These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pre-CSM Summit Nullsec and Sov Thread

First post First post
Author
Alundil
Rolled Out
#201 - 2014-09-12 19:49:16 UTC

Endie's take on occupancy based (unless it's changed since the last time I read it) would **** on the smaller groups just as much as currently and in the process create swathes of no mans land that the blocs would use as buffers between them. They wouldn't suffer any other groups to move in next door because that would begin to eat away at their occupancy/sov levels due to "things" taking place in those now occupied systems. Therefore smaller groups that can't blob up or gain cap advantage would just get rolled out of those systems (ie dead zones).

I'm right behind you

Minxee
Perkone
Caldari State
#202 - 2014-09-12 19:57:09 UTC
Changes to 0.0 framework are needed as owning an area needs to be made something that others want to take for more reasons that just for the lulz.

Now i havent been in 0,0 for quite a while due to the levels of suck.

Moons - The income source provided by moons needs to change as has often been stated. Time to implement ring mining and comets I think.

Ring mining - a player must scan planetary rings with a survey probe to find a deposit of goo its an exploration thing that may or may not yield results however once its discovered the location of the deposit is broadcast on the starmap announcing it to other entities who may use this as a chance to attack groups of miners.

Comets - similar to the above in terms of discovery and being announced on the map initially however the main body of the comet is mobile. A new structure (maybe a PI structure?) can be planted on the comet as a homing beacon. This is required to allow players to track the comet as it will travel x number of AU per day before being mined out or leaving the cluster.. The homing beacon also means it appears on overview for everyone - More chances for ganking by smallish fleets.

Both of these objects will contain percentages of goo but not pertaining to the area of the gameworld that they are in i.e. a comet in amar 0.0 doesnt always give amar based goo.

Chat Channels (I know im going to get flamed here lol) - change them. Local etc in high and lowsec is a service provided by concord and the empires. In lowsec maybe it should be delayed due to lack of repair on the equipment. In 0,0 it should be dependant on the groups infrastructure.

- Capital system - the main system for an alliance is the one that houses the outpost and IHUB. These serve as home base and central hub for your infrastructure. The ihub must be linked to comms stations or ESS in the surrounding systems (similar to linking jump gates) this provides constellation chat.

Having a comms station in local provide local comms channels for the alliance and hooking them upto the IHUB provides the equivalent of constellation chat. It will also announce in the channels when a large signature enters the system i.e. big ships. a few smalls ships stand a chance of getting through allowing an enemy to gain foothold or giving small terrorist style activities to occur.

You Cannot link this infrastructure across whole regions only constellations. There is nothing to stop players owning regions but its like being split into separate sections. Only the part of the group getting invaded would receive the auto notify when an enemy enters a system. Delaying the response of larger bodies bringing their full force to bare and giving smaller groups chance for some fun.

Of course having the alliance channel allows players to warn each other but there would be no automated announcement in alliance so no players in a constellation would mean no one in the alliance gets to know until the damage is done.

SOV - the aim is to make the concept of sov redundant and based on activity in a constellation. It is similar to now but relies on smaller structures that can be interfered with.

There are still indexes -

Strategic (COMMs) having a comms station in system local gives you strategic presence in the system and adds to the strategic register for the constellation. Having constellation strategic superiority (i.e. a comms station is each system linked to a central IHUB) gives a percentage of ownership of the area. They comms stations are quite vulnerable and should be destroyable by a small/medium fleet. Single ships with small sigs maybe able to sneak past them.

Industry - At this point the more industrial activity (mining/PI/etc*)happens in a system it adds to the industrial index which can add to the constellation superiority. The higher the system superiority the greater the chance of a comet or ringing mining deposit. and the more goo it would yield.

Military - defeating rats in spawns causes the systems miltary index to rise once it hits 75% a basic outpost can be built as the index rises the station can host more services. The only ones available by default might be cloning and fitting.

If an alliance does not maintain the military index the services would become inactive as the index dropped and activity would need to increase.

