These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Thought on Sovereignty Mechanics

Author
James Cestar
Market Cogs LLC
#1 - 2015-09-22 04:55:41 UTC
I've been mulling this idea over in my head, yet I am no Sov player, so I need some help and input from those who are, and are willing to do so.

In my understanding of current Sov mechanics, you must remove someone's Sov, and then you are able to take it, no matter where it is. Highly condensed, but hopefully what I'm trying to get at.

So, this is my thought.

The TLDR: Alliances may destroy Sov in any player-owned system that they wish, same as it is now. The change is this; Alliances may only take Sov for themselves in systems connected to their own Sov.

The Too Long:

So, hopefully the TLDR got your attention.

I hear of Coalitions getting stuck in a rut, of a giant blue donut out in space, and people getting bored and not finding fights because the other guy runs if he's outnumbered. (So do you if the table is turned.)

So, why only let alliances take Sov connected to their own space? (Do remember that anyone can still crush the Sov anywhere, just not take it unless they're the neighbor.

A few reasons:

  1. To condense the activity of alliances on their own borders if they wish to expand or defend.
  2. Make it so that the landscape of the map matters. Someone with a HQ at the end of a dead end will have a little better time defending, high ground of a sort.
  3. Give the nullbears a false sense of security inside of their borders. (Not like this is a problem Blink)
  4. Overly large alliance would (at first, I think) either have to expend too many resources and players reinforcing their massive borders; OR Reorganize into smaller, more defensible regions, freeing up space for new starts.
  5. Anything you would like to add?


Now, for the How:

This is just my vision of how this could/would work in my head. I hope to convey it well enough so that you get a similar picture.

Indices. Something that I hear are great for defense. What if they were part of a more interesting mechanic?
(For all of this, please assume that Alliances can only take Sov adjacent to their own.)

What if you had to have certain indexes at level (x) (3 for this example) in order to take the next system over? A new Sov holding alliance, let's name them DoggyDoo, would have to do this:
1. Set up their HQ in a brand new Sov system. This is home, this is the start of their empire.
2. Ramp up the indices to level 3.
3. They are now allowed to take Sov in the next system(s) over.
4a. If there is no other Sov holder, they merely set up shop, take the system, go back to step 2.
4b. If there IS another Sov holder, this is where the fun begins.

4b explained.
DoggyDoo alliance has gotten the indices of their system to 3, proving they can hold Sov and make it profit. (3, again, is purely for this example).
They take a system and become new neighbors with CatsRUs Alliance.
Their new neighbor alliance, CatsRUs, have a shiny system next door to the newly captured system, and DoggyDoo wants it.
DoggyDoo must now increase the indices in the new system so that they can capture CatsRUs' shiny system.
DoggyDoo must rat, mine, and hold Sov in that system, all while defending those ratters and miners from the CatsRUs skirmish fleets that know something is up.
They must also kill the CatsRUs ratters and miners in the shiny system, to try and force CatsRUs indices down to the point where CatsRUs cannot capture DoggyDoos system in return.

Once DoggyDoo successfully captures the shiny system. They must now work to hold it, because CatsRUs will probably have a system with high enough indices to counterattack and retake the shiny system. DoggyDoo must defend the ratters and miners.

