These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sovereignty: Use It or Lose It (continued)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Overs
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-09-07 11:32:56 UTC
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1571589

I started this thread in CSM, but this seems to be a better place for it.

Me wrote:
CCP said they wanted ideas about Sovereignty, or at least about null sec.

Why Sovereignty? Let me skip the history of POS spamming and how we got to where we are today. Basically Sovereignty was a system set into play to determine who controls a station or outpost.

CCP worked in a few perks like POS fuel economy, jump bridges, cyno generators and jammers, and super capital production. I think fuel economy is a nice perk but for the sake of this thread I'd like to ditch the sovereignty limitations on POS structures and instead have those structures influence Sovereignty.

In the current manifestation CCP developed a means by which occupied space could be improved. Conceptually I think this was a well received, but iHubs, TCUs, and SBUs feel forced and gimmicky - almost like capture the flag. I remember some of the first Sov fights were not fleet engagements, but who could shoot down the other guys structure first. This became an obstacle to a raw fleet fight, which CCP thought it would inspire. From hence forth I excommunicate any mention of sovereignty structures; any post harboring or in support of discussing such structures shall be met with chiding and ridicule.

Sov Indices provide some possibilities for expansion and reinterpretation. In general this idea attempts to base sov more on player activity than static structures. POS shooting will be involved, but hopefully not so much.

Industrial indices are based on all industrial activity. Volume of ore mined and refined, rarity of moon goo harvested, science and industry (including super cap production), and PI could all contribute and buffer the industrial index of a system. The Industrial Index should be the prime drive of Sovereignty.

Strategic Indices are based on jump bridges, cyno gens, and cyno jams and traffic (use of those structures). This should be a minor driver of sov. With the sov limitations removed from such structures, a hostile force could incap one of these structures and set up their own to challenge or reduce sov and facilitate their own logistics.

Military Indices. Instead of being based on how many rats players kill, it could be based on skirmish and fleet fight results. Major routes and victories should have a large influence. The data base exists for it, why not use it.

I'd also like to suggest the influence of market activity, but wether that should be it's own index or not? I do think it should have a significant impact on such a sov system.

High sov influences sov in surrounding systems.

As for "improving" space NPC Pirate Factions and Rogue Drones should be attracted to the surrounding space of high industrial activity, and perhaps shy away from war zones. The greater the industrial activity, the more weird stuff shows up on your borders.

When sov is won, a station simply capitulates to the management of the winning alliance holding corp.

Aside from implementation, there are a lot of loop holes in these ideas, but that's what criticism and ridicule is for.
Overs
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2 - 2011-09-07 11:38:59 UTC
these are the comments so far:

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
some parts yes, some parts no

i really enjoyed the idea of pirates showing up to encroach on your high-value systems, maybe make it so that as well as industrial, your alliance's standings come into play, if you have major-negative with amarr for example, you might see some amarr task forces attacking your ****, or the like, would eb interesting to see the established NPC SOV at least TRY to interact with the rest of SOV, as it is it seems NPC and player empires are separate from eachother entirely, compleetly different universes, and the NPC's shoudl at least try to "harass" systems near them of their "enemies", even if it is something as little as making their belts an ass to mine in, null-sec should get that what with ABC being moved to them and them only, they could use soemthing to add a little extra risk and put a spin on things.


Vhulheim Oct wrote:
This is by far the best idea I've seen to address this issue to date. It's not perfect but its a hellova start. It also adds credence to pirate factions taking interest in these systems and risk / reward increases as a result. This adds to the immersion of the game. Certainly a better system than having a module that "spawns" more pirates and more sanctums and such non-sense.

Suddenly ideas like the population of a station in 0.0 looking at the situation during a war and choosing sides with invaders if they see a potential partnership that places them in a more favorable position. Or if not a population, how about a despot?

Suddenly ideas start to flow. Work with this some more guys.


Andrew Gunn wrote:
This idea is far better than magic obelisks to claim space or magic upgrades to attract signatures, which I must admit was some improvement over POS spam sov.

I like the attempt in this idea to make SOV more of a result of player action and activity and less of a goal.