To wipe an enemy out you would still need capitals to take out the ihub and outpost.But the comms stations could be disruptable be a small group. Once disrupted this group would be able to affect indexes in this system.

If any of the indexes fall they reduce the constellation superiority if its due to inactivity the constellation is marked on the map as unstable. If its due to hostile action (i.e. destroyed/disrupted infrastructure) it shows up on the map as contested.

The indexes for system and constellation would show up like the incursion and FW ones in the system info in the top left.

Flame away..... Its similar to now but makes the resources more dynamic and offers more chances to small groups since ownership can fall basically through attrition without making caps redundant as they are still needed to take on the ihub and station as they are now. I've left pos industry out of the industry index details as i expect it to be replaced at some point SOON. But whatever replaces it would factor in here. I hope it doesn't need fleets of caps to take it out whatever it is.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#203 - 2014-09-12 20:15:15 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Another idea I've had before..

Moons, they are one of the things that help drive some null conflict, so make them "Depletable".. After a few months it'll be empty, a new one will "spawn" somewhere else with its type of material.. after a few months the old moon will respawn as some other material type.. thus meaning that where the good/bad moons are will always be changing, hopefully making alliances want to fight to get the best ones again..
This is one thing that will definitely create content. Fountain war occurred because of mineral distribution.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#204 - 2014-09-12 20:22:27 UTC
JackEuchre wrote:
Sovereignty leaching deployment module [SHIPS IN SPACE DOING STUFF] that slowly reduces ehps of sov structures until they are destroyed and sov is lost unless the [SHIPS ARE KILLED] deplyable is killed.
. "Activity" in system reduced EHP of sov structures is one way to get ships in space. A module doing the work for you is boring for everybody. If your screening force is not out there scouting, then your sov structure can be easily ambushed and killed.
kosmicheski
BRUTAL GENESIS
GaNg BaNg TeAm
#205 - 2014-09-12 20:50:18 UTC
It is simple.

FIX the TiDi.
People do not want to play in 0.0 sov warfare because of TIDI !

How to fix it? Well remove the stupid timers!
We have tons of structures with millions of hit points to clear and on top of that there are TIMERs, giving the owner time to organize the next big TiDi fest.

If you make 0.0 more accessible for smaller groups of pilots you will have more competition = more FUN !
Timers were only good to try and poke the bears to undock and have a fight with you but other then that none wants to get sov anymore because is not FUN!

Remove the Timers and maybe the STUPID IDEA to make true sov more valuable by making the lower systems worthless, might actually work.

But I guess it won't happen, CCP to let down the only publicity they have made recently : The large fights.
Atsuko Shikkonen
Perkone
Caldari State
#206 - 2014-09-12 21:00:54 UTC
I found the article at Massively intriguing. Maybe there's ideas here to plumb? I'll not regurgitate bullet points; it's a fast enough read.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/08/17/eve-evolved-how-to-fix-nullsec-territorial-warfare/
TijsseN
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#207 - 2014-09-12 21:18:01 UTC
As a veteran of many sovereignity wars I will give my 2 cents regarding the current state of 0.0 and share some experiences regarding living in 0.0 and to provide new idea's regarding 0.0.

For many outsiders the 0.0 map looks fairly stagnant leading to the belief that nothing is actually happening. But my experience if quite the contrary, peace is an exception to the rule and wars are deceided before the regions change hands. With the current sov system grinding a region down takes weeks even after enemy forces has ceased to provide effective resistance.

The current issues with 0.0 have led to some frustrations regarding gameplay, which need to be addressed in a proposed 0.0 revamp.

1. Timers: Generally when a moon is attacked to conquer resources the defender can time the moon to a timezone where nobody from the attacking fleet is present. This has lead to many frustrations, since we are then not able to take the moon even when the battle has been won. Make it so that the defender can only activate a timer once so the has to actually fight to keep the moon.

