Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Maybe its been proposed before, but after thinking about the upcoming sov changes and the seeing the structure concepts at fanfest yesterday I got to thinking; does sec-status have to be a fixed number? Why can't it be an index that rates the security of a system based on how players want to develop it? Sec-status isn't much a content in the big scheme of things. In my experience it usually only causes some short lived internal squabbles if alliance assign specific ratting systems to individual corps, and serves as a beacon for people looking to gank isk farmers. I have yet to see an alliance or coalition level war started over trying to get a -1.0 system into your space kingdom.

Dynamic True-sec Status for Null.

In short, the more sov security structures you stick into a solar system the lower the status goes. Risk v Reward. Make your nullsec like hisec and get hisec ratting and mining income.

This could give constellation level sov holding a real shot. Have a system or two in the constellation with a just a TCU or unclaimed space and your get -0.9x to -1.0. As you add ihubs, stations, local chat structures, etc you work your way up (or down depending on hat you want to use it for) to a -0.1 space fortress. Sov, Military, and Indy status can still track independently like it does currently.

To be economically worth keeping you have to strike a balance between safety and security. Do you have a dead end system where you can put one fortress system in as a Great Wall and leave the rest as farms? Or, do you have a pipe constellation where all of the systems have some safety to them? It leaves a lot of options and allows players to shape their own space.

Glad you asked.

Two reasons:

1. To increase the sandboxyness and user customization of space.

2. I think if existing space can be optimized to your needs you will need less space to support a given amount of players. Yes, I realize that sov is still very much a n+1 game. But it looks like CCP is trying to move away from that and make it feasible to longer term occupation smaller groups of new players.


As far as leaving space fallow, that would be a legitimate type of game play. It is just a form of min/maxing. With the proposed ease of taking sov you run a real risk of having your space quickly plucked away without keeping a close watch on it. At the same time if every system you own gets turned into a space Gibraltar you won't make enough isk to support yourself. It forces choices. It makes gates and connectivity even more of a strategic terrain feature than it is already.