These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

[Proposal] Control-Based Sovereignty System

First post
Author
Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#1 - 2014-06-08 18:33:30 UTC
Most agree that the current sovereignty system is awful. Sovereignty has the potential to be a huge conflict driver, but in its current state it is more of an inhibiter. My own idea is influenced by others that I have read about and is driven by what I feel sovereignty means.

TL;DR In the simplest terms, sovereignty is about control: control of what happens within the borders of the sovereign territory. If you can control a system militarily, guard it against hostiles, exploit its resources, and live in it, you will gain sovereignty over it. If you abandon it, or fail to protect it from harrassment, that sovereignty will be compromised.

Overview

All claimable systems in New Eden are in one of two states: claimed or unclaimed. When a system is in the unclaimed state, alliances competing for sovereignty over it build up Sovereignty Points (SP) which are gained via a variety of activities. Once one of these alliances gains a specified amount of SP, they will achieve Level 1 Sovereignty over the system, the name of their alliance will be displayed as the owner of the space, and the state of the system will become claimed.

When a system is in the claimed state, only the sovereign alliance has SP for that system. The sovereign’s SP decreases at a steady hourly rate depending on which level of sovereignty they have, beginning 24 hours after levelling up. There are five levels of sovereignty, each requiring an increasing amount of SP to reach in a similar, though less extreme, version of the five skill levels. If the SP ever reaches the maximum amount, the passive decrease ceases.

Incursions and SP related activities performed by rivals count against the sovereign’s SP. If the sovereign’s SP ever decreases below the minimum specified amount required to gain sovereignty over an unclaimed system, it will be flagged as disputed. The alliance still has sovereignty over the system, and their name is still listed as the owner, but the disputed status is listed with it. There is no passive SP loss at this level of sovereignty, but all other SP losses and gains count double their normal values. If the sovereign’s SP ever reaches zero, the system will revert to the unclaimed state.

Sovereignty Points

SP are earned by residing in, using, and controlling a system. Most activities have an SP value related to them. SP changes are calculated and updated once per hour. What follows is a non-exhaustive list of activities and their SP values.

Presence
Active character in system -> 1-100 SP per hour (depending on whether docked, near a friendly online POS, flying a frigate/battleship/titan/etc)
Online Large Control Tower in system -> 10 SP per hour
Outpost at full health -> 100 SP per hour
No SP losses* -> 100 SP per hour

Industry
Mining -> 1 SP per 200m3 ore mined
Active manufacturing/laboratory slot -> 10 SP per hour
Data/relic can hacked/analyzed -> 50 SP

PvE Combat
NPC frigate kill -> 10 SP
NPC destroyer kill -> 20 SP
NPC cruiser kill -> 40 SP
NPC battlecruiser kill ->80 SP
NPC battleship kill ->160 SP

PvP Combat
Pod kill -> 200 SP
Frigate kill -> 400 SP
Destroyer kill -> 800 SP
Industrial kill -> 1,200 SP
Cruiser kill -> 1,600 SP
Battlecruiser kill ->3,200 SP
Battleship kill -> 6,400 SP
Freighter kill -> 8,000 SP
Large Control Tower destroyed -> 8,000 SP
Carrier kill -> 100,000 SP
Dreadnought kill -> 200,000 SP
Supercarrier kill -> 400,000 SP
Titan kill -> 1,000,000 SP
Outpost conquered** -> 2,000,000 SP

(In a claimed system, PvP kills made by hostile non-sovereign entities against other non-sovereign entities count against the sovereign’s SP at one tenth of these values.)

*Excludes passive losses. Claimed systems only.

** Outposts always automatically switch ownership to the sovereign entity when at full health provided the sovereignty level is at least level 1.

Market
1 SP per 1,000,000 ISK paid in transaction taxes and brokers’ fees.

Influence
20% of all SP earned in systems that are within 0.5 light years (LY) of the system.
10% of all SP earned in systems that are between 0.5 LY and 1 LY of the system.
5% of all SP earned in systems that are between 1 LY and 2 LY of the system.

All of these values are just preliminary. It’s important that most if not all activities yield SP, and that they are carefully balanced to ensure the total SP an alliance has truly reflects their control of the system, or lack thereof. Control primarily means military control which is why PvP combat is weighted quite heavily.

