These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

FW: I-hub and system upgrades

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#81 - 2012-06-08 04:33:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Thanks, Veshta, for the good post!

I am not completely irrational you know, just disillusioned Big smile
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
My fear is that it will increase the pew pew during an actual system takeover (must be done in one big risky push like you pointed out) but not do anything to encourage small gangs or solo pilots from reaping the benefits of their casual roaming and plexing, other than the LP payout itself.

Easily sorted with what was suggested earlier: Diminishing returns. The more downtrodden a side is, the less VP it needs to flip a system just as the dominatrix would need more to increase her holdings.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
There is an intriguing idea being proposed in F & I...

Aah, good old Susan Black .. she spams ideas almost as much as I do Big smile Will read/respond a little later, but sounds like it might work with some tweaking.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Something for everyone to stop by and consider at least, should make for a good discussion assuming everyone keeps things civil and constructive.

F&I threads are generally very constructive, it is the Warfare&Tactics (aka. COAD of FW) that is a cesspool Smile
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#82 - 2012-06-08 18:27:49 UTC
Sir Francis Drake effect - FW pilots and ONLY FW pilots ratting in an upgraded system get increased returns on repairing high sec security standings. Be welcomed home by the queen P
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#83 - 2012-06-08 20:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#84 - 2012-06-13 19:12:42 UTC
When a system goes vulnerable, it should no longer spawn plexes for people to continue farming. There is a Gallente system that has been vulnerable for a week and WTs continue to farm it into perpetuity because of the spawns. No one cares to defensive plex it because it's a stationless system that leads into a nullsec entrance. Conversely, I can understand why the enemy doesn't want to capture it either. But if this is the case, then plexes shouldn't continue to spawn.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .
Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2012-06-14 01:33:48 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:

The reason why plexing has gone through the roof is that people are being paid like robber barons for their time now .. has very little to do with docking.

Not sure if putting it at level 3 is "good", perhaps 2 or even 1 is better .. have to run the numbers .. should be hard enough for an assault to take an effort before opening up stations and give defence a reasonable time to respond.
Reason why I support lock-outs as part of the upgrade path is that it will effectively remove the ability of a single faction from dominating through alts .. if enemy is allowed to plex in a system you had damn well better be there to kick his ass or he will breed like Brutor.

With regards to upgrades being a massive sink .. we have been discussing this elsewhere and the idea of awarding a partial "repair amount" from defensive plexes is gaining traction .. as is the idea of some kind of reward for defensive work in general.
Example: Enemy takes a medium thus knocking off 8750LP (50% of 17.5k) of the upgrade pool. He is discovered and killed/bought/run off and defensive crews take the minor and major , repairing half of what the same sites would have caused in damage (25% of 10k+25k = 8750LP) and in the process get the same amount (25%) of the LP value of the sites (provided system is contested).

System should be fashioned in such a way that defensive work feels like a necessity (worthwhile upgrades, keeping enemy from docking) while not feeling like work .. since the timer system makes it feel like work, some kind of compensation is in order .. doesn't have to huge as defence is a newcomer/alt occupation except when enemy is insistent Smile

The thread in Warfare-Tactics on the topic of plexes and NPCs is gravitating towards the idea of plex timers automatically resetting over time when no enemy is present. Benefit of such a system is that defenders get to focus on killing/evicting the attackers who in turn will never have to experience the glory of the speed-bumped plex (timer run to a few seconds) .. this idea alone has the potential to create enormous amounts of pew as one can't just plex a bit everywhere and pick up the next day in whichever system wasn't decontested .. also makes the multi-pronged attacks a lot more valuable and risky.
Note: With such a system there will/should be no rewards for defensive work of any sort .. to control space, you have to patrol space or invest in tissues.


