These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Change the null sov system
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2012-06-04 07:12:52 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Call me crazy, but if the time you are willing to spend on traveling is shorter than the time it takes you to reach the border of the territory you and your friends control; you have too many blues.

Reset some!

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our way of playing. We'll take it into consideration.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#82 - 2012-06-04 07:14:16 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Maybe make ownership based on # of kills in the system? Whoever has the most kills in the past, say, week, holds sov?

What if 90% of said kills are allies popping each other's pods?

Player VS Pod.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2012-06-04 07:34:50 UTC
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
That would be hilarious, but remember IRC does red pen CTAs for small roaming gangs in their spaceLol


Don't you mean ~LEVEL 5 CTA~ with all corps set to 100% tax and all that noise

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#84 - 2012-06-04 08:00:50 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Maybe make ownership based on # of kills in the system? Whoever has the most kills in the past, say, week, holds sov?


What if 90% of said kills are allies popping each other's pods?

Nothing? The kills and losses would balance out. Think highest isk eff. but using just # of kills.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#85 - 2012-06-04 08:06:04 UTC
Rex Thompson wrote:
I like the way you put it there. But inside that city, I do own my lot with my house on it, and its mine. I live in my city because I like it here. But I do own something and when there is people that want to steal my stuff I defend it.
I think it would be more fun in eve that people get to own the system and call it home, not a station where you park your stuff in.

and when the city decides they don't want you there anymroe? what do they do? they kick you out and build a highway that they will then neglect for 40 eyars until it falls down.


there is no reason that 6 people should be able to hole off thousands, period, SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT FOR SMALL GROUPS, face it, your tlaking about owning an EMPIRE, even if it is only 1 system, Sovereignty means you own space, and i guarantee if china decided to invade, lets say, kuwait, vietnam, korea, the philippines, heck, even all of them at once, there are enough chinese that those other countries couldn't do much to stop them.



there is always a point where ability/strength cannot trump numbers, since numbers increase power exponentially in any situation.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2012-06-04 08:16:18 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Where does this sense of entitlement come from, that 6 guys should be able to take and hold there own system?


Fair question. So how many friends do you think it should take to own a system? You know so it doesn't come off sounding like a sense of entitlement.

Enough to defend it from attack?

You are aware that the 300 still lost, even tho they were peerless warriors, each of whom was worth many of his opponents, while holding a perfect defensive position, right?

if your referencing teh spartans, then it was more then 300, adn they brought a couple thousand friends too.

persians just brought more.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2012-06-04 08:18:49 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Maybe make ownership based on # of kills in the system? Whoever has the most kills in the past, say, week, holds sov?


What if 90% of said kills are allies popping each other's pods?

or one side is winning economically/militarily, but is losing the KB board because they live off rifter swarms.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#88 - 2012-06-04 08:19:50 UTC
The feature you are talking about was covered at fanfest, when they said they want to make POSes into something owned by players, instead of corps, and that they want them to be our space houses that everyone aspires to own.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#89 - 2012-06-04 08:21:28 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Where does this sense of entitlement come from, that 6 guys should be able to take and hold there own system?


Fair question. So how many friends do you think it should take to own a system? You know so it doesn't come off sounding like a sense of entitlement.

Enough to defend it from attack?

You are aware that the 300 still lost, even tho they were peerless warriors, each of whom was worth many of his opponents, while holding a perfect defensive position, right?

if your referencing teh spartans, then it was more then 300, adn they brought a couple thousand friends too.

persians just brought more.

History still refers to them as the 300 now, thanks to Frank Miller ;)

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Sir Asterix
Doomheim
#90 - 2012-06-04 08:44:50 UTC
The problem is not sov or the mechanics governing it. The problem is large alliances will claim sov only in the systems they need it but assume control over a much larger area of space. The only way in my mind to make alliance space contract is to make logistics in eve more difficult so it no longer becomes worth defending systems over a certain distance away. Unfortunately eve is moving in the opposite direction and making travel a lot easier.
Kyle Myr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2012-06-04 18:51:28 UTC
Sir Asterix wrote:
The problem is not sov or the mechanics governing it. The problem is large alliances will claim sov only in the systems they need it but assume control over a much larger area of space. The only way in my mind to make alliance space contract is to make logistics in eve more difficult so it no longer becomes worth defending systems over a certain distance away. Unfortunately eve is moving in the opposite direction and making travel a lot easier.


Did you miss the part where jump bridges were changed to 1 per system last year? Have you ever actually maintained a JB network? Admittedly, corp BMs are the best buff to Jump Bridges, historically, ever, but that's more just saving a lot of people a lot of effort, and making it really easy for any spy to steal intel on such things.

To address the OP's question, have you ever thought about towering a moon? That's the sort of thing a single player can own (albeit with a vanity corp) and you can do it yourself in high sec or low sec. Provided you go through the effort to properly fit it, maintain it, and fuel it, you get something in space that is 'yours'. WIth the many thousands of moons in EVE, surely you could find one to tower by evicting its dead current residents. I've even found open low sec moons in my scouting patrols. Sure, these aren't necessarily the most convenient of locations, and moon mining minerals that cover more than the cost of your tower fuel is pretty unlikely unless you want to fight someone organized, but just towering a moon in some odd system is far from impossible even for small corps.

Sov, and its perks, are designed around requiring large numbers of players to benefit from, and maintain control over. Smaller organizations have plenty options open, whether it be banding together and organizing, Working NPC space, working Wormholes, or even just towering low sec or something.