These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post
Author
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1 - 2015-06-05 12:52:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
With a few minor changes, FozzieSov could see a whole new style of sov wars.
The first thing that struck me when I read the original blog was the Goals. I liked the idea that smaller unaligned and even large but not mega groups could, with the right attitude and will to win take and hold sov.
Then came a more refined outline of the plans that began to move away from the original goals.

I've posted on this topic at every opportunity as the shifting of the goal posts has all but nullified many of the original goals.

My ideas;

Vulnerability for newly taken sov.
18 hours a day is a long time to have to defend space that has no defensive indexes. It also doesn't take into consideration any of the variables being built into the new system.
Like, everything about sov will be available via Crest and the API. New sov will be a magnet for many who's only interest is in getting kills. While that is good, it also makes it more difficult to increase defensive indexes while your constantly defending your space or just fighting off attacks. The first week is crucial when it comes to surviving to further establish new sov, it will only be more important once defensive indexes equal time to capture with Entosis links. Eve should not be a job that even for a few days requires more effort than one would put into RL activities, like work, school, family, etc.

Alternative;
Allow use of the "Capital System" mechanic. When your TCU or iHub (as a TCU is no longer necessary to claim and develop a system it shouldn't be the main criteria for Capital systems) comes online for the first time in a system, you are given an option to set it as the alliances Capital System with the vulnerability window reduced to the minimum for 7 days. After 7 days the vulnerability window is readjusted to whatever the defensive indexes are. ( A group may choose to get the iHub up and work on establishing the system and plant their flag, TCU, at a later date)

To reduce the benefit and add risk for groups using this as a means to establish staging systems by moving Capital Systems for strategic purposes - A capital system can only be claimed every 21 days and the system it is moved from incurs a 50% reduction in defensive indexes. Harsh? Yes it is and so would act as a deterrent for just moving for strategic purposes as your previous capital system has a larger vulnerability window.

-- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Strategic Index.
Should be changed to an index based on system activity rather than how long you've paid sov bills.

Alternative;
A strategic upgrades module, would be part of an iHub but must be activated to start accruing index points.
It would increase based on system activity, including PVP, PVE, Mining.
The time required for strategic 5 would be based on the size of the group that is living in the system. So a group of 1,000 that is active in their system could achieve strategic 5 in the same amount of time as a 10,000 man group doing the same activities.
This would allow a large group to get to level 5 quickly by spamming the system with as many members as possible but the same thing works for a small group.

It would itself not have any affect on Military or Industrial indexes but would increase at its own rate with the same activities.
So, as PVE and Industrial activities increase their respective indexes by X amount the Strategic index would increase by a % of those (not 100%, maybe 25%).
PVP activities should not increase indexes by less than 100% of PVE and Industrial indexes. If a group is fighting to maintain their hold on a system and not able to mine or shoot npc's, the pvp should benefit their strategic index appropriately.
This could be gamed, if you can find a group who doesn't mind losing ships (rookie ship kills would NOT count toward PVP index) so you can get your strategic index up.
With this style of strategic index, simply paying sov bills would not be enough to keep it at lvl 5 so it is inline with the other indexes in that it is liable to reduce if you ignore it.

So existing groups don't feel slighted by suddenly losing the current value of the Strategic Index, when it is changed to an active index those groups who have held sov for a period of time would get a new Strategic Index of 50% of the current value. So if they had lvl 5 previously they would get a new value of 2.5, lvl 4 would become 2 and so on.
This would mean, actively used systems would in reasonable time get back to lvl 5 and unused systems would become more vulnerable.

-- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --

The Main Event (Capture the node)
Capture the node, should be restricted to the system at risk or at most, adjoining systems the sov holders have an interest in. It should not mean having to win a mini game in the surrounding 6 to 10 systems that the alliance may not even have a stake in.
With a quick glance at the sov map recently I found 12 constellations (in one region) where multiple alliances hold sov - They are not all friends and should not have to be.

So when one comes under threat, they are facing having to fight the threat as well as the uneasy neighbours, who wouldn't need to attack but could certainly change the outcome of a fight for sov (capture the node) in the neighbouring system. If nothing else, they could easily extend the defenders vulnerability window by capturing a few nodes themselves or simply hindering the sov holders capture efforts.

It is unlikely we will see an alliance who hold one or two systems fielding fleets large enough that it would cause server issues. A small group who only hold one or two systems would also find it extremely difficult to hold their own and be victorious in a constellation wide battle for supremacy.


I don't want an "easy as you go" sov system, just one that balances out the playing field a little.
A few minor changes and Fozzisov could well be the right balance.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#2 - 2015-06-05 13:08:34 UTC
Same post I always make on SOV.

Nothing will or should change until CCP has had time to completely implement the planned changes(not there yet).

So -1 to your idea - at least for now.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3 - 2015-06-05 13:11:27 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Same post I always make on SOV.

Nothing will or should change until CCP has had time to completely implement the planned changes(not there yet).

So -1 to your idea - at least for now.

Clearly you didn't even bother reading it..

Your loss.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-06-05 14:53:44 UTC
In reverse order.

The Main event constellation size warfare WILL cause some border issues as a battle spills onto your neighbours yard. That makes the Players more aware of who they live next to or moticates them to take a constellation but stop at the defined borders. Shrinking the battle size down would limit the startegic possibilities.

Strategic index . . . PvP is, as you said, easily gamed. A free for all battle royale might drive the index up and at no intrinsic cost to the taking corp. Find a method that is not easily gamed and then we will talk.

