These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sovereignty: Occupancy, Military Only
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#1 - 2014-11-13 16:33:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
CCP has announced there will be an occupancy-related sov mechanic added in the future. They have also asked for ideas and suggestions. Thus, within and without CCP, the struggle of ideas so that the best for EVE may emerge is on.

Here is my idea. It will be about armed spaceships and battles in space. It will retain all the existing sov structures (yes, keep those BP’s), but remove the necessity to grind through their high EHP (you still may, and it will be advantageous). It will still disallow ping-pong sov transfers. The mechanic will scale itself according to the number of subscriptions and to the number and size of ships that will be in use. Unused system will be increasingly easy to conquer, heavily patrolled systems will be fortresses. It will reduce the number of TIDI fights greatly. And while the mechanic is in principle very simple, it allows for a very varied gameplay. And finally, a seamless transgression from the current mechanic is possible. And I believe it will lead to battles such as the Dominion trailer promised us. http://www.eveonline.com/creations/videos/dominion-trailer/

con'd
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#2 - 2014-11-13 16:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
The Concept

The only thing in my proposal that matters for gaining, defending or losing sov will be military ships used in space. Greater military presence means dominance and supremacy, the literal synonyms of sovereignty.

The basic idea as simple as it can get: If you want to conquer a system, you set its holding alliance to red and fly armed ships into the system. If you vanquish the defenders and / or are the dominant military presence in the system for a few days, the system will be yours to claim.

And here is how: Every system has a Sovereignty Index (henceforth called SI). Players can influence the SI by having armed, piloted, undocked, uncloaked and un-POSed ships in the system. The larger the ship, and the higher its techlevel, the greater the influence. If you are a member of the sov holding alliance, you influence it positively. If you have set the sovholding alliance to blue, you also influence it positively. If you have set it to neutral, you do not influence the SI. And if you have set the sovholding alliance to red, you influence the SI negatively.

I would think of it as a point counter: Points per time increment (recorded e.g. every five minutes) are awarded to or deducted from the SI. For every blue ship in the system, according to size and tech, points are added to the SI. For every red ship, again dependent on size and tech, points are deducted.

Simply put: a red force attacks the system, a blue force defends and strengthens it. The more powerful force will prevail and it is or will become "their" system.

As long as the SI remains above zero, nothing happens. Once it reaches zero, the alliance with the most points on the next time increment will be new board leader and the SI is henceforth calculated with them as the relevant alliance. Blue and red points are now applied to the SI as the new board leader has been set by the other pilots.

If the sov holding alliance does not regain the board leader position within 96 hours (four days) at least once, they lose sov. If they do, the counter is reset to 96 hours. (CCP may deem other time spans appropriate, but the principle is clear.)

If no-one holds sov and you are uninterrupted board leader for 120 consecutive hours (five days), you can claim sov.

The current SI board leader will always be displayed in the system, so in case the board leader de-clines sov or if the SI is contested between more than two parties, attackers know who to set to red in order to attempt conquest of a system.

The SI decays over time (I suggest a 1% deduction every downtime). Sov holders have to use or at least patrol a system to keep their SI up. Little used or unused systems will not drop sov automati-cally, but it will be easier to lower the SI if a system falls out of use by the current holder even if it once had a very high index.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#3 - 2014-11-13 16:34:38 UTC
The Results

In this manner, an alliance would have to be the dominant military power in a system over several days to gain sov, and it would have to remain the dominant military power to retain sov. To chal-lenge sov, an attacker would have to maintain a large enough military force to decrease the sov holder’s counter down to zero over several days. The defender can choose to stay and defend, mak-ing the attacker’s task more difficult, or even stop him. In the defender’s main systems, the attacker would have to be a lot stronger or maintain his attack longer to nullify the much stronger sov index.

This mechanic would even make “fights” between different time-zones possible, albeit in a some-what virtual way: the attacker has his force in system during his times, and decreases the index. The defender logs in during his prime time with his “defending” force and egalizes the loss again (or fails at it) by fielding his fleet. The larger force will eventually swing the tide, as would probably be the case if the two alliances actually clashed. And of course, either side can choose to stay up until his opponent’s prime time to actually demolish the opposing force.

The mechanic would still reward having the social skills to organize large forces and being able to gather overwhelming numbers. The existing large blocs will still have a considerable advantage in holding systems, and rightly so as a reward for being able to cooperate.

On the other hand, even a large coalition cannot be everywhere (even less so with Phoebe’s jump changes). Since you now have to be actually present most of the time to defend sov, small groups can claim the space that the large groups do not care for.

