These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] 0.0 sov mechanics/ ratting (anomaly) participant expansion

Author
Elzon1
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1 - 2014-08-18 08:12:52 UTC
This proposal will cover two interconnected subjects:
1. Sov mechanics
2. Ratting participant expansion

Before I go on about sov mechanics the topic of individual system player capacity needs to be addressed.

One of the main reasons sov holders have/need so many systems is that they need them if they have a larger number of players in their organization. Currently, only a handful of players can be optimally supported PVE wise in a single system. This causes an alliance to need quite a few systems to support their large group of players optimally. This is why this topic needs to be addressed before one can even look at changing sov mechanics.

So it has been established that the number of optimally supported players per system needs to be increased, what do?

As I see it there are two different options to accomplish this:
1. An increase in the number of optimal anomalies in a given system.
2. Create a new type of anomaly that optimally expands with an increase of participants.

I believe a combination of the two may be in order. First, a system may be full of optimal anomalies for individuals or small groups to complete. However, when an anomaly has too many players in it the rats in the anomaly will receive reinforcements from the other anomalies not currently in use Twisted Also, the rats may call upon the local belt rats as reinforcements which would cause any faction or officer spawns to join the fight.

All of this would need to be balanced out with server performance of course. Perhaps the number of optimal anomalies could be viewed as the optimal player saturation point.

I view this as an optimal solution to individual system player density. This may cause larger alliances to need less space to support their players.

Also, fun additions could be made to this system as in ways to increase rat bounty/quality by adding the option to offer various items to local rats to make them more dangerous and valuable. Give them a web or ecm mod they just might use it against you and others.

Now that topic 2 has been addressed it is time to move on to the true topic: sov mechanics.

Just like the previous topic I believe a simple and robust solution is in order to change things for the better.

So what is the basic breakdown of current sov mechanics?

The answer to this is that current sov mechanics revolve around structures and arbitrary timers as to when confrontation will take place so as to decide ownership of a system. This allows for players to play the system by using such structures and arbitrary timers to their advantage.

I believe the solution to this situation to be fairly simple. Instead of sov revolving around structures it should revolve around player activity in a system. In other words, you must use a system to own it. I believe the only activity suitable to this would be ratting (PVE). In the old system this would have been seen as monotonous, but given the previous topic this could be seen more as a battle than basic ratting.

As for the subject of arbitrary timers the new system should be arbitrary. In the current system timers are used as waiting periods and at the very end of the waiting period hostilities can commence Twisted This just won't do for the new system.

The new system will have a simple one week timer within which the two or more opposing parties may compete for a system by actively suppressing the local rat faction. When an opposing alliance wishes to compete for a system they must first enter the system and begin suppressing the local rat faction. After committing this act the competing alliance will be asked if it wishes to formally compete against the owning alliance for ownership of the system. If the competing alliance accepts then the battle begins for ownership of the system which will be determined at the end of the week long timer.

The various structures in a system will keep their arbitrary timers and will be disconnected from sov mechanics altogether (you will no longer have to take the station first to take the system). Upon claiming of a system by a new alliance all sov dependent structures will cease to provide their function (cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc.) and all sov upgrade timers will be reset.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#2 - 2014-08-18 13:14:22 UTC
Elzon1 wrote:
I believe the solution to this situation to be fairly simple. Instead of sov revolving around structures it should revolve around player activity in a system.
This is definitely the first time this has been suggested. Honest.

And the issue is still the same. Group A blobs and camps group B out of their system. See the problem with this idea in all the hundreds of times it's been raised is that it assumes the the current sov holders first off wouldn't be able to keep up their activity, and secondly that they would be too preoccupied with ratting in their own systems that they couldn't come beat up the little guys.

If this came in, the bigger coalitions could simply rat on their own hub systems, leaving pipe systems unclaimed, and periodically go and smash out one of the little guys claims to sov in other regions. Anyone trying to claim one of the unclaimed pipe systems would be committing logistical suicide by setting up an actual home there.

Just a hint mate: the reason this subject has been an outstanding issue for such a long time is because it's a massively complex situation with a lot of mechanics which will require consideration. If you are ever thinking about a solution and your sentence starts with "The solution is simple..." then you should probably just throw that idea in the bin, as it's not going to work and will be a repeat of a previous "simple" idea someone put forward.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Elzon1
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#3 - 2014-08-19 07:00:10 UTC
"This is definitely the first time this has been suggested. Honest."

