|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
228
   |
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
I agree wholeheartedly. The only point that I'd like to make is that the cost of maintaining control of a district should not increase linearly with the number controlled. The cost should increase exponentially such that controlling larger areas becomes increasingly more difficult. The exponential curve would need to be tweaked by CCP to give a certain threshold maximum area controlled without too much fuss. Frankly, this is how SOV should be in Eve as well.
And yes, I realize that larger corps/alliances will split into smaller groups to exploit the nonlinear costs, but nevertheless, a nonlinear, exponential cost growth is the best way to encourage more dynamics and entry points for smaller groups.
|
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
229
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:Buster Friently wrote:I agree wholeheartedly. The only point that I'd like to make is that the cost of maintaining control of a district should not increase linearly with the number controlled. The cost should increase exponentially such that controlling larger areas becomes increasingly more difficult. The exponential curve would need to be tweaked by CCP to give a certain threshold maximum area controlled without too much fuss. Frankly, this is how SOV should be in Eve as well.
And yes, I realize that larger corps/alliances will split into smaller groups to exploit the nonlinear costs, but nevertheless, a nonlinear, exponential cost growth is the best way to encourage more dynamics and entry points for smaller groups.
i have no interests in punishing corps for being large
Fine, it's your idea, but this is part of the nullsec problem in Eve. It's too easy for large alliances (note not corps) to just cordon off large sections of space and build static boundaries. Also, i wouldn't consider this a punishment, just a less than linear benefit. The real world works this way too (not that it matters much for a game) but larger populations become much more difficult to control than a linear curve would allow for.
Anyway, I'll defer to your judgement as it's your idea and thread. Also, I do support your idea in general, and even without my stipulation, I think it sounds better than what I've heard from CCP. |
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
230
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:
Just because You don't like those aspects doesn't mean that others don't find them "fun" and doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players who want forced restrictions to slow down the corps who actually have their **** together. If you're a small corp and that is holding back your ability to get things accomplished, then you need to up your game and grow your corp.
If you don't want to wade through the politics and the metagame, I fear you are playing the wrong game.
I'm going to jump in here again, and mention that you've sorta contradicted yourself here. I am in a small corp. No, I don't want to be in a large corp. Currently, nullsec in Eve has very little room for a corp like mine, which means that when you say "...doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players...", currently Eve in nullsec very much benefits mostly those players of very large corps/alliances. I don't have a problem with that BTW, other than to say that it'd be nice if there was a little more room in Eve (and maybe Dust) for us little corps to hide.
But, telling another player to not suggest crafting the game to better suit them, is kinda saying that you want the game crafted to make your playstyle dominant.
There should be a middle ground. |
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
234
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 03:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:First I agree with the preface problems I have played eve and know the dull and drull of no fighting.
I agree with the goals of the idea mostly. With the major exception of exponentially increasing costs of control. This is a partial factor in NAP fests as its all different faces of the same dice. The effort should be static per territory. Thus larger corps need more 'crop hands' to make use of all they currently have or get more folks to help out with new territory.
Let me quickly summarize why I think exponential costs are a necessity (I also agree the costs should be active as Vrain has said)
For any kind of ownership of space/land to make sense, it must be a profitable thing to do or no one will be motivated to do it. The problem with linear costs of ownership is that each and every new plot of land/space is then equally profitable. This leads to the infinite expansion of empires until they run into each other. At this point everyone is making so much money, and the empires and risks so large, that no one wants to duke it out over a couple of border systems and risk the entire empire.
The only way to limit growth, and thus introduce chaotic elements in the spaces between the large empires is to have each new plot of land/space cost a little bit more to maintain than the last. Eventually it won't make sense to conquer more (without some form of metagaming). This will leave space for smaller corporations to come in. Because they will be a set of smaller, more diverse, groups, the stakes are lower, and so, more combat and general hi-jinks will ensue thus keeping the game fresh and interesting.
Having said all this, I don't want to further hijack Free Beers' thread with my tweak to his idea. |
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
240
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 01:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Laheon wrote:Agreed re: not punishing large alliances. The "punishments" would come from the metagame, e.g. organising the alliance, maintaining hold on all the planets you want, and making sure spies don't infiltrate the alliance and do a BoB on you.
This is one of the main reasons that we have the blue donut now. The "punishment" of large alliances isn't a punishment, it's simply a means to limit overall size so that large corporations don't just balloon up until they hit each other - exactly what happens in Eve.
Without a logistical size limitation, we will have the exact same thing in Dust. Large alliances will balloon until they control everything, then along the borders they will, for the most part, just accept the borders because it's too much trouble to fight about them, and too much risk for something like the metagame you describe. Causing a "stir" increases the chance of an infiltration, etc, so everyone plays it cool. Thus no activity, and the blue donut.
|
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
244
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 00:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Rasatsu wrote:Buster Friently wrote:Fine, it's your idea, but this is part of the nullsec problem in Eve. It's too easy for large alliances (note not corps) to just cordon off large sections of space and build static boundaries. Also, i wouldn't consider this a punishment, just a less than linear benefit. The real world works this way too (not that it matters much for a game) but larger populations become much more difficult to control than a linear curve would allow for.
Anyway, I'll defer to your judgement as it's your idea and thread. Also, I do support your idea in general, and even without my stipulation, I think it sounds better than what I've heard from CCP. It's impossible to distinguish a small entity that is part of a meta-corp/alliance, versus one that is part of an in-game corp/alliance. Thus all the kind of artificial limits put on in-game size of corp/alliance or territory will just mean those large entities will split up in-game.
I covered this in my first post on the subject. you are correct...to a point. There is an organizational and logistical cost to metagaming and splitting up the alliances to subvert the "large alliance space holding tax" idea. Additionally, because the alliances themselves will have to be split up, there will be less centralized control, and more room for espionage/backstabbing/betrayal etc, because the game engine won't be forcing the command hierarchy all the way down.
This will still lead to more "churn" at the nullsec level, and help to reduce the effectiveness of the blue donut phenomena.
|
|
|
| |
|