And since the sov holders' points decay, even having 51% of the numbers of the nulsec-dwellers would not suffice to actually hold all systems at once.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#4 - 2014-11-13 16:35:30 UTC
The Finer Points

SI Points are still accumulated when you have sov, to make important / much used systems much stronger. An alliance with capitals and supercapitals (in space!) will be able to push the index very high, and thus make important systems super-strong, or literally “fortresses”. There will be a reward for having your supers actually logged in and using them, much like a real world navy that has to be unmoored to actually be effective. In return, super caps in space provide content…

Opposed to accumulating points, they also very slowly decay over time, so unused / unpatrolled systems are more easily conquerable, and years of holding sov will not make a system unconquerable for years to come. This will also result in diminishing returns for having large fleets in only a few systems. Larger alliances will have an incentive to expand and send patrols and fleets around. More content.

Sov structures will still be there and serve a purpose: they give boni (that is the plural of “bonus”) to the sov holder’s accumulation of points, thus making systems stronger. CCP will weigh the exact amount correctly. Once ownership of a system changes hands, the sov structures that an attacker may not have destroyed automatically transfer to ownership of the new sov holder. This effectively means that an attacker may opt to either attack the sov structures, thus making attacking the SI easi-er; or he may ignore and inherit them after a more difficult conquest. More strategic decisions to make. And SBU’s also have a purpose: They grant boni to the deduction of SI points. You can still only anchor one per gate, so dead ends tend to be easier to defend, while crossroads offer greater assault potential.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#5 - 2014-11-13 16:36:19 UTC
The Difference between SI and the Present Mechanic
(Or: Why all the hassle, we have jump fatigue?!)

As it is, sov mechanics need large blobs. Even the most worthless system needs a valuable TCU. This and all other sov structures have very high EHP, which need lots of firepower to demolish. The ships that have this firepower attract large blobs like honey attracts flies (even from parties who could not care less who has or will hold sov) – and to top it off, the honey pot will be there at a time which is precisely known well in advance. In conjunction with repair logistics, this means in effect that the larger group can always hold the field if it so chooses and annihilate the smaller groups’ entire fleet with relatively few, if any, losses.

So a smaller group will be foolish to send their fleet to a timer. Their fleet will be doomed if the de-fenders do not want to lose their system. And which alliance would willingly lose a system when it can help it? The current sov mechanic prevents battles over territory because the outcome is deter-mined beforehand simply by comparing sizes. Less content.

If a smaller group can send their fleet and attack sovereignty and actually has a chance to not be butchered like sheep, more content arises. They can send their fleet if the necessity to battle over timers is removed. The SI idea does that.

Timers were introduced, if gather correctly (I started playing long after the Dominion patch), to end daily system and station ping-pongs. With the 4-and-5-day-rule (see above) there will not be ping pongs either. The alternative rule removes the need for timer battles, which the current mechanic has, but which makes smaller attackers stay docked or turn around and dock up if they can count. The SI idea allows smaller groups to go in and test the battle readiness of the sov holders, and the sov holders, if strong enough, can defend their systems without being subject to the whims of small-ish sneak attackers.

Also, under the current mechanic you have to grind through massive EHP to flip sov. Even if no-one is far and wide who would like to prevent you from claiming sov. Which may not be much of an issue since actually a couple of carrier pilots could do it, but it still seems somewhat ridiculous to have to bring capitals or a large fleet of subcaps when not even a single Ibis within 10 light years is there trying to stop you from becoming the local lord.

With SI points, even a small subcap group can take a system if unopposed, just as a single platoon of soldiers can take a village if unopposed. Well, maybe not as quickly, but you get the idea.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#6 - 2014-11-13 16:37:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
Other Ideas under Discussion

Fellow pilots and theorists have published their ideas. Nearly all of them, as regards occupancy sov, include indices based on all kinds of activities possible in a system, from PvP kills over production and trading to ratting, exploration and (asking CCP to introduce it) mission running. I am somewhat uneasy about these, because it means a lot of issues, starting with complex formulas and not ending with weighing those activities fairly against each other. As regards an index based on PvP kills itself – that would mean your sov’s stability depends not on how strong you are, but really on how many ships other people send your way, or how many ships flown by alt pilots you deliberately blow up…

In my humble opinion, this would also put too much emphasis on non-PvP activities in nulsec. I found one particular comment in the EVE forums on those activity-based indices, which (in words appropriate for the esteemed readership here) said “The day I have to go mining and ratting to con-quer a system is the day I quit EVE.” (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5035464#post5035464)

Thank you Jaime Wulfe. I will just let that stand there for a while.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#7 - 2014-11-13 16:37:54 UTC
The Larger Picture that Unfolds

Having a huge bloc will still be rewarded with (much) larger and nicer portions of space. The social skills to organize such large entities will still be greatly rewarded. Our large alliances and blocs will be here to stay, at least for a long time.