Plexing for rewards is barely driving any PVP. The people who are there to farm plexes run when they see anyone on short scan. The fights are happening around station systems like Hallanen and Oto and Oicx, systems with strategic value because of their stations, and that's where the actual fights are. There's been a lot of good ideas as to how to fix plexing but as yet I haven't seen anything concrete from CCP that acts on any of them. Would love some push back from CCP devs, preferably questions about possible/suggested fixes that they're thinking about. Help us help you help us :).
Alto Hopix
Kiith Naabal
#86 - 2012-06-14 12:30:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Alto Hopix
I was thinking changing/expanding the current choice of bonuses for system upgrades. You could have different 'sets' of 3 upgrades.

For example the 3 we have currently could be put into specific sets:

We could have for example a "defensive set", were instead of industry, clones and market bonus, you get stuff like improved/friendly gate guns, faction police presence and infrastructure hub EHP increase for example.

There could also be an economy set with reduced tax/broker fees and the industry slot upgrades.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#87 - 2012-06-14 14:57:33 UTC
Deen Wispa wrote:
When a system goes vulnerable, it should no longer spawn plexes for people to continue farming. There is a Gallente system that has been vulnerable for a week and WTs continue to farm it into perpetuity because of the spawns. No one cares to defensive plex it because it's a stationless system that leads into a nullsec entrance. Conversely, I can understand why the enemy doesn't want to capture it either. But if this is the case, then plexes shouldn't continue to spawn.

Gotta hand it to the Caldari, that is a bloody genius way of gaming the system .. hahahahahahahaha.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#88 - 2012-06-14 21:25:39 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Deen Wispa wrote:
When a system goes vulnerable, it should no longer spawn plexes for people to continue farming. There is a Gallente system that has been vulnerable for a week and WTs continue to farm it into perpetuity because of the spawns. No one cares to defensive plex it because it's a stationless system that leads into a nullsec entrance. Conversely, I can understand why the enemy doesn't want to capture it either. But if this is the case, then plexes shouldn't continue to spawn.

Gotta hand it to the Caldari, that is a bloody genius way of gaming the system .. hahahahahahahaha.

Everybody was thinking about doing this. The Caldari were the first to implement it.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#89 - 2012-06-15 16:27:39 UTC
We've been talking a lot about diminishing returns issues, the "problem" (or lack thereof) regarding defensive plexing being boring and unrewarding, and about ways to reduce "snowballing".

One observation that has been made is that since WZ control points are easier to obtain by upgrading systems to level 1 upgrades instead of upgrading a single system to level 5, this essentially means that the factions that have the most systems have a much easier time maintaining their WZ control point level through LP investment.

In other words, the Minmatar, who own 60 systems instead of the 10 for the Amarr, can easily replace lost WZ control points at a cheap LP rate by reinforcing backwater systems. The Amarr on the other hand, have to invest all of their systems all the way to level 5 (costing more LP / WZ control point gained) and even that only works if they have enough systems to begin with.

Does anyone feel this is working well, or should it cost more LP investment to gain WZ control points as you continue to win and win and win? Is it fair that the more systems you own the cheaper it is to maintain your LP store price point?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#90 - 2012-06-15 16:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
We've been talking a lot about diminishing returns issues, the "problem" (or lack thereof) regarding defensive plexing being boring and unrewarding, and about ways to reduce "snowballing".

One observation that has been made is that since WZ control points are easier to obtain by upgrading systems to level 1 upgrades instead of upgrading a single system to level 5, this essentially means that the factions that have the most systems have a much easier time maintaining their WZ control point level through LP investment.

In other words, the Minmatar, who own 60 systems instead of the 10 for the Amarr, can easily replace lost WZ control points at a cheap LP rate by reinforcing backwater systems. The Amarr on the other hand, have to invest all of their systems all the way to level 5 (costing more LP / WZ control point gained) and even that only works if they have enough systems to begin with.

Does anyone feel this is working well, or should it cost more LP investment to gain WZ control points as you continue to win and win and win? Is it fair that the more systems you own the cheaper it is to maintain your LP store price point?


IMO it is working well right now.

