These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sov remodel loosely based on Incursion system types (HQ/Assault/Vanguard/Scout)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#1 - 2011-12-22 20:34:05 UTC  |  Edited by: jonnykefka
SHORT VERSION

Re-design sovereignty around the system types found in Incursions. A given alliance has x number of heavily-defended HQ systems, a few more well-defended Assault systems, and then more less-well-defended Vanguard and Scout systems. This allows for smaller-group objectives, more distributed fighting, and levels the field a little bit for smaller alliances.


LONG VERSION

Disclaimers: These are rough ideas that can definitely be improved on, coming from someone with relatively little nullsec experience. Criticism is not only welcome but probably necessary if this ever goes anywhere.

The main objectives CCP has talked about with regard to redesigning sov are: To encourage the existence smaller alliances, have more motivation to fight for territory, and have less shooting of structures with a lot of HP and nothing else.

Sov could be re-designed around the system types you find in Incursions (HQ/Assault/Vanguard/Scout), and it could address many of these problems. Note that I'm not talking about Incursion system effects here, just the idea of four (or n) types of systems with varying levels of defensibility.

The general mechanic I'm thinking about goes like this:

- Every alliance has some set number of systems that can be claimed as HQ-style systems. These systems are heavily defended and hard to take. The number of HQ systems allowed to an alliance can be scaled somewhat with size, but there is a hard limit (as opposed to the current sov mechanics where any system can be raised to 5 and defended however you want).

- There are a similar but larger set number of Assault-style systems allotted to each alliance. These systems can hold high-level upgrades like Jump Bridges and Cyno Jammers/Cyno Generators.

- There is a large or unlimited number of Vanguard/Scout style systems that can be claimed that can't have the high-level upgrades, but can have upgrades that make the higher-level systems harder to take. Not impossible, just harder.

Here's a more specific vision, with some system effects/objectives, and how they might come into play:

- "HQ" systems can have any upgrade you want. Sov structures (TCUs &c) have solid base resists (say 50%) and/or PG and CPU for POS guns and/or longer reinforce timers etc. They are what they sound like, the fortress of your alliance, your "home". Note that this system is not invulnerable at any time. You should always be able to take an HQ system, it just shouldn't be easy. By default every alliance can have one HQ system, but if you hold a sufficient number of lower-class systems (see below) you should be able to have up to, say, three to six (this number pulled right out of my ass). Losing an HQ system should also cause serious problems, making the rest of your sov much more vulnerable or even auto-reinforcing it all, giving you motivation to make it your doom fortress.

- "Assault" systems would be much like most of sov space now. They would have some of the defensive capabilities of the HQ (resists, guns), but reduced (e.g., 25% resists). They could be upgraded just like the current system to be able to host jump bridges, cyno beacons, cyno jammers, etc. They could also have a specific upgrade which allows the alliance to have an additional HQ system if they hold a certain number of Assault systems, up to the hard limit of HQ systems.

- "Vanguard" systems would be somewhat like low-sov systems now. Their TCUs/sov structures would have no defenses to speak of, they couldn't host the high-level upgrades, but they could still be upgraded for carebear purposes (the anom buff etc). They can also have strategic upgrades that increase the number of Assault systems you can have (with a sufficient number of Vanguards), and perhaps more importantly strategic upgrades that boost the defenses of Assault and HQ systems.

- More on that last point: These strategic upgrades would be things that give sov structures in higher-level systems better defenses in one way or another (more guns, more resists, etc), maybe as well as the sov upgrade structures (cyno jammers etc), but never make them invulnerable and never make the Vanguard system itself more defensible. Furthermore, these don't have to be structures that need to be shot. They could be things that need to be hacked (yes like the Incursion hax sites), behind a moderate set of automated defenses and/or behind restricted access gates, or otherwise not just big bags of HP that need to be ground down. These make ideal small-gang objectives, especially since a large alliance can have a lot of them. You can simultaneously attack many of these, reducing the defenses of the more valuable and strategically important systems, making them more susceptible to attack from a larger fleet. Want to knock out the cyno jammer in a key Assault system? Kick down a few Vanguards first to make it easier to kill with your subcap blob.