2. Supercapital escalation: Currently supercapitals can be only countered with more supercapitals and are virtually immune for sub capitals. This "apex force" situation has been explained in detail in various EvE media and it gives a great unbalance in the current environment.

Currently a group of super capitals are unbreakbable even when attacked by multiple full subcapital fleets. Due to the ewar immunity of super capitals they can repair each other with out being jammed out tanking any dps from a sub capital fleet. By adding carriers to this fleet it can quickly remove any sub capital from the field while the carriers are unbreakable as well.
Tanking untill dowtime is a realistic tactic and you can fight in "god mode" against any subcap fleet. This means that current coalitions can hold many regions using supercapitals alone while the subcapitals are away without consquences.

To resolve this issue some ideas are needed to balace this situation, which may be incorporated as needed
- Increade EHP of warp disruption probes so that smartbombing does not remove any bubbles.
- Remove ewar invulerability from supercarriers / allow a new player in a rifter get you tackled.
- Reduce drone bay size of carriers / limit carriers to fighters to allow defanging of carrier fleets
- Introduce "Siege mode" for carriers / supers to deploy fighters / FB's while making them unable to receive remote repairs / cap transfers.
- Capital interdiction cruisers, which may launch capital torpedoes and bombs
- Reduce capacitor so that capitals can be neuted easier
- Reduce effecitveness of capital remote repairs by limiting its use by triage carriers only.
- Increase effectiveness of void bombs and / or lockbreaker bombs to be effective agains capitals.
- Increase lock time so that a competent dictor pilot can escape after a bubbling run.

In the ideal situation after a re - balance a sub capital fleet shoud be able to:
1. Pin down a super capital / captial fleet and keeping it tackled by having dictors bubble the fleet without being destroyed and without smartbombing the bubbles.
2. Let the enemy FC make a choice between losing supercapitals or sacrificing carriers by putting them into Triage to rep up the super capitals.
3. Use specialized ships to defang the capital fleet of its fighters.
4. Allowing the fleet to destroy the capital fleet unless it is rescued by another fleet.

When these issues are adress the map become much more fluid and the east may open itself for conquest easier.


Otto Kring
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#208 - 2014-09-12 21:26:46 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
I have a few more tangential ideas on Sov..

The Grind, as it stands now, no one likes. It's a pain in the ass for both the attacking and defending fleets, anything that can be done to fix or lessen that should be.. but what that is? I don't know.

So, on to the tangential parts :)

Incursions.. They are finally viable in Nullsec, that's great, but still half the time are only going to be run to clear the Cynojammer.. My suggestion is it's a Sansha Invasion, they should be attacking Sov. The Outposts, the POS's, the POCO's, the PI equipment on the ground.. everything. And unopposed Incursion should withdraw with the space being listed as Sansha, and with nothing left.
It gives them a reason to run it, it also opens a chance for other Alliances to attack when they know much of their forces are occupied elsewhere.


Outpost Defences.. Anything else think it's silly that I can have guns for a small POS, but not for an Outpost? Outposts should by default able to have POS Guns.. ideally with upgrades, I'd like to see new lines of Anti-Capital/Super weapons.. "Doomsday" turrets, ECM that would be able to Jam a Mom or Titan, etc.. Something to make taking them a fight..


Gate Guns.. You own the system, why can't you put guns on them?


Gonna make a link to Incursions here again.. There are pirate NPC's in your space, and in some cases, pirate Sov bordering your space.. Seems kinda lame that all they do is just sit around in belts and gates.. Why not have them get a little smarter? Rogue Drones if I remember right will camp on JB's.. Expand this to the rest.. hell have they camp, and even randomly engage targets in your sov.. POS's.. Safespots.. Outposts.. The lower the sec, the stronger the NPC presence would be. And make it like belts, the longer they are ignored, the stronger they get.. One day maybe it's just a few ships.. ignored for few weeks it might turn into a strong NPC fleet.


