open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked CSM - CCP Meeting 001 - 0018 0.0 Sovereignty Issues
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

CCP Wrangler

Posted - 2008.07.10 14:03:00 - [1]
 

CCP has been discussing 0.0 and sovereignty internally for the past year and discussed many issues already. They found that Player Owned Station (POS) warfare is a very limited mechanic, and that it revolves around the amount of dreadnoughts and other capital ships in the fleet, while small ships only serve as support instead of being able to accomplish small objectives on their own. The long-term plan for 0.0 warfare is to have multiple layers of goals and objectives instead of all fighting occurring over stations. This would allow small groups to have an impact on the game, instead of needing hundreds of ships to have influence in 0.0.

Nathan (CCP) said that he does not believe that current large-scale fleet combat is interesting for the participants, mainly due to focus fire.

Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) commented that current 0.0 PVP is siege warfare, people stick to established fortresses and do not venture beyond the gates. His suggestion was to include mechanics that encouraged sovereignty holders to patrol their space, and have ways for roaming gangs to peck at undefended systems and steal resources there.

The issue of logistics was also discussed. Alex stated that current POS logistics required an alliance to have powergamers that managed them around the clock. He proposed to make 0.0 appeal to a wider audience by removing these repetitive activities that required powergaming. Shayne urged CCP to consider mechanics that would provide more synergy between the industrial and combat aspects of 0.0.

CCP said that they would have to balance short term achievements to the long term empire building. If people could easily destroy in a day what took months to build up, this would be unfair. But on the other hand, it should not be too hard to smoke out established entities. They agreed however, that the current time sinks in POS warfare are too long.

This issue has been put on the rolling agenda, and CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty.

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:12:00 - [2]
 

Perhaps a mechanic like the factional warfare one could be introduced.

Lets say you can add a new level of sovereignty called "Constellation Sovereignty" that would be based on the sov level of the systems in that Constellation. Now each level would make the POS in that constellation harder to kill in some way (increased resits, more HP, etc...).

Now in order to lower the constellation sov an invading force could take compounds as in FW. Each might have a gate that limits Cap ships from coming in, though not anything smaller then BS (this is 0.0, no need to limit the gangs) Each can be taken by only a single ship if he says in the area for the right amount of time. This could give black ops a role without changing the ship and force defenders to roam and patrol.

Of course the specifics could be changed but I think the general idea would work to force players to escalate the conflict rather then just invade with capital ships.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:39:00 - [3]
 

I like the idea of layers, with each layer being somehow interdependant on the others - like small gang objectives making POS Logistics easier/harder, or POS networks enhancing the ability of subcapital gangs to do their thing.

Overall the benefits of Sovereignty need to be spread out so instead of just being based on an Alliance's POS network, they are also derived from small gang pvp action. That way when you go to attack an enemy it isn't just about sieging POSes, but also about dominating subcapital pvp. That could even be further divided into small gang vs subcapital fleet objectives, so that when you assault an enemy you have small gangs achieving disparate objectives, a large subcapital fleet attacking something else, and capitals sieging POSes.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:44:00 - [4]
 

First, remove soveraignty effects from POS altogether, for now.
Change this to a "soveraignty points" type of system similar (but not identical) to the factional warfare "victory points" system.


"Sov Points" (SovP) gained or lost past a certain treshold in a system would be used to enable an increase or a decrease of soveraignty level in that certain system.
The methods for which one can gain or lose SovP change depending on Sov level (from 0 to 4).


For instance...


Sov0 (no owner) could mean anybody can gain SovP for their alliance in that system.
SovP would be earned by completing exploration complexes (most points, value depends on complex size and type), destroying belt rats (depending on rat size, but less overall than complexes), mining ore (even less point gain) and extracting moon minerals (negligible pointsm but still, some points).
Whenever any alliance reaches a certain preset treshold (which could vary depending on truesec of system), some event-type complex is generated there next DT.
If they manage to keep the area clear of ANY intruders for longer than any intruders are present (on top of occasional local type of NPC spwans which usually show up when intruders also show up), they gain Sov1 next DT.

