I liked the dynamic of local being borked entirely, though it seems to have settled down for me.
In my opinion, CCP is not moving in the right direction. What am I to do? Introduced ultra-high class ships, the construction of which requires metal, say, ultranite. Its extraction occurs only in the moons, which are located in the east. Goons are on the opposite side of the cant of EVE. To get it, you need to get there. Ultranite has a side effect, disables all electronics. Accordingly, the locale does not work.
Here it is, CCP does too much equal treatment for everyone, and inequality is needed for movement.
A territory is created that brings fabulous profits, but for this you need to constantly transfer structures and be constantly on your guard.
So you give the other half of the donut superships?
How does that create anything but another donut?
1 Like
Those are current mechanics. That does not mean they have to be the future mechanics.
Though iv only roughly thought about it iâd do something like this
- Create four five options for diplomacy. Hostile , Neutral, Subjugated, Friendly,
- Each setting will grant access to specific things. For example, Friendly or ally setting will enable them rights to dock, repair, use station facilities etc, where hostile setting will reject them all access. Subjection treaty is slightly better then neutral but not as good as friendly which will grant access to stations but have tax rates imposed natively that will be deposited into the alliance wallet (a new feature with this round of upgrades)
- Depending on what setting they declared each other their standing will grow a specific amount based on actions, or time. For example, - 0.05 standing a day, or - 0.001 standing a kill for hostile groups. After they reach certain levels of standing more action is taken against them, Like declaring them a war target, or an ally. (respectively at -7.5 and + 7.5) which will change the nature of their relationship.
- Rework the skill systems so that corporations are limited in their size to around 250 (@50 per level, and not longer can obtain larger amounts of players; further adding a 10 corporation cap to alliances. This is highly important as it will distribute population through eve. Also creating skills that improve either the tax rates, subjection income rates, rate at which standing is earned or decreased etc this will open up training and more options for alliance leaders.
- Creation of an alliance wallet, alliance hangers similar to that to corporations, with the alliance gui (graphic user interface) having a way to set people with specific access via a search feature (think of the access granted in channel moderation).
As we continueâŚ
Lets talk about Coalitions for a minute, and the nature of players to form them. Players always do the most efficient thing, and they always look for the most efficient thing. Gaining the best result with minimal effort. This is the nature of us as gamers.
- Iâd then limit the amount of space alliances can control, then allow them to claim âneutral zoneâ systems around their space maybe for 1-2 jumps where it prevented people from claiming there with out an active war dec
- Require fully declared war for taking sov
When you know this and shape your design around this, it becomes much easier to control players and get the expected result. Our objective should be to support alliances in specific aspects and control them in others. Example of that is renter alliances. This is a good concept for alliances, it benefits the players looking for access. Whats abusive about it is that it turns the player base into slaves. So by introducing a tax system we control, but support the hosting alliance. Weâll just need to figure out the acceptable rates in each field to make it easier on the hosts, and they dont have the added benefit of not being paid, or being paid late, etc. These sorts of systems are streamlined worked into the game and as a result require less effort and more natively fit in with efficiency of playerbase (which i like to call the âant theoryâ)
When it comes to coalitionsâŚ
It is largely in place because of goonswarm. Prior to the existence of goons most alliances only had one maybe two allies. For example, Ascn and Axiom, Bob and Pixies and Zad, G and Iron, etc. Coalitions like we know them today with 10+ alliances in them were an issue.
By limiting the amount of blues you can set, you encourage conflict. if you hard set the system so that you can only declare so many allies (blues) and so many slaves, and cannot instant set standings, you engage a new world of issues for larger scale coordination, like that of coalitions. Once you get in the battlefield there are no more temp blues. Coordinating around that in massive fleet battles will require Ticker use on the overview, so if you delete the corp/alliance ticker, you suddenly have no way to track friendly neuts, and hostile ones, preventing a work around out side of game.
In theory its possible to circumvent this with wave attacks, but at that rate youâd balance the fight mostly to your rival vs neutral friendimies. and im ok with those odds it gives the lower coalitions a chance to fight the bigger ones. So you see, with a few changes you can completely invalidate the mechanic that hosts coalitions and temp alliances positions.
