These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CivilWars' campaign to improve sov null

Author
CivilWars
Half Empty
#1 - 2015-02-13 20:25:12 UTC
Greetings capsuleers,

I often repeat the mantra of be the change you want to see, so here goes nothing. I am sick and tired of stagnant null, so that is my only platform. I know there are other issues facing all areas of the game, but this to me is THE most important, so I am starting a crusade to make a change. I know many people are probably asking who the heck is this guy, and those that aren't are likely laughing their asses off that I even threw my hat in the ring, but nothing ventured nothing gained I guess. So on to a little about me.

I have been playing EVE since 2009, and have a somewhat diverse background, but nothing really special. I have lived in both sov and NPC null with the likes of the CFC, PL, Tri, and BL. I have also lived in both low and high class w-space. I enjoy PVP, and only do PVE to make isk to buy and replace ships. Sov null is, to me, the best part of the game, but as many know it has grown stagnant, and I would like to see that changed. Instead of just complaining about how sov sucks, or even worse just quitting the game, I hope to at minimum offer insight on how I think we can improve the sov game even if I don't win, so here goes.

Many people have many different ideas on how null sec sovereignty should be handled in EVE, so I figured I would weigh in with my 2 cents. Many of these ideas have been offered before in various forms, so I am really just compiling what I personally feel are the best options and plans. My goal is to make sov null sec more regional, and less universal. I would love to see sov held by hundreds of smaller alliances constantly warring with their regional neighbors as opposed to being held by a few power players that keep everyone else at bay by their sheer number superiority.

Capturing sov - In my plan we do away with TCUs, IHUBs, and SBUs, and go back to a system similar to POS sov with one slight twist. Instead of using POSes we use POCOs. I feel this plan is better for 2 reasons. 1) There are considerably less planets in pretty much every system, so taking/losing sov is easier/faster. 2) There is no fuel needed, so you don’t drive your logistics/industry team out of the game trying to keep 40 POSes fueled just to maintain sov. Owning sov is as simple as owning >50% of the POCOs in the system. In looking at sov null the average system has 8.5 planets with the minimum being 1 and the maximum being 16. On average you will need to own 5 POCOs to own sov, and worst case scenario is 9. By moving to a POCO based system this also allows for split fights and strategy instead of all parties blobbing onto one objective.

Stations - If there is a station in system then it is automatically controlled by the sov holder, however if no alliance owns >50% of the POCOs in a system, and for 72 hours after a system changes hands, the station will allow FFA docking and services rights. Once an alliance owns a system for 72+ hours they once again have full control over docking and services rights/fees.

Occupancy based sov - Lots of people talk about this, but rarely have I seen anyone put metrics on how it is measured, or what it does. In my plan “occupancy” is based on 3 metrics, two of which are already in the game, military and industry. These two would continue to work as they currently do except there would no longer be IHUBs, so no IHUB upgrades would be required for better anomaly and belt spawns. The third metric would be a war metric. This metric increases for every ship killed in system either for or against the sov holding alliance. This metric would be weighted based on the class of ship lost/killed. This should encourage sov holders to fight when roaming groups visit, and especially when their sov is under attack. I am sure some alliances will choose to have a thunderdome to increase their war metric, but since it is weighted based on ship class if they want to blue on blue a bunch of dreads and carriers to keep an enemy from taking their sov instead of fighting for it then death to all caps. These 3 metrics are averaged to determine the strategic level of a system instead of it being based on how long you have held a system. So what do you get for higher strategic indexes? I am glad you asked.

POCO HP - For every level increase the HP of the POCOs in system owned by the sov holding alliance double. This means if an alliance never does anything in a system they own, and thus has a strategic index of 0, the POCOs can easily be RFed/killed in a short time by a 20 man sub cap fleet(roughly 10-15 minutes for 20 bombers per POCO). If they are active in a system they own, and have the strategic level at 5, then their attacker would need to bring a much larger fleet or caps, or be on field longer to allow a defense fleet to form and drive them away(roughly 10-15 minutes for 20 dreads per POCO).

RF timers - Instead of giving the defender 2 days to a week to decide to fight let’s make it more urgent. Once again we will start with a base level of 0 and double for every level increase. The minimum RF timer would be 2 hours, and max of 64 hours. Once again unused sov is quick and easy to take, but used sov provides the defender with more time to prepare. Like now we can throw in a deviation of X% also.

Continued...

