These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

About that Occupancy Based Sov.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
davet517
Raata Invicti
#1 - 2014-10-06 11:57:27 UTC
I wrote a post a few years ago about the notion of "occupancy based sovereignty". It got a lot of boos back then, but it looks like maybe its time has come. Here some of the ideas I posted back then, and some comments about what shouldn't be done:

First of all, just a reminder:

Sandbox, not Theme Park

We don't need any hokey mini-game(s) determining 0.0 sovereignty. An index that represents an entity's strength of claim to sov should reflect, as closely as possible, their actual effective control of the system(s). The index should simply rise when an occupying entity takes actions that demonstrate their control, and fall when actions are taken by others that challenge their control. Examples:

Claiming a station (+control) > Losing a station (-control)
Anchoring a tower (+control) > Tower Reinforced (-contro) > Tower Destroyed (-control)
Killing a Rat (+ control) > Hostile entity killing a rat (- control).
Killing a Hostile ship (+ control) > Getting killed (- control).
Plexing/Mining (+ control) > Hostile plexing/mining (-control)

Any of those actions by an allied or "blue" entity are neutral. They don't effect the index.

You get the idea. Using the space actively in ways that put you at risk demonstrates your control. Hostiles doing as they please in your space unchallenged demonstrates your lack of it. The higher the index, the better the bonuses, anoms, and bonuses to infrastructure defenses. If the index drops to 0, you lose sov. How much gain or loss of control is associated with each action is a knob that CCP can tweak on an ongoing basis to ensure that the right balance of incentives are there.

Driving Conflict

The current game mechanics lead to the kind of stasis we have now in part because conquering and then renting out space is the most lucrative thing someone high up the food chain can do (along with controlling high-end moons). That means that the "masters of the universe" have more financial interest in peace (or at least long periods of peace) than war. That needs to change. Here are a couple of ideas:

Claimable Towers

Hurf-Durfing about killing someone's baby titan is cool and all. Being able to take it would be way cooler. Replace the reinforced timer on towers with the ability to take them over upon defeating their defenses. If the previous owner doesn't likewise defeat the tower's defenses and take it back within 24 hours, the tower, and whatever is in it, is yours. Should make for some really interesting fights.

Lootable Stations

Yeah, yeah, you fought your way through a bazillion hit points and took my station. So what? Over the next few months I'll work out how to get my stuff out. Instead, when that happens, put everything that is in the station on a list that the conquerer can loot, 2% of value a day, until its gone. It gives the previous owner 50 days to assemble a fleet and try to get some of their stuff back.

I think that the changes above, taken together, would turn 0.0 back into the "wild west" that it used to be, instead of the Farmville that it's become. A determined band of little guys could claim space from an absentee landlord that might show up with overwhelming force once in a while, but couldn't counter consistent actions that assert control over time. Marauding could replace renting as an income source. People might actually hire mercs again to defend their stuff Blink.
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#2 - 2014-10-06 12:23:36 UTC
Quote:
Any of those actions by an allied or "blue" entity are neutral. They don't effect the index.


Maybe I'm not getting what you are saying but this one line throws it all out the window.

So are you saying that if an alliance with sov over a system sets another entity to blue, that entity can do stuff in the system and it won't impact the current owner's hold over the system?

If so, then the alliances would only have to set anyone and everyone to blue to prevent loss of sov.

It looks as though occupancy based sov was to disrupt the current renting meta under the guise of encouraging conflict by getting rid of the structure/timer grind.

It won't work. The owners will claim choke point systems and rent out the systems they keep control of. The group that is renting may gain sov over the system but they will still pay rent to the real owners. Nothing will change.

It's player attitude. What are some of the complaints I've seen?

Just a small few alliances own all of null.
Blue donut
Systems are mostly empty

All player attitude that has nothing to do with game mechanics.

There is nothing stopping the existing alliances from giving up systems. X number of members divided by fewer systems will equal more players per system. If they give up systems and let more alliances into null and claim a piece of it, then that kills all three problems. More alliances out in null holding sov, systems having more players in them, and more neutrals.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3 - 2014-10-06 12:25:31 UTC
You might set me blue. Doesn't keep me from setting you red if I want your space.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#4 - 2014-10-06 12:30:18 UTC
Quote:
There is nothing stopping the existing alliances from giving up systems. X number of members divided by fewer systems will equal more players per system. If they give up systems and let more alliances into null and claim a piece of it, then that kills all three problems. More alliances out in null holding sov, systems having more players in them, and more neutrals.


Do you really want to play a game where people magnanimously give up stuff? The problem with the current mechanics when it comes to sov is that effective control of space means nothing. The only thing that means anything is being able to assemble overwhelming force at the point of attack for a few hours. That mechanic will have to change unless you want the "1%" to continue to control all of 0.0 as feudal lords.

Restrictions to travel speed (coming) are a step in that direction. Occupancy based sov continues in that direction, but by itself, it won't drive conflict. Additional conflict drivers will have to be introduced or you'll trade one peace-favoring meta for another.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2014-10-06 12:37:52 UTC
Claiming a station (+control) > Losing a station (-control) => valid point
Anchoring a tower (+control) > Tower Reinforced (-contro) > Tower Destroyed (-control) => valid point
Killing a Rat (+ control) > Hostile entity killing a rat (- control). => so i have to rat my system control don´t see the differenz to structure shooting
Killing a Hostile ship (+ control) > Getting killed (- control). => okay
Plexing/Mining (+ control) > Hostile plexing/mining (-control) => like killing a rat

So basically you need only to set one tower in a system to get and hold the sov. Seems to be cheap. And the "ratting systems" of the bigger allianzes would be very hard to turn because so much rats die there every day.

Lootable Station:

The stuff needs to get destroyed so that a replacement is needed and not given to other players. EVE needs destructions of stuff not claiming.

Claimable Towers:

Again we need ways to blow up the minerals not to give them to some other dude. Killing stuff is what is needed!

Driving Conflict:

Yes the master of the universe have interest in a good balance of peace and war. But other guys want the good spots too. So they have to attack.

Not a good idea in my eyes.
-1
davet517
Raata Invicti
#6 - 2014-10-06 12:46:25 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Quote:
So basically you need only to set one tower in a system to get and hold the sov.


In a system where nobody goes and does nothing? Sure. In a system with activity, it'd be only one action that gave you points toward gaining sov. Someone comes along tomorrow and RFs your shiny tower, you lose points.

Quote:
And the "ratting systems" of the bigger allianzes would be very hard to turn because so much rats die there every day.


Until you deploy there and keep them from ratting. Their index decays, and yours starts growing if you are killing them and/or ratting yourself.

Quote:
The stuff needs to get destroyed so that a replacement is needed and not given to other players. EVE needs destructions of stuff not claiming.


Nothing gets destroyed when stations are taken today. This change would be neutral materials wise, or, might actually cause more destruction because presumably stations would be more hotly defended.


Quote:
Again we need ways to blow up the minerals not to give them to some other dude. Killing stuff is what is needed!


The minerals in the tower are negligible compared to the ship losses that would be incurred defending them. Again, it would be neutral at worst materials wise.

Quote:
Yes the master of the universe have interest in a good balance of peace and war. But other guys want the good spots too. So they have to attack.


Take a look at the map. Take a look at the blue lists of most alliances. You call that a good balance of peace and war? If nothing else, take a look at the fact that my alliance is holding and renting out space, ffs. When we start doing that, you know things are screwed up.