Iv been here since the start of the game, and there has been many things players have done that no longer exist or are possible. So this would not be a true statement.
no. You are misdiagnosing the issues. Botting is not a reason to invalidate renting. For example, large income rates to host alliances would be a reason to invalidate renting.
Botting is a byproduct of non-interactive game play (ie afk to play). Which is another, significantly serious problem in eve (imo, itâs the second biggest)
This is such a great question, and it deserves a great answer.
Iâd like to paint eveâs sandbox into a 3x3 foot (1.5meter) size. Imagine now there is 3 11 ear old fat bully like kids in there with their freckles and donuts in hands. Ever 4 year old kid that tries to come in play in there must follow their rules and pay 10 donuts for entry but are often kicked out before the have eaten half of their donuts.
That is what eve is like right now. I asked you, Would mom allow those bullies to keep being bullies if she caught sight of it?
as developers itâs out jobs to design the sandbox, and make sure its fair to people. As hellmar said âI wish eve was more fair, and more cruelâ. He wants to make the game punish you more for mistakes, but be more equal footed. While i question if hellmar is evil at core, i donât disagree about making the game fair and would question what is disgree of cruel would be before iâd support or be in opposition to it.
On a deeper point, games require this natural cycle of life and death. Alliances are in an immortal phase which prevents that. This phase prevents their die off which results in monopoly and wide spread abuse in the game.
IF you were to remove all goon players and alts, youâd massively effect the game. no more major wars in null, all the high sec ganking gone, burn jitaâs removed, scamming removed largely, market manipulation removed largely. All of these things would be a result of removing one entity that has monopolized and manipulated the game form the start of their existence.
While hellmar supports these kinds of actions i do not. He hides behind false or limited metric data claiming these evil actions are good for the game, however, the truth is that good begets good, and evil, evil. At the core of his statements i oppose him on their principle because i know the nature of these actions and the products that come from it.
I make these points because when we talk about control its important to understand that this is not a negative thing for the game, actually its a positive thing. something that will bring about more fun and enjoyment for people, not less.
The game does not need larger ships. It needs the large ships to not be able to do anything (no ddâs or smart bombs, targeting etc) to small sub-capitals. This will force capitals to be escorted or die.
You could then create a new ship class between sub cap and capital and make that ship be the interaction between the two. Something fast and agile slightly larger then bs, that will eat bs, carrier and dreads out right. Something like oracle for a new ship class that goâs 1-1.5km but is insanely hard for capitals to track it.
Ulranite deposits can occur throughout the EVE map, preventing large industrial blocks from settling. And ships are built as valuable as the titans at the dawn of their birth. Letâs say they destroy a citadel in 1 time, without reinforcing. Or a cruiser with an interceptor function.
This is true.
I hate to admit it, but after my first account got hounded out of high security space by war declarations, we ended up in null, and after our null got flushed, we tried a wormhole. Thatâs about the point I decided eve was a waste of time and I stopped playing on that account.
So true. How ridiculous would it have been if customâs officeâs needed PI in order for them to be built when first released?
Thatâs probably a good reason the big blocks wonât even fight a pitched battle with each other, its not that theyâre afraid of winning ( or loosing ) but they know theyâll be left in a position where they canât maintain a critical mass.
That would have been a much better shakeup of the sandbox than this crap with local.
That is the effective outcome of the change, since in a WH you canât get cynoâd and you can roll holes.
If we wanted local to be a constant stream of lies, weâd stay in Jita.
There are probably lots of things that have been talked about for 15 years ( like WIS ) yet no doubt when CCP finally implements them stuff happens like the poo-pooâing of that statue in Jita.
No, its turd polishing. Theyâre cooking the books with the free SP event too. If there was any confidence in the blackout it would be run in isolation without a bunch of âactivityâ events to skew the figures.
There are some whoâd argue more superships isnât the answer to the problems that already exist due to supershipsâŚ
And theyd be right
Wow, you just get worse and worse at actually understanding a damned thing, donât you?
