Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 10:09:13 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Eve Online  |  Topic: Providence and Sov Mechanics 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Providence and Sov Mechanics  (Read 5060 times)
Stabs
Terracotta Army
Posts: 796


on: February 22, 2010, 06:52:01 PM

Wasn't 9UY taken largely without a fight because one side or the other was afraid to jump in due to lag?  And The systems in Aegis Militia space have been constantly going sov neutral as a result of a bug.

Here is a perspective on 9UY from the point of view of one of the attackers.
http://evemonkey.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/going-for-the-heart-of-providence/

Now there's no such thing as an unbiased report in Eve but according to his description the attackers were just badly coordinated and fairly easily picked off. Plenty of Providence defenders did jump in and get killed:
"The -A- killboards for the operation in 9UY (not including our kills in 9-F) show the VERY favourable result of 222 ships killed for 16 ships lost"

My perception is that people are playing and that most 0,0 people are not just sitting in stations spinning their ships waiting for CCP to fix stuff.

AEGIS dropped sov because they wanted to transfer sov from one alliance to another and the only way to do this is by dropping sov then onlining TCUs. They have had trouble getting sov since they dropped it. They claim this is a bug, their enemies claim it's because they don't understand the game mechanics.

I really have no idea who is right. From a game design perspective I do think that even a game as harsh as Eve should give you feedback for failure but in practice it often doesn't. (Hence the "CONCORD just killed me for NO reason!!!! experiences).

The CAOD poo-flinging match is here:
http://eve-search.com/thread/1272374
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 07:00:58 PM by Stabs »
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14223


Reply #1 on: February 22, 2010, 07:00:28 PM

And all you could report was from the massacre in Providence. Which everyone else was saying was the exception to the stagnation of 0.0. If your "perception" was fact then you would have reports from other rejoins. Which you don't.

In reality everyone is still dropping systems as they cant afford to keep them. And the number of people involved in 0.0 bullshit has dropped by a significant number as there is no point.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 07:04:01 PM by Sir T »

Hic sunt dracones.
Stabs
Terracotta Army
Posts: 796


Reply #2 on: February 22, 2010, 07:03:14 PM

Dropping systems is healthy and has nothing to do with lag-induced stagnation.

Expensive sov is a long-term mechanic aimed at getting more people into 0,0. Since the sov map is the same as the '07 map that is a good thing.
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14223


Reply #3 on: February 22, 2010, 07:08:52 PM

No its not healthy, as the only way you can improve systems is by having sov in them. If you cant improve systems you will earn fuck all money from them, so your alliance earns less money than ever from the territory you nominally control the more systems you drop sov in. Its a death spiral.

As was seen with CVA, any small alliance that tries to take a scrap of o.o claimed by the big boys will be destroyed. "Expensive sov is a long-term mechanic aimed at getting more people into 0,0" is false as it will not work. How is a small alliance supposed to pay for its scrap of 0.0 if the big alliances can't and yet the big boys will still boot them out for daring to attack a system in their imaginary line? Sorry.

Its like CCP wondering why sod all alliances entered for the second alliance tourney, when the reality was you had to have 20 billion in money to even compete (and 20 billion then meant a fuck load more than it does now), and most alliances did not have the money and/or had better things to spend it on.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 07:14:19 PM by Sir T »

Hic sunt dracones.
Stabs
Terracotta Army
Posts: 796


Reply #4 on: February 22, 2010, 07:12:08 PM

It's not a death spiral.

It's a change in the ratio of  0,0 gameplay with regard to ratting against pvping. People in 0,0 now have to rat more to pay for pvp losses. That's a design choice.
Stabs
Terracotta Army
Posts: 796


Reply #5 on: February 22, 2010, 07:15:02 PM

As was seen with CVA, any small alliance that tries to take a scrap of o.o claimed by the big boys will be destroyed. "

Using CVA as evidence that small alliances don't work under Dominion is not scientific. It's a sample size of one and a very unique set of circumstances.
Sparky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 805


Reply #6 on: February 22, 2010, 08:36:37 PM

It's a change in the ratio of  0,0 gameplay

Brilliant euphemism sir  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?
Phildo
Contributor
Posts: 5872


Reply #7 on: February 22, 2010, 10:03:08 PM

One could point to the plethora of alliances that are renting space from Atlas, IT, the NC or the drone Russians as examples of how smaller alliances can break into 0.0.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11839


Reply #8 on: February 23, 2010, 01:04:18 AM

To be fair, I do think the reduction in the size of space empires (and the increase in the number of space renters and space pets) has been a good side-effect of 0.0 sucking monkey balls since Dominion.

It remains to be seen whether fixing 0.0 rewards will reverse this (or if ccp will ever fix 0.0 rewards).

Planets done right could be a good engine for fixing the 0.0 rewards with individual player level income without removing the need for renters.


Oh and none of this talks to the problem of sov warfare being too swingy, favouring the defender too much, and too prone to :lolgoons:.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4297


Reply #9 on: February 23, 2010, 02:33:14 AM

Dropping systems is healthy and has nothing to do with lag-induced stagnation.

Expensive sov is a long-term mechanic aimed at getting more people into 0,0. Since the sov map is the same as the '07 map that is a good thing.

What is it about MMO's that make people so fucking stupid with regards to economics.

Jesus fuck people, if you make something more expensive it will happen less and only those with larger means will be able to partake.

If you wanted to get small entities into 0.0 you would have to make holding individual systems insanely cheap and easy to defend. Then you would have to make holding more systems more expensive at an increasing rate.

Then you would have to make it impossible for people to communicate across alliances in any format. Because people would just form coalitions with multiple alliances once they hit the marginal block.

If you want to see a lot of people in 0.0 its retardedly fucking easy to do, you make it really profitable to go there. People will go there because its profitable. People will be more likely to shoot each other because the risk of loss will be lower.
Predator Irl
Terracotta Army
Posts: 403


Reply #10 on: February 23, 2010, 05:15:40 AM


If you want to see a lot of people in 0.0 its retardedly fucking easy to do, you make it really profitable to go there. People will go there because its profitable. People will be more likely to shoot each other because the risk of loss will be lower.

Close but not quite...

You need to make it more expensive for alliances to hold mass amounts of space AND make it much more profitable for the individual rather than the alliance!

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one!
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11839


Reply #11 on: February 23, 2010, 08:36:57 AM

I assume the Space Sim City expansion thing will do that. Though I guess they'll either fuck up and create lvl 4 empire mission redux, or fuck up and only achieve the equivalent of adding an extra mid-range moon to each planet.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Sparky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 805


Reply #12 on: February 23, 2010, 08:46:02 AM

I assume they'll want to make it worthwhile as the success of their DUST game rather relies on people giving a shit about planets.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11839


Reply #13 on: February 23, 2010, 08:56:21 AM

I assume they want to make it worthwhile because otherwise why the fuck bother. However, :ccp:.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Eve Online  |  Topic: Providence and Sov Mechanics  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC