Player Features and Ideas Discussion

-I like the constellation based setting.
-4 hours would still be a good baseline. The idea, as I see it, is to encourage players vs players not players vs other players structures.
- I don't see many 5/5/5 systems, are there any right now? The baseline should be achievable. Something that equates to 2/2/3 in indices should get you to your 4 hours window. Then lower indices in system could expand the time window by 2 hours per point . So max would be 4 + (2 * 7) = 18 hour window. With the caveat that a newly captured system started with the base 4 hours for a reasonable amount of time, allowing the new owners time to build up the indices.

This would also penalize a large group that plays in the same timezone.

you'd think that but their recalcitrance to do ANYTHING to change the god-awful way you have to grind out industrial index gives me pause

i get the whole "manufacturing/research lets you spend your way into system security" thing (though i don't really agree) but not letting things like PI, hack/salvage sites, and pos reactors, all of which require you to risk the destruction of ships and/or assets to perform to affect industrial index seems like a mistake to me and perhaps speaks of a physical difficulty rather than one based on opinion

Generally, my feeling on timers is that they are a penalty and force you to play the game at specific times.

If i had my way I would have no timers, this obviously is for taking systems and stations. I could not care less if during times of when you are asleep, at work or on vacation you lose a system or two. The point is you lost them because you couldn't or didn't or wouldn't defend them, some of the best memories i have of Eve was when people needed to defend their assets and subsequent battles happened. What happens with timers is a lot of blue balling and generally bat phoning adding to the stagnation of eve.

Now if I went to bed one night woke up next morning to see my system was conquered. I should be able to do something to retake the system that doesn't involve hours/days of grinding. Potentially why can't it be as simple as flipping a switch?Especially in systems that are not utilized or have been "lived in". If the system is lived in and there is some sort of index I would expect a dynamic game play that reflected how "lived in" the system was and difficulty in trying to conquer it. This doesn't necessary have to be reflected in a HP grind type game play or one that has a countdown timer but one that means the attacker has to have a stand out reason why they need to take that specific system.

If you want a null sec full of conflict and intense battles get rid of timers and the huge HP structure grinding and replace it with more team work based activities, i'm not saying that if you want to take a system you need a freighter in your fleet with your own flag I'd love to see small entities able to take systems because of some sort of "usability" status that denotes a system as conquerable.

For other things such as POS or POCO's, i think the mechanic works fine since these things tend to be owned more by individuals and not alliances.

Another thing, is there no way you can add a mechanic to offlined poses that makes them unachorable if they are offline and you are not in the owners corp. There are so many offlined poses that are lying around that this is another example of the "endless grinding against structures" that needs to change.

I would have to agree that tying indices to Sov defense warrants a look at the mechanic as a whole to make sure it is a reasonable metric for smaller but active alliances. And if that makes it easier for the larger alliances to improve their indices that is okay because it makes their space more valuable to them and able to support a larger number of players all at the same time.

I'm looking forward to some kind of smallholding system for years now. This sov rework is the opportunity to make it happen.

Why is system ownership all-in? Why can't many corps/alliances hold/live in the same system. The smallholding idea was about making pockets or some other kind of "my own space". So a variable amount of corps/alliances can go in a system, claim thier part and deploy thier structures to have hangars, fitting services, production facilities, defense of some kind and/or even a mini-market.

I really don't get the idea behind "ownership". Why can't the system be inhabited by many organizations. Putting a flag somewhere means basically nothing. If Alliance X can drive everyone out of the system, the Sov map can show "System AB-123: Alliance X", if not, it shows "System AB-123: Alliance X, Alliance Y, Corp A, Corp B, etc.".

Imho the current and new system have the big flaw that they isolate people because everyone relys on the system owner. It only encurages to be in that system if it's timer time and someone is attacking. Nobody can really use it if the don't go through the old/new grinding mechanics. And the new mechanics feel really artificial.

Moving away from this owner centric design could lead to a vast amount of interesting gameplay. Corp A goes somewhere and put's thier little pocket beackon/whatever somewhere in space and starts to build thier "base". If the "owner" doesn't drive them out they can just move on and live there (contributing to the system index, generating content for the locals, etc..). If another corp does the same and they want to live peacefully together, they can.
This would be a much more flexible and liberating system, not relying on some overlord to be pleased all the time.

As someone who has never experienced sovereignty, but finds the proposed changes an encouragement to explore the possibility of life in null, I would like to echo my answer to the final question in the survey.

Please reevaluate opportunity cost as part of the Sov update. There is nothing to entice newer, smaller alliances to try to capture systems (which appears to be one of your goals) if the income is abysmal relative to highsec missions, etc. Payout can scale with activity indeces, but you need to provide more carrot to make the risk palatable to smaller outfits.

I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size, and also with the caveat that alliances should be able to pick their "preferred index" so that PVP-focsed groups are not forced into doing more industry, and so on, to the effect that groups are giving bonuses for the activities they choose to focus on.

I like this in theory but there has to be a tangible benefit to making yourself open like that

Local only during primetime .oO

this is a pretty good idea as long as the expectation that setting it above the minimum is being willfully insane and that all balance should pivot around the fulcrum of a 4h window (and have that be the default)

i don't think it necessarily needs a carrot, and since ccp is incapable of viewing any activity in nullsec other than ratting as "making money" then i suspect they will be recalcitrant to increase the carrot in the form of a multiplier on bounties or some such