These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sov Idea to make Eve a bit more interesting.

First post
Author
Ms Sidrat
Eve Industrial Corp
#1 - 2014-07-23 17:28:47 UTC
I read a lot of Eve articles and one thing that they have in common is that Sov is barely changing. While most players don't think that's a bad thing, it has led to some stagnation for the game and how to get new entities in to the sov null. Well, I'm not here to tackle the latter issue as that's a different can of worms.

What I am here to address is the expansionism of Sov holders and how to make it a bit more interesting for everyone involved.

We have I'm sure, heard the much touted phrase "Farms and fields", that people would like to see more of, so I humbly introduce such a concept, extending the already existing military and industrial index to Sovereignty to decide who actually controls the system/constellation.

A sovereignty index meter could on a fixed time basis (daily, weekly it hardly matters at this stage), take account of all the activity in a system and assign a value for the alliance doing the activities.

This will of course include activities such as ratting and mining (the farms and fields), but should also take in to account industry, mining, data and relic sites. Why not even gate activity?

This means, if an alliance wants that region for itself it needs to actually use it, and actively defend it, not just one massive battle, but lots of massive battles, a system at a time. Just how many man hours would need to call a system your own for the alliance? That's a balancing issue, too low and it will be too easy to see systems flip on a regular basis - interesting certainly but massive burn out for everyone, hostile and defender alike, too high and that could dissuade smaller entities from carving out a niche for themselves.

Ask questions, poke holes, give support. What do you think of a such a sovereignty game mechanic?
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#2 - 2014-07-25 20:17:03 UTC
Some of this seems interesting but I would only want activity of members of the holding corp or if that corp was a member of an alliance then the alliance as a whole to be valued in the activity index. The reason for this would be that renters couldnt come in with their own corp and avoid the wardec consequences while working the index.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-07-26 06:37:36 UTC
Ms Sidrat wrote:
I read a lot of Eve articles and one thing that they have in common is that Sov is barely changing. While most players don't think that's a bad thing, it has led to some stagnation for the game and how to get new entities in to the sov null. Well, I'm not here to tackle the latter issue as that's a different can of worms.

What I am here to address is the expansionism of Sov holders and how to make it a bit more interesting for everyone involved.

We have I'm sure, heard the much touted phrase "Farms and fields", that people would like to see more of, so I humbly introduce such a concept, extending the already existing military and industrial index to Sovereignty to decide who actually controls the system/constellation.

A sovereignty index meter could on a fixed time basis (daily, weekly it hardly matters at this stage), take account of all the activity in a system and assign a value for the alliance doing the activities.

This will of course include activities such as ratting and mining (the farms and fields), but should also take in to account industry, mining, data and relic sites. Why not even gate activity?

This means, if an alliance wants that region for itself it needs to actually use it, and actively defend it, not just one massive battle, but lots of massive battles, a system at a time. Just how many man hours would need to call a system your own for the alliance? That's a balancing issue, too low and it will be too easy to see systems flip on a regular basis - interesting certainly but massive burn out for everyone, hostile and defender alike, too high and that could dissuade smaller entities from carving out a niche for themselves.

Ask questions, poke holes, give support. What do you think of a such a sovereignty game mechanic?

So SOV is determined by grinding PvE for hours and days on end?

because that isnt horribly bottable, boring, and discourage people from risking ships and supers to actually fight eachother.
Ms Sidrat
Eve Industrial Corp
#4 - 2014-07-27 10:22:35 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

So SOV is determined by grinding PvE for hours and days on end?

because that isnt horribly bottable, boring, and discourage people from risking ships and supers to actually fight eachother.


Not JUST the PvE activities would be included, it would have a weighting impact to the sov level index, but it wouldn't be the only thing.

Since when has AFK pilots and bots been a detriment to pvp? It might be too late in the game to make Eve Mechanics actually fun with the control mechanics, the fitting modules and insane hitpoints on the hulls these days, but I'm trying.

I read a thread on TheMittani.com which made me think that it's actually a lot closer to the Factional Warfare method of system control, but with a few minor changes. I haven't done FW so I didn't realise it.

Almost every aspect of Eve is bottable and AFK able, the idea doesn't touch on how bottable or boring things are, because quite frankly a month of doing one particular activity will always turn boring. What it does do however is encourage pilots to use the space the alliance as a whole want to claim.

It means they have to have the pilot count or raw activity to keep control of that system(s) on a corp by corp basis, and a cross section of pilots with different interests along with PvP to defend that space.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2014-07-28 01:26:22 UTC
Ms Sidrat wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

So SOV is determined by grinding PvE for hours and days on end?

because that isnt horribly bottable, boring, and discourage people from risking ships and supers to actually fight eachother.


