Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Why not halt ISK generation in Null and allow Alliances holding SOV to emit their own currency (that can be exchanged to other currencies and ISK as well)?

Having that humans can create weapon from every tool, I guess a lot of content shall be generated.
CCP has (had) and expert in economics and finances in their team - use it :)

I support Endie's vision for null.

http://www.endie.net/wordpress/2014/07/patchwork-eve-money-making/

http://www.endie.net/wordpress/2014/07/game-fights-returning-pvp-eve/

http://www.endie.net/wordpress/2014/07/will-nobody-think-newbies/

http://www.endie.net/wordpress/2014/08/evil-behind-1000-megathrons/

I honestly, truly hope that the one and only motto for the nullsec revamp is the following:

"Reward activity, not passivity!"

Drill it into your minds - Any system that results in stagnation in nullsec warfare (as it happened now) is passive, not active.

oh.. as an add-on to my list from earlier..


- Set a Max # of systems an alliance can hold sov in ( make it a low number )

Another idea I've had before..

Moons, they are one of the things that help drive some null conflict, so make them "Depletable".. After a few months it'll be empty, a new one will "spawn" somewhere else with its type of material.. after a few months the old moon will respawn as some other material type.. thus meaning that where the good/bad moons are will always be changing, hopefully making alliances want to fight to get the best ones again..

While I have no suggestion for Sov warfare redesign as such since I have not really participated in it yet. You may want to discuss the Ideas behind Player stations themselves as well while redesigning sov.

At the moment there is no way for them to be destroyed (that I know off). This is leading to stations slowly but surely being built all round sov null. Perhaps an ability for Sov holders to destroy their stations would be worthwhile....so a force can capture a system burn it to the ground and move out again.

I'm sure there are problems with this iddea but I think the design behind the stations themselves should be considered while redesigning the sov system so please add this into your thought processess

Just two cents:

1) It has been said by a few people in this thread, but I think what could really benefit the state of null is changing local from its present state to the local used in WH space. I think that if you speak in local, every can see you in local. If you are docked in an outpost, you can see the people in an outpost. It adds a huge dynamic in the ability for people to create solo or small content without being reported 5 regions away. If I take out a 15 man fleet to go look for a good fight, either everyone docks up, they form a bigger gang, or both. It doesn't even have to be permanent, with your new release system you guys are able to test things and see how they work. Give it 6 weeks with WH local chat on top of the other changes and see the effect itll have.

2) Destructible outposts. It has to happen. Someone earlier mentioned either destroying it completely, or 'capturing it' by having the owner surrender under a grace period to evacuate ships. I don't know if you can make this a mechanic ie Alliance A surrenders outpost to Alliance B. Alliance A has docking permissions for 24 hours. After 24 hours Alliance B has the docking permissions. Destroyed outposts destroy all assets in the outpost. Risk v Reward.

3) Cycle moon goo to a different moon every week/fortnight/month/formula calculation in the system/constellation/region/universe and make it purely random as to prevent 3rd party mapping. Diminishes income from R64 by constantly having to find the new one and reinstall the POS.

4) One fear that I have of having to "work" the sov to own it is there is the possibility of the mentality of "If I can't have it, nobody can" (I mean look at Russia burning Stalingrad during WWII). Just because people lose sov because they don't work the sov doesn't mean they can't come in and shipwreck you and your fledgling group of friends.

5) The suggestions of gate and outpost guns and constructing stargates are interesting, but I do not think they are a solution to the current situation. It seems like unless they are accompanied by the more serious changes to force projection and apex force, they will only further entrench the state of play in null.

I am not nearly as experienced as the solutions to force projection and the apex force, but I am going to talk about it anyway because Mittani.

For the coalitions to maintain effective force projection there are presently three separate methods:

1) Jump Bridges
2) Titan Bridges
3) Cyno Chains

Titan bridges are preferred to Jump Bridges since the enemy cannot map them and the location of Titan is more secretive. Unfortunately they are ruled by two separate mechanics and thus would require two separate fixes. One related to the POS code, one related to a module. I don't have much to offer CCP in potential ideas for solutions, just wanted to bring it to the attention. The initial thought I had with Jump Bridges reminded me of how Napoleon was successful in supplying his troops through depots and not a train, enabling him to move his armies quickly. Unfortunately you now have Napoleon and Wellington and neither wants to go to Waterloo.

The third option is probably the strongest method of force projection as well as the easiest to obtain. One cyno is lit and any number of ships are able to jump to the beacon. The fearsome and terrifying Velator summons a horde of hundreds of capital ships for the mere cost of 250-500 Ozone. There-in lies in my opinion the largest problem with force projection, Electronics V Cyno I, a mod and some fuel that fits in the first ship you fly in EVE.

Possible solutions that others may have said or that I can think of are:

1) Increase the size and fuel cost of the cyno mod such that it will only fit on BS hulls, limit it to Carriers, Dreads, JF, and Rorqual. Limit the number of ships allowed through a cyno before it is 'collapsed'
2) Introduce a capital cyno module that can cyno in Supers and Titans. Follow same principle about the cyno beacon 'collapsing' requires cyno V
3) Introduce a ship hull and make it the only ship capable of fitting the cyno modules.

Uh huh. Thought you'd slip that one by everyone did you?

---

IMO, the main issues with Sovereignty now are:
1. Too much EHP/Structure grind
- This, as has been said, makes it nearly impossible for smaller, non-coalition sized, groups to contest and perhaps take sov
- There are many reasons for this (e.g. capital/super capital proliferation and instant teleportation, timers that allow more than enough time for massive fleets to form thereby negating the actions of the smaller group by default, etc).
2. No compelling reason(s) to fight for more/other space
- For the large coalitions/blocs there are no active conflict drivers based on ingame mechanisms (depletion of resources, different required resources (other than ice but who's going to fight over that)
- Renter income is no the 'de facto' alliance income stream and if it covers alliance costs (sov/srp/etc) there is literally no reason to entertain further soul-crushing structure grinds for x more renter systems
3. No need to be present in "held" systems
- Unless your system is attacked by one of the other 2-3 major bloc powers there is literally nothing that might require you to be there in space doing anything

Possible changes (whether solutions or not remains to be discussed/seen/tested/validated)
1. Reduce, significantly, the EHP of sov-based structures
- Or remove most/all of them in lieu of a different mechanic
- Investigate the ease of transit and extreme distances provided by sov-related items (jump bridges and titans) and look to tone down or alter those mechanics as it shouldn't be possible to traverse the known universe in mere minutes with the slowest ships in the game
2. Look at changing the way in which resources for production are sourced
- Depletion of resources and/or worsening qualities of resources ought to be looked into (i.e. Ice anoms moving/depleting) specifically with regards to moon products
- add player interactive methods of acquiring moon products that exceed the efficiency of automated moon mining arrays (more risk more reward)
- make siphons actually worth deploying and correct the api issue that effectively negates their impact for those groups watching the API for this (read: most of the big blocs)
3. Implement mechanic changes to incentivize groups to actual live in, use and defend their space at other points besides "timers"
- Farms and fields, Occupancy-based, Activity-based whatever works best without further crippling the chance/ability for a smaller group to strike a claim
- Sov costs for ever more systems should be altered - owning more space should incur further costs and at extreme levels of ownership (i.e. blue donut) extreme costs should be in play

Obviously these need/want a lot further discussion to gauge feasibility. But those are the things I think, in general, most in need of revamp.

One of the things people seemed to find interesting about B-R, was the idea that the fight "ballooned" and there was conflict in multiple systems beyond just the main fight.

I don't know that I like the idea of constellation Sov, but the idea of strategic advantages being spread across a constellation is interesting. Keep the existing I-hubs and upgrades, but make the function of certain things reliant on a super hub or super upgrade, per alliance, per constellation. Maybe it's not it's own structure but instead a POS module. Or even some sort of super Control tower.

People like to ***** about local as an intel tool, well I'm sorry, but if you own the space you should have some advantage. So let's split the difference a bit. What if local as it exists now was tied to this constellation strategic hub. What if Cyno jammers and jump bridges were also tied to this strategic hub? What if you could "jam" the connection between this hub and other systems by using a deployable? What if reinforcing the POS made the connection intermittent (Functionality would flicker on and off). Destruction of course would take out functionality all together. This means more for a defender to defend but also more for an attacker to attack.

The other thing that I think is interesting is an idea that was mention during the AT about "weather like" effects. A few months ago before the CFC's full on deployment to Delve, we were routinely canoeing capital fleets down from Dek for timers. There was a ton of monotony in this and we would use the same cyno chain each time through the same systems etc.

An interesting thing happened one day. Somebody was slow or joined late and ended up a jump behind everyone else. Suddenly he cries out that the system he was in, was now incursioned. Minutes after the bulk of the fleet had gone through an incursion dropped into one of the mid points. We could no longer use that mid on the way back.

In the grand scheme it was a minor inconvenience that meant one cyno had to be moved. But it was one of the few times I have ever seen the environment in Eve jump up and suddenly cause a fleet to make a, albeit minor, change in plans.

Based on a skill. They need to fix corp management first though.

Director of system Sov, Director of planetary Sov. Director of Orbital Sov. One for System, planet POCO and POS deployment.

That system isn't exclusively geared to regulate Sov and Null either. The ability to plop down 2000 Gantry in HS and ride tax is pushing the boundaries of how much control small numbers of players should have over the game world. We have a Sov skill book now. It doesn't actually have anything to do with Sov though. I'd also like to see a 'passport' system added, where I add my citizenship to a system and citizens are required to take Sov.

Scenario, If I have a 4 characters in a corp with Sov 4 and Director of Sov permissions, that's 16 systems. It's still possible to manage an empire alliance. Throttles are needed, not hard barriers.