Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Everything you listed would be broken and has no downsides.

Watch every major null sec group break itself down into smaller groups in-game to have as many "capitals" as possible with minimal downsides... meanwhile maintaining its overall structure and management out of game.

1 per alliance, but not so good you would fragment your alliance to make every system a capital

1 Capital per region limit then? And maybe only if the entirety of the SOV is owned by that alliance? I do agree about the possibility of it being exploited by every system being a capital run by a different alliance. But at the same time, how much would that cost to run both the capital AND a holder alliance.

I'm on the fence with this idea anyway, the cost of running it would have to be very high to run as well for the actual advantages the home players get (god forbid the people who live there get bonuses for living there aparently).

OK I'm going to outline what I think pros and cons should be off the top of my head. This is rough, so feel free to call me a dumba** and suggest fixes.

PROS:
1. Starbase weaponry (guns/ecm/neuts) can be anchored within 30km of station or gate.
2. Jump bridges have extra range, and you can have more than one in system.
3. SBUs take longer to online.
4. Alliance members and structures get small hp boosts while in system.

CONS:
1. The anchored weapons are destructible and can't be directed by players (automatic/random).
2. Asteroid belts, planets, moons and anomalies behave as in 1.0 hisec. So slim pickings, can't make much money.
3. Must own all neighboring systems for a certain amount of time to create the capital system.
4. If the capital system TCU is destroyed and enemies gain control of it, the alliance force-disbands (as if they forgot to pay their fees).

PROS/CONS/BOTH:
1. Cyno jammer which affects all cynos including blops, kind of like hisec.


Opens up following gameplay possibilities:
1. Can create the capital in a dead end system (must own only 1 neighboring system) or in a pipe pretty easily, which smaller alliances can use to harass larger ones. Basically a thorn in their side.
2. A large alliance nearing death can create a capital system deep in its territory which allows it a last ditch defense and possible regrouping point.
3. Such a system could also be placed very near enemy borders, so you can use it as a toughened defense point which can use its jump bridges to support a whole front, or as a springboard for invasion into enemy space.


IDK that's just what I see at a moments notice, just read this thread. Not going to talk about the jump issues discussed in CSM summits, but I will mention that EvEa Deva's idea could be a possible solution to some of the issues.

you don't have to fragment. You make a coalition. Now those that collect small alliances like baseball cards have lots of these.


Also worth noting even in current setup you kind of have this. My last big brawl was in the IT/NC war. HW- (iirc) ...I was there. NC really wanted to keep the system (up to that point IT was having a good run of system takes here and there). IT really wanted to take it. Both brought out the kitchen sinks for it. Basically its on corps/alliances to pick systems they really want and to keep up the defence on them.

Gate/station guns....no. 100's of peeps can't manage to make gates hostile to visitors thats on them. Just need a few dics, some dps and fast tackles. Its not like all of say goons has to forego ratting and log in to man gatea every night. If a crew cba to do that...well then enjoy the non blues in system.