It is difficult to defend lots of space now because you do not receive lp for defense. This means the best way to defend a system is to actually prevent plexes from being taken in the first place - i.e., pvp. Because if you just sit back and let the enemy take the plex you are in effect punished with having to orbit a button for no gain.

Since you need to aggressively defend your systems before the plexes are taken it is much easier if you have fewer systems to cover.

Edit: although your post touches on several different things its hard to know exactly what you are talking about.

As far as the 2 questions at the end.

1) If its cheaper to upgrade your systems when you have *fewer* systems then owning systems will have even less intrinsic value.

2) I do think its fair that the more systems you own means its cheaper to maintain your lp price point. That is sort of the incentive to fighting and taking systems. Should be it be easier to maintain your lp price point by losing systems? I'm not sure I understand.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#91 - 2012-06-15 18:52:14 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
We've been talking a lot about diminishing returns issues, the "problem" (or lack thereof) regarding defensive plexing being boring and unrewarding, and about ways to reduce "snowballing".

One observation that has been made is that since WZ control points are easier to obtain by upgrading systems to level 1 upgrades instead of upgrading a single system to level 5, this essentially means that the factions that have the most systems have a much easier time maintaining their WZ control point level through LP investment.

In other words, the Minmatar, who own 60 systems instead of the 10 for the Amarr, can easily replace lost WZ control points at a cheap LP rate by reinforcing backwater systems. The Amarr on the other hand, have to invest all of their systems all the way to level 5 (costing more LP / WZ control point gained) and even that only works if they have enough systems to begin with.

Does anyone feel this is working well, or should it cost more LP investment to gain WZ control points as you continue to win and win and win? Is it fair that the more systems you own the cheaper it is to maintain your LP store price point?

Won't matter. The issue is pretty straight forward:

Minmatar: Clear tangible benefit to continually upgrade system: They get it up to 61% (usually no higher) and then cash out. There are enough plexing alts cashing in all the time to make this work.

Amarr: ZERO benefit to upgrading system: They dont upgrade their systems because there is no concrete reason to do so. It will always be below 20% and therefore why bother?


On the other front (for some perspective):
Gallente don't upgrade their systems on a regular basis because the upgrades will quickly be eaten away by Caldari afk plexing alts. Gallente have tried to do this in spurts. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded.

Caldari - I imagine Caldari are similar to Gallente with the exception that upgrades are slowly eaten away by semi-skilled afk plexing alts in an incursus. They have upgraded in spurts rather than consistently as well. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded yet. If they continue to steamroll plexes they will likely have a reason soon (once they get to 61 systems).


Also: Look at "Willingness to Upgrade" versus "Quality of NPC rats" (how hard it is to take a plex).
Minmatar > Caldari > Gallente > Amarr
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#92 - 2012-06-15 19:09:43 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:

Minmatar: Clear tangible benefit to continually upgrade system: They get it up to 61% (usually no higher) and then cash out. There are enough plexing alts cashing in all the time to make this work.

Amarr: ZERO benefit to upgrading system: They dont upgrade their systems because there is no concrete reason to do so. It will always be below 20% and therefore why bother?


Fair enough. I agree that the diminishing returns "problem" is less of an issue if you dont have systems to bother upgrading to begin with. I think if the Amarr started taking more space though and actually trying to move out of the price rut they are in, they may find themselves frustrated by the fact that their LP doesnt go as far in upgrading their space as the Minnies' does.

X Gallentius wrote:

On the other front (for some perspective):
Gallente don't upgrade their systems on a regular basis because the upgrades will quickly be eaten away by Caldari afk plexing alts. Gallente have tried to do this in spurts. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded.

Caldari - I imaging Caldari are similar to Gallente with the exception that upgrades are slowly eaten away by semi-skilled afk plexing alts in an incursus. They have upgraded in spurts rather than consistently as well. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded yet. If they continue to steamroll plexes they will likely have a reason soon (once they get to 61 systems).


