Print

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

[Casiella]

But honestly: doesn't it make sense that, in a frontal assault sort of situation, a 6000-pilot alliance can ROFLstomp a 200-pilot alliance?

The trick should be for the 200-pilot alliance to find ways to harass its larger opponent via guerrilla warfare and such. Right now, there's no infrastructure vulnerable to small, quick strikes, and supercapitals mean that a large fleet can move faster than a small fleet.

But I have no problem with the idea that an mechanized infantry division can overrun a light infantry platoon.

[Saikoyu]

The hit and fade stuff makes sense, and would be great for smaller alliances, but it stil remains that any small alliance could not take and hold any territory, becuase it would be ROFLstomped.  And that smaller alliance might want territory for moons, or super-cap construction, etc.

Maybe a re-difination of territory or sov is needed.  Or something that says that you can be sneaky and moon mine or build cap ships, just not as well as if you held sov, so now smaller alliances can sneak around building and mining, and the larger alliances have to chase them down if they want them to stop stealing stuff.  Like the Rebel Alliance verses the evil Goonswarm, I mean, Galactic, Empire. 

Oh, and could be a good introduction to an actual mothership kind of deal.  Smaller alliances could buy this ship and it could be mobile, or do any one thing that a POS does, but only one thing at a time.  And only works like that in null sec. 

[Lyn Farel]

The hit and fade stuff makes sense, and would be great for smaller alliances, but it stil remains that any small alliance could not take and hold any territory, becuase it would be ROFLstomped.  And that smaller alliance might want territory for moons, or super-cap construction, etc.

Maybe a re-difination of territory or sov is needed.  Or something that says that you can be sneaky and moon mine or build cap ships, just not as well as if you held sov, so now smaller alliances can sneak around building and mining, and the larger alliances have to chase them down if they want them to stop stealing stuff.  Like the Rebel Alliance verses the evil Goonswarm, I mean, Galactic, Empire. 

Oh, and could be a good introduction to an actual mothership kind of deal.  Smaller alliances could buy this ship and it could be mobile, or do any one thing that a POS does, but only one thing at a time.  And only works like that in null sec.

Yes, good examples.

Anyway for your first point, if you put in place some size and/or numbers limitations on industrial/infrastructure/military complexes and stuff like that, you can't roflstomp anymore. A bigger alliance would just be able to hold more systems because they would have the numbers to defend more infrastructure. Okay, my idea is very basic, but you get the idea.

Another thing : timers are lame. I am dealing with this daily in FW, trust me, its fucking boring. Use more evolved mechaisms, like escorting assault boarding companies to capture space structures (or killing them if you are on the other side), for example.

________


EDIT : speaking of the mothership revamp, I would love so much to see limitations on supercaps use. The big deal currently is that they are too much powerful compared to standard caps, making the latter more or less useless when you have money to field as many as supercaps you want. This is wrong. Before that, we had weak motherships, that were not used because they were not very better. In either case, whatever you do, one kind of ship or the other becomes irrelevant.

To fix that, I do think that supercaps should be unique ships on the battlefield, much like a commandship or a command T3 ship : you just need one, more means they are useless.

- You could have motherships like their name truly means : commandships with great fleet bonuses (not the same as commandships, it could be very various : mining, industry, bonuses on capitals, POS, TCUs, etc). Motherships could also be like moving POSes : when in "reinforced mode" (with some kind of reinforcing module, like triage or siege), they would be unable to move or fight anymore, but they would get the ability to project a POS forcefield, allowing more time to an endangered fleet to recover or call for help. They could also be a new kind of production facilities, in which you put A LOT more resources than for a standard ship/ammo/ modules production but where it produces them faster enough to be of some use on the battlefield, or in siege situations. I want to see motherships like in homeworld.

- Titans ? I would like to see a damn tracking penalty on doomsdays. If the target moves of even 0.1 m/s, it should miss. So they could only shot capitals on siege/triage, or structures. With the jumpbridge ability, the titan is the offensive variant of the defensive/jack-of-all-trades mothership.

[Z.Sinraali]

So how hard would it be to implement a mechanic, with various exploration sites that scales to how many people fleet warp into a site when it is first discovered? Probably to be controlled by the warp in at the acceleration gate.