- "Scout" systems, if you even need a fourth level, would be for the largest alliances. They would be limitedly upgradeable for carebearing, but you can have as many as you want. Not particularly defensible, but could have objectives like the ones mentioned above that make Vanguards slightly (but not much) easier to defend.
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#2 - 2011-12-22 20:34:20 UTC
Advantages

You have the afore-mentioned small group objectives that could be attacked and defended by, say, 10-20 man fleets while still having an impact on the broader conflict by affecting the higher-level systems.

You also level the field a little bit for smaller alliances. Even if you only hold one system, that one system will be an HQ, and you'll be better able to hold on to it. The more systems you own, the more Vanguards and Scouts you'll have, and the more points of vulnerability. However, those Vanguards and Scouts will also make your really important systems harder to take, so you have a motivation to have them in the first place.

The other motivation for expansion is that the number of lower-level systems you hold has an influence on the number of higher-level systems you can have. Want more Assaults for your jump bridge network? Take more Vanguards.

Alliances will need to pick where they will place what level of system carefully, and conversely how they want to attack larger targets.

At the same time, it's not just "Grind down TCUs in 57 systems until they all die." You can go straight for the HQ and really cripple an alliance from the word "go", if you have the raw power/numbers to do it. Alternately you can pick at the edges of their empire with a thousand tiny cuts until you're ready to go for the throat.

"Farms & Fields" fits neatly into the Vanguard and Scout systems.

Potential problems and responses

These are just my thoughts, I'm sure other people can poke holes in this all day:

Problem: Timing-games where you take the number of Vanguard systems you need to get another Assault (or Assaults to get an HQ), then drop them and keep the extra Assault.

Solution: Automatic forced downgrade if you fall below threshold. Note that this also provides another pathway to weakening your enemies. Take enough of their Vanguards and they'll have to cut down on the number of higher-level systems the control On a more fine-grained level, an alliance should be able to choose which higher-level system will undergo a forced downgrade, so it may be necessary to have a "priority list" for each level of system, and the low-priority ones go first.


Problem: Larger alliances will simply create a bunch of small alt alliances and just have a mess of their own HQ systems.

Response: There are advantages to having lower-level systems, because it makes those HQs harder to take, and there are logistical benefits like having one coherent jump bridge network and not splitting your forces over 20 different blues. However, the potential for abusing the system this way still exists. How the systems are balanced could influence it, but to be honest this is the biggest problem I can think of for the idea.


Problem: You don't live in nullsec, the hell do you know?

Response: Not much, that's why I'm hoping people who DO live in nullsec will look at this idea and tell me if it's braindead or has some potential.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2011-12-22 20:47:57 UTC
Okay, just a quick response.

The problem with the sov grind isn't necessarily that there are a lot of systems to take, it's the time required, with the retardedly high HP of structures and such, to take each one. This doesn't seem to address that, but maybe I'm not reading deep enough. Any sov system has to balance the needs of defenders/timezone ops, while not making the attackers so bored they want to win Eve by not playing anymore. If that balance were easy, it would have been done by now. I like that you're trying to tackle the problem, but that portion of things needs to be addressed within this idea as well.
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#4 - 2011-12-22 21:01:52 UTC  |  Edited by: jonnykefka
Good points. Thoughts:

While upping the resists of the important structures in HQ systems etc., you could nerf the hell out of base structure HP to start with. An HQ system TCU with 50% resists might have the EHP of a current TCU. The lower-level systems would have far less. You could potentially apply that to sov upgrade POS mods as well, or by putting guns on the TCU or whatever main structure in the high-level systems you could consolidate all the important stuff (cyno jammer, cyno beacon, jump bridge) to that location and reduce the need for POS blathery (living in W-space I am exceedingly wary of tying POSes to sov in any way, shape or form, but I hope an upcoming rewrite of the POS system will help as well).

Reinforce timers and defensibility, I suppose they need to have a minimum of a day reinforce, like the POCO reinforce timers now, but you could give either the power to have longer reinforce timer in higher-level systems (with proper upgrades from lower-level systems) or even affect when it comes out of reinforce after the fact to be more to your convenience.

Also, this idea is not to the exclusion of all others. There are a lot of good ideas of how to fix sov war already out there that are fully compatible with this one, in fact I bet some of them would make this better and vise-versa. This is a ridiculously big-picture idea, a lot of the nitty-gritty details would need to be fleshed out.

EDIT: More hacking-style objectives might also help. Structure HP should really only be one path to victory. Specific modules for hacking sov or what have you, mounted to ships that need to be defended while they do it, could help a great deal, but that's an idea that is almost independent from this one.