Also: Look at "Willingness to Upgrade" versus "Quality of NPC rats" (how hard it is to take a plex).
Minmatar > Caldari > Gallente > Amarr


What, in your opinion, is the best solution to dealing with the Caldari / Gallente situation in the long run? Is it primarily an issue of the size of the warzone, or a problem with speedfarmers? You're in a better place to advise on this warzone than myself.

Also - in your quality of NPC rat chart - is that taking Ewar into consideration, or is that how you see the rat quality once their E-war has been removed, which is what is going to happen in Inferno 1.1?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#93 - 2012-06-15 20:12:55 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


What, in your opinion, is the best solution to dealing with the Caldari / Gallente situation in the long run? Is it primarily an issue of the size of the warzone, or a problem with speedfarmers? You're in a better place to advise on this warzone than myself.

Also - in your quality of NPC rat chart - is that taking Ewar into consideration, or is that how you see the rat quality once their E-war has been removed, which is what is going to happen in Inferno 1.1?


Edit: I think this post came out a bit more harsh than intended. Overall FW has seen a huge boost in popularity and I am extremely happy with the increased, almost on-demand pvp. It has been great. I'm sure the next update will help balance things out some more and will do a better job of balancing plexes, risk vs. reward, and other issues that were purposefully left unattended during the most recent patch. With that said, here's the original post:


E-WAR Removal:
The only e-war that affects capping a plex solo, from what I understand, is web+target painter on Minmatar rats. None of the other e-war affects anybody's ability to tank a plex.

Once e-war is removed, Minmatar plexes will be on the same order as Caldari plexes, and Amarr plexes will be on the same order as Gallente:
Cap Gallente/Amarr - Regular 1day old speed tanking farmer
Cap Caldari/Minmatar - More skilled self repping incursus farmer - You may see Minmatar upgrade level go down since plexing for Amarr will be easier.

Long Term Issue w.r.t System Upgrades: System upgrades should be removed from the game since upgrades are not leading to any tangible conflict.

Upgrades were obviously not put into this version of FW as any sort of reward for occupancy. The rewards are undewhelming and are for non-FW industrialists, and they are easily destroyed through a little bit of plexing (that will happen whether or not a system is upgraded). Rewards were put into FW to give people an incentive to defensive plex to protect their LP store bonuses. However, it is easier (and more fun) to simply re-fill the upgrade bucket (if there is a tangible reason to do so) than it is to defend a backwater system.

* Threat of getting kicked from a home system is leading to conflict. Most fights.
* Threat of enemy getting foothold in a station system is leading to conflict. Some fights.
* Threat of enemy securing non-station system is non-existent. These systems are flipping back and forth all the time. Conflict arises because people are out in space. A few fights.
* Protection of upgraded systems? NO FIGHTS. Nobody is patrolling a region to protect their upgrades. Too boring.

(Only systems that are upgraded outside of Minmatar faction warfare zone are those that are easily defended - home systems where players live. But these systems are already defended due to threat of getting kicked out. )


If CCP really wants to have Gallente/Caldari upgrade their systems, then it needs to make them "easier to defend" which means removing less LP/offensive plex capped. Once you go down that route, then you might as well make the upgrade value equal to 1+ 5 * (100 - the percent contested)/100, and be done with it.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#94 - 2012-06-15 22:37:54 UTC
I've been tossing around this idea internally for a couple days. One of the professed problems of FW is the rat difficulty. So why don't we put it in the player's hands? Bust down the NPC rats to a their basic 4-5 waves. No E-War.

Military Upgrades:
You get several either or choices. System wide armour bonuses? Or Stasis towers in plexes?
Systemwide skirmish bonuses? Or more difficult rats in plexes?
Police faction present in system in the form of NPC ships or sentry guns? Or choose the types of rats in the plexes?

