These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] NULLSEC UNLEASHED! - A Proposed Revamp of 0.0 Space
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#1 - 2013-01-21 22:54:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Aridicles
PHASE ONE

The aim of Phase One is to modify Sovereignty mechanics to induce Alliances to claim Sov over fewer systems and increase the level of activity in these systems. Maintaining and increasing Sov Level will require high levels of activity within the system which can be disrupted by hostile gangs with the potential to erode Sov Levels and make the system vulnerable. Two new game features are introduced: Military Control and System Influence.

1 - Military Control
This introduces Factional Warfare style system control mechanics to Nullsec. The aim is to make gaining Sov easy but maintaining and extending Sov difficult and dependent on Player Activity within the Sov System.

1.1. In each system with Alliance Sovereignty Pirate Faction Complexes will spawn during downtime each day. These sites need to be scanned down and when their Acceleration Gate is approached within 10km they will be flagged as DISCOVERED and visible to anyone on the Overview.

1.2 Pirate Faction Complexes can only be accessed by certain ship types based on the Complex type as per Factional Warfare mechanics.

1.3 Initially the Acceleration Gate can only be activated by members of the Sov Holding Alliance. Once activated for the first time the Complex is set to ACTIVATED and this status is visible to anyone in the Overview (flagged differently to Discovered status sites). Once activated anyone can access the site in accordance to ship type restrictions.

1.4 The site must be controlled within 1 hour of activation otherwise it reverts to a status of PIRATE CONTROLLED. This is an end state. The site will be removed at downtime and degrade the system's Military Control level at that time.

1.5 If the Sov Holding Alliance controls the site, by destroying all NPCs present and orbiting the control button within 10kms for 10 minutes, the site is set to ALLIANCE CONTROLLED status. This is an end state. The site will be removed at downtime and will increase the Military Control level at that time.

1.6 If the site is controlled by Players not in the Sov Holding Alliance the site is set to HOSTILE CONTROLLED status. This is an end state. The site will be removed at downtime and degrade the system's Military Control level at that time.

1.7 Military Control is graded from 0.00 (lowest) to 5.00 (highest). When Sov is first gained Military Control is set to 3.00.

1.8 Military Control will persist and change each downtime as a result of the number or PIRATE/HOSTILE CONTROLLED and ALLIANCE CONTROLLED Complexes. If all Complexes are PIRATE/HOSTILE CONTROLLED at downtime the Military Control Level will fall by 1 point. If all Complexes are ALLIANCE CONTROLLED the Military Control Level with increase by 1 point. Where there is split control this will be applied proportionately.

1.9 A system's Effective Sov Level (which counts for Bonuses and the System Upgrades that can be installed) is the lower of the Strategic Level (based on days occupancy as per current mechanics) and the Military Control level. Hence where Military Control levels fall below the Strategic Level any System Upgrades depending on that level will be offlined (Jump Bridges, Cyno Generators, Cyno Jammers). Also Bonuses from System Upgrades will operate at the lower Effective Sov Level. Note: Upgrades that have been offlined will still count towards Sov Costs.

1.10 Once a TCU is onlined the system is invulnerable to attack until the Military Control level falls below 2.00. Above this level SBUs cannot be anchored or onlined.

1.11 If Military Control falls below Level 1.00 and this is sustained for 7 days the systems Infrastructure Hub and Outpost (if present) will immediately become vulnerable and will stay vulnerable until Military Control is raised to Level 2.00 or higher.


2 - System Influence
A new concept of System Influence will be introduced. The purpose of this feature is to allow Sov Systems to project influence to surrounding systems which provide Sov-like benefits without the need to maintain Sov in the Influenced systems.

2.1 Every System with Sovereignty will extend System Influence to nearby systems. The strength of the System Influence will depend on the Effective Sov Level of the System (the lower of the Strategic Level and Military Control Level).

2.2 System Influence will have the same strength as the Sov System's Effective Sov Level in all adjacent systems (via Stargates) and decrease by 1 point for each subsequent jump. For Example a Sov Level 1 system will have Influence Strength 1 in all adjoining systems and a Sov Level 3 system will have Influence Strength 3 in adjoining systems, Strength 2 in all systems 2 jumps away and Strength 1 in all systems 3 jumps away.

2.3 Where two or more Alliances have overlapping System Influence the Alliance with the higher Influence level will have influence for that day. When Influence levels are the same the Alliance with the higher Military Control Level in their Sov System will be deemed to have Influence.

