 08/12/2008 13:46:24
Originally by: Shadoo Edited by: Shadoo on 08/12/2008 12:24:29 Introduce more NPC 0.0 stations and sov in existing regions that do not have them currently. Add quality agents and unique content to those stations and consider some kind of reward (in standings, etc) to empires currently residing in those regions.
Encourage roaming alliances by giving them NPC stations to base from deep within enemy territory, limit Sov 3 systems, nerf highend moons and limit the offensive abilities of titans.
Let people fortify their outposts if they so wish, but introduce a penalty to ratting/mining/exploration if you choose to claim sov (and jam).
This. Also adding more 0.0 regions would be good.
|
Silvestri
Minmatar Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 13:59:00 -
[46]
Something I would like to throw in there for thought as well. People who have been playing since 03 and when Eve came out have riduculous skill points compared to new players. What about a skillpoint cap? Make people specialists in fields rather then I can just train/fly everything out there. I do think there are alot of good points and finally a good thread on COAD.
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Gallente Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:03:00 -
[47]
Jump-Logistics counter : introduce cap size interdictors, able to intercept enemy logistic ships.
Nomad style of 0.0 existence: Shadoo already mentioned it, introduce more NPC stations. Add some other possible ways of 0.0 existence, SPOs, "Hidden outposts" etc. Not just Power-Block compatible methods.
Guerilla stuff: Add new viable guerilla mechanics. A Tri(?) guy posted an idea about disturbing moon harvester process. I do not have link to it, but basic idea was to allow disable/kill NPC lorries slowboating between moon and moon harverster.
|
Jallem Sims
Minmatar Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:07:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Kurt Ambrose
This. Also adding more 0.0 regions would be good.
been to catch recently? before -A- rolled through, iac had a active system.... now, its dead :-/
the is enough systems, just big alliances holding it, and people have to pay to reside in it.
but to add to what is the deep residing problem with eve... a group of old chars, been playing far to much internetspace ships have too many alts, controlling too much. I mean, these wars are had over msn/or other chat chennels/voice comms not in eve, in eve we just take part! |
Phelaen
Amarr Under the Wings of Fury Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:13:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Wollari Yes, but poses still produce a huge amount of ISK. And if this won't change too, the posses will still be something big to fight for and keep alive.
If someday the Sov Holding Feature would be removed from the posses to something different, perhaps we should combine Sov with pos mining. For example: a moon harvester will only give max 25% of their minerals if the alliance don't hold sov and 100% with Sov 3 ( 50% with Sov 2 and 75% with Sov 2)
Then the alliance must keep the sov to hold the moons and make the big money out of their space. This will keep the fights for sov but moves the fights from the pos warfare to something different.
I know that then most calculations for reactions will fail, but you must have a goal to fight for, and it should not be pos warfare.
I would rather fight for something that my opponnent would get lesser money out of their moons. It should also be possible to let the sov drop from 3 to 2 if an assault to a single sovereignty holding point was successful and a full drop if you've had a successfull assault on several points. so you've the time to get it back to 3 in a shorter time rather then 6 weeks.
so we make new assault points?? that doesnt change anything just moves the problem from attacking posses to attacking new assault points. and this moon mineral thing would just make all the larger alliances that can hold sov richer while all small alliances that do some low end to medium end moon mineral mining in low sec will not make any more isk at all.
|
Kal'Kalagan
Minmatar Aggressive Tendencies Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:13:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Kal''Kalagan on 08/12/2008 14:15:23 Lets say for example that an alliance attacks Solar in Cache we all know damn well that thanks to he jumpbridge network the entire drone regions coaltion can be in Cache in several minutes coming from as far away as Colbalt Edge and then with the threat gone they can all be back home the same evening. Its wrong to be able to deploy huuge fleets over massive distances in practically no time.
Another example is when Veritas aided Fix as part of the Smashkill coalition in the drone regions. It took 12 minutes to get from BWF to Oasa. Thats a huge distance conventionally maybe over 40 jumps if I remember correctly, yet with the jump bridges we could go back and fourth between Germinate, Vale and any number of drone regions in no time. Likewise Solar could could get to Oasa from their bases in Cache in an equally quick time. This all leads to alliances/coalition holding massive areas of space because they can defend them by making use of quick fleet deployement via jump bridges.
Now I've got nothing against these huge coaltions inprinciple but if you removed the jumpbridges then the huge blobs woudlnt be able to form so quickly. We'd have smaller fights unless there was a major invasion and alliances would have to work a lot harder at defense - only right if you control a lot of space.
|
|
Psorion
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:14:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Psorion on 08/12/2008 14:14:17 NPC Space is still viable for small alliances. MMORPG stands for Massive MULTIPLAYER Online Role Playing GAME.
Anything worth defending will cause blobage. Part of being Massive.
|
Kal'Kalagan
Minmatar Aggressive Tendencies Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:19:00 -
[52]
But that wasnt always Bob's philosophy, you usd to be elite. You are no longer elite thanks to everyone ability to field massive capital blobs. You've adapted as necessary as Eve has changed but Bob isnt the alliance it was 2 years ago and I suspect that many of the veterans miss what it once was.
No smack intended here you've merely changed and adapted as any good alliance needs to to survive.
|
Phelaen
Amarr Under the Wings of Fury Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:24:00 -
[53]
- no more jumpbridges... - make ALOT more 0.0 NPC space i mean add 5 more regions. it will help smaller alliances most.
I agree that people will blob if something is worth defending. but something thats also ok just not as good as some of the other regions is still worth defending for smaller alliances that cant get any of the really good stuff. dont put any high end moon minerals in it though.. or they will all show up again :P
|
harry beanbag
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:28:00 -
[54]
Edited by: harry beanbag on 08/12/2008 14:30:39 removing logistics and jump bridges and such are not the answer. All that would do is maybe delay the blob by a day or 2.
Honestly i think its the high end moons. i say make them more available in emipre and lowsec, crash the market for dyps and prom and you'll see a less need for the super blob. CCP stated they want people to move out of empire and play in 00 but without the income generated by the people already holding space, you cant match them in a long scale engagement. Its too easy for people already holding territory to replace their losses which also makes them that much more harder to remove.
edit: i agree with the poster above me about adding more NPC 00 regions. I think that would deffinitly help the younger new to 00 alliances make a spot for themselves in eve.
|
Phelaen
Amarr Under the Wings of Fury Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:41:00 -
[55]
Originally by: harry beanbag Edited by: harry beanbag on 08/12/2008 14:30:39 removing logistics and jump bridges and such are not the answer. All that would do is maybe delay the blob by a day or 2.
Honestly i think its the high end moons. i say make them more available in emipre and lowsec, crash the market for dyps and prom and you'll see a less need for the super blob. CCP stated they want people to move out of empire and play in 00 but without the income generated by the people already holding space, you cant match them in a long scale engagement. Its too easy for people already holding territory to replace their losses which also makes them that much more harder to remove.
edit: i agree with the poster above me about adding more NPC 00 regions. I think that would definitely help the younger new to 00 alliances make a spot for themselves in eve.
delaying the blob and making logistics harder by removing the jump bridges makes it so that even the largest alliance will have more trouble covering all their borders, since the huge blob will just arrive to late if they don't spread it out to more systems. eventually that will result in them choosing to own less space, giving smaller entities a chance to own something I agree with the moons. at 50k a unit a dysprosium moon makes 840m a week. that's just to much for something that requires no TIME investment, just 800m or so for a good defended pos.
|
Gaius Xenon
Gallente Digital assassins
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:41:00 -
[56]
People just need to realize old days are gone and you'll all be happier. If you care about 0.0 sov and moons, blob up, else live in empire or npc space and you can do fine really.
Regarding small alliances being able to contest space - that's now just a hot-drop, cap killing opportunity for alliances/groups with more capitals, and when the smaller alliances lose their dreads/carriers, small alliance will have a lot harder time replacing them than large space holding alliances with billions in moon minerals, hence invasion/contesting of space ended.
There is a formula for small alliances to hold space if they want to without joining a power bloc or setting up lots of standings: * Don't hold a station too close to a power bloc - they could view that as a potential staging point for an attack on them. * Don't hold any high end moons * Don't be too successful and active if you are pvping against a large alliance - they might get annoyed by that and take you out even though you might not have any of the above two.
I believe this makes available possibly some constellations in Pure Blind, maybe some other lower value border constellations that are not major pipes/jb locatiosn in a couple other areas, and I guess Cloud Ring during times when larger alliances have not wanted to rent it out to someone.
In the end, CCP will not roll back the game mechanics that would make small alliances as sov holders in 0.0 possible, because it is too large of a change.
Gaius |
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 14:50:00 -
[57]
Edited by: The Mittani on 08/12/2008 14:50:27 nostalgia is a fallacy in eve just as elsewhere; people revise history into a rosier picture than it was
in early 2006 there were four power blocs (soco, ra, d2, bob)
today there are four power blocks (rsf, nc, bob, aaa/se/rol)
while i think titan doomsdays are the stupidest addition to the game since the t2 bpo lottery, the core complaint of your op has nothing to do with 1. reality 2. titans or jump bridges
ps: this is actually a remarkably serious thread i don't know why i am adding to this disease with a real reply, must be slipping
|
Draahk Chimera
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:00:00 -
[58]
I belive a complete overhaul ov what actually causes sov is in order. Here is my humble idea (based somewhat on Oveur's talk on one of the fanfest videos).
Sov 1 is obtained in the traditional manner. Plant a pos and keep alive for 5 days.
To reach sov 2 you need presence. To meet the minimum quota, 1 person from the sov claiming alliance needs to be online in system for a minimum of 12 hours combined time (from dt to dt), or 2 people for a minimum of 6 hours, or 3 people for a minimum of 3 hours (this should be the lower limit). When the qouta for 1 day is met the sov goes up to sov 1.1 (for all intent and purpouse rounded down to sov 1). By day 5 the sov is 1.5 and rounds up to sov 2. If at any day the presence qouta isnt met the sov ticks back 1 step from sov 2.0 to sov 1.9. the highest number that can be met by presence alone is sov 2.0.
Sov 3. After sov 2.0 you can continue to increase your sov claiming by utilizing resourses. If a minimum of X m3 of minerals is mined and/or a miminum of X faction ships is destroyed by alliance members between dt and dt sov vill tick to 2.1. At day 5 the sov will round up to 3 and cyno jammers and jump bridges can be installed. If however the mining/ratting qouta isnt filled the sov ticker goes down and the day it reaches 2.4 all such modules goes offline.
Sov 4 is reached just as today. Have 3 station systems with sov 3 blahdiblah.
This will ensure that it will be almost impossible for the major alliances to control empty systems where no one lives simply to ensure no one lives there. It will also give means to disrupt an alliance sov rather then capital blobbing. A small allince with fighting spirits and good skilled hac pilots can keep hitting ratters and miners until sov ticks down.
Also. Another idea posted long ago in games development would be the ability to "invite" agents to your outpost. Either from the local pirates or from the opposing empire. That way a shortage of belts in station systems will not prevent presence or resourse utilizaton.
|
Aceoil
Caldari Eyes of the Night Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:08:00 -
[59]
To destroy a power bloc, one has to think outside the blox.
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:12:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Aceoil To destroy a power bloc, one has to think outside the blox.
or have bob help steal their targets
|
|
thoth foc
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:28:00 -
[61]
The biggest problem in 0.0 is that so few ppl actually "live" in the 0.0 areas they "control".. i'm sure i could start Malachon on sovereignty changes :P but largely i agree.. i notice someone else has already mentioned a similar observation..
An increasing number of players either make their isk in other ways or have accummulated large amounts of isk.. 0.0 is now largely just a playground for PVP, combine this with tech 1 insurance.. there is very little cost to this aspect of eve.. There is nothing to force you to do anything outside a blob (with the hugh potential to petition loses), and that is largely insured.. ------------------ x-DSMA (Menta) x-CA (OMEGA/BOS) x-.5.(ATUK) BOB (DICE) |
Acid Man2
Caldari Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:29:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Jallem Sims
Originally by: Kurt Ambrose
This. Also adding more 0.0 regions would be good.
been to catch recently? before -A- rolled through, iac had a active system.... now, its dead :-/
the is enough systems, just big alliances holding it, and people have to pay to reside in it.
but to add to what is the deep residing problem with eve... a group of old chars, been playing far to much internetspace ships have too many alts, controlling too much. I mean, these wars are had over msn/or other chat chennels/voice comms not in eve, in eve we just take part!
Funny that I left a JC down there with some implants a while ago, jumped into FAT last night, hoenstly not expecting to be able to get more than a few jumps, there was 1 Goon in FAT, max 3 neuts in any of the systems on the way down, went through F4 was empty, up through Litom to Doril, no one, and Doril had 1 red and 1 neut, for any small corps alliances that want to try 0.0 go through Doril Those systems used to have 100's of IAC and IAC's Reds, now it's like a ghost town. But I don't agree with knee jerk removing JB's, I think they should only work within the one region, so you can hop around there all you like, but not attach any outside the region to them. just my $2
|
Narciss Sevar
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:36:00 -
[63]
Originally by: thoth foc The biggest problem in 0.0 is that so few ppl actually "live" in the 0.0 areas they "control".. i'm sure i could start Malachon on sovereignty changes :P but largely i agree.. i notice someone else has already mentioned a similar observation..
An increasing number of players either make their isk in other ways or have accummulated large amounts of isk.. 0.0 is now largely just a playground for PVP, combine this with tech 1 insurance.. there is very little cost to this aspect of eve.. There is nothing to force you to do anything outside a blob (with the hugh potential to petition loses), and that is largely insured..
It has become increasingly harder through game design to even catch anyone making isk in 0.0, so why bother?
|
laotse
Gallente The Flying Dutchmen
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:39:00 -
[64]
1 solution rotate dyspro moons and such after 1 monht its empty and pop,s up somewhere els in eve
|
Atropos Kahn
Caldari Solarflare Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:44:00 -
[65]
First off, 0.0 is a lifestyle, and holding SOV in it is only good for supporting large Alliance industrial projects such as capital production, which is only there to support the 0.0 sov. (vicious cycle)
I lived in 0.0 for 2.5 Years. The endless POS chains, BLOB fleets, SOV defense... was burnt out tbh...
We recently got booted out of Vale... thought it was the end of EVE for me.
Now that we are living in low sec, it is surprisingly a breath of fresh air... We are back to having fun as a corp, no more alliance crapola to deal with. No more SOV worries, no more gate camping blobs... No more finding BLUES all over the place.
It is just about grabbing a beer with corp mates, forming a 5-10 man roaming gang, and heading out into 0.0 for some pew pew... when we are done... head back home to low sec and call it a day... reminisce about the Raven kill.. or how we got pwnd buy some hot dropping black ops BS fleet... it is all about the fun.. How can it get any better than that?... It cant...
So, at first I had the same worries... what if it comes down to 2 factions... But then I thought...so what...I have realized that there will always be people who will be neither, you can count on it.
|
Elitus
Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:48:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Elitus on 08/12/2008 15:48:39
Originally by: laotse 1 solution rotate dyspro moons and such after 1 monht its empty and pop,s up somewhere els in eve
All that does is cause problems for both the attacker & the defender.
Defenders have to waste full days Anchoring / unanchoring towers. Attackers have the agro of having to remap the whole region every 30 days inorder to find these new deposits, and try to remove them from enemy hands
|
Breaky Uzumaki
Caldari The Greater Moon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 15:55:00 -
[67]
You could just cut the amount of dyspro dependent reaction materials in T2 production down by about 75% and boost the amount of cheaper more available materials up 75% or so.
This way, moon mining is still necessary, but holding onto one or two particular moon types becomes less profitable.
This in combination with something like being able to invite NPC agents to sov 4 capitals, mining bonuses to Sov 4 linked areas etc, would ensure that people who hold space and have invested in it via outposts get to reap the benefits.
You could even scale up ore amounts and mission payouts against the distance from the nearest lowsec system, making deeper and deeper 0.0 space more worth the additional logistics investment.
|
tikki
Caldari Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:01:00 -
[68]
I don't see adding 0.0 space make any difference....tell me if I'm wrong here:
Either Current power bloc's NAP another alliance to hold that space and stay blue....OR
Current power blocks have no interest in the new space but do take all the the high end moons in the new space. They take Sov in the important systems and control the moons. The small alliances therefore can live in the new 0.0 space however it's the power blocs that are making all the serious isk from the moons.
Website MI killboard |
Minigin
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:03:00 -
[69]
having not read a single word in this thread let me preach to you the problem with this game.
problem one... invention.
cheep t2 items are the worst thing that happend to this game. we have total morons flying around in ships with maxed capabilities and being able to replace them in a heartbeat. i am of the opinion that if you cant keep your ship alive you should have some real dificulty replacing it.
problem two... rigs and t1 insurance. no real risk flying a fleet bs. rigs prodomenantly used for extra tanking with no real adverse side effects.
problem three... jump bridges. yes... lets make 0.0 risk free... there can be no real problems with this surely... furthermore lets make it nice and easy for massive blobs to move around their space defending it.
problem four... people. we can complain about all the other things all we want... but tbh... its the player base that makes this game. until people realise that this is a game... and dont run around naping everyone in sight so they can keep carebearing and go around saying to their wives and children "hey i made 1 billion today" "what you got a job?" "no honey im still playing eve" yah screw you thats right im a ****ing kid but at least im playing this a game not as a second rl.
like seriously just change your faces and get back into skirmishes rather than this whole "OH GOD TCF COME TAKE THIS SPACE SO THAT WE CAN JERK EACH OTHER OFF AND NEVER BE THREATEND BY ANYONE!"
no instead i say "lets set everyone neut and go for our lives!"
but what am i saying... most of you have no rl's so depend on success in this game to go to sleep at night saying "ah i achieved something" rather than "ah i had fun"
so go diaf...
oh man im totaly getting a caod ban for this... but whatever... and you all know its ****ing true!
ps. no more rum... its a pirates drink! . MINIGIN! The original colour poster - now surrounding you in limegreen.
|
compost
Caldari Hunters Agency
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:03:00 -
[70]
An alternative to power blocks owning all the moons could be to make pos with moon harvesters unstrontable. therefore having to be protected. Yes would be a big pain for the holders but would give smaller gangs something to do. As powerblocks would have to respond straight away not in 24hours |
|
K Shara
Caldari The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:09:00 -
[71]
Darknesss emo whine thread spotted
|
Aya
Gallente coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:11:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Aya on 08/12/2008 16:14:22 There have been some good ideas in this thread so I will add my 2 cents
Already Discussed: -Removed Jump Bridges -Remove Titan Bridges -Add more 0.0 Regions -Remove Insurance from 0.0
I 100% agree with this but I think something that would stop the Catch Dillema would be to make POS work a chore for the alliances involved. If Pos's actually lost you money instead of gained you would not see alliances holding entire regions they are not using.
Instead of making +890M Isk a week on a dyspro moon, what if net profit from holding these moons was -100M/week (remeber this is a theory and not subject to actual game balacing numbers). Do you think that people would run around claiming systems they dont want, just because they didnt like having a neighbor that wanted to shoot them.
Not only would unused regions such as Catch be released but it would reduce the number of PoS's holding sov in a system to a managable number. Make it a real chore to hold space as far as money goes, and make people work to keep their space instead of throw up some pos's, fuel it once every 30 days, and form up a huge nap fest if some new aspiring corp wishes to touch my isk network.
Look at the maps of 1-2 years ago, especially the drone regions, and you will see 10-20 alliances holding areas, now its 2-3 alliances holding 5+ regions, of which they have 1 HQ and 2 other hubs they actually use.
|
Minigin
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:11:00 -
[73]
Originally by: K Shara Darknesss emo whine thread spotted
seriously just go join the NC about it... im not even going to complain anymore... . MINIGIN! The original colour poster - now surrounding you in limegreen.
|
Spartan dax
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:15:00 -
[74]
Originally by: thoth foc The biggest problem in 0.0 is that so few ppl actually "live" in the 0.0 areas they "control".. i'm sure i could start Malachon on sovereignty changes :P but largely i agree.. i notice someone else has already mentioned a similar observation..
This. Sov mechanics aside, the number one issue with these superlarge alliances isn't the fact that they have many pilots or have huge cap fleets or great logistics, the problem is that it's too easy (all relative obviously) for them to control all their vast amount of space.
There is no small corp that can get into an area controlled by any entity "under the radar" of a large alliance, put up a small POS and carefully rat/mine/pirate. Local and DED messages will give them straight away and thus we're seeing huge vasts of space just being unused. Territorial control is just way too easy.
With a 0.0 that isn't controlled via evemail or a quick local check, alliances would actually be forced to exert control over their territory making upkeep a ***** in terms of man hours and not just isk through towerfuel.
|
Smith
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:24:00 -
[75]
Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: Aceoil To destroy a power bloc, one has to think outside the blox.
or have bob help steal their targets
You redeemed yourself.
|
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:25:00 -
[76]
Good thread some nice idea's (thanks for the troll angel, just couldnt stop yourself I guess).
Human nature naturally leads to larger and larger coalitions of people. There is no way to stop that, and as someone rightly pointed out, much of the current conflicts are played out via MSN, TS and email.
Massive changes to mechanics are probably not going to happen, as most alternative sov mechanics still favour those who can maximize their relationships.
The addition of more NPC space, between sov holding space seems like an idea most would accept.
The removal of Jump Bridges, titan portals and jump freighters also seems to be something that would help limit an alliances ability to project power.
I found Shadoo's idea of holding sov causing rat bounties and or moon mining efficiency to drop to be very interesting and one I had not considered. I suspect most would disagree with this notion, however even in game terms it would make sense that the more valuable (see wanted) NPC's are forced out of systems as a sov holder gains a presence, not sure how you could explain less moon material, but rat value dropping makes sense.
Great thread CAOD! More idea's please.
|
EangleOne
Gallente The Maverick Navy Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:27:00 -
[77]
Wasn't there a discussion about make jumpbridge become standalone object in space, instead of module of POS; fuel-free, show on overview, and accessable for anyone?
This could be an interesting idea for this thread maybe?
|
hawat92
Gallente Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:29:00 -
[78]
Originally by: thoth foc An increasing number of players either make their isk in other ways or have accummulated large amounts of isk.. 0.0 is now largely just a playground for PVP
Sorry but this assertion is false. 90% at least of 0.0 players need to farm to sustain their living. You seem like cut out of reality there.
Second, Minigin is delusional in his post. Chill out, relax, have a beer.
|
Aya
Gallente coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:34:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Aya on 08/12/2008 16:34:32
Originally by: The Mittani Edited by: The Mittani on 08/12/2008 14:50:27 nostalgia is a fallacy in eve just as elsewhere; people revise history into a rosier picture than it was
in early 2006 there were four power blocs (soco, ra, d2, bob)
today there are four power blocks (rsf, nc, bob, aaa/se/rol)
Ok mr. goonie I have drawn you a map to help explain this, because we all know goonswarm cannot read
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9403/newmapyk2.jpg
P.S. now accepting job offers for my pro-paintshop abilities
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:36:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Aya Edited by: Aya on 08/12/2008 16:34:32
Originally by: The Mittani Edited by: The Mittani on 08/12/2008 14:50:27 nostalgia is a fallacy in eve just as elsewhere; people revise history into a rosier picture than it was
in early 2006 there were four power blocs (soco, ra, d2, bob)
today there are four power blocks (rsf, nc, bob, aaa/se/rol)
Ok mr. goonie I have drawn you a map to help explain this, because we all know goonswarm cannot read
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9403/newmapyk2.jpg
P.S. now accepting job offers for my pro-paintshop abilities
man im glad someone from tri was able to teach me about 0.0 politics
|
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Minmatar Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:37:00 -
[81]
Some of these ideas have been mentioned before.
POS/Stations - Make moon mining modules only operate outside of POS shields - Make it possible to damage stations to the extent that they are 'derelict', requiring extensive investment to return to operational capacity - Allow mobile infrastructure (i.e. sub-POS capacity) in the form of mobile ship hangars, ship-fitting arrays, refineries and factories. These can operate as solo modules and act as hidden, undefended supply points for mobile gangs
Ship classes - The Anti-Capital ship: Form of T2 battleship that can fit XL guns, but no siege ability. Moderate tank, is effectively a glass cannon vs capitals - Suicide ships: Introduce a module that can rig any ship to turn it into a moving bomb, while sacrificing HP and ability to fit any other significant modules or receive insurance. Excellent at making blob warfare very risky if used en masse. Ask for details if interested, I've written this one up
Module changes - Cloaks: Make cloaks use cap + cancel capacitor recharge when cloak is activated. This means one cannot remain AFK cloaked indefinitely, nor use a cloak hide while recharging cap for repeated DD's on a titan.
More coming up when I remember them.
|
hawat92
Gallente Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:37:00 -
[82]
You forgaot to put AAA as GBC pets.
|
Aya
Gallente coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:38:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Aya on 08/12/2008 16:39:04
Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: Aya Edited by: Aya on 08/12/2008 16:34:32
Originally by: The Mittani Edited by: The Mittani on 08/12/2008 14:50:27 nostalgia is a fallacy in eve just as elsewhere; people revise history into a rosier picture than it was
in early 2006 there were four power blocs (soco, ra, d2, bob)
today there are four power blocks (rsf, nc, bob, aaa/se/rol)
Ok mr. goonie I have drawn you a map to help explain this, because we all know goonswarm cannot read
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9403/newmapyk2.jpg
P.S. now accepting job offers for my pro-paintshop abilities
man im glad someone from tri was able to teach me about 0.0 politics
Its not hard, 1. Blue everything in site (Goons already did this - see map for more details) 2. Call all your friends in a 30 man corp attacks you (Goons did this - see map for list of friends you can call on) 3. Smack on forums how elite your alliance is (Another check for goons - see Caod)
I'd say you already have the politics down therefore I do not need to teach you much more
|
attitude man
Minmatar eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:38:00 -
[84]
Originally by: EangleOne Wasn't there a discussion about make jumpbridge become standalone object in space, instead of module of POS; fuel-free, show on overview, and accessable for anyone?