Sovereignty Levels

An alliance needs to be the first to earn 500,000 SP in a system when it is in the unclaimed state in order to gain Level 1 Sovereignty over it. The total number of SP needed to gain higher levels, and the passive SP loss at each level is as follows. As mentioned, the passive SP loss begins 24 hours after the last level up.

Level -> Minimum SP Required -> Passive SP Loss per hour[/b]
Disputed -> 1 -> 0
1 -> 500,000 -> 4,502
2 -> 1,224,745 -> 11,026
3 -> 3,000,000 -> 27,009
4 -> 7,348,469 -> 66,159
5 -> 18,000,000 -> 162,055
Maximum -> 44,090,815 -> 0

This follows the law of diminishing returns. The more SP an alliance has, the harder it becomes for that alliance to gain more SP. The benefit of having more SP is that it becomes more difficult and more time consuming for an enemy to conquer the system. It also allows longer periods of low or total inactivity in the system. The passive SP loss per hour values have been chosen such that an alliance which abandons its system entirely will lose a level of sovereignty per week (unless other hostile entities move in, in which case they will lose it faster). Maintaining maximum sovereignty will require every hostile element to be eliminated immediately.
Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#2 - 2014-06-08 18:34:18 UTC
Public Standings and Hostile Activity

Another important element of this system is in defining hostile SP-related activity in a claimed system. In order to do this effectively, a new type of standings is required in addition to the current one – public standings. These are identical to the current standings, except they are made public for all to see. Public standings can be different to actual standings. All PvP kills count for or against the sovereign entity regardless of public standings. Other SP-related activities performed by non-alliance members within a sovereign’s territory only decreases its SP if the entity is classed as hostile. An entity is classed as hostile if either the sovereign’s public standings towards that entity are negative, or the entity’s public standings towards the sovereign are negative. All other activities performed by entities with which the alliance holder has mutually positive or neutral public standings do not have any effect on SP whatsoever (but if they are trading with sovereign entities, the taxes and fees paid by the sovereign will have a positive effect).

Improving Space

I am personally not a fan of “improving” space. I think that space should be what it is and that the only benefits of sovereignty should be those listed above and bragging rights. Isn’t building an empire and having your alliance’s name written all over it reward enough? I also think that the limitations placed on the building and deployment of certain structures, e.g. capital ship assembly arrays, are arbitrary, unnecessary and remove potential conflict drivers. Anyone should be able to build anything in claimable space, whether it is claimed by their alliance or not. If an alliance doesn’t want a player to build capital ships in their space, then they need to enforce that.

If, as I suspect they do, most players disagree with me on the upgrading of space, it can be easily incorporated into the new system. SP earned in the PvE Combat category count towards the Security Index (renamed from Military Index), SP earned in the Industry category count towards the Industry Index of the system. The other categories could count towards their own indices (with PvP combat counting towards the Military Index) which could have different affects, but I haven’t fully considered what they could be. I like the idea, however, of a high Security Index improving the quality of mining, while a high Industry Index improves the quality and quantity of rats that spawn as mentioned here http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1571589.

New Conflict Drivers

The face of this system is a lot simpler than the current one –harass a system’s occupants, defend and guard it, live in it, and exploit its resources and you will gain sovereignty over it. Like many other good mechanics in Eve, if you dig deeper it becomes more complicated and I hope contains interesting elements that open up creative game play.

Sovereignty-based conflict will no longer be limited to massive engagements arranged at preset times, though these will still be present. Massive alliances will probably want these battles when attacking a smaller alliance, so they will attack outposts and POS’. Their own space will become bumpy, with “cities” surrounded by suburbs and rural areas, but the influence system means that not all systems have to be in constant use to be maintained. A single city (i.e. Sovereignty Level 4 or 5) for a massive alliance will not be feasible if they wish to maintain whole or multiple regions of space. They will need multiple cities, positioned strategically for defensive, offensive, and economic reasons.

Medium and large alliances may want to adopt guerilla or terrorist style tactics to take systems from the outskirts of massive alliances’ territories. With hit and run tactics, they can potentially hurt a massive alliance’s sovereignty, which will have to decide whether to semi-permanently create a staging area in the vulnerable system, or risk losing it altogether as the smaller alliance moves in.