I've intentionally avoided what to do about timers, and how much grinding you all are doing.. I'll let people who do far more of that than I go into that.. cause honestly, while I have some ideas, nothing I've thought out really jumps out to me as being a real solution, or even an improvement.. more of a just moving the pain around lol.


Pirates should act just like what they are Pirates! Would be cool to see one hold you ransom. Also would offer a some variety of on grid experiences. The Pirates fromm a fleet to match the number of two opposing forces. (gulp) I read some feedback somewhere where the goal is to have the missions and spawns be more like PVP. This would provide content when people are warm in their POS waiting for something. Would be cool to have some mechanics where you can occupy and gain advantage when systems go unattended. Like a homestead act and EVE responds to ownership to you in some fashion.
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#209 - 2014-09-12 21:28:40 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
Another idea I've had before..

Moons, they are one of the things that help drive some null conflict, so make them "Depletable".. After a few months it'll be empty, a new one will "spawn" somewhere else with its type of material.. after a few months the old moon will respawn as some other material type.. thus meaning that where the good/bad moons are will always be changing, hopefully making alliances want to fight to get the best ones again..
This is one thing that will definitely create content. Fountain war occurred because of mineral distribution.


Counterpoint: If moons deplete, it may not be worth trying to take a moon relative to just waiting for the minerals to deplete and respawn somewhere else that you can ninja. It could easily be more worth it to siphon the hell out of it if it's high-value and wait for it to move to the next location.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#210 - 2014-09-12 21:34:49 UTC

My primary desire for the sov system is to have a Use it or Easily Lose it gameplay mechanic.

No matter the change, I want people flying in space. And if nobody is using the system, anyone should be able to walk in and destroy your claim as if it were an unstronted POS!
Piraal
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#211 - 2014-09-12 22:10:09 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
How can you limit human social interaction?

You can't.. I mean Coalitions already are an entity that doesn't formally exist in Eve's code, but yet has come to be. There's nothing you can do to make groups not work together.. If they can't do it under an ingame umbrella, then they just set each other blue make a few chat channels and a website, and you're off to the races.. see CFC.


Don't get me wrong, I love the idea that you want to happen, it just won't work.


There are game mechanics that encourage bluing everyone around you though. Jumpbridges being the obvious one. If an alliances want to blue up one third, to a half of nullsec, they have friends to call on when they need help which is fine. But that in itself should be the only advantage you should get from bluing up people, not a jumpbidge network spanning half the galaxy also.

A nerf to jumpbridges force projection also assumes there would be a nerf to capital projection. They both need to be nerfed, or they shouldn't bother nerfing ether at all.
kidkoma
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#212 - 2014-09-12 22:46:26 UTC
What constituents 'ownership' of a swath of wild, fringe, lawless space? The idea that concord 'sanctions' ownership doesn't fit with the narrative. To bastardize and quote King Theoden, "Concord, you have no power here."

I think of null, and sov null doubly so as being a mad max style no mans land. A place where anything and everything goes. I want taking, holding and defending sov to represent that.

I would argue for an occupancy based sov system, centered around a 'control' bar. Similar to FW, doing things like ratting, mining, pi, pvp, and missions (Eddie's post on mission running in sov convinced me that missions are the best scale-able income source, better then annoms by far) increase your 'control' of a system. From lets say, arbitrarily 1000 points of base sov control. Each member running PI in that system adds 1 point of sov 'control' running a mission adds 1 point, pvp, whether you win or loose adds 1 point and a kill adds 2 extra.

To hold sov, you need 70% control, again, absolutely arbitrary numbers.

To hold sov, you need 70% control. The system I want would look like this in terms of a conflict over ownership. For the sake of argument, I'll use existing null ententes.

GE-
_________________________________________________________________________
|Brave Collective 100% control |


Now, to be honest, Brave is never 100% in control, and BR- is always bright red on the map, which makes me proud of my newbie bros. So the control bar might look something like this. Based solely on people coming for fights, again numbers are arbitrary.