Hypothetically, in a system where two alliances are fighting over a system with jump bridges, cynosural generators, and cynosural jammers, there is the possibility of spam tactics. Basically as an alliance is losing, say a cynosural jammer, they could offline it and online one somewhere else in the system; sort of a wild goose chase defense. A time delay could be incorporated into these structures detrimental to whomever's structure is lost (becomes incapacitated) or off-lined, perhaps a ten minute timer. More consideration is required for situations involving multiple alliances, especially two coalitions of multiple alliances fighting over a system.

With one structure as the focus of contest, fleets have more impetus to meet ...with blob and lag the remaining concern.

As far as timezone considerations, it takes a fair amount of time anchor and set up a POS let alone organize an invasion. If an alliance doesn't notice a host of hostiles establishing control towers in their system, then they aren't using it and deserve to lose it.


Cyniac wrote:
(TL;DR - nice idea, but need to avoid farming for sov pitfalls)

I love the idea but...

How do you avoid the "flog me to death to get sov" syndrome?

Let me explain.

Alliance 1 wants sov over a system owned by Alliance 2 - so they get buddies in Corp 1 to deploy large fleet of disposable ships which they destroy in that system.

Alliance 1's sov index skyrockets. They gain sov. without even having to fight Alliance 2...

Yeah I know twisted. But then so are some players of EVE I know.


Overs wrote:
TL;DR addressing Cyniac's sov farming loop hole

Cyniac, interesting loop hole. If I understand your scenario correctly Corp 1 is not part of Alliance 2. I suppose if Alliance 2 holds sov, Alliance 2 has to receive the flogging to destabilize or lose it's sov. If Alliance 2 ships are not being destroyed and structures are not being incapacitated, should unaligned kills in system mean anything?

Aside from that, the continuous presence of Alliance 1 and Corp 1 should by itself contribute to destabilizing the Sov of Alliance 2 by deterring Alliance 2's use of the system, but should their presence alone be a factor itself? Could Alliance A blob Alliance B's system and eventually flip it? Why not? Gaining sov and keeping sov are two different tricks.

Your scenario also begs a few questions. What is Alliance 2's response to Alliance 1? How does Alliance 2 have sov established?

Let's say the minute Alliance 2 responds to the presence of Alliance 1 and Corp 1, Alliance 1 and Corp 1 leave or log off. What does that mean? Could that be interpreted as the route of Alliance 1 by Alliance 2? Let's say Alliance 1 engages Alliance 2 after accruing all those Corp 1 kills, but loses. Why not interpret either of those cases as Alliance 2 > Alliance 1 > Corp 1, basically nullifying Corp 1 kills' value to Alliance 1? If Alliance 1 defeats Alliance 2 what's the point of all the Corp 1 kills? If Corp 1 never engages Alliance 2 how could you compare Alliance 1 vs Corp 1 against Alliance 1 vs Alliance 2? Also I think Alliance 1 vs Corp 1 should have signs of being statistically useless, and there's always the petition.

If Alliance 1 and Alliance 2 are rarely online at the same time in mass, how should that resolve? Should it just balance out?

If Alliance 1 successfully blob flipped Alliance 2's system, what happens when Alliance 1 leaves? What Alliance 1 or 2 structures are left standing?
If a system is razed and deserted, it should return to sov zero.

What if Alliance 2 gets Alliance 3 to fight Alliance 1 and Alliance 3 is defeated but there is no game mechanic to associate Alliance 3's loss to Alliance 2's sov?
Overs
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2011-09-07 11:39:22 UTC
Overs wrote:
Giving an alliance the ability to online a cynosural jammer might make it easier for smaller alliances to claim space. It could mitigate the threat from getting hot dropped while establishing a foothold.


foksieloy wrote:
This seems rather interesting.

As for the conquering of the system i think it would be best if it was kept per alliance.

That means if you have 3 alliances defending a system owned by one of them, and 4 alliances are attacking it, kills or losses by the other 2 defending alliances do not count, also kills by the 4 attacking alliances are counted each for it self.

That would mean that alliances that actually bring ships can earn that space, not some filler pets.
Overs
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2011-09-09 14:12:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Overs
Sovereignty Index
TL;DR - Basic suggestion of mechanics that drive Sovereignty

As I mentioned before, the benefits of Sovereignty are the system station's allegiance, fuel economy, and attraction of NPC pirates and sites in surrounding systems.