Small alliances may want to simply move into abandoned space not deemed important enough to maintain by others. Relatively poor space can be used by these alliances to slowly build wealth, power and numbers before attempting to expand further. Small alliances could also run their space as free hold or NRDS. Trade in a free hold alliance can potentially go a long way in maintaining low levels of sovereignty.

Feedback

I have tried to account for possible exploits and restrictions on play styles, but I’m sure there are plenty of things I have overlooked. Balancing the figures is important. PvP combat has to be large enough such that it is the main driver of sovereignty changes. Other activities need to be small enough to ensure that they cannot compete with PvP activity, but large enough to ensure they can maintain sovereignty levels – claiming, protecting and running space are all different things. Minimum SP levels need to be large enough to ensure wars last long enough and sovereignty changes do not occur constantly, but small enough for varying sizes of alliances to be able to maintain varying levels of sovereignty. Passive SP loss needs to be large enough to ensure abandoned systems become officially disputed within a reasonable number of days, but small enough that industrial activity can cope with it. I think I’ve achieved that with the activities I’ve covered, but would like more opinions. Ultimately the figures will need testing and constant tweaking.

I’m interested in hearing what people like and dislike about the idea, constructive criticism, how it could be improved or refined, and what effects such a change might have on null sec gameplay, alliances and types of alliances/corporations.
mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-06-08 21:04:33 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
One of the biggest reasons why people control as much space as they do is because to acquire any reasonable amount of resources, you have to. Even the best ratting systems only support a few ratters at a time. Alliance level income sources such as moons are spread far and wide and are actually worth relatively little isk when you look at their value in any reasonable way. This provides an incentive to spread out and gobble up as much space as possible, everything else - sov mechanics, power projection, etc - merely provide the means.

In other words, your idea seems very focused on the fact that big empires do exist, and shrinking their holdings down, with no regard for how or why that's the case in the first place. In fact, you seem to go completely the opposite. Holding space should be about establishing your domain, and turning that domain into a place you want to live in and use and defend - you seem to be under the absurd notion that it ought to be all about name on the map, who cares if it's worth living there you can make money elsewhere.


There's nothing wrong with the high level "How and how much you use your space determines your control over it" concept, necessarily. Your specific implementation just misses the mark on several problems.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#4 - 2014-06-08 22:50:04 UTC
mynnna wrote:
One of the biggest reasons why people control as much space as they do is because to acquire any reasonable amount of resources, you have to. Even the best ratting systems only support a few ratters at a time. Alliance level income sources such as moons are spread far and wide and are actually worth relatively little isk when you look at their value in any reasonable way. This provides an incentive to spread out and gobble up as much space as possible, everything else - sov mechanics, power projection, etc - merely provide the means.


It seems you are talking about the value of space which is not something I am trying to address. Population density is something which can be adjusted by fiddling with the numbers I have given in my proposal. If space is not valuable enough for a given system to support a certain number of players then that is an issue that needs to be dealt with separately. Sovereignty is more about war and politics. It should be stand off-ish enough to allow for varying and inventive tactics and strategies.

mynnna wrote:
your idea seems very focused on the fact that big empires do exist, and shrinking their holdings down, with no regard for how or why that's the case in the first place.


There is no agenda here to favour one alliance size over another or to shrink down big empires, though that may be a necessary consequence - I honestly don't know. The current sovereignty mechanics do favour a particular size of alliance - very big ones - because they require great numbers, not only to grind down the huge numbers of hit points on sov structures, but to counter the massive fleet that will be waiting to meet you at the arranged time. This restriction on game play styles is what needs to be addressed.

mynnna wrote:
In fact, you seem to go completely the opposite. Holding space should be about establishing your domain, and turning that domain into a place you want to live in and use and defend - you seem to be under the absurd notion that it ought to be all about name on the map, who cares if it's worth living there you can make money elsewhere.


Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have written, or maybe you are seeing something in my OP that I myself am missing, because I completely agree that holding space should be about laying roots and building a home; an empire that is worth defending, something to be proud of. When I wrote about name on the map what I was really getting at was that sovereignty should be a consequence of your actions and of the reality on the gro- out in space, not a means in and of itself. In fact, it is the current system that makes it more about just your name being on the map, since all you have to do is plonk down a structure, and then leave - as you say, you can make money elsewhere. Under my proposal if you leave it you risk losing it.

mynnna wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the high level "How and how much you use your space determines your control over it" concept, necessarily. Your specific implementation just misses the mark on several problems.


That may be the case but other than the value of space, what am I missing?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2014-06-09 11:19:46 UTC
So...how do you actually take sov if the holder doesn't undock?
Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#6 - 2014-06-09 17:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Klatu Satori
Danika Princip wrote:
So...how do you actually take sov if the holder doesn't undock?


They are essentially handing control over to you, so sovereignty will flip eventually. Rather than fly over to their system for a fight that you won't get, a good way to take sov would be to organise an invasion and occupation force. The invasion force will keep them besieged, preventing them from maintaining their sovereignty level and keeping up with their passive SP loss. It can also destroy any ships that try to pass through, and destroy infrastructure if it has the ships, numbers and inclination. The occupation force will be industrial and PvE players who will set up POS'es, build, mine, rat, run anomalies, etc.

In the scenario where a small alliance wants to take sov from another small alliance in a different time zone who also docks up and doesn't want to fight, the above is still relevant, but further strategies will need to be employed to speed up the take over. Off the top of my head:

- have spies infiltrate their alliance, observe their behaviour and habits so that their normal operations can be disrupted, point out key infrastructure to be destroyed, capitalise on weakness, generally wreak havoc
- recruit a small corp into your alliance from the relevant time zone to disrupt their play
- hire mercenaries to do the above

The best way to defend your space is to defend it militarily. There may come a point where an alliance realises that they are losing, and just runs. They can stay in system and slow the takeover down at that point, but they are merely delaying the inevitable, unless they have a plan in place to launch a second defensive.

EDIT: To clarify what is happening on the mechanical level when a sov holder won't defend its space, and you do the above:

- minimal SP gain for passive industry, POS/POCO presence, docked in station presence (this is 1 SP/hour)
- passive SP loss
- SP loss for presence of hostile ships in space
- SP loss for non-sov passers-by or friendlies being destroyed
- SP loss if any infrastructure is destroyed
- SP loss for hostile industry and PvE activities
- SP loss for hostile POS/POCO's presence

I think it is also important to note that any alliance that simply docks up when trouble comes knocking is unlikely to have much of a presence in the system to begin with, meaning their sov level is unlikely to be higher than 2, which means taking sov from them should be relatively easy. If they are a large alliance waiting for reinforcements from some distance away, they will have to keep those reinforcements there to defend their space or else they will have to keep running backwards and forwards to counter you every time you launch an incursion.
Reiisha
#7 - 2014-06-11 08:29:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Reiisha
mynnna wrote:
One of the biggest reasons why people control as much space as they do is because to acquire any reasonable amount of resources, you have to. Even the best ratting systems only support a few ratters at a time. Alliance level income sources such as moons are spread far and wide and are actually worth relatively little isk when you look at their value in any reasonable way. This provides an incentive to spread out and gobble up as much space as possible, everything else - sov mechanics, power projection, etc - merely provide the means.

In other words, your idea seems very focused on the fact that big empires do exist, and shrinking their holdings down, with no regard for how or why that's the case in the first place. In fact, you seem to go completely the opposite. Holding space should be about establishing your domain, and turning that domain into a place you want to live in and use and defend - you seem to be under the absurd notion that it ought to be all about name on the map, who cares if it's worth living there you can make money elsewhere.


There's nothing wrong with the high level "How and how much you use your space determines your control over it" concept, necessarily. Your specific implementation just misses the mark on several problems.


Having more space obviously generates more income, but your use of the word 'reasonable' doesn't seem very... reasonable. It's a completely subjective term, who knows, maybe you're talking about an income of several trillion per second, maybe you're talking about 100k per year? It seems strange to base your argument around some people's perspective on what you want vs what you need.

What is 'reasonable' doesn't change the issue that it's far too easy for big alliances to hold a lot of space they don't actually use. In the current system, whoever has the biggest fleet almost automatically can hold however much space they want as the effort required to defend space you already have only lies in the logistics of getting a fleet together. Cyno alts, jump bridges and titans completely trivialized travel as well.

