Player Features and Ideas Discussion

How do we hold onto space that has zero activity in it?

This is why residency based sov is so much better than what we have now. It would be impossible for us to hold onto more than dek let alone the thousands of systems we currently own.

Listen this should be done in a smart way of changes.......

1# Phasing out Passive income for everyone period!

Topic Moon GOOOO
Moon goo changes are needed? Why? Because we live in none passive game and we would like no more AFK empires.

RING MINING -
This was phase out no idea why?
This feature should only effect player own space.


2# Phasing out same old bounties and mining type grinds.....

Topic Space? Income types
Lets face it the game is changing why not change how we make our income from different area of space. North or south it's all the same... Why fight for system which gives me the same out put for income???

Solar GOOO!!
Phase #1 All Regions - Drop Chips from NPC which you can clam that special ship... etc ( nexus chip drops in drones regions! )


Phase #2 Here is idea of what could happen .... to these special system bonuses why to fight for them....

Region / Tenal - x2 Bounties on NPC found in belts!
Region / Branch - x2 Loot drop from NPC found from combat sites.
Region / Delve - x2 More DED sites found in systems.


Phase #3 Small Gang Warfare Vs. Larger Fleet Warfare.

Small Gang Ownership Ideas.
-Causes Local fights?
Camping local routes out too player own space.
Moving stuff to empire to sale?
Roams from small gangs...


Larger Fleet Warfare Ideas.
-Causes Fleet fights?
Bashing on your TCU... <--- reduce the timers per x mount of clam systems...
Bashing on your IHUB... <--- reduce hit points by 80% and timer is set on x mount of clam systems...
Bashing on your POS... <--- reduce the hit points by 50% and give it max of 24 hours...
Bashing on your Station ... <--- reduce the hit points by 75% and give it max 24 hours....
Conquering 75% of space allows alliance space allows for concord to bill new alliance




More ideas should be built first for small gang warfare. Then work on larger idea of fleet warfare.

Except you have to return nearly every day to empty the siphon and they are pretty easy for the POS owner to kill whenever they come by to refuel or just to check on the starbase.

That was exactly what he wanted. It's neither passive nor AFK gameplay.

How many times must you be told that 80% of null is empty?

So what if we dump 1000 megathrons on someones head? There are a few thousands other systems that are not getting dropped on and the one that is won't see the sov change because we had a blob in their system for a few hours unlike now. Your idea doesn't work.

As it is, sov mechanics also need huge blobs. Even the most worthless system needs a valuable TCU, which needs lots of firepower to demolish. The ships that have this firepower attract the large blobs like honey attracts flies – and to top it off, the honey pot will be there at a time which is pre-cisely known well in advance. In effect, the larger group can always hold the field if it so chooses. And a smaller group will be foolish to send in their fleet which will surely be annihilated if the defenders do not want to lose their system. And which alliance would willingly lose a system when it can help it? This is what inevitably leads to the rise of the few large blocs.

If a smaller group can send their fleet and pull on the rope and live, this inevitability is removed.

And the larger groups can still keep the systems they really like, because they are larger. They can pull harder on the other end of the rope wherever they like, if they deem their time and the system worth it.

Additionally, the tug of war mechanic will diminish one of the major drawbacks of the current workings: having to be in a certain system at a very specific point of time with as many pilots as possible. Which leads, as we all know, inevitably to "soul-crushing” TiDi. Not anymore, at least not necessarily: sov-points are gathered and deducted over the course of days and maybe weeks. And if a system is contested and the attacker sends in large numbers and powerful ships, the defender can choose to go into that system - or use the opportunity to send forces into the attacker's systems, tak-ing advantage of his absence there. Or split forces. Or make a feign attack on the attacker's home region, and while he recalls some of the assault forces to defend, turn around and kick the remaining attack fleet from the besieged system. Or ... or ... or...! The same is true for the attacker: instead of going for a single system, he can opt to spread his forces to attack several systems at once, possibly in very different locations, making the defender have to choose and react this way or that. Which in turn affects the way how the attacker continues with his plans. So location of pilots can be much more spread out. And spread out means smoother gameplay.