That obviously isn't a full or even well thought out list. Put you should get the idea. The militia can choose upgrades to the I-HUB that either give combat bonuses to defending fleets or impair the enemy from plexing at a whim. The Military upgrades should only go away after losing a system. They should not contribute to warzone control. Here's the rub - These upgrades will be expensive. If you're at tier 2, they will cost half as much. If you're at tier 1 - a quarter as much. Tier 4? Double in price. Tier 5? Quadruple. You create a dynamic LP store that offers you SOMETHING if you're in the lowest tier. You essentially give the losing team a way to harden their remaining systems and make a come back. If you're the dominant side you don't want them to conquer a system back. The first thing they will do is harden it against counterattack.

Defensive Plexing:
You get LP from defensive plexing based on the contested level of the system. If it's stable you get nothing. If it's at 10%, you get 10% of what the plex would normally give. If it's at 80%, you get... you guessed it, 80%. Blink

Farming in another War Zone:
LP should be unique to the war zone you're in. If you're in Minmatar and you run a Caldari plex - then you get Gallente LP to be spent in the Gallente store. Simple and easy

Missions:
The missions should send you to enemy systems. Running a mission in Asghed for the Minmatar is silly right now. They control it. Being sent to Ardar as the Amarr is suicidal and dumb considering there are many much closer systems.

Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-06-15 22:44:49 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I've been tossing around this idea internally for a couple days. One of the professed problems of FW is the rat difficulty. So why don't we put it in the player's hands? Bust down the NPC rats to a their basic 4-5 waves. No E-War.

Military Upgrades:
You get several either or choices. System wide armour bonuses? Or Stasis towers in plexes?
Systemwide skirmish bonuses? Or more difficult rats in plexes?
Police faction present in system in the form of NPC ships or sentry guns? Or choose the types of rats in the plexes?

That obviously isn't a full or even well thought out list. Put you should get the idea. The militia can choose upgrades to the I-HUB that either give combat bonuses to defending fleets or impair the enemy from plexing at a whim. The Military upgrades should only go away after losing a system. They should not contribute to warzone control. Here's the rub - These upgrades will be expensive. If you're at tier 2, they will cost half as much. If you're at tier 1 - a quarter as much. Tier 4? Double in price. Tier 5? Quadruple. You create a dynamic LP store that offers you SOMETHING if you're in the lowest tier. You essentially give the losing team a way to harden their remaining systems and make a come back. If you're the dominant side you don't want them to conquer a system back. The first thing they will do is harden it against counterattack.

Defensive Plexing:
You get LP from defensive plexing based on the contested level of the system. If it's stable you get nothing. If it's at 10%, you get 10% of what the plex would normally give. If it's at 80%, you get... you guessed it, 80%. Blink

Farming in another War Zone:
LP should be unique to the war zone you're in. If you're in Minmatar and you run a Caldari plex - then you get Gallente LP to be spent in the Gallente store. Simple and easy

Missions:
The missions should send you to enemy systems. Running a mission in Asghed for the Minmatar is silly right now. They control it. Being sent to Ardar as the Amarr is suicidal and dumb considering there are many much closer systems.



I actually really like your defensive plexing idea, that makes a whole lot of sense. Other than that though, I don't think we should be giving out free link bonuses system wide just through upgrades. That seems a bit ridiculous. Also I think the cost of upgrading idea is just a little too harsh. You want people to actually upgrade things and try to defend them, not make it so they just don't bother anymore once they start winning. I think a better approach is a carrot to the losing side rather than an overt stick to the winning side.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#96 - 2012-06-15 23:03:00 UTC
The only thing underdogs have going for them now is that defensive plexing does not pay lp. The system is already horribly unbalanced to favor those who are on top. I would be hesitant to mitigate the only balancing mechanic underdogs have.

How many more people have joined minmatar as opposed to amarr since the dev blog announcing the changes? Fweddit is a phenomena that may help amarr somewhat. But I still imagine minmatar has gained more net pilots than the amarr since 2 months ago.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#97 - 2012-06-16 01:12:07 UTC
Julius Foederatus wrote:

I actually really like your defensive plexing idea, that makes a whole lot of sense. Other than that though, I don't think we should be giving out free link bonuses system wide just through upgrades. That seems a bit ridiculous. Also I think the cost of upgrading idea is just a little too harsh. You want people to actually upgrade things and try to defend them, not make it so they just don't bother anymore once they start winning. I think a better approach is a carrot to the losing side rather than an overt stick to the winning side.