2.4 An Alliance that holds Influence over a system will receive the same Bonuses in the Influenced system(s) as received in the Sov System e.g. POS Fuel discount, Moon Mining, PI and Mining yields.

2.5 PI can only be installed in a system with Alliance Sov or Influence. If Influence is lost the PI yield will be reduced to zero (offlined). Where Influence has been lost for more than 7 days all Alliance PI infrastructure will be destroyed.
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#2 - 2013-01-21 22:56:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Aridicles
cont'd

3 - Outposts
To compensate for the reduced number of systems likely to be held by Alliances the following changes will be made to Outposts:

3.1 Outpost Manufacturing and Research Slots will be increased by a factor of 4.

3.2 Outposts will be able to be repackaged to facilitate their storage and relocation. This is possible at Sov Level 5.

3.3 Outposts can be self-destructed with a 7 day timer. During the 7 day self-destruct cycle all Outpost services are disabled and anyone can access the Outpost to facilitate retrieval of items. This is possible at Sov Level 3. If destroyed an Outpost leaves an Invulnerable Core in place that contains any items held within the Outpost at the time of destruction. If a new Outpost is built in the same system as a Core any items held within the Core will be accessible by their original owners in the new Outpost (depending on Outpost access settings) and the Core will self-destruct.


4 - Sov Costs
4.1 The cost of maintaining Sovereignty will be increased in Phase One to reflect the likely fewer number of Sov Systems held by an alliance (by a factor of 5). Cost will be split between an ISK cost and a Fuel cost in the same manner as POS e.g. POS Fuel, PI Manufactures etc.

4.2 Fuel will be required by the system's Infrastructure Hub. This transition will help ensure Sov is maintained by Local Activity rather than just ISK which can be transmitted across the Universe instantly.

5 - Force Projection
To limit the ability of Alliances to project force over large distances, in order to promote smaller local wars, Jump Drive capable ships will be changed as follows:

5.1 Normal jumps to a cyno will require a 30 minute cool-down before the Jump Drive can be used again.

5.2 Jumping from a Cyno Generator will be introduced as a new feature (approach Cyno Generator, right-click Cyno Generator and select jump to XXX). Jumping from a Cyno Generator to either a cyno or another Cyno Generator does not require a 30 minute cool-down.

5.3 Jump Bridges will be permitted for Alliance members use only and not usable by Dreads/Supers/Titans.

The intent of this change is to force Dreads base from systems with Cyno Generator, making their placement a strategic decision. The cool-down will limit their use in battle but will not prevent transit across large distances for migrations.
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#3 - 2013-01-21 22:56:48 UTC
cont'd

PHASE TWO

This phase will involve a general boost to Industry in Nullsec enabling Nullsec Alliance to be self supporting and at the same time create barriers to high-volume trade between Nullsec and Empire

6 - Industry Boost
6.1 New system upgrades will be available that greatly boost the yield of Moon Mining, PI, Asteroid Mining and Ice Mining.
PI Booster - Boosts all PI yields and processing times e.g. by 20% x Effective Sov Level
Moon Mining Booster - Boosts Moon Mining Yield e.g. by 20% x Effective Sov Level
Ice Mining Booster - Boosts Ice Mining Yield e.g. by 20% x Sov Level
System Scan Array - Uncovers scannable Mining sites containing rich ores (quantity and quality graded by Effective Sov Level)

6.2 Outpost Manufacturing and Research Slots will be increased in number and have increased efficiency and speed.

6.3 If CCP agree to a POS Revamp industry could be moved from Outposts to POS with the same bonuses but this can be done as part of a separate initiative.


7 - Logistics
To encourage Industry to move to Nullsec, prevent the importation of high-volume/low-value goods from Empire and also hinder Nullsec Alliances from dumping lower cost goods in Empire the following changes will be made:

7.1 Jump Freighters will lose the ability to initiate jumps from High Security and Low Security Systems.

7.2 Steps can be taken to foster trade within Nullsec and between Nullsec and Empire of high-value/low-volume goods using Blockade Runners. This needs to be developed further but examples such as booster production and expedited BPO research already exist.


8 - Sov Costs
8.1 The cost of maintaining Sovereignty will be further increased in Phase Two as a result of the Industry Boost. Cost will be split between a reduced ISK cost and an increased Fuel cost.