Sov1 and so on will keep the same methods of gaining SovP as Sov0 gains, but in addition to that, one would also gain SovP by destroying alliance war target ships in that particular system.
Neutral ships have no effect on SovP gains.
The only way to LOSE SovP would be if any war target ship gains any SovP (and they gain them the same way as they would with Sov0, on top of gaining some more for destroying local sov-holding alliance ships).
If enough SovP are lost, the previous "Sov0-to-Sov1" event complex is spawned again next DT, but only Sov1 holder alliance and their wartargets matter in determining presence.
When/if the Sov1 holding alliance reaches the next upper treshold in SovP, they NEED to put up at least one POS. At random, one POS in system is designated as "primary / Sov2 event" and needs to be defended (i.e. no reinforced mode) for a certain period of time. Sov owners can NOT re-assign primary POS status to any other POS manually.
If the "primary / Sov2 event" POS is not put into reinforced for a certain time and SovP treshold is maintained, Sov 2 is gained.

Once in Sov2, each DT, if the "primary" POS is still up and was not in reinforced the last day, a decent amount of SovP are gained, on top of all the other SovP earning methods.
SovP will be lost if the POS was in reinforced mode, and even more SovP will be lost if the primary POS is destroyed or manually dismantled by the sov owners. A new primary POS will be automatically and randomly be designated on next DT if SovP balance is positive and any POS remains in the system ; if none remain Sov level automatically gets reverted to Sov1.
If enough SovP are lost, the "Sov1-to-Sov2" event will be held again at the "primary" POS. Failure reverts system to Sov1.

Sov3 is only gained if Sov2 is maintained in at least 75% of the constellation systems, on top of maintaining a "Sov2-to-Sov3" SovP treshold in at least 50% of the constellation systems for a certain period of time, while also OWNING AN OUTPOST in the constellation.
Sov3 grants small amounts of SovP in each constellation system each DT even if unoccupied.
Once Sov3 is gained, it can only be lost if SovP treshold levels get reduced below Sov3 requirements in ALL systems in the constellation - even if all but one of the POSes of the sov owner get dismantled.
Once that is true, individual systems become vulnerable for Sov1-to-Sov2 type conditions at their primary POS.
If the "events" are lost in at least 66% of the occupied systems (i.e. 66% of primary POSes get placed in reinforced mode), Sov3 is lost on next DT.

Sov4 reached on treshold SovP levels in EACH system of the constellation, no events needed. Extra SovP in all systems per DT granted.

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:58:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Stuffs


I'm not sure removing POSes from sovereignty is a good idea. I still think that POSes should be the final fortress, they just need some form of escalation and should not be part of the escalation. Your idea is also really complex; I think a simplification is in order, but once POS is removed from your idea it is quite similar to mine and not near as complex, just to take final control of the system you have to use the current POS mechanics.

This also allows players to "spread out." Why have 100 BS in just sitting there when you could roam around and start capturing the next constellation?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:13:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 10/07/2008 16:22:39
Originally by: Lieutenant Isis
I'm not sure removing POSes from sovereignty is a good idea. I still think that POSes should be the final fortress, they just need some form of escalation and should not be part of the escalation. Your idea is also really complex; I think a simplification is in order, but once POS is removed from your idea it is quite similar to mine and not near as complex, just to take final control of the system you have to use the current POS mechanics.

The POSes are only removed from Sov1 conditions.
Sov2 conditions only require ONE POS from the Sov1 owners, even if the enemies have placed dozens already - they have to remove Sov1 first before getting their own Sov1 instead, so they can gain Sov2 via POS.
Sov3 conditions include Sov2 conditions but on a wider scale, and also promote more significant usage of outposts ; it only makes sense that an outpost would be required for the cynojammer network to operate.
Sov4 is basically just a Sov3 that's maintained and reinforced for a while - you gain it by simply being active in constantly patrooling and defending your Sov3 constellation.

It only SOUNDS complicated, it's really simple - most of what you see above is just technical details.

It basically comes down to this :

* Sov 0 (no sov) - first one to establish a presence gets a chance to grab the system
* Sov 1 (basic presence) - only people that declare war on you can take that Sov 1 away - if you can maintain your presence against wartargets, you get a chance for Sov 2
* Sov 2 (base of operations) - in systems with stronger presence, if you can defend your "base of operations" (one POS), you get the next sov level
* Sov 3 (constellation superiority) - you have long-time uncontested bases of operations spread out across most systems, and a significant asset (an outpost) in the area ; you gain access to the cynojamming network making defence easier
* Sov 4 (constellation soveraignty) - your constellation superiority has gone unchallenged for a good while and the overall presence level (patrools to fight wartargets, etc) has improved ; you get to upgrade your base of operation any way you see fit

So, really, it IS simple.
Not only that, but "NBSI" policies really have no sense anymore - one can NOT take sov away from you unless they wardec you first, in which case, they're "red" Wink
Neutrals could be not only tolerated, but downright welcome, if you wanted to.
Sure, you CAN still operate a NBSI policy, but it doesn't make all that much sense anymore.