This could be an interesting idea for this thread maybe?
i guess it called "stargate"
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:39:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Aya
Its not hard, 1. Blue everything in site (Goons already did this) 2. Call all your friends in a 30 man corp attacks you (Goons did this) 3. Smack on forums how elite your alliance is (Another check for goons)
I'd say you already have the politics down therefore I do not need to teach you much more
oh hey thank you maybe you can teach me how to improve my k/d ratio next
|
Popperr
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:39:00 -
[86]
I'm glad to see that despite serious competition a clear frontrunner for worst thread ever to appear on caod has appeared.
|
Heath Ledger
Caldari Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:45:00 -
[87]
As to the OP's original lament that everyone is aligning with one side or the other, that will pretty generally happen in any game due to the human element.
Since EVE is essentially a sandbox game, the human element is much more potent, and as such emulates real life a bit more than others. This current behavior very closely correlates to the dividing up of the world between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War. Those that wanted to stay in power in terms of lesser nations chose sides, and more often than not suffered the perceived error of their choice through invasion, political intrique resulting in revolution, and other nasty results that are similar to what occurs in EVE right now.
Can't do much about it if its basic human nature.
|
Aya
Gallente coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:45:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Aya on 08/12/2008 16:45:18
Originally by: The Mittani
oh hey thank you maybe you can teach me how to improve my k/d ratio next
Another easy lesson, 1. Blob, your chance of being called primary will be lower if you bring more pilots (4-1+ ratio prefered). Also you will make it on many many killmails in the process (if enemy fights) 2. ??? Blob again?
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:51:00 -
[89]
are you suggesting that goonswarm has no honor and blobs?
why
my god
i'd better quit the alliance right now
whats next, metagaming?
|
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:51:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Heath Ledger As to the OP's original lament that everyone is aligning with one side or the other, that will pretty generally happen in any game due to the human element.
Since EVE is essentially a sandbox game, the human element is much more potent, and as such emulates real life a bit more than others. This current behavior very closely correlates to the dividing up of the world between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War. Those that wanted to stay in power in terms of lesser nations chose sides, and more often than not suffered the perceived error of their choice through invasion, political intrique resulting in revolution, and other nasty results that are similar to what occurs in EVE right now.
Can't do much about it if its basic human nature.
We agree 100% about human nature, but what mechanics and or changes can we introduce to make 0.0 viable outside of the two powerblocs, or what will become one powerbloc? Or is this even a concern for eve as a whole?
From my perspective I would like to see alliances exist in an non-aligned fashion, however the community as a whole may not even agree with this notion...from what I have read it appears most would agree changes should take place.
|
|
hawat92
Gallente Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:52:00 -
[91]
Aya please stop spilling your tears. You won't break the game you seem to despise so much by rusting it. I'm volunteering for your assets though.
|
thoth foc
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:52:00 -
[92]
Originally by: hawat92
Originally by: thoth foc An increasing number of players either make their isk in other ways or have accummulated large amounts of isk.. 0.0 is now largely just a playground for PVP
Sorry but this assertion is false. 90% at least of 0.0 players need to farm to sustain their living. You seem like cut out of reality there.
made up internet statistics are just the bestest posts, arent they..
I didnt state a number or players, so stating made up figures is a completely pointless way to "prove" your option correct..
The advent of very profitable lvl 4 agents and jump clones, reduces the need for 0.0 even single account players to make isk in 0.0..
------------------ x-DSMA (Menta) x-CA (OMEGA/BOS) x-.5.(ATUK) BOB (DICE) |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Minmatar Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:52:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Heath Ledger As to the OP's original lament that everyone is aligning with one side or the other, that will pretty generally happen in any game due to the human element.
Since EVE is essentially a sandbox game, the human element is much more potent, and as such emulates real life a bit more than others. This current behavior very closely correlates to the dividing up of the world between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War. Those that wanted to stay in power in terms of lesser nations chose sides, and more often than not suffered the perceived error of their choice through invasion, political intrique resulting in revolution, and other nasty results that are similar to what occurs in EVE right now.
Can't do much about it if its basic human nature.
Naturally there is little on can do about basic human nature - however I think the OP was also lamenting a perceived lack of enjoyment, which resonated with several people in the thread. With regards to making Eve enjoyable for more people, things can be done without compromising for others.
|
Jebidus Skari
Amarr Comply Or Die G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:53:00 -
[94]
agree wiht op on this one..tbh its becoming very boring..same power blocs. I mean what about if they create new space..well we all know whos going to take that, no other alliances really have a chance anymore if your not in NC or GBC and really there are controlled by Bob for GBC and Morsus/Razor for NC thats it..congrats of course for such an achievement. and yes gods have achieved by taking deklein by at first not being on anyones side..but NC and co have decided to descend so we can try as much as poss but with 1000s of players not easier to defend lol...
So whats the answer? personally i think space needs to be split up more, more smaller regions, and alliances can only control a maximum of 2 of these smaller regions. thats it they can control no more...
this gives to people having space but also allows more alliances to get involved..if they dont win well the other alliance still cant take over the space...im not saying they cant drive the other alliance out, pos killing is still viable but they cant actually claim the space...this also leads to more skirmish warfare as well as fleet battles
Also make these smaller regions more cash rich, better moons, minerals etc....
You can also limit alliances numbers to say 500 or 1000 perhaps...
|
Heath Ledger
Caldari Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:54:00 -
[95]
Well I would argue that although no one cares about the drone regions, the folks out there are a third power bloc as well.
Not that that in any way helps, but just something to think about.
|
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:55:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
Also make these smaller regions more cash rich, better moons, minerals etc....
You can also limit alliances numbers to say 500 or 1000 perhaps...
Problem is people will work around those kinds of limits, by making associations that are different in name only.
|
InSession
Amarr Minmatar Mafia Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:55:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Kal'Kalagan Edited by: Kal''Kalagan on 08/12/2008 10:23:46 The answer is simple, remove jump bridges and the jump bridge ability of Titans. Traffic will re-appear in the pipes, more small gang warefare will take place. Alliance will be forced to reduce their space holdings if they want to effectively defend them. Small alliances will have a chance of remaining independant and warefare will gradually become inter-regional gain as oppssed to the 3 massive power blocks controlling pretty much everything.
Jump bridges and Titans have ruined a lot of good stuff in Eve thats for sure. . Combined with capital blobs skill is no longeer the major factor in Eve, its who can bring the most numbers - thats got to be wrong.
I completely agree with this. I have been in both big alliances and small alliances, and even single corporations. I prefer being small, because I enjoy small skirmishes, however they are extremely rare. Before JB's, I remember being a noob in a big alliance reading intel "5 neuts are terrorizing our pipe, let's get a gang up and kill them." That was always fun for the big alliance, and fun for the small group of PvPers. Now that I am not a noob anymore, I'm the guy disrupting the pipe, but due to JB's I run into two problems.
1) People don't use pipes anymore, unless it's the first time to their new 0.0 home and they don't have the JB passwords.
2) I go attack the alliance now at their station risking my ship and pod to station systems with 50+ people in system just so I can get a fight. Usually I manage to kill a blind ratter in a belt, and I leave. On my way out of the pipe I find the same people that were 15 jumps away now in front of me camping me. How is that fair? Now I have to go all the way around some other way to just get out of their space.
JB's have really hurt small gang warfare. CCP, if you want to revive skirmish warfare, remove the JB system. Make EVE feel big again, and remove rewards for lazy people.
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:55:00 -
[98]
ok so let me get this straight
goodfellas and tri are itt whining about powerblocs and napfests
yet they only have their space on account of being bob-installed pets
live by the sword, etc
|
attitude man
Minmatar eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:56:00 -
[99]
Originally by: The Mittani ok so let me get this straight
goodfellas and tri are itt whining about powerblocs and napfests
yet they only have their space on account of being bob-installed pets
live by the napland, etc
fix for u
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:57:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Heath Ledger Well I would argue that although no one cares about the drone regions, the folks out there are a third power bloc as well.
Not that that in any way helps, but just something to think about.
that's the expanded RA + independent oligarchs bloc (death and mactep's crew)
|
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 16:58:00 -
[101]
Originally by: attitude man
Originally by: The Mittani ok so let me get this straight
goodfellas and tri are itt whining about powerblocs and napfests
yet they only have their space on account of being bob-installed pets
live by the napland, etc
fix for u
ok im glad we cleared that up
next time don't be pets
|
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:01:00 -
[102]
Originally by: The Mittani ok so let me get this straight
goodfellas and tri are itt whining about powerblocs and napfests
yet they only have their space on account of being bob-installed pets
live by the sword, etc
Please try and stay on topic, if you feel the game is heading in the right direction fine, make that statement. If you believe changes to various mechanics can improve the game for the better for most people post your idea's...if you will notice, some people who are enjoying the success of their respective powerblocs have posted great ideas and suggestions rather than played the political game.
|
EangleOne
Gallente The Maverick Navy Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:05:00 -
[103]
Originally by: attitude man
Originally by: EangleOne Wasn't there a discussion about make jumpbridge become standalone object in space, instead of module of POS; fuel-free, show on overview, and accessable for anyone?
This could be an interesting idea for this thread maybe?
i guess it called "stargate"
Well, "player-owned-stargate" than. This seems to be a much better design and causing lots less problem than current JB system.
|
hawat92
Gallente Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:05:00 -
[104]
Edited by: hawat92 on 08/12/2008 17:05:55 Useless.
|
SkwisgaarSkwigelf
Minmatar C.R.M Productions Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:10:00 -
[105]
If all you do is remove Jump Bridges, it makes pos warfare even more interminable than it already is. Large hostile fleet forms up, reinforces a system before any defenders can organize and get there, due to being spread out. No Defensive fights happen, Pos's go into reinforced, defending fleet forms up as big as possible with as many advantages as they can get (titans etc) and repairs the pos's. Next week they go and do the same thing. While not terribly different than the way it is now, you effectively remove any defensive fleet battle.
My $0.02 based on my limited experience with pos warfare thus far in eve.
|
Reverand Pastor
Caldari Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:12:00 -
[106]
It seems when a serious discussion comes up CCP is nowhere around. If a goon starts a thread its locked within 30 minutes. I find that rather strange and telling of the attitude put forward.
So far most(and im using these words losely as there isnt any stats to back it up) agree more NPC regions between sov systems and low sec/empire would be outstanding.also dyspro moons need to be revised.
Some feel jumpbridges need to be removed/reworked, and yet even more feel poses for sov are teh suck.
Having more 0.0 NPC space would be an outstanding way to create and craft your corp and having a ton of fun at the same time.
Im interested to hear more about jumpbridges amd there rework? or removal?
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:20:00 -
[107]
Edited by: The Mittani on 08/12/2008 17:20:54
Originally by: Wesley Baird
Please try and stay on topic, if you feel the game is heading in the right direction fine, make that statement. If you believe changes to various mechanics can improve the game for the better for most people post your idea's...if you will notice, some people who are enjoying the success of their respective powerblocs have posted great ideas and suggestions rather than played the political game.
the core assumption of the topic has been debunked (4 powerblocs in 2006, 4 powerblocs in 2008)
all that remains is to point out the motivation behind those whining the loudest itt (tri, goodfellas) and expose the real issue: they are upset about losing their space.
my position re: titan doomsdays being dumb is hardly a new contribution, the best fleet slugfest we've had in ages was in vng when titans were broken due to a bug, it was a massive battle with tremendous casualties and no one-click fight enders
edit: IMPORTANT UPDATE: ~fart~
|
Arcanoil
Caldari Corsairs Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:31:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Malcanis 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.
I agree with him and also would say that more entry to 0.0 regions is required. And some 0.0 npc area need to be balanced, some are really lacking of staions.
|
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:31:00 -
[109]
I don't agree with this assessment at all.
Quote: The problem as I see it is that Eve is polarising into basically two power blocks who I think within a not too long period of time will control all of 0.0. Sure there are different alliances but these alliances are gonna basically come down to either being NC friendly or GBC friendly.
So what? The existance of the major power blocs stabilizes 0.0 enough to develop it. You have hot and heavy action on the borders, and you have enough safe space to feed the war machine. That's kinda the point of a player 'empire'. Its not just logging in, undocking, and blasting everything in sight, you have to have the ability to support that effort, or you've got maybe a month, at best, before you're reduced to running missions in empire or buying GTCs.
As far as I'm concerned, the big blocs open the door for players to do everything from building ships, fitting ships, and going off to blow them up in style without ever having to leave 0.0. Completely divorced from the lunacy of empire.
And believe me, the sovreignty mechanics aren't what keeps the major alliances alive and kicking, kick ass leadership is. Say what you will about BoB or Goonswarm, somewhere in the core of those alliances are people who know how to keep members friggin' MOTIVATED. That's a compliment to both sides, they deserve to be where they are in the game because of it. I've seen entrenched alliances with all the sovreign mechanical advantages you could ever ask for implode and die horribly because the leaders failed to motivate their members.
The power blocs exist for a reason. No matter how you shift the mechanics, you won't avoid the inevitable accumulation of power through consent and concensus. Successful people accumulate respect (however begrudging) and authority. Human nature. In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.
|
mad27k
Caldari Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:32:00 -
[110]
due to changes in the game, the term "blob or be blobbed" becomes more and more true....
|
|
David Godfrey
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:35:00 -
[111]
I agree with the OP, but like others said solutions which are practically viable need to be offered aswell. And its not about so and so whine! its fact the direction of the game at the moment sucks imho. ---------------------------------
A fun loving guy :( |
Aristrat
Amarr SRBI Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:53:00 -
[112]
Considering blobs...EVE is not to blame for this. It's simple in human nature to do things that way. People are social beings and that kind of behavior is embedded in our psychology. Forming power blocks and polarizing will occur in virtual world as in real one we are living in. You can not stop that process...only encourage or discourage it, but the tendencies will always remain.
Still, through game mechanics changes EVE can become much more fun place. Few months ago i proposed 'Target Saturation' model with DPS stacking penalties based on number of turrets, their sig resolutions, signatures of target etc. This would discourage large blobs (they would be hard to organize and be effective and efficient like small gangs) and make PVP experience more complex and enjoyable (now PVP is mostly ALL shoot PRIMARY). With such model it would be possible to achieve victory with inferior numbers but with superior skills, over some big blob... Big battles would be more complex and interesting this way too.
If you want to reanimate solo/small gang PVP you have to change current LOCAL system, and make it less transparent, less alarming and more hard to acqure information and be aware who is sneaking upon you. Nowadays it is too damn hard to kill someone who dont want to fight but want to run.
Personally, I would like to see those aggression timers (both NPC and PVP) to last much longer, so logoffski tactics can not be used as it is used now and everyone who log off to avoid fight should be easely scanned and killed.
Jump to gate (station) to zero should be canceled, and new jump probability mechanics should be introduced so the lower sec system you are in, the lower chance you will jump at zero to gate/station will be and distance from it will be bigger. At the same time in zone around gate/station it would be not possible to make BMs so it's all ok...
Lowering scanning time with cov ops (recon probe launcher) would be good idea too, and some changes to ship scanner mechanics...
There is no any MOON PROBLEM in EVE. Moons have to be rewarding, and whole 0.0 has to be more rewarding than it is now. What do you want?! To cancel all reasons for living in 0.0 and space holding so everyone can back to empire and mine veldspar so we all can be one big happy family? There must be some valuable resources to fight for or game will become totally stagnant as there is enough everything for everyone. Who wants to be rich and powerful...well...come and get some! Why should be possible for weak and bad organized corporations and alliances to enjoy wealth which elite can provide for themselves?
And one more thing...TITAN is not overpowered ship. In fact it's underpowered. What do you want and expect from ship which cost over 60b isk? That things can be said only by people who didn't try to undertake such a enterprise as building/buying/acquiring one of those is! Same is for logistics (jump bridges/freighters/carriers). Try to plan, organize and get things done than say its too damn easy. Not all of us are living one jump from empire you know...
|
HakanSherif
Minmatar Amok.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 17:56:00 -
[113]
There is lots of b**** in this thread, ppl who cant do or doesnt want to do what it takes to do are complaining so the game is nerfed and they will have a better chance.
Granted nano nerf was uber bull and lag is still annoying but the mechanics of the game are still allowing ppl to build things up even from scratch.
Ofcourse it will be harder compared to already established ones but the answer is never to nerf the excisting ones to make room for new ones coz you wont like it when it happens to you.
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:04:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 08/12/2008 18:06:06
Originally by: hawat92
Originally by: thoth foc An increasing number of players either make their isk in other ways or have accummulated large amounts of isk.. 0.0 is now largely just a playground for PVP
Sorry but this assertion is false. 90% at least of 0.0 players need to farm to sustain their living. You seem like cut out of reality there.
Second, Minigin is delusional in his post. Chill out, relax, have a beer.
I have probebly not made a single isk from farming 0.0 in about 2 years. Hardly anybody I know can be arsed to make any isk from 0.0 other than moon mining, which is a mostly alt affair anyway. Therefor, I can never go bankrupt as my alt will keep making the cash.
I personally make more isk in high sec with a alt than any ratter/miner could dream of making. Most people I know have half a dozen ships stockpiled. heck, even myself have a pile of Navy Apocs ready to blow. Even making isk nowadays is compleatly brain dead.
People can even have a high-sec lvl4 alt running a t2 fitted afk tank who brings in enough isk to permanently fund t2 fitted BS's due to how insurance works. Lets go a step further - the 2 alts on each account bringing in datacores can fund quite a few BS's by themselves. Afk tank means that they can make isk while they pvp on their main, meaning no loss of combat presence.
Just because 90% of your alliance might see farming 0.0 as making isk, that does not mean its true. If anything, its probebly the other way around. 0.0 is just a battleground for most pvpers, not a breadwinner. --
Billion Isk Mission |
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:06:00 -
[115]
Originally by: The Mittani
the core assumption of the topic has been debunked (4 powerblocs in 2006, 4 powerblocs in 2008)
I disagree as all four you indicated are in fact aligned down the middle...meaning we have a GBC side of things and a Goons/NC side of things.
I suspect that relatively soon there could very well be one aligned side with the other broken. I hope this is not the case, but I cannot see how the GBC side of things can withstand the combined power of Goons/NC powerbloc. NC alone can field 200+ dreads, combine that with the large capital fleet of the Goons and Drone regions and you have a capital fleet that is unstoppable.
I don't want to derail this thread, as the discussion for the most part has been excellent! I hope CCP is reading!
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:14:00 -
[116]
I expected to see a huge thread of "shut up whiner," instead most everyone posting seems to be in agreement.
I started playing Eve thinking it would be cool to get the feeling of huge expanses of space. That's just not the case anymore. You can go from deep 0.0 to empire in 5 or 6 jumps max in a non-cap ship, and even less in a cap ship.
It doesn't feel like deep space anymore. At all. 80 jumps out from empire might as well be 3 jumps out from empire.
|
Orange Faeces
Minmatar THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:14:00 -
[117]
Confirming this as the worst thread ever...
Also, there are two other things that you people need to consider...
1. When CCP gets rid of local, there will be massive changes in the way 0.0 operates. Many of the whines in this thread about how jump bridges make it too easy to project power and all that fail stuff will be critically different. Small and even large gangs will be able to slice into carebear areas with ease getting the gank on high-value assets. Looking forward to that...
2. "Dyspro moons and blobbing and naptrain, ONOES!" Let me explain it all to you. BoB confirms their intent to cleanse all of 0.0 for themselves, snatching moons and everything of value for themselves. This is an existential threat to everyone else in 0.0 (unless you don't hold space but i'll get to that in a second). So, they all react by setting each other blue. It may not have happened over night, but consider how different 0.0 looked before MAX. Or before D2 was cleansed. Think about it.
You can, of course, just fly around and not hold space like tri... but they only do that because they have so much ebay isk they don't need to rat or mine.
anyway...
go back to touching each other.
--- The Other Orange |
Ivana Cuminski
Gallente Inter Stellar Terror
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:15:00 -
[118]
Poasting in "Get off my lawn" thread.
|
Kirana Si
Amarr Tri-Mining Corp Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:21:00 -
[119]
The biggest problem is that little effort that is needed to keep Sov. running. Have a dedicated person per corp with a JF and you are done. Look @ ***** ( won`t name here any alliance because every1 here taking internet spaceships too serious ) 3 month ago, a core of 100 actives could maintain all the spread out systems they hold Sov. in. When I joined the game and had to get my stuff 40-50 jumps into 0.0 it was a huge hazzle and was a 2-3 hour trip when you were lucky, now its a 10min trip via jumpbridges, thats just plain wrong.
|
Presidio
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:32:00 -
[120]
1.) more 0.0 space 2.) 0.0 needs to be more rewarding. L4-5 missions in high sec shouldn't rival the income of an average pilot in 0.0. -
|
|
McFly
Caldari C0LDFIRE RUDE Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:36:00 -
[121]
I'm of the opinion that there are some valid points in the thread. One I would like to comment on is that small alliances are pretty much forced into one of the powerbloc napfests or the other if they want to live in 0.0 (discounting NPC 0.0 Regions)
Over the last few months I've been looking at a region, that's relatively quiet. But held back on the idea of planting towers and take a small group of deadend systems due to the main problem in eve imho. If a small alliance did so, the day we popped up on the Sov Map, we'd wake up to 50 dreads and 4 titans sitting on our towers.
So I do think something does need to be changed, I can't give a one size fits all change for it. But I do think that people have a valid point with Jump Bridges moving logistics into an easy road. Sure it makes LO more profitable, but pipe traffic is pretty much 75% covops, and ceptors. Anything larger is running along a JB Network or a cloaking ratting raven.
On the cloaking, I've been a long time advocate for the cloak being a great tool in destroying morale of an enemy. But the no worries cloaked raven farmer is getting on my nerves. The upcoming change to local I think will handle that issue tho.
On the broader scheme of things the current political polarisation isn't anything new, the difference is that before there were a lot of areas that weren't effected. Now it seems that everyone is involved. Hell people are fighting over Geminate which myself being a former member of r0adKill can point out is one of the worst regions in Eve. Terrible Moons, so-so ratting, only good mining is ice, crokite and mercoxit.
But anyway just my .02 isk on it.
|
Brmble
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:37:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Kirana Si The biggest problem is that little effort that is needed to keep Sov. running. Have a dedicated person per corp with a JF and you are done. Look @ ***** ( won`t name here any alliance because every1 here taking internet spaceships too serious ) 3 month ago, a core of 100 actives could maintain all the spread out systems they hold Sov. in. When I joined the game and had to get my stuff 40-50 jumps into 0.0 it was a huge hazzle and was a 2-3 hour trip when you were lucky, now its a 10min trip via jumpbridges, thats just plain wrong.
actually it owns I only have so much time to play and am not teh hardcorez so it owns ok?!?! ~ no not believin in urself ~ |
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:37:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Wesley Baird
Originally by: The Mittani
the core assumption of the topic has been debunked (4 powerblocs in 2006, 4 powerblocs in 2008)
I disagree as all four you indicated are in fact aligned down the middle...meaning we have a GBC side of things and a Goons/NC side of things.
I suspect that relatively soon there could very well be one aligned side with the other broken. I hope this is not the case, but I cannot see how the GBC side of things can withstand the combined power of Goons/NC powerbloc. NC alone can field 200+ dreads, combine that with the large capital fleet of the Goons and Drone regions and you have a capital fleet that is unstoppable.
I don't want to derail this thread, as the discussion for the most part has been excellent! I hope CCP is reading!
the biggest issue regarding the extended lifespan of a powerbloc revolves around how well set up their 'core space' is in terms of sov4 and outposts
you'll find that the core areas of the primary blocs have layered sov4 and serious investment in infrastructure
due to the way cyno jammers and sov4 works, the major blocs mostly scuffle in the outlying border areas. the combination of sov4, jammers and doomsdays/remote ecm gives heavy advantages to a defender
therefore, regions people don't care about that much get traded and fought over extensively, but the core territories of the blocs don't change much because they're a proverbial brick wall: delve is a fortress, ten/det is likewise, and I'm sure that the same goes for the core RA and RZR territories
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:48:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Minigin problem one... invention.
cheep t2 items are the worst thing that happend to this game. we have total morons flying around in ships with maxed capabilities and being able to replace them in a heartbeat. i am of the opinion that if you cant keep your ship alive you should have some real dificulty replacing it.
problem two... rigs and t1 insurance. no real risk flying a fleet bs. rigs prodomenantly used for extra tanking with no real adverse side effects.
{SNIP}
basically, I would disagree. Before, we would see fleets of lolfit t1 ships flown by players with little pride on the battlefield. Now at least they have a semi-decent fit, even if you still get t2 fitted sniper BS's trying to snip a intercepter that is orbiting them etc. Lower cost means people are willing to bring less crap to the battlefield, which is a good thing.
