Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Saikoyu]

Read this first.

So I went ahead and shot my mouth off in the comments thread, with a semi-polite rant about how CCP really doesn't know how to let us world build.  I started it differently, but really that is what it boiled down to.  Honestly, if they asked me to re-design eve from the ground up, this is what I would do.  High sec remains like it is, low sec becomes the pirate haven it already is, just supported, and null sec becomes player high sec where we create our own empires with all the tools that the NPC empires have, just more places to get isk.  Gate guns, cryojammers, our own NPCs to help protect the system.  Let the worlds be ours, the people be ours, let us cover the stars with their blood if we so choose.  Honestly that is the only thing that would get me to go to null sec.

Maybe its just the RPer in me talking.  Because we can't change anything else in the game.  No matter what we want, teh Amarrian Empire will never fall or rise, the Caldari will never trimph or fall to the Gallente, the Minmatar will never be complete free or enslaved.  But if we had our own space, where we could control all of the things the the NPCs (aka CCP) could, we could finally tell our own stories without limit. 

Or I am just fed up with the world today and eve was a nice target.  Sorry for the ranting.

[Casiella]

Outside of gate guns (something CCP has actually discussed in the past), don't you have that? But not with defensive NPCs: actual players. This seems better than a limiting vision of having NPCs protecting things everywhere, at least to me.

[Saikoyu]

To my point of view, no, players do not make up for NPC gate guards.  One of CCPs points in this was that they want space for the little guys as well as the big guys.  But the little guys will never be able to compete with the big guys if both sides have to count on player numbers.  Yes I think it would be cool if you could do everything with players, but realistically that never going to happen on a scale that allows smaller alliances to compete with larger ones. 

Honestly it doesn't have to be NPCs, but if CCP wants small alliances to complete with larger ones, without being pets of someone, there has to be some mechanic that forces the larger alliances into situations where the smaller alliance has a chance.  Maybe gates that only allow so many people in per hour unless you are on the friends list, or gate mine fields.  Something like that. 

And honestly I think that if frontal assaults didn't always work it could get some more variety in the game instead of the all mighty blob. 

[Lyn Farel]

If they want the small groups to be competitive they should take a look at what happens in reality, how for example the cuban revolution thrown out its own (overwhelming) governement, how guerilla warfare works, etc.

-> Create many objectives that can't be covered by a single whole fleet, and open the world for skirmishes. Use the plex idea in FW (to do something different) : a big alliance will have moar people, but this also mean more systems and infrastructure to defend. Add real industry and infrastructure upgrade in nullsec : more you upgrade the industry efficiency, more "industrial plexes" spawn around in the system. They have to be defended. That way, a small dedicated opponent can definitly harass seriously an alliance where it hurts : the wallet and/or the time spent to build/rebuild.

[Gottii]

I think fleets are too mobile in 0.0.  If you want the little guy to matter more, then make it harder for the big guys to stomp their way through 0.0 space.  When travel gets tougher, the map gets larger, which gives smaller entities a better chance to get a foothold, as well as more of an incentive to invest it what youve got rather than simply trying to gain more territory.

[Ghost Hunter]

I have trouble envisioning any mechanics that give small alliances against larger ones simply because any benefit to smalls will also work for the larger ones. Larger entities have exponentially more trouble micromanaging themselves, but I do not think a correctly functioning mega-alliance will be seriously endangered or crippled by the acts of smaller organizations. Note I emphasize correctly functioning, most mega-alliances I've fought had all kinds of internal problems that were exploited against them.

The current alliance metagame I'm not familiar with, so take this as you will.

[Casiella]

Advantages don't have to exist on one single spectrum, best to worst. Multiple different "dimensions" can exist: already, money and fleet size will obviously favor larger organizations, as it should, but perhaps smaller organizations (or at least smaller fleets) can move more quickly and quietly, and large alliances must have various small installations that can feasibly be attacked by a covops fleet (e.g. black ops bridging in recons and SBs).

I know I don't have all the answers, but I personally don't see "moar NPCs" in the set that CCP will or should consider.

[Bacchanalian]

Good lord, all we need is the ability for people to turn 0.0 into highsec.  It'd be the death of EVE.