GE-
_________________________________________________________________________
|Brave Collective 83% |NC. 13% | -A- 5% | GSF 5%|


But this is the interesting part. If you can push someones control of a system below 70% then the sov drops, and the system becomes contested. If there's a station, the station becomes dock-able to everyone, involved with the fight or not.

GE-
_________________________________________________________________________
|Brave Collective 65% | CVA 35% |


This system would also bring into play asymmetrical warfare. You could, under this system mine someones sov away. You could rat or mission run it, you could PI, PvP or otherwise explore its annoms until the space is yours. Since there would be no timers, you couldn't just hot drop it at specific times, you have to be there and use it. Droping supers, well intimidating would be basically useless. Supers really pose no threat to sub caps (cruiser down, good luck catching a frig with fighter bombers and applying dps) and with no grinds, you'd be better off in sub caps pvping for the space.

There would be another interesting side effect. Coalitions would get in each others way when trying to take and defend sov. If an alliance is trying to get their control above 70%, having 5 other alliances there would 'clog up' the control bar. If you were invaded, bringing in friends to pvp would drive your control bar down faster. In this system, having the universe blue and coming to your rescue would mean loosing your space faster.Big smile



Kraizer793
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#213 - 2014-09-12 23:30:53 UTC
My opinion, although a pretty unpopular one, is that sov problems are partially the result of our (the players) own doing.

Set aside high HP structures. Even without the desire to drop hundreds of dreads to burn down sov structures, we still ball up and blue up. People are scared to lose, so they always look for ways to become better and stronger. The easiest way to do this is simply with more people. Recruit another corp, blue another alliance, etc. is extremely easy and is the most effective way to avoid losing. There is no reason to not add more numbers, as the most effective counter to a larger force is an even larger force. Guerrilla tactics are hard to pull off when the larger groups are more agile and more mobile than the smaller ones. There's little to no incentive to want to stay as a smaller alliance holding 0.0 sov or to not be a part of a coalition.

I do agree that sov mechanics need a huge change. However, the fact that the benefits of being bigger far eclipse the benefits of being better need to be taken into consideration. Our tendency to pack on additional members when faced with opposition in an effort to ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can win is just as much part of the problem as sov mechanics are. 0.0 isn't something CCP and the CSM can fix alone.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#214 - 2014-09-12 23:53:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
A bizarre thought on Sov.
But what if only certain constellations were 'stable' enough to be controlled.
Lore wise you could explain this as the twin stars (All gates need twin stars lore wise) have become unstable, emitting radiation that is harmless to ships, but degrades structures at an unacceptably high speed.

This then creates an environment where your Sov has fire breaks, but someone else can't just come in and snap up the systems and build their own outposts. So you don't need to blue the guy next to you, because there is an entire constellation between you and him (or more possibly) in which there are no staging posts for him to use.

You would have to combine this with some form of active moon mining also, since POS's could be too easily used as staging posts so would need to be included in the 'no permanent structures'.

The aim would then be for Sov to look like a bunch of islands with wilderness around them, making lots of room for people (both residents & day trippers) to run around in that wilderness, without everything being a clear & present danger to the Sov holders immediate activities and possessions. Edit: So basically no blue doughnut is ever possible, you could get a bunch of blue islands, but still have a lot more 'wild' space out there. You can 'control' that wild space if you run 24/7 gate camps, but only by having active pilots in space, no passive controls at all.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#215 - 2014-09-12 23:58:11 UTC
Not to be trolling but has anybody considered removal of all SOV mechanics and "rules" and let the players deal with it?