Yes, I know this isn't the first time this has come up.

"And the issue is still the same. Group A blobs and camps group B out of their system."

Blobing is always an effective strategy no matter what mechanic one might implement. However, how long the blob lasts is another story.

"See the problem with this idea in all the hundreds of times it's been raised is that it assumes the the current sov holders first off wouldn't be able to keep up their activity"

This mechanic assumes they will if they want to keep their territory. However, if they have an extensive number of systems they might be spreading themselves too thing to repel small groups over longer periods.

"and secondly that they would be too preoccupied with ratting in their own systems that they couldn't come beat up the little guys."

Of course this is not assumed and it would be required of them to beat up the little guys if they wish to maintain their territory. And again it is questionable that an alliance would be able to effectively do so over a prolonged time whilst having a large territory. Unlike the previous two systems, structure grinding and blob fights are not required whatsoever. This allows evasion and guerilla tactics to be effective strategies to gain territory.

"If this came in, the bigger coalitions could simply rat on their own hub systems, leaving pipe systems unclaimed"

Likely

"and periodically go and smash out one of the little guys claims to sov in other regions."

If by periodically you mean on a daily basis every week an alliance attempts to contest sov in various systems.

"Anyone trying to claim one of the unclaimed pipe systems would be committing logistical suicide by setting up an actual home there."

Perhaps and perhaps not as one can not be sure what the future holds in terms of logistics.

"Just a hint mate: the reason this subject has been an outstanding issue for such a long time is because it's a massively complex situation with a lot of mechanics which will require consideration."

Or it is the fact CCP has yet to pool resources towards creating a new system as they are still balancing some other things out first before getting back to sov mechanics. When they say they are ready to come up with new mechanics the real debate will begin.

" If you are ever thinking about a solution and your sentence starts with "The solution is simple..." then you should probably just throw that idea in the bin, as it's not going to work and will be a repeat of a previous "simple" idea someone put forward."

Just because a solution is simple does not mean it will not work. Also, it's the simplest solutions that are often the most robust. Making a solution complex can lead to opportunities for manipulation and exploitation.

Apparently there were too many quotes, so I just used quotation marks.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#4 - 2014-08-19 09:46:13 UTC
Well I'm not going to be running quote out, but I think you underestimate how much activity a null coalition busts out. At the moment we stick to handfuls of systems, but only because we don't need to spread out. Should we need to spread out, it wouldn't be difficult to do.

Requiring activity in a system isn't some magic bullet to resolving the issues, all it does is make it easier for people to do without having to have a confrontation. And the thing is, it's easier for a big group to stop a little group being able to run that activity that it is the other way around. The end result would be that big coalitions and rental groups have the best sov, while small groups are constantly losing and having to reacquire sov in the handful of systems they can get to.

The only way to change sov that that the little guys stand a chance, is to reduce the effectiveness of force projection and make holding more sov increasingly detrimental.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Elzon1
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#5 - 2014-08-20 09:59:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Elzon1
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well I'm not going to be running quote out, but I think you underestimate how much activity a null coalition busts out. At the moment we stick to handfuls of systems, but only because we don't need to spread out. Should we need to spread out, it wouldn't be difficult to do.


I understand that a coalition/alliance can put out a lot of activity in a given time. However, I don't think they will be able to effectively keep their current territories even with the activity you espouse. Also, I wouldn't call 32 systems a "handful" and that's just the alliance you are apart of. In the new system it would be even easier to spread out as you don't have to deal with arbitrary timers anymore and you would be able to expand in a more natural fashion over time.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Requiring activity in a system isn't some magic bullet to resolving the issues, all it does is make it easier for people to do without having to have a confrontation. And the thing is, it's easier for a big group to stop a little group being able to run that activity that it is the other way around. The end result would be that big coalitions and rental groups have the best sov, while small groups are constantly losing and having to reacquire sov in the handful of systems they can get to.