Your weak-ass small-scale PvP, you can get anywhere. Show me another game out there that puts thousands of people in the same fight. Where the same level of strategic maneuvering over years, during both war and peace, gets done.
Because CCPâs been a bunch of empty talk for a long, long time.
They are. And the blackout should continue long enough to get real, meaningful data. But doing that means knocking off the â â â â â â â â ever-changing promotions that try to pollute the data CCP says they want to collect.
But the complainers are paying customers, just like you. Theyâve got every right to give CCP their opinion of the changes to the service they pay for. And theyâve got every right to stop paying for it if itâs not something they want.
Youâre a freaking idiot. At the most basic level, all the stuff Ockerâs talking about needs is the FC saying âOk, donât freaking shoot NCdot, weâre on the same side this fightâ. Thatâs it. Thereâs no mechanical change youâre gonna make that can prevent the FC from giving that order.
None of those things prevent actual diplomacy, which is what gets done now. And none of the stuff you suggest as a follow-on prevents âOk, guys, nobody shoot NCdot.â That is literally all you need in this game: people being told who not to shoot.
You also clearly have no idea how alliances are coded right now, Right now, theyâre basically âcorporations with corporations as membersâ. Your idea would pretty much require recoding⌠EVE. Almost every major part of it. And it wouldnât solve a damned thing. It wouldnât really even slow us down.
The current game mechanics already push toward a minimal footprint. The structure of Aegis Sov wants max population density, not max controlled space. The problem comes in with the fact that the way things are, you canât take and hold sov in a meaningful way unless you can oppose a hostile supercapital force. To do that, you need to already have your own supercapital force. But the only reasonable way to get a supercapital force is to hold sov. Itâs a bootstrap paradox.
The result of that paradox is that the wars that should be pressuring groups toward maximum density arenât happening. Because nobody can hold or reasonably take sov without a supercapital force, and you canât get a supercapital force of any size without having sov, nobodyâs really willing to risk the one they have. You canât afford to lose it. That, not anything having to do with alliance structure or the sov system, is why groups can have sprawling empires many times larger than they need: because the enemy isnât going to do the thing that would force them to condense.
We could force them to condense. We just did, up north. But weâre here to play the game, not fix the game, and we canât un-bork supercapital mechanics ourselves.
The game company controlling the tax rate doesnât solve the rental problem. It doesnât matter who sets the tax rate, it means you have people getting rich in the game without actually working for that ISK. Itâs a passive income stream. They can keep on collecting their money, all without undocking. Why? Because anyone wanting to take the space from the holding alliance needs to be able to beat their supercapital force.
If you canât beat the supercapital fleet, you canât stop them from renting out that space. At best, you can make that space unliveable with cloaky hunters. Guess what! People already do that. The renters keep on going. The landlords keep on collecting money without undocking.
Goonswarm, TNT, LAWN, the Bastion, The Initiative, Init Mercenaries. Your lack of grasp of math is showing again.
And no, BoBâs old vassal groups would constitute a coalition today. The old RUS bloc was one. And still, nothing youâve offered prevents ânobody shoot NCdotâ.
So lemme get this straight. You think we were behind, say⌠PL invading Providence last year? Legacy kicking them out of Providence last year? HRE kicking xDeath out of the north? The Legacy/WinterCo/PanFam war last year? The reforming RUS bloc trying to take space from WinterCo? The Legacy/Winter war that got briefly interrupted by Drifters?
Understand something: we donât want this crap stagnating any more than anyone else does. But we can only play the game CCP gives us, and right now, the game CCPâs given us gives you 2 options for living in nullsec: Youâre either a)the guy with the biggest supercapital fleet, more or less unassailable like some kind of mega-shark prowling the depths, or b)chum.
All of the things you are suggesting point to a very facile, flawed understanding of both how players handle things, and how EVE itself works, except for one single thing:
Iâd go even farther. It needs the large ships to have specific, defined roles and purposes. Inside those roles, they should be gods. Outside those roles, they should be liabilities. And those roles should have very limited applications, which are not necessary to living and making war in null. Helpful? Hell yes. Necessary? Hell no.
