These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Activity-based Sov Indices
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
#1 - 2013-11-08 09:51:29 UTC
In CSM December minutes: Nullsec, I think Uncle Gagarin's post may be a good direction for fixing nulsec sov.

Uncle Gagarin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:
Andski wrote:
Uncle Gagarin wrote:
What I also noticed most ideas will make actual alliances richer instead of bringing more ppl to NULL.



How so? Most nulsec players have been clamoring for a revamp to nulsec that would ultimately do away with the top-down model, where alliances make money from static wealth sources, in favor of a bottom-up model where alliances can reliably be funded through activity in their space.

Oh, the irony. I am 100% behind the notion of the bottom-up income model, but who will it benefit the most upon release? The largest alliances currently in-game: Goons and TEST.

EDIT: It should be noted that there is little that CCP can do in terms of adjusting null-sec income potential w/o existing Sov holders reaping the benefit. Back when Tech was buffed 3+ years ago, the Northern Coalition (minus the dawt) reaped [squandered] enormous rewards while the rest of null-sec was left with devalued space and moons.

The best thing that CCP can do is to apply buffs and tweaks across all of null-sec, including -- to some extent -- in the NPC Sov regions.



Why shouldn't existing sov holders benefit from owning their space?



Why ? Because sov system is bad.
It's based on puting some structures or destroying other structures.
It should be more based on real activity. Some sov points per system, some gain/lose on pvp, on pve on mining and exploration and finally on industry. How calculate points it's absolute different subject.
Maybe areas hold by single alliance or other group would be smaller.
Maybe there would be more "kingdoms" instead of "empires".
But there would be more life, more activity, more pvp to keep or loose sov.
Finally as pve and mining activities would be helping to gain or hold sov there would be a reason for sov holders or pretenders to recruit not only pvp focused players but also pve, miners and industrialists.
That way finally players would be lured to NULL as to new Eldorado. High risk, high activity and high income.
That way higher income resulting from sov would be reasonable.

As I wrote you in other thread hisec is ok, problem is with null and LS.
You can't force people to leave Europe and go to Sahara by turning Europe to a desert.
Just give people reason to go to Sahara. Diamonds maybe, adventures maybe ...
But again, this is subject for another thread.

Cheers,


Activity is the number one thing (imo) for maintaining sovereignty; CCP should make holding sov require more activity, with more consequences for not maintaining all development indices. Supercap blobs can not be bothered mining, but they should have to recruit or hire active players; and keeping them protected and active would require alliance leadership to become creative.

Activity in all three indices is required to maintain level 5; level 5 Strategic, level 5 Military, and level 5 Industry. So weekly downtime (DT) clicks and resets your numbers if they do not match. For example, their mining wing is attacked and the industry level drops to 3. If the industry 3 remains at Tue DT, all are set to match industry level 3.

The indices level check may need to be daily or weekly; either way, I think this would allow more chances for income interruption, pvp, and recruitment of industrial players. This is not the end all solution, but I think this can be a good direction to take problems with sov.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2013-11-08 10:46:17 UTC
Some systems are really bad for mining, some are really bad for ratting. Those are the ones with low indecies. My usual ratting system, for example, has three belts and 0 on the industry index. Your change would just make systems with few belts or bad truesec not worth holding. That won't mean small guys can come set up in them or anything, it'll just mean they're empty.

Your changes would force people into bigger groups and fewer systems. Kind of the opposite of what you're aiming for.

Also, please explain why you should lose your cynojammer in a bad truesec system with decent icebelts? Or why you should lose your hidden belts in a system with bad rats, or your rat sites in a system with bad belts?

Not all systems are good for all things. You can't make them good for all things.
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
#3 - 2013-11-08 11:28:25 UTC
Such is life. The idea here is to move from only ratting towards combined operations; I do not pretend to have everything figured out, but I think integrated pvp fleets with industry/exploration is a step in the right direction.

I think there is a middle-ground of pvp interaction between large and small groups. Why hold sov if you are not going to use it? Let sov drop if you can not/do not want to use it. There are plenty of areas of nul with nobody using the resources there. An empty system would never be used, sov would drop, and someone else that wants to use the system would move in. Why is that a problem?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2013-11-08 11:33:09 UTC
DetKhord Saisio wrote:
Such is life. The idea here is to move from only ratting towards combined operations; I do not pretend to have everything figured out, but I think integrated pvp fleets with industry/exploration is a step in the right direction.

I think there is a middle-ground of pvp interaction between large and small groups. Why hold sov if you are not going to use it? Let sov drop if you can not/do not want to use it. There are plenty of areas of nul with nobody using the resources there. An empty system would never be used, sov would drop, and someone else that wants to use the system would move in. Why is that a problem?