You can have as many POS you want without ever getting any soveraignty, or you can gain Sov1 without any POSes at all. For Sov2, you only need one POS. And so on, as described above.

However, you don't need to actually LOSE a POS to lose the sov - all you need to do is not patrol your space and get a team to push your POS into reinforced. Use too many POSes and randomness makes sure you get the "wrong POS" as primary. Besides, it only becomes really vulnerable if you DON'T defend your space - just defending it so you have at least one more POS and enough SovP means you get to keep it.
Once you get to sov3, you don't even need to keep each individual POS - but then again, if you don't, you risk losing all back to sov1 if sov3 gets contested due to activity.

Roaming gangs of wartargets CAN become a nuissance - they just chip away from your SovP total.
It's all about presence and superiority, not about fueling POSes and hotdropping capfleets.

Kayn Otar
New Age Flying Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:13:00 - [7]
 

How about a wider variety of POSs, scaled like ships.
Small structures are hard to hit with big guns, but provide localized intelligence fed back to HQ. Easy to build and destroy.
Medium structures are more durable, and provide resources of some kind, like an ammo depo.
Large structures are capable of one or a few specific functions, like providing ship repair services.
Super Large structures could be like current POSs.
Encouraging alliances to set up lots of smaller structures means they need to patrol larger areas and encourages roaming assault gangs as well.

WHeisenberg
Caldari
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:18:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: WHeisenberg on 10/07/2008 16:20:08
I'll comment on two items within the OP;

Quote:
The long-term plan for 0.0 warfare is to have multiple layers of goals and objectives instead of all fighting occurring over stations. This would allow small groups to have an impact on the game, instead of needing hundreds of ships to have influence in 0.0.


Small groups could have goals if there were smaller targets within claimed systems that provided some effect on 'ownership'.

For instance, if a system is claimed by a single corporation (non-alliance) there could be some type of beacon that is required to be placed in the system to signify that ownership, other than a stack of POS's.
This beacon would require some type of fuels to exist (balanced against lower fuels for the POS's in the system so the POS owners dont blow a gasket).
That fuel should be some type of expensive material - something that is worth taking.
This way a smaller group could have a target that gains them something, and gives the owning corporation something to defend - thus, a reason to get out there and patrol.

If it were 'me', I would make this beacon something that could be shut down and pillaged, but never destroyed.

This beacon would need a purpose, other than being used as a 'deed for property' of a system. That purpose could easily be a cyno field. A constantly 'on' (provided it's fuels are not pillaged) jump target for the owners of the system.
It would probably have to be something that did not register on the overview, but would need to be probed out by enemy forces. That way it would not be an instant 'bring your blob here' sign.


Quote:
The issue of logistics was also discussed. Alex stated that current POS logistics required an alliance to have powergamers that managed them around the clock. He proposed to make 0.0 appeal to a wider audience by removing these repetitive activities that required powergaming. Shayne urged CCP to consider mechanics that would provide more synergy between the industrial and combat aspects of 0.0.


Three TRILLION cheers on this one!

I was involved in some of the first POS activity in the game. I ran multiple POS's, along with my corp, and I eventually quit doing it completely. I also quit playing the game for nearly two years because of it.

When any aspect of a game changes from something that is 'fun' or 'interesting' to having any similarity whatsoever to a real life job, the game loses all appeal.
I was spending most of my time running POS's.
There is PLENTY of activity that revolves around POS's. Enough to make anyone a full-time powergamer. The fun issues of a POS are setups, making deals for marketing the products gained, setting up trade routes, mining operations or fuel purchase agreements, etc.. etc..
All of that is work. It takes time, skill and resources to accomplish it all.
Adding continual tedium to the mix by having a constant need to 'babysit' a POS is what pushes a lot of operators over the edge.

