Assembly Hall

That's actually not a bad idea. I don't really see any problem with that.

As i explained before, you can do that, but people will just jump clone out and do the same in one of your systems, so it will all balance out :)




The only counter arguments i've seen were ones where i believe my first post wasn't read properly.

1) PvP and other warfare activities are the most valued. Timezones always have some kind of overlap aswell, it's not like that at the exact moment EU goes to bed, US logs on, not logging on before that. There will always be conflict of some kind.

2) Structures are a bad thing since they only relocate the problem and don't solve it, as i keep explaining. They require large blobs of capitals to defend and place effectively, drowning out subcap ship classes significantly as far as sov warfare goes. The time commitment (as in, having to show up at very specific times to be effective) due to reinforcement timers is also stifling and leads to less organic warfare in almost every single way, aswell as posing a significant barrier of entry for anyone wanting to participate.

3) Larger alliances would have more space, but only as much as would actually be used. Think of this as 'people per system' - The system works in a linear fashion, not exponential, so an alliance of 1000 people would be able to hold 10 times as many system as an alliance of 100 people instead of the approx. disproportionally 20-30 times. The larger alliance can try to contest other systems with smaller alliances, but this would lead to other systems being less active and this easier to take over.

Lastly, people seem to be under the impression that under this system sov should be 'flippable' within a matter of days. That's just silly. Sov will require a commitment to the space, whether you actually want that part of space. Spending time and generating activity there means you can't spend it anywhere else, on a per player basis. I believe that this will lead to more interesting warfare in the long term since sov is no longer a matter of spamming POS's and SBU's, with structures taking on a support role instead of a pivotal role in determining such a defining mechanic. Since structures still serve as staging and reinforcement points they will still act as points of interest as far as generating fights is concerned but since activity is a much larger issue, small gang fights will have a much larger impact on wars they do now (anything higher than 0), giving added incentive to engaging in this kind of warfare over the currently only reasons of 'being annoying' and 'getting killmails'.

Killing in it's own would actually serve a much more defined purpose under this system, whereas now fights would be avoided entirely unless absolutely necessarym like the structure grind.


That said, i do genuinly appreciate yours and CynoNet's comments. I will admit that my proposal may not be entirely sound, but i don't understand why this may be just yet. It may be that the truth lies somewhere in between, but i don't see how retaining the mandatory structure grind is in any way productive in this issue, i haven't seen any definitive alternatives up to this point.

I really hope that there's some way to avoid structures, reinforcement timers and all that jazz, in the end. Sov needs to be much more organic to be truly fun to deal with.

Also, i do apoligize for my somewhat derogatory tone in my quoted post.

I may be awake in russian or EU prime time but I'm certainly not available and useful for conflict. This applies to many people in many other time frames. Scenarios in which space is "flipped" or "fought over" without the two sides ever seeing each other remain all too probable. Or ones where a large multi-time zone alliance dominates the small single time-zone through matching kill for kill in their time zone while dominating the PvE factor in other time zones, or...you get the idea.


Structures are bad for all...well, for many...of these reasons, yes. They do not, in and of themselves, require "large blobs" of capitals to tackle. Large blobs of capitals are used either because they're available or, due to hostile opposition, necessary. And I still disagree with the notion that subcaps have "no place" in sov warfare, or that the best solution to what issues you list that I do agree with is to "burn the whole system down".


This is an undeniable upside, yes. It is not a quality unique to your suggestions, however. There are many ways to place a soft limit on how much space can be held. And frankly, I happen to think that there are a lot of reasons for an alliance of any size to want to "own more space" that is not actually used, such as an alliance in Period Basis (for example) absolutely requiring midpoints somewhere in either Delve or Querious to perform logistics runs to and from empire. If they're not friendly with those who own the space around their midpoints, defending them will be hard enough as it is, to say nothing of if the requirement becomes entirely one of "use the space" as opposed to "defend hardened and static structures at a fixed time."


Once again, these are not qualities unique to your proposal. Think of it this way - a medieval attacker may have weakened the castle by blocking all supplies from entering and taking them for themselves, but at the end of the day, starving and weakened as though its defenders may be, they've still got to storm that castle. As I mentioned previously, I have no problem with the idea of activity tying into sov, just with the idea of it being the only determining factor. So, perhaps in Eve terms, the structures are perhaps more easily taken out if the activity levels in their system are low, whether that's through enemy action or simple lack of use. For a concrete example, placing the TCU gives you the system, but the reinforcement timers for structures that have them have a large variance, +/-6 hours, perhaps. Increased "use" of the system, be it ratting, mining, commerce in the station, whatever, increases the value of one or more indices, all of which contribute in a finely granular way to the sovereignty level. One such benefit of a higher sovereignty level attained this way could be the placement of another structure (of suitably "not too high but not too low" HP) that gives one finer control over defensive timers.

System sovereignty should be based on activity, and scalable with various direct benefits and/or potential upgrades.

Stations should be conquerable by force, with stront instead of set timers, and have no necessary relation to the sovereignty of the system.

Is it CCP's job to implement mechanics which specifically encourage 24/7 alliances rather than leaving it to the players to decide their membership?