As for rigs/ships etc, the issue is that there is no real loss in pvp. Insurance means that losses do not really matter, in the same way the old t1 lolfit ships could fight forever without caring aboout loss. Once you add in serious losses, then people logoff/dock or hide like they did back in the Delve war, so its not a easy issue to solve. The real answer is how do you force people to fight and also fight with pride in their fitout? --
Billion Isk Mission |
Han Lector
Amarr R.U.S.T. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:58:00 -
[125]
Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.
|
The Mittani
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:02:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Han Lector Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.
diplomacy is part of the game, cope
we do
|
Han Lector
Amarr R.U.S.T. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:09:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Han Lector on 08/12/2008 19:11:22
Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: Han Lector Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.
diplomacy is part of the game, cope
we do
Sure, keep your diplomacy but pay the fee. That would prevent one entity from having 80% of 0.0 alliances set blue and playing EVE on easy mode.
|
Blazde
Minmatar 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:11:00 -
[128]
Just don't agree with the OP's points:
"Eve is polarising" - As Mittani pointed out we've had approximately four superpowers/powerblocks for a while now. Going further back, in 2005 you had something like BoB, G, LV, ASCN. Somewhere in 2004 it was FA, SA, CA, PA. There's always minor alliances, upcoming superpowers, remnants of old superpowers and always complex relationships between the major players that usually means they're not all hostile to each, but those who work together do it to a limited extent that means they're essentially seperate entities. In 2004 a lot of the galaxy was anti-CA or pro-CA, but after CA imploded EVE politics was shaken to the core and all bets were well and truly off. I suspect a similar thing would happen if BoB left the scene. (And it's not as if BoB mind being the focus of so much hate, it's a situation they willingly created).
The number of players in EVE has grown, and the intensity of combat increased so it is more blobby but the basic structure of EVE politics isn't so different. Why? Partly the geography seems to support 'about 4 territorial areas', usually a northern one, a couple in the south and something in the west (if people ever talk about a 5th nowadays it's drone regions). Partly players need a few different cultures to choose from.
Partly the highly ambitous leader type players who have most control over the politics seek a challenge and thus have no interest in seeing EVE stagnate and will tend to let natural tensions divide former allies when there's a lack of enemies to focus on, or conversely supress tensions and seek out other entities with common goals to band with when backed into a corner and overwhelmed. If the rest of EVE besides the NC quit tomorrow we'd fracture in no time. If the rest of EVE besides the GBC quit tomorrow the 'pets' would mostly turn on BoB and the more dissafected, independant BoB corps like DICE might even break off and seek their own glory.
Partly it may be a matter of perception. People counting powerblocks get to about four before their brain collapses because the number of interactions between entities get's too large to keep track of and everything else needs to be categorized with the first four (or else in some other generic don't-care category). Crucially that perception of the political landscape is reflexive to an extent (and imo strongly so) with the actual political landscape and so self-fullfills, although reality always remains more complex than people think.
Interestingly Empire has about four powerblocks too.
|
Blazde
Minmatar 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:11:00 -
[129]
"Eve is stagnating" - We've just seen a whole series of record breaking capital bloodbaths in/around Tribute, collosal numbers of subcapital casulties and massive turmoil in the north. Now new shockwaves are rocking southern geopolitics. I don't think ther's anything to worry about yet.
"Small independant entities are locked out of 0.0" - True in the past but I actually think the situation is improving. During the past year the bar has been raised in terms of what entities can survive in 0.0, we've seen alot of alliances with weak organisation or poor military cleared or destroyed and the space freed up. The next alliances to come under pressure are those which are competent but have too much territory. BoB have 'done the territory thing' and are now sticking with their core regions. Goons are consolidating. RA, IRON, PURE all learnt that having territories far apart wasn't sustainable. The NC in general has never been very territory hungry and is aware now more than ever of it's own limits. Major alliances will always seek to influence which entities live on their borders. But that doesn't mean those entities must swear total allegiance to their bigger neighbours, it just means they have to be a bit careful to keep a low profile. Independance comes in many shades of grey anyway, and many leaders recogise having partially hostile borders is healthy. To give only one example there's a whole arc of the map from Fountain through to Cloud Ring and bits of Pure Blind/Fade that's remained to a greater or lesser extent outside direct control of the powerblocks for most of the last year and has it's own interesting politics. What people usually bemoan is that small ****y zero-politics entities who enter 0.0 then make a point of ****ing off as many large nearby alliances as possible get run out fast. I don't see a problem with that, EVE is a game of politics, of diplomacy and of cooperation at all scales. (And succesful cooperation is extremely hard so it's not as if people using it are getting an easy ride.)
Most of all EVE is just realistic compared to real-world conflicts, because it's player/human driven and there's very few constraints. Anyone who doesn't like how cut throat it is is really just saying 'humans are power hungry bastards'. There's plenty of other games that will give you a different reality but I like my EVE to be 'human'. Among other things it's educational.
"The defender has the advantage" - This is precisely one of the very most important things that stops EVE stagnating.
There are a lot of genuine concerns in this thread about how other aspects of EVE besides the 0.0 endgame fit in to the overall picture and for sure some tweaks are needed but EVE politics is not about to hit a bick wall and nor is it even any closer to the brick wall than it was 4 years ago.
_
|
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:16:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Han Lector Edited by: Han Lector on 08/12/2008 19:11:22
Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: Han Lector Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.
diplomacy is part of the game, cope
we do
Sure, keep your diplomacy but pay the fee. That would prevent one entity from having 80% of 0.0 alliances set blue and playing EVE on easy mode.
Ok, now we've expended the intelligent thoughts on the subject, and out come the kneejerks from the mouth breathers.
Riddle me this, Batman, how would you get around alliances without standings simply metagaming friend's lists of "no fire" targets? You'd get a backdoor NRDS system replacing NBSI.
NAPs wouldn't change an iota because of a petty mechanical alteration like that...
In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.
|
|
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:24:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Blazde There are a lot of genuine concerns in this thread about how other aspects of EVE besides the 0.0 endgame fit in to the overall picture and for sure some tweaks are needed but EVE politics is not about to hit a bick wall and nor is it even any closer to the brick wall than it was 4 years ago.
I think you bring up alot of fair points, and I would agree with alot of what you said. However the game changes such as Jump Bridges, and the proliferation of capitals has changed the end game from what is was 4 years ago.
There is a massive concentration of power going on, which given the technical changes to the game are different than the past. I would argue that the major powers in Eve are able to project their power in a way which they have never been able to before. Which in some senses must be very satisfying to those involved.
The Chinese server is ruled by one major powerbloc, is it really that far from reality to assume the same wont happen to TQ? If so, is that a bad thing?
|
Idaeus
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:25:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Janu Hull ... shoot blues ...
I knew there was a reason to like the ED guys.
|
Toffles
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:32:00 -
[133]
Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.
Powerblocs
Not gonna change, alliances will always team up with other alliances for their advantage.
Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map
This is the result of more stations, plentiful pos's, and constellation sov. Feythabolis alone has 15 stations! Due to the considerable amount of pos shooting involved in each station system it can takes months for one alliance to claim another's space. Often a superior attacker will get so bored of the pos work they give up and defender gets to keep their space. I can think of two situations where this occurred. The first time was when bob invaded us and got pretty far into Tenerifis before they lost critical mass. The second would be the invasion of bob space. By the time we wore bob down to Delve the coalition had completely lost its steam. Those were two occasions where the political map could have shifted drastically as far as power blocs go.
A couple things that could fix this:
A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.
B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees. This is stupid. Sov claiming pos's could have a fuel cost penalty. Anything past the first sov claiming pos gets a 20% penalty for fuel costs. 10 sov claiming pos's would cost three times as much in fuel per pos than a single one. Alternatively you could have some other form of penalty such as 10% penalty to tower hp with each additional sov claiming pos.
Ganking
Jump bridges are fine as they are. For the alliances that get to use them they are fantastic because they eliminate those 60+ jump trips through completely empty space and make eve feel less boring in general. I think the complaints of smaller corps/pirates/whatever are valid though. A solution would be making the jump bridge module use much more cpu and grid so the pos can only fit a handful of guns. This would give small gangs the ability to camp jump bridges while letting the jb owning alliances retain the convenience at the trade off of some risk.
high end moons
I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.
|
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:33:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Wesley Baird
Originally by: Blazde There are a lot of genuine concerns in this thread about how other aspects of EVE besides the 0.0 endgame fit in to the overall picture and for sure some tweaks are needed but EVE politics is not about to hit a bick wall and nor is it even any closer to the brick wall than it was 4 years ago.
I think you bring up alot of fair points, and I would agree with alot of what you said. However the game changes such as Jump Bridges, and the proliferation of capitals has changed the end game from what is was 4 years ago.
There is a massive concentration of power going on, which given the technical changes to the game are different than the past. I would argue that the major powers in Eve are able to project their power in a way which they have never been able to before. Which in some senses must be very satisfying to those involved.
The Chinese server is ruled by one major powerbloc, is it really that far from reality to assume the same wont happen to TQ? If so, is that a bad thing?
I think population might have a lot of impact. TQ's overall population dwarfs the Chinese server, so a reasonably large alliance relative to the population of the server at large is easier to manage than here.
Even if one of the big players vanished tomorrow, you might hear a bit of a sucking sound as the existing powers expanded to fill the vaccuum, but if the last big war was any indicator, the current mechanics on TQ indicate that three or four regions is about the upper limit of what a 2000 man alliance can effectively maintain before their flank is too exposed to others who might want a title shot. I really believe that TQ powers offer each other too much competition, even if its often token, to really allow a steamroll over the entire server. In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.
|
MirrorGod
Amarr Heretic Army Heretic Nation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:44:00 -
[135]
MOFUKEN signed. Nothing good about these naptrains at all. [center]
|
Han Lector
Amarr R.U.S.T. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:45:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Janu Hull Edited by: Janu Hull on 08/12/2008 19:21:10 Edited by: Janu Hull on 08/12/2008 19:20:39
Originally by: Han Lector Edited by: Han Lector on 08/12/2008 19:11:22
Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: Han Lector Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.
diplomacy is part of the game, cope
we do
Sure, keep your diplomacy but pay the fee. That would prevent one entity from having 80% of 0.0 alliances set blue and playing EVE on easy mode.
Ok, now we've expended the intelligent thoughts on the subject, and out come the kneejerks from the mouth breathers.
Riddle me this, Batman, how would you get around alliances without standings simply metagaming friend's lists of "no fire" targets? You'd get a backdoor NRDS system replacing NBSI.
NAPs wouldn't change an iota because of a petty mechanical alteration like that...
I mean, really, you've completely ignored the reality of the situation, there's no mechanic in the game that absolutely forces you to fire on a non-blue target, and its not like you can't shoot blues if the situation warrants.
The standings system only has meaning BECAUSE WE GIVE IT MEANING... You can remove all standings from the game, and I'm pretty sure the power blocs would proceed forward pretty much unabated because they're missing the little colored tab on the portrait. I'm reasonably sure most people intelligent enough to succeed in 0.0 have their F1-F8 reflex triggered by slightly higher brain function than color recognition.
It's simple, there should be a RED fee, same as BLUE. Then you keep everyone neutral, unless you really have to.
|
Bluebear8
Gallente Orion Ore International
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:51:00 -
[137]
It's well known that large businesses are extremely efficient at depleting natural resources. It's called MONOPOLIES.
Two solutions to dyspro moons are obvious:
1) Eliminate all dyspro moons; or
2) Cause any dyspro moon controlled by a Major Alliance to automatically become DEPLETED within 30 days (in recogition of the Major Alliance's superior ability to deplete resources by strip mining it to oblivion). Respawn them elsewhere to encourage migration, if you must have dyspro moons. Define Major Alliance to prevent Monopolies, and encourage smaller businesses. (Major Alliance might include any 800+ member alliance PLUS any Small Alliance who is blue to any 2,000+ member alliance. Etc.)
Use this to encourage smaller groups to go out, explore, and claim space again. By this I mean encourage them to go out and claim space for themselves, and not just live in 0.0 as proxies or pets of some big blue "friend".
Please discuss. It is intended as a constructive suggestion.
[NOTE TO Mega Alliance DYSPRO OWNERS: No one cares about your dyspro moon(s), except your alts who scream against this idea.]
Right now, the sentiment (echoed above) seems to be we are supposedly "encouraged" to form up a new group, move it out to 0.0, and die for purpose of giving the mega-alliances some fun fights. IF you don't enjoy growing a group to go out and die in 0.0, then you should just stay in Empire or NPC space (or join a larger group)!
New ventures, new friends, and small roaming gangs used to be a lot more fun. I'd venture to guess a lot of people already realized an old truism -
"If you can't beat them, join them."
And, the big ones keep on getting bigger.
So, I say pass some dyspro moons to new groups. DOWN with MONOPOLIES. Encourage some diversity and try to level the playing field.
BTW, the guys who scanned out the dyspro moons do deserve propellers, but I can't find a good link to propellers right now. If they will deplete and respawn, there will be more awards for finding them! Maybe a certificate/award for the discovery or something?
|
Ria Sotori
Caldari Tech 2 Holdings Limited Tech Holdings Limited
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:52:00 -
[138]
If CCP really wanted to make sov more interesting, meaningful and realistic they could simply remove the POS aspect to sov all together and switch to outposts.
- Add deployable defensive structures to outposts - Remove the restrictions on number of outposts per system in null sec (talk about an isk sink) Make the number of outposts affect sov level instead of number of POS - allow moonmining etc. to be conducted from an outpost as the ultimate level of industry but leave it as able to be performed at a POS as well. - You have an outpost in the system... guess what you have to fuel its defenses... you also have to fuel its industry power as well. - Also remove the get out of jail card free we have now with stront timers. I mean how silly can you get ? I blow down the shields/defenses of a installation I should then be able to press forward my attack and "take" the thing not have to wait X number of hours for the other side to call in there buddies to come defend it.... jeeez hows that realistic ? Wheres the stealth and secret planning and ambush aspects ?
You add those features to the game I guarantee powerblocs vanish and alliances cull there holdings down to manageable sizes they can defend 24x7.
And while your at it change all NPC 0.0 Outposts to conquerable as well... 0.0 is not a safe place so having safe harbors in it is silly.
|
MirrorGod
Amarr Heretic Army Heretic Nation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:55:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Toffles Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.
Powerblocs
Not gonna change, alliances will always team up with other alliances for their advantage.
Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map
This is the result of more stations, plentiful pos's, and constellation sov. Feythabolis alone has 15 stations! Due to the considerable amount of pos shooting involved in each station system it can takes months for one alliance to claim another's space. Often a superior attacker will get so bored of the pos work they give up and defender gets to keep their space. I can think of two situations where this occurred. The first time was when bob invaded us and got pretty far into Tenerifis before they lost critical mass. The second would be the invasion of bob space. By the time we wore bob down to Delve the coalition had completely lost its steam. Those were two occasions where the political map could have shifted drastically as far as power blocs go.
A couple things that could fix this:
A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.
B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees. This is stupid. Sov claiming pos's could have a fuel cost penalty. Anything past the first sov claiming pos gets a 20% penalty for fuel costs. 10 sov claiming pos's would cost three times as much in fuel per pos than a single one. Alternatively you could have some other form of penalty such as 10% penalty to tower hp with each additional sov claiming pos.
Ganking
Jump bridges are fine as they are. For the alliances that get to use them they are fantastic because they eliminate those 60+ jump trips through completely empty space and make eve feel less boring in general. I think the complaints of smaller corps/pirates/whatever are valid though. A solution would be making the jump bridge module use much more cpu and grid so the pos can only fit a handful of guns. This would give small gangs the ability to camp jump bridges while letting the jb owning alliances retain the convenience at the trade off of some risk.
high end moons
I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.
Hugely approving of this. The other idea I have is pillagable moon mining:
Instead of a mod sucking a stream of moon minerals safely inside the tower, I'd like to see an NPC type industrial shoot outside teh shield to the moons surface. Said industrial should be probable so it could be popped/stolen from. It should be able to return more often (making it safer for the POS owner but then it spends less time harvesting, meaning a safer moon mining operation is less profitable.) Or to stay on the moon for weeks but be vunerable to raiding.
My two isk [center]
|
Heath Ledger
Caldari Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:01:00 -
[140]
Originally by: MirrorGod
Originally by: Toffles Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.
I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.
Hugely approving of this. The other idea I have is pillagable moon mining:
Instead of a mod sucking a stream of moon minerals safely inside the tower, I'd like to see an NPC type industrial shoot outside teh shield to the moons surface. Said industrial should be probable so it could be popped/stolen from. It should be able to return more often (making it safer for the POS owner but then it spends less time harvesting, meaning a safer moon mining operation is less profitable.) Or to stay on the moon for weeks but be vunerable to raiding.
My two isk
Along those lines, why not just roll moon mining into an industry supercapital?
You would have said vessel parked next to a dyspro moon, plugging away at it, but extremely vulnerable. Major alliances would have to always have their eyes on these ships, and it would be much easier for an enemy to disrupt supply chains.
Alternatively, you would be adding a layer of strategy by creating a situation where an enemy force could strike your isk fountain at multiple places across several regions.
Anyway, lots of good ideas across this thread. Keep em coming guys.
|
|
Presidio
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:05:00 -
[141]
Edited by: Presidio on 08/12/2008 20:11:08 WTS Big picture.
Eve is a sandbox. The current state of 0.0 endgame is completelly due to the player base in 0.0. A power block "A" decides to indiscriminately recruit any PvP corp they can. Then vows via New York Times article to control the entire 0.0 space. The power blocks start forming. The power block "A" goes on a pet recruiting spree, all becomes one huge bi polarized cluster****. CCP profits. -
|
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:16:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Toffles Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.
Powerblocs
Not gonna change, alliances will always team up with other alliances for their advantage.
Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map
This is the result of more stations, plentiful pos's, and constellation sov. Feythabolis alone has 15 stations! Due to the considerable amount of pos shooting involved in each station system it can takes months for one alliance to claim another's space. Often a superior attacker will get so bored of the pos work they give up and defender gets to keep their space. I can think of two situations where this occurred. The first time was when bob invaded us and got pretty far into Tenerifis before they lost critical mass. The second would be the invasion of bob space. By the time we wore bob down to Delve the coalition had completely lost its steam. Those were two occasions where the political map could have shifted drastically as far as power blocs go.
A couple things that could fix this:
A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.
B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees. This is stupid. Sov claiming pos's could have a fuel cost penalty. Anything past the first sov claiming pos gets a 20% penalty for fuel costs. 10 sov claiming pos's would cost three times as much in fuel per pos than a single one. Alternatively you could have some other form of penalty such as 10% penalty to tower hp with each additional sov claiming pos.
Ganking
Jump bridges are fine as they are. For the alliances that get to use them they are fantastic because they eliminate those 60+ jump trips through completely empty space and make eve feel less boring in general. I think the complaints of smaller corps/pirates/whatever are valid though. A solution would be making the jump bridge module use much more cpu and grid so the pos can only fit a handful of guns. This would give small gangs the ability to camp jump bridges while letting the jb owning alliances retain the convenience at the trade off of some risk.
high end moons
I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.
Awesome post! In particular the POS suggestions.
|
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:26:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Han Lector It's simple, there should be a RED fee, same as BLUE. Then you keep everyone neutral, unless you really have to.
I know this is a little difficult for you, but try to imagine this...neutrals... you know, those people without standings? They aren't all the same corp. They have different corps all on their own. Now bear with me, this is the hard part...you don't have to shoot them all!
Yes, I know, this must be quite the surprise, but there's nothing written that says "If not blue, then shoot". Its not an enforced mechanic. You won't be CONCORDOKKEN'D for letting them go without firing. See, you don't have to set standings not to shoot something! Just like you don't have to set standings TO shoot something.
Those blue and red tags aren't needed. You can look at the overview, see the corp/alliance tag and base your targeting impulse on who it is exactly is in front of you. Better yet, if this requires too much brain power, just listen to the nice FC, he'll tell you exactly who it is you should be shooting, and this should relieve you some of the pressure of having to actually process all that heavy information.
Could someone please volunteer an alt in a pod he can kill? I want to try positive reinforcement if he actually gets what I'm saying, and I need a reward... In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.
|
Orange Faeces
Minmatar THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:27:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Han Lector It's simple, there should be a RED fee, same as BLUE. Then you keep everyone neutral, unless you really have to.
wow --- The Other Orange |
Draahk Chimera
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:45:00 -
[145]
"Well I for one think that Draahk Chimera dude's suggestion was good."
|
Orree
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:46:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
You're certainly right that making a big coalition work together is a lot harder than just gathering one. And while I don't appreciate your tendency to go for huge blobs and avoid other fights, for the coordination you achieved during the Tribute fights with BoB I think you certainly deserve respect. On the other hand, once you gather 100-200 caps and a sizeable supportfleet for every big operation, do you really still need a lot of coordination?
Right at the moment in time, no...but it depends upon who you're fighting. Prolly better be on your toes if its BoB, no? That doesn't change the fact that its a gargantuan amount of effort to keep a coalition running fairly smoothly.
Don't over-generalize. We engage in all kinds of warfare on any given day and our methods of conducting our business are not in their most basic of purposes to "avoid other fights."
I think what I find most disingenuous about these "blob" conversations is how the NC is always the one everyone ridicules. We aren't the inventors of the blob. We aren't the only perpatrators or even necessarily the worst perpetrators. The entities in the "NC" have been cooperating with each other for years. It's not simply about mutual safety to carebear it up (because that's all we know how to do). It's serious, deep-rooted alliance and friendship.
Part of the reason the larger cap blobs get pulled together by various entities is because you never really know who all you're going to be fighting. Many entities fall all over themselves to get involved in cap fights via temp blue standings--- fights that they ordinarily wouldn't bother getting involved in if it didn't mean get in on the almighty "cap kill."
I've said all along I hate what POS and capitals, especially titans have done to this game. I think titans are a lot less ridiculous than they used to be (remote DDs, DD then jump-out), but their proliferation is making them ridiculous for different reasons now.
Many aspects of the game have simply become "work." RAWR recognized a long time ago that for us to be as sucessful as we could be at defending our space, we needed to keep "our space" to one region under current game mechanics. This is part of why the NC was successful at holding the GBC at bay for around 3 months or so in Tribute.
Another major reason create fairly large power blocs is because the stakes are so high. Most of the larger, traditional, space-holding alliances have so much tied up in the holding of their regions...even poor regions like Tribute, that losing the region is an enormous setback. Get enough like-minded people together and you have an increased level of security, but by no means is anyone invulnerable. It's always just a matter of time, willpower and timezones. To the extent the defender is less organized than say we were in Tribute, it takes less time and there is increased chance for success by the attackers as we saw during the earlier part of the MAX campaign.
Incidentally, I'm not one of those that feels the NC trounced the GBC in "MAX." We lost a lot during the first part. Alliances died and lost space. Lots of damage to infrastructure was done.
Once we got our act together and got more practiced flying together, we did much better. Regardless of the bias and spin our detrators want to put on it to make themselves feel better, I'm quite proud of how the NC performed from August through the pullout in early November. I'm sure many people assumed Tribute, would just get rolled in a matter of weeks--- that we couldn't fight and moreover, we wouldn't fight.
Like many, I'd like to see things go to smaller scale engagements that are more regional in scope. CCP can make all the changes they like, but politics and events are player driven in this game. The prime movers have to change their behavior and I don't see any of them doing it unilaterally.
"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
Faekurias
Caldari Black Legion Command Black Legion.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:47:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Toffles Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.
Powerblocs
Not gonna change, alliances will always team up with other alliances for their advantage.
Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map
This is the result of more stations, plentiful pos's, and constellation sov. Feythabolis alone has 15 stations! Due to the considerable amount of pos shooting involved in each station system it can takes months for one alliance to claim another's space. Often a superior attacker will get so bored of the pos work they give up and defender gets to keep their space. I can think of two situations where this occurred. The first time was when bob invaded us and got pretty far into Tenerifis before they lost critical mass. The second would be the invasion of bob space. By the time we wore bob down to Delve the coalition had completely lost its steam. Those were two occasions where the political map could have shifted drastically as far as power blocs go.
A couple things that could fix this:
A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.
B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees. This is stupid. Sov claiming pos's could have a fuel cost penalty. Anything past the first sov claiming pos gets a 20% penalty for fuel costs. 10 sov claiming pos's would cost three times as much in fuel per pos than a single one. Alternatively you could have some other form of penalty such as 10% penalty to tower hp with each additional sov claiming pos.
Ganking
Jump bridges are fine as they are. For the alliances that get to use them they are fantastic because they eliminate those 60+ jump trips through completely empty space and make eve feel less boring in general. I think the complaints of smaller corps/pirates/whatever are valid though. A solution would be making the jump bridge module use much more cpu and grid so the pos can only fit a handful of guns. This would give small gangs the ability to camp jump bridges while letting the jb owning alliances retain the convenience at the trade off of some risk.
high end moons
I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.
MAN OF THE HOUR ------------------ Recruiting..
|
harry beanbag
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:56:00 -
[148]
Shouldnt there be some CSM's up in this thread giving us their ideas. Isnt it kinda their job?
|
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:02:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Orree
I think what I find most disingenuous about these "blob" conversations is how the NC is always the one everyone ridicules. We aren't the inventors of the blob. We aren't the only perpatrators or even necessarily the worst perpetrators. The entities in the "NC" have been cooperating with each other for years. It's not simply about mutual safety to carebear it up (because that's all we know how to do). It's serious, deep-rooted alliance and friendship.
I never said NC invented the blob.
I think I was there when it was really 'invented' the first time, during the BoB-ASCN siege of EC- and we started with 600+ in system. And I am not even blaming you for 'blobbing up' in the last few months. With the GBC throwing everything and the kitchen sink at you, what else could you do? But I do lament the fact that this is a kind of nuclear arms race, where everyone either has to 'blob' or get wiped off the face of the map. Its pointless to blame specific entities for the current state of affairs, but does that really mean we have to like the current game mechanics?
|
Blazde
Minmatar 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:03:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Wesley Baird I think you bring up alot of fair points, and I would agree with alot of what you said. However the game changes such as Jump Bridges, and the proliferation of capitals has changed the end game from what is was 4 years ago.
