These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Limited Sov Timers per Alliance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Inmei T'ko
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-02-15 18:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Inmei T'ko
In order to make sovereignty control more dynamic, and avoid areas where de facto sovereignty has been taken but no one actually lives there, how about a slight change to the way timers work on sovereignty modules.

Each alliance has a finite number of sov modules to which they can assign timers (so that they function the way sov modules function right now.) They can pick and choose which modules get the timers, but once they run out of slots to assign timers to their sov modules, after that you can deploy as many as you want but no timer.

So a hit and run on a system's sovereignty could be accomplished without the reinforcement timers, but only on the ones outside of the number that they can assign timers to.

Some systems would receive priority and be viewed as more critical, and receive the timer slots. Others are not as critical and so would become vulnerable.

Flame on. :)
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2013-02-15 20:22:39 UTC
Inmei T'ko wrote:
In order to make sovereignty control more dynamic, and avoid areas where de facto sovereignty has been taken but no one actually lives there, how about a slight change to the way timers work on sovereignty modules.

Each alliance has a finite number of sov modules to which they can assign timers (so that they function the way sov modules function right now.) They can pick and choose which modules get the timers, but once they run out of slots to assign timers to their sov modules, after that you can deploy as many as you want but no timer.

So a hit and run on a system's sovereignty could be accomplished without the reinforcement timers, but only on the ones outside of the number that they can assign timers to.

Some systems would receive priority and be viewed as more critical, and receive the timer slots. Others are not as critical and so would become vulnerable.

Flame on. :)

OR, they would just make more holding/pet/renter alliances and up the price of rent to cover the income loss.

this would do nothing except to arbitrarily limit the number of systems an alliance could ACTUALLY defend, since without a timer they would never be fighting in their timezone, and would encourage null-sec to bring in more fodder to use as meatshields and renters to replace the income lost.
Inmei T'ko
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-02-15 20:57:58 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

OR, they would just make more holding/pet/renter alliances and up the price of rent to cover the income loss.

this would do nothing except to arbitrarily limit the number of systems an alliance could ACTUALLY defend, since without a timer they would never be fighting in their timezone, and would encourage null-sec to bring in more fodder to use as meatshields and renters to replace the income lost.


I think limiting the number of systems one alliance can control in order to allow more space for others to try nullsec is the aim of this change.

Systems that are deserted but nominally controlled by one of the big powerblocs is what this would discourage.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-02-15 21:47:01 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Inmei T'ko wrote:
In order to make sovereignty control more dynamic, and avoid areas where de facto sovereignty has been taken but no one actually lives there, how about a slight change to the way timers work on sovereignty modules.

Each alliance has a finite number of sov modules to which they can assign timers (so that they function the way sov modules function right now.) They can pick and choose which modules get the timers, but once they run out of slots to assign timers to their sov modules, after that you can deploy as many as you want but no timer.

So a hit and run on a system's sovereignty could be accomplished without the reinforcement timers, but only on the ones outside of the number that they can assign timers to.

Some systems would receive priority and be viewed as more critical, and receive the timer slots. Others are not as critical and so would become vulnerable.

Flame on. :)

OR, they would just make more holding/pet/renter alliances and up the price of rent to cover the income loss.

this would do nothing except to arbitrarily limit the number of systems an alliance could ACTUALLY defend, since without a timer they would never be fighting in their timezone, and would encourage null-sec to bring in more fodder to use as meatshields and renters to replace the income lost.


Sounds like an improvement over empty space. Meatshield can be shot.