Having a huge bloc will however not be necessary any more to claim less valuable systems and enter into the sovereignty game. Jump fatigue will already make a huge step into that direction. However, as long as timed high EHP structure fights decide sovereignty, the group that is slightly larger will still have a huge advantage. Theoretically, your claim to sovereignty is as stable if you have only one more pilot than the other group, as if you had 10,000 more. Your n+1 group only needs to show up for the timers, and you are good.

To hold sov with the SI mechanic, your n+1 group needs to roam the space you want at least as much as the other group, and all of the time. And the n-1 group would actually pose a real threat to your sovereignty claim, as a tiny red group of 2 would tip the scales. Or in other words: A group of 1,000 pilots can defend the current sov against two independent groups of 700 pilots. Only when the two smaller groups cooperate can they take sov away. Under SI, the 1,000 could not stand against the 1,400, which to me seems to mirror the power situation better. And actually, the three groups would have to slug it out between them all, as none can claim sov against the other two – even more content:

With SI as proposed, each group has several options to plan conquest, mainly: cooperating with one other against the third, and afterwards stay together OR turn against your ally, or wage a multi-front war; or sit back and watch the other two and then attack the winner. Under the current mechanics, the only option is to cooperate with one other group against the third group, and stay loyal (or else the next attacker will see your allies’ exhaust fumes instead of the holey part of their gun barrels). So the current mechanic will still lean towards very large blocs, which (as we have seen) tend to-wards stagnancy. SI would mean vibrancy.

Also, just in case jump fatigue does not diminish power projection as intended (EVE players are famous for finding ways around stuff), the SI mechanic would make power projection much less desirable: Let an alliance project their power to the far reaches of the universe, and let them conquer a system by simply bridging in their cap fleet: they will have to keep that fleet there to keep that system. Having their fleet at the other end of the galaxy means less SI points and less defense in their home systems, making it easier to attack. Sending the king’s personal guard abroad now has a higher price than just fuel costs.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#8 - 2014-11-13 16:38:44 UTC
And what about TiDi?

The SI mechanic will also diminish TiDi, which is another major drawback of the current mechanic. It demands that you have to be in a certain system at a very specific point of time with as many pi-lots as possible, with the result most nulseccers know and loathe (while remembering that lag was even worse).

Not anymore, at least not necessarily: SI 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 power-ful ships, the defender can choose to go into that system for a glorious large battle to defend the motherland, which will probably cause TiDi - or use the opportunity to send forces into the at-tacker's systems, taking advantage of his absence there. Or split forces. Or make a feign attack on the attacker's home region, and while the attacker in response recalls some of his assault forces to defend home, turn around and kick the remaining attack fleet from the besieged system.

The same is true for the attacker, he also has options: 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, mak-ing the defender have to choose and react this way or that, without the predictability of timers. 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 (again, Phoebe will do a lot for this already, too) - and it would give a lot more choices how and where to attack, and how and where to defend, instead of having to pile everything into a single system where the timer is opening a very small sov attack window. Sov conflicts would become much more lively, dynamic, and interesting. And with much less TiDi.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#9 - 2014-11-13 16:39:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
A Game Designer’s Dream

This mechanic also 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, they can deduct points quicker – but the defenders will also have larger fleets to build up higher indices. The “buffer tank” against sov attacks is automatically adjusted by the size of the involved parties, so the difficulty of taking or defending sov automatically adjusts to subscription numbers and the power of fleets fielded. Theoretically, if in ten years titans were as common as battleships are today, then today’s sov struc-tures (still an important part of today’s “sov buffer”) will be a mere side concern EHP wise if un-changed. Or if caps and super caps should fall out of use for some strange reason, then grinding those high EHP will be a greater task than it is now, making them greater obstacles to flipping sov than intended. CCP would probably have to adjust their EHP manually every few years (as they actually just recently did, meddling with hit points and resistances to adapt to changes in the envi-ronment). With an SI based on number and size of ships, the sovereignty buffer will, relatively speaking, always be the same. Sov holders, sov attackers and obstacles to overcome to conquer a system will always be on the same terms.