There is a massive concentration of power going on, which given the technical changes to the game are different than the past. I would argue that the major powers in Eve are able to project their power in a way which they have never been able to before. Which in some senses must be very satisfying to those involved.
The Chinese server is ruled by one major powerbloc, is it really that far from reality to assume the same wont happen to TQ? If so, is that a bad thing?
It would be a bad thing, and I was worried a little (probably needlessly) before cyno-jammers were introduced because the defenders advantage had been eroded big time by increasingly large dread fleets.
I'm not really familiar with the Chinese server but my hunch is it'll correct itself in time as their history builds up and adds flavour and more people there get experienced at playing EVE.
There's I guess roughly two ways of dominating EVE. Either you do it by sheer numbers of (decent) players which I don't think is sustainable because people are ambitous to be independant, carve out their own niche and seek challenges. Maybe there is a different culture in China that sees it differently I dunno. BoB did have a partial monopoly on 'skilled powergamers' that was self-reinforcing for a while. They kept attracting the best players that gave up tolerating failure in their previous alliance and wanted to play alongside similar talent. But it didn't last because there were enough corps with underdog spirit who kept on fighting BoB and essentially bred their own in-house 'skilled powergamers' that were 'indoctrinated' anti-BoB for life. If you've come into EVE the Goon route for instance you may leave GS but you're unlikely to go to BoB, ever. Same goes for anyone who's spent a lot of time in the NC alliances. There's plenty of excuses people have for fighting BoB (they backstabbed me sometime, they metagame, they get dev help, etc) but I think most of the actual drive and energy people have comes directly from not wanting them to dominate EVE. There's countless people who will "probably quit EVE if BoB dies" because it's the one thing that drives them.
So there's a powerful natural reaction against domination by a single entity and if some future hegemony threatens to evolve from anti-BoB entities (I don't peronally believe it will) the seeds of the counter-rebellion are surely already sown, perhaps within entities like Tri.
The other way to own EVE is by dominating resources with a small number of people, and that's much more of a possibility now than in the past because resources are more important (for capitals) and are more concentrated (Dyspro). But I still think they're not that important, among other things it is possible to generate decent income in empire. The alliances that control the Dyspro can afford to **** away large numbers of capitals sure. But ****ing away capitals isn't a winning strategy cos you **** away your morale too and that's (still) much more important than ISK. _
|
|
rValdez5987
Amarr 32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:05:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Beldarann Edited by: Beldarann on 08/12/2008 09:34:00 I've played Eve since December '03 and 2 days ago I went past the 5 year mark. And I'm seriously wondering and a worried about the future of this game which though it frustrates me sometimes I still very much enjoy.
The problem as I see it is that Eve is polarising into basically two power blocks who I think within a not too long period of time will control all of 0.0. Sure there are different alliances but these alliances are gonna basically come down to either being NC friendly or GBC friendly.
I worry that this game is gonna grind itself into stagnation, where any attack on one alliance will result in the entire power bloc that alliance was in nuking the hell out of the aggressor.
Of course then the way alliances will fix this is to attack as a power bloc, but of course the defender has a significant advantage as NC proved recently and as Bob proved at the beginning of this year. Then of course you factor Titans into it and DD'ing people trying to take jammers down in an already laggy system because of the numbers people felt they had to bring to even have the remotest chance of success.
Any small alliances out there that try to avoid choosing a side would likely either have to choose an power bloc to side with or get their backside kicked by one of them. In other words this game is well on the way to being run and controlled by literally a handful of people who control the power bloc's.
I do think there is a danger of us seeing a time where skirmishes may be as much pvp as people can hope to see, large battles for space wont happen because the defender has the advantage and the attacker wont be able to bring a force sufficient to unseat the defender. All this means horrible stagnation for the game.
People can say what they like but this is happening, the recent history of Eve proves it, and I honestly don't know what can be done to stop it.
Anyway just wanted to put down what I was thinking. I've tried to leave smack outta this post though so if you're gonna reply, try and make a thoughtful post the smack only makes you look like an idiot.
Simple fix to this is limiting the number of standings you can have... Which is already done.... they just need to make the limit even more harsh.
Anyone who complains about this suggestion, has too many blues and is obviously a napf**.
|
Mistress Suffering
Amarr Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:18:00 -
[152]
Jump Bridges
Jump gates are probably the absolute highest point of engagement within the game. This is even more true when you look at it from the perspective of small gang warfare. You intercept people moving around in an insecure fashion and combat occurs.
Unfortunately, Jump Bridges remove opportunities for combat by allowing people to bypass this. They also further harden the defender's position, simply by allowing defensive forces to be shifted rapidly and freely. Honestly, this isn't needed at all. Jump Bridges should simply go away.
Small Alliance Spaceholding
I would certainly say less opportunities for this exist now than did in times past. I always look fondly back on early Providence for example, where a wide range of small alliances with varying standings all jostled for position. That's long gone now, with a single monolithic powerbloc in place and every local entity buried under huge allied gangs, cyno jammers, jump bridges, and sovereignty protection. Why did this occur? Because the current system gives significant advantage to that lifestyle, and players will naturally seek to maximum their individual benefit. If we want the world to be full of small alliances, then the game needs to give superior benefit to being a small alliance.
Right now, you basically need to set up an arrangement with larger local entities in order to own space for any significant length of time. Without that, you're mostly just gambling that your particular chunk of space is of such low value that no one will come push you out of it.
|
Jareck Hunter
Caldari Academy of Decadence Hereticus Aegis Communis
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:20:00 -
[153]
Well where to start...
The Trium guy with the fee for blues and reds... well only cause you have no friends in this game, why should everybody else pay for it? Will not change anything, but only lead to a minor friendly fire in great fleet fights. FC only needs to know who is friend and foe and then call the right targets.
The one with the idea of rotating dyspo moons... are you crazy? have you ever scanned a system with 64 moons? It will simply be a pain in the ase and would change nothing. The Alliance holding sov in the region will get the moon.
Problem with coalitions: Well i don't see a problem there, more numbers mean more damage, nothing simpler than that. And nothing more realistic.
We had a nearly same discussion in the german forums a month or two ago. There i suggestet an idea against the need to blob.
Atm a blob is needed to archive something in the big 0.0 playground, who says something different, never was there. You need them to siege Pos and to deffend Titans/Capfleets, which deffend/attack pos. So you need a fleet to gain Sov.
What would be if you don't need a fleet to conquer a system, or maybe it would only help, but would not be the main factor?
Ok my idea was to introduce planets/colonies as sov controlling points. There are lots of posts about colonies and so on... so i think i don't need to say a lot about them.
They would be static, they could need fuel to develop, they can gather ressources, and they should be conquerable with ground forces, which don't need a fleet during fighting.
But a Fleet can be used to deploy ground forces and to help them during fight (planetary bombardement). So the other side can help too, but isn't needed.
The ground battles can take some hours (minimum 12-24, so the deffender can react) to days and you can start invasions on different planets at the same time. So it will give you an advantage to split you fleets, to fast respond to planetary bombardement requests of you ground forces.
Colonies should be harder to maintain, then a pos, and maybe so limit the size of an alliance controlled area. Maybe they can bring special requests every 2 weeks or so, which have to be fullfilled or the people become angry and don't defend against aggressors and such things.
Someone mentioned, that the only weapon against caps (dread/carrier) are caps or big fleets... So maybe i had the idea of Long Range Artillerie Ships and posmodules and marker-ammunition. I hope some of you know the game, freespace 2, there you had ammo, to mark a target for the big guns of the really big ships. Maybe so a small ship can go into a dread fleet, mark one and move out, and make damage, with the help of somenone else. Just an idea, which also encourages teamplay.
Just some random ideas. ------------------------------------------------- Sorry for my bad english^^
Join public Channel "Decadence" or visit www.eve-decadence.de |
Devian 666
Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:25:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Devian 666 on 08/12/2008 21:25:48 I'm glad the majority of posters in this thread have nothing to do with game design.
More 0.0 won't change anything. There's already a lot of empty, unused 0.0. It just needs to be made worthwhile to actually utilise it. This has been discussed in the ideas section frequently.
Removing standings will just make everything more bland. So lets complain about powerblocs, remove standings and force each powerbloc to be a single alliance. Standings removal would change nothing except to make the game even more bland, or people will just modify the client to reimplement standings.
Jumpbridges of any kind should have never been in the game. They are an anti-pvp measure in a pvp game. http://obeythekitten.com/ |
Amerame
Gallente Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:31:00 -
[155]
There are like 50 times more people in 0.0 now than 3 years ago, while the size of the space has barely increase. Basicaly, we need more space. Adding the drone region was quite a success, and people there have been playing their merry game without much direct interference from the main powerblock. The logistic also made eve a lot smaller, and it's obvious that if it is easy to travel, it means more people will gather in one place at a given time. Easy logistic means globalized conflicts, difficult logistic means regionalized conflicts.
The size of Eve being roughly constant and the logistic being made easier each patch made eve a lot smaller, which means room for less independant entities.
|
Praesus Lecti
Gallente Blueprint Haus Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:31:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Toffles Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map
A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.
B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees.... high end moons
..stuff...
As to your first point, would that not just contribute to even more massive blobbing if the defenders know that they key is to hold those known stations?
You can change POSs by basically treating a star system much like one giant POS. Allow me to explain:
First thing is to redo how towers are fueled by introducing anchorable stand alone energy production facilities (Solar Collectors, Robotic Facilities, Nuclear Breeder Reactors, etc) that output fuel resources for the entire system. When you anchor a tower, the energy requirements are deducted from the total system output. The tower needs to be 'linked' to the system power grid (using an interface much like setting up reactions at a tower).
The key to this is that the energy production facilities can be anchored within 1 AU of their source (Solar collects w/i 1AU of the sun, Nuclear Breeders w/i 1AU of a planet, Ice Refining at an ice field or ice planet, etc) and other than decent shield/armor/hull numbers are not protected by any defenses other than needing to be scanned down via probes (put those astrometric skills to use).
A force attacking the structures can gradually interrupt the energy production of an entire system because every module anchored pulls power from that grid. As the total power drops, random modules immediately begin shutting down. The solar collectors need to be physically disabled. Nuclear Breeders produce NPC transpor vessels (much like high sec convoys) which deploy at intervals and move out to the various structures in the system. Destroy the transports and the fuel supply for that structure stops and it shuts down. Same for Robotic Facilities and Ice Refiners.
This all serves 2 purposes: Reduce the need for fuel logistics via jump bridges as all fuel is produced locally AND allows for small focused groups to interrupt production.
With regard to high end moons, I've suggested in the past that every moon should produce every moon mineral in a ratio commensurate with it's rarity. To extract the specific moon mineral, you 'focus' the moon miner through the use of a script. Moons could still have a bonus to a specific mineral but not this 'all or none' approach we have now. Thus, if someone really wanted to mine dysprosium, they could go through the effort of putting up enough towers all with dysprosium focused miners. I'd go on to make a moon miner a stand alone anchorable structure with tower-like hitpoint (but no other defenses.)
Jump bridges need to be a lot more intensive in their consumption both as POS module and consumption of liquid ozone. I'd go so far as to make the jump bridge it's own anchorable structure that doesn't need a POS. Do the same for Cynojammers. Hell, make more structures anchorable by themselves and cut down the number of towers needed/used.
|
Tesal
Gallente Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:48:00 -
[157]
Many of the questions in this thread can be answered in this video. It has a information on T3 about 30 minutes or so into the presentation. It is due out March 2009 (in theory). You can draw your own conclusions about what this will mean for 0.0.
CCP Fanfest Video - "World Domination"
|
Silvitni
Caldari Atomic Battle Penguins The Darwin Award Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:48:00 -
[158]
I blame Ava!
Nuff said.
|
Orree
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:50:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Wesley Baird
Originally by: Blazde There are a lot of genuine concerns in this thread about how other aspects of EVE besides the 0.0 endgame fit in to the overall picture and for sure some tweaks are needed but EVE politics is not about to hit a bick wall and nor is it even any closer to the brick wall than it was 4 years ago.
I think you bring up alot of fair points, and I would agree with alot of what you said. However the game changes such as Jump Bridges, and the proliferation of capitals has changed the end game from what is was 4 years ago.
There is a massive concentration of power going on, which given the technical changes to the game are different than the past. I would argue that the major powers in Eve are able to project their power in a way which they have never been able to before. Which in some senses must be very satisfying to those involved.
The Chinese server is ruled by one major powerbloc, is it really that far from reality to assume the same wont happen to TQ? If so, is that a bad thing?
Oog...I had typed up a nice response, but "the forum ate it." Thankfully, Blazde covers most of what I said in my response.
I hate it when I forget to paste my message to the clipboard before I click the "submit" button. :roll:]
In short, yes...it would be bad, but it'll never happen here. Too much political history (vs. the Chinese server which ad none) and a completely different culture (West vs. East). Western culture being far more individualistic. We're not even that close.
Had "The Coalition" followed through last year and somehow managed to crack Fortress Delve (at least as well fortified as Tribute, but Tribute doesn't have NPC stations (lol)) and divest the GBC of all its conquerable space, the coalition would have likely shattered almost immediately. No one in it wanted a wild world of blue. Many of the entities were red to each other going in. They just disliked GBC more than they disliked each other. Some coalition partners even came to greatly dislike more they they had going in.
I think that to assume such a thing could ever happen on TQ is to greatly misunderstand the motivations of the people who drive a lot of the politics in this game.
"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
Tunnas
Amarr eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:58:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Bog***it How about removing the entire standing system and the only thing you get to see is if a pilot is in your corp / alliance or not.
Just a thought.
I have been thinking the exact same thing, alliances is as big as it should be if you ask me...
I remember in Insrg when the nc truely kicked in gear and desided to remove us, they wherent interested in fighting us, they just wanted us gone... The first day they attacked, they had close to 1000 men. In one of the last days, i counted 14 diffrent alliance names shooting at our pos, and they got what they wanted... no doubht... But somehow it's just wrong... No-body thinks it's fun, not us not them.. But it's happening because game mechanics allows it...
I dont wanna be blue to anyone, i have my allies in my alliance, and that should be more than enough...
|
|
Orree
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:59:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Orree
I think what I find most disingenuous about these "blob" conversations is how the NC is always the one everyone ridicules. We aren't the inventors of the blob. We aren't the only perpatrators or even necessarily the worst perpetrators. The entities in the "NC" have been cooperating with each other for years. It's not simply about mutual safety to carebear it up (because that's all we know how to do). It's serious, deep-rooted alliance and friendship.
I never said NC invented the blob.
I think I was there when it was really 'invented' the first time, during the BoB-ASCN siege of EC- and we started with 600+ in system. And I am not even blaming you for 'blobbing up' in the last few months. With the GBC throwing everything and the kitchen sink at you, what else could you do? But I do lament the fact that this is a kind of nuclear arms race, where everyone either has to 'blob' or get wiped off the face of the map. Its pointless to blame specific entities for the current state of affairs, but does that really mean we have to like the current game mechanics?
Did not mean to imply that you had. I was merely discussing the general slant of the self-serving "blob" discussions/whines/rants/jokes that tend to permeate these and other fora. It is most certainly not equal opportunity.
When I was home for lunch today, a friend of mine hit me up on MSN and told me how his side had 600 pilots in a Goon system. I'm waiting for the post where all the people who are red to the NC (and there are more that are red than there are blue) comment negatively about that. I won't hold my breath, though.
Since I had come up against the character limit, I was forced to delete a number of sentences from my post. One of them made it clear that I wasn't directing that comment towards you.
"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
VileLust
Minmatar Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:59:00 -
[162]
Make moons worth a LOT less isk, find another way to fill that part of the market, and you solve loads of problems.
|
Orree
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:01:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Orree on 08/12/2008 22:03:04
Originally by: Tunnas
Originally by: Bog***it How about removing the entire standing system and the only thing you get to see is if a pilot is in your corp / alliance or not.
Just a thought.
I have been thinking the exact same thing, alliances is as big as it should be if you ask me...
I remember in Insrg when the nc truely kicked in gear and desided to remove us, they wherent interested in fighting us, they just wanted us gone... The first day they attacked, they had close to 1000 men. In one of the last days, i counted 14 diffrent alliance names shooting at our pos, and they got what they wanted... no doubht... But somehow it's just wrong... No-body thinks it's fun, not us not them.. But it's happening because game mechanics allows it...
I dont wanna be blue to anyone, i have my allies in my alliance, and that should be more than enough...
Nevermind the fact that your leaders had something to with engendering the kind of dislike that motivates and leads people to do that sort of thing. It's always someone else who's responsble, no?
"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
Tunnas
Amarr eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:11:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Orree Edited by: Orree on 08/12/2008 22:03:04
Originally by: Tunnas
Originally by: Bog***it How about removing the entire standing system and the only thing you get to see is if a pilot is in your corp / alliance or not.
Just a thought.
I have been thinking the exact same thing, alliances is as big as it should be if you ask me...
I remember in Insrg when the nc truely kicked in gear and desided to remove us, they wherent interested in fighting us, they just wanted us gone... The first day they attacked, they had close to 1000 men. In one of the last days, i counted 14 diffrent alliance names shooting at our pos, and they got what they wanted... no doubht... But somehow it's just wrong... No-body thinks it's fun, not us not them.. But it's happening because game mechanics allows it...
I dont wanna be blue to anyone, i have my allies in my alliance, and that should be more than enough...
Nevermind the fact that your leaders had something to with engendering the kind of dislike that motivates and leads people to do that sort of thing. It's always someone else who's responsble, no?
I'm sorry i wasent trying to make any troll post or anything, i just used it as an example.
Maybe our leaders was good at burning bridges i don't know and dont care really..
It still doesent change the fact that ALOT of alliances blu'ed each other with one purpos and that was to remove us, not fight us... And i'm affraide that if this trend continues it will destroy the game...
|
Jareck Hunter
Caldari Academy of Decadence Hereticus Aegis Communis
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:11:00 -
[165]
Originally by: VileLust Make moons worth a LOT less isk, find another way to fill that part of the market, and you solve loads of problems.
Wasn't there the idea of something like a Moon Mining Ship here in the treath, maybe they could help a bit. ------------------------------------------------- Sorry for my bad english^^
Join public Channel "Decadence" or visit www.eve-decadence.de |
Kykio
Caldari The All-Seeing Eye G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:35:00 -
[166]
Just remove capital remote reppers from the game. This would make capital blobs damageable. Atm 50+ carrirers and invu field is up for every capital/huge buffer tanked ship in the fleet. Only a similarly huge capital fleet could break that remote rep chain,which is the reason for capital blobbing.
|
TRYPTIC
Gallente House of Stark FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:39:00 -
[167]
My first thought: too few 0.0 systems with rare minerals. Put more out there. Also, create more 0.0 systems.
Second thought: Strong alliances hold the choke points. Force those alliances to disperse by giving some REAL LOVE to Black Op's - allow them to bridge more than just recon/cov op's. Bunches of small gank squads all over an alliance's space will start to hurt their economy and force them to pull back to defend not just the choke points.
|
Moon Kitten
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:39:00 -
[168]
Numerical superiority will almost always be a good and easy way to win. Sorry but there is no easy way to change this.
|
thoth foc
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:42:00 -
[169]
Edited by: thoth foc on 08/12/2008 22:42:36
Originally by: Tunnas It still doesent change the fact that ALOT of alliances blu'ed each other with one purpos and that was to remove us, not fight us... And i'm affraide that if this trend continues it will destroy the game...
that wont destroy the game.. it has happened before, and will happen again.. ------------------ x-DSMA (Menta) x-CA (OMEGA/BOS) x-.5.(ATUK) BOB (DICE) |
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:43:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Orree I think that to assume such a thing could ever happen on TQ is to greatly misunderstand the motivations of the people who drive a lot of the politics in this game.
I certainly don't direct my posts at the NC/Goons more than the GBC/AAA etc. Using resources and or friends at your disposal makes sense, and no one blames anyone for their use...pvpers dislike it (I think on all sides) because it usually makes the battles less about pvp and more about luck of the lag when there is a huge fight, or that one side basically would face suicide to fight...so there is no fight.
I hope you are correct in your assertions about the motivations of various actors, it seems from the outside that a great many groups like the stability of large coalition life as it breeds fertile ground for the building of vast sums of wealth. Wouldnt this desire for stability continue to motivate various actors to maintain their bonds?
I hope you are correct that egos or old grudges continue to fracture powerblocs over time.
I do hope some of the excellent suggestions in this thread come to life, they would make 0.0 more interesting for all of us IMHO.
|
|
Toffles
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:54:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Tunnas
I'm sorry i wasent trying to make any troll post or anything, i just used it as an example.
Maybe our leaders was good at burning bridges i don't know and dont care really..
It still doesent change the fact that ALOT of alliances blu'ed each other with one purpos and that was to remove us, not fight us... And i'm affraide that if this trend continues it will destroy the game...
Imagine if one day a small pirate corp put up a pos next door and started camping your gates. You get your alliance buddies together and siege their pos and kick them out. Would you say what you did was unfair or that CCP should disband your alliance so that you would have to fight them on even ground? What if that corp went home and camped a 1 man pirate corp in an npc station all day. No fair, right?
|
Han Lector
Amarr R.U.S.T. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:02:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Janu Hull
Originally by: Han Lector It's simple, there should be a RED fee, same as BLUE. Then you keep everyone neutral, unless you really have to.
Now bear with me, this is the hard part...you don't have to shoot them all!
I really didn't want to flame, but since you insist.. That's why I don't play in some carebear alliance like you do. As for the harsh words you been using in your posting, I wasn't calling anyone out in particular when I said play EVE on easy mode, you are the one that felt called out At any rate, building capital ships for someone to keep me safe and sound in my little piece of 0.0 space was never the reason why I play this game, and If I couldn't shoot other players (red or neutral) I wouldn't even play this game.
|
End Yourself
Minmatar Core Domination Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:03:00 -
[173]
Who gives a **** about fair or not: No fun, that's the point.
Not everyone fails at everything but lemmings online.
--- Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. |
Toffles
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:24:00 -
[174]
Originally by: End Yourself Who gives a **** about fair or not: No fun, that's the point.
Not everyone fails at everything but lemmings online.
A quick look at your killboard reveals that your alliance has been killing lone ratting ships in belts, or "ganking" if you will. I wonder if they had fun being ganked. Probably not, but I bet you enjoyed it. Ganking occurs at every level in eve, it's just not fun when you're getting ganked.
|
nadro
Gallente Wreckless Abandon G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:38:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Orree
<snip> I think what I find most disingenuous about these "blob" conversations is how the NC is always the one everyone ridicules. We aren't the inventors of the blob. We aren't the only perpatrators or even necessarily the worst perpetrators. <snip>
You didn't invent it, but sometimes you parade in it like you discovered the wheel, while it feels like you're thinking 'zomg! this is how they win things!'. Add to it that you 've been successful lately, and you 're bound to be the obvious forum target. But as you said, don't over-generalise and don't overreact; smacking and trolling is supposed to be exaggerated, don't assume that all that smack you once in a while are stupid, bitter and hate you. It's just like football or politics.
Joking aside, you 're right in your post (couldn't quote it all, i needed space for my smack :P ), it's all down to the players that lead and those that follow, just like irl. And it would be a mistake imo to redesign a game based on current player relations and conflicts.
Some ideas itt are nice and novel, some are funny. But I don't see what difference it would make on large scale warfare. Let's say that instead of pos shooting in yao, tcf were to run after our npc fuel ships with 100 dreads, or to deploy militia and exotic dancers on the planets. Err, wait, I changed my mind, make them do it!
|
Invendi
Caldari Comply Or Die G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:19:00 -
[176]
First off let me just say that I have not been playing the game as long as the majority of people here, while I find the politics of Eve amusing I am not really involved in it. Im simply a grunt that likes to shoot things.
I have only given my idea 5 minutes of thought so feel free to pick it to bits.
1) Make an alliance "fee" based on the number of members + skill points - This could work on a diminshing returns basis similar to skill training. The more skillpoints you have in your alliance the higher the weekly fee you pay. This would get to the point where it is no longer economical to grow beyond a certain size.
2) Apply the above to blue standings - Again as above have a fee for blue standings, the more people you are aligned with the more you pay per week. The higher the skill points of those people the greater the fee you pay.
3) Moon minerals - Diminishing returns based on the size of the alliance/power bloc that holds the moon. Make it so a 100 man alliance/powerbloc can make twice as much off a moon than an alliance/powerbloc of a larger size.
4) Reduced Alliance/Power bloc "fee" for killing red standings players. The more you kill the less you pay.
Now my reasoning for the above would be the following:
1) Alliances would be smaller, these would either be made up of a number of lower skilled players, a few highly skilled players or a mixture of the two.
2) Being blue to everyone just wouldn't be possible, the cost would outweigh the benefit.
3) This would make owning moons more valuable for the smaller alliances, keeping under a certain player limit/skillpoint limit would be advantageous.
4) This would encourage PvP on a massive scale.
c/d?
|
Mike Yass
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:19:00 -
[177]
There needs to be more incentive for solo players to move to 0.0. Ratting and mining in 0.0 is not worth it. Agents in space that offer up low end complexes to fight over are the answer. Anyone can go up and talk to an agent and get a bookmark for a complex that a couple other hostiles have been given. You get small gang combat with healthy rewards at the end. An influx of carebears will cause internal alliance drama, hopefully causing a couple to fail and giving us a nice a power vacuum to fight over.
