These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changes to SOV Mechanics

Author
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#1 - 2015-03-20 13:04:43 UTC
So most people would agree that SOV mechanics could do with a rework and that endless timers and structure grinds are a bad thing.

My proposal for an update to sovereignty would be one where front lines and constellation layouts have a strong effect on how easy or hard it would be to capture a system while still allowing capitals to have a role in SOV fights. The basic idea is that control of nearby systems should influence whether or not IHubs will go into a reinforced mode or not. In this way alliance borders would be more vulnerable to attack while core systems would stay as the are currently.

I would suggest that for an IHub to enter reinforced mode would require that the same alliance has IHubs online in at least two adjacent systems. In this way it would be easier for smaller (or larger) groups to have an impact on the borders of an alliance's space by working their way through fringe systems knocking over Ihubs thereby making the next system down the chain also vulnerable to attack. These attacks could only get so far before reaching a system where the defending alliance does have control of two adjacent systems and therefore the IHub will go into reinforced in the same way they do now and the defenders will have time to prepare a fleet. Additionally alliances would be able to "overheat" IHubs to force them to enter reinforced regardless of how many adjacent systems they control allowing alliances to hold the line in a certain system; but "overheating" of hubs should cause a penalty once the hub comes out of reinforced to ensure that alliances don't simply "overheat" all of their hubs.

If a system contains both an IHub and a station then there would be a reinforcement timer on the IHub to prevent important systems from being lost before an alliance has time to respond.

I believe that a system like this would allow for more small scale fights while still allowing capitals to have a role in attacking important systems and that it would encourage more strategic play on both sides.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#2 - 2015-03-20 13:12:03 UTC
I can't tell if you haven't been keeping up with upcoming changes or if you think this is better then them in some way
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#3 - 2015-03-20 14:40:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Mieyli
I do think the upcoming changes are good for nullsec but I feel like it gives too much power to single pilots. Under the new system alliances are going to have to constantly respond to single people turning on Entosis links on structures all throughout their space and after some time people are going to get fed up of that. I understand that CCP want to move away from "bigger blob wins" sov fights but a system where there's no incentive to even bring more than one pilot is not exactly ideal either.

Under the new system structures exiting reinforced spawn capture nodes that players need to fight over, instead to make border systems more vulnerable the idea I proposed could be adopted. If the defending alliance does not have control over two systems adjacent to the one under attack then there is no reinforcement timer or capture event.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Iain Cariaba
#4 - 2015-03-20 15:26:47 UTC
Then you need to voice your opinion in the relevant feedback thread, not make a new redundant thread.