Capital for newly taken sov. Wouldn't this slow down the taking of a region as your capital can only shift so fast. I see Capitals as a defensive tool, not one used for front line work.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#5 - 2015-06-05 15:12:46 UTC
I agree with M

While the ideas have merit, its best to simply wait and see what happens first.

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#6 - 2015-06-05 22:56:20 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
In reverse order.

The Main event constellation size warfare WILL cause some border issues as a battle spills onto your neighbours yard. That makes the Players more aware of who they live next to or moticates them to take a constellation but stop at the defined borders. Shrinking the battle size down would limit the startegic possibilities.

Strategic index . . . PvP is, as you said, easily gamed. A free for all battle royale might drive the index up and at no intrinsic cost to the taking corp. Find a method that is not easily gamed and then we will talk.

Capital for newly taken sov. Wouldn't this slow down the taking of a region as your capital can only shift so fast. I see Capitals as a defensive tool, not one used for front line work.

m

The ideas I have been working on and posted are more focused on small groups (a group of 600 or 700) with few or no allies to call on.

We don't always have a choice where we live and so will make do with what is available. Not all groups aspire to hold constellations or regions, 1 or 2 systems that can provide content (close to enemies) and a place they can call home.
I see this sort of sov as fairly mobile -I call it nomadic sov - You hold it as long as you want or as long as you can, then move on to a new objective.
Relatively small, mobile groups of sov holders would bring a whole new set of strategies to nul warfare.
If sov groups need to grow ever larger or get more blues to keep their homes, it won't take long at all for stagnation to set in again.


PVP content as part of a strategic index is not that easily gamed. 1st the API alone can tell the difference between PVP between different groups and an alliance free for all. Honestly, if any group has the opportunity (and isk) to use free for all alliance fights to game the index - it is not really a problem - it is only going to benefit them for 24 hours so unless they do it every day there is nothing to gain. If they can afford to game it with free for all fights on a daily basis, instead of concentrating on other indexes - Let them do it. The PVP index increase, is only one small part of what drives it up or down, you would gain higher defensive indexes more quickly by mining. So yes it "could" be gamed but not for any real or lasting benefit. Gaming a PVP index could actually make an alliance more vulnerable to attack, as everything will be available on Crest.

I agree, Capital Systems should be for defensive purposes. Again, not everyone wants to take a whole region and as for new sov, your "defensive" (capital) system is your front line. The capital system doesn't have to move to every new system you take (that would be so unbalanced) it is an option that can be used periodically to help shore up defenses.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#7 - 2015-06-06 01:19:00 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Same post I always make on SOV.

Nothing will or should change until CCP has had time to completely implement the planned changes(not there yet).

So -1 to your idea - at least for now.

Clearly you didn't even bother reading it..

Your loss.


I do not need to read the entirety of your post to know that it is suggesting changes to a SOV system that is not fully implemented.
And as such I do not need to read all of it to know that my answer is NO for now.
AFTER the SOV changes have been fully implemented and we the players have had some time to adjust to the new reality then we can discuss yours and a few dozen other ideas that have been floated around here in the last few months.

Your loss that you cannot understand such simple concept as let's wait and see what happens before we start calling for changes.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#8 - 2015-06-06 01:48:24 UTC
The only SOV change they need to make us get rid of it, you complain endlessly about CCP coddling highsec game play while you sit on SOV mechanics being bum cuddled by CCP.

It is long past due you lived up to your own self image and stop kidding yourself.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#9 - 2015-06-06 02:23:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Donnachadh wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Same post I always make on SOV.

Nothing will or should change until CCP has had time to completely implement the planned changes(not there yet).

So -1 to your idea - at least for now.

Clearly you didn't even bother reading it..

Your loss.


I do not need to read the entirety of your post to know that it is suggesting changes to a SOV system that is not fully implemented.
And as such I do not need to read all of it to know that my answer is NO for now.
AFTER the SOV changes have been fully implemented and we the players have had some time to adjust to the new reality then we can discuss yours and a few dozen other ideas that have been floated around here in the last few months.

Your loss that you cannot understand such simple concept as let's wait and see what happens before we start calling for changes.

Suggesting minor changes that could open up opportunities for many more groups to enter the sov game.
Changes that would bring the proposal closer to its original goals, that would be easier to implement "before" the so far unbalanced mechanics go live.

Personally, I believe getting something close to right the 1st time is far better than, "wait and see".
The release has already been put back once, obviously because it wasn't right or ready (same thing really) so why not suggest modest changes now, instead of later when it will be harder to introduce without some groups getting butthurt.

The current proposal requires a new flag be defended for a minimum of 18 per day for as long as it takes to build up defensive indexes. That could take a long time once, All sov info is available for everyone in eve to see and react to.
How does a smaller group build up defensive indexes while constantly having to defend their new sov?

It also favors those alliances with swathes of unused systems by giving them defensive bonuses simply by paying a sov bill.

If you can't see how unbalanced that is, I'm sorry but i would rather see a system that is not so biased against new groups introduced from the beginning, rather than "wait and see".

Groups are jostling for space now because many realize - Once Fozziesov is live, taking sov will be far more difficult than it is now. "Wait and see" is what CCP have done for the past many years, look how well that worked.

I see it as your loss that you are so narrow minded as to say no to something you haven't read but hey, I'm not one to say yes or no just because it is easy.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.