There also needs to be player structures that allow small corps to be parasites in other people's territories. For parasitic corps to exist, the mechanics that allow players to run away need to be improved. Small gangs will always lose to large ones, and currently EVE does not have a good system that allows them to do so.
Basically, the changes need to increase the viability of parasitic warfare, while increasing the reward for killing an alliance. Ideally, a parasite corp moves in, causes enough drama for the carebears that the corp collapses and then they take the space.
|
Tzrailasa
Gallente Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:33:00 -
[178]
IMHO, the main problem for 0.0 is this: Almost nobody LIVES there!
The thing people do in 0.0 these days is form up a gang/fleet/blob, and go look for someone to shoot. While this is fun, there doesn't appear to be as much action as 'before'. The reason for this is largely that most people don't do anything BUT the above in 0.0 anymore.
IMHO, there are two main reasons for this: 1. Too easy logistics 2. Too easy money making in high-sec
I'll take these in order....
Too easy logistics
While easy logistics (jump-bridges, titan bridges, jump freighters, carrier/dread/rorqual hauling) seems to be a good thing, I'm firmly of the opinion that they're a root cause of what is wrong with 0.0.
Any resource used in 0.0 are no longer produced there, but is imported directly from empire. The few people who still mine in 0.0 only do the high-sends and export them to empire. The few people who rat and collect loot in 0.0 export it to empire. Moon minerals is (by and large) exported to empire. Ships and/or raw minerals are imported from empire.
Thus, there's no longer any need for people to actually live in 0.0. There's no need to mine, no need to collect loot, no need to produce stuff, no need to protect your travel lanes, no need to move ships by non-jump-bridge, no need for anything really but protect your POS.
The only need you have left is to produce ISK, which leads me neatly to....
Too easy money making in high-sec
I've always made money for my ships in high-sec, and is now consistently making ~40m/hour doing L4's. There is absolutely no risk (unless I do something stupid), and I can run it almost afk. I'm sure a lot of other 0.0 inhabitants do the same.
Theoretically, you can make more ratting in 0.0, but in real terms you can't. Only if you have a large territory can you do so in relative peace deep in there, and you still need to move ships, ammo, loot around. Worst of all, to make good money ratting in 0.0, you need to dedicate quite a bit of time to get good chains going. Missions you can just jump into and earn from the start.
Now, while this is good for me, it is not good for the game. Why? Because by not LIVING in 0.0, I'm depriving other people of a target. Multiply that by all the other people who do the same.... (Yes, I know there is a game design problem too in catching ratters in 0.0, but that's fairly well known, also by CCP).
Conclusion
Combined, these two (again IMHO) combines to make 0.0 what it is today. A place where people go to fight, but not much more. Now, there are problems with the fighting part too, but I'll not cover that here. However, I submit that 0.0 would be a much more FUN place if people actually had to live there! Currently, game mechanics all but make certain they don't.
(change suggestions in next post) My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Tzrailasa
Gallente Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:34:00 -
[179]
Now, no posts in a thread like this without suggesting solutions :-D
1. Jump bridges (any type) can not be used for freighters 2. Only one jump bridge can be anchored per system (so there is at least a little danger in using them) 3. Jump freighters can ONLY carry ice or moon products (nothing made from minerals) 4. The carrying capability of other jump capable ships is severely restricted 5. The cost of using jump clones is raises significantly, and is related to distance jumped (like 5m/lightyear jumped) 6. Empire money making reduced (especially L4's) 7. Insurance removed in 0.0 8. 0.0 rewards raised significantly (to compensate for #7)
Personally I think it would be far better if jump bridges, jump freighters and jump clones are removed entirely, but I doubt CCP will do that even if they're a prime cause in making 0.0 as desolate as it is....
The aim of these suggestions is to both force people to live in 0.0, and entice them to do so too. The restriction on imports will force people to actually generate resources IN 0.0. It would force alliances to support, protect and value their 'carebear' members.
The jump clone, reward and insurance changes will mean that it'll be hard to finance the 0.0 life style UNLESS you're actually making your money there. If the max. you could make in empire was 10m/hour, and it was 80m/hour in 0.0, AND there was no insurance payout for ships lost in 0.0, people who fight in 0.0 would be much better off if they made their money there too.
I haven't covered a lot of other things in here that most people think are problems, mainly because I believe the root cause is the above. There are problems with the sovereignty mechanics, blobbing, moon mining etc., but I personally believe they're relatively small compared to the problem of nobody really living in 0.0. People who wants to fight in 0.0 need to be driven and enticed back to actually live there too.
0.0 needs to be sufficiently dangerous and sufficiently profitable for people to hunt and live there. People living there should be prey for hunters, but at the same time should make so much that even with losses taken into account it is still better than empire.
(next post will go on to sovereignty and POS)
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Tzrailasa
Gallente Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:34:00 -
[180]
Now, going on to POS and sovereignty mechanics.....
I think the best change that could be made for 0.0 would be to take the POS out of how sovereignty is determined!
POS should be industrial structures and war bases, but they should not determine who owns an area. Who owns an area should be determine by who DO things (successfully) in an area.
The main reason for this belief is that we (as in PvP'ers) want to shoot PEOPLE, not STRUCTURES! POS shooting is boring, PvP is fun. Logic thus dictates that mechanics should favor PvP, not POS shooting, and yet it doesn't.
The following is a copy of a post I made in a BoB forum thread about this same topic.
--- Begin copy ---
IMHO, there aren't any problems WITH POS.... Their USE in sovereignty is the problem!
Frankly spoken, they shouldn't be part of the sovereignty equation AT ALL!
What should determine sovereignty is what people DO in a constellation. Activity by alliances should be tallied up over maybe 2-4 weeks (lets call it sov. points), and sovereignty should gradually shift in the direction of the most successful alliance in the constellation.
Kill an NPC, your alliance gets sov. points. Mine a 'roid, your alliance gets sov. points. Kill a ship/POS belonging to another alliance, you gain some of their sov. points. ...(possible other ways too).
You'd still be able to shoot POS, and a fair amount of that would be done, but it would no longer be the center of the sov. mechanics.
Currently the worst effect of POS warfare is that the time of action can be pinpointed (ie. when POS comes out of reinforced). THIS is what encourage blobbing! Now big fleet fights are fun (or would be if the server could handle them), but if they're the only action then all the time in-between is a bore. If they implemented something like the above, the action would be spread out across all 23 hours of the day, and it would mean that alliances would have to USE space they control, or lose it!
Now this would probably require some changes to how alliances work together, ie. you should be able to set up 'treaties' between alliances that for example allowed alliance X to do stuff in alliance Y's sovereign area without accumulating points, or maybe X would accumulate points in that area FOR alliance Y, etc.
There're pro's and con's in the above for both big and small alliances, but I still think it would leave a more fun 0.0. People would have to keep a presence in their home areas when they're out and about, since otherwise other people could take it over, but maybe treaties could arrange for allies to do so.
All in all, game mechanics should support the fun parts, not the boring ones.
PS: Not entirely my idea, Much of it I picked up on E-O.
--- End copy ---
(I'll stop wasting your bandwidth now) My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
|
Milkman Dani
Gallente RuffRyders Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:00:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Milkman Dani on 09/12/2008 01:08:24 Spartan had a good idea earlier in the thread, I hadn't gotten past his post yet to read all the others here. I think, what could be a good quick solution, would be to take the DED mails out, totally out and get rid of the local chat box. Therefore, we could see (as a hypothetical) a small corp or small alliance sneaking in with their Black Ops, Recons, and what nots, to a region or group of systems (or hell just 1 system) and install themselves there quietly. Then, they could start doing what they want to do from there within that quiet little area without "The Blob Monster" noticing. Sure, they'll notice, but you are gonna be infested with so many groups like that, let's say, if you are Goons, or -a- or Bob, or the NC entities.
Look at a sov map, just at the territory some of the alliances are controlling, and tell me that the idea wouldn't work? It'd be like weeds growing up through your nice green lawn, but I think we need that aspect in Eve now. Can you imagine the fun that would be? To actually have to control your territory, and if you can't manage to control it, then you didn't need that area to begin with. I agree with a lot that's in here, there are some great ideas. Taking Titans and capital ships away from those that worked their butt of for them isn't right, and I think the JB network should be region wide, not Eve wide (I totally think it should be region wide).
The game is a game, and I think everyone agrees that if they had more important stuff going on in their lives, they'd be doing that instead. However, we either don't have important stuff going on, or we do and we play as a hobby. Derailing, sorry.
Anyway, I think that if we got rid of local, make the scanner something more like a radar or more powerful with skill points (sorta make it, with SP, a system wide scanner). Getting rid of local will force us to use our scanners more, taking the DeD mails out for pos's will force us to monitor our pos's more closely, and allows smaller corps and alliances to work within a region or area of territory that isn't frequented, which would force the home alliance to set up roaming patrols to keep the home front secure, which would then breed small scale fighting like bunnies in heat. This would then force alliances to form two entities (more i guess if you want) one for home defense, and one for fighting foreign wars. Sure, you can have the same pilots in each, but could you honestly guarantee that you could be in both places at once? Even with alts, that would be too hard for one person to manage.
It's an idea that stemmed from Spartan and a few of you other fellows in here. I think it would seriously spice up eve a bit, and allow, to some extent, for small actions going on. There'd need to be more thought involved here, but I think that it could work, and be a stop gap for a time for the issues we are seeing atm.
(Edit) Sorry there are a lot of grammatical errors, and I'm just too damn lazy to get them all, so please bear with me, laptop keyboard kinda small for my large hands. Or fat fingers, whatever.
|
HakanSherif
Minmatar Amok.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:05:00 -
[182]
Now this is a good idea.
|
BruceLee CRO
Caldari Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:14:00 -
[183]
Edited by: BruceLee CRO on 09/12/2008 01:15:04 get nano back remove standings or put it by skills - lvl 5 five standings rank (20:D) remove local window remove jb remove dd in npc space put atleast 2-3 more npc stations in deeper region in first 0.0 systems make when guy jump to appear on random ss to prevent gate camping make some difference between 1mil sp chars and 70mil sp chars make moon mining - that guys actually need to mine with tower like they mine inbelts instead of just putting tower
most wanted inc recruiment video |
Flinx Evenstar
Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:42:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 09/12/2008 01:43:15
Originally by: BruceLee CRO Edited by: BruceLee CRO on 09/12/2008 01:15:04 get nano back remove standings or put it by skills - lvl 5 five standings rank (20:D) remove local window remove jb remove dd in npc space put atleast 2-3 more npc stations in deeper region in first 0.0 systems make when guy jump to appear on random ss to prevent gate camping make some difference between 1mil sp chars and 70mil sp chars make moon mining - that guys actually need to mine with tower like they mine inbelts instead of just putting tower
"remove standings or put it by skills - lvl 5 five standings rank (20:D)" WTF
"in first 0.0 systems make when guy jump to appear on random ss to prevent gate camping"
I don't know where to start with that one. Apart from the fact it completely bypasses the ability to lock down a system
You have some good ideas in your post, but those two are a little crazy. Local can't be removed until there is an alternative (no one wants to spam the scan button every 5 seconds)
"make some difference between 1mil sp chars and 70mil sp chars"
There is already
Maybe I got trolled, but you are suggesting farmers can just park up and mine moons, then cloak.
Yeah I got trolled ___
|
BruceLee CRO
Caldari Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:50:00 -
[185]
Edited by: BruceLee CRO on 09/12/2008 01:51:43
Originally by: Flinx Evenstar Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 09/12/2008 01:43:15
Originally by: BruceLee CRO Edited by: BruceLee CRO on 09/12/2008 01:15:04 get nano back remove standings or put it by skills - lvl 5 five standings rank (20:D) remove local window remove jb remove dd in npc space put atleast 2-3 more npc stations in deeper region in first 0.0 systems make when guy jump to appear on random ss to prevent gate camping make some difference between 1mil sp chars and 70mil sp chars make moon mining - that guys actually need to mine with tower like they mine inbelts instead of just putting tower
"remove standings or put it by skills - lvl 5 five standings rank (20:D)" WTF
"in first 0.0 systems make when guy jump to appear on random ss to prevent gate camping"
I don't know where to start with that one. Apart from the fact it completely bypasses the ability to lock down a system
You have some good ideas in your post, but those two are a little crazy. Local can't be removed until there is an alternative (no one wants to spam the scan button every 5 seconds)
"make some difference between 1mil sp chars and 70mil sp chars"
There is already
Maybe I got trolled, but you are suggesting farmers can just park up and mine moons, then cloak.
Yeah I got trolled
yeh it will disable to lock down only systems like a2- hed-gp doril p3en m-oe etc. nothing else
about moons its just that guy that put tower needs to sit there and mine it not just put tower and collect minerals every week
about local then can remove local one and put only const window or similar but local window kills small gang warfare and all that nice nano roaming gangs that ccp allready kill and its big advantage in any kind of combat. really ******ed. you should send scout and find holstile gang not just see them in local see all that nice red minuses and get bigger blob.
about standings i write wrong. thought like when you learn skill on lvl1 you can add one standign. when you learn on lvl2 you cna add 2 etc..
most wanted inc recruiment video |
Flinx Evenstar
Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:56:00 -
[186]
Ah I see, you want the tower up, but instead of moon harvester they have to put ships out to gather mins.
The standings thing as skill wont change anything, as you will get some guy who just max trains it, and tbh, if someone says on TS "dont shoot <insert corp> it doesn't really matter what standings are set in game.
To add something to the thread, I would like to see sov gained, NOT by the number of towers present, but by the number of pilots present. To occupy space, you would actually have to occupy it.
___
|
Wesley Baird
Caldari BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 02:02:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Tzrailasa Kill an NPC, your alliance gets sov. points. Mine a 'roid, your alliance gets sov. points. Kill a ship/POS belonging to another alliance, you gain some of their sov. points. ...(possible other ways too).
You'd still be able to shoot POS, and a fair amount of that would be done, but it would no longer be the center of the sov. mechanics.
Lots of great ideas! Would really encourage people to use their space.
|
Mistress Suffering
Amarr Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 02:16:00 -
[188]
None of the solutions that say to limit allowable standings are going to work. Groups form regardless of how well the game supports them, its just more annoying without proper support.
Still allowed to see other corps ticker? Then standings are just based off ticker. Or a Goonlike FoF identifier pack, etc... There's plenty of solutions to the same challenge, and the reward for solving it is that you get to form up in bigger groups than everyone else.
|
Milkman Dani
Gallente RuffRyders Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 02:19:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Flinx Evenstar Edited by: Flinx Evenstar on 09/12/2008 02:11:13 Ah I see, you want the tower up, but instead of moon harvester they have to put ships out to gather mins.
The standings thing as skill wont change anything, as you will get some guy who just max trains it, and tbh, if someone says on TS "don't shoot <insert corp>" it doesn't really matter what standings are set in game.
To add something to the thread, I would like to see sov gained, NOT by the number of towers present, but by the number of pilots present. To occupy space, you would actually have to occupy it. Not permanently, just long enough to stamp an average on the map, in the meantime they are a beacon for a fight, and you don't have to shoot a POS (which is good)
Edit: when you said first systems you meant entry points to 0.0, I misunderstood. While that is a much better idea, I still think people should have the ability to lock down any system they chose.
Oh I like that idea Flinx, that's something that would really have regional conflicts, not just multi regional conflicts. Man, that would be cool to see that in action. Then again, if you want those high ends, you better populate them. Would put a whole new meaning to need before greed, or in some cases, greed before need.
It would certainly change the landscape dramatically. I still think getting rid of the local thing is needed, and maybe put in a sorta radar system that shows an unknown icon until it's been seen on scanner or another type of monitoring system for systems. I think that if they could advance the scanner so that it's used more instead of just used whenever we want to scan someone down would be a great leap forward. I mean, each ship has a targetting system, but each ship also has system scanners that work like a dradis in BSG or would work like a conventional radar system. It just make sense that ships would have that sorta capability, if not more so. Why not integrate ship scanners to the tactical overview so that when you use that overview you are able to see what's in the entire system instead of just around you (some sorta camera improvement would need to be made, or allow for a window to come up with that overview so that is lists unknown ship contacts).
The solutions we've all made are great, I mean every single one. I think that CCP should listen, or at least take a look at what we've been dicussing although every year one of these posts come up and just seems to get ignored. I know CCP was looking into it last year sometime, but I (as well as all of us) think they need to take a much closer look.
|
Invendi
Caldari Comply Or Die G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 02:51:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Mistress Suffering None of the solutions that say to limit allowable standings are going to work. Groups form regardless of how well the game supports them, its just more annoying without proper support.
Still allowed to see other corps ticker? Then standings are just based off ticker. Or a Goonlike FoF identifier pack, etc... There's plenty of solutions to the same challenge, and the reward for solving it is that you get to form up in bigger groups than everyone else.
Thinking in context purely for my suggestion, I think that it would be difficult to the point of being pointless.
Lets say standings were reduced to two available possibilities, blue standings and neutral standings. If you also removed the ability to see neutral standings players corp and alliance ticker, how would you identify them as blue?
|
|
Garok Nor
Caldari Blueprint Haus Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 02:57:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Shadoo
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Shadoo
Originally by: Malachon Draco
And none of the young alliances will be able to claim space unless they join one of the powerblocks, that I am certain of.
And yet you've been proven wrong already on this thread -- all you have to do is look at Cloud Ring.
Sorry, regions that don't even yield enough revenue to fuel the towers needed to hold Sov don't really count, especially if they have no strategic significance. Who would even want CR? And the moment one of the powerblocks even looks at it, the alliance there will fold.
Perhaps your answer gives a clue to what is wrong with 0.0 EVE. Can you spot it?
Too many regions are self-supporting and/or too wealthy?
Probably not what you were hinting at, but imagine if the Cloud Ring situation were reversed, and instead of being a small worthless region in a sea of wealthier regions, it was a small wealthy region in a sea of mediocrity/poverty? Small rich constellations surrounded by vast areas of barely profitable space might spice things up a bit,and keep the wealthy blocs from having a whole bunch of support, as everyone around them would want their space.
Course I am over tired, maybe I'm just talkin out my ass. ------------------------------------------------- Items posted by me are in no way a reflection of the policies and/or opinions of my corporation or alliance. {though they maybe really ought to be} |
ardik
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 03:18:00 -
[192]
static complexes, solves every single problem
****, ccp should be ****ing paying me for this solid ****ing gold post
|
Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 09:40:00 -
[193]
The problem is never income or isk , the problem is how ppl/alliances are spending it.
Put x amount of faction death stars , cyno jam the system , cram x amount of titans and you have an impregnable fortress and you are now a power block which is pretty much the case with all power blocks now. The most popular way to beat that is to bring 100000 times then umber of defenders to have a chance of beating it providing the servers hold which is a random roll of the dice .
Imo there has to be a limit on how much you can defend your space , for instance only 1 titan can DD in a sov 3 system and above or introducing new ship classes that can shield/reduce the effect of DD . This threshold will force the power blocks to be always on the attack to secure their space against other would be opponents and not just sit in their space looking for the next soft target or capital gank , EVE should imply the simplest of concepts about attacking is the best way of defense and not the current status which i explained earlier.
|
Lorq vonRay
Caldari Spartan Industrial Manufacturing Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 09:42:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Toffles
high end moons
I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.
like the sound of that, instead of getting a huge amount of isk for what? dumping fuel in a pos once a month u have to mine it
although it would make isk farming easier it would also allow for small gangs to disrupt corp/alliance profits
and only allow cloaks on ships designed for cloaks
GOD WILLS IT! |
Moon Kitten
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 09:45:00 -
[195]
Edited by: Moon Kitten on 09/12/2008 09:46:02 Your cloak nerf can easily be circumvented by using a scout(on a trial account or even on the same account if you feel like it) and and quitting the game as soon as a hostile enters local.
See you on the battlefield
|
Lorq vonRay
Caldari Spartan Industrial Manufacturing Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 09:50:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Moon Kitten Edited by: Moon Kitten on 09/12/2008 09:46:02 Your cloak nerf can easily be circumvented by using a scout(on a trial account or even on the same account if you feel like it) and and quitting the game as soon as a hostile enters local.
See you on the battlefield
not if/when local is removed
GOD WILLS IT! |
Shadowsword
Gallente Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 10:08:00 -
[197]
I had given some tought to the subject months earlier, and came to the following conclusion: The only way to fight the "more is better" trend would be to erase as much has possible the friend/foe identification.
That mean no more standings, anything outside your corp/alliance is hostile.
That mean alliances strictly limited in size.
That mean no possibility to convo someone in 0.0, and mails would be delayed a little. No trades or private contracts, either
Also, to limit out-of-game comunication and coordination, 0.0 systems, constellations and regions would have different names depending of which alliance you're in. That would also open the possibility for alliances to name the systems they own.
Of course, it just won't be possible to prevent completely powerblocs forming via out-of-game forums, etc. But it would make it hard, and alliances in powerblocs wouldn't benefit from each other infrastructure... ------------------------------------------
|
Naridos
Caldari IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 10:18:00 -
[198]
O.O is overrated. Move into low sec.
Quote: You Know you play too much Eve when you get into a car crash and you run away as fast as you can so that you don't get podded.
|
Glengrant
Minmatar TOHA Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 10:30:00 -
[199]
I disagree with op.
Large scale power structures in EVE are highly unstable. BoB has been the exception to the rule for a long time and kudos for surviving several crisis (they *did* get close to failing a couple of times).
EVE is several games rolled into one. An RPG game, an economics game, a small gang combat game, a big fleet combat game and a strategic game.
Deep 0.0 with its outposts and big alliances is the strategic ("risk"-like) part of the game. If you don't want that - stay in unclaimable npc 0.0 space. Plenty of that - no outposts and sov games.
Size will always matter. Whatever CCP does people will organize to protect themselves and get an advantage. People did that before alliances were an integral part of game supported by mechanics.
If you go back in time on this forum you will find many predictions that turned out very wrong, very soon.
Most of the alliances that ever existed are either gone or a shadow of their former incarnations.
Also if you look at the political maps you can see how the map is changing still almost every week - sometimes dramatically.
That's not to say that finetuning is not needed and welcome. But whatever CCP does - people will cluster and claim valuable resources and the worth of those resources will roughly correlate with the size/power of the alliances that claims it. It's human nature. --- Save the forum: Think before you post. ISK BUYER = LOOSER EVE TV- Bring it back!
|
Moon Kitten
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 10:32:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Lorq vonRay
Originally by: Moon Kitten Edited by: Moon Kitten on 09/12/2008 09:46:02 Your cloak nerf can easily be circumvented by using a scout(on a trial account or even on the same account if you feel like it) and and quitting the game as soon as a hostile enters local.
See you on the battlefield
not if/when local is removed
when unicorns can fly I will say see you on the battlefield
|
|
Glengrant
Minmatar TOHA Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 10:53:00 -
[201]
With regard to removing standings: Sorry folks but that's both arbitrary and insane. And people had alliances before they were an ingame mechanic.
CFS, Fountain Alliance, Stain Alliance, Curse Alliance, Phoenix Alliance, etc - all just names people wrote in bio and had a forum - voila - Alliance.
The mechanics make things more convenient - but they are not the reason alliances and blobs exist.
I like the idea (that CCP already plans) of making local a pure comm channel. People only show when they initiate communication.
Scanning can't just be a skill based thing - because SP don't work as a limit beyond the very short term. Enough people will train the necessary skills ASAP that it soon would be ineffective as a limiting factor.
Not much change is needed re scanner. If finding intruders take active effort - it will be more focused. Pilots will do it a lot in primary systems (valuable moons, chokepoints, outposts) - but rarely in the rest of low pop density claimed space. Not showing map statistics in 0.0 either and sneakiness becomes a real option.
Larger fleets should be easier to detect than small gangs. That feels correct and would make small gangs an interesting alternative to big blobs. Make the scanner dependent on "fleet signature". Total signature within a grid will act as a value to compare with scanner distance.
A very big "fleet signature" that's not too many AUs away could then pethaps even show on a passive scan (= u don't hit the button - you get an automatic blip). While small gangs would rarely show up (unless very close) and would need probes to be detected at all.
Even if you want to bring a big fleet to capture the outpost - attacker would be encouraged to move in with many small gangs - while defender would need many smaller gangs to detect what's happening within his territory - or tolerate small intruder camps that "infest" low-pop outlying systems. --- Save the forum: Think before you post. ISK BUYER = LOOSER EVE TV- Bring it back!
|
gordon cain
Minmatar x13 X13 Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 11:00:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Originally by: Minigin problem one... invention.
cheep t2 items are the worst thing that happend to this game. we have total morons flying around in ships with maxed capabilities and being able to replace them in a heartbeat. i am of the opinion that if you cant keep your ship alive you should have some real dificulty replacing it.
problem two... rigs and t1 insurance. no real risk flying a fleet bs. rigs prodomenantly used for extra tanking with no real adverse side effects.
{SNIP}
basically, I would disagree. Before, we would see fleets of lolfit t1 ships flown by players with little pride on the battlefield. Now at least they have a semi-decent fit, even if you still get t2 fitted sniper BS's trying to snip a intercepter that is orbiting them etc. Lower cost means people are willing to bring less crap to the battlefield, which is a good thing.
As for rigs/ships etc, the issue is that there is no real loss in pvp. Insurance means that losses do not really matter, in the same way the old t1 lolfit ships could fight forever without caring aboout loss. Once you add in serious losses, then people logoff/dock or hide like they did back in the Delve war, so its not a easy issue to solve. The real answer is how do you force people to fight and also fight with pride in their fitout?