    For example, I scan out a mining site by myself and am looking for some solo mining. I go back get my hulk and spend then next few hours clearing out the site.

    Or I scan out a mining site, but there are 12 of my friends in corp who are ready for a nice relaxing couple of hours mining away and BSing. We warp to the site and activate the gate as a fleet, there is now 13 ish times more minerals in the asteroids or more asteroids, and we spend about the same amount of time but probably a little faster with fleet bonuses clearing out a reward that is the same as if we did it solo.

    I don't see why this couldn't be done for many different exploration sites. Though there would be problems with dumb people opening sites solo and ruining it for others, but if the respawn rate of the sites was good then it shouldn't kill the whole day's worth of sites.

Not at all hard, it turns out 

I approve of this development in a general, non-nullsec related sense.

[orange]

I really like the idea of making the Super-Capitals more about being bases of operations.

The Titans become the offensive mobile bases/stations and the Motherships defensive mobile bases/stations.  A large combat oriented corporation might maintain a few Titans and a few Motherships for campaigns.  "Light POSs" with some production capability (ammo, rigs, modules, maybe even T1 Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers) depending on the configuration.  They should not have research capabilities.

As for scalable content based on PCs present...  I am not sure that is a good thing or aligns with the idea that teamwork is required to succeed in nullsec.

[Z.Sinraali]

At present, most exploration content is done by solo players or at most a dude and his scanner alt, yes? So scaling would allow for the introduction of teamwork to the money-making process. I suppose it's not required, but at the moment it's nonexistent, and it increases the "can", which is one of the stated design goals.

[orange]

I think part of the problem there is that we have lots of ships that are very powerful and exploration content developed when Battleships, especially fleets of Battleships were a big deal.

[Julianus Soter]

Many of the more remarkable wars and battles in the past were between 1:3 odds or worse forces, and the 1 winning over the 3.

Now, of course, if the 3 has its shit together, and is competent, uses strategy, and is properly deployed to engage the enemy effectively, they will win. But if the 3 is a blob of slobbering key-pushers, The 1 can and will win.

The timer mechanic shifts the current conquest from "right click, jump to cyno, press F1, Press F2" (jump in dreads, siege, fire guns), to more pervasive, dynamic combat that requires movement, maneuver, and strategy. For example, if the enemy decides to prioritize the defence of a particular objective, and concentrates its forces there, instead of the enemy, which deploys the same number of ships to all objectives simultaneously, the defender can defeat one fleet and move on to the next ala Napoleonic Corps warfare, marching down the enemy's line of battle with concentrated fire.

Above all, the key is to make it more interesting and dependent on player creativity and skill. That is the only salvation to 0.0 warfare.

[Bacchanalian]

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.

One thing I'd mention.  The meta of EVE has changed over the years quite a bit.  At one point in time, a group that was well-skilled and organized with the best hardware could make an impact on the battlefield against superior numbers.  Mercenary Coalition comes to mind as such an entity.  That's no longer the case though.  It's also no longer the case that there are any sorts of ships or technologies that are limited or rare on the EVE battlefield, and this is where numbers began to win out.  Resourcefulness and skill don't matter in an EVE where every alliance can field 500 drakes and you see groups dropping fleets of supercapitals that put the BS gangs of yore to shame.  At that point it simply becomes a numbers and wealth game, and in cases where both sides have numbers and wealth, it simply boils down to leadership and morale. 

While there's something to be said for leadership and morale winning the day, when the test is to see which alliance disbands first due to the mind-numbing grind of sov warfare, it's also not working. 

I certainly don't have suggestions or I'd already be making them, but I'd just like to note that there actually was a time in EVE where a smaller group with the top-of-the-line technology, leadership, and high-class pilots combined with deep pockets allowed them to make an impact on the battlefield against much larger enemies.  If nothing else, that made for more interesting battles and more interesting politics.  It wasn't just about who could recruit the most drake pilots, it was about who could afford the allies that would have the most impact, or who could press the intel advantage or use espionage and subterfuge to annul the advantage granted by such a group. 

Anything that might make the above a possibility again is something I could get behind, because frankly even sov warfare was more interesting to follow when it wasn't simply two sides grinding themselves out of the game until only one is left, but several groups with wildcard entities and less predictability when it came down to who would eventually win out.

