Assembly Hall

Firstly - I'm hoping this is in the right section, if not i suppose F&I would be the next best place.

Secondly, I truly do appreciate any feedback, but please read the whole of the first 4 posts. This is from a brainstorm about 2 weeks ago that has grown since then, and I have edited it a few times based on input from the post linked just below. Thanks for your time!

Thirdly, for a similar idea, please read this post and give your feedback

Proposal: Sovereignty Re-Work

Issue: Current Sov Mechanics are based on arbitrary structures (TCU, SBU, Outpost and IHUB) as well as timer-based PvP. A good description of the current state of gaining and losing Sovereignty can be found here https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Sovereignty_guide. Its clear to see that this mechanism is a very simplistic way to look at sovereignty. Place structures, wait, pay ISK and get Sovereignty. Its also clear to see this system is arbitrary, clunky and is a great cause of the “blob.” If I need to defend a structure, I need to bring a big enough blob to out-shoot the bad-guy's blob. Not only that, but once/if I do beat the other guy's blob, I might need to spend hours repairing structures that have been damaged, which is quite honestly super boring. Not only that, but in order to actually blow up the other guy's structure, I MUST bring my own blob if i want it finished in less than 20 hours!

The idea of sovereignty, however is a fantastic driver of conflict in the Eve Universe. If I want to have an advantage over some other entity in null-sec, sovereignty is the way to do that. I can create better PvE content for my corp- and alliance-mates, I can create logistical short-cuts as well. But even the current state of sovereignty, with its levels of industry, military and surveillance seems arbitrary.

For example, if I have my guys mine enough ore, then I put up a structure, then pay enough ISK, I will magically create another, better place to mine ore. Then rinse and repeat to go up to my 5th level. Once there, I need not pay the initial fee again, and don't even need to maintain that activity level again. I might not see the biggest asteroid cluster until I do, but the arbitrary level is now set. I don't have to make an investment in the system again. Again, these are interesting ideas, but not quite satisfying.

Finally, the idea of a small entity (say 20-40 people in a single corporation) holding sovereignty in the current landscape of Eve is laughable. Not laughable because those 20+ characters don't have the skill or ability to take the sovereignty, but because its already gobbled up by the super-alliances and coalitions. The issue here is that the sovereignty was gotten with, quite simply, ISK and time, and the grind to take it is too hard for the small guy, or too time consuming for the large guy, or not worth the effort for everyone else. So, by default, the big guy gets the system sovereignty because he has the ISK and manpower to take it, and then doesn't have to put effort into keeping it. Once its taken, its taken. This is counter-intuitive to the risk/reward and diminishing returns paradigms that Eve Online holds to so strongly.

I am proposing an overhaul of current Sovereignty that is more fluid, has a better basis on player and corp and alliance activities as drivers of Sovereignty. I hope that this new mechanic will give rise to actual in-game mechanics to encourage small, medium, and large-sized fleets. That it will remove the dependence on structure-bashes, and add in new elements that include and expand upon the idea of PvP, PvE, and mobile structures. I also hope that it will truly make space-holding a task with its own pros and cons, creating an atmosphere of “take what I truly need” rather than “take what is there just because I can.”

Proposal:
The Tug-of-War idea of sovereignty seems to be a good idea here. However, a single dimension tug would be too simplistic. The “war” needs to be a war of activity. In simple terms, each activity that has a classification: mining, Ratting/Running anomalies, scanning/exploration, PvP, manufacturing (and other Industry activities), Planetary interaction; all need to be components of the tug-of-war. And the point of all of this tugging should be for Dominance, or control of the system. Each of these components should give the entity doing them control of information about the system.


The Tug-of-War should also be increasingly difficult to complete in order to 'level up.' In other words, if I want more dominance, or control of my system, I will need more corps/characters doing those activities that get me information. It is unreasonable to think that once structures are in place, that I should no longer need to put effort into keeping my sovereignty.

Next post -
The Break-down:

Structures for Dominance:
The structures for dominance need to be more numerous, and more diverse. They also should only be one of the indices that determine system ownership. They should also NOT require dreadnaughts to destroy (in some cases). These structures should encourage small to medium scale assaults in lower class systems, and encourage larger fleets in higher class systems. These structures are not absolutely necessary to complete most types of activities for the sov. group, however they serve to multiply points earned and can add to the available daily point pool of a system.