(The other option, sadly, is that DoggyDoo meets up with CatsRUs, blues, and they sit happily next to one another for all aching eternity)
~~~~~~~~
I hope that you can get this picture. That Sov must be consecutively held systems; and those systems must have people actively building the Sov up in order for it to spill over into the next system. (Much like growing Incursions) Forcing alliances to have contact with one another, and making the roles of combat ratters and miners very real, and very thrilling.


P.S.
Something that I'm still tossing around is this idea, along the lines that landscape would now matter.
If an Alliance was able to remove the Sov between another alliance's systems, thereby cutting those systems off from their HQ. Those systems would be 'crippled' and be able to be taken much faster. Something to maybe hire a good group of mercs to do for you? Pirate

Remember that in this mechanic, Sov can be removed by anyone, at anytime, anywhere. The capturing must be done adjacent however.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2015-09-22 09:14:47 UTC
James Cestar wrote:
yet I am no Sov player.


Then how do you know this would work?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2015-09-22 11:33:06 UTC
How does a new alliance take it's first sov then?

How do you invade a region like Feythabolis?

If that's all indexes at 3, why should you only be allowed to take a system every 35 days? (That's how long it takes to get strategic 3) As a further example, it would take two and a half YEARS to conquer the Goonswarm home region of Deklien if you needed strat 3 on every system, assuming you started at the closest NPC space (WLF-D3, in Venal). If you had to start at highsec, you're probably looking at double that. I really don't think you want it to take multiple years to take over a single region.

Why do you people still listen to the OMFG BLU DONUT!!!1 idiots, have you ever even looked at the sov map?

Why do you think anyone would condense their holdings under your system, given that we already did plenty of that when fozziesov hit?
James Cestar
Market Cogs LLC
#4 - 2015-09-22 15:27:19 UTC
To answer your questions Danika:
Danika Princip wrote:
How does a new alliance take it's first sov then?

An alliance would be able to claim any system of choice as long as they held no sov elsewhere.

How do you invade a region like Feythabolis?
You have to first smash the sov out of the holders hands in a few systems, and have an alliance take sov. It is a coalition thing.

If that's all indexes at 3, why should you only be allowed to take a system every 35 days? (That's how long it takes to get strategic 3) As a further example, it would take two and a half YEARS to conquer the Goonswarm home region of Deklien if you needed strat 3 on every system, assuming you started at the closest NPC space (WLF-D3, in Venal). If you had to start at highsec, you're probably looking at double that. I really don't think you want it to take multiple years to take over a single region.

- No, I wouldn't want it to take that long. This is the main reason I said I needed input, researching online and asking ingame didn't give me how long it would take to get indices. They would either have to be faster, or an index of 1-2. Also, please go back up and read, I did say a couple times that indices 3 was example only.
Also remember that you could still remove sov from anywhere. So an invading alliance can have a daughter (holding) alliance that caps the space in the middle of some territory.

Why do you people still listen to the OMFG BLU DONUT!!!1 idiots, have you ever even looked at the sov map?

- I have seen it, and it does change a lot. But I also see all of 11 alliances holding the vast majority of Sov according to dotlan.

Why do you think anyone would condense their holdings under your system, given that we already did plenty of that when fozziesov hit?

-Because while I am not a Sov player, I am a null player, and the rare occasion I run into more people is holed up in their station systems or running around in fleets that can either beat the other guy, or run away. Condensing would open up space to more then a handful of alliances. There is a lot of empty space out there with a label affixed to it, with no one there. People fear, and don't touch the label, for good reason.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2015-09-22 18:54:36 UTC
I fail to see how that would condense the current large sov holder more than they are now.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2015-09-22 19:34:03 UTC
So in order to invade a region you don't have a border with, you need to have a dummy alliance with no sov anywhere else? How does that make any sense?

At index 2, it'll take you over 18 months to conquer Dek from one end to the other.

At index 1, it'll take a mere seven months. I don't think you want to tie sov conquest to indexes in any way.


The top two sov holders are rental groups. Most of the rest of the top ten at least have rental programs. Maybe rental is the problem here?

And why is the fact that some groups have large holdings an issue? Look at the damn sov map, it's more colourful than it's been in years. (And it doesn't even mean a lot. GSF hold 121 systems. That's a grand total of two regions. For 14,000+ members. How can we condense any further than that?)

And you haven't explained why you think anyone would condense at all. They're under no more risk of losing any sov than they currently are, and would in fact be an awful lot safer than under the current system.
Leto Aramaus
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#7 - 2015-09-22 19:51:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Leto Aramaus
Bitter Uncle Leto's idea for sov:

Arrow Remove Entosis Links.

Arrow Remove Indices and IHUBs. Replace perks of living in null and owning sov with something better and more realistic.

i.e. "upgrade" a useless structure floating in space and that will make pirates have more bases full of ships that just spawn out of nowhere for us to kill over and over again = dumb

Arrow Introduce Citadels (player built stations, just new and better).

Arrow Any alliance may make a "claim" to a system that they have a Citadel in. Simple as that, build a Citadel, click "Claim system as [MyAlliance]'s sovereign territory.

Arrow If Alliance A has a citadel in system XYZ, and claims it as theirs, Concord and the in-game map recognize that system as Alliance A's. (Edit: Maybe this allows them to build other types of structures [refineries, sensor relays, all that], or maybe it does nothing but put your name on the map)

Arrow Two different alliances can both have a Citadel in the same system, and both can make a claim to the system. In this case, the in-game map shows the system's sov as "Contested", which it is. (shows all alliances that are making a claim).

Done. Want the system to be yours? Destroy any opposing citadels or negotiate with the enemy for them to give up their claim on the system. (Remember, just because you have a Citadel in system, it doesn't automatically claim it for your alliance. Alliance A can let Alliance B (coalition member) build a Citadel in their system, as long as Alliance B doesn't make a "claim", there's no problem.

Quote:
But Leto, that's ********! Anyone could just come and drop a citadel in your system any time and claim it as their own!


Of course they could, just like real life... sooooo....

Arrow Make Citadels very expensive (resources, not ISK).

Arrow Make Citadels take days, weeks, or even months to build. (Just like a real structure).

Arrow Make the construction of new structures require active particiaption from players in a new class of ships... **Construction ships!** (oooo, aaahhh)

So building an XL Citadel would be a 1.5 month (or more, less, whatever) process where indy players actually fly around it, adding the components on as they're needed, in giant new ships that look cool and are somehow fun (for indy players, won't be hard, they shoot rocks).

Arrow Citadels get millions of HP and have some kind of balanced, good reinforcement mechanics that make it possible to destroy them, but difficult.

Moving towards realism seems more fun and interesting to me than magic wands and asset protection.