[Victoria Stecker]

The smaller, better equiped, better pilot thing reminds me of when AHACs were rampaging around eating battleships and such like despite being outnumbered. Obviously, a counter was eventually found to this (drakeblobs that can keep range or huginns in an alpha fleet). But at this point, I'm not sure if there's anything in the game that makes this possible again - maybe when t3 frigs come along?

[Esna Pitoojee]

I remain heavily convinced that a significant portion of what Bacc describes is the result of a significant inequality between the supply and demand portions of the games. While Exodus gave us mining barges, they were incredibly expensive at first; similarly, Exhumers appeared in Red Moon Rising, but were rare because of the nature of the T2 BPO lottery.

With Revelations I, however, the invention process combined with increasing minerals being pumped out by L4 missions, 0.0 belt rat loot, and those already-existing mining barges resulted in an ever-increasing number of Exhumers being dumped on the market, in turn increasing the process. It's been going this way ever since.

Perhaps I'm unfairly laying things on Exhumers as well - L4 missions, FW, PI, and the Dominion 0.0 changes all resulted in ISK and minerals pouring into the market for comparitively little effort. The end result of all of this has led to one point: There is no longer any struggle for resources in EVE Online. Alliances do not hoard T2 supplies solely for themselves because it's a poor economic policy; the mineral required to build a titan or supercarrier can now be acquired in weeks or even days rather than months; a relatively new character can go from zero wallet to hundreds of millions of ISK in a relatively short term.

Furthermore, without supply being an issue anymore, it is no longer possible to strike a single, killing blow to a hostile alliance (yes, I'm aware of the potential of inducing failcascade, using a spy to run off with all their stuff, etc... I'm speaking of military, conventional blows, a la Lotka Volterra loosing their baby titan). Hell, the supply glut means that even massive fleet battles with hundreds, if not thousands of ships lost are rarely crippling to the looser.


/rant

[Victoria Stecker]

There was an attempt at something like that a few weeks back when PL was going at Goons, they tried to buy up every huginn on the market and cripple the alpha fleet that needs those webs and painters to hit ahacs and tengus. There was a tempororary (at best) shortage of them, and then everyone saw the spiking prices and flooded the market. There is simply no way to completely take over the supply. Admittedly, the market is probably still feeling the shocks from that, T2 prices are up across the board, but that just means more iskies for the producers.

[Alain Colcer]

Its fun to read all these and in some way nod in approval or wonder just how much i (or others) can understand and portray emergent mechanics of many players involved with one another. I bet CCP is in much theorycrafting as any of us.

So i just wanted to add a few views of my own.

For me, one of the big dissapointments with EvE fleet battles, be epic or small gang, is that there is little option to actually "flank" an enemy fleet. And in reality, with the current 3d mechanics of the engine, when we warp out in space, it does not matter if you are up or down or left.....as long as you are in range and lock it, you can fire and therefor battle against each other. But you can hardly "outrun" or "outflank" your opponent. I always wondered why regions did not provide for multiple alternative paths inside them to flank opposing fleets through the use of "sideway" gates and routes....... Chokepoints you say? of course i would love to have those, but between regions...not in constellations, nor in single systems in the middle of the dam whole region. it would also make regions themselves a more distinctive location, with plenty of people travelling around it, with very specific entry/exit points with high-traffic. Such a change is drastic, since it will alter the entire cluster landscape but i cannot stop wondering how many fleets would get smashed with such geography.

Also, on the topic of holding terrrioty, it also seemed strange that a sovereign nation could put up their flag "anywhere", just place a POS and no matter wether it was 5 or 25 jumps away from the nearest claimed system, it was the same. For me territory benefits should come to those who have are able to set a contiguous border and hold it on their own. I would not remove the option to actually put a POS anywhere you want, but in order to really get the benefits of Sov holding, it should be a contiguous "land", and therefore recognizable by other sov holders (specially CONCORD and the  Empire in political context).

Finally on the issue of capitals and supercapitals. My view is very simple actually

Dreads: Gun Heavy hitters, both against structures and other capitals, siege cycle shorter (2-3 mins?). Best jump range.