Of course there are breaking points - the reason one entity doesn't own all of EVE - but the problem remains in that the current sov implementation doesn't require anything to maintain. It even prevents PvP up to a certain point, as sov level warfare is an all-or-nothing affair where you either have enough supercaps to kill your enemy or you don't.

Following this, the current sov system creates the very need for wealth you mention, where it becomes obvious that in actuality it's just a viscious circle perpetuating itself. The link has to be broken somewhere and the sov system the OP proposes seems like an as good a place as any. It's nowhere near perfect obviously, but a sov system based on activity is still far better than a sov system based on relative inactivity.

Edit: Forgot to mention: You also note that the sov system should be about creating a place you want to live in. The proposed system does exactly that - Even rewarding you for living in a system, whereas the current does not as it promotes passive activities far more than active ones. You don't 'live' in a system when you only ever go there to refuel a pos and take some cargo from it.

Edit: I did miss the point about supporting a population as far as the available possibilities in systems go, but with a system which rewards activity i don't see a problem with giving higher sov levels access to more or better ratting spots, to name an example.

As far as moon mining goes, imho it's overdue for a complete overhaul anyway. It's outside of the scope of this particular topic, but i'd suggest moons deplete like asteroids do (without them dissappearing of course) and replenish afterwards, though with a different resource. Moons have to be 100% depleted before the refresh can begin (so people can't just mine down to 1 tech and let it grow again), after which the resource will be queued to appear in another random moon, or it can replace a current moon at 100% which has not been mined for an x amount of time (50% chance of both). This makes moon scanning relevant again, as well as incite more fights over precious moons (or even just to scan). It also adds another layer to information warfare as it's not 100% clear who has what resource anymore. The available resources per moon would have to go up of course, to accomodate the loss of mining time when the resource is depleted and a new moon has to be found. It could even create an entirely new layer of economic warfare if done right...

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#8 - 2014-06-11 14:36:58 UTC

I firmly believe that Sov should generally switch hands via PvP actions.

That being said, I also believe that system vulnerability should be based on how much the system is utilized.
On the one extreme, an unused system should have no RF timers on any of their Sov structures, so any small entity can come in and destroy all claims on that system anytime they want. On the other extreme, a heavily utilized system should require significant effort to conquer, with many RF timers and perhaps other defensive bonuses. I don't have a particular standard to measure system activity, but I like how your SP system attempts to quantify this with both PvP and PvE aspects.
Sinooko
Tharumec
Gespenster Kompanie
#9 - 2014-06-11 17:24:32 UTC
How about hiring NPC's to guard your claim. These NPC's could exist in a variety of plexes and would have to be destroyed in order to take Sov. Massive fleets could come in and hit massive plexes, small fleets could hit smaller plexes, and small frigates could be used against various "support" npc's, essentially well tanked haulers. Unlike faction warfare the only timers involved would be on the spawn timer of plexes which would give the sov owners a chance to build a counteroffensive.

An alliance would have to bring in their own fleet to counter it and/or pay to replace losses. This would also make a fantastic ISK sink.

I could see how concerns would arise about the profitability of null being harmed, but with the extra cost involved you would likely see a rise in the cost of moon goo and the BPC's that drop from the rats.

That's my guess for a solution.
Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#10 - 2014-06-11 17:40:53 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I firmly believe that Sov should generally switch hands via PvP actions.


Agreed. That is exactly what I have aimed to do here. If you want to defend or take sov, you need to PvP. Do you think my system fails to do that? If so, where, how? What could be changed to improve it?

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
That being said, I also believe that system vulnerability should be based on how much the system is utilized.
On the one extreme, an unused system should have no RF timers on any of their Sov structures, so any small entity can come in and destroy all claims on that system anytime they want. On the other extreme, a heavily utilized system should require significant effort to conquer, with many RF timers and perhaps other defensive bonuses.


