Assembly Hall

While it is well understood that highsec sovereignty is notionally held by the Empires, practical control is often held by other entities. This is similar to RL where a particular "hood" might technically fall under a city municipality, but local power is practically concentrated in a gang, family, club or social network.

Sovereign Nullsec and Lowsec Faction Warfare zones already have mechanics for recognising this. It's time for highsec to join in.

I propose that highsec constellations and/or regions display some indicator of the alliance that wields control there, be that through monthly player kill numbers, player kill values or some other meaningful measure of force projection. This need not convey any game mechanic benefits to the controlling alliance, although the designers may wish to consider that. Even just the status of practical ownership would drive emergent content for everyone, and limiting it to player alliances would help drive players out of NPC corps.

I feel this would be very useful, as CODE and the New Order of Highsec are regularly subjected to complaints about our not holding sov in highsec, when we do hold it for all practical purposes. It causes a lot of confusion, and could be fairly simply rectified.

Thank you!

First, lets NOT call it power projection. Power projection is a different thing than System control.

Next, having a highsec "influence" map to identify the most influential corps within a highsec system sounds pretty awesome, but I'm not sure the best manner to measure this. It could be kills in a system. The corp with the most kills... However, this is only one of the measures of system activity and dominance. We could measure industry in system, or mining, or missioning, or market volume, or ...

you only want it to be pvp shooting ships related cause you would be butthurt otherwise when your alliance didn't have there name anywhere. If its based off anything it should be market pvp lots more of that happens then ship pvp

This is a serious thread ma'am, please don't bring your barely literate trolling here. Nobody could seriously believe that "market pvp" could be a measure of player control.

Because it does, its providing market material. an activity countered by PvPing, if you dont want their dominance, PvP more then they mine or just plain kill them. Why should highsec only cater to pvp play styles for recognition? low and nullsec doesnt, low rewards semi-afk farmers and null rewards people willing to pay for space.

I think you need a measure of the "different" activities in each area.

The prominent missioning corp in Osmon may have a direct influence on the value of Sister's LP.
The prominent mining corp in constellation xyz may have a direct influence on the value and availability of ores in the area.
The prominent PvP'ers in Aufah may have a direct influence on freighter services through the system.
The prominent industrialists in Itamo may have a direct influence on the S&I Lines available, or, in the next release, the "teams" available within system.

Now, you could say it doesn't matter influence, that control is something different. Blowing up a freighter that enters Aufay prevents the freighter from freighting. Perhaps mining all the roids in a system prevents another player from mining in that system, but that's not direct interference.

My counter to this is, I don't care about control as much as I care about influence. That's because your control is very limited, so much so that I can still mine in CODE Ice belts, I can successfully send a freighter through Aufay, and more. You don't control **** in highsec, but only yield various degrees of influence.

I was using CODE as an example, not attempting to chest beat about the organization. I just used them because of their name in the thread immediately brought their examples to mind. Non-CODE example, I know pilots that ran courier missions through Jita all weekend during Burn Jita events. My point is that "control" in highsec is a misnomer, as the game mechanics provide lots of tools and workarounds to circumvent control. This is especially true in highsec.

To quote you: "This is similar to RL where a particular "hood" might technically fall under a city municipality, but local power is practically concentrated in a gang, family, club or social network."

In "civilized" areas, the local power wields control not by combat, but by other means. A politician might deny building permits, the business monopoly might undermine other businesses attempting to form. In EvE, the local Industrial power might use all the MFG slots in the area. Another group may control towers on all the moons. Someone else may own all the POCO's. Another group might mine all the roids every morning. Suicide ganking freighters and miners is simply one aspect of this.

To put it another way.... You might suicide gank 10 freighters a day in Aufay, but redfrog sends 500 more successfully through during that time frame (against your desires). Who is winning the control race there? If you only measure it by PvP, your "dominating" redfrog, but perhaps their business is successful enough that they can write off those freighters as a business expense, and will continue to operate without difficulties (or perhaps you don't successfully gank Redfrog freights because they circumvent your ganks using web-to-warp).

If all you want is a PvP-activity map, that's fine, but it is nothing like FW or Nullsec Sov influence.

Sorry OP but this man is winning the thread. That's not even counting your blatant admission of self interest or the condescending faux-polite RP nonsense you're using to deflect attempts at debate; neither earn you points, and both made me struggle to care despite the fact that your concept, at least, is somewhat interesting.

You could also run with this, and have "civilized" groups who have the power project/control to put pressure on the "hood or gang element" to maybe have there docking rights removed in that system. Then follow it up with a sort of "pub watch" idea where if your naughty in one system fighting illegally, the "civilized" people ban you from docking in all the systems they have control of.

If the measure is to be player ships destroyed then wouldn't influence actually be Concord ?

As they destroy more player ships in a suicide ganking system.