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

CivilWars
Half Empty
#2 - 2015-02-13 20:25:57 UTC
Sov cost - This to me is the biggest key to occupancy based sov. For entities that hold vast swaths of space it does not matter really how quick and easy you can take their sov as they will just allow you to take it for a week, or even a month, then come back with a massive fleet that you have no chance against as a small entity and undo your gains in a very short time. We need a system that makes it detrimental to the sov holders that are not active in their systems, and to me sucking moon goo is not active. Once again we will do our simple math, but backwards, and since we took out TCUs and IHUBs we will eliminate the confusion of varying costs for certain “upgrades”. At level 5 strategic index a system costs the alliance a flat 1B per 30 days. For each level below 5 the cost doubles resulting in a 32B per 30 day sov cost for a level 0 system. Let me be clear that I hate isk sinks just as much as the next guy, BUT I hate empty 00 systems more, and the only way to provoke large alliances/coalitions to not take more than they actually “need” is to punish them for doing so. By having a scaling system you reward those who are actively using their space to rat, mine, and fight, and punish those who just own it for either the moon income, strategic value, or simply because they can.

Common concerns:
What about logistics and/or null sec construction? This is for sure a concern for anyone who lives in sov null, and especially those who live in the farthest reaches. I think there are 2 solutions to this issue. The first is the use of wormholes. Many null alliances already use wormholes for logistics and PVP fleet movement, but if you do not have a blue path to high sec you will be more dependent on wormholes than ever. This is also additional potential content between wormhole and null sec entities. The other solution is to tweak the resources available in null so that you could produce all T1 and T2 items for the race of your region. Not only would this be a boost to null sec industry, but also would somewhat control the meta based on geography, and not just what is the flavor of the month.

Cloaky campers - Null inhabitants already complain about how one cloaky camper can shut down an entire system, and a few a full constellation. Some are concerned that a cloaky pilot in system could singlehandedly prevent activity in system, and thus lower the strategic level making your system(s) more vulnerable to attack. the simple answer is YES. If you allow one pilot, or one pilot with multiple friends waiting to join via cyno, to shut down everything you are doing then you deserve to lose your system(s). You should have a counter to whatever PVP could be waiting for you, or if nothing else if you lose enough ships to your enemy your war index will help keep the overall strategic index high.

Thanks for your time, and even if you don't vote for me please spread the word that sov changes are necessary.

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

Ama Atavuli
Rolled Out
#3 - 2015-02-13 20:43:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ama Atavuli
The hero Gotham needs...

you have my vote.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#4 - 2015-02-13 20:45:59 UTC
and my sword

I'm right behind you

Alundil
Rolled Out
#5 - 2015-02-13 21:01:30 UTC
What are your thoughts on the current state of:

Capital class warfare - good place or in need of some work? What are the areas that you think could use some work?

Interdiction sphere spam - What are your thoughts on this? Working as intended? Or cowardly abuse of game mechanic? Would you suggest changes to this either in the form of anchor distance restrictions, material input adjustments or something entirely different?

Sov resources - do you see a need for changes in the distribution of resources in sov null? If so, what changes might you suggest?

Local channel as Intel - problem or non-issue? What are your thoughts on intel gathering currently in sov null and do you think it's in need of a change? If so, what change(s) might you suggest?

Thanks for your time and good luck.

I'm right behind you

CivilWars
Half Empty
#6 - 2015-02-13 21:24:23 UTC
Alundil wrote:
What are your thoughts on the current state of:

1. Capital class warfare - good place or in need of some work? What are the areas that you think could use some work?

2. Interdiction sphere spam - What are your thoughts on this? Working as intended? Or cowardly abuse of game mechanic? Would you suggest changes to this either in the form of anchor distance restrictions, material input adjustments or something entirely different?

3. Sov resources - do you see a need for changes in the distribution of resources in sov null? If so, what changes might you suggest?

4. Local channel as Intel - problem or non-issue? What are your thoughts on intel gathering currently in sov null and do you think it's in need of a change? If so, what change(s) might you suggest?

Thanks for your time and good luck.


1. I think caps need work. I like the line I heard from Grath that if you can do damage to me then I should be able to do damage to you. I don't want to see a scenario where caps, supers, and/or titans are only able to fight other caps, but can be killed by subcaps. I think supers and titans are especially in a bad place, and need a more defined role. I have mentioned to many people that I think AOE DDs should come back, but in a different way, so that it isn't instant death to any ship within a certain radius, but does give them the ability to damage subcaps and caps alike. Give them a reason to get out of POSes, and you might actually see more in conflict, and thus more die. I think supers either need a distinct role, or need to just be removed. With the changes to drones and fighters it just seems that the main role for supers is to shoot sov structures, and if that is the only thing they are good for then why not just use a dread that is way cheaper, can be insured, and isn't a coffin?

2. I don't think this is a huge issue in my experience, and I think if changes are made to null to create smaller regional conflicts it will be even less of an issue. FCs will be forced to choose giving up DPS and/or logi to field more bubblers, and if they only field a small number then just primary those first.