The problem I have with sov structures is that they are totally arbitrary; a little like putting a flag down and saying "this is mine!" With the SP system, if a solar system is not used it is automatically vulnerable, because total SP will be low, perhaps even low enough to have the system flagged as disputed. An alliance who wants to take sov in such a system should be able to do so easily, because there is little or no opposition. If the opposition is elsewhere and is willing to defend their system from the aggressors, they have the opportunity to do so by sending in reinforcements. The required response time of this task force will depend on how low their SP was and the nature and organisation of the invasion/occupation force, but I estimate that it will be at least a few days even for disputed systems to revert to unclaimed status without PvP. If instead, low SP equated to no/low RF timers on the sov-holders' "flags", you are forcing the attacker to bore themselves destroying structures that don't really have any relevance whether the defenders are willing to fight for what they have or not.

The opposite is true for a heavily utilised system. SP will be high, so an attacker will need to blow up a lot of big ships and (relevant) structures with RF timers without losing as many in return. In addition, because the system is so heavily utilised, there will always be plenty of players ready to defend it from hostiles.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I don't have a particular standard to measure system activity, but I like how your SP system attempts to quantify this with both PvP and PvE aspects.


Thank you. I know there are definitely things that could be added, taken away and/or changed to make it better.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#11 - 2014-06-11 18:25:44 UTC

I don't see a lot of concrete objectives to complete when taking an enemy system:

Prevent PvE by harassment.
Destroy POS's if deployed.
Attack Outpost if it exists.

But these objectives aren't present in every system. Furthermore, in a well-utilized star system, you really need some critical objectives that can reasonably be defended (like IHUBs with RF timers).

While FW certainly has it's problems, it does some things very well. There are very concrete take/defend objectives that even a solo pilot can accomplish. I'm kinda rambling now, but I feel like claiming sov should entail more than just system activity, and I'm a big fan of investing to improve your space.
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
#12 - 2014-06-11 19:50:43 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I don't see a lot of concrete objectives to complete when taking an enemy system:

Prevent PvE by harassment.
Destroy POS's if deployed.
Attack Outpost if it exists.

But these objectives aren't present in every system. Furthermore, in a well-utilized star system, you really need some critical objectives that can reasonably be defended (like IHUBs with RF timers).

While FW certainly has it's problems, it does some things very well. There are very concrete take/defend objectives that even a solo pilot can accomplish. I'm kinda rambling now, but I feel like claiming sov should entail more than just system activity, and I'm a big fan of investing to improve your space.



Agreed. The addition of SP boosting stuctures that are necessary to move forward (or keep from sliding backward) as far as the sov level is concerned would be a nice way to add conflict, and would be a good balancing point for CCP to be able to track and change SP gains/losses.

Cedric

Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#13 - 2014-06-11 19:53:02 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I don't see a lot of concrete objectives to complete when taking an enemy system:

Prevent PvE by harassment.


I think you're underestimating the scope of this. By doing this you're provoking fights of all shapes and sizes. A good alliance would respond to an attack on miners/ratters/explorers by sending in ships to defend them. Any such engagement has the potential for escalation. Then there is the influence system which makes things much more complex. In border wars, what happens in one system has an effect on nearby systems so alliance leaders and FC's need to set their own strategic objectives based on what they think will tip the war in their favour. Choose the wrong objective, focus on the wrong area, neglect areas of weakness, and you risk losing ground.

Having said that, head-shotting a large alliance's core sov level 5 solar system is difficult under this system. All there is to do is hit the outpost though these types of attacks could lead to massive fleet battles, thanks to RF timers. For objectives in a single solar system, I think part of the answer is in changing POSes and outposts so that they can be improved and destroyed piece by piece, but that is a discussion for another thread.

As for allowing solo players to be able to achieve sov objectives, I'm not sure they should be able to do much more than annoy. Taking space is something that should only be accessible to groups unless a given solar system is so undesirable that only single players would ever be interested in using it.
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
#14 - 2014-06-11 19:57:27 UTC
Overall this is a fantastic idea. Activity based sovereignty is what I have been advocating in a recent thread and, in my opinion, is just what 0.0 space needs.

As far as needing to spread out and claim region-wide space in order to maintain alliance level income (moon goo) this is simply a matter o CCP reworking the way moon mining and the like work. It again seems arbitrary that only a single structure can be placed at a moon and only that structure can pull out moon goo. The simple fix for this is to revamp moon mining to resemble PI, and moreover have efficiency of the new MI (moon interaction) tied in some way to system sov.