Yeah for fitting invention has made progress. But not to people that normally would live of the loot.
Before invention if you could loot fiel and get like 20 railguns t2 you would maybe make 200mil+. Now its easier to simply shoot the wrecks.
Invention has ****ed up t2 prices. I still think invention should be available but it should be harder, expensive and time consuming to do it.
G
Never argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience. |
Sionn Klorgh
Minmatar The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 11:14:00 -
[203]
I wish CCP did more with NPCs. I could think up some logic for a system where NPCs could patrol their space, assess enemy fleets, take back stations by killing pos, do mining ops etc. NPC space is a joke right now where these entities are farmed like fish. NPCs could inflict heavy losses on the big alliances if a proper system was coded up (it could evolve over time). CCP could give it objectives or play actions could do it. Say Xalliance farmed Xnpcs the most, it get a tough campaign.
If an alliance develops TOO much infrastructure under a faction influence, it could progressive receive more warfare from these NPCs. Not some chicken**** spawning stuff but REALLY thought out logically offensives. Their strength should be greater than the occupying alliances and a real threat. Some relationship scale would fit in with the entire CCP theme of factional warfare. If you rat them, it should go down but even building in their space should cause friction.
|
Bodica
Caldari Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 11:39:00 -
[204]
Edited by: Bodica on 09/12/2008 11:43:22 Eve wants to be like a simulator, a game that is near what things could happen in reality. politics economy logistic everything is great for me... The powerblocks aren't the problems here, like a lot have said, they've allway existed they will allways exist even without standing.
But, I'm gonna give my part here with my own experience in 0.0... As anyone know in CAOD, TCF is in Deklein ATM, and OMG how it's boring, I mean we just stay in a system 12h doing nothing as Goods doesn't want to defend (it's not a smack it's their choice I'm not bringing **** in a good topic). But the point here, it's how long and boring it is to take a place even if there is NO DEFENSE AT ALL. In reality you take a city, you take it okay it's yours ./ I think things don't move fast and it's why ppl thinks that the game don't move... The POS warfare is a broken system, you pew pew the tower and the enemy has 24h to prepare to defend... If things move faster, there will be mutch more change in eve univers... I'm 100% for the thing that you could build "forteress" even with many more diferent moduls but when an alliance take down your forteress its over... I don't understand why we must wait 6 DT to hold a system... that's crazy and boring.
PS : I just want to add that I don't think that add new 0.0 regions would change things I mean, ATN you could do 10 jumps in 0.0 without encounter a single player...
|
Elfaen Ethenwe
Caldari Infusion.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 11:50:00 -
[205]
endeva.... err i mean bruce.
You do come out with some **** at times :p
There is nothing wrong with powerblocs, there IS something wrong with how they can dominate so effectivly.
<><><>Together we gank, devided we pop<><><><>
|
Torhas
Gallente the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 11:59:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Sionn Klorgh I wish CCP did more with NPCs. I could think up some logic for a system where NPCs could patrol their space, assess enemy fleets, take back stations by killing pos, do mining ops etc. NPC space is a joke right now where these entities are farmed like fish. NPCs could inflict heavy losses on the big alliances if a proper system was coded up (it could evolve over time). CCP could give it objectives or play actions could do it. Say Xalliance farmed Xnpcs the most, it get a tough campaign.
If an alliance develops TOO much infrastructure under a faction influence, it could progressive receive more warfare from these NPCs. Not some chicken**** spawning stuff but REALLY thought out logically offensives. Their strength should be greater than the occupying alliances and a real threat. Some relationship scale would fit in with the entire CCP theme of factional warfare. If you rat them, it should go down but even building in their space should cause friction.
THIS!
And about the "no man's land" between BS and Capital ships, let see what T3 BS will propose, its maybe what CCP plan to do with them. |
BruceLee CRO
Caldari Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 12:04:00 -
[207]
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe Edited by: El**** Ethenwe on 09/12/2008 11:58:34 endeva.... err i mean bruce.
You do come out with some **** at times :p
There is nothing wrong with powerblocs, there IS something wrong with how they can dominate so effectivly.
but i still love you <3
mine post was mainly about small gang warfare pvp cos most of ppl that writing here dont have a clue about that and whats ccp ****ed. if you wanna more factions IN EVE boost small gang warfare pvp and allow smaller alliances to do some dmg instead of - we cant do **** we need to blue someone. **** like removing local getting nano back and few other changes would give hope to smaller alliances that they dont need to nap someone to have fun tat they can do dmg on thier own. i know that cos i staterd mine allaince like that and basicly invent allaince roaming. |
BruceLee CRO
Caldari Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 12:05:00 -
[208]
Edited by: BruceLee CRO on 09/12/2008 12:05:33
|
tikki
Caldari Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 12:06:00 -
[209]
Firsty...as a person not in a big alliance it's heart warming to see that even members of those power blocks recognise change would be good for EVE.
As many have already stated changes so that small corps could live in NPC 0.0 and disrupt the lives of those in conquerable space.
In my distant past with NBSI and then D2 livingin Branch we had tretchorous trips to get to empire with raiding parties camping gates. I'd love to see that feasible again.
To take the jump bridge discussion 1 step further, I don't have a problem with alliances being able to have these but it does make travel almost risk free for them, especially with cyno jammers.
I would like to see Jump Bridges become completly seperated from POSes and be more like stargates. Alliances can put up a Bridge and anchor sentries to the bridge to help defend it and attackers. Only alliance members can use the bridge however it can be disabled, as can it's sentries.
This would mean that alliances cannot travel risk free, they have to defend their bridge network...and smaller alliance can really disrupt a bigger alliances ability to move through vast amounts of space quickly. |
ollobrains
Gallente 5th Front enterprises CryoGenesis Mining Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 12:17:00 -
[210]
these new unstable wormholes should lead us to random systems , find one in jita and end up in 0.0. perhaps limit them to gangs of 10 and perhaps max size of battleship. Perhaps a cyno jammer and system ownership in 0.0 might reduce such wormholes by say 80% chance of occouring but would make it random to slip in behind enemy lines to rat but they would be totally random and u would have no idea where u would end up.
Would give alliances something to think about in controlling their space, carebears and pirates alike could take the risk. Perhaps make em hardish to find and a limit of say 5 at any one time in any constellation.
Would spice things up
|
|
Fitz Chivalry
Gallente eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 13:14:00 -
[211]
Remove the titan DD and nerf remote repping so its actually possible to pick targets off out of a blob without your own blob and there could be one big powerblock ruling the whole of 0.0 for all I care.
|
McKinlay
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 14:10:00 -
[212]
I endorse the idea previously mentioned regarding removing local and DED mails.
This should be exchanged for better scanning and surveillance mechanics.
|
Ragenar
Minmatar Morbid Obssesion Brutally Organized Ruthless Gangsters
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 16:18:00 -
[213]
If ccp realy want to buff small gnag pvp, then a few changes can be made for us small gang lovers whilst not affecting the power houses.
- Rapier web strength bonus - Camping a gate with light gang is now very dangerous and un productive. If a BS or hac jumps in getting him webbed and bumped of gate is not only extremely difficult, in the fact that we ve got to keep him bumped for well over 2 or 3 mins. But extremely dangerus to light kit that can get alphaed by taking the risk of head on charging an oppenent. Not a problem to large gangs, who can alpha the fek out of the kit before it gets to the gate, but the 60% web bonus is killing small gate camps
- Rat Agression - if a guy is ratting in a belt and apon seeing a hositle enter local, logs or safes then logs he should be privy to the same 15mins agression timer that follows a pvper logging off after a fight. After all he was agressing a target, and therefore shoudl not be protected by the log off that some isk farmers seem privy to use. They should use there heads not loop holes to hide.
- Jump Bridge becon - if i enter local in a small gang it would be nice to either see a becon or have an information warning by the sovernty information that the system i just enter contains a jump bridge, and therefore is dangerous to me
- Increase in the worht of low sec ore/rats making low sec a more viable risk for people to want to live in. Currently low sec is not worht the risk to live in isk wise unless your a pvp enthusiast or a die hard gate camper. The value of belts and complexs in low sec makes them nia on un wanted.
These are my suggestions for a non evasive way to quickly boost small gang pvp
|
prefectro
Minmatar Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 16:48:00 -
[214]
Edited by: prefectro on 09/12/2008 16:48:41 Whatever move is made (if any) should be gradual. Agree on something small, execute the change, analyze the change through numbers, then decide if further changes need to made. The game is not in a state where it is so bad that you need to turn everything upside down.
From what I have been reading I would say JBs should at least be looked at. The intentions were good (giving an alliance an ability to defend borders), but it might have gone a little too far as it is possible to hold on huge blocs of space by moving multiple alliances across long stretches of space. Maybe limit a JB so only that alliance can use it or limit the jumping so it can only be in one region.
And it is nice to see a relatively peaceful CAOD thread where even enemies can agree on some things.
Having no local has been an idea floated around forever. That would definitely bring some new dynamics. If this was done it should be limited so it either required that you had to refresh to see local, limited so you can only see those within your ships scanning range, or possibly time delayed.
Sovereignty is another one that has really given the one defending a boost. Instead of getting rid of this though I would say go the other way. Make it so Sovereignty happens faster. This could give a smaller alliance a foothold into a region that they can then fortify. This would make it harder for any single alliance to take on a whole lot of space.
|
Kalissa
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:08:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Kalissa on 09/12/2008 17:09:14 The one idea I really think would be very simple to implement would be to remove the DED mails when a pos is attacked.
This would make it so anyone who holds space would have to actually patrol it to make sure things stay safe. Larger alliances would have to work harder to hold space and you could see some quite nice fights kick off because of people being willing to take more chances. I also think removing local as a tactical tool would be a good move too, this would work well for both the attacking force and defending one depending on the circumstances, of course improvements would have to be made to scanning, maybe introducing some kind of radar module.
Very good ideas all around though, it's obviously something a lot of people seem to realise is a concern.
|
Bad Borris
Caldari Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:23:00 -
[216]
Anything that harms the wider political story of eve would not be a good thing despite the less than attractive consequences of blob warfare. Having said that, removing or adjusting local chat is long overdue.
|
O Thief
Amarr The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:29:00 -
[217]
some really good ideas in this thread
* removing DED POS attack mails * removing instant local (ie you only appear if you talk, should also remove most local smack in 0.0 where displaying your presence may not be wanted) * removing DD's (perhaps replaced with a focused doomsday capable of one-shotting capitals with a 45 sec ROF or something - think Death Star weapon)
ALSO
* make moon resources finite, so they deplete and then respawn at another random moon after they have been mined out
high-end moons really have to go the way of complexes in this regard, the current situation is untenable and quite ridiculous
|
Princess Jodi
Gallente Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:29:00 -
[218]
I disagree with the OP. There will always be people who disagree with the major powerblocks and come up with an attractive alternative plan. Sometimes this plan succeeds, sometimes it fails but there are always new ideas cropping up.
Here's my take on some personal history:
My first corp was an Empire corp. We wanted to go to 0.0 and made several attempts. Plenty of options were available: Be Industrialists for Alliance, Rent, PVP or just know the right person. Even tried just ignoring the powerblocks and taking a chunk. Overall the plan failed but individuals learned alot and moved on. Ashamed to admit it but Peoke started his rise to power with that corp. Say what you want about Smash, but they succeeded in holding space for years without any powerblock support.
My second corp wandered around alliances for a year before we had enough of the bull you get with established powers. We decided to join a small alliance that we could help grow and eventually take over. As the age of Capitals was upon us we elected to grab a bit of Drone lands on the day it opened, with the intent of building caps while being very low profile. We had to blue MM and Razor (D2 early) but were independant.
This plan had mixed success as we did hold space for 2 years. But as the alliance was based on CareBearing and the distance to enemies was too great we got soft. We fought to restore the North after MC's Steamroller and in the first Bob war, abiet as a very minor player. Many corps and individuals got rich.
At that time other groups took a stab at greatness. OutBreak, Insurgency and Privateers all tried living outside the powerblocks and also had mixed success.
On the combat side, the mantra in Delve was that Cynojammed systems with Titans were undefeatable. Mainly due to CCP's improvements with lag this is no longer true. Players also developed different strategies which made the undefeatable beatable.
During MAX, so many different strategies were applied until the NC found one that worked. That is where established powerblocks fail: they have a pretty rigid strategy based on their area of power. We learned to live with DD's and Titans became more Targets than Terrors. MM jumpbridged us so much I fougot how to use a normal gate. Iron learned that turtling up don't work forever.
These type of innovations and audacious new alliances will continue to breed in Eve. Most will fail, but next year's superpower may burst on the scene totally unannounced.
|
DrAtomic
Gallente Atomic Heroes Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:19:00 -
[219]
Originally by: prefectro
From what I have been reading I would say JBs should at least be looked at. The intentions were good (giving an alliance an ability to defend borders), but it might have gone a little too far as it is possible to hold on huge blocs of space by moving multiple alliances across long stretches of space. Maybe limit a JB so only that alliance can use it or limit the jumping so it can only be in one region.
This is a good start imho; game mechanics should not encourage alliance coalitions. Eve has gone from corperations wanting to work together for bigger blobbage being given the ability to create alliances to alliance coalitions all for the greater blob.
Removing local doesnot encourage small gang play, it encourages blobbing, simply because in the long term nobody will be ratting/mining in 0.0 anymore unless it's well defended blue space (i.e. the kinda space the blobs control). Asking for local to be removed because you hate ratters safespotting is asking for ganking love (blobbing the solo pve-er).
Also if local gets removed and the scout role goes further, pvp will become even more boring sessions of waiting for a scout to find a gank target or other gang. You'll see increased gate camping as a result with in its turn leads to blob on blob again.
For the record, yes I hate it as well if i miss a gank but the current system is fairly balanced where a skilled player can get out in time most of the time but still can get caught with his pants down by a skilled scout. The issue we all see way to often is a certain hack ratters often use.
A sort of radar tool, showing you standing based information would be nicer then the silly localchat but efficivelly it would lead to the same information you have at the moment. The real argument behind wanting to get rid of local is that of being able to find easy ganks. The so called small gang warfare is nothing less then a babyblob since you'll end up doing 3-12 versus 1-3 pve-ers.
The issue of small gang pvp is the same issue as the blob issue. Solve the blob issue and small gang pvp could be viable as well.
An anti blob solution could be that all ships have some sort of basic eccm which prevents more then an x number (different per shiptype) non friendly locks on it. This would reward the smart target callers and smaller gangs over blobs. There is a maximum number of targets a FC can call out (squad 1 target 1 prefecto in a megathron, target 2 Oveur polaris frig, secondary Henk, squad 2 target 1 etc etc etc). Since this wont work it will come down to multiple small gangs working together each working at their own targets, however will end up finding targets unlockable thus creating more balance between the outnumbered blob and the major blob.
Removing DED pos mails make sense, with maybe giving people the option to fit a distress beacon that calls home (sends mail) if it hits reinforced. - - -
Originally by: CCP Wrangler If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
|
Crux Australis
Minmatar A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:25:00 -
[220]
I still think that until an entity like bob or gs (for instance) will be able to control *more than one* region at a time we will always be back at square 1.
I vouched this concern in my 2+ years of bob militancy, when we used to have 5 (6? 7?) regions and I am still convinced of this (fwiw, I was one of the few thinking that the introduction of DDD was one of the worst things that ever happened to eve while having the only (or one of the very few) actively used in combat titans... so maybe I need my head checked or something, but hey :P ).
One badass powfoo alliance should never ever be able to *effectively* control more than one region at a time, smaller but strong alliances should be limited to one, maybe 2 constellations, little alliances (or strong corps) should be limited to one system / a couple of systems.
In this way there would
How to do it? Changes in game mechanics? A different distribution of 0.0 riches? Radical changes at the root of EvE? Many ideas, some of which were really valid, have been thrown around over the years. Our CCP overlords have the power for making or breaking EvE, one can only hope that they will act first or later.
|
|
Saltire
Caldari Sekura-Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:36:00 -
[221]
* Make dyspro and prom moons the same frequency as common minerals, the market will take care of the price so it will always sell for enough to make a small profit from mining it, seed it in moons all over lowsec and 0.0.
* remove jump bridges
* Intorduce fuel pelletes (see ideas and discussion) to make pos logistics easier, then massively increase the cost of robotics, mechanical parts and coolant (since the base price is controlled by npc), more expensive to fuel pos should reduce the size of empires (in map presence at least, may lead to slight increase in price of moon minerals)
*make titan a mobile system assault platform of somekind, you can dock in it, clone in it, log in it, but it cannot DD or bridge ships, it can jump with them inside though (limited number, testing needed) + insert huge tank, can cyno around like normal.
*make the distance from empire to lowsec and lowsec to 0.0 something crazy like 40 lightyears to stop people with JF's getting an easy ride to 0.0 core systems. Obviously the 40LY jump can be done with any ship using the stargates instead.
|
Armadaus Baldwin
Gallente International House of PWNCakes B.L.A.C.K.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:42:00 -
[222]
Dynamically changing enviroment?!
|
Captain Blackpatch
Caldari Colonial Fleet Services Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:22:00 -
[223]
Edited by: Captain Blackpatch on 09/12/2008 19:22:30 Proposal
Go...support it....maybe we can get it pushed a little |
Bluebear8
Gallente Orion Ore International
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:58:00 -
[224]
Where is the linkage explaining removal of our LOCAL window? You talk like this WILL HAPPEN.
Removing LOCAL Window - This will make undocking more dangerous? This will increase risk to inhabitants trying to make isk in their "home systems"? Maybe CCP should consider removing the ASTEROID BELTS to reduce lag in 0.0? Aside from large protected mining ops, would you risk mining without a LOCAL Window? Would you risk ratting or trading? So, these activities must now stay in Empire, right?
If we want more people migrating to 0.0, how does this help? Many are very accustomed to the LOCAL Window feature, and IMHO many will complain loudly if the LOCAL Window suddenly disappears as part of an "upgrade". Of course, if you don't want your 100 man fleet to know there are 500 REDS in system with you, this is a very good thing. Only the FC will receive intell from scanner?
What will then tell me there are 60 reds passing into the system ... BEFORE I undock after buying an item, dropping off goods/ores/loot/changing ships for defense fleet/etc.
OR, if we aren't supposed to use Stations in 0.0 anymore, perhaps we should also remove Asteroid Belts, Moons, AND Stations. This will reduce lag. We can all live out of a friendly neighborhood POS?
p.s. - I like the LOCAL Window. What will replace the function? Linkage?
|
Graalum
Caldari Interstellar eXodus Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:00:00 -
[225]
more npc regions/areas, more stations in current npc regions, particularily venal, outer ring, great wildlands, and maybe geminate, expanding the npc regions in these areas (by adding new constellations) would allow more new moons, and help restore balance to the market.
disallow jump bridges between regions
alternatively, make sov 4 a requirement for jump bridges, and maybe give them increased range.
|
Lallante
Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:25:00 -
[226]
People have been saying this, or something very similar, since the days of early release and the CA vs SA/FA power blocks. Its no truer now than it was then, and the continuous flux of alliances in the interim, not the mention the huge amounts of fun had by all, demonstrate its inaccuracy.
Lall - THE Vocal Minority - Reikoku
|
Dangerously Cheesey
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:53:00 -
[227]
The problem with suggestions geared toward making controlling vast amounts of 0.0 more difficult is the fact that most of 0.0 is utter and complete sh*t. The average player can make more isk per hour in empire running L4 missions with none of the risk of 0.0 Most of non npc sov 0.0 is a vast wasteland of worthless systems that see very little to zero activity. The only thing that even remotely begins to swing the balance in favor of owning 0.0 are the r64 moons and those are distributed in a comically uneven pattern region to region. Want to make owning multiple regions more difficult? Fine, but you better make 0.0 better first.
|
harry beanbag
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 21:03:00 -
[228]
1. Removale of the local window will cause an increase of metagamming. Without the means to acuratly obtain intel on hostile forces, the player base will move more into alliance infiltration and personal website hacking. You would get far greater info inside the enemy gang then trying to guese how many ships on the scanner are actualy piloted.
2. Remove the ability of jump bridges to link into other regions. I like graalums idea of haveing them get better range but can only link between sov 4's inside the region. I also think titans should be forced to jump through with the stuff they open the portal for.
3. High end moons are the real problem with eve. This is probably the 1 single reason alliances do so much of a land grab and take space they will never use. The reward for holding such high ends is too much. I say crash the market. Either introduce a ton of new high end moons in empire or lowsec, make them run out after say a months time of mining, have hauler spawns in missions and npc rat's drop them, and/or make it that you have to manualy mine the moon with a ship of some sort. The number one motivation for human beings is greed and that is extremly evident here in eve. People would rather be rich ingame than have fun ingame.
4. Introduction of more NPC 00 space. This is a must. It will allow more of the player base to leave empire without joining in some giant nap fest. It will allow more players more freedom and mobility to do what they want to do. They wont have to be concerned with pos warfare anymore if they choose too. I would expect a number of new regions to be introduced and expansion of existing areas.
5. New ships or new tech need to be given to the playerbase to combat the capital blob. there needs to be some sort of reward for not having 500 people to fight 100. Some say this is a diplomatic issue but i believe its a game tech issue. My suggestion: when a players ship explodes, it does a massive area effect damage on other players ships/drones. This will force people to spread out and make it more difficult to succesfully blob someone.
6. A fee to set corporations/alliances standings. This is a wonderfull idea. Hell we have to pay to declare war, lets pay to declare hostilities/friendship.
7. The most important thing is to get the newer players out into 00 to replace all us old dogs that will be leaving the game. This should be ccp's #1 priority after fixing lag.
tldr
|
Illiya
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 21:07:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Dangerously Cheesey The problem with suggestions geared toward making controlling vast amounts of 0.0 more difficult is the fact that most of 0.0 is utter and complete sh*t. The average player can make more isk per hour in empire running L4 missions with none of the risk of 0.0 Most of non npc sov 0.0 is a vast wasteland of worthless systems that see very little to zero activity. The only thing that even remotely begins to swing the balance in favor of owning 0.0 are the r64 moons and those are distributed in a comically uneven pattern region to region. Want to make owning multiple regions more difficult? Fine, but you better make 0.0 better first.
absolutely. alliances wouldn't NEED to own that much space if the space was actually worth owning. Most of 0.0 is complete crap. entire swaths of -.01 trusec? Really? Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Mistress Suffering
Amarr Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 21:09:00 -
[230]
Originally by: O Thief
* removing DED POS attack mails
Just wanted to call this out as a bad idea. Right now even with DED messages, a large number of POS sieges last about 10 minutes. Welcome to EVE in the day when alliances can toss 20-40 dreads at a time.
Worse yet, it probably happened during whatever timeslot your guys are least active.
Right now the fact that you get a message gives you a small amount of opportunity to jump there and get to work if you're well prepared. But honestly it takes amazing coordination to move fast enough.
|
|
O Thief
Amarr The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 21:42:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Mistress Suffering
Originally by: O Thief
* removing DED POS attack mails
Just wanted to call this out as a bad idea. Right now even with DED messages, a large number of POS sieges last about 10 minutes. Welcome to EVE in the day when alliances can toss 20-40 dreads at a time.
Worse yet, it probably happened during whatever timeslot your guys are least active.
Right now the fact that you get a message gives you a small amount of opportunity to jump there and get to work if you're well prepared. But honestly it takes amazing coordination to move fast enough.
well in cynojammed systems you have to use BS to shoot the jammer first
if you fail to notice that and react in time, more fool you
it means you have to patrol your space or be active within it, to be able to react
in the era of vast swathes of 0.0 being empty, held only for a the high-end moons and controlled by a jump bridge network, thats really no bad thing :)
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 21:55:00 -
[232]
Theres alot of pretty good suggestions in this thread, that molded together could make a huge change to 0.0 space.
There are alotta ****ty suggestions in this thread, but to be fair, they're pretty much all form non sov/space holding entities, Go Figure
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
harry beanbag
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 22:08:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Straight Chillen Theres alot of pretty good suggestions in this thread, that molded together could make a huge change to 0.0 space.
There are alotta ****ty suggestions in this thread, but to be fair, they're pretty much all form non sov/space holding entities, Go Figure
its because you have something to lose and you would not sacrafice your own wealth for the betterment of the community as a whole. But thats ok i would have the same thoughts if i was in your position. Try to look at these not as a space holder but a person leaving empire for the first time to 00. This is what is gonna be needed over the coming years as people like us leave the game. The old gaurd should not be the only ones recieving the benefits of 00 and they shouldnt be able to subjugate the newer players.
|
blkmajik
Minmatar ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 22:08:00 -
[234]
The problem with trying to charge for or remove standings is that it just encourages people to merge instead of NAP. This makes things more of an old boy's club than it already is. The result would be switching from having huge coalitions, to just having huge alliances where the strongest of the bunch will require the smallest to be absorbed instead of NAP'd. You are treating the symptom, not the cause, and the result will make the situation even worse.
|
harry beanbag
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 22:28:00 -
[235]
Originally by: blkmajik The problem with trying to charge for or remove standings is that it just encourages people to merge instead of NAP. This makes things more of an old boy's club than it already is. The result would be switching from having huge coalitions, to just having huge alliances where the strongest of the bunch will require the smallest to be absorbed instead of NAP'd. You are treating the symptom, not the cause, and the result will make the situation even worse.
good point.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 22:39:00 -
[236]
Edited by: DNSBLACK on 09/12/2008 22:40:58 Edited by: DNSBLACK on 09/12/2008 22:40:36 Use to be an entire alliance had to work together to live and survive in 0.0 now it can be done with a small team and moon mining. Use to be owning a station was worth more then owning a high end moon. use to be a alliance was fighting with alliance next door for space not moons
If you like increase 0.0 taffic you can by eliminating jump bridges. Hell they not only made it easy to go form 0.0 to low sec they even made the only in game gate safe by all the nerfs and increase size. Then they lowered the liq oz cost for the bridges now every tom dik and hary use them. i read in one of the post that we should move in and camp another gate, well that would be cool but they usually have a jump bridge in the region system and just go by you.