Yeah, itâs almost like Iâm a part of Goonswarm leadership or something, and know of what I speak.
3 Likes
And you cannot read when i said âRemove corp/alliance tickers from overviewâ.
GG
Actually i was thinking buff the â â â â out of station damage and life and damage reduction and raise the damage per second cap, and buff capitals to being about capital vs capital and super vs station battles. i might go even as far as to remove timers from stations after this. That would generate stupid amounts of content.
This would put them in their own area and open up capital vs npc capital ratting making capital ships behave in ways like sub cap. This would encourage capital pilots to get into sub cap ships to fight and return to caps later for station blobbing.
1 Like
So you are proposing - If you arenât set to blue you canât fleet up? That would seem to be very unfair toward NPC corp members who run roams into nul or lowsec. It would all but kill off NRDS groups (all of Provi at least)
-
We already have 5 options for Diplomacy and i donât really see anyone wanting to be set âsubjugatedâ
-
So âsubjugationâ is basically âfriendlyâ and can already have different taxes and access to services set.
-
Not sure whether the two negatives in your example were deliberate or a mistake. If deliberate, no-one would ever be able to set someone blue, if an accident and the daily figure is a +0.05 that makes it 150 days to get to +7.5 before you can set blue standing for another group of players
-
Ok, 500 members for a corp, 5,000 for an Alliance - So for example Goons split up into much smaller corps and create 6 X 5,000 man alliances - I donât see that as doing anything other than creating 6 new alliances that each have a thousand Supers each and will live in the same space they currently do.
-
Limiting the amount of space a single alliance can control - Awesome, you just created 6 individual alliances out of one and each can control X amount of space - No problem here, thereâs still room for their âfriendsâ to share the same region or even surrounding regions.,.
-
Ok I have to go back to a previous part of your post for this. - 0.01 standing loss for hostiles kills to reach -7.5 so you can set them red :- So possibly Months of grinding away kills to get your standings with someone bad enough you can declare war on them. Who wants to take new sov anyway, who wants to go to war.,.
You do know that due to Super proliferation it is highly unlikely there will ever be another massive (like those of days gone by) fleet fight.
Even without corp or alliance tickers it isnât hard to work out who your friends are in a fight.
Nothing other than the complete removal (or re-purposing) of Supers from the game is going to give a âlower coalitionâ a chance against one of the Blocs that wants them out or just dead. Even without supers, smaller groups facing off against a larger well organised group (which no matter what mechanics you introduce are here to stay) is doomed to failureâŚ
Youâve been her since the beginning yet donât see how CCP is ALWAYS playing catchup and for the most part failing at it. Sov for example, 3 different iterations and it is still a grind fest, made worse than ever due to player owned structures adding so much more grinding just to be able to live somewhere.
History;
BOB ruled nulsec with an iron fist, until they were betrayed (player content - CCP had nothing to do with it). CO2 an old long time alliance, held prime space with just about the best of everything, until they were betrayed. (Again not CCPâs doing)
Or best of all - Goons who became a thing during the demise of BOB and no sooner was BOB gone - Goons stepped up like a good uncle should and took their place.
Sure CCP have changed a few mechanics that vary the way things are done but they have never been able to stop players doing what they want.
1 Like
You have to remove a lot more than tickers. You need to remove names. And ship types. You need to make it so you canât tell who youâre shooting at. Because the FC calling the targets can just be on comms with the other groupâs FC.
âOk, so you guys are in Muninns? and youâre above the station? Ok, I know which fleet you are, I can just tag targets in the other fleetâ. Seriously, in an era where coordinating FCs can all be sharing their screens with one central coordinator, youâd have to cripple the overview so much, you couldnât find the enemy.
Yeah, because making it so small groups canât take down hostile structures, thatâs gonna liven things way the hell up, ainât it? Even more âYOU MUST HAVE X TITANS TO TAKE SPACEâ.