Carriers: The logistics/supply backbone, up to 5 fighters only (no damage bonuses), fighters being defensive drones against capitals triage cycle shorter (2-3 mins?). No ability to use ganglinks at all. Best jump range.

SuperCarriers: The offensive backbone, up to 10 fighters/fighter bombers (5 from skills, 5 from supercap skill bonus on ship) and bonuses to them, no ganglinks at all, no jumpclone or ECM burst abilities. Average jump range

Titans: The command forward base, Ganklink centric (with uber fleet bonuses?), with DD, clone vat bays, and portals. Plenty of hangar space (30-40 BSs in maintenance hangar) and corporate hangar (equal to a POS hangar array), with up to 5 fighters. Worst jump range.

Removal of rigs to all caps/supercaps (in itself is just nonsense that i can rig a 14km long ship). In my less than well informed view, this could balance capships bewtween themselves and against sub-cap fleets, suddenly the spider tank holding the large supercap fleet has a weak point, the carrier, and they can be neuted and destroyed by subcaps.

As for the development of 0.0....well........i can't say much, but would love to see moons changed to degrees of metallicity, so you get random quantities of moongo up and down (ie: an uber moon gives tech/dyspro/caes and next time another result with mixed stuff centered around one of the particular rarities), with moon miners placed outside the POS shields so they could be sabogated but not destroyed. It would solve the technetium bottleneck and would also give an average "value" to a moon, but not absolute isk value per hour.

Would love to see destroyable outposts or the ability to set Treaties, but those features might be so complex that i wonder how such game tools could actually help 0.0 somehow.

[Lyn Farel]

Dreads: Gun Heavy hitters, both against structures and other capitals, siege cycle shorter (2-3 mins?). Best jump range.

Carriers: The logistics/supply backbone, up to 5 fighters only (no damage bonuses), fighters being defensive drones against capitals triage cycle shorter (2-3 mins?). No ability to use ganglinks at all. Best jump range.

SuperCarriers: The offensive backbone, up to 10 fighters/fighter bombers (5 from skills, 5 from supercap skill bonus on ship) and bonuses to them, no ganglinks at all, no jumpclone or ECM burst abilities. Average jump range

Titans: The command forward base, Ganklink centric (with uber fleet bonuses?), with DD, clone vat bays, and portals. Plenty of hangar space (30-40 BSs in maintenance hangar) and corporate hangar (equal to a POS hangar array), with up to 5 fighters. Worst jump range.

What is the difference between your supercarriers and your dreads ?

[Saikoyu]

Not Bruno, but looking at this, if this were to happen, I would say this is what fleet doctrine would become. 

Dreads and Carriers become the premire strike fleet again, as they have the best range and compliment each other.  Dreads can cycle out of siege in time to be repped by the carriers going into triage.  However, I don't think you could take territory with these, neither has staying power.  So, mostly the first strike or raiding fleets with these I think.

Supercarriers become the heavy hitters, but with reduced range they are more ships that you have to either support (fuel dumps) or keep close to home.  If I were running everything, I would be tempted to use them for defense, and not send them out unless I was in the final stage of a battle to take something.

Titans again, I would use as a forward defense base, to support the supercarriers.  With bad jump range, I doubt I would ever use them for attack, unless the need for shock and awe won out. 

I don't know what it would do about sov, but it would give dreads a role again, I think. 

EDIT:  Just adding on an idea that came up five seconds ago.

Personally, I would love for carriers and super-carriers to fit their roles better.  Carriers are really nothing more that extra large logistics ships, so really make them that.  Most of the bonuses are related to that, so keep that and let the fighters be something like putting light drones on a Guardian.  Sure you can, but why?  Then on the other side of the coin, make super-carriers less super.  Make then dockable like carriers, give them about the same HP as carriers, etc.  However, give them the ability to assign their fighter bombers as well as fighters, maybe even give them more fighter or fighter bombers to play with.  Then, instead of dropping in with the attacking fleet, they jump to someplace else in the attacked system and assign their dps.  When the attacked force sees the fighter bombers, they now have the choice of killing the dps, or trying to find and kill the carrier. 

But that is mostly me and my dislike of something called a "carrier" being in the front lines of a fight.