These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Null Sec Concord/Navy for Sov holding Alliances
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ellon JTC
Quadralien
#1 - 2013-09-16 14:24:31 UTC
An Idea i had for some time:

Genral Idea:
Null sec Sov holding alliance would be able to have their own concord/navy. Difference with high sec concord/navy would be that the alliance holders would have to supply the ships and characters the concord/navy flies.


Ship Supply:
Unlike the high sec version of concord/Navy which has unlimited ships and pilots that respwan after killing them, the null sec version doesn't. Players would have to make ships and assign those ships to their concord/navy. If the ship gets blown it must be replaced.

Concord Pilots:
Concord/Navy would be NPC controlled just like the high sec version. But characters must be assigned to each ship. That means the null sec sov holding alliances would either have to create new accounts and start training combat pilots or buy pilots off the bazzar. After purchasing/training the pilot, it must be assigned to be a concord/navy pilot.

Settings:
Just like high sec where some systems have more security and more concord ships, players would be able to decide where they want more concord/navy patrols. How they would react to hostiles. How they would call for backup. All these settings should be able to be modified by players


Results

1- More demand for minerals and ships ( to create the concord/navy fleet).

2- More accounts (Needed to train the concord/navy pilots)

3- Smaller corps/alliances that don't have players round the clock to protect their sov ( but have the isk to buy the ships and toons needed) would start SOV stuff.
Enduros
UK Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2013-09-16 14:30:14 UTC
So like botting, except CCP endorsed?
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#3 - 2013-09-16 14:37:03 UTC
Alliances already have a navy. .Its the players in the Alliance. Thats the whole point....
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#4 - 2013-09-16 14:38:44 UTC
So less work for the sov holding alliances to secure their\your sovereignty then? No! Do your own patrols and if you can't secure it then you don't deserve to hold it.

-1000 if I could.

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#5 - 2013-09-16 14:39:19 UTC
So tell me, why CONCORD, who are the "Consequence" to nonconsensual PvP in HighSec (High Security), should be interested in anything that goes down in NullSec (Null Security)?

While you think about it, you may also realise, that a 'consequence' isn't really security at all.

So, CONCORD isn't interested in making stuff secure. So why would they suddenly want to do that in NullSec (Still Null Security)?

My Condor costs less than that module!
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#6 - 2013-09-16 15:11:02 UTC
Ellon JTC wrote:
An Idea i had for some time:

Genral Idea:
Null sec Sov holding alliance would be able to have their own concord/navy. Difference with high sec concord/navy would be that the alliance holders would have to supply the ships and characters the concord/navy flies.


Ship Supply:
Unlike the high sec version of concord/Navy which has unlimited ships and pilots that respwan after killing them, the null sec version doesn't. Players would have to make ships and assign those ships to their concord/navy. If the ship gets blown it must be replaced.

Concord Pilots:
Concord/Navy would be NPC controlled just like the high sec version. But characters must be assigned to each ship. That means the null sec sov holding alliances would either have to create new accounts and start training combat pilots or buy pilots off the bazzar. After purchasing/training the pilot, it must be assigned to be a concord/navy pilot.

Settings:
Just like high sec where some systems have more security and more concord ships, players would be able to decide where they want more concord/navy patrols. How they would react to hostiles. How they would call for backup. All these settings should be able to be modified by players


Results

1- More demand for minerals and ships ( to create the concord/navy fleet).

2- More accounts (Needed to train the concord/navy pilots)

3- Smaller corps/alliances that don't have players round the clock to protect their sov ( but have the isk to buy the ships and toons needed) would start SOV stuff.





I used to think that "automated defenses" (everything from gate/station guns to "alliance navies" that act like concord) were a good idea, if only in a constellations "capital" system, to provide a safe hi sec like island for each alliance, something worth defending.

Then I realized that null sec isk faucets like the anoms I already farm + Null Concord = game breaking Isk tsunami and "entrenching" so severe than NO sov changes would ever be allowed in null.

Alliances would form coalitions to protect these Isk Islands that would make the old "OTEC" look like a boyscout jamboree. Those coalitions would have so much free flowing isk from renting out these islands that they'd never even have to devote their own players to their defense, just hire mercs to do it.

In the same way moons and military upgrades were supposed to spur conflict (and conflict is the life's blood of EVE), they ended up doing nothing but giving people reasons to NOT fight. Many alliances have no-combat policies for ratting systems because "if you give them a fight, they will come back tomorrow looking for a fight".

So while this idea seems good, it would most likely lead to bad consequences. Null doesn't need more tolls for defenders, it needs more tools for Offenders.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#7 - 2013-09-16 15:20:29 UTC
If you cannot defend it you don't deserve to have it. That applies to me with my t1 frig as well as to null alliance with their sov.

Invalid signature format
Ellon JTC
Quadralien
#8 - 2013-09-16 17:36:57 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ellon JTC wrote:
An Idea i had for some time:

Genral Idea:
Null sec Sov holding alliance would be able to have their own concord/navy. Difference with high sec concord/navy would be that the alliance holders would have to supply the ships and characters the concord/navy flies.


Ship Supply:
Unlike the high sec version of concord/Navy which has unlimited ships and pilots that respwan after killing them, the null sec version doesn't. Players would have to make ships and assign those ships to their concord/navy. If the ship gets blown it must be replaced.

Concord Pilots:
Concord/Navy would be NPC controlled just like the high sec version. But characters must be assigned to each ship. That means the null sec sov holding alliances would either have to create new accounts and start training combat pilots or buy pilots off the bazzar. After purchasing/training the pilot, it must be assigned to be a concord/navy pilot.

Settings:
Just like high sec where some systems have more security and more concord ships, players would be able to decide where they want more concord/navy patrols. How they would react to hostiles. How they would call for backup. All these settings should be able to be modified by players


Results

1- More demand for minerals and ships ( to create the concord/navy fleet).

2- More accounts (Needed to train the concord/navy pilots)

3- Smaller corps/alliances that don't have players round the clock to protect their sov ( but have the isk to buy the ships and toons needed) would start SOV stuff.





I used to think that "automated defenses" (everything from gate/station guns to "alliance navies" that act like concord) were a good idea, if only in a constellations "capital" system, to provide a safe hi sec like island for each alliance, something worth defending.

Then I realized that null sec isk faucets like the anoms I already farm + Null Concord = game breaking Isk tsunami and "entrenching" so severe than NO sov changes would ever be allowed in null.

Alliances would form coalitions to protect these Isk Islands that would make the old "OTEC" look like a boyscout jamboree. Those coalitions would have so much free flowing isk from renting out these islands that they'd never even have to devote their own players to their defense, just hire mercs to do it.

In the same way moons and military upgrades were supposed to spur conflict (and conflict is the life's blood of EVE), they ended up doing nothing but giving people reasons to NOT fight. Many alliances have no-combat policies for ratting systems because "if you give them a fight, they will come back tomorrow looking for a fight".

So while this idea seems good, it would most likely lead to bad consequences. Null doesn't need more tolls for defenders, it needs more tools for Offenders.



yeah never thought about it this way. Soon there would be so much concord in these systems that there would be no way to take over the system :)