Something as simple as a special fuel bay. A cross between a silo and a corp hangar, where additional fuels can be stored. Something to reduce the amount of hands-on time needed for fueling. It could even have a penalty involved. Something like, "For every 150 units of x fuel that is transferred from this storage unit, 50 will be lost".
Then, if you wanted to get really creative, a specialized skill could be used to reduce that amount by 5 per level - effectively reducing the fuel penalty to 25% from 50%.

There will be POS owners who will object to a fuel 'surcharge'. In those cases it is a simple answer to the problem; "Don't use the fuel storage system".

For those POS owners who are willing to spend a bit more on fuel to gain some time for other activities, it could be a blessing. I, for one, would have continued my POS activities - probably increased them as well - if there was something like this available.

My 2 cents.
WHeis

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:21:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Akita T




This post is much clearer. I like the idea, but perhaps make several POSes able to hold each level or have the level escalate the number of POS you could use to keep, say up to 3 for sov3 and 6 for sov 10. This allows a dug in alliance to hold space more easily and still requires the capturing of smaller installations to reduce to sov2, thus the escalation.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:26:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Lieutenant Isis
This post is much clearer. I like the idea, but perhaps make several POSes able to hold each level or have the level escalate the number of POS you could use to keep, say up to 3 for sov3 and 6 for sov 10. This allows a dug in alliance to hold space more easily and still requires the capturing of smaller installations to reduce to sov2, thus the escalation.

See edit Laughing

You don't need more than one POS per system to hold Sov2, and if you manage to get to Sov3, you don't even POSes much anymore, as long as you keep patrooling your space against wartargets.
Of course, if you fail to patrool it, having many POSes is an advantage - but it's no longer a necessity.

Also, JUST having POSes is no longer enoug to gain and maintain Sov levels - without a constant presence and activity level, wartargets can simply erode your Sov levels by making you lose SovP - even without actually DESTROYING any of your POSes.

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:27:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Kayn Otar
How about a wider variety of POSs, scaled like ships.
Small structures are hard to hit with big guns, but provide localized intelligence fed back to HQ. Easy to build and destroy.
Medium structures are more durable, and provide resources of some kind, like an ammo depo.
Large structures are capable of one or a few specific functions, like providing ship repair services.
Super Large structures could be like current POSs.
Encouraging alliances to set up lots of smaller structures means they need to patrol larger areas and encourages roaming assault gangs as well.


I like this, perhaps smaller POSes could be "cloaked" if you just warp to a moon, but could be probed out and maybe have no stront bay. They might serve as a listening post, not too easy to find, but once you do quite easy to destroy. They could be a nice place to start your covert ops from and to start a small gang from, once you get small gang objectives. Not so sure of the roles of the others though.

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:32:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 10/07/2008 16:39:30
Edited by: Lieutenant Isis on 10/07/2008 16:39:03
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Lieutenant Isis
This post is much clearer. I like the idea, but perhaps make several POSes able to hold each level or have the level escalate the number of POS you could use to keep, say up to 3 for sov3 and 6 for sov 10. This allows a dug in alliance to hold space more easily and still requires the capturing of smaller installations to reduce to sov2, thus the escalation.

See edit Laughing

You don't need more than one POS per system to hold Sov2, and if you manage to get to Sov3, you don't even POSes much anymore, as long as you keep patrooling your space against wartargets.
Of course, if you fail to patrool it, having many POSes is an advantage - but it's no longer a necessity.

Also, JUST having POSes is no longer enoug to gain and maintain Sov levels - without a constant presence and activity level, wartargets can simply erode your Sov levels by making you lose SovP - even without actually DESTROYING any of your POSes.



No what I was saying is that if you had only maxed at sov2 then the enemy would only need to destroy that one POS. Once you get up to sov3 they would need to destroy 3 POSes to reduce you from sov2 to sov1, etc. I think this will help alliances "dig" in since once you only need to cap beacons from sov4 down to sov2 you could basically "power rush" when an alliance is not really ready. There needs to be some way to "slow down" the attack and give the defenders a chance to regroup. Thus my simple minded you get extra POSes approach.

According to your edit, POS really serve no function then, which I don't like. I think you should have to destroy some POSes, that is the final fortress.
But from sov 4->3 you must cap some plexes that require only small ships.
Then from 3->2 you need to continue to cap plexes.
Then from 2->1 you must destroy some of the "flagged" POSes.
Then from 1->1(enemy controlled) you must cap the "flag" of the system if it were. which is a plex with no gate allowing cap ships in.

