These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Variable sov defence

Author
Tian Toralen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2016-04-20 13:49:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tian Toralen
ADMs are now tied to ratting, forcing people to rat or mine.

1. Owning sov should offer more opportunites besides ratting and mining.
2. It should not be tied to ratting and mining.
3. Entosis links should disappear.

How will it work?

In fact there won't be any sov. Players would colonize space wherever they please, and the only indication they own sov would be the fact that their structures are there - and not someone's else's structures. And these structures improve that space, in various ways, and this is "owning sov".

And all of these "improvement structures" come in various sizes (the same as citadels). And this is the variable sov-defence - if you invest more you get bigger structures, more defence, if you invest less, you get less. And these can be attacked only with ship guns.

I am not talking about a return to the POS sov system. All structures in a system would be vulnerable, useful and in sizes ranging from small to XXL, and there would be no sov system as I said before. You install upgrades - you get better space, someone destroys them - you lose the upgrades. Why all this complication with "owning sov" and paying sov bills. To who? From a RP perspective this is strange. Maybe add a "flag" structure that has no role except displaying your flag near the system name.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2016-04-20 14:01:32 UTC
Oh, hey, cool. An other suggestion that heavily favours us and ruins everything for everyone smaller.

Stop. Posting. This. Tripe.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#3 - 2016-04-20 21:48:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Regardless of who it favors, there are a lot of people for whom having a tangible stamp of ownership is important. A place you own is your home. A place you just live without that is a space BnB.

Removing that removes a large portion of what people like to fight over. Defending your space is fun. Attacking other peoples space is fun. Of course, this requires there to be defined borders and ownership, to rally around a defense or as a focal point to assault.

Also I'm kind of confused as to what you are actually proposing. You propose doing away with sov, but then propose both structures that upgrade your space like an IHub, and a structure that sets your flag down across the system like a TCU. So you hold and upgrade your space through structures your enemy has to assault to take your space, but somehow this is radically different than the current arrangement?

Edit: There is plenty of lore behind the costs of sov bills. The short version is that Concord is the group that maintains the info and broadcasting networks for basically EVERYTHING. Things like who owns what system, who's in local, and little things like if you wake up after being podded. Your clones have killswitches in them that can be engaged by Concord. This is what happens when you do an illegal attack in highsec. Concord flips that switch and no warping, no jumping, etc.

So when Concord says "Please pay an administrative fee to be the registered owner of this territory, you pay it. Happily
Iain Cariaba
#4 - 2016-04-20 23:53:35 UTC
Goons lose sov in over 50 systems in the last week. Solution, remove sov, cause sov is bad now.

Makes sense.