Each structure is suited for the different activities a group wants to partake of. A group can upgrade structure for higher quality opportunities, or place more of the structures to increase volume, or both as system class allows. For example, several “scanning structures" placed throughout the system should reveal the location of anomalies, asteroid clusters and the like. These structures, once anchored would need some type of fuel to maintain their ability to relay information to those in the alliance/corporation. As well, these structures should be only moderately well defended. This increases the total available daily points, and discrete number/types of opportunities players have to engage in. To earn these points, players/groups would need to accomplish the specific task (kill this rat, do this much research, gather this much material) or accomplish generic tasks with specific ship/fleet/fitting or under specific circumstances. To reiterate, task that require specific circumstances to gain points would only reward those points when completed correctly. The task could have alternate means to be completed, but would then not give full credit, or possibly no credit at all.

The structures then create targets of opportunity that have a real meaning for the system owners to defend. They should be only moderately difficult to replace, but then also only moderately difficult for the appropriate sized attacking force to overwhelm if undefended. Again, this means that a system owner needs participation from corps/allies in the system to defend the structure in order to maintain the point multiplier and opportunity generator.

As structure number and class improve, so too does the total available daily points for that activity improve. As well, this gives attackers more points to steal. For a quick example, lets say a class four structure generates 100 sites, each worth 10 Sov. Points once completed (1000 points total if fully used). For the attacker, this target structure would net, say, 800 negative points. So then, if the system owners fully utilize that array, they will offset the potential loss of points if it is destroyed. On the other hand, if the system cannot/does not support the full utilization of that array, then the attacking force could possibly net enough points to reduce the point pool. Depending on the total number of points available over a day, the activity of both the sovereign and attacking entities, and the length of the attack, dominance could shift rather quickly.

Structures should be not necessary for every activity, but should benefit all of them and be a requirement for a few. The list of discrete activities is exhaustive and I can't list it here. Suffice to says that system class should allow each of those activities to improve, but the placement of the appropriate structure should make that activity much more rewarding and facilitate more of that activity. The more diverse the structure base, the more diverse the activity base and the more individuals a single system can theoretically support, given that all of those individuals are active enough to maintain the necessary point total for a given sov level.


For the Attacker:

For the attacking party, sovereignty is trying to be taken from the system owner. Points earned by the attacking party work toward reducing or negating the dominance points earned by the system owners. PvP activities would be the primary means of the attacker earning points. However, as described earlier, the System level would dictate what types of engagements would net the most points. Structures for the attacker would expand these "rules of engagement" to a certain degree.

In other words, only specific targets/tactics would net points for the attacker, again based on system class and the structures the attackers have placed. In this case, if an attacking force truly is trying to take over a system of a specific class, the system owner (rightly so) would have a small say in dictating engagements. Again, this drives different scales of conflict. If the attacker is truly making a push for system sovereignty, the system owner MUST respond and maintain activity, otherwise they would face losing system class and dominance by lack of activity.

If the attacking force, on the other hand, was simply roaming for kills, then their engagements might not have any significant influence on the system point pool at all, especially if the fleet composition is not aligned with the system class, or if their attack is transient and point total averages toward nothing.


Next post -
Losing Sovereignty and a quick example, to hopefully help this make sense:

Sov. Level..........Multiplier...........Structure Level......Multiplier.........Total multiplier
1..........................1.5................................0.....................1..........................1.5
1..........................1.5................................1.....................1.25....................1.875
2..........................2...................................0.....................1..........................2
2..........................2...................................1.....................1.25....................2.5
2..........................2...................................2.....................1.5 ......................3
3..........................2.5................................0....................1..........................2.5
3..........................2.5................................1....................1.25....................3.125
3..........................2.5................................2....................1.5.......................3.75
3..........................2.5................................3....................1.75....................4.375
4..........................3...................................0....................1..........................3
4..........................3...................................1....................1.25.....................3.75
4..........................3...................................2....................1.5.......................4.5
4..........................3...................................3....................1.75.....................5.25
4..........................3...................................4....................2.......................... 6
5..........................3.5................................0....................1..........................3.5
5..........................3.5................................1....................1.25....................4.375
5..........................3.5................................2....................1.5.......................5.25
5..........................3.5................................3....................1.75....................6.125
5..........................3.5................................4....................2..........................7
5..........................3.5................................5....................2.25....................7.875

Note: recall the decreasing point accumulation for "low-class" activities. In such a case, point totals would not get a multiplier. For example, a class 3 activity in a class 4 system would only net the native point value, with no multiplier.