PHASE THREE

This would involve implementation of the 'Farms and Fields' concept widely discussed elsewhere. In summary this involves increasing the number of Industrial Structures and Industrial Activities that can be disrupted by small gangs. This will create increased opportunities to disrupt Alliances and generate opportunities for PVP as Alliances defend their space.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-01-22 00:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
This idea starts with control of ones space being based upon something that (if I read it right) could spawn at any time, in any timezone, which those attempting to own space have no control over whatsoever. That alone makes it pretty awful, and the fact that it gets close to a few good ideas does nothing to redeem it.

You get points for putting in the effort to try to build a complete system though.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#5 - 2013-01-22 00:50:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Aridicles
mynnna wrote:
This idea starts with control of ones space being based upon something that (if I read it right) could spawn at any time, in any timezone, which those attempting to own space have no control over whatsoever. That alone makes it pretty awful, and the fact that it gets close to a few good ideas does nothing to redeem it.

You get points for putting in the effort to try to build a complete system though.


A good point. Fixed that. Now the sites would ALL spawn during downtime. They can be activated only my Sov Alliance members so they have complete control over when during the day the sites would be opened to be contested.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-01-22 02:16:58 UTC
That's great. It's still a poor idea, in my opinion. I do not think some involvement of structures should ever go away for a formalized sovereignty-based ownership system (though other styles of living in or using space can coexist, such as the concepts Susan Black describes here). However, I do think that use of space should play a role. However, I'd prefer to see the overall level of sovereignty affected and boosted directly via actual use. The general idea along those lines I've been thinking about is to first make sovereignty far more granular, far more finely divided than five levels. Then, feed the existing two indices (military and industrial) into it in some way, fine-tuning them as necessary (currently high military is easy to maintain, high industry is hard.) Perhaps new indices could be developed as well, all based on disruptable player activity.

Sovereignty now is governed to some degree by usage - no longer do you just claim a system and eventually tick up to maximum level, and indeed the level of sovereignty achieved passively would be heavily limited. For example, if this new system were on a 1-100 scale, the highest you could achieve by taking control of a system and then not using it would be 20, for example. Below 20 there would be few defensive benefits available, if any. Reinforcement timers on structures would be highly randomized, or perhaps present in 24h increments (so if your attacker hits it in their prime, it comes back out in their prime). The structures themselves could even have a reduction in HP. However, if you start to make use of the system, it becomes more defensible. HP gets higher, you get finer and finer control over reinforcement timers, defensive structures (eg cyno jammers) become available, etc.

The goal then is that the defensibility of your sovereign space is tied to but not completely reliant on how much you use the space, and more importantly is tied to usage in a variety of ways (mining, ratting, production [especially if it moved to crunchy modular pos in the far future], how much PI your members do, etc), rather than being tied to "usage" by a single (or several) glorified FW complexes. Contesting or weakening a defender's control over their space can then start by targeting their myriad forms of carebearing, though a sufficiently powerful invader could simply go straight for the throat.

Obviously it's not a fully thought out idea and I'm sure there are quirks that haven't occurred to me that would need be addressed. Blink

I absolutely disagree with the idea of crippling the ability for trade to flow between high and null, however. I also acknowledge that CCP has made noises about limiting force projection, but don't really like your proposal for doing it.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#7 - 2013-01-22 03:18:15 UTC
mynnna wrote:
That's great. It's still a poor idea, in my opinion. I do not think some involvement of structures should ever go away for a formalized sovereignty-based ownership system (though other styles of living in or using space can coexist, such as the concepts Susan Black describes here). However, I do think that use of space should play a role. However, I'd prefer to see the overall level of sovereignty affected and boosted directly via actual use. The general idea along those lines I've been thinking about is to first make sovereignty far more granular, far more finely divided than five levels. Then, feed the existing two indices (military and industrial) into it in some way, fine-tuning them as necessary (currently high military is easy to maintain, high industry is hard.) Perhaps new indices could be developed as well, all based on disruptable player activity.

Sovereignty now is governed to some degree by usage - no longer do you just claim a system and eventually tick up to maximum level, and indeed the level of sovereignty achieved passively would be heavily limited. For example, if this new system were on a 1-100 scale, the highest you could achieve by taking control of a system and then not using it would be 20, for example. Below 20 there would be few defensive benefits available, if any. Reinforcement timers on structures would be highly randomized, or perhaps present in 24h increments (so if your attacker hits it in their prime, it comes back out in their prime). The structures themselves could even have a reduction in HP. However, if you start to make use of the system, it becomes more defensible. HP gets higher, you get finer and finer control over reinforcement timers, defensive structures (eg cyno jammers) become available, etc.