The whole system of nulsec warfare would become much more reliant on strategic decisions - where to have your forces at any given time - and it would give a lot more choices how and where to at-tack, and how and where to defend, instead of having to pile everything into a single system. It would become much more lively, dynamic, and interesting. And with much less TiDi.

Also, this system scales by itself with the fleet sizes that the EVE community can muster / will be able to muster in years to come: if fleets will be larger in the future (moar titans!), alliances can pro-duce higher sov indices. Relatively speaking, sov holders, sov attackers and obstacles to overcome to conquer a system will always be on the same terms.

Also, the concerns raised about power projection would lose a lot of their gravity: let an alliance project their power to the far reaches of the universe! Having their fleet at the other end of the gal-axy means less sov points and less defense in their home systems. Sending the king’s personal guard abroad now has a higher price than just fuel costs.

In conclusion, here are some details that also came along while thinking about the idea:

1.) Sov holder should always get updates about changes, especially which alliances have deducted points from the indeces, and can set automated notifications when certain absolute and/or relative changes occur. 2.) I am not sure if an attacker should be able to see the status of the sov holder's claim and how much more effort is needed to cancel the current sov. 3.) Station mechanics should stay as they are: difficult to conquer (reinforcement cycles) when belonging to sov holder, easy(ier) when not. 4.) All other sov infrastructure gets transferred to sov holder automatically, and gives bonuses to sov holder's points, but can be destroyed by an attacker to make conquest easier. So an attacker can make a strategic decision to blow that stuff up to take sov quicker, but having to re-place it, or to inherit it after putting more effort into the conquest. 5.) Sov blockade units give bo-nuses to point deduction from holding alliance. 6.) Sov can still be transferred. The transferee gains the sov points from the transferring alliance, and since both are probably blue to each other, the sov count developes the same as if the former alliance still held sov. Renting and joint conquest and subsequent division of spoils are still possible. 7.) Point counter values might spill over to neighbour-ing systems, so that a strong system could influence neighbouring systems' counter positively to-wards the regional hegemon. 8.) Migration from the current system could be done by giving the cur-rent sov holders an insanely high sov index in the systems they hold, so no systems will be lost quickly. But with a 1% decay every downtime, unused systems will become vulnerable relatively quickly. A completely unused system will lose half of its index within 69 days (if I am any good at maths…). Sov holding entities thus will have time to learn to respond to invasions, while at the same time serious attackers could relatively quickly gain undefended systems. Of course, a one- or two-month-stasis period for sov could accompany a change in the sov system, in which indices change, but sov remains until the end of the stasis period, giving all parties time to learn and adapt.

I am certain there are important points I have missed. I am looking forward to reading any sub-comments.

@Athryn Bellee
read this

You are getting bogged down in details.
It does not need 15 players in every system for EVE to be full. It is enough if there is no system that is not controlled by someone.

And you are fixed on the idea of breaking up coalitions with game mechanics.
Reduce every alliance to 10corps and every corp to 10 members. Building a Coalition with 400alliances would be really difficult.

This game wants huge alliance and coalitions and it is in the human nature to make them.
So unless you want to kill the game you can not end the coalitions.

lol two posts worth of text usually mean that a given proposal is "overly complicated".

There needs to be two paths to sovereignty - Overwhelming force AND persistent force, not overwhelming force OR persistent force.

Max of 10 people can rat per system = empires needing vast areas of space to support their members.

Grinding through hundreds of millions of EHP pushes us to need big capital fleets to both attack and defend.

System sov is taken in a hanfull of fixed fights which means you blob up for just a few hours at a time.

Small fleets do zero damage to larger ones thanks to RR logi.

Subcap fleets can do nothing to boot/wreckingball fleets other than die.

We lose a lot of high skillpoint players because they are trapped in supers/titans.