Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Discussion time!

Alliance owned Stargates. I think it's time to add this feature to EVE. It could add a good measure of fun to conquering systems, but would need to be approached carefully.

My ideas on this:

All current gates are maintained as they exist, except the alliance that controls the system may choose the gate design from any of the 4 empires (who wouldn't love a bit of extra system customization?) Choice would be permanent for the remainder of EVE's existence.

Sov/Combat Impact:
Gates will remain indestructible objects. However, they will have no reinforcement timers, only an exceptionally large amount of Shields/Armor/Structure. Once Structure is hits 0% the gate deactivates, and can only be reactivated once system Sov is decided.

Gates will be invulnerable, in the same manner as Outposts/Conquerable Stations. The exception being that instead of requiring 50% of the gates be SBU'd, the gate becomes vulnerable when a SBU is activated on grid. Once the gate is SBU'd, it becomes vulnerable to conventional attacks.

This would allow a system to truly be "blockaded", and would add more options for attacking forces. It could possibly increase the usefulness of the Blackops battleships/blockade runners/covops and stealth bombers in freeing a system with disabled gates.

These changes would not affect the requirements for taking Sov, only add more options for crushing your enemies. (Disabling gates would not be required for contesting/taking Sov)

Economic Impact:
Gates are now viable sources of income, providing toll revenue to the controlling alliance. To prevent forcing exorbitant tolls on non-blue players, toll would be limited based on how active the gate is. A higher amount of traffic = a higher allowable toll. Could possibly be calculated in Hundreds/Thousands of jumps to prevent spamming (discussion needed). Gates would be controlled by the owner of the Outposts/Conquerable Station in the system. If no station exists, tolls would be calculated automatically, and capped at approx. 35% of max toll in a system with a station in it and average gate activity.

This would allow Sov holding alliances a new avenue of collecting "taxes" from renters, hopefully spurring a renewed interest in Sov holding alliances renting to smaller groups.


If you agree, or would like to add to this idea please say so and do so! If you disagree, or don't like a particular section, please tell us why! I want your opinions!

Look up Jump Bridges.

Also... giving stargate control to Alliances is not a good idea. They'd just destroy all gates leading into their territory and just use Carriers and Jump Freighters to come and go as they please. No one will be able to touch them.

>0.0
>implying they dont have fleets for EVERY TZ.

good luck with this idea as it dies in a well-deserved fire.

JB are OP, people have been complainming that ease of POWER PROJECTION is a serious issue in 0.0, propose changes to make ease of fleet movement harder, not easier.

the only way I'd ever see such a thing work is that when a system gets "blockaded" as you call it, Black Ops can freely bridge people in without needing an end-point cov ops Cyno AND, that regular cynojammers go off-line the second a system gets blockaded.

Only then we prevent either:

a) A timezone heavy offender (Alliance A) capping the gates to a "important" system before alliance B (defender) Wakes up

b) Defending, or offending parties unable to enter a system because either the hostile have shut the system down or the defenders have shut their own system down.

IF you did it like this (and I'm not necessairily in favor of this idea) then blockading a system would "just" be a nuisance. However, doing it like this also means that only offenders or defenders with Titan's can get into a system once it's blockaded.

Black Ops ships don't have the capability to bridge conventionals and a black ops fleet isn't powerfull enough by default to break a conventional (perhaps even cap heavy) offending or defending force.


So, I don't like the idea really unless for instance you could "just" create new links ....

However those are called jumpbridges and multiple links (bridges) out of one system was removed for a reason.