I'm considering sovereignty as a skill for a system, instead of a character. Because CCP has a meme of 5 levels I'm going to suggest 5 levels of sovereignty and that sovereignty points have a similar diminishing utility as skills points when determining a system's sovereignty level. There should also be a base resistance to sovereignty, perhaps factored by the sovereignty level, such that the absence or shortage of activity weakens it. For example if an alliance decides to abandon a system with level 5 sovereignty, that system should decay into a level 0 system within 5 or so days: equilibrium.

I think CCP's Index system has interesting possibilities for re-interpretation. My suggestion is that theses indices be used to determine the rate at which sovereignty points accrue and limit it's achievable level. For example, a system, in which an alliance has developed an industrial index of 3, is limited to developing a sovereignty level of 3. Multiple indices should stack in a diminished manner like a system with two indices of level 3 should have a sovereignty limit of level 4.

The Sovereignty driving indices are:
1. Strategic - based on alliance logistics like jump bridges, Cyno generators and jammers, and perhaps corporate hanger arrays and ship maintenance arrays

2. Industry - based on all things mining, science, and industry

3. Market - based on market activity in such a manner to allow for marketeering to drive or collapse the index

4. Military - based on pvp instead of pve.

Most of the posts in the old forums focused on the pitfalls of the Military Index. I think the Market Index is perhaps as complicated if not more complicated to figure out, and neither might be feasible.

A scheme for a Strategic Index is I think the most simple and barring suggestions and trolls I'll suggest some details on it in a later post.
Overs
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-09-22 14:20:13 UTC
Strategic Index:

Strategic Index is a basic index that generates sovereignty points which drives Sovereignty. The scheme I'm proposing is based on the idea of an alliance training a system like a character trains a skill; I use it simply to illustrate the idea. In this scheme I'm also suggesting some buffer because I suggest index limits on structures. Also each index level has a per hour equilibrium pressure.

Index point system: 250/1,414/8,000/45,255/256,000
Index point buffer: 250/1,414/8,000/45,255/256,000
Level 0 equilibrium: -5/-16/-69/-310/-1,250 (per hour)

Each strategic structure has a limit as to what level of strategic index it can provide. Usage is also considered: an empty CHA or SMA should count for nothing, but I'm not so sure about how to calibrate the difference between a depot and an actively used POS.

Corporate Hanger Array: level 1 limit
1. 5 points per hour
2. Only 1 CHA per alliance is considered
3. usage
a. items stored
b. number of players active

Ship Maintenance Array: level 1 limit
1. 5 points per hour
2. only 1 SMA per alliance is considered
3. usage
a. ships stored/boarded
b. number of players active

Jump Bridge: level 1 limit per bridge
1. 25 points per hour (while online)
2. * limit 2 anchored per system
3. usage
a. fuel consumption
b. player traffic

Cynosural Generator: level 2 limit
1. 50 points per hour (while online)
2. * limit 1 anchored per system
3. usage (1x)
a. number of jumps to generator

Cynosural Jammer: level 3 limit
1. 100 points per hour (while online)
2. * limit 1 anchored per system
3. 24 hour reinforcement timer to mitigate time zone factors

* Incapacitated structures are not considered anchored. Once these structures are healed, they immediately un-anchor, to prevent spamming.

Hostile structures contribute to equilibrium until level 0 is reached, then those structures begin to accrue index value for that alliance.

The Strategic Index provides points that accrue to provide sovereignty, in the same manner that these structures provide points for the strategic index.

Strategic Index: sovereignty points
level 1: 5
level 2: 25
level 3: 125
level 4: 625
level 5: 3,125
CaileanOCT
Kessel Moria Syndicate
#6 - 2011-09-30 13:03:03 UTC
I like the ideas here. They need more refining, but it’s a start. I think another thing that needs to be looked at is an actual hard capping of the allowable amount of systems alliances are able to hold sov in.

But the question remains, how will the Devs prevent the creation of alt alliances or installation of pets to bypass any kind of mechanic put in place? There needs to be some kind incentive to break up the Super Cap blob napfest that has overtaken 0.0. There needs to be a reason to keep things splintered; otherwise we’ll continue seeing the massive alliances farming moons, rats, & production without fighting.

I think the usage factors that are mentioned are a good start, but it’s still missing something. I’ve thought about it quite a bit, but the answer still escapes me. It has to be legitimate enough to be real, but hard to exploit. Only other option is a hard-line stance against certain things by CCP, but then CCP would be taking away the “player’s choice” in a player driven game . . .