The goal then is that the defensibility of your sovereign space is tied to but not completely reliant on how much you use the space, and more importantly is tied to usage in a variety of ways (mining, ratting, production [especially if it moved to crunchy modular pos in the far future], how much PI your members do, etc), rather than being tied to "usage" by a single (or several) glorified FW complexes. Contesting or weakening a defender's control over their space can then start by targeting their myriad forms of carebearing, though a sufficiently powerful invader could simply go straight for the throat.

Obviously it's not a fully thought out idea and I'm sure there are quirks that haven't occurred to me that would need be addressed. Blink

I absolutely disagree with the idea of crippling the ability for trade to flow between high and null, however. I also acknowledge that CCP has made noises about limiting force projection, but don't really like your proposal for doing it.


I'd be interested to hear your reasons why trade flow between Nullsec and Empire for high-volume/low-value goods (e.g. tritanium etc) should be preserved. If Nullsec is to have self-supporting industry this link must be severed for goods transported in Freighters/Jump Freighters. Otherwise buffing Nullsec industry will just reverse the flow of these goods. Trade in low-volume/high-value goods can continue via Blockade Runners and this should be encouraged.

If a Nullsec Alliance is forced to develop local industry to build ships, ammo, installations and fuel then there is no need for an artificial Industry Index to encourage this activity.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the broad approach to Sov. I think this should depend purely on military force, with all other activities implied by the need to build and maintain this.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-01-22 03:44:11 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Aridicles wrote:
I'd be interested to hear your reasons why trade flow between Nullsec and Empire for high-volume/low-value goods (e.g. tritanium etc) should be preserved. If Nullsec is to have self-supporting industry this link must be severed for goods transported in Freighters/Jump Freighters. Otherwise buffing Nullsec industry will just reverse the flow of these goods. Trade in low-volume/high-value goods can continue via Blockade Runners and this should be encouraged.

If an alliance has both the interested producers and the interested miners, they'll develop local industry. If they have one or the other, perhaps they continue to import finished goods or export the minerals or both. They should not, however, be forced to do anything, nor should any such mechanisms to force them to have self-supporting local industry be required if the entire system is appropriately balanced. In other words, if an entity wishes to live as a martial band, holding a small pocket of space that they supply from Empire as a base to burn and pillage their neighbors, they should be allowed to.

Aridicles wrote:
If a Nullsec Alliance is forced to develop local industry to build ships, ammo, installations and fuel then there is no need for an artificial Industry Index to encourage this activity.

The point of such an index would not be to encourage such activity, but reward it, to give an additional or alternative route to improving their control over a system. Perhaps a system has poor ratting and mining potential, but has a great setup for POS based production.

Aridicles wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on the broad approach to Sov. I think this should depend purely on military force, with all other activities implied by the need to build and maintain this.

At the end of the day taking and holding sovereignty in the system I described comes down to military force. I do not think holding sov should depend purely on military force. If an alliance is industry and mining oriented and is able to overcome the need for military force through either careful diplomacy or the use of mercenaries, that's awesome - they should be allowed to.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#9 - 2013-01-22 07:53:19 UTC
Aridicles wrote:
mynnna wrote:
That's great. It's still a poor idea, in my opinion. I do not think some involvement of structures should ever go away for a formalized sovereignty-based ownership system (though other styles of living in or using space can coexist, such as the concepts Susan Black describes here). However, I do think that use of space should play a role. However, I'd prefer to see the overall level of sovereignty affected and boosted directly via actual use. The general idea along those lines I've been thinking about is to first make sovereignty far more granular, far more finely divided than five levels. Then, feed the existing two indices (military and industrial) into it in some way, fine-tuning them as necessary (currently high military is easy to maintain, high industry is hard.) Perhaps new indices could be developed as well, all based on disruptable player activity.

Sovereignty now is governed to some degree by usage - no longer do you just claim a system and eventually tick up to maximum level, and indeed the level of sovereignty achieved passively would be heavily limited. For example, if this new system were on a 1-100 scale, the highest you could achieve by taking control of a system and then not using it would be 20, for example. Below 20 there would be few defensive benefits available, if any. Reinforcement timers on structures would be highly randomized, or perhaps present in 24h increments (so if your attacker hits it in their prime, it comes back out in their prime). The structures themselves could even have a reduction in HP. However, if you start to make use of the system, it becomes more defensible. HP gets higher, you get finer and finer control over reinforcement timers, defensive structures (eg cyno jammers) become available, etc.