I hope they have that notion in their minds as they work on SOV perhaps not to go that far but the influence of the consideration might cut down on the arbitrariness of it all.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#216 - 2014-09-12 23:58:49 UTC
I have mentioned a civ 4 style sov system with borders before and I will do so again. Pretty much a copy/paste from 2009 so apologies for any outdated concepts I have left in

TLDR version - Outposts/Special PI structures/system time held up to a certain point generates influence - influence creates borders that can cover empty systems and occupied systems on the map eventually converting them to your control. To gain control of a system, you either need an outpost[s] and/or 50%+ planet control through the use of special Pi structures that can be bombarded from space. 50%+ planet control always overrules outpost[s] control. 3 months is the final stage of influence increase from an outpost and/or special PI structures. 51% pos coverage of a system makes it yours but doesn't generate influence. Outpost influence overlap will take 51% coverage systems eventually without need for seige. 100 people in a system will generate a small amount of influence (not enough to take unclaimed systems) which will defend against foreign influence but not stop it. Borders will naturally coalesce forming larger borders along claimed systems close together and will clash with other borders even those of allies.

Verite Renditions Map

Civ 4 is not Eve. However like in the above map (which has been around for some time) it generates culture (influence in the above map) which is used to acquire territory. Barbarians can still invade and so can your enemies. Resources can flourish and wither, natural disasters and golden ages can occur. New structures (wonders) can do marvellous things like increase your culture and bring new things to your table to strike down your enemies and increase your chances of profit and/or survival.

Sovereignity should be based upon outposts, planets and people. Say you replaced the culture of Civ4 with the influence of that above EVE map. To gain the sovereignity of a system you can either have 50%+ coverage of planets in a system or an outpost in your alliances name. POS claimed sovereignity does not generate influence. Outposts/50%+ planet control are above any amount of pos's in a system and generate a fixed amount of influence after one month.

Borders will clash when they meet even those of blues and renters, meaning that sov holding will be a constant source of conflict. It might be possible to declare a system neutral between allies thereby rendering a neutral system as a border stopper, until an ally renders the agreement moot or someone else claims the neutral system.

Any unclaimed system that falls into an alliances influence automatically becomes their territory. After one month an outpost and/or 50%+ planet control generates influence that covers a certain area on the ingame map (like verites map) and systems immediately begin to be claimed (that are not already claimed by 50%+ control and other outposts). After 3 months system time owned influence extends again. 6 Months of an outpost claimed by an alliance is the final extension of influence for one outpost claimed system. If the influence of two alliances meet it creates a natural 3d border (because the eve map is actually 3d). How would influence extend? It could either be distance or just any system in stargate range of a controlled system being naturally converted.

Other things to make things interesting is destructible outposts/stargates. You could potentially take over systems without having any stargate routes into your system, if your influence is good enough, though the problem of enemies rebuilding a stargate[s] into your system/wormholes/problems of exerting force from a routeless system would remain. Now you need a reason to fight, and one could be attracting special agents to your outposts that give out unique ships [like Medusa, concord ones. They can turn up randomly in an outpost or maybe even in space. Blowing up an outpost would blow up an agent but maybe it would be preferable to use influence to gain control of a system with an outpost with the special agent in it? Destroy all stargates but one and then camp while all the pve'r attempts to access the agent. Multiple outposts too. How about moon mining based on PI instead of pos's. Blow up PI facilities on moons with orbital bombardment. Build great works that only one alliance can finish and complete that give influence benefits except when a rival alliance comes and blows it sky-high.

Now the amount of people in any system that does not have an outpost also generate influence. This can slow down influence from a rival to claim a system but it will not stop it. If you have 100 [or whatever] people a day in a system it will generate a small amount of influence but not enough to extend to a star system. People in a system can curtail enemy influence for a month/3 months or so.

Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#217 - 2014-09-13 00:46:32 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Not to be trolling but has anybody considered removal of all SOV mechanics and "rules" and let the players deal with it?

I hope they have that notion in their minds as they work on SOV perhaps not to go that far but the influence of the consideration might cut down on the arbitrariness of it all.


I like this guy.

I'd also wonder about removing cynosural and bridge mechanics for everything other than black ops.

If you (or an ally) can always instantly respond to any threat no matter how far your arm reaches, there will never be a chance of backstabbing or counter assault. The blob always wins because the blob is everyone that doesn't want to get stomped.... and everywhere...

