Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Eve Online And Current Sov Mechanics

Gameplay Sov Mechanics

  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#81 KuroVolt

KuroVolt

    Never Not Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 03:44 AM

Alot of the ideas people have concerning the sov mechanics do limit playstyles alot.

 

For example; I have seen a few ideas that would make it impossible to govern NRDS as merely having neutrals in your space would weaken your sov status.

 

Like the playstyle or not; can we at the very least agree that it is valid sanbox content that should not just be thrown out on a whim?


  • 2

#82 Fix Lag

Fix Lag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 07:15 PM

You're welcome to engage in clearly sub-optimal policy enforcement, but don't expect a system to be designed around it.


  • 1

#83 KuroVolt

KuroVolt

    Never Not Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:02 AM

You're welcome to engage in clearly sub-optimal policy enforcement, but don't expect a system to be designed around it.

I didnt ask for a system designed around it, Im simply asking for a system that doesnt throw it under the first bus it sees.

 

Keeping the sand in the sandbox if you will.


  • 0

#84 Innominate

Innominate

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 07:51 PM

 

 

Like the playstyle or not; can we at the very least agree that it is valid sanbox content that should not just be thrown out on a whim?

 

I have to agree with you, though not out of giving a shit about NRDS.  Too many people can only think of sov in terms similar to an FPS capture-the-point game and it's this simplistic, pre-scripted sort of sov control that got us into this mess in the first place.  The more open-ended the system, the better.

 

edit:

Digging up this older post:

 

I don't understand how intelligent people like Shadoo or TheMittani haven't suffered crippling ennui from Eve. 

 

It's because they're not playing the same game you are.


Edited by Innominate, 18 October 2013 - 09:30 PM.

  • 4

#85 Marlona Sky

Marlona Sky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:26 PM

Sov should be like climbing a pyrimid. There is more than one side and the sides are connected, so moving to a new one is possible. All eventually lead to the top, sov control.
  • 1

#86 Helicon One

Helicon One

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:26 PM

The more of the existing system can be salvaged in any given proposal the more likely you are to see CCP adopt it since I'm pretty sure they don't particularly want to reinvent the wheel.

 

I'm curious about the idea of a sov system based on a more in-depth iteration of the current sovereignty indexes and infrastructure, and a conquest system based on incrementally degrading those indexes to zero before the sov can be flipped. When a system is attacked there should be a plethora of small objectives to hit with varying flavours and degrees of effect on the owner's sov from POCOs to POSs to station services to mini-TCUs, rather than the current system where there's 2 or 3 do-or-die megagrinds and the only way to take space is form a massive laggy blob and hammer down zillions of hitpoints in one go. Combine this with also making these same structures affecting the amount of players a given system can support, so that a large alliance or coalition has the viable option to consolidate their space into a smaller package and leave the rest for other entities to move in and develop. A 0.0 where, say, the entire CFC or N3 can comfortably live in 2 or 3 regions, they don't really gain all that much to justify the effort of taking another 10, and there's room for numerous other smaller entities to set up shop in the gaps is a 0.0 with much more potential for interesting interactions than a bi-polar Cold War set up like we seem to have today.


Edited by Helicon One, 21 October 2013 - 08:27 PM.

  • 1

#87 tgr

tgr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:38 PM

I looked at this a while ago, and I was left with the following:

- I think it's a bit too structured.
- I dislike the SBUs, I'm not a fan of giving the defender an x hour warning that "I'm going to attack here".
- I dislike the thing with the timers being set by the defender (and progressively shifting towards the attacker).
- I'm not convinced it's a good idea to reduce the number of buttons as you work your way inwards
- I'm not convinced that making the final timer drop sov in the entire constellation is a good idea, still sounds a bit harsh against morale.

 

It'd still be an improvement over the current system, but it's still a system with a flowchart to describe how to progress. In my view, the fewer rules a system has, the better it is, and if it can be boiled down to something akin to "the majority of moons around a planet gains you sov over that planet, majority of planets gains you sov over that system" then that sounds like a much more sandboxy system than el digin's.


  • 0

#88 Helicon One

Helicon One

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 02:43 PM

For some reason when I think about taking sov I'm reminded of settlement control during the time I spent playing Rome Total War (maybe the rest of the series too since that's the only one I played), and how there were multiple ways to take control of a settlement. You could blockade until they surrendered, breach the walls with siege equipment, send spies and diplomats to undermine the defences or sow discord, or simply wait for the opposing army to come out and fight. There might have been more too, it's a long time since I played.

 

Dominion gave us a very one-dimensional hitpoint grind, but there should be other methods on the table than only brute force. Obviously I don't think there necessarily need to be direct analogues to all the RTW options (spies and diplomats we have already!) but as a design concept there should be more than one way within the sov mechanics of taking space.


Edited by Helicon One, 27 October 2013 - 02:49 PM.

  • 3

#89 tgr

tgr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:24 PM

The problems I've found while discussing sv mechanics is that most people I argue against seem to be shortsighted in some fashion or other. Some seem to be looking at bloc size and proclaiming that as the problem, instead of it being a symptom of the sov system, some seem to be thinking that the only way one should be able to win is by brute force, and some seem to be thinking that the only way to salvation is by adding more rules to the system, to make it more complex.

 

Add to that the fact that CCP are probably so enamored with the whole publicity deal around "over 4000 players in one system" (even though the whole event was bullshit) that even if we were to convince players to think up a good suggestion, I strongly doubt we'd get CCP on board with it, mainly because a good system wouldn't let numbers get that high unless we had vastly more people IN nullsec.