The main issue seems to be blobing which will always be an effective strategy in terms of fighting one's enemy, but it usually is used temporarily during battle and not for prolonged periods. And yes a larger group will be able to stop a smaller group's activities and really that will always be the case given both groups have similar knowledge or skill. Indeed, larger groups of active players would be able to keep a greater number of systems. Also, there may be a case for changing how truesec works as for determining a system's quality.

Lucas Kell wrote:
The only way to change sov that that the little guys stand a chance, is to reduce the effectiveness of force projection and make holding more sov increasingly detrimental.


The only thing that could reduce the effectiveness of force projection would be to remove jump drives and jump bridges from the game entirely. Anything else is just adding to the cost of force projection which is not a detriment to the larger coalitions due to their deeper pockets as they have stated before.

As for making sov increasingly detrimental I don't think that should be the case if you are talking about just making it more advantageous to not hold sov than to do so. There wouldn't be need for sov mechanics if such was the case. Now, if you are talking about making it exponentially more costly as you gain more space then that is also foolhardy. As others have already explained, if one implements such a system it is easy to get around as a sov holding entity can split itself up in order to mitigate the exponential effect.


Remember, the main points of activity based sov are:
1. No more structure grinding for sov
2. No more arbitrary timers
3. Blobbing no longer necessary
4. A more organic sov system for a more organic nullsec
5. Greater group bondage/cohesion

The idea exists to make sov better and not to somehow prevent blobs.

Blobs will always be there if people wish to use such tactics.

Perhaps it will be less effective in the future, but that requires significant changes to pvp in general.

I still want something at least similar to Empress Jamyl Sarum's super weapon created by the terrans Twisted

But, I could just settle for more remote aoe weapons and modules.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#6 - 2014-08-20 16:00:22 UTC
Elzon1 wrote:
I understand that a coalition/alliance can put out a lot of activity in a given time. However, I don't think they will be able to effectively keep their current territories even with the activity you espouse. Also, I wouldn't call 32 systems a "handful" and that's just the alliance you are apart of. In the new system it would be even easier to spread out as you don't have to deal with arbitrary timers anymore and you would be able to expand in a more natural fashion over time.
No, 32 systems isn't a handful, but what I mean is currently we don't use probably half of those systems at least for anything other than passing though. But only because we don;t need to. Under an activity based system, holding those wouldn't be a challenge, so what would you expect to change? Rental space would be kept active by renters, so it's not like we'd need to go there and grind rats. Short of making the activity bar so high that it excluded small groups anyway, you simply wouldn't be able to demand enough activity to push the blobs out.

Elzon1 wrote:
The main issue seems to be blobing which will always be an effective strategy in terms of fighting one's enemy, but it usually is used temporarily during battle and not for prolonged periods. And yes a larger group will be able to stop a smaller group's activities and really that will always be the case given both groups have similar knowledge or skill. Indeed, larger groups of active players would be able to keep a greater number of systems. Also, there may be a case for changing how truesec works as for determining a system's quality.
So how would yoru solution resolve any of the issues people have with sov? Other than not grinding structures, there seems to be no benefit to the changes, and in fact adds a new bar of entry to sov space or having to have ratters in your alliance (which not all alliances have).

Elzon1 wrote:
The only thing that could reduce the effectiveness of force projection would be to remove jump drives and jump bridges from the game entirely. Anything else is just adding to the cost of force projection which is not a detriment to the larger coalitions due to their deeper pockets as they have stated before.
Or reducing the range that they can operate and add time between jumps. Right now you can go across the entire universe in a few minutes, so there's nothing to discourage people dominating both ends of the universe. If it took you an hour or two to get across it would encourage people to cluster up.

Elzon1 wrote:
As for making sov increasingly detrimental I don't think that should be the case if you are talking about just making it more advantageous to not hold sov than to do so. There wouldn't be need for sov mechanics if such was the case. Now, if you are talking about making it exponentially more costly as you gain more space then that is also foolhardy. As others have already explained, if one implements such a system it is easy to get around as a sov holding entity can split itself up in order to mitigate the exponential effect.
Indeed, they could split up to hold the space though that makes it more difficult to run.

Elzon1 wrote:
Remember, the main points of activity based sov are:
1. No more structure grinding for sov
2. No more arbitrary timers
3. Blobbing no longer necessary
4. A more organic sov system for a more organic nullsec
5. Greater group bondage/cohesion

1 and 2. Pretty much the same thing, and while it is positive to me, as it would mean less grind ops, it would also mean that larger groups have less boring stuff to do to bully people out of their space. We'd just need to turn up ratting and ganking.
3. While they wouldn't be required mechanically, they'd still be required to defeat the opposite teams blob.
4. I'm not really sure about that. You're just replacing grinding a static structure with grinding red crosses.
5. Not really sure how the idea would change that at all.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#7 - 2014-08-20 16:00:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Double post. I hate the eve forums.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#8 - 2014-08-21 18:41:30 UTC

Quote:
The new system will have a simple one week timer within which the two or more opposing parties may compete for a system by actively suppressing the local rat faction. When an opposing alliance wishes to compete for a system they must first enter the system and begin suppressing the local rat faction. After committing this act the competing alliance will be asked if it wishes to formally compete against the owning alliance for ownership of the system. If the competing alliance accepts then the battle begins for ownership of the system which will be determined at the end of the week long timer.

The various structures in a system will keep their arbitrary timers and will be disconnected from sov mechanics altogether (you will no longer have to take the station first to take the system). Upon claiming of a system by a new alliance all sov dependent structures will cease to provide their function (cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc.) and all sov upgrade timers will be reset.


Sov should not be conquered by shooting NPC rats. That is terrible.

While I'm a huge fan of "occupancy" altering Sov, I think it needs a balanced approach. We already have a military index (for shooting NPC's) and an Industrial index (for mining). Use them to measure system activity. Then add some additional indexes for PvP (player ships destroyed in a system) and for logistics (jumps into/out of a system). These cover the 4 basic flying in space activities, and we can add more if we want. Take the average, rounded down, of all system indexes that involve flying in space, and that is the number of RF timers your IHUB will have. Remove owning the station from the "taking a system" equation. If you don't own the system, your station is vulnerable.

Now, we'll have lots of systems with no RF timers on their IHUB, so their system can be directly attacked. Reduce the online time for SBU's (5 minutes), and reduce the EHP of sov structures (to 10% of current), and suddenly system claims can be quickly destroyed if the system isn't being used.

Creative defining of the PvP and Logistic index will prevent abuse of these indexes too. (i.e. these could be based on ships killed/jumping per hour, with a cap on how many ships destroyed and/or jumps committed in an hour.).

One of the design goals should be to have pilots flying in space as much as possible. And PvP'ing should count just as much as shooting red crosses!
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
#9 - 2014-08-29 10:19:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lilly Naari
Lucas Kell wrote:


The only way to change sov that that the little guys stand a chance, is to reduce the effectiveness of force projection and make holding more sov increasingly detrimental.


I am all for this. Eve is too small as it is. I should see vast swaths of unclaimed space. What I see is 100% claimed and occupied 0.0 space.

Which is well.... Completely unrealistic. Space is Huge. Not a tiny finite area of a few thousand systems.


"But this might cause an issue with memory and people on lower end computers!"

So? EvE is a game you shouldn't be playing without a modern rig anyway. And if at some point a player has to dedicate an entire 1TB HDD to just houseing and running Eve, so be it. If it fixes the issues and makes space as big as it should be I am AOK with that.

0.0 should be so vast that when you go deep enough your in a wilderness of space so far away from everything you feel tiny, alone and vulnerable. And so large that the 10,000 man Alliance that owns 2000 systems, is a particle of Dust compared to the rest of the EvE Universe....
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#10 - 2014-08-29 22:50:46 UTC

Many, if not most null sec residents make their persoanl isk from ratting. Who is going to want to give up ratting in the good systems and go to a system several jumps away, where they will make significantly less isk for their time? It is just not going to happen.

Sure for a large alliance to hold 35-40 systems will not be to much of a challenge, but some currently hold hundreds, maybe not by the main alliance, but through holding and renters alliances. those things could become a thing of the past.

Could a large alliance with 1000's of members hold hundreds of systems? Sure they could, at least it would be possible. But then some members would have to live in those low value systems to maintain the SOV there. And speading out activity like that would make it very dificult to max out core systems. These extra systems can be held by renter corps, belonging to a holding alliance, much like is being done now, but would require a lot more organisation, and the renters would be fully responsible for maintaining their own SOV, with less control by their overloards. Basically they would just be paying a protection fee, old gangster style, in order to be permitted to live their. With much less control or infocement.

The point is, occupancy SOV would require a lot more work to hold onto large blocks of systems than the current system. While it is completly possible to do so, nobody is going to put in the effort to hold more systems than they need. Especially if more benifit could be gained by keeping core systems at a higher level.

Someone in another thread commented that SOV does not need to be held in these systems, they can simply be patrolled, and forcibly be kept empty. Again, that is completely possible. However, the time and effort to do so would take away from the activity in home systems that could contribute to higher levels making the home systems even better. Groups will have to choose between focusing on improving their home space through focused activity, or sacrificing some of that activity to spread out their empire to control other systems, they maybe do not even need to control. Eventually holding extra space, they do not use, will become to tedious to bother.

There are a lot of good, and some great ideas going around. But whatever is done, the only chance of sucess is not to try and force groups to hold less space through restrictive mechanics, but to implement a change to game mechanics that will make it more profitable to focus on maxing out fewer system, than holding more systems at a lower level.

Think of this. if we could have the same power blocks, and large powerful alliances we have now, but say 4-5 systems(a constellation) with enough activity, could be upgraded to suport 2500 members. at max activity level, available upgrades could easily suport 500 members in a single system. groups like GSF with +12,000 members would need only 20-30 systems to suport all members at maximum income. Holding anymore would mean they would not have enough activity to keep them all at max level. They would have the option to spead out, but would make far more isk staying grouped tightly together maintaining max levels in their systems.

At the same time small groups of 50-100 members, could hold a SOV system, but would never be able to produce enough activity to max out even a single system, encouraging these players to form into larger groups, to gain the advantages provided by higher teired systems.

For this to work a max level system would have to make it possible for players living their to make significantly more isk/hr than living in a system even one teir lower. Plus the alliance would have the added advantage of all available pilots being only a few jumps from each other making home defense very easy. And mobilizing for an assult even easier. No more planing 3 days ahead to move assets to a deployment system. Home base could be your deployment system. Maintaining a max level system would give members the maximum possible income on an isk/hr basis. The more they spread out, the less valuable their systems become, as their member base is only capable of so much activity, spreading out would result in less isk per hour for that activity. Upgraded systems would have to be able to suport the number of players required to maintain the activity level at the maximum without putting to much load on the server nodes. basically the balance of how many members are required to maintain the maximum level would be completely dependant on what activity level the nodes could handle without the threat of TiDI kicking in.

This would need to be combined with a bottom up finacial suport system for the alliances. This could be as simple as an alliance level tax. this would be in addition to corp taxes. Say you could easily make 100M per hour ratting in a fully upgraded system, you pay 1-10% to your corp, and an additional 1-5% to the alliance. perhaps add the tax to other things as well. If you reprocess anything, you pay a fee for the reprocessing, it would no longer be free. In High sec the fee would be 10% of the value of the ore being reprocessed. In SOV null sec, the tax would be set by the SOV holding alliance.

Say this activity index was a 1-5 like we currently have for each activity. a truly maxed system, would need all indexes maintained at 5. Say that would take, on average, 500 members living there to maintain easily, or whatever number the servers could handle without TiDi kicking in. The available content would have to be enough to suport those members, and would have to provide them enough of an increased income to make players want to live in maxed out systems.

Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#11 - 2014-08-29 23:04:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
Lucas Kell wrote:


The only way to change sov that that the little guys stand a chance, is to reduce the effectiveness of force projection and make holding more sov increasingly detrimental.


I don't beleive making it detrimental is the answer. But making it more profitable to focus activity on maxing out fewer systems would allow members to make far more isk/hr holding less systems, than spreading activity across more systems than they need.
Elzon1
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2014-09-17 09:06:12 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:

Many, if not most null sec residents make their persoanl isk from ratting. Who is going to want to give up ratting in the good systems and go to a system several jumps away, where they will make significantly less isk for their time? It is just not going to happen.

Sure for a large alliance to hold 35-40 systems will not be to much of a challenge, but some currently hold hundreds, maybe not by the main alliance, but through holding and renters alliances. those things could become a thing of the past.

Could a large alliance with 1000's of members hold hundreds of systems? Sure they could, at least it would be possible. But then some members would have to live in those low value systems to maintain the SOV there. And speading out activity like that would make it very dificult to max out core systems. These extra systems can be held by renter corps, belonging to a holding alliance, much like is being done now, but would require a lot more organisation, and the renters would be fully responsible for maintaining their own SOV, with less control by their overloards. Basically they would just be paying a protection fee, old gangster style, in order to be permitted to live their. With much less control or infocement.

The point is, occupancy SOV would require a lot more work to hold onto large blocks of systems than the current system. While it is completly possible to do so, nobody is going to put in the effort to hold more systems than they need. Especially if more benifit could be gained by keeping core systems at a higher level.

Someone in another thread commented that SOV does not need to be held in these systems, they can simply be patrolled, and forcibly be kept empty. Again, that is completely possible. However, the time and effort to do so would take away from the activity in home systems that could contribute to higher levels making the home systems even better. Groups will have to choose between focusing on improving their home space through focused activity, or sacrificing some of that activity to spread out their empire to control other systems, they maybe do not even need to control. Eventually holding extra space, they do not use, will become to tedious to bother.

There are a lot of good, and some great ideas going around. But whatever is done, the only chance of sucess is not to try and force groups to hold less space through restrictive mechanics, but to implement a change to game mechanics that will make it more profitable to focus on maxing out fewer system, than holding more systems at a lower level.

Think of this. if we could have the same power blocks, and large powerful alliances we have now, but say 4-5 systems(a constellation) with enough activity, could be upgraded to suport 2500 members. at max activity level, available upgrades could easily suport 500 members in a single system. groups like GSF with +12,000 members would need only 20-30 systems to suport all members at maximum income. Holding anymore would mean they would not have enough activity to keep them all at max level. They would have the option to spead out, but would make far more isk staying grouped tightly together maintaining max levels in their systems.

At the same time small groups of 50-100 members, could hold a SOV system, but would never be able to produce enough activity to max out even a single system, encouraging these players to form into larger groups, to gain the advantages provided by higher teired systems.

For this to work a max level system would have to make it possible for players living their to make significantly more isk/hr than living in a system even one teir lower. Plus the alliance would have the added advantage of all available pilots being only a few jumps from each other making home defense very easy. And mobilizing for an assult even easier. No more planing 3 days ahead to move assets to a deployment system. Home base could be your deployment system. Maintaining a max level system would give members the maximum possible income on an isk/hr basis. The more they spread out, the less valuable their systems become, as their member base is only capable of so much activity, spreading out would result in less isk per hour for that activity. Upgraded systems would have to be able to suport the number of players required to maintain the activity level at the maximum without putting to much load on the server nodes. basically the balance of how many members are required to maintain the maximum level would be completely dependant on what activity level the nodes could handle without the threat of TiDI kicking in.

This would need to be combined with a bottom up finacial suport system for the alliances. This could be as simple as an alliance level tax. this would be in addition to corp taxes. Say you could easily make 100M per hour ratting in a fully upgraded system, you pay 1-10% to your corp, and an additional 1-5% to the alliance. perhaps add the tax to other things as well. If you reprocess anything, you pay a fee for the reprocessing, it would no longer be free. In High sec the fee would be 10% of the value of the ore being reprocessed. In SOV null sec, the tax would be set by the SOV holding alliance.

Say this activity index was a 1-5 like we currently have for each activity. a truly maxed system, would need all indexes maintained at 5. Say that would take, on average, 500 members living there to maintain easily, or whatever number the servers could handle without TiDi kicking in. The available content would have to be enough to suport those members, and would have to provide them enough of an increased income to make players want to live in maxed out systems.



That's exactly the point I was making only in a more expanded manner.
Felix Judge
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-09-18 14:44:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
[...] The only way to change sov that that the little guys stand a chance, is to reduce the effectiveness of force projection and make holding more sov increasingly detrimental.

Which the suggestion does: if you project your forces elsewhere, you are not at home (or not in any other system) where your sov claim can be nibbled away by small(er) groups. And it it will be increasingly difficult with more systems to defend them, as the crucial attack/defense does not happen at a certain point of time anymore - to which you can force project your entire armada - but to an extended period of time, which means you have to distribute your forces over time and space, which is more difficult the more space you have to cover.