I think you should have to destroy POSes, they are the final barrier to the "flag" and require many dreads and cap ships, thus the final escalation.

Baron Erique
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:45:00 - [13]
 

I personally really like this:
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) commented that current 0.0 PVP is siege warfare, people stick to established fortresses and do not venture beyond the gates. His suggestion was to include mechanics that encouraged sovereignty holders to patrol their space, and have ways for roaming gangs to peck at undefended systems and steal resources there.

However, if not implemented very carefully, you will still get a situation like this...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Alex stated that current POS logistics required an alliance to have powergamers that managed them around the clock.

...where an alliance that only has members in a certain (RL) region will be at the mercy of the "pecking" from alliances with members in a different (RL) region.

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:57:00 - [14]
 

Forgot to mention that I LOVE the idea of having to be at official war with the alliance in order to start taking the compounds, this might make freeports actually viable!

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:16:00 - [15]
 

I think we need to do away with Sovereignty levels via only POS and instead compartmentalize the benefits of Sovereignty into multiple layers of objectives that can be constructed/attacked independently by different sorts of forces (one layer of which can still be the POSes).

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:19:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
I think we need to do away with Sovereignty levels via only POS and instead compartmentalize the benefits of Sovereignty into multiple layers of objectives that can be constructed/attacked independently by different sorts of forces (one layer of which can still be the POSes).


Yep thats pretty much what everybody else has said in the thread. We seem to agree, maybe it will make it easy for CCP to get on the ball then!

Threv Echandari
Caldari
Moira.
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:23:00 - [17]
 

Supporting Akita T's Suggestions in principle. (Sov stuff makes my head spin). Make Sov more like Faction Warfare with multiple layers and Victory Points. Disallowing certain Ships types form performing Captures etc. I'm lukewarm towards the idea of 0.0 Alliance Wardecs to allow Sov. but I do like the possibility of "Freeports".

Kazuma Saruwatari
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:30:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Threv Echandari
Supporting Akita T's Suggestions in principle. (Sov stuff makes my head spin). Make Sov more like Faction Warfare with multiple layers and Victory Points. Disallowing certain Ships types form performing Captures etc. I'm lukewarm towards the idea of 0.0 Alliance Wardecs to allow Sov. but I do like the possibility of "Freeports".



/signed

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:51:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Lieutenant Isis
No what I was saying is that if you had only maxed at sov2 then the enemy would only need to destroy that one POS.

Why bother destroying it ? Just keeping it in reinforced for a while with incursions would be enough to erode your SovP, additional losses to SovP for engaging your forces or farming your belts, etc. Get enough SovP out of you, and next time you put the POS in reinforced, *poit*, Sov2 gone and you're back to Sov1... and to get it back up o Sov2 you have to actively patrool your territory again to get SovP total back up again, THEN defend the POS long enough again without having it fall in reinforced -f it does, Sov1 is the best you can get... and eventualy you might end up losing Sov1 too in favor of the roaming gangs of enemies.

Quote:
Once you get up to sov3 they would need to destroy 3 POSes to reduce you from sov2 to sov1, etc. I think this will help alliances "dig" in since once you only need to cap beacons from sov4 down to sov2 you could basically "power rush" when an alliance is not really ready. There needs to be some way to "slow down" the attack and give the defenders a chance to regroup. Thus my simple minded you get extra POSes approach.

Once Sov3 is reached, it becomes VERY hard to lose - not only because of the cynojammer network (you don't care much about caps anyway, POS destruction is no longer mandatory, only pushing the POS in reinforced is, which would be hard to prevent if the enemy is persostent and mobile enough, even if it's just a battleship fleet) - but also because you need to lose a lot of SovP all over the place in the constellation first too (while Sov3 grants a constant trickle of SovP everywhere to begin with), and any engagements that don't end in the attacker's favour only reinforce your SovP total... so, basically, once you gained Sov3, you just need to hold the constellation reasonably secure and not much else.
Only if you FAIL pretty much all across the entire constellation at keeping the upper hand, afterwards you can start RISKING to lose Sov3, IF too many of your existing POSes get pushed in reinforced mode - then you go back to Sov2 all over the place, which is in itself also hard to lose - but to gain Sov3 back you'd need to re-take and hold control of the consteallation.


Quote:
According to your edit, POS really serve no function then, which I don't like. I think you should have to destroy some POSes, that is the final fortress.