Furthermore, Sov level should definitely be based on the absolute value of system security, in that the lowest security systems should have need to accumulate more points than higher security systems. As an example:

B = base number of Sov Points needed to claim a system.
B = Absolute value of system security level x 1000

So a system with sec. of -1.0 would require 1000 points to claim sov., a -0.1 system would need 100 points.


and the following equation would describe how many points are needed to attain the next sov. level

Points req. for next level = B x ((10B)current sov. level^(current sov. level +1))

That equals:
10M SP to go from sov 1 to sov 2
80M for sov 2 to 3
810M for sov 3 to 4
and 102.4B (with a B) for sov 4 to 5

assuming a 6th sov level 1.563T (with a T) points would be needed

So the investment in higher sov systems would require a significant investment of time, players resources and logistics to accomplish. In other words, Activity will get you sovereignty, but you have to be willing/able to pay for it and defend it.

Another point to make here would be in regards to the number of structures that could be placed. In this scheme, there is no hard limit on the number of discrete deployable structures that are tied to point multipliers. Each individual could launch an independent structure to gain himself points. Corps could do the same to gain points for their members, and alliances as well. Each bigger structure would only yield better defenses on the structure and would cost an exponentially larger amount to produce and maintain, but not give any improved point multiplier. This gives opportunity for smaller scale attacks on less organized groups, and the opportunity for large scale attacks for larger groups.

Attacking structures will follow the same multiplication bonus (in other words, if the attack is worth 100 points, those points are multiplied by the sov*structure multiplier and subtracted from the point pool), This could allow for Guerilla tactics on the part of the attacker to steal points from the sov. holder.

In regards to Moon Mining:
In this scheme, a moon containing valuable materials can still be mined, however at different efficiencies based on mining structure (which would be based on system sov level). Any number of mining structures could be anchored to the moon in question, however, there would also be a PI-like effect diminishing returns if the density of miners becomes too high.

Finally, in regards to sovereignty needs in the current game: Super Capitals and Titans would still have a place in this scheme, only the production of these beasts would come at a much higher cost. The story-line can be written however one wants, but the mechanic would be that only a Level 5 system could possibly house all of the logistics and materials needed to build a Titan, and a level 4 system for a Supercarrier. Dreads would be level 3, carriers level 2, all other ships (including Capital industrials) would be level 1.

Thank you for reading, and please comment below!

Another bump, as the sov thread in F and I is still going strong. Thanks for the read

Prior to writing this thread, I had no idea how Faction Warfare Sov fights went. As I read through FW info, i realized how easy it would be to implement the same idea, just with different structures, timers, and multipliers.

Thanks for the read (all 5 pages of it!!!)

Yes, TL;DR - This is a sov based on you use it, or you lose it

The mechanic I've included in this scheme is that a larger group trying to take sov from the system owners have to play by the owners' rules. In this case, losing sov points (or gaining attacker points) can only occur if the attacker participates in activities that are based on the "Class" or sov level of the system. Sitting with 20 titans and 50 Super's blapping everything out of existence does not gain the attacker any points (or cause the sov holder to lose any points) unless the class of the system supports the owner's use of the same ships. In that case, you'd need the Titans/Supers in order to break the activities of the System owners.

You'll also have to remember, the attackers had to get their system sov to the level that they can make/use Supers and Titans. And if they've all run off to attack your system, then they are defenseless.

I'm sure that there are some intricacies that I haven't figured out, but at least thats the idea I'd like to see happen.

As far as pipes are concerned, if a group only takes "key" systems and leave empty space, they'll only have a small ability to upgrade the system they've taken. In this way, another group could push through the key system to take up residence in an adjacent system. This is actually a way to limit a different groups push to increase Class (sov level) because you need adjacent systems at a certain Class in order to upgrade the "main" system to a higher class

Thanks for the questions and the read!