And no, donât get rid of timers completely. Timers let you set up a fight. They give the defender the chance to, you know, defend. They give the attacker a way to say âYou. Me. After school in the parking lot, punk.â Drop it to 1 timer, like it was w/POSâs. Kill the timers on low-power structures, like a pos thatâs out of fuel.
2 Likes
Sorry to say but this is not needed. First off most people run the same meta, second even if they dident spies will tell you what they run and you could simply just swap to copy their build invalidating this.
At this point its to tedious to track what is what.
Further more if you engaged in larger battles you also realize that groups have a tendency to drift to each other, and allies jump on enemies stacking (thats the whole purpose of blobbing enemies).
ITs just not practical to try to manage who is in what ship type and if they are friendly while tcing.
This situation will last about 15 seconds until an engagement starts, then one sub-fc will send a distress to senior fc commanding all fleets in the coalition and they will need to respond for help or die. Ergo your situation is not valid.
At this rate, People will die if they are neutral and friendly. YOu might be able to minimize it, but you wont be able to prevent it.
The only work around is to attack in waves. group 1 from 11:00-12:00 for example, the next an hour later.
AT this rate however the group is 1v1 or on simi-fair grounds and that results in balanced ish game play (all down to skill and build from there). Weâve seen the power of this in the great war, when 11 people to bobâs 1 failed and lost.
Ok, lemme just say this so you get a clue, ok?
Hi, Iâm a Director in Goonswarm. I am on-grid, usually as either a logistics anchor, recon (as in cynos and overwatch, keeping an eye on how the battlefield is in motion, not tackle), or running a full fleet of faxes, in pretty much every one of our âlarger battlesâ. Believe me, I am acutely aware of how fights develop, and what it takes to keep a clear eye on who is where in what and how theyâre moving. Iâm one of the people in command comms.
Believe me when I tell you that coordination on that level is possible. I can turn my overview off and still be able to do my job if I need to, including positioning the logi wing relative to our fleet and every hostile fleet on the grid, well enough that I can cover allied FCs, if need be. Sometimes, I do turn it off, just to make that positioning almost a challenge.
The things you are suggesting? They will not even slow us down. We have an entire sub-org just for coordination. That sub-org is separate from Scouts, FCs, Recon, and Diplo, but works with all of those other sub-orgs. That is what organization outside the game does: it gives you capabilities the game cannot take away.
3 Likes
no it wouldent, it would gather the sub groups into more official bodies which is better for provi and the players in terms of stability.
It was intentional. I wanted alliances to have value and not be dropped or earn instantly, other wis epeople can temp set for access to bases etc.
Which they could do but then it would just be goons, and no one else (since they are limited to 3 alliances). the point is not to stop goons from being a mega entity, t he point is to break down the map into small coalition blobs. Lots of entities (coalitions) = lots of conflict, politics, etc.
It will happen more naturally then that though its ok if it happens this way. What will naturally happen is people will roam and naturally augment their player-decided rivals standings.
A problem we need to address.
Supers are a complex topic, they provide a unique game play style, as the ships are slower, tankier and harder to move. we need to think hard about them.
because hellmar is a crook and there is always some corporate stupidity from him to the design team, which is why all the good designers left. I often think that he created ccp and make the evil aspects of it to show his own even in life as a master-hoax.
I know, I was in bob from the start.
Eveâs âweak-ass small-scale PvPâ is not something that can be replicated anywhere else. In terms of personal investment, pressure and rush, it also tends to dwarf everything in âlarge-scaleâ PvP, up to and including supercap usage given how unfathomably safe that is these days. Eveâs scale of PvP can be impressive indeed, but donât start shitting on small-scale PvP. It tends to require more skill, more individual investment, more risk and more reward than your average M-O, etc.
1 Like
They really arenât. Gate 'em around in a big group, you can even go to a travel-fit and zip around at about battlecruiser warp speeds.
Have you tried Albion?
1 Like
Researched it. Itâs only superficially the kind of sandbox this is. The individual risk and investment is negligible in comparison.
Albion is trash. Its a pay to win game, pick up elephant, wipe enemy raid. win. These are not albion forums, and albion does not come anywhere near eveâs pvp level. Its not even as high as wow.