  • 1

#90 Yeep

Yeep

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:23 PM

Assuming CCP doesn't want to completely throw out the existing Sov system:

Firstly you have to fix income so that even the lowest truesec 0.0 system is at least equal to running highsec level 4s. Eve-o pubbies like to point at emtpy systems as evidence of large alliances holding space just to shit on their dreams but the reality is that most empty systems are empty because they suck and a number of game mechanics don't really support holding space any less granularly than a region. If you make even shitty 0.0 better than highsec and have income scale from there you could have alliances be much more compact with their money making. Compact alliances also have the advantage of being easier to raid; local with 100 people in is much harder to monitor for hostiles than local with 5-10.

Secondly, massively nerf the EHP of all Sov structures but allow an alliance to boost them back to current levels using fuel. Have each type of fuel you put in boost resistances by a set amount forcing you to choose between EHP and frequency of refueling trips. This way you can have your core systems and anywhere you are actively fighting permanantly at a high level of defense but your outlying systems would be easy for a medium sized gang to go knock into reinforced. It also adds the opportunity for human error on the part of the defenders which was one of the nice parts of the old POS system. Logistics people get burned out during a war and an alert attacker should be able to capitalize on a fueling mistake.

Thirdly probably bring back the old stront system. POS kiting was a really good tradeoff between getting a timer you wanted and the safety of your cap fleet and stront timing introduces another point of failure due to human error. Also you can't just log on an alt to change the stront on a Sov structure because there are no shields. If you have to keep flying out to replace the stront in a structure each time a medium sized gang knocks it into reinforced you're going to have to think hard about whether you really need the space (or spend money on fueling it for resistances).


  • 2

#91 GordanSchumway

GordanSchumway

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:12 AM

If station assets were somehow vulnerable either through looting or destruction sovereignty conflict would be a lot more meaningful. Looting might also provide a nice reward for aggressors. 


  • 0

#92 DrunkRussian

DrunkRussian

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:32 AM

If station assets were somehow vulnerable either through looting or destruction sovereignty conflict would be a lot more meaningful. Looting might also provide a nice reward for aggressors. 

How does this make it more meaningful exactly? To hit a station is still a major grind and a half, this merely only changes the end outcome, but nothing else needed.

 

Also, people would just base out of NPC null instead. 


  • 0

#93 Fix Lag

Fix Lag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:07 AM

Fuelling stuff manually sucks cock.  The less of that there is, the better.


Plus, there's nothing quite so refreshing as forgetting to pay sov bills and losing all your sov :frogbon:


  • 0

#94 tgr

tgr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:06 AM

While fuelling manually may suck, it does still add another dimension to the system. However, if I had to choose between fuelling or stronting, I'd point to stronting (or its equivalent), just to make kiting/counter-kiting possible. Because fuck setting an exit RF-time in a GUI, we need more possibilities for people to fuck up.


Edited by tgr, 29 October 2013 - 01:33 PM.

  • 0

#95 Yeep

Yeep

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:12 AM

Fuelling stuff manually sucks cock.  The less of that there is, the better.

 

Thats sort of the point. The goal was to make the base state of sov fairly easy to contest but allow alliances to boost their defenses in systems that are important to them. The boost has to have both a human and an ISK cost. Fueling structures (as opposed to something like a system that forces ratting to boost the sov level) allows you to have fortresses in warzones and on your borders if you are prepared to put the effort in.

 

Edit: And I wasn't suggesting your sov drops if you don't fuel a structure. I'd envisage for most of your systems you'd just drop some stront in when you deploy the thing and forget about it until someone put it into reinforced. The only systems you'd be regularly fueling would be ones in active warzones or your home.


Edited by Yeep, 29 October 2013 - 11:17 AM.

  • 0

#96 GordanSchumway

GordanSchumway

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:57 PM

How does this make it more meaningful exactly? To hit a station is still a major grind and a half, this merely only changes the end outcome, but nothing else needed.

 

 

If stations could be looted aggressors would be rewarded for their grinding efforts. If stations could be destroyed, or if assets belonging to the defender were destroyed upon capture there aggressors wouldn't have to worry about alts sneaking back in(see solar deadzone). 

 

Why should people be able to hold onto the stuff they have in a station that falls into the hands of the enemy? For the sake of believability pilots should not be able to hold assets indefinitely in hostile territory. 


  • 0

#97 Yeep

Yeep

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:32 PM

Why should people be able to hold onto the stuff they have in a station that falls into the hands of the enemy? For the sake of believability pilots should not be able to hold assets indefinitely in hostile territory. 

 

For the sake of balance we should probably allow you to steal shit from your war target's station hangars too. I mean Concord doesn't care about you blowing up their ship why should they care if you abscond with their stockpiles of exotic dancers.


  • 0

#98 Aethelric

Aethelric

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:08 PM

Why should people be able to hold onto the stuff they have in a station that falls into the hands of the enemy? For the sake of believability pilots should not be able to hold assets indefinitely in hostile territory. 

Your idea makes sov-holding even less attractive. It's terrible, "believability" is irrelevant.


  • 1

#99 Helicon One

Helicon One

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:26 PM

The day captured/destroyed stations can have their hangars looted is the day that every nullsec resident evacuates their non-essentials to the nearest NPC station and 0.0 outposts become nothing more than a location for a single ratting ship and a week or so of ammo.


  • 2

#100 GordanSchumway

GordanSchumway

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:15 AM

The more of the existing system can be salvaged in any given proposal the more likely you are to see CCP adopt it since I'm pretty sure they don't particularly want to reinvent the wheel.

I agree, and this begs the question: Which parts of the current sov system  should be preserved? 


  • 0






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users