Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This particular idea may have already been put out for public consumption, but here is my 2 cents anyway.

I would like to suggest an adjustment to the current sov cost structure. I believe that the reason large alliances hold onto sov space, which is not used regularly, is the simple fact that its too cheap. In an effort to allow smaller alliances a chance to get into sov space, sov should become more expensive to hold when not utilized.

Pick your jaw up and let me elaborate.

This cost should be based off of an initial base cost, minimum cost and adjusted base cost per security level.
Cost is reduced by each level of military and industry index increase. (these numbers are just an example, can be adjusted to any level)


Initial Base Cost $40,000,000,000
Adjusted base cost = initial base cost * security level of system + minimum cost
Minimum Cost $500,000,000

reduction in adjusted base cost:

Military index level 1 = 2%
Industry index level 1 = 2%

Military index level 2 = 4%
Industry index level 2 = 4%

Military index level 3 = 8%
Industry index level 3 = 8%

Military index level 4 = 16%
Industry index level 4 = 16%

Military index level 5 = 20%
Industry index level 5 = 20%

Each level increase for military and industry would bring that cost down. To keep it simple i am going to show both military and industry level increasing simultaneously.

for a 1.0 system (Adjusted base cost = 40,500,000,000)
Level Adjusted base cost
1) 38,880,000,000
2) 35,640,000,000
3) 29,160,000,000
4) 16,200,000,000
5) 0

for a .62 system (Adjusted base cost = 1,395,956,208.36)
Level Adjusted base cost
1) 1,340,117,960.03
2) 1,228,441,463.36
3) 1,005,088,470.02
4) 558,382,483.34
5) 0

for a .00 system (Adjusted base cost = 500,000,000)
Level Adjusted base cost
1) 480,000,000
2) 440,000,000
3) 360,000,000
4) 200,000,000
5) 0

No cost should be incurred until a 30 day grace period from initial system capturing.

I believe this type of pricing structure would encourage more open unused space, while at the same time increase utilization of conquered space. All other sov mechanics could remain as they are today, until such a time, the developers can revisit them.

Putting a zero or two or three at the end of the current costs would still do nothing. Large alliances have almost bottomless wallets. The current system is broke and needs to be rebuillt from the ground up.

How? I have no idea. However I am sure others more eloquent on the mechanics of the current SOV situation and better versed then I will explain their ideas.

And its true what a waste of time op explaining how to fix a system that is broken.

CCP need to fix the sov problem from the ground up and not to patch it here and there like it has been done over the years.

I am not having a go at CCP in allot of other area of the game CCP have done extremely well.

And another area they need to fix as well is PI when CCP Fozzie told me back in November 2013 at the EvE Downunder CCP was looking into it.

But nothing has happen with any PI changes in the last year.

Still waiting for it to happen, not happy Jan

CCP Fozzie do you remember that one when you told me that back in 2013

Enlighten me. Are these "solutions" to the "sov problem" methods to obtain sovereignty without having to muster a navy with the power to just take it? Just askin'. I thought it was; find an empty system, throw up a station. (Yeah, simplified, but still.) Find a system someone else is holding, take it from them. When people start running fee schedules it looks suspiciously like an attempt to price someone out, or grab at technicalities to avoid...something else.

To put a finer point on it. If the Goons own too much space, aren't EVE players supposed to take it from them?
I mean, isn't that what the guns on those capitals are for? Or are those just for meaningless battles now and then...
for monuments?

That's pretty much the system this one replaced, iirc. Null sec players were complaning there was no life in the game in null sec - it was all boring repetition (with accompanying forum activity.) So, CCP devised what was essentially a Capture the Flag method, which at the time was met with a certain amount of enthusiasm (and accompanying forum activity). The posts then were asking for a refinement of the system, not replacement, or complaining about "fixing what ain't broke."

Now BoB is gone and this legendary Blue Donut has appeared (more as a result of human nature than game mechanics) the hue and cry is to "rid us of this meddlesome SOV thingy!" Personally, it makes perfect sense to me why CCP would not just leap to satisfy this "other" crowd that wants to appear to be "THE" crowd (this time.) I'm reminded of a B.B. King song.

I gave you a new Ford. You say you want a Cadillac.
Gave you a ten-dollar dinner. You called it a snack.
Let you sleep in my penthouse. You called it a shack.
Gave you seven children, and now you want to give them back.

Been so down-hearted babe, ever since the day we met...

TYVM. Have a nice day.

If anything this system would make renting space even more profitable, since as the indexes rise, the cost decreases. We'd probably just end up with fixed term leases instead of the month to month crap we have now, so that the large alliances can more accurately predict future income.

Although I have to admit, there is some irony is them being nothing more than glorified property management firms, I don't think it's exactly healthy for the game overall.

Moved to the Features & Ideas board.

How about:
Sov costs decrease with activity of pilots in your alliance.
Sov costs increase with activity of pilots not in your alliance.