But they wouldn't move in. They'd go there, find defensive SBUs on every hate, and would get 50 supers dropped on them the second they tried to claim it.

And it would be a system with worthless truesec anyway.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#5 - 2013-11-08 13:26:10 UTC
DetKhord Saisio wrote:
Activity is the number one thing (imo) for maintaining sovereignty; CCP should make holding sov require more activity, with more consequences for not maintaining all development indices. Supercap blobs can not be bothered mining, but they should have to recruit or hire active players; and keeping them protected and active would require alliance leadership to become creative.

Activity in all three indices is required to maintain level 5; level 5 Strategic, level 5 Military, and level 5 Industry. So weekly downtime (DT) clicks and resets your numbers if they do not match. For example, their mining wing is attacked and the industry level drops to 3. If the industry 3 remains at Tue DT, all are set to match industry level 3.

The indices level check may need to be daily or weekly; either way, I think this would allow more chances for income interruption, pvp, and recruitment of industrial players. This is not the end all solution, but I think this can be a good direction to take problems with sov.
This is clearly written by someone that has never had to get indices up to 5 and keep them there. If your intent is to force nullsec players to have to grind mindlessly just to hold their space, thus making them simply nomad making sov useless, then this works.
Lets also note that this would mean no small alliance could hold any decently sized space, especially when a few of the larger guys come and camp the system for a few days and watch it drop sov.
Look at industry. You realise that holding industry 5 takes like 12m m3 mined per day right? So that's like 64 man hours per day (from completely maxed out miners in hulks) plus a rorq boost, which means a lot of hulks painting an easy gank target. For the larger groups that's possible but boring as hell, with full on grid tactical support. For smaller groups, best of luck not getting hotdropped to hell.
Then there's the impact that would have on industry elsewhere. 12m m3 is a LOT of minerals. Can you imagine the price drop of that many minerals being suddenly pushed into the market?

I know, I know, you're sad that you can't take a solo ship and go bring down nullsec on your own, but the short of it is, forcing content on people to try to make it so you can is a terrible idea for everyone.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#6 - 2013-11-08 14:10:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
When advocating industrialists rights to 0.0 you need to remember for the majority of them the issue is them. Application forms and api checks showing the ship they fly best is an exhumer does not win friends or influence people. This is why ratters > miners for applying to 0.0. By the oddest coincidence uber skills to run a kick ass pve vindi happen to be the same skills to run a very decent fleet mega.

Miners want to get more of the 0.0 action...they just need to train up some fleet ships.

Also how does this help 0.0 be more interesting? I see it making it even less interesting. Nope can't roam today, we are behind on our rock quota's. Or we'd really like to invade some space but then our garrison indices goes to crap with bulk of the alliance on a road trip. Unless changed the mining index mechanics my last time out sucked ass. You need to stay on top of it.

Now you will say thats why you said recruit more miners. Not sure of your personal likes or that of places you have been but I know with myself and many others having miners or ratters farming isk while we are on an op tends to **** people off. Or if the policy is no isk making during ops and Joe and Jane who are on religiously every night to mine for weeks on somehow don't log in on op nights...this also pisses you off.


Eve is a sandbox game. Forcing 0.0 to "hire" players they normally would not goes against that.
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
#7 - 2013-11-09 00:27:40 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
DetKhord Saisio wrote:
Such is life. The idea here is to move from only ratting towards combined operations; I do not pretend to have everything figured out, but I think integrated pvp fleets with industry/exploration is a step in the right direction.

I think there is a middle-ground of pvp interaction between large and small groups. Why hold sov if you are not going to use it? Let sov drop if you can not/do not want to use it. There are plenty of areas of nul with nobody using the resources there. An empty system would never be used, sov would drop, and someone else that wants to use the system would move in. Why is that a problem?



But they wouldn't move in. They'd go there, find defensive SBUs on every hate, and would get 50 supers dropped on them the second they tried to claim it.

And it would be a system with worthless truesec anyway.
Is that really the case? Someone sneezes an SBU and your alliance 50 supers fleet comes to the rescue; I think not in all cases. Are you responding according to your experience or what I have postulated? In the background of this change, I believe more content can be generated by using combined operations. Those systems important enough to use combined operations can maintain sov, otherwise sov would drop and allow more occupants in nul. More people means more content. Make each system more content dense (pve, pvp, etc) and they will have less time to drop 50 supers on you.

I do not know about you, but I would rather see 98% of players living in nul.
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
#8 - 2013-11-09 00:51:34 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
When advocating industrialists rights to 0.0 you need to remember for the majority of them the issue is them. Application forms and api checks showing the ship they fly best is an exhumer does not win friends or influence people. This is why ratters > miners for applying to 0.0. By the oddest coincidence uber skills to run a kick ass pve vindi happen to be the same skills to run a very decent fleet mega.