What Else?

Here are some more details that came along while thinking about the idea:

1.) Sov holder should always get updates about changes, especially which alliances have deducted points from the indices, 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 SI. 3.) Station mechanics should stay as they are: difficult to conquer (reinforcement cycles) when belonging to sov holder, easy(ier) when not: In an unstable system, it is quite normal that you wake up and find that the guards are wearing a different uniform. 4.) Ships near strategic locations, such as stations, stargates, and sov structures, could be more valuable, i.e. a bonus could be granted by being on grid with them (as in real life, securing strategic locations gives better control of the area). 5.) Sov can still be transferred. The transferee gains the SI from the transferring alliance, and since both are probably blue to each other, the SI develops the same as if the former alliance still held sov. Joint conquest and subsequent division of spoils are still possible. Renting too, if it survives Phoebe. 6.) There is no six. 7.) Point counter values might spill over to neighbouring systems, so that a strong system could influence neighbouring systems' counter positively towards the regional hegemon. 8.) Migration from the cur-rent mechanic could be done by giving the current sov holders a really high SI in the systems they hold to start with under the new mechanic, 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 the undefended systems. Of course, a one- or two-month-stasis period for sov could accompany a change in the sov mechanic, in which indices already change, but sov re-mains 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 com-ments.

I used to call this idea in earlier publications the tug-of-war with military spaceships:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Tug_of_war_2.jpg/250px-Tug_of_war_2.jpg

It’s a game, after all.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#10 - 2014-11-13 17:19:28 UTC
so TL;DR is to encourage a Roaming Blob fleet in over the amount of time needed to take a system unless the system holder shows with a equal or greater blob fleet.

Also the dominion trailer already happens with systems come under siege and the local fleet pushes back the attackers and starts conducting repairs to stations and such, all the trailer is about is the enemy just shows up with a larger blob after the initial fleet was pushed back. Incarna could have been an example of space collapsing as the military came through but the alliance was also driven broke by the traitor (or one seeking revenge).

Further more i believe if you had a fleet composing of multiple alliance as we have ingame in the big blue doughnut hence forth referred to BBD, how would the system know who is helping taking it back, who is helping in taking the system over instead of being pulled many directions?

Also what keeps a few people roaming into an empty system from taking it over just because they are there?

I vote to keep it the way it is, because it isnt hard for those guys to replace a TCU.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#11 - 2014-11-14 10:59:18 UTC
Agondray wrote:
so TL;DR is to encourage a Roaming Blob fleet in over the amount of time needed to take a system unless the system holder shows with a equal or greater blob fleet.

The larger military force present over time prevails, yes.

Agondray wrote:
[...] how would the system know who is helping taking it back, who is helping in taking the system over instead of being pulled many directions?

That is decided by the blue/neutral/red status towards the current board leader, as I have laid out above. And the system displays who the board leader is, so that can be sorted out easily.

Agondray wrote:
Also what keeps a few people roaming into an empty system from taking it over just because they are there?

A very good point you make, indeed! This is indeed one of the strong points of this mechanism: systems not used by its current owner can be easily taken. I am glad you like it, too!

Agondray wrote:
I vote to keep it the way it is, because it isnt hard for those guys to replace a TCU.

CCP has already said "no" to keeping it. The dinosaurs are that way ----->.
The question is: What is the best replacement they can come up with?
Alexi Ares
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#12 - 2014-12-13 21:00:21 UTC
So you would ignore any indy corps you have working wih you. Their contribution means nothing? I am an indy pilot and while I do not have problem with sov based on military might. I would hope that CCP would want to give you other ways to help secure a system. What you are saying is the guy with the biggest fleet wins. While that is true for battles, it is not true for wars (speaking in RL not in Eve atm). In RL the guy that can keep producing the weapons of war and warriors wins. I am not saying make it indy necessary. I am saying that make it's contributions applicable. You dont think they should be because you are about PVP. Who builds the ships you fly, upgrades your stations, etc.? I would like CCP to make it not where you have to do ratting mining etc. to secure a system, but where they contribute to the security. Do you want to have to let your fleet sit in every system you own to maintain your sov or would you rather let the indy side of your alliance handle their own, so that you only have to maintain the systems the have a strategic advantage but no real industrial one? Just saying why make our contributions null, make your life easier.
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#13 - 2014-12-16 01:45:50 UTC
Alexi Ares wrote:
So you would ignore any indy corps you have working wih you. Their contribution means nothing? I am an indy pilot and while I do not have problem with sov based on military might. I would hope that CCP would want to give you other ways to help secure a system. What you are saying is the guy with the biggest fleet wins. While that is true for battles, it is not true for wars (speaking in RL not in Eve atm). In RL the guy that can keep producing the weapons of war and warriors wins. I am not saying make it indy necessary. I am saying that make it's contributions applicable. You dont think they should be because you are about PVP. Who builds the ships you fly, upgrades your stations, etc.? I would like CCP to make it not where you have to do ratting mining etc. to secure a system, but where they contribute to the security. Do you want to have to let your fleet sit in every system you own to maintain your sov or would you rather let the indy side of your alliance handle their own, so that you only have to maintain the systems the have a strategic advantage but no real industrial one? Just saying why make our contributions null, make your life easier.