It's a tit for tat proposal. Defensive plexing of contested systems becomes worthwhile. Losing factions get items they can spend LP on that are cheaper at tier 1 or 2. Those items have to be more expensive at higher tiers. Think of it as a more dynamic LP store. That is the concept in it's simplest form. Forget the specifics.
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2012-06-18 16:00:52 UTC
Zarnak Wulf
Defensive Plexing:
You get LP from defensive plexing based on the contested level of the system. If it's stable you get nothing. If it's at 10%, you get 10% of what the plex would normally give. If it's at 80%, you get... you guessed it, 80%. [;) wrote:



Probably makes sense.
As a system gets nearer to vulnerable it gives both sides benefit to plexing, hopefully drawing more in and creating more fights.
It might also help with the issue of it being more beneficial to let a system fall and reclaim it than it is to defend it.

Requiring all plex NPCs to be killed to cap a plex will remove the speed tanking alts from all factions and is the last part of the puzzle.

Quote:

Farming in another War Zone:
LP should be unique to the war zone you're in. If you're in Minmatar and you run a Caldari plex - then you get Gallente LP to be spent in the Gallente store. Simple and easy

Missions:
The missions should send you to enemy systems. Running a mission in Asghed for the Minmatar is silly right now. They control it. Being sent to Ardar as the Amarr is suicidal and dumb considering there are many much closer systems.


Both of these make so much sense I thought that was how it worked now.
Definitely do these asap.
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2012-06-18 19:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
Put something related to cloak! System cloak jammer!!!!

it would be good for 0.0 too....

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Gabriel Darkefyre
Gradient
Electus Matari
#100 - 2012-06-20 22:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey folks,

Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:


  • Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed



Thanks for your time and ideas people!


Could make it a different module, a Cyno Destabiliser rather than a Jammer. Have an upper Ship Volume setpoint when it'll kick in based on the system upgrade level (Setpoint getting lower as the Upgrade level goes up).

For every ship that enters the System via Cyno, if it's above the Volume setpoint it has a percentage chance of missing the target beacon and appearing somewhere else in the same system at random.

For example -

Unupgraded - 20% Chance of Deviation, 100,000,000m3 set point (Affects all Titans only)
Level 1 - 30% Chance of Deviation, 50,000,000m3 Set Point (Adds all Supercarriers to the Affected Ships)
Level 2 - 40% Chance of Deviation, 25,000,000m3 Set Point
Level 3 - 50% Chance of Deviation, 15,000,000m3 Set Point (Adds all Dreadnoughts / Jump Freighters to the Affected Ships)
Level 4 - 60% Chance of Deviation, 14,000,000m3 Set Point (Adds Rorquals to the Affected Ships)
Level 5 - 70% Chance of Deviation, 10,000,000m3 Set Point (Adds all Carriers to the Affected Ships)

Alternatively, could flag the affected ships from the Type ID rather than the Volume to allow a more logical progression of affected ships.

Unupgraded - Titans
Level 1 - Supercarriers
Level 2 - Dreadnoughts
Level 3 - Carriers
Level 4 - Rorquals
Level 5 - Jump Freighters


Would be Anchorable in Lowsec only and would require the Anchoring Corporation to be part of the Militia of the Empire with Sovereignty in that system. To bring online requires you to be in the Militia, leaving the Militia will immediately offline the Destabiliser. Likewise, your faction losing Sovereignty will also offline the destabiliser.


With this, Travelling through Lowsec isn't majorly impeded (Deviation gives a slight advantage here as your Capital won't be sitting at the Cyno meaning you need to be probed out possibly buying you a few extra seconds to Align to Warp to a safer location), however trying to Hotdrop Capitals, especially Supercapitals, straight into a lowsec fight becomes unreliable.