Miners want to get more of the 0.0 action...they just need to train up some fleet ships.

Also how does this help 0.0 be more interesting? I see it making it even less interesting. Nope can't roam today, we are behind on our rock quota's. Or we'd really like to invade some space but then our garrison indices goes to crap with bulk of the alliance on a road trip. Unless changed the mining index mechanics my last time out sucked ass. You need to stay on top of it.

Now you will say thats why you said recruit more miners. Not sure of your personal likes or that of places you have been but I know with myself and many others having miners or ratters farming isk while we are on an op tends to **** people off. Or if the policy is no isk making during ops and Joe and Jane who are on religiously every night to mine for weeks on somehow don't log in on op nights...this also pisses you off.


Eve is a sandbox game. Forcing 0.0 to "hire" players they normally would not goes against that.

Odds are against any full fleet (250) staying in a single system for more than 10 minutes, unless there is a pvp fight, pos, sbu, station, or some other pvp-related objective. Pve 'ratting' content for a single system needs vast improvement; I think the goal needs to be enough content to keep an entire fleet busy for an hour. The same goes for exploration and mining. The more people interact with each other, the more content is generated. Thus, this idea for combined ops required to maintain sov.

Not sure why you are turning the argument into a us vs them. We are on the same side here; I want to improve this game. I think some variation of what I stated above can reach that goal.

If I may, I will use a playground metaphor. All the kids are playing in the sandbox. The invisible alliances are formed and the kids go at it until a winner is declared. The loser is ejected and pushed to the corner without any toys and pushed into the puddle. There are far too many toys for the winner to play with, but any time the loser approaches one of the toys the winner drops a 50 supers fleet. Sure, the winner feels confident he has all the toys but looks around and notices everyone else left the sandbox. The creator of the sandbox (CCP) may want to consider the fact the rules need to be adjusted.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2013-11-09 00:53:47 UTC
DetKhord Saisio wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
DetKhord Saisio wrote:
Such is life. The idea here is to move from only ratting towards combined operations; I do not pretend to have everything figured out, but I think integrated pvp fleets with industry/exploration is a step in the right direction.

I think there is a middle-ground of pvp interaction between large and small groups. Why hold sov if you are not going to use it? Let sov drop if you can not/do not want to use it. There are plenty of areas of nul with nobody using the resources there. An empty system would never be used, sov would drop, and someone else that wants to use the system would move in. Why is that a problem?



But they wouldn't move in. They'd go there, find defensive SBUs on every hate, and would get 50 supers dropped on them the second they tried to claim it.

And it would be a system with worthless truesec anyway.
Is that really the case? Someone sneezes an SBU and your alliance 50 supers fleet comes to the rescue; I think not in all cases. Are you responding according to your experience or what I have postulated? In the background of this change, I believe more content can be generated by using combined operations. Those systems important enough to use combined operations can maintain sov, otherwise sov would drop and allow more occupants in nul. More people means more content. Make each system more content dense (pve, pvp, etc) and they will have less time to drop 50 supers on you.

I do not know about you, but I would rather see 98% of players living in nul.



Somebody kills a bunch of defensive SBUs and anchors and TCU you mean? yes, they would get fifty supers dropped on them.

On a slow day.


And with your proposal it is borderline impossible to hold most sov. All poor truesec systems, systems with poor belts and no ice, and systems that, basically, aren't JB hubs wouldn't be worth holding. That would not mean theyw ere open game. That would mean they would have SBUs on them, and that anyone who tried to claim them would be killed. Repeatedly.


You aren't talking about making systems more content dense. You are talking about making the vast majority of systems completely worthless. Have you ever actually lived in null?
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
#10 - 2013-11-09 01:08:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
This is clearly written by someone that has never had to get indices up to 5 and keep them there. If your intent is to force nullsec players to have to grind mindlessly just to hold their space, thus making them simply nomad making sov useless, then this works.
Lets also note that this would mean no small alliance could hold any decently sized space, especially when a few of the larger guys come and camp the system for a few days and watch it drop sov.
Look at industry. You realize that holding industry 5 takes like 12m m3 mined per day right? So that's like 64 man hours per day (from completely maxed out miners in hulks) plus a rorq boost, which means a lot of hulks painting an easy gank target. For the larger groups that's possible but boring as hell, with full on grid tactical support. For smaller groups, best of luck not getting hot-dropped to hell.
Then there's the impact that would have on industry elsewhere. 12m m3 is a LOT of minerals. Can you imagine the price drop of that many minerals being suddenly pushed into the market?

I know, I know, you're sad that you can't take a solo ship and go bring down nullsec on your own, but the short of it is, forcing content on people to try to make it so you can is a terrible idea for everyone.
You obviously have no idea of what you speak. Come back when you have a viable argument.