The ideas for heavily nerfing logistics so that any defense no matter how invested can be overcome with X dps is terrible. Nothing will change except that blobs of cheap ships will replace blobs of expensive ones (with no counter but numbers).

I very much worry that the people feeding the ideas for change to null are those heavily biased to maintaining their monopolies. The goals, even if they can't see it, will end up self serving. Like allowing the fox to come up with a new plan for how to secure the hen house.

This is not to say null changes should be made in mind for anyone to win or lose... the most organized and staffed will always be on top. As it should be.

But you don't ask people that solely exist inside the box to help you find a way to think outside of the box. You simply wipe the slate of preconceptions and make a bold move and find out where it takes you.


I think it's time for a major paradigm shift for 0.0. The most revolutionary moments of eve have been player created, not designed. The more rigid a structure and goal the less realized the rejuvenation will be.

Just delete the mechanics that have allowed the status quo to begin with, make space as massive as a set of stargate jumps have always been, and let the players sort it out.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."

Atrivox Distinelli
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#218 - 2014-09-13 06:55:12 UTC
im a solo player i mine things in my barge i do missions some times.....mainly mine all day...just started doing a little exploring into null sec died but thought it was neeto....i dont understand how what ever op is talking about will affect me.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#219 - 2014-09-13 08:29:20 UTC
Here are my 5 cents. It is based on the recent theme that CCP have been introducing:

Rise of Pirate Factions.

(I'll give example as Blood Raiders, replace it with other pirate factions as appropiate)

Blood Raiders have begun a massive assault on Delve, Period Basis and Querious regions. They are constructiing many outposts on systems to stage assaults on planets. Their objective is to gain system control on all these regions. They have declared that they will be rewarding those who help them taking control of these regions.

Blood Raider Plexes (like in FW) spawn in those regions. Players that run the timer in plexes need to activate the beacon. Players can chose to activate the beacon FOR or AGAINST blood raiders. Instead of the NPC, the plex bunker has a sentry turret which attacks everyone in range. If a player activates the beacon FOR blood raiders, plex bunker ignores that player. Shooting down bunkers' shield puts it to an invulnerable state for 3-5 minutes, where it regenerates its shield and cannot attack anyone and the timer can be run. Players that choose "FOR" cannot choose "AGAINST" until next downtime and vica versa.

When the plex is captured FOR blood raiders, capturing players get blood raider LP. Defenders get opposing faction LP (Amarr Navy...or even CONCORD) at a reduced rate (like in FW). There will be no tiers like in FW to affect LP gains.

It is basically a contest system like FW with blood raiders at one side and current sov holders on the other. When the contest amount reaches 100, system becomes vulnerable and relevant parties shoot the TCU (same as FW bunker) to help Blood Raiders conquering the system.

When Blood Raiders conquer a system it becomes a NPC controlled system, with a NPC controlled station(if there were any). Plexes will keep spawning in the system so that system may become contested again by running them AGAINST blood raiders.

When systems contest amount reaches 30%, system becomes "CONTESTED". System contest amount cannot rise beyond 30% unless someone places a flag in the system. Those parties who want to capture the system can put their flag in the system, which is done by going to TCU and hitting "contest system" button. First come first serve. Flag gets lost if contest amount drops down from 30%. After this whenever the plexes are captured AGAINST blood raiders the contest amount keeps rising. When system becomes vulnerable and TCU can be shot at. When system flips the new owners will be those who placed the flag.

Maximum system sov level will also be dependent on system contest level. There will be a sov level max depending on contest amount. SOV 5 is only possible on systems with less than 20% contest value. MAX SOV=4 between 20% and 40%, 3 between 40 and 60 and so on.

This is just an idea and can be improved by a lot of things. But I believe it will make small scale gangs more effective in null-sec
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#220 - 2014-09-13 10:52:13 UTC
All of you running for a FW-style system, do keep in mind that you most likely will end up in a system where one group contorls 90% of known nullsec and we are back in the situation where we left off.