The goal then is that the defensibility of your sovereign space is tied to but not completely reliant on how much you use the space, and more importantly is tied to usage in a variety of ways (mining, ratting, production [especially if it moved to crunchy modular pos in the far future], how much PI your members do, etc), rather than being tied to "usage" by a single (or several) glorified FW complexes. Contesting or weakening a defender's control over their space can then start by targeting their myriad forms of carebearing, though a sufficiently powerful invader could simply go straight for the throat.

Obviously it's not a fully thought out idea and I'm sure there are quirks that haven't occurred to me that would need be addressed. Blink

I absolutely disagree with the idea of crippling the ability for trade to flow between high and null, however. I also acknowledge that CCP has made noises about limiting force projection, but don't really like your proposal for doing it.


I'd be interested to hear your reasons why trade flow between Nullsec and Empire for high-volume/low-value goods (e.g. tritanium etc) should be preserved. If Nullsec is to have self-supporting industry this link must be severed for goods transported in Freighters/Jump Freighters. Otherwise buffing Nullsec industry will just reverse the flow of these goods. Trade in low-volume/high-value goods can continue via Blockade Runners and this should be encouraged.

If a Nullsec Alliance is forced to develop local industry to build ships, ammo, installations and fuel then there is no need for an artificial Industry Index to encourage this activity.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the broad approach to Sov. I think this should depend purely on military force, with all other activities implied by the need to build and maintain this.


Let's see the changes required to make it even possible (never mind actually being preferrable) for an alliance to support itself out of its own space before we start talking about choking off links.

You may wish to recall that not all alliances come with a fully fledged industrial wing, and that these take time to develop. Also that not all 0.0 space holds all resources - most of Drone space is cripplingly short of Mexallon, for instance, and good luck supplying your ship building industry with that from Blockade Runners.

And finally, as Mynnna say, whilst it's certainly reasonable to rebalance the advantages of a gameplay style or economic strategy, it's not so reasonable to force them. If nothing else, it will take time to change the vector of the cultural momentum that 0.0 has built up and simply trying to enforce that by fiat will just cause huge resentment.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#10 - 2013-01-23 21:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Aridicles
mynnna wrote:
If an alliance has both the interested producers and the interested miners, they'll develop local industry. If they have one or the other, perhaps they continue to import finished goods or export the minerals or both. They should not, however, be forced to do anything, nor should any such mechanisms to force them to have self-supporting local industry be required if the entire system is appropriately balanced. In other words, if an entity wishes to live as a martial band, holding a small pocket of space that they supply from Empire as a base to burn and pillage their neighbors, they should be allowed to.

I agree with your point. Ideally both playstyles should be possible. If Deep Nullsec receives a greater Industry buff than Nullsec adjoining Lowsec/Empire then those Alliances that wish to develop industrial self-sufficiency will gravitate to Deep Nullsec and those that wish to keep their umbilical cord to Empire will stay close to Lowsec/Empire. The key is getting the balance right to ensure industry is viable in both Nullsec and Empire.

mynnna wrote:
Aridicles wrote:
If a Nullsec Alliance is forced to develop local industry to build ships, ammo, installations and fuel then there is no need for an artificial Industry Index to encourage this activity.

The point of such an index would not be to encourage such activity, but reward it, to give an additional or alternative route to improving their control over a system. Perhaps a system has poor ratting and mining potential, but has a great setup for POS based production.

As long as Nullsec industry is desirable as a means of producing the material required for a Nullsec Alliance then incorporating some sort of bonus to Sov from an Industry Level can fit within my proposal. Perhaps higher Industry Levels can reduce the strength of the NPCs occupying the Pirate Faction Complexes or have an effect on System Influence, so for example where two Alliances have the same System Influence Level in an Influenced system the Alliance with the higher Military Control and Industry Level gain Influence over the system.

mynnna wrote:
At the end of the day taking and holding sovereignty in the system I described comes down to military force. I do not think holding sov should depend purely on military force. If an alliance is industry and mining oriented and is able to overcome the need for military force through either careful diplomacy or the use of mercenaries, that's awesome - they should be allowed to.

In this example diplomacy means depending on somebody else's military force, and mercenaries even more explicitly. Either strategy is perfectly viable under my proposal. In fact Corporations and Alliances with strong industry will be even more valued under my proposal as their capabilities will be greatly needed. They will be the new 'Tech Moons'.