Cedric

Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#15 - 2014-06-11 19:57:46 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
The addition of SP boosting stuctures that are necessary to move forward (or keep from sliding backward) as far as the sov level is concerned would be a nice way to add conflict, and would be a good balancing point for CCP to be able to track and change SP gains/losses.


That is a very interesting idea. I'd prefer them to have additional uses though, so they are not purely sov structures. Player owned stargates (of limited range) and gate guns are the first things that come to mind.
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
#16 - 2014-06-11 20:00:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Cedric
Klatu Satori wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:
The addition of SP boosting stuctures that are necessary to move forward (or keep from sliding backward) as far as the sov level is concerned would be a nice way to add conflict, and would be a good balancing point for CCP to be able to track and change SP gains/losses.


That is a very interesting idea. I'd prefer them to have additional uses though, so they are not purely sov structures. Player owned stargates (of limited range) and gate guns are the first things that come to mind.


Or perhaps they facilitate the next better way to gain SP from the various sources you listed in the OP. they would make the gaining of SP easier, so their destruction would make the loss of SP easier as well. Again, they would be targets of opportunity for guerrilla warfare, but not absolutely necessary to destroy. Perhaps ownership of them could even be transferred to the new sov holder and that group would want to protect them to speed up the SP gains

Cedric

Clifton Oksaras
Doomheim
#17 - 2014-07-28 22:40:34 UTC
I love this concept. It makes all the bullshit small fights defending your system actually consequential provided you win a majority of the encounters. You could literally farm gankers to increase the sovereignty of your system. It also creates an united alliance incentive to protect ratters and miners from hotdroppers, as they not only protect the current Sovereignty Level but they also could score big if they hit a big hot dropping fleet. If there's a way to make CCP follow this thread, by god I'll find it.
Syd Unknown
#18 - 2014-08-02 11:23:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Syd Unknown
There is only 1 fix for null-sec: FW SOV mechanics, but then on bigger scale.
Complexes should be: Medium, Large and X-Large (for capitals)

PRO's:

1. in FW SOV mechanics there are no timers.
2. You can still use your supers to bash the I-Hub once vulnerable
3. If people are not defending their system actively even small Alliances can make it vulnerable.
4. There will be a lot of traffic in 0.0 to run the Complexes for either offensive or defensive plexing.

This will bring a lot of pvp in space. ( and no you wont be able to run the plexes in stabbed frigates.) You will at least need a cruiser sized or a very well fitted dessie for the Medium Complexes, The Larges and X-Larges will need Cruisers and up.

People wont be farming for LP, instead both offensive and defensive should get a preset amount of isk out of the Alliance wallet that is determined by the alliance itself. Pilots that are NOT in an Alliance can NOT run the complexes. That way the Alliance can reward the pilots that are working for them to get SOV. The more SOV an Alliance would have the more they would have to pay to their defending pilots. So holding more SOV would mean more costs. This would mean Small Alliances have a chance too at a smaller scale.

Pilots will get paid for defending and offending systems and you dont need SRP anymore since people can pay for their ships with the isk made from the SOV war.
The better they are at PVP and the more systems they take the more Isk the pilots make.
That way pilots can make is fighting for SOV.
Making isk with PVP. Ideal world.
Felix Judge
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2014-09-18 22:39:09 UTC
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
[...] If there's a way to make CCP follow this thread, by god I'll find it.

You could click on the little flag above the text... Twisted
Felix Judge
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2014-09-18 22:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
Syd Unknown wrote:
[...] Pilots will get paid for defending and offending systems and you dont need SRP anymore since people can pay for their ships with the isk made from the SOV war.
The better they are at PVP and the more systems they take the more Isk the pilots make.
That way pilots can make is fighting for SOV.
Making isk with PVP. Ideal world.

THAT is actually a very good thought.
Maybe, with a sov system overhaul, CCP could implement some way to reward pilots out of the alliance wallet for doing whatever secures sov. Optional, and scalable by the alliance directorate, of course.
E.G. in a usage-based system, have ISK paid automatically to pilots who use the system in the specified manner.
12Next page