3. This is a tough one. If we are promoting occupancy based sov then I think the inhabitants of the region need to be able to produce all T1 and T2 ships and items locally of that region. I have heard others complain about the "free isk" from moon mining making EVE a two class system(the haves and the have nots), but if/when regions are spread among more smaller entities almost everyone should have a chance to get their own slice of the pie if they are willing to fight for it. I like that the diversity of density will create more desirable constellations and regions within sov null.

4. I think local is fine in null, but I would make 1 change. If you truly want no local at all stick to w-space. In terms of "lore", which I am not into really big, if we are in the future and have all this advanced technology we should know who comes in/out via a stargate, or is in a station. The only exception I would make is anyone entering a system via wormhole is delayed in local until they are "detected" by something in system like a gate, station, manned ship, POS, or other object capable of reporting their details.

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

Alundil
Rolled Out
#7 - 2015-02-13 21:32:44 UTC
Thank you for the responses and I think I mispoke on point #2 when I asked about Interdiction sphere when what I meant was achorable bubble spam. Could you respond to that, if you have time?

I'm right behind you

CivilWars
Half Empty
#8 - 2015-02-13 22:31:20 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Thank you for the responses and I think I mispoke on point #2 when I asked about Interdiction sphere when what I meant was achorable bubble spam. Could you respond to that, if you have time?

As a "hunter" I always hate running into a 100km wall of bubbles, but as someone who plays eve because of the sandbox nature I do not feel strongly that changes are required unless there are cases where it causes performance issues. It is a game of cat and mouse, and the mouse is using every means necessary to stay alive. Just shoot all of their bubbles, and make them the time anchoring more.

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

June Ting
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#9 - 2015-02-13 22:56:26 UTC
CivilWars wrote:
I like the line I heard from Grath that if you can do damage to me then I should be able to do damage to you. I don't want to see a scenario where caps, supers, and/or titans are only able to fight other caps, but can be killed by subcaps. I think supers and titans are especially in a bad place, and need a more defined role. I have mentioned to many people that I think AOE DDs should come back, but in a different way, so that it isn't instant death to any ship within a certain radius, but does give them the ability to damage subcaps and caps alike.

This seems to promote the idea of (super)capital-only fleets with no subcapital support being viable, because they can deal damage to both subcaps and caps. Do you believe that is a direction the game should go in? Why or why not?

I fight for the freedom of my people.

CivilWars
Half Empty
#10 - 2015-02-14 14:31:50 UTC
I think everything in EVE is about balance. Are subcapital fleets without (super)capital support viable? In virtually every circumstance the answer is yes. We see all the time that subcapitals kill caps, supers, and titans, yet if anyone suggests that (super)capitals be able to kill subs they are shouted down. As mentioned before I think dreads are in a pretty good place. They have a purpose, to deal lots of damage, and that damage can be applied to structures, caps, and subcaps. The balance to them is if they want to do any real damage they are then incapable of receiving any remote reps. Now look at (super)carriers. I think one of the biggest flaws that needs to be looked at is that they can do everything at once. Fit properly, and with enough friends, you can apply DPS, provide reps and cap, and receive reps and cap. Something as simple as making them make a choice on which they want to do instead of being able to do all at once would bring more balance to the game, but would be a better solution than continuing to nerf them so that they are defenseless against subs that are still capable of killing them.

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#11 - 2015-02-15 22:07:07 UTC
Have you submitted your paperwork to appear on the ballot yet?

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Alundil
Rolled Out
#12 - 2015-02-16 00:24:13 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
Have you submitted your paperwork to appear on the ballot yet?

I believe that he has

Source: friend of the candidate

I'm right behind you

Bellak Hark
New Eden Media Organization
#13 - 2015-02-16 11:47:52 UTC
Here is your ad
Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#14 - 2015-02-22 11:31:04 UTC
Civil, glad to see a ROLO brotha running for CSMX. I'll be back after while to ask some questions, but I will say that I may ask you to provide some wormhole credentials to these super groovy voters so we can roll you in as a wormhole candidate as well...


...we are lacking that area this year. +1

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe

Rhavas
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#15 - 2015-02-22 18:21:34 UTC
Unfortunately Civilwars is not on Leeloo's candidate list, and is therefore not a valid candidate.

Too bad, really Sad

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary

Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#16 - 2015-02-22 19:06:14 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
Unfortunately Civilwars is not on Leeloo's candidate list, and is therefore not a valid candidate.

Too bad, really Sad

Hopefully this will be similar to the issue that Psianh and I ran into last year and is just delays in approval because :paperwork:


Let us know, Civil!

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe