These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Proposal - Change for Sovereignty Mechanics
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-08-29 19:08:21 UTC
@ bugsy:

My intention with this idea isn't to eliminate blobs, instead it minimizes the NEED for a blob. If you want to harass a smaller group with your thousand-man blob, go for it. Unless they also have their system upgraded to support their own equal sized fleet, you are simply wasting your resources. Your attack will not significantly affect their system level, but all of those players wasting time attacking another system are not earning points to maintain your system.

In the case you really do want to take the system, you bring an appropriate force to do so. The need for a blob is reduced. If you can take a system with less ships, then you will.

Cedric
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#22 - 2014-09-18 14:58:30 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
[...] If it is, how would you overcome a large group being able to hellcamp a group out of sov?
Also, how would you deal with sitaution where groups just take the key systems and leave the pipes sovless? No small group could take that sov, since it would be logistically impossible to live in a space between 2 systems owned by a coalition.

Well, that large group hellcamping someone out of their sov might very well return to their home and find that they have lost their system. When you hellcamp elsewhere, you cannot use your own system, which in a use-based sov system, surprisesurprise, makes you lose it...

So the pipes are sovless... *gasp*
No really: so what?
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#23 - 2014-09-18 15:48:17 UTC
The idea of the Tug-of-War is the best I have seen so far. I have independently of OP drawn up a Tug-of-War mechanics description (Features and Ideas Section) and have even independently selected the same term... :)

What I would like to discuss is why the sovereignty index should be tied to so many PvE-activities. It seems overly complex, and is prone to balancing issues. And the attacker has little influence on it except by trying to prevent the sov holder from doing those (and he can only prevent in-space activities, not station-based ones).

Also, sovereignty means dominance, control. How is dominance achieved? By military might.
I am thinking that the sov index should be a "simple" matter of comparing or counting military presence in a system over time. Index is increased by presence of armed, piloted, un-POSed, uncloaked ships of sov holder (or of ships that have the sov holder blued). Larger ships / more advanced tech grant more points.
Such ships from alliances that have sov holder set to red decrease the index.

What do you think?
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#24 - 2014-09-18 16:01:56 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
@ bugsy:

My intention with this idea isn't to eliminate blobs, instead it minimizes the NEED for a blob. If you want to harass a smaller group with your thousand-man blob, go for it. Unless they also have their system upgraded to support their own equal sized fleet, you are simply wasting your resources. Your attack will not significantly affect their system level, but all of those players wasting time attacking another system are not earning points to maintain your system.

In the case you really do want to take the system, you bring an appropriate force to do so. The need for a blob is reduced. If you can take a system with less ships, then you will.


I did not mean your idea would not work. it actually sounds good to me.

However I beleive it may be a little more complex then it needs to be.

If a large alliance can benifit much more from focusing on a smaller group of systems, then holding systems they do not need, I believe that would be enough. The extra mechanics restricting fleets according to the level of those holding the system seem like over kill to me.

If a power house alliance can spend their PVE time in their own system, making it even better, why would they waste time on a less valuable system. Out for a PVP roam, sure, but roams are not about taking space, they are about finding fights.

there will be issues with larger alliances keeping the pipes clean, possibly even keeping pipes sov free, rather than waste time upgrading them, just to travel through them.

I would say pair your idea down into stages. Start out with a simple basic use it or lose it SOV system. Then add additional mechanics to balance things as players adapt to the new system. It is hard to predict exactly what impact the changes will have.

You could have a group diliberately keep a decent system within jump range free of SOV, just so they can jump in for a fight with anyone who decides to try and claim it. Or you could get the power blocks keeping there primary systems, and maintaining a large buffer of unclaimed space around them.

As you say, it would be a choice between using time to improve core systems, or using that time to hinder others. each alliance will have to find their own balance, adding another dynamic to SOV mechanics, with rewards and penalties for all choices.
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#25 - 2014-09-18 17:06:22 UTC
Felix Judge wrote:
The idea of the Tug-of-War is the best I have seen so far. I have independently of OP drawn up a Tug-of-War mechanics description (Features and Ideas Section) and have even independently selected the same term... :)

What I would like to discuss is why the sovereignty index should be tied to so many PvE-activities. It seems overly complex, and is prone to balancing issues. And the attacker has little influence on it except by trying to prevent the sov holder from doing those (and he can only prevent in-space activities, not station-based ones).

Also, sovereignty means dominance, control. How is dominance achieved? By military might.
I am thinking that the sov index should be a "simple" matter of comparing or counting military presence in a system over time. Index is increased by presence of armed, piloted, un-POSed, uncloaked ships of sov holder (or of ships that have the sov holder blued). Larger ships / more advanced tech grant more points.
Such ships from alliances that have sov holder set to red decrease the index.

What do you think?


To answer honestly, I primarily PvE, so that is the experience that I'm drawing upon for ideas. I absolutely want Sov to be based on activity, but it should be equally distributed throughout ALL of the activities possible that a Sov-holder wants to do. It should also force the sov-holder to engage in as many forms of point-gaining activities as possible to maximize their point pool and increase the buffer against harassment. If a group only does ThingA or ThingB to the exlusion of ThingC, they are losing out on points and making it that much easier for a different group to harass/attack their points and drop their index.

Certainly Ships produced/insured/lost etc by the Sov-Holders should play into their point pool, however, simply having blues in your space (think cyno alts, indy alts, Super/Titan alts, etc) doing nothing should not add to the sov, as these characters are essentially leaching off the system.

You gain sov by DOING, not by BEING.

Does that help?

Thanks!

Cedric
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-09-18 17:08:47 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:
@ bugsy:

My intention with this idea isn't to eliminate blobs, instead it minimizes the NEED for a blob. If you want to harass a smaller group with your thousand-man blob, go for it. Unless they also have their system upgraded to support their own equal sized fleet, you are simply wasting your resources. Your attack will not significantly affect their system level, but all of those players wasting time attacking another system are not earning points to maintain your system.

In the case you really do want to take the system, you bring an appropriate force to do so. The need for a blob is reduced. If you can take a system with less ships, then you will.


I did not mean your idea would not work. it actually sounds good to me.

However I beleive it may be a little more complex then it needs to be.

If a large alliance can benifit much more from focusing on a smaller group of systems, then holding systems they do not need, I believe that would be enough. The extra mechanics restricting fleets according to the level of those holding the system seem like over kill to me.

If a power house alliance can spend their PVE time in their own system, making it even better, why would they waste time on a less valuable system. Out for a PVP roam, sure, but roams are not about taking space, they are about finding fights.

there will be issues with larger alliances keeping the pipes clean, possibly even keeping pipes sov free, rather than waste time upgrading them, just to travel through them.

I would say pair your idea down into stages. Start out with a simple basic use it or lose it SOV system. Then add additional mechanics to balance things as players adapt to the new system. It is hard to predict exactly what impact the changes will have.

You could have a group diliberately keep a decent system within jump range free of SOV, just so they can jump in for a fight with anyone who decides to try and claim it. Or you could get the power blocks keeping there primary systems, and maintaining a large buffer of unclaimed space around them.

As you say, it would be a choice between using time to improve core systems, or using that time to hinder others. each alliance will have to find their own balance, adding another dynamic to SOV mechanics, with rewards and penalties for all choices.


The point of upgrading surrounding systems is to make the Super/Titan game a difficult one to start, and an easy one to disrupt. If you lose a level in a buffer system, word gets to the home system and all the minions building your Titan go on strike because they don't feel safe (or some other RP mechanic!).

As far as purposely keeping space 'neutral', if an entity wants to spend the time NOT upgrading while at the same time using resources to make sure no one else does... fine with me. Sandbox and all :)

THanks

Cedric
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#27 - 2014-09-18 22:10:46 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
[...] I absolutely want Sov to be based on activity, but it should be equally distributed throughout ALL of the activities possible that a Sov-holder wants to do.

And pray tell why? How does it make the sov mechanic better to base it on so many different activities?
And how - I am drawing a real life comparison here - does mining make you secure your claim on territorial dominance, other than indirectly by allowing you to produce the tools of war?
And would it actually help an invasion if the attacker sent in a battalion of mining ships...?

Dr Cedric wrote:
[...] simply having blues in your space (think cyno alts, indy alts, Super/Titan alts, etc) doing nothing should not add to the sov, as these characters are essentially leaching off the system. [...]

Since the attackers can bring their alts as well, I dont think that would be a problem.

Again, I think Tug-of-War is the Alchemist's Stone. I just wonder about what the best method(s) for gaining and deducting sov index points should be. I am inclined towards military presence only, because it is a) something both sides can do equally well and b) it is much simpler and c) it is more real life-esque.

I think sov should be fought over, not mined/ratted/relic site hacked/invented over.
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-09-19 02:51:12 UTC
Felix Judge wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:
[...] I absolutely want Sov to be based on activity, but it should be equally distributed throughout ALL of the activities possible that a Sov-holder wants to do.

And pray tell why? How does it make the sov mechanic better to base it on so many different activities?
And how - I am drawing a real life comparison here - does mining make you secure your claim on territorial dominance, other than indirectly by allowing you to produce the tools of war?
And would it actually help an invasion if the attacker sent in a battalion of mining ships...?

Dr Cedric wrote:
[...] simply having blues in your space (think cyno alts, indy alts, Super/Titan alts, etc) doing nothing should not add to the sov, as these characters are essentially leaching off the system. [...]

Since the attackers can bring their alts as well, I dont think that would be a problem.

Again, I think Tug-of-War is the Alchemist's Stone. I just wonder about what the best method(s) for gaining and deducting sov index points should be. I am inclined towards military presence only, because it is a) something both sides can do equally well and b) it is much simpler and c) it is more real life-esque.

I think sov should be fought over, not mined/ratted/relic site hacked/invented over.


My thought process on including Indy/PvE activities in the Sov mechanic:

Jobs creation. In my mind (and to fill in the RP/Lore side of things) the capsuleer is basically trying to become "king" of the system. A good king looks out for his subjects and makes sure they are happy. I want each of the people living on the planets that I'm the King of actually want to be my subject...hence I have Sovereignty over them. On the other hand, I could just flex my muscles and fly ships through the system and blow stuff up.

Both are ways of "dominating" the system, and either alone could do the job, so why not include both in this mechanic.

Cedric
Previous page12