These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sovereignty, an idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zim69
Zombie Apocalypse Redux
#1 - 2013-09-11 11:42:22 UTC
First off I just want to say I am completely apathetic towards null sec sov warfare and how much it sucks. If nothing changes that would be fine with me, but I do have an idea about sov mechanics and how to make it more dynamic.

Basically, If you own a system you have to pay a fee for the upkeep of the local Gates, in addition to the normal cost associated with sovereignty. The more gates a system has the higher the cost of maintaining them. A nice little isk sink.
Now lets say you decided not to pay for the upkeep of the local gates or are unable to. It doesn't turn them off, you can still use them, but "local" doesn't. Similar to how it functions in WH space. Now I think that would be a lot of fun. Just think of all the interesting tactics that would evolve from it. A few other consequences of not paying the upkeep: Timers drastically reduced, no clone services for systems with a station (including using a jump clone into or out off the system).

good/bad? discuss.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-09-11 12:10:31 UTC
Just another bill payment to be made, does not mean that increased activity will follow.

Now no local following not keeping on top of local NPC pirates or anoms and roids being completed by members not in the sov holding alliance then maybe.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-09-11 13:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Alticus C Bear wrote:
Just another bill payment to be made, does not mean that increased activity will follow.

agree.

personally i think it would be better to completely remove any ISK from SOV. After all where is any reason players should pay to anyone to have their names on systems deep in 0.0 space where there is no any authorities? No CONCORD, no empire factions... Only "pirates"... I really see no reasons to have such bills.

ISK for killing pirates? Why could CONCORD care about some god forgotten systems in space far away? These ISK payments make no sense too.

Just an idea: make SOV depends on military/industry levels. You have any activity in system? You have SOV. No one does anything in there? System is unclaimed back. This change will make moon-mining fields difficult to maintain without player activities.

Want to disrupt enemy system? Block any activity in system for few days (using one AFK cloaker Lol) and viola! SOV dropped. Finally we found place to small-size operations in 0.0 space (guerilla warfare).

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#4 - 2013-09-11 20:30:29 UTC
best way to populate 0.0 is to turn it highsec
Alduin666 Shikkoken
Doomheim
#5 - 2013-09-14 13:20:30 UTC
*Personally* I think that there shouldn't be a sov bill at all. I understand that it is an ISK sink but really? Who does concord think they are charging ISK for capsuleers to hold a system when they can't even maintain a presence.

Honor is a fools prize. [I]Glory is of no use to the dead.[/I]

Be a man! Post with your main! ~Vas'Avi Community Manager
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels
The Obsidian Front - Reborn
#6 - 2013-09-16 08:47:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ynot Eyob
I like the idear of no local, but the gate thing is in my eyes silly, systems with alot of gate are not really the best systems anyway.

I would like to see a change which only allow you to hold sov, one constallation per 500 members within alliance. Its would make null more dynamic, and give more a better change to create their own small empire. But this is another topic.

Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".