Removing industry from the equation basically kills renting, which is a good thing.

Profit favors the prepared
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2014-12-17 09:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Amyclas Amatin
so... how many ratting ishtars/battleships/carriers should be stuffable into one system?

And is blob based sov really better than having military objectives with timers? So you can't hold objectives even with your blob, but you want to be able to take sov anyway?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-12-21 07:05:53 UTC

Felix Judge wrote:
CCP has announced there will be an occupancy-related sov mechanic added in the future. They have also asked for ideas and suggestions. Thus, within and without CCP, the struggle of ideas so that the best for EVE may emerge is on.


Do you have a link to this announcement?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Ayzn Betokhn
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#16 - 2014-12-23 23:18:27 UTC
Just a couple of observations:

I suspect the final solution for sov mechanics will include some similarities to your proposal, but there are a couple of things to consider.

The conquering cloaky camper can be a thing. Your proposal only requires ships in space. Who sits in space better, with
less drain on the system resources, so less annoying tidi, than the cloaky camper. " Armed" with the basic gun from a free
rookie ship, or maybe a prototype cloak on a battle badger, the cloaky camper can sit and drain the efforts of the sov holding alliance while they are at work, or outside, or asleep. And if the enemy counters with their own cloaky camper, then the
"attacker" can simply counter with a multitude of cloaky campers and simply out blob the enemy with a cohort of cloaked campers. The attacking and defending fleets could save all that time maneuvering for position, or probing for warp in points; the two fleets could just float in space and be invisible to each other the entire time.

A second point is that occupancy and numbers can not be the sole criteria. If that is the case, you leave no room for
skill, training, strategy, or leadership to make a difference, or for a smaller, skilled, well led force to make an impact on the outcome. Under your scenario, say 10,000 pilots under a fleet commander named Perses show up in a system. The 300 defenders show up under someone named King Leonidas, count the 10,000 opponents, and say oh well, and leave. We won't need dramatic, tension filled battle reports, every "battle" report could just be a census tally.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#17 - 2014-12-30 19:15:57 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

Felix Judge wrote:
CCP has announced there will be an occupancy-related sov mechanic added in the future. They have also asked for ideas and suggestions. Thus, within and without CCP, the struggle of ideas so that the best for EVE may emerge is on.


Do you have a link to this announcement?



I think the OP has selective reading, similar to selective hearing. I was unaware CCP decided on which of the two types they said they were considering.

Im not even going to both reading that massive tower of text he wrote.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#18 - 2014-12-31 21:54:40 UTC
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:

Felix Judge wrote:
CCP has announced there will be an occupancy-related sov mechanic added in the future. They have also asked for ideas and suggestions. Thus, within and without CCP, the struggle of ideas so that the best for EVE may emerge is on.


Do you have a link to this announcement?



I think the OP has selective reading, similar to selective hearing. I was unaware CCP decided on which of the two types they said they were considering.

Im not even going to both reading that massive tower of text he wrote.



this is correct, ccp stated in the summer summit minutes they were thinking of either an occupancy based sov or a no sov system.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-01-02 02:45:50 UTC
Here's an idea: Take away all sov-related timers. Allow systems to ping-pong back and forth (for a period of say, 7 days during ping-ponging the station becomes freeported).

Now you have 'occupancy' sov where the strongest group of people who live locally are going to be the ones that hold onto the system. Huge blob just rolled through your constellation? No prob. They just left. undock and take the system back again, rendering the 'blob' irrelevant.

There's a bunch of ways that CCP could do occupancy sov. I'm really keen on seeing what they present in two or three weeks time. But yeah, whatever they do, it has to render 'the blob', and in effect, coalitions, irrelevant.