Not JUST the PvE activities would be included, it would have a weighting impact to the sov level index, but it wouldn't be the only thing.

Since when has AFK pilots and bots been a detriment to pvp? It might be too late in the game to make Eve Mechanics actually fun with the control mechanics, the fitting modules and insane hitpoints on the hulls these days, but I'm trying.

I read a thread on TheMittani.com which made me think that it's actually a lot closer to the Factional Warfare method of system control, but with a few minor changes. I haven't done FW so I didn't realise it.

Almost every aspect of Eve is bottable and AFK able, the idea doesn't touch on how bottable or boring things are, because quite frankly a month of doing one particular activity will always turn boring. What it does do however is encourage pilots to use the space the alliance as a whole want to claim.

It means they have to have the pilot count or raw activity to keep control of that system(s) on a corp by corp basis, and a cross section of pilots with different interests along with PvP to defend that space.

in a meanwhile you punish anyone who DOESNT go and grind out their SOV daily, crushing the soul out fo them, instead of pvp-ing and having fun.

SOV is player controlled territory, it should be determined SOLELY on the interactions between groups of players, on that note, even structure grinding is a pain in the ass that detracts from actually going out and fighting.
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-07-30 09:23:27 UTC  |  Edited by: corebloodbrothers
Ccp seagull mentioned on reddit possible changes faster then people might think. Some thoughttrains in my posts and others are along the line u mention where sov is tied also into activity on different kinds , pve, industrial, mine, and so on. Ofcourse alot of scenarios u can see, fallback too npc, vulernable, less timers, all sorts of crap, expanding ways to gain and lose sov.

U mentioned not alot people agree current state of nothing is bad, but i can asure u you re not alone on that subject, wteher u block, solo, small, noc nul, provi nrds, whatever, we want mayhem , drama, intreges, battles, epic ****, too happen within our precious eve we all love and want ot keep loving,

I specifally used the word ALSO btw
Thnx for the post
Xavi Bastanold
58th Sveipar Capsuleer Group
#7 - 2014-07-30 14:47:05 UTC
I think a better answer may lie in how a null sov system can be taken. There's an article in TMC that looks to FW mechanics as a template for making sovereignty mechanics more 'interesting.' All theoretical, of course, but allowing a sov system to be whittled down through something like plexing before nailing the ihub brings the small ships back into the equation.

Good hunting,

Xavi

Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
#8 - 2014-09-15 01:50:21 UTC
In order to solve the Null Sec problem, you have to make warfare more attractive than peaceful coalitions. Huge Coalitions should be more vulnerable from smaller entities, especially in unused systems. I think a template based on farms & fields and faction warfare just might work. I hope CCP is think tanking this out.

......................................................

Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#9 - 2014-09-18 16:16:44 UTC
Or simply give sovereignty to the one who really has it: to the one with the most active forces in the system, i.e. the most powerful, active, armed ships.
Of course dampened in such a way that sov cannot be flipped overnight back and forth, but if you are the dominant military power consistently over the course of a week or two, you should have sov.
And of course the present sov holder can try to fight you out, so there you have an active method of how sov is determined.
Regnag Leppod
Doomheim
#10 - 2014-09-22 21:37:46 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

in a meanwhile you punish anyone who DOESNT go and grind out their SOV daily, crushing the soul out fo them, instead of pvp-ing and having fun.

SOV is player controlled territory, it should be determined SOLELY on the interactions between groups of players, on that note, even structure grinding is a pain in the ass that detracts from actually going out and fighting.


Or you could, you know, work with those evil carebears you hate so much and instead of shooting them, let them do the PvE for you.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2014-09-23 21:38:30 UTC
Regnag Leppod wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

in a meanwhile you punish anyone who DOESNT go and grind out their SOV daily, crushing the soul out fo them, instead of pvp-ing and having fun.

SOV is player controlled territory, it should be determined SOLELY on the interactions between groups of players, on that note, even structure grinding is a pain in the ass that detracts from actually going out and fighting.


Or you could, you know, work with those evil carebears you hate so much and instead of shooting them, let them do the PvE for you.

Except i dont hate carebears, i generally am one, that doesnt mean i magically agree with this idea.

PvE in EVE is considered one of the most universally boring, botworthy, AFK-inducing activities in existence. Forcing a grind that MIGHT involve large player interaction into instead forced red-crosses and orbiting timers, or variation thereof, is a TERRIBLE idea. theres a reason 90% of the people in FW are just bots farming LP.

besides, nullsec si ADVERTISED as the player centric, player ran, player conflicts zone of EVE, making the primary focus of that "conflict" be through a non-player 3rd party means you may as well just call it extended-faction-warfare, and then delete it becasue FW is terrible to everyone but roleplayers.