Player Features and Ideas Discussion

-grudge matches (i.e. a 7 billion isk brawl over a cadmium moon)
-control of tech
...
...
...
-"good" space



Bubbles, bombs, doomsdays.

It's much, much more difficult to catch a travel fit super in lowsec, session change reduction means it can cyno before it's invulnerability expires. You still see RR BS in lowsec because there aren't bombers around to skull you the instant they see BS huddling each other. Guys in Rifters run around in HG pirate implant sets. Carriers play station games because they can't be doomsdayed.



Does it compel the "defender" to form gangs and push the "attacker" out of their sov? What is the penalty for a failure to do so? If it's harsh, I can probably solo-cap half of XDeath's sov in the USTZ, using four accounts to burn their sov while they are asleep. If it's lenient, they aren't compelled to fight anymore than they are now.

Only good idea in this thread is the one about letting station owneers bring in mission agents tbh

So wouldn't making good space dynamic based on activities, mining out the good mood, improving the space etc, drive more conflict as what is good space would change and force people to fight for it as it changes? Cause that is one of the basic ideas I'm suggesting. While being open to the exact mechanics.

And my other idea is that by living in your space, you are rewarded by low sov bills, but if you don't live in your space your bills go up, putting pressure on the alliances not to hold more physical space than they use. Potentially allowing smaller groups to move into the spaces and get established in space, then improve there space and then get taken over by the big fish.

And then the only other idea I have is that for Sov change to occur involuntarily, instead of structure grinding, implementing timer based plexes, that include ship size / class restrictions, which take into account a full 23 hours of activity and being compatible with DUST. Where the winner is the one who maintains control for 12-13 hours and has their Dusties win the most planets.

So to be clear I don't think there should be an activity based way to gain SOV, just to make it prohibitive to keep it. I am proposing a ship varied way to take SOV without structure grind, and an activity based way to possibly limit alliances from holding more space than they use. So what is wrong with these 3 ideas?

In terms of Balance the activity based Sov I think it should be implemented initially with it being pretty easy to maintain Sov, then slowly made harder by iterations by CCP until the SOV map looks how they think it should in terms of activity and space control.

Also though there are some things that are annoying about lowsec when it comes to capital ships at the moment, I don't think these are game breaking. I like the idea of Low-sec, Null, and Worm-holes offering varying styles of PvP combat. If they were all the same that would make EVE a much less interesting game.

Well 0530 is early for anyone and the idea of having to do that would make anyone angry.

However, I don't see that being the case with my proposal.

Here's an rought example of how I think it would go.

So right after DT the Russians come into the system and start running the plexes and controlling the space, at the same time people in DUST start fighting for the planets.

it gets to around 0900 your time and some of your alliance mates who don't work can come in and start harassing the invaders if their off work, don't have class, its the weekend whatever. Then whenever prime time roles around for your alliance and I'm assuming its getting pretty late for the Russians, your numbers swell and the big epic battles occur when both timezones can field decent numbers. Then Russian prime time wanes and your controlling the system for the next few hours, with the dwindling Russian players harassing you.

So in theory there should be parts of the day where one side dominates, and the other is using guerrilla tactics, and then there should be a time when epic battles occur, and then it should flip flop and the other side dominates. Now this is how it would play out with alliances that operate is different timezones.

Obviously for opposing alliances that operate in the same timezone the battles will be fiercer during prime time.

This system will probably favor Alliances that have large numbers of balanced split timezones. I don't know if that is a bad thing, since it would encourage more social groups.

And I think a nice bright colored sharpy would be better than crayons, crayons don't always make the clearest lines.

I'm sure this is all true, but I still think it should be done as a start. And it could be a pretty effective isk drain. (well maybe)

I think a good treaty system would help more to vary the Sov map than just punishing Alliances that hold lots of Sov, but I think a combinations of ideas would work best.

And taken in conjunction with ways to actually permanently make your space better, while having finite resources shift over time, you can spark more pressure for war and political intrigue.

For all it's flaws, Dominion sov does have the advantage of leveling the playing field between alliances in different TZs, there is TZ ping-pong during the week, with the final showdowns almost always happening during weekends.

edit: and this is ignoring the myriad of ways activity based sov can be metagamed to the point of being ridiculous.

I'm not trying to suggest a change that would unlevel the playing field in this manner.

You seem to be missing that my ideas for how Sov is taken is different that how Sov is maintained for large sov holders. There is no way in my proposal for you to lose Sov. without you choosing to. And as I said earlier in terms of level of activity I think should CCP should start off with a low level required to maintain it and then iterate it up till the amount of Sov it is easy to hold is at the level they want it.

By the way thanks for taking the time to help me refine these ideas.

It would apply to all the other alliances holding sov blocks as well. I've got no gripe against xXDeathXx, they were actually quite good to me when I was playing in nullsec.

I'm not understanding how a total activity metric tied to dynamically available activities biases against alliances that are TZ limited?

Activities that have a max spawn rate certainly do, which is why an "all-you-can-eat" activity like missioning (though not necessarily missioning in particular) is a necessity.

One place where activity based metrics are biased is in total number of players. They definitely favor a zerg-rush of moderately skilled players over a few highly skilled players, so there should also be a mechanic that lets a small group of highly skilled players hold a small number of systems against larger, active groups.

Nobody ever said that a good, dynamic, and fair sovereignty system was an easy thing to design. (Though I may have hinted in that direction on occasion).