True, but that can happen in any system even now. This Sov mechanic isn't designed to remove that particular war tactic, its designed to force system owners to use their system in order to own it, rather than the current "pay for it once and keep it forever" mechanic.



Also true. The point here is that if you WANT to have a small group, then you can expect to be able to grow to a certain amount (space-territory wise). If you want more territory, then you'll HAVE to form a bigger group in order to support the space that will then support you.

It doesn't bother me (personally) that Goons have figured out a way to run a 12k person coalition. It does bother me that they've gobbled up all the space in the game. I'm in favor of a mechanic that can scale up and support as many people in the system as are willing to work for it.

I think that's what needs to change though. For the little guys to stand a chance, there need to be some way to make it less worthwhile to troll them out of their space. It doesn't really matter if someone owns the space or it is unclaimed if one group can still push everyone else out of it. I think this change would lead to people clustering their activity, but still dominating large areas of space, especially since renters would still be feasible. A 30k coalition would have no troubles smashing out the activity to hold all the space they need at the same time as bullying people out of their space.

Do you think your idea would change that though? The coalitions could still gobble up the space. Realistically the idea needs to be adapted, so that there's no reason to bully people out of their space. Just off the top off my head, and by no means well thought out, but perhaps it could scale reward based on average regional levels as well (regardless of owner), and scale base on the average owner level. This way, it would encourage people to try to hold all of their space at a high activity level (preventing the "hold these system at a minimum level to stop others using it" issue), as well as encouraging multiple owners in the same region to allow each other to prosper. That said, it would likely just result in those groups being absorbed into the coalitions and creating even bigger blue doughnuts.

It's definitely a tough problem. I think force projection needs to be looked at at the same time as any sov change.

I mentioned in the 1st or 2nd post that the system level is based off of a 5-day rolling average of system points gained (by activity) compared to the max possible number of points that the system could support. The max number of points is determined by what level-dependent structures are placed that serve to increase the available content producing opportunities (either increasing the value of each opportunity, or the total number of opportunities).

System levels are lost/gained by passing certain thresholds of the points gained/points available ratio.

Quick example: (point values are theoretical...too early for math and cross referencing my other posts!!!)
System level 4, total available points: 2M
If the system dwellers gain 1.5M points on average for the 5 day rolling period they keep their sov level
If the system dwellers gain 1.8M points on average for the 5 day rolling period they are eligible to increase system level
If the system dwellers gain only 1M points on average for the 5 day rolling period, they lose a system level, and the structures that were placed that depend on the system level are offlined (the workers go on strike?).

New "downgraded" system:
System level 3, total available points (because structures were forced offline) is now 1.25M points.
If the dwellers can maintain their 1M points per day average, then they will keep level 3. If activity continues to decrease, then each new day would have a decreased activity/available ratio, causing either maintenance or loss of level.

Without doing some spreadsheet calculations, this would cause System level to drop (possibly) daily over the course of 5 to 10 days (depending on how steep the stop in activity is) until the system level is 0 and the system is back to neutral.

This also gives the defender the ability to resist an activity siege. As long as activity level is maintained to a necessary minimum, the system level won't decrease, or will require a bigger investment by the attacker to steal system points.

Hope this explains things a bit. Thanks for the bump!

Ced

Yes, that is possible, but to "hold these system at a minimum level to stop others using it" under the OP's idea, would require your members to participate in these activities in a lower class system, when they could be doing the same, with higher rewards in their home system.

Who is going to want to rat, or mine, or run a POS in enemy teritory just to slow their claim to sov? Not when they can make much more doing those activities at home.

Not to mention, spending time preventing smaller groups from claiming sov, takes time away from the activities needed to upgrade your own systems. This system th OP describes, your activity in you own systems is what keeps those systems at a level that suports your member base. If your members are off pesering other smaller groups, your home systems will suffer due to the drop in activity there.

What you say would be possible, but you would be hurting your own system, by not getting point their, while you are off preventing someone else from gaining points in their home system.

These smaller groups trying to claim systems you have not bothered with will generate a lot of smaller scale PVP, which is one thing current null sec is really lacking. even if they get stomped out, at least the targets will be there. As long as you do not stomp to hard, it would bring small scale PVP in large volumes, back to SOV null sec.