Now i know that most alliance use jump fieghters and rouq and orca to move raw goods and it wont hinder them in the least bit with cyno field routes in place. But the general population will have to go back to using the game gates.
Another idea would be to make it so moon material cant be cyno jumped period, only astriod material and drone poo can.
Owning space should be tough and a challenge you should have to live in it and use it to get the benifits of it. With all the moon mineral bull**** and easy logistics most alliance space is abandon and not used like it was a year and half ago. hell most alliance hate owning outpost they are nothing more then a burden. It use to be an outpost was worth more then a small POS on a high value moon not anymore. They need to make out post worth more as far as isk making ability and damp down the high end moons. I know alchemy will save the day well in all honesty it is about as useful as invention. Inventing a BPC and owning a BPO are to different animals and the only thing worth inventing is a BPC that does not have a BPO in game. Well then again the ships suck for those BPC so no one wants them anyway.
There are alot of things we can do but it doesnt look like they want to make it tough on the powerblocks they want to make it easier. You want more fighting go back to the days of outpost building and not moon mining. Hell i can remeber when a outpost going up was a big deal just getting the stuff there was a challenge, now days they load it all up and get it done in one trip.
Unless this game make a dramatic change to alliance life like they did to nanos you will see this game get boring as hell.
Sorry for the poor spelling
DNSBlack
|
Draahk Chimera
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 23:21:00 -
[237]
I like Draahk Chimera's idea on page 2
|
Von Kleist
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 00:42:00 -
[238]
Edited by: Von Kleist on 10/12/2008 00:42:34 Not sure if its already been mentioned yet in the thread, I havent read all of it, but I had a few ideas of what could be done. If more of the 0.0 space brought under NPC sov, in a pattern of breaking up the conquerable 0.0 into more isolated pockets, continuous jump bridges from one end of the map to the other wouldnt be possible if done correctly. You would also have the added bonus of more things to do and reasons to actually spend time in the space other than afk mine or rat, there could be new factions introduced, there wouldnt be pos spamming in the areas. I dont think most would complain if the previous owners could take down all the fuel and time eating deathstars and leave up the mining/research ones. The switch from conquerable to npc sov wouldnt affect profits in that regard at least.
I believe it would be necessary for balance to improve the value of the remaining conquerable sov areas, but being that there would be less of it to have to pos fight over, it wouldnt be as much of a grind for territory control and the scale of combat would be more confined and concentrated to these outer areas. And being that the conq. areas are seperated logistically, it may deter large entities from trying to spread out to the degree that is seen at this point.
If there was a little more creativity with the developers in regard to the actual story of eve and the playerbase, there could be more player inclusive storyline scenarios possible on a larger scale than is seen at the moment. Presently, there are fixed locations with non-interactable npc's that you can get a set varity of missions from. Or you can do the factional warfare and have a group of random people get together and fight a group of random people over some landmark in not-really-conquerable space. Theres really no ramifications or reward in this fighting, because from what I have seen so far, the players involved dont really have much to gain from it, nor does it seem to have much effect on the storyline or the space actually involved.
|
Von Kleist
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 00:43:00 -
[239]
cont.
Currently, the story and history of 0.0 has been dictated and created wholly by the large alliances that are in control of the space. What happens out there has no real bearing to the game outside of how it may influence the nearby high sec markets due to importation/exportation. I believe several years ago when I started playing, there were a few attempts at having human controlled npc's get involved in the game, with some storyline reasoning behind them. Two instances I can recall are the contest of shipping a freightor of materials to some location for a reward of a mothership, which I think LV? won, and a time where a dev? playing as a Serpentis Nyx pilot came into syndicate to meet with goons who then jumped him for laughs.
Now, I know these two episodes came with complaints from people, and didn't end up working out the way the devs planned Im sure, but these kinds of events could have been used for some seriously meaningful story-affecting scenarios that could be totally player influenced and rewarding to those involved. If there were more (and more creative) devs in the same scenario, the destruction of the Serpentis Nyx could have instigated a full military invasion of the area by serpentis, and, say, people with high standing (the mission runners) that chose to come with the dev controlled serpentis fleet, could have the opportunity to help them police the area/pick a fight/etc for some sort of reward (standings boost, faction related reward, etc). It really wouldnt be too hard, you would just have to have devs who could think on their feet as far as how the story would progress when unexpected things happen. If nothing else, it would give some initative for the mission runners to come out and fight, and the people involved, as the history of the game is written, could feel like they had some involvement in. That in its own could be reward enough for some. Just a couple ideas.
sorry [blocks of text]
|
AonChilo
Amarr The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 04:19:00 -
[240]
A lot of the 0.0 pvp skill has also been consolidated and its the same small Eve null sec population in 0.0 where ever you go. I have played this game in Catch, Curse, Syndicate, Fountain, Deklein and now live in Providence. I see a lot of the same people in all regions, same group of PVPers, just seems like everyone is rotating. I'm not a RL multiculturalism activist, so ironic I say this, but Eve null sec needs more diversity. And when your alliance/corp fails, its always a challenge to find a new home, where you can fit in and have at least a few corp m8s on par with you skill/experience and online same time as you. Seems like having the right connections is just a little too important these days. Then again, I am NA timezone so the bar is always higher for me there, since NA presence is a little quiet in Eve.
|
|
Revolution Rising
Minmatar Venture Research and Resources Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 05:21:00 -
[241]
Nerf Sov - hardcap limit on sov systems (perhaps a skill?), make 0.0 twice as big.
VRR Recruitment
|
Manfred Sideous
Amarr H A V O C Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 05:42:00 -
[242]
Moons Drastically increase the power/cpu & fuel usage of moon harvester add modifier that drastically reduces a pos's fuel storage capability. So by employing the use of it lowers the defense increases fuel cost and maintnence of tower. Make moon materials mineable by players in a new class of mining ship. Thereby increasing income potential of players in 0.0. Add known moon materials to loot tables of npc spawns. Also to help negate market need. The general premise is to put the isk back in the players hand for measurable effort versus litte effort of current status quo.
Jumpbridges & DD's. Cannot jumpbridge within 5au of npc/empire space. Cannot DD in a cyno jammed system. 100% alignment time increase for 60 seconds after DD. Jumpbridges can only be placed in station systems or a adjacent side system.
The cap blob
Introduce new ship classes. Field artillary - super high dmg terrible tracking little tank and maneuvering capabilities.No jump engine. Cannot move while in fire mode (think short duration siege) Design to kill unsupported capitals. Able to engage upto 5au from target Cannot target independantly requires on grid friendly to laze target (new roll for cov ops) Sub - cloaking platform able to dish out massive volley dmg to dread carriers with a very very high refire rate 60 second or more. Slow maneuvering can warp while cloaked.
General game mechanics
Local chat - charecters do not appear in local unless they speak or a war dec is in place. On board scanner reports all boarded ships in local but can only lock on to signature within 14.3 au for directional purposes. Ded mails- only in station systems in non-npc regions Standings - cost on a escalating scale same as war decs. In regards to blue standings a cost modifier based on entity size being blued. Alliance size - the bigger the higher the monthly maintnence fee. This will help to negate napblocs from merging to avoid standings fees. Will also create more teamwork and space usage since coupled with my moon mining idea income won't stream without effort. Neither should safety in numbers or standings. Sov mechanics - sov can be lost or maintained by the number of npc's killed in a constellation. Empire missions - nerf payout 0.0 missions - boost payout Npc space - increase/add
Ccp ill be willing to entertain a job offer... Kthnx ______________________________
|
Felix Dzerzhinsky
Caldari Wreckless Abandon G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:24:00 -
[243]
I don't think the solution lies in new ship classes and more firepower - because anti-capital blob options in warfare will be available to everyone. . .and fleets will just have those ships added into the frey - giving more power to larger alliances.
What needs to change is the way POSs work. They take too much time to put up and take down, and the whole fuel mechanism is off as is the pos mail that warns of low fuel (it should be very spacific about how much time is left and such). Anchoring and Onlining, offlining and unanchoring should be per person, not per pos - this alone means that multiple people can work together to put up and take down a pos. Sov. PoSs should be on planets and not on moons and so on.
POSs have ruined the game imo. . .and it needs to get back to ships popping, not POSs ----
ECCM is a Counter-measure not a defense. |
Aristrat
Amarr SRBI Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:29:00 -
[244]
Originally by: harry beanbag 1. Removale of the local window 2. jump bridges 3. High end moons are the real problem with eve 4. Introduction of more NPC 00 space 5. New ships or new tech ... 6. A fee to set corporations/alliances standings 7. The most important thing is to get the newer players out into 00
1. Did you tried to roam around? Did you get some fight? These days no one wants to fight if numbers are equal or even worse, higher but still similar. We are usually roaming through 3 or 4 regions for night and sad fact is that all those gangs are out there to get easy kills, not to confront each other. You may say this is chestbeating but I can assure you...90% of gangs trying to run away from us at first sight of our scout. They usually get into fight only with drastically superior numbers, and funny thing is that most of them disengage even then. So remove local as it is today and you will get lot of fun.
2. Why JBs are such a problem?! Does everyone think that people jumping around all the time and no one using gates anymore? Do you think that your PVP experience will improve because of few easy hauler kills? I can explain this only by fact that too few people know what is the true meaning of logistic's hell. Considering PVP, jump bridges add new dimension, complexity and dynamics into battlefield. Thus it's good.
3. MOONS are real mystery I simply can not believe what bunch of people are saying about high end moons. Should they be all around? Popping like mushrooms after the rain? NO! In empire, so everyone can have one dyspro moon for himself? LOL. Get out from secure space and spill some sweat and blood (yours and someone's else) and acquire one or as many as you like. It is really easy thing to do...what a hell....look all those noobs who have those and don't deserve them. I will say this in less sarcastic way: There has to be some kind of reward for such effort of holding space and being well organized corporation/alliance in 0.0. Who is not able and competent or brave enough, doesn't deserve to have all those shiny things. 70% of people in EVE have never left empire space but they are talking all the time how owning dyspro moons is injustice. Get out and get some!
4. Introduce more NPC 0.0 space, or any kind of space and you will have demographic disaster in universe of EVE. 0.0 is underpopulated right now and with more space you will get aproximately 1 man per constellation. I do not want to make 50 jumps to meet 1 man! People have to fight for resources and for space and if you introduce enough of everything for everyone we will all become one big happy family and soon die of boredom. So, space, just like dysprosium and promethium moons or any other valuable thing in EVE or RL... has high value because of low quantity and accessibility, and it has to remain scarce or there will be not any challenges anymore....only flat line...
5. INTERESTING IDEA... me like it
6. One more bulls**t! This is social, MMORPG, strategy, economical, tactical, political game, not first person shooter. Not everyone around are monsters to kill ... some of those monsters are your friends! So please, stop the crap with standings, play as you want and let other people to play as they like. I don't mind if you want to shoot your blues. Diplomacy/politics is one of the main component of this game as it is in RL. People are playing this game on different/multiple levels/ways and there is much more then just pressing the buttons.
IDIOT = ancient greek word for man who doesn't take part or have any interest in politics. So...
7. No one is preventing all those people from empire to leave their secure space and go into big adventure that 0.0 is. No one but themselves! There are many possible ways to do so. Somehow it's strange, but I believe that huge number of empire dwellers are satisfied with their position and kind of gameplay. I went into low sec as 3 days old char and in 0.0 after 1 month...
|
Varrakk
Caldari Phantom Squad Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:43:00 -
[245]
Root of the problem is Moon Mining. It makes too much money, and too little effort involved. Moon Mining should be a supplemental income, not the primary.
If you go back to pre-invention where Moon ore wasnt in such high demands, taxes in stations was a major alliance income plus industry. 0.0 economy is defective.
I have posted it many times before. Let moons be depletable. Once empty, it spawns again on another moon at random. Also move the Harvester outside the POS shield, so it can be raided.
Another issue is Cyno Jammers, it should be last line of defense instead of primary. Give it a quick online timer and once online the POS drains fuel like a mofo.
|
Han Lector
Amarr R.U.S.T. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 08:01:00 -
[246]
Edited by: Han Lector on 10/12/2008 08:16:00 First you say this...
Originally by: Aristrat
1. Did you tried to roam around? Did you get some fight? These days no one wants to fight if numbers are equal or even worse, higher but still similar. We are usually roaming through 3 or 4 regions for night and sad fact is that all those gangs are out there to get easy kills, not to confront each other. They usually get into fight only with drastically superior numbers, and funny thing is that most of them disengage even then.
You complain you can't find anyone to shoot and you complain that people will not engage unless they can get easy ganks/kills.
Then you say this....
Originally by: Aristrat
6. One more bulls**t! This is social, MMORPG, strategy, economical, tactical, political game, not first person shooter. Not everyone around are monsters to kill ... some of those monsters are your friends! So please, stop the crap with standings, play as you want and let other people to play as they like. I don't mind if you want to shoot your blues. Diplomacy/politics is one of the main component of this game as it is in RL. People are playing this game on different/multiple levels/ways and there is much more then just pressing the buttons.
If you look at it and think about it, you will see that "diplomacy" as you call it is nothing but..
Originally by: Aristrat
They usually get into fight only with drastically superior numbers
If you (your corp, your alliance) didn't have everyone 30 jumps around the space you live in set blue, and if you did fight for your alliance only, then the pilots in the alliance next door would be someone to play with(against) and the game would be so much more fun for all. Do you see where I am going with this? Ofcourse, if you did try this,those that enjoy to play "diplomacy" game would all get together and kill you all because....
Originally by: Aristrat
They usually get into fight only with drastically superior numbers, and funny thing is that most of them disengage even then.
Why do they do this? Because as we all know, primary reason to plat EVE is not to have fun, but to win at any cost (even if you don't have fun) so you can smack on CAOD.
|
Edmund Khan
Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 08:23:00 -
[247]
I personally don't like the fact that an alliance can hold/own space while their mayor blob is 100j away. I haven't been in a core BOB region for over 6 months, same as many others (besides money making alts) and yet we still have the space. And we will have it for all times if no one attacks it, even if we never go back with our PVP chars.
Sov should be more based on living in a region instead of just planting a POS and fueling it, occasionally defending it. Also there shouldn't be a chance of taking space with haulers. You know what I mean, like outspamming few towers and taking over the system. The only chance to own space should be by military power or diplomacy.
I hope it doesn't stay like it is now, cause like someone said before, it's getting more boring with every day.
|
Liranan
Gallente M'8'S Frontal Impact
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 08:29:00 -
[248]
The idea that the local channel should be removed to encourage PVP is the dumbest idea offered in this thread, all it does is force people (ratters and miners) out of 0 and back to empire.
Nerfing Titans is really going to force people to 0 and it's really going to break the power of the Titan wielding powerblocks, right? And Jump Bridges are horrible things that make logistics too easy for the wannabe pirates who just want to blow up freighters.
Adding more space to EVE is also a great way of getting people to 0. 'Come to 0.0, we have loads of space where you can get podded every five minutes by the cloaking pirates, whom you can't touch because you don't know how many there are in local.'
If you people really want to force people into 0 you have to nerf high sec and force people to low sec and 0. But how many of the thousands of players in empire are trial accounts? How many are traders of pvpers, how many are research characters who never undock? Then, how many are macroers farming ore or lvl 4 missions? There're loads of people who never leave high sec and that is where war decs come into it. Nerf lvl 4 missions and nerf the ore. When ratting in 0 becomes more profitable than farming lvl 4 missions more people will flock to 0.
The other thing that has been mentioned a lot is how the Sov system should be changed. I believe CCP are already testing a new system but I do not believe the old system worked well at all. I hated the idea that someone could simply walse in and take the space without a major fight/engagement. Then we have the near defeat of BoB last year. They were nearly relegated back to empire but managed to hold on. This shows that poses aren't indestructible, that sov can be removed, that Titan defended cyno's aren't overpowered.
I like EVE as it is now and if you want change come up with something constructive because CCP aren't going to listen to the drivel posted here. Farjung is my God
You people need to open your eyes and read threads before you mindlessly spam the New Thread link. |
Binah 369
Minmatar Multiverse Corporation Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 08:33:00 -
[249]
I am REALLY impressed with the majority of the thoughtful responses offered in this thread. Obviously it is an issue that effects all of us, and it seems as though all of us have some sort of issue with it. I don't have anything more to add that really hasn't been said, other than a blatant, "Wake up CCP and keep the game enjoyable to those who want to play at a different level than sitting in Empire".
Binah
|
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 08:39:00 -
[250]
As I see it, there are two primary causes for the current problems.
1. Easy travel. It makes every other alliance in Eve a threat, which creates a desire to build a powerblock. At the same time it also makes it more attractive to have only blues nearby. If it took 2 hours to do 30 jumps, it would be much less attractive to have only blues nearby. But with carriers, jumpportals, bridges and warp to 0, travel is near instant.
2. The only thing worthwhile in 0.0 is moons, reducing the need for actual defence of a region unless a blob comes. Which you can then easily defend against with your own blob.
Addressing the first cause is difficult, but its effects could be lessened if the need/desire to blob is reduced.
What would happen if CCP made the following changes:
1. Sovereignty becomes usage-based. Doing stuff like mining and ratting gains you soveignty points, which slowly decline over time (so if you stop ratting/mining, your sovereignty slowly declines.
The immediate effect would be that alliances would be forced to use their own space in order to maintain it as a cushy homebase. Smaller groups of raiders could actually degrade sovereignty by harassing miners and ratters. It can also reduce blobbing, would you really be willing to send a 300 man fleet halfway across the galaxy if it means your own sov starts degrading? Maybe you'd only send 100 or 150?
2. 0.0 needs to become more profitable. Level 4s in empire provide comparable income but without any of the burdens of living in 0.0. Easiest solution would be to make it possible to get level 5 agents in 0.0 conquerable stations. That way an alliance can provide a bigger source of income for members than Empire Lvl 4s, provided the space is secure of course. I think CCP should also either should do away with stront timers for moonmining POSes, or alternatively, eliminate moonmining by POS, and instead introduce 1 or 2 new capital moonmining ships that take its place. Their rate of moonmining could be 3 or 4 times higher than current POS (to account for the fact that they wont be mining 23/7).
Both changes would mean that 0.0 becomes more populated outside of the big gangs running around. Fast travel would in this scenario still be available, but the attraction of it might be reduced since there would be some incentives not to blob up and invade another region 50 jumps away because it would imperil the moneymaking aspect of the alliance.
|
|
Zackalwe
Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 08:45:00 -
[251]
I think we should wait for the next expansion. 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.
|
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 09:21:00 -
[252]
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.
|
Malcanis
Caldari R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 09:26:00 -
[253]
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 -
[254]
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.
|
Zackalwe
Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 09:46:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Zackalwe on 10/12/2008 09:52:51
Originally by: Malcanis
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.
As far as I understood, wormhole space cant be soved up like normal space, it has to be defended. Also multiple wormholes from different regions might lead to the same wormhole space, just from different entrances. So for instance you could have a wormhole from Tribute leading to the same wormhole space as the wormhole that BOB found in Delve. Thats a hell of a fight if the T3 resources is worth as much as I think it will be.
Also if you put more NPC space between regions you cant use jumpbridges to cross multiple regions as easily.
Another possibility for wormhole space: It may be impossible to jump caps through wormholes. If that were the case, suddenly you would have alliances like Tri interested for the fight alone. Imagine a region of space without titans or caps, without POSes with just a whole load of expensive T3 resources ready to be fought over. Disclaimer: I dont know if this is what is planned, but it would seen reasonable. You could for instance find a smaller wormhole to a region from say, empire or lowsec, that is only big enough to fit cruisers and HACs through...
|
Darknesss
Gallente coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 09:58:00 -
[256]
Originally by: blkmajik The problem with trying to charge for or remove standings is that it just encourages people to merge instead of NAP. This makes things more of an old boy's club than it already is. The result would be switching from having huge coalitions, to just having huge alliances where the strongest of the bunch will require the smallest to be absorbed instead of NAP'd. You are treating the symptom, not the cause, and the result will make the situation even worse.
Not at all. This has been a suggestion of mine for months removing standings. Take the NC or GBC as an example, imagine now to keep their size and clout they had to merge... would it happen? Whether you know their internal politics or not each alliance has its own ambition whether it be wealth or power and they want to climb a ladder, there are not enough top spots and too many ego's for an alliance to form that would be the size of the NC.
When it comes to coalitions all you have to do is have a chat with the leader set standings and keep some sort of vague contact, i've been sat in the NC leader channels before and i've watched a complete lack of organisation, now they have largely improved in that organisation but there is no way in hell these groups of people could merge under one name, it would be anarchy and the ammount of corporations involved would be insane. You woud have an entity 3x maybe more the size of Goonswarm each with its own leaders and their goals.
Removing standings would force alliances to improve their communication, it would force them to become more organised to cover more space and it would make them REALLY work for being a massively powerful entity, work in this game should always be rewarded. As it is now its incredibly easy to set a standing and have a massive coalition, not only is it easy but its becoming completely acceptable. Why wouldn't many of these alliances accept these coalitions, simply put money or perhaps the drive to counter another coalition. We are now in a situation where coalitions will never stop existing on a massive scale unless CCP directly intervenes.
Aside from anything else the servers in complete honesty cannot handle the numbers, and this does stop the rise of new alliances.
I'm sure you will look at my alliance ticker and quote me with some ridiculous post about tears, its not that at all. If an alliance wants massive power, to cover great sections of eve they should NEED a better and larger infrastructure, this would encourage possible mutiny's and other entertaining ideas within the larger alliances.
The benefits of such a move are:
-Less pressure on the server -Multiple wars across all of 0.0 between smaller entities -Forcing powerful alliances to work for what they have rather than NAP for what they have -Giving smaller and newer alliances the opportunity to get into the 0.0 game -Increasing the standard of players and fleet tactics in order to hold onto space (because lets be brutally honest, there are some awful alliances out there holding onto space because of their allies only)
It used to be in games that an alliance was the end of the road and you fight for that one alliance, now its moved up a notch alliances of yesterday are now the coalitions of today only without there needing to be any complex or stable infrastructure.
Remove standings and eve will be an insanely entertaining and rewarding game, it will encourage people to fight for their alliance and that alliances name, and will force members to fight to retain the benefits.
|
Cippalippus Primus
Caldari The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:07:00 -
[257]
EVE is a sandbox and the size of alliances and coalitions reflects the will of the players.
Deal with it. -clp
|
Minigin
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:11:00 -
[258]
i am now posting in limegreen to support the removal of standings in eve. . MINIGIN! The original colour poster - now surrounding you in limegreen.
|
Alak D'bor
Minmatar Syncore
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:13:00 -
[259]
Perhaps finite edges of space are ludicrous. If the population grew 4x in the past 4 years, why not expand the known galaxy by 4x, with 75% of it no stations, constellation blocks each out of all capital jump range from other constellation blocs (so you can only use what you build local), old school nasty rats making even gate travel dangerous (remember when ratting solo was iffy?), no ice, and just average ore. The blocs might fight over mainstream 0.0, but it would give places for pirates and small alliances to smack each other in local.
I remember travelling 70 jumps in 0.0 if I wanted to insure a battleship built at my home station. The game definitely had an edge back then.
|
Zackalwe
Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:14:00 -
[260]
To be honest I dont see removing standings making a lot of difference. For example I dont ever see Razor attacking MM just because we have no standings structure anymore, we will still be allies. What would happen is on joint ops, razor support will camp one gate while MM support will camp the other. MM and RZR caps can still attack POS together, its not hard to refrain from shooting neutrals. If enemy caps jump in, it might make it a bit tricky, but the FC should be able to call enemies only going on location on the battlefield, and known enemy names first, then "targeting to check alliance before calling as primary" second.
I cant see it having the desired effect of splitting up the super blocs. All it will do is make it a pain in the arse. But people will suffer it, thus decreasing enjoyment generally, but not actually solving the problem.
|
|
Idaeus
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:15:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Minigin i am now posting in limegreen to support the removal of standings in eve.
Certainly one of your better colors.
|
Adeptus mecanicus
Caldari The Flaming Sideburn's Sons-Of-Anarchy
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:21:00 -
[262]
Think a max number in a alliance is a good way, even if there is a nap fest the segregation will lead more frequently to strife inside a NAP entity compared to a 2000+ alliance. and as mentioned being not able to nap as many will make it harder, considering a POS and overview settings. Grunt's Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity. |
Minigin
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:31:00 -
[263]
Edited by: Minigin on 10/12/2008 10:32:47
Originally by: Zackalwe Edited by: Zackalwe on 10/12/2008 09:52:51
Originally by: Malcanis
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.
As far as I understood, wormhole space cant be soved up like normal space, it has to be defended. Also multiple wormholes from different regions might lead to the same wormhole space, just from different entrances. So for instance you could have a wormhole from Tribute leading to the same wormhole space as the wormhole that BOB found in Delve. Thats a hell of a fight if the T3 resources is worth as much as I think it will be.
Also if you put more NPC space between regions you cant use jumpbridges to cross multiple regions as easily.