They serve the purpose of being your "bases of operation" and providing you with some degree of "free SovP" if not succesfully disabled (on top of additional "free" SovP from Sov3/Sov4 control and the REGULAR SovP gained by day-to-day operations like beltratting, mining and so on).
Basically, they give you a little bit of advantage in SovP gains (not huge, but some), a place to withdraw from destruction and wait for reinforcements (if you get destroyed, your alliances loses SovP - but by baiting the enemy while reinforcements arrive to beat them or using the POS to help you destroye them, you GAIN additional SovP) and last but not least form the last line of defence to help you maintain the higher sov levels.
However, you CAN NOT just hide behind the shields - if the POS goes in reinforced when the Sov decrease is due, it's gone... you have to fight both before (to not get to the point where you can lose sov) but also when you can lose it.

Quote:
I think you should have to destroy POSes, they are the final barrier to the "flag" and require many dreads and cap ships, thus the final escalation.

Well, eventually, you WILL want to destroy all enemy POSes anyway, as they give them safe points to launch assaults on you - but the control is not decided by POS amount, instead on activity levels. Sitting behind POS shields and never coming out "to play" doesn't give you much.


Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs

Posted - 2008.07.10 18:41:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/07/2008 18:54:19
Forest from the trees.

Problem with Sov is that

1. Too many things can claim sov easaly - this means people use NPC structures (POS) to conquor systems whilst avoiding pvp.
2. Sov Claiming POS's are too cheap, so people avoid risking dreads to defend them and in many cases, use them as a speedbump to try to bore attackers.


Keep it simple. Have less things in a system that can claim sov (e.g planets, perhaps even a star). Have a struture or x-large pos or whatever that overrides existing sov in system in the same way a large tower overrides a medium towers sov claims. If that costs a huge amount, only then will it force people to defend it.

Either way - everone has their own version of a perfect answer. The technicalities of the "perfect" solution needs to take note of the key issues with the current system, which I noted above. I do not care what the solution is, but it should address the two key points I mention.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:46:00 - [21]
 


I have an alternative suggestion I feel merits discussion regarding this issue

Arrow Remove link between POS and sov level gain
Arrow Make sov level % based
Arrow Introduce small civilian structures to give you sov % instead

Example:

Just like now, if Alliance A have more large POS than Alliance B, they get sovereignty over the system.

When you take sov, you start at 0% and you then have to build small and medium sized, deadspace-style structures like schools and hospitals, orbital farms etc to cater for an NPC population's needs.

These in turn give you sov %, which in turn gives you bonuses and shiny toys

This then gives the following benefits, which I think solves most of the major problems of 0.0 sov

Arrow Small and medium sized attackers can hit civilian infrastructure to reduce sov % and do damage relative to their size and skill, even if they can't take a system
Arrow Industrialists get to put effort and skill into managing systems rather than mechanically fuelling POS
Arrow Large Empires in deep 0.0 can still exist, but require more than just 5 weeks of no one attacking them to get powerful tools like cyno jammers and jump bridges
Arrow Dreads and POS still required to actually take system
Arrow Can practice "scortched earth" retreat or leave civilian infrastructure intact for future return. Can raid weaker neighbours territories to stop them building up infrastructure

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:56:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 10/07/2008 19:09:18

Basically I'd argue getting rid of steps in the system and make it sliding scale. Make it so the effort and skill an attacker puts in is relative to the damage they can do to a defender.

Also decouple POS warfare from the sov levels. That way you still need the epic, large scale battles to actually take a system. But to make the most of a system you own, build an empire, you still need sov, but you also need the industrialists to come in and develop a system

edit: @ Lord Waratron, I'd say you need more NPC structures, but to spread the value attached to each across all of them. Atm, far too much is placed on just one or two POS (cyno jammer and JB POS), and no one will risk their ships defending anything else

edit 2: Reading above replies, sounds a lot like capture the flag. I'm thinking something more like culture points in Civ IV

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:14:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Kelsin on 10/07/2008 19:18:25
At Spoon + Lord W:

I'd say it's not even about structures or no structures - it's about what Sovereignty actually grants you. Stripping the individual benefits out of the Sovereignty equation and figuring out a new way of awarding them that is based more on Player action and combat is the way to go I think. The flaw in Sovereignty is that it's just a "build more to get more" linear system. Instead we could have each benefit governed by discreet mechanics so you can attack, say, the fuel efficiency of the enemy POSes, or their Jump Bridge network, or their Cynojammers, without having to deal with POSes and seiging.

Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:39:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/07/2008 19:39:59
Originally by: Kelsin
The flaw in Sovereignty is that it's just a "build more to get more" linear system. Instead we could have each benefit governed by discreet mechanics so you can attack, say, the fuel efficiency of the enemy POSes, or their Jump Bridge network, or their Cynojammers, without having to deal with POSes and seiging.


Any solution is perfectly valid as long as it

1. Simplifies Sov warfare - i.e not make the whole thing more complex and time consuming.
2. Forces people to fight to with ships, insted of a chepo PvE Structure to tie up a attacking pvp force as a delaying tactic or even used by attackers to spam faster than the defenders can remove them.

Abbadon
Caldari
Pukin' Dogs
D0GMA
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:58:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Abbadon on 10/07/2008 21:07:38
Myself and some alliance mates have been discussing this issue on and off for a long while now and have fairly similar conclusions to Akita:


Mechanic:

System is currently neutral. Any corp or alliance can anchor structures in system.

Corp A wants control of system, Corp B wants the same.

Contested system will have a calculated Sov value (points are calculated by assesing the resource value of system... 50 points for a gate, 50 points for a NPC station, 10 points a moon, 5 points a roid belt etc)

In this case the system has a Sov value of 500 (example)

Corp A and B both declare they want Sov of system (maybe similar to the war dec mechanic although declaration is made against the System in question)

Each active member of either Corp A or B present in that system will earn Sov capture points. (Active being, Undocked and uncloaked)

Points are allocated for every 15min being active (example: each pilot will get 5 points for each full 15min active in system)

Each system should have a hard limit for the number of pilots per corp that can gain capture points (example: system with Sov value of 500 would allow only 5 pilots per corp to accrue capture points, sov value of 1000 would allow 10 etc)

Each system should have a hard limit for the time between sov level changes (ie sov can only change once every 5-10 days)

The first Corp to achieve a clear 500 capture points will gain System Sov lvl1. (ie if corp A achieve 750 capture points and corp B 250, this would give 500 clear points)

System is currently at Sov 1 by Corp A. Only corp A can anchor in system.

Corp A will now receive some system wide benefits.... reduceds office rental, better refine, greater bounties, reduces POS fuel reqs etc etc

Corp A want Sov 2 in system for even more benefits, the same mechanic would be used with a points multiplier so 750 clear points are req for this lvl.

At sov 2 the system benefits are greater with more being added (lvl4 = cyno jammer, cap ship yards etc)

At Sov lvl 2 all anchored structures in system will default to the Sov holders. (this is to provide an alternate to POS sieges)

From Sov 1 onward all POS in system will add defensive sov points to system ( ie base sov points = 500, at sov 1 Corp A anchor 2 x large POS which adds 2 x 250 points = 1000 defensive sov value)

Now corp B are back and really want sov in this system:

Corp A have sov 2 and 2 large POS meaning that Corp B need a clear 1000 capture points to lower the sov to 1.
Corp B can choose to attack (put in reinforced/remove) the 2 x POS thus removing the defensive bonus and thus only need 500 clear capture points or they can choose to control the system)

Corp B dont have many cap ships so decide not to attack the POS but manage to completely control the system and thus achieve 1000 clear sov points and sov drops to lvl1

Corp B maintain this pressure until sov goes to neutral then lvl1 then lvl2 in favour of Corp B

During this time corp A have been unable to get access to their 2 POS and thus owenership is transferred to Corp B. (spoils of war)

Some other ideas that we threw around:

POS hitpoints should be adjusted downwards (drastically)

At the highest lvl of Sov, the controlling corp/alliance can control certain NPC mechanics: Restrict docking at stn, restrict Jump Clone use, etc

At varying lvls of Sov new/better anchorable modules can be deployed: 20au cloak jammer, cyno jammers, etc.

tl;dr:

Sov should be about controlling a system not the number of POS present (stop POS spamming)
There should be hard limits set to discourage Sov blobbing and repeated Sov flipping (reduce blobbing)
There should be far more benefits given to Sov holders (Get more people into 0.0)
There should be far more disadvantages to attacking forces (not just OMG 10 POS to kill)
There should be a method to capture a system without