[Julianus Soter]

The critical error of 0.0 sov warfare is that ease of conquest is linearly dependent on the number pilots in your fleet, regardless of hostile resistance whatsoever.

Undefended space = takes as long to conquer as defended space. This makes no sense.

The solution is a timer-capture system similar to facwar complexes, with timers scaled upwards to an hour or more for certain 'objectives'. Possibly a dependent tree of such objectives for contesting sov or removing sov in a particular system. Only one ship is required to successfully complete the objective, but practically, this is impossible as the enemy will be able to defeat such a feeble attempt.

Unless, of course, it truly is an AFK empire. Like many currently in existence. One merely needs to look up jumps per 24 hours in most 0.0 regions to see the level of depopulation.

The result of the adoption of such changes would be an immediate retrenchment of systems and stations held by the massive blocs. Empires would become compressed, concentrated, and centralized. Smaller entities, not restricted in gaining territory by the barrier of destroying deathstars and taking over outposts, can gain footholds and hold them.

Multiple objectives would require decentralized command and control. Specifically: more than one person with a brain would be required to conquer a system. This improves player growth, creativity, and makes a much more dynamic PVP environment for all ship classes and skill levels. 

[Julianus Soter]

Something else important to note:

Major resources such as Tech moons etc are dependent on holding sovereignty in those systems to properly defend them via cynojammers, jump bridges, etc.

If there is substantial pressure placed on AFK Moon Empires that operate through vast amounts of territory to hold these moons and profit from them, it is more likely that their territory will fail and they'll focus on fewer moons and defend those instead. The remnant would be up for grabs by other ambitious alliances.

More alliances with substantial moon funding = formation of greater number of 'small' player states in various regions of 0.0. This provides more dynamic cosmopolitical gameplay and higher degree of competition and conflict. More fun, more people log in. Positive feedback loop.

[orange]

Jules, do you think objective complexes should be "static" or locations/bonuses the defender can build up (not like a POS) and utilize.

For example, might these objective complexes provide certain resources/facilities currently only gained via a POS or Outpost?  If the location is captured the capabilities the objective provides is turned off-line until it is either recaptured or the invader owns the system?

[Julianus Soter]

The objectives would be player-deployed, as part of the process to begin holding sov in that system. Already we have two major 'objectives', the TCU and I-Hubs. Perhaps these should be switched to a timer-based approach, thereby alleviating the grind of structure-shooting presently in place.

Important to note: hostile structures like Blockade units could still be required to make the targeting of these objectives possible. This allows defense of systems viable, as it gives several hours of prior notice to the sov holders an attack is taking place. However, once blockade units are successfully onlined, there shouldn't be a massive penalty to the attacker to grind through several hours of shooting structures, waiting for more timers, then more shooting structures.

In hindsight, the changes I've suggested are actually very minimal, replacing unnecessary shooting with timer-based captures of facilities. However, that is still extremely important. Wheras previously a hundred or so pilots would be needed to gank an Ihub, now only 5 or so would be needed, a few people to deploy the blockade units, and a few to camp the TCU and Ihub. People that don't bother to defend their territory would pay the price.

[Casiella]

Pretty sure CCP is looking very closely right now at the idea of timer based objectives, even on existing things like TCUs and stations.

[Victoria Stecker]

While those changes would make it easier to *take* space with a small group, I don't see how that would make it any easier to hold if a larger alliance wants it. And unless you can take space in the span of 24 hours, they'll just bring the blob down the next day to roflstomp you for annoying them. so long as more ships/supercaps = victory, I wouldn't expect any changes to the SOV system to really change the nature of nullsec. Maybe the nature of sov war, but not really the map. Easier for the small alliances to take space? sure. But holding it is an entirely different issue - if you can take it quickly, they can take it back. Unless something is changed that allows a smaller alliance to defend its space against a superior force, I don't think much will change.

[Julianus Soter]

Pretty sure CCP is looking very closely right now at the idea of timer based objectives, even on existing things like TCUs and stations.

Cool. Good to know they and I are on the same page.

It's the only possible way to prevent conquests from being proportionally easy to the blobbage you employ.