Another possibility for wormhole space: It may be impossible to jump caps through wormholes. If that were the case, suddenly you would have alliances like Tri interested for the fight alone. Imagine a region of space without titans or caps, without POSes with just a whole load of expensive T3 resources ready to be fought over. Disclaimer: I dont know if this is what is planned, but it would seen reasonable. You could for instance find a smaller wormhole to a region from say, empire or lowsec, that is only big enough to fit cruisers and HACs through...
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. . MINIGIN! The original colour poster - now surrounding you in limegreen.
|
Privavarian
Gallente Black Fury United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:32:00 -
[264]
I liked you better when you were still a hydra muppet, minigin ---- This is what CAOD experts call a ragepost. |
Minigin
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:34:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Privavarian I liked you better when you were still a hydra muppet, minigin
i still am a hydra muppet tbh :hydra: . MINIGIN! The original colour poster - now surrounding you in limegreen.
|
Varrakk
Caldari Phantom Squad Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:37:00 -
[266]
Is removing standings the way to go? But it would still need a make over.
Not sure how to type this and make sense Wouldnt making space harder and less profitable to hold, remove the need for coalitions?
If a alliance was unable to hold more then 1 region without running into a massive logistical nightmare, it wouldnt need to rely as heavily on others to defend space they couldnt hold by them self.
In addition, I would change the distance between regions. Making it very difficult for capitals to travel between them and at the same time, deal with the Jump Bridge Networks.
|
Idaeus
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:40:00 -
[267]
Standings won't go away. Too much is tied to it and CCP is lazy.
|
Minigin
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:41:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Varrakk Is removing standings the way to go? But it would still need a make over.
Not sure how to type this and make sense Wouldnt making space harder and less profitable to hold, remove the need for coalitions?
If a alliance was unable to hold more then 1 region without running into a massive logistical nightmare, it wouldnt need to rely as heavily on others to defend space they couldnt hold by them self.
In addition, I would change the distance between regions. Making it very difficult for capitals to travel between them and at the same time, deal with the Jump Bridge Networks.
damn im posting a lot today... but anyway, i think making it harder to hold large areas prolly wont break up coalitions... it would just create more of them i think.
for example youll have all of these alliances holding a couple of constelations each all the while inviting new alliances to come and take other constellations and aid in the defence of others.
also i mean if we really look at it... making space more expencive to hold isnt that big an issue. most of these super coalitions have been carebearing for years! i hardly think they are that strapped for isk as it is. so pretty much they have no real reason to be blue to each other any more than to make even more isk.
so seeing as they wont drop standings for themselves i personaly rkn itd be pretty nifty for ccp to do it for them. who knows... they might actually have fun! :tinfoil: . MINIGIN! The original colour poster - now surrounding you in limegreen.
|
Draahk Chimera
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:58:00 -
[269]
Since I was the first to suggest changes to how sov works. On page 2 if you are interested. I of course thinks that is the best idea.
And about tech 3 and wormholes. As far as I understand from the fanfest video it will be conquarable. Wich means there must be poses. Wich in turn means that there must be capitals or else the first alliance to place a faction deathstar will win forever and ever.
And if all current systems stay the way they are how will wormholes change anything for non-powerblock alliances? So I scan a wormhole. I tell my Atlas mates and we roll in and place a pos and start collecting tech 3 stuff. 3 hours later a GBC or NC or Drone/Goon member scans the wormhole too and in comes 150 capitals, 10 titans, 20 mommas and 600 regular ships. Well that was fun for 3 hours.
|
Zackalwe
Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:58:00 -
[270]
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.
|
|
Zackalwe
Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 11:02:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Draahk Chimera Since I was the first to suggest changes to how sov works. On page 2 if you are interested. I of course thinks that is the best idea.
And about tech 3 and wormholes. As far as I understand from the fanfest video it will be conquarable. Wich means there must be poses. Wich in turn means that there must be capitals or else the first alliance to place a faction deathstar will win forever and ever.
And if all current systems stay the way they are how will wormholes change anything for non-powerblock alliances? So I scan a wormhole. I tell my Atlas mates and we roll in and place a pos and start collecting tech 3 stuff. 3 hours later a GBC or NC or Drone/Goon member scans the wormhole too and in comes 150 capitals, 10 titans, 20 mommas and 600 regular ships. Well that was fun for 3 hours.
Yes they said it was conquerable but not using the existing sov mechanics I thought. Maybe some new T3 harvester that can be placed by a hauler? But not attached to a POS. Easy to kill if the defending fleet is defeated. Anyway its not been revealed yet but that is my hope, that wormhole space isnt POS spammed, and just generates fantastic sub-cap fights.
|
Malcanis
Caldari R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 11:04:00 -
[272]
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.
|
Zackalwe
Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 11:18:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Malcanis
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.
Well at least it wont be a cap-blob if the deign is like this. As for alliances fielding more sub-caps than other alliances, what can you do about that really? And also if you did do something how could you justify it? Alliance A is only allowed 50 ships because corp B cant field more than 50? How would that be justified?
Most of the complaints recently have been because of super-bloc cap blobs. With these removed in wormhole space, at least the more skillful alliances have a chance if they are outgunned.
|
Hardin
Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 11:46:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
What would happen if CCP made the following changes:
1. Sovereignty becomes usage-based. Doing stuff like mining and ratting gains you soveignty points, which slowly decline over time (so if you stop ratting/mining, your sovereignty slowly declines.
The immediate effect would be that alliances would be forced to use their own space in order to maintain it as a cushy homebase. Smaller groups of raiders could actually degrade sovereignty by harassing miners and ratters. It can also reduce blobbing, would you really be willing to send a 300 man fleet halfway across the galaxy if it means your own sov starts degrading? Maybe you'd only send 100 or 150?
As one of the only 0.0 alliances (not aligned to the uber blocks) that actually does live in and defend its own space this is on the face of it this is a nice idea however it faces significant practical implementation problems and would significantly reduce the incentive for conflict in EVE.
If your sov declined purely on the basis of mining/ratting then the only incentive to go to war with people would be population pressure - which would occur only when you memberships reaches a certain level that your current territory is over exploited.
It would also mean that 0.0 alliances would become carebearish entities focused on mining and ratting rather than fighting to claim new territory. I have lived in 0.0 for over 3 years yet I rarely rat/mine and tbh I would quit EVE if I had to. Creating a system where alliances are forced to do boring things to hold sov doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current system to me.
That said I also agree that thanks to Titans (not jumpbridges which are significantly less mobile and therefore vulnerable to your enemies (and require an infrastructure to support) that the big blocks can far to easily move huge forces across the map and can therefore leave their home territory relatively derelict because they know that if they are attacked at home they can return home quickly before too much damage is done.
Personally I would like to see the logistics/bridging power of Titans nerfed as I think that will have a much more realistic effect in limiting the size of transgalactic blobs.
Going back to your 'usage' idea maybe this could be based on the amount of traffics/jumps in a certain region - although how that would work in a NRDS region like Providence where a lot of the traffic is by neutrals/friendly alliances I do not know. I don't think introducing a system which forces alliances to complete exclude people from their regions is a particularly good idea.
----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Tholarim
Amarr Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 12:21:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Tholarim on 10/12/2008 12:22:34 1. remove riskfree travel. 2. remove jumpbridges into jammed systems, make them only possible from sov 4 to sov 4. Forcing people to use gates again, creating more fights and chokepoints. 3. Change functionality of titans. Make it a proper mobile station, with super defence if in an anchored state. Not flying around like a mobile death star. Sort of like the british HQ mobile in COH! 4. more capital sub-classes. Capital fights now are very straightforward. Add in ECM,logistics, anti-support, etc. caps for making these fights longer and more interesting. 5. Make running player owned stations cost a load more, and add some real benefits (instead of the crappy ones atm)for the owners compared to npc stations. That way corps like mine won't own 5 stations, and do ****all with em. 6. Redo the Sovereignty completely. pos's are crap. No reall idea on how they should do this. But the current system is horrible, and encourages blobbing.
I know all this will probably lead to my alliance losing it's space, since we did anger a ****load of people. But we've been stationary for way to long anyways.
Thol.
|
Nick Adlerburg
Caldari Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 12:27:00 -
[276]
Alright after countless reading passing through intercaod trium vs tcf+NC fighting etc etc. Gathering ideas all around from the topic (some realy good and thanks for not trolling around) now i put em in order.
1 Change sov. gaining from POS grinding and endless strugle for more POSes to the old Outpost sov. gaining, outposts would go down much faster but that ment that if you'd lose one fast you'd be able to regain it as well.
2 More NPC and player owned 0.0 regions. Its going to help reviving of small gangs new small alliances etc etc.
3 Creation of sub empire sub 0.0 regions where new comes from empire can roam outside of 0.0 politics and pirates can have their fun as well. Like areas between empire and 0.0 that are going to have lots of pvp but not in the state 0.0 is as of today.
4 I dont say remove jump bridges,titan JB,Jump Freighters etc etc. But nerf em so it takes alot longer to assemble a cap fleet and even more to move it to one region to another or move assets with no risk.
5 Introduce cap. hunter ships as in real world naval battles that we have dread hunters small ships armed with torpedoes capable at launching an attack against behemoth big ships. So it could be nice to introduce some T2 ships and some new modules that are going to specialaise on cap ship killing that would make a cap ship assault much more risker and would give power back to small gangs.
6 More agents and NPC in 0.0 that will feature unique missions and aspects that you cant see in empire space.
7 Introduce a submarine stile ship imo a BC class ship (since bc's are quiet neglected) that is going to use cloaking devises as they should have been dealing no crazy dmg but harassing warfare is always usefull and it would benefit smaller Alliances if they would get into war with a bigger one.
8 Dont nerf DD but find a way that it could counter it like a ship or module T3 (since T3 are comming in march) that would create a small umbrella which would protect or lesser out the damage caused from a DD.
9 Fortifications for Outposts if Outpost sov. gain is alloud it'd would require some further deffences on it that would add some difficulity on gaining them.
10 Stop nerfing nano or small ships speed tank was an aspect ballancing old and new players plus that it was givving small ship gangs more fun and more power with the constant nerfing we ended up on this Huge Cap vs Cap fleet fights.
11 No insurance for 0.0 ships, its logical you are in outer space outlaw or even pirate forming your own state. When did you see rebels or guerillas having anything insured companies would reject em. If insuring is so critical then alliances could set up their own insurrance company that would let the unspend ISK flow somewhere plus that would make one more aspect of the game player based.
12 Border systems if Jump Freighting is so important taxation must occur so when a jump freighter wants to leave from empire space to go back to 0.0 the state there must put a tax on the stuff. That would make it more official and would need more thinking before sending Jump Freighters.
13 And hopefully final if i remember correctly. Nerf Jump Bridges allow jumps only between one region at a time and only if the system is owned by the alliance that has the jump bridge plus if in a fight hack bridge system modules (always when talking about strong modules meaning T3) should be introduced that are going to jam or partialy jam the jump bridges from allowing them to let ppl jump to the other side.
I hope you find my ideas good enough and would hope to see more creative ideas pop up :)
Fly safe lads
|
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 12:59:00 -
[277]
Edited by: Malachon Draco on 10/12/2008 12:59:45
Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Malachon Draco
What would happen if CCP made the following changes:
1. Sovereignty becomes usage-based. Doing stuff like mining and ratting gains you soveignty points, which slowly decline over time (so if you stop ratting/mining, your sovereignty slowly declines.
The immediate effect would be that alliances would be forced to use their own space in order to maintain it as a cushy homebase. Smaller groups of raiders could actually degrade sovereignty by harassing miners and ratters. It can also reduce blobbing, would you really be willing to send a 300 man fleet halfway across the galaxy if it means your own sov starts degrading? Maybe you'd only send 100 or 150?
As one of the only 0.0 alliances (not aligned to the uber blocks) that actually does live in and defend its own space this is on the face of it this is a nice idea however it faces significant practical implementation problems and would significantly reduce the incentive for conflict in EVE.
If your sov declined purely on the basis of mining/ratting then the only incentive to go to war with people would be population pressure - which would occur only when you memberships reaches a certain level that your current territory is over exploited.
It would also mean that 0.0 alliances would become carebearish entities focused on mining and ratting rather than fighting to claim new territory. I have lived in 0.0 for over 3 years yet I rarely rat/mine and tbh I would quit EVE if I had to. Creating a system where alliances are forced to do boring things to hold sov doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current system to me.
That said I also agree that thanks to Titans (not jumpbridges which are significantly less mobile and therefore vulnerable to your enemies (and require an infrastructure to support) that the big blocks can far to easily move huge forces across the map and can therefore leave their home territory relatively derelict because they know that if they are attacked at home they can return home quickly before too much damage is done.
Personally I would like to see the logistics/bridging power of Titans nerfed as I think that will have a much more realistic effect in limiting the size of transgalactic blobs.
Going back to your 'usage' idea maybe this could be based on the amount of traffics/jumps in a certain region - although how that would work in a NRDS region like Providence where a lot of the traffic is by neutrals/friendly alliances I do not know. I don't think introducing a system which forces alliances to complete exclude people from their regions is a particularly good idea.
I understand that you don't want to be forced to mine or rat (and I share the feeling, I haven't mined in nearly 2 years and rarely rat), but the idea would not be that it would require all members, or an insane amount of ratting to gain sov.
What I would suggest would for example be that every day an alliance can gain say 50 sov points in a constellation from ratting. For each 10m in bounties, 1 point is gained, up to the maximum of 50 (just a rough example). That way, if at least 500m worth of rats is killed in the constellation, the max sovgain from ratting for that day is reached. It would indeed force alliances to make sure that some people rat or mine, but it could be set at a sufficiently low level that its not too difficult to reach, yet high enough to make it possible for an enemy to really disrupt it if he puts effort into it.
Potentially, you could also still allow POS to also generate a bit of sovereignty, but only at a very base level, so that it would require ratting/mining to gain the protection of high sov levels. As for the NRDS policy, I don't have an immediate solution, but I realize that would get complicated.
As for the reasons to go to war, there are enough alliances who really don't need a reason, so I don't see that as a big problem.
|
ardik
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 13:40:00 -
[278]
hey guys, instead of these ******ed 'LETS MINE FOR SOV :DOWNS:' ideas, how about thinking up something people would want to do AND would be worth fighting over. Because if it isn't worth your time and not even fun, then chances of people putting their ships on the line in fights that aren't horribly imbalanced is negative a fukcing billion
lets call this idea: STATIC COMPLEXES :O
|
Holly Hotdrop
Caldari TunkbwahCorp GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 13:42:00 -
[279]
Originally by: ardik hey guys, instead of these ******ed 'LETS MINE FOR SOV :DOWNS:' ideas, how about thinking up something people would want to do AND would be worth fighting over. Because if it isn't worth your time and not even fun, then chances of people putting their ships on the line in fights that aren't horribly imbalanced is negative a fukcing billion
lets call this idea: STATIC COMPLEXES :O
Hm, thats a v.good idea, you handsome devil. fighting over plexes used to be a good source of GOOD FIGHTS
|
Malachon Draco
Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 14:20:00 -
[280]
Static objectives could work, it would be a bit like the idea with Moonmining POS without stront timers (that change alone would change the 0.0 game considerably I bet)
|
|
Ioan Metorsky
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 14:42:00 -
[281]
Don't worry. There will always be those who are willing to stab their allies in the back in exchange for several thousand dollars.
|
Varrakk
Caldari Phantom Squad Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 14:53:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Malachon Draco Static objectives could work, it would be a bit like the idea with Moonmining POS without stront timers (that change alone would change the 0.0 game considerably I bet)
Isnt this how faction warfare works?
|
ardik
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 15:03:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Varrakk
Originally by: Malachon Draco Static objectives could work, it would be a bit like the idea with Moonmining POS without stront timers (that change alone would change the 0.0 game considerably I bet)
Isnt this how faction warfare works?
except the rewards are shtit so its more of a free war dec than someone fighting over resources
|
Sister Beth
Amarr Infinity Enterprises Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 15:57:00 -
[284]
Solution 101
1. Create a new 0.0 Region with gates that limits ship type entry 2. Create a natural phenomenon preventing cynos and bridging in this area 3. POS mechanics alter to match smaller ship combat (no insta poping crusiers) 4. Insert new highest value moons at the furthest reasches of the area (creating access issues) 5. Create the area along a new high sec corridor (pushing it away from existing powerbase hubs) 6. Limit NPC stations to prevent clone placement
What this would create is:
- a high value area of space only defendable by smaller ships. - Fuel and high value produce transports travelling through hostile 0.0 space - more targets for smaller gangs and a requirement for scouting/planning counters - commitment to defend assets from the holding corp (no bridges or clone jumps)
Realise:
a) biggest blobs still win b) defending this region pulls resource from other fronts (as travel is restricted) c) more fun for smaller gangs and small ship pilots d) creates a dilema for mega alliances, sit tight on existing assets or commit to aquiring these new moons
Super Caps, Caps and BS blobs can keep doing their thing, and anyone who wants to have fun can come join the party.
The area would be called Claustrum. |
Zhula Guixgrixks
Gallente Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 16:43:00 -
[285]
Introduce "space weather" affecting cyno/JP activity. Level of "space storm" can affect cyno/JP routes:
- 4/4, cyno/JPs are jammed (natural cyno jammer) - 3/4, ships using cyno/JPs will be redirected to neighbour systems - 2/4, ships using cyno/JPs land off grid. - 1/4, ships using cyno/JPs land on grid + offset in km. - 0/0, everything works fine
All probability based. "Space storms" are sweeping randomly through galaxy.
Guerilla/enemy forces can influence space weather by dispersing strontium (more strontium = bad weather).
|
ardik
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 17:35:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Sister Beth Solution 101
1. Create a new 0.0 Region with gates that limits ship type entry 2. Create a natural phenomenon preventing cynos and bridging in this area 3. POS mechanics alter to match smaller ship combat (no insta poping crusiers) 4. Insert new highest value moons at the furthest reasches of the area (creating access issues) 5. Create the area along a new high sec corridor (pushing it away from existing powerbase hubs) 6. Limit NPC stations to prevent clone placement
What this would create is:
- a high value area of space only defendable by smaller ships. - Fuel and high value produce transports travelling through hostile 0.0 space - more targets for smaller gangs and a requirement for scouting/planning counters - commitment to defend assets from the holding corp (no bridges or clone jumps)
Realise:
a) biggest blobs still win b) defending this region pulls resource from other fronts (as travel is restricted) c) more fun for smaller gangs and small ship pilots d) creates a dilema for mega alliances, sit tight on existing assets or commit to aquiring these new moons
Super Caps, Caps and BS blobs can keep doing their thing, and anyone who wants to have fun can come join the party.
The area would be called Claustrum.
so an area with more pos, more high value moon bull****, except now you can only kill the pos with frigs and cruisers!
why should pos with its 50 million regenerating hp be an incentive to have smaller gangs?
maybe if there were static plexes with gates that limited ship entry by ship class then yeah, you'll have ship-class based combat where smaller gangs means not having to split loot as much so it encourages small gangs over big ones. hmm, thats a good idea that ccp should, perhaps, pursue...
|
ardik
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 17:37:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Introduce "space weather" affecting cyno/JP activity. Level of "space storm" can affect cyno/JP routes:
- 4/4, cyno/JPs are jammed (natural cyno jammer) - 3/4, ships using cyno/JPs will be redirected to neighbour systems - 2/4, ships using cyno/JPs land off grid. - 1/4, ships using cyno/JPs land on grid + offset in km. - 0/0, everything works fine
All probability based. "Space storms" are sweeping randomly through galaxy.
Guerilla/enemy forces can influence space weather by dispersing strontium (more strontium = bad weather).
Oh i love probability based gameplay, that **** is tight!
that said i dont know what the **** the problem would be with landing cap ships off grid from the cyno in most cases and it doesnt solve anything.
|
Elfaen Ethenwe
Caldari Infusion.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 17:48:00 -
[288]
Originally by: ardik
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Introduce "space weather" affecting cyno/JP activity. Level of "space storm" can affect cyno/JP routes:
- 4/4, cyno/JPs are jammed (natural cyno jammer) - 3/4, ships using cyno/JPs will be redirected to neighbour systems - 2/4, ships using cyno/JPs land off grid. - 1/4, ships using cyno/JPs land on grid + offset in km. - 0/0, everything works fine
All probability based. "Space storms" are sweeping randomly through galaxy.
Guerilla/enemy forces can influence space weather by dispersing strontium (more strontium = bad weather).
Oh i love probability based gameplay, that **** is tight!
that said i dont know what the **** the problem would be with landing cap ships off grid from the cyno in most cases and it doesnt solve anything.
- 4/4, cyno/JPs are jammed (natural cyno jammer) - 3/4, ships using cyno/JPs will be redirected to neighbour systems immoblie for 15min - 2/4, ships using cyno/JPs land off grid. immobile for 5min - 1/4, ships using cyno/JPs land on grid + offset in km. immobille for 1 min - 0/0, everything works fine
that would work a little better, giving a defending force a chance to probe/lock down whatever jumped in.
<><><>Together we gank, devided we pop<><><><>
|
Orange Faeces
Minmatar THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 18:59:00 -
[289]
I can sense that many of you are upset, and it concerns me deeply. Don't Panic! THE INTERNET. is here to help!
I explained in an earlier post how 1. When CCP gets rid of local all the small-gang incontinence you are now experiencing will pass smoothly; And 2. BoB, and the attitude they've taken towards 0.0, is the real cause of powerbloc naptrain blobbing (i.e. keep your eyes on da real killa, to quote RATM).
Taking sight of the ongoing whining, however, I have another set of insights to sooth you...
If you are a PVP focused alliance that is having trouble holding 0.0 space (lets call this group Tri) perhaps you should consider two additional points:
3. While you were busily training Skirmish Warfare Spec V and Heavy Assault Ships V, etc... the rest of 0.0 was busily training their dread skills. In eve, as in life, being able to win a small-gang fight only gets you so far and 0.0 is designed this way too. Low-sec on the other hand is yours for the taking. This leads me to me to....
4. Instead of focusing on lol-gangs and having a wonderful K/D ratio, you should have been focusing on making viable, reciprocal strategic alliances for yourselves. If what you bring to the table is superb small-gang tactics, then a mercenary role may be a strong suit for you, and that is commendable. <smack paragraph removed ... yay for self-control>
This is how eve is designed and it seems that CCP has reaffirmed that fighting over fixed resources (i.e. static moons and the occasional plex) is something they look favorably on.
oF --- The Other Orange |
Shpuntik
Minmatar Invicta. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 19:18:00 -
[290]
i like the idea of npc 0.0 spliting up alliance 0.0 and empire.
Removing cyno jammers would change alot in the game for everybody it would mean you no longer have to risk 200 man BS gang just to take a system thats defended by 3 titans imo it has been one of the main killers for alliance warfare along with the moon holding.
---InViCtA---
|
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 19:29:00 -
[291]
The concept of Soverignity is what is flawed. I doubt there is a single 0.0 alliance that actually thinks the Sov mechanics are any good.
The Current system encorages people to spam towers to maintain sov. Towers reserved for Mining are used for claiming territory. This means that the market for non-rare moonmins are in oversupply (If a sov tower is going to sit there, it may as well mine any old crap to pay towards fuel etc)
Then the nature of these towers, and the addon modules, give a big incentive for mass attacks. I would thus conclude that Sov Mechanics are the issue here. --
Billion Isk Mission |
ardik
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 19:37:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Lord WarATron The concept of Soverignity is what is flawed. I doubt there is a single 0.0 alliance that actually thinks the Sov mechanics are any good.
The Current system encorages people to spam towers to maintain sov. Towers reserved for Mining are used for claiming territory. This means that the market for non-rare moonmins are in oversupply (If a sov tower is going to sit there, it may as well mine any old crap to pay towards fuel etc)
Then the nature of these towers, and the addon modules, give a big incentive for mass attacks. I would thus conclude that Sov Mechanics are the issue here.
hm interesting.
ok how about this, lets assume the only thing worth anything at all in eve online is maybe 30 static plexes in 0.0. all you need to run them is like 5 homeboys in battleships, which incidentally is the largest ship class allowed to enter.
you still think eve would revolve around a **** waving competition over who had the most useless stations and the largest cap fleet, or maybe it would be about controlling plexes through small scale fights. iuno!
i mean, whats the point of stations in 0.0 anyway, strictly speaking you can rat/mine out of a pos with no real disadvantages. maybe the problem are the stations themselves :O
|
Super Twinkey69
Minmatar D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 19:39:00 -
[293]
p3niz
|
Orange Faeces
Minmatar THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 19:40:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Orange Faeces on 10/12/2008 19:42:21
Originally by: Lord WarATron The concept of Soverignity is what is flawed. I doubt there is a single 0.0 alliance that actually thinks the Sov mechanics are any good.
The Current system encorages people to spam towers to maintain sov. Towers reserved for Mining are used for claiming territory. This means that the market for non-rare moonmins are in oversupply (If a sov tower is going to sit there, it may as well mine any old crap to pay towards fuel etc)
Then the nature of these towers, and the addon modules, give a big incentive for mass attacks. I would thus conclude that Sov Mechanics are the issue here.
Does anyone else spot the logic error here? I sure do. And considering the source of the comments its to be expected:
"The Current system encorages people to spam towers to maintain sov."
No. A correct premise to your argumentation would have read:
"The Current system encorages people to spam towers to defend or take sov."
So tower spam, while sad and weak, is sometimes the only way to hold off people who want to take your space. Some tweaks to how/which towers are able to hold sov is perhaps in order, but drastic changes are not in order. The conclusion that tower spam is somehow messing with the moon mineral markets is ridiculous.
oF --- The Other Orange |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page] |