Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Seems like a reasonable set of broad goals without an attempt to dictate actual game mechanics.

Agree, CCPPLS do this

So, more NPC 0.0 space WITHIN conquerable regions, basically provide a safe haven for whatever fleet wants to **** on or harass anyone they want within a couple jumps of anywhere, so how does system defense, or the entire point of SOV, even come into play here? cause "untouchable safe haven for the guys who are just waiting to **** on us with their fleet 4-5 jumps from our space" does not "conquerable regions" mesh

also, occupancy SOV always bothered me, basically you want a system that will advertise for you what systems have the highest density PvE (because lets face it, there will NEVER be enough PvP in a system someone wants SOV in to outdo PvE in ANY index), just so it can get perma-harassed/camped/roamed by every shitlord in a massive blob alliance already?

neither one of these will change anything with nullsec, every fight will still be "form fleet with blues" followed by "camp/**** on smaller guys trying to make their way in nullsec until they quit or agree to throw away their identity and join a big blob empire" or "OH **** OH **** those arent little guys they have roughly the same number of people as us, stand down, go home, we wasted 5 hours"

none of that will change, in fact, these 2 changes in particular will make it even EASIER for the big guy to take a warm smelly dump on whatever little guy they want.

I like how when Stainwagon failcascades its way back to Stain they use terms such as "sovless" to explain away how bad they are.

_A_ is ____

<3

I agree with about 80% of this. I firmly believe that sov costs should be based upon the alliance size. The larger the alliance, the more costly it is to hold sov. With that said, I'd tie the system/constellation activity into the cost of sov.


Alliances like Goonswarm have billions to **** away at whatever they want. They also hold some of the best sov there is. This would also promote smaller alliances to pick up sov in null.


I like the responses that this has received, but I'm wary of anythingg GSF puts up, we all know how they had sov mechanics changed the last time. Least, that is how the story is told.

+1 ccp pls

+1

Supported!

Agreed.

I think the first most important step is to contraint power projection. If this first vital point is not firmly established. changing other things will make no difference.

When I first heard about the concerted effort to try to shift nul sov to a more occupancy based model, I penciled out some thoughts. With my current schedule (IRL and game job), I haven't had a ton of time to work this into a full scale proposal, but I thought I would go ahead and post some thoughts in raw form.

Basically I think the most practical way for developers to apply these types of changes, is to utilize and mirror existing game mechanics and code. I am by no means a programmer, but this seems a logical conclusion, so I think it is best to try to consider what existing game features could be used and/or copied to accomplish the desired results.

So here are some features I think could work well:


Occupancy Index: A mathematical equation that factors PVE activity (npc kills, ore mined, etc.), industrial (manufacturing, refining, possibly rented offices, etc..), and PVP activity within a system (i.e. a measure of home defense, possibly weighted heavily). The Occupancy Index is directly tied to a system defense modifier that would have the following possible affects:

Variable EH of sovereignty Structures: A low OI might result in a negative EH modifier, where a high OI might result in a positive EH modifier. Pretty straight forward, but an un-utilized system may be a very easy thing to grind through, vs. a very heavily utilized system.

Variable, Variables On Timers: Example, a station or IHUB timer set to X time already has a variable + or - hours from selected time. A very low OI might result in a much wider variable to the + or - hours (i.e. making it FAR more difficult to control exit timers). It might be possible to have a high enough OI to result in a + or - 1 or 2 hours, where a very low OI might result in a station or IHUB timer to come out + or - 8 hours from set time. IMO, this is one of the MOST important defensive features. Timer control and the inherent offset time zones of most opposing forces is one of the key factors. Not maintaining a high enough OI in ALL of your systems, presents a tactical vulnerability for an invading force to capture a foothold and expand.

Variable Sov Bills: Low OI could result in surcharge to sov bills, and very high OI could result in a discount. IMO, something like this should make it cost prohibitive to hold vast swathes of unoccupied space.

Additional Benefits of high OI: Things like fuel bonuses for home towers, possible expanded online time for SBU's (another defensvie features), etc... Possibly even a combat bonus for high OI (i.e. truly occupied space is easier to defend with bonus to tank, damage, etc...), etc...

Cap on Low OI systems: To avoid entities from holding vast quantities of un-utilized space, it may be possible to put a cap on how many OI zero systems an entity can hold (possibly as a percentage of member count, or something).

Adjacent System OI Bleed Over: Some form of "bleed over" of OI to adjacent systems. So basically a high OI in system X, would provide a small boost to adjacent systems, to provide significant tactical advantage to holding interconnected space, and to make expansion more logical (i.e. creating borders between smaller entities, and increasing the importance of maintaining alliance with tactically positioned allies).

OI Jump Fuel Consumption Bonus: Possibly a reduction in capital jump fuel required to jump between two systems with high OI held by the same entity (i.e. another benefit of occupancy). This could provide a large tactical advantage to holding Medium to Large sized pockets of thoroughly utilized space.


Well, those are some raw thoughts on the HOW. As to WHAT, I thoroughly support the above statement.

I wish I had more time to develop a more complete proposal, and/or participate in things like this, but the above seems relatively practical utilizing current (or presumably easily inserted) game mechanics, and IMO in some form (possibly using some or all of the above) would produce the desired result. Most importantly the above changes allows for some incremental integration of features, giving room to make ongoing "tweaks" to the equations and weighting of OI factors and results over time (an important feature for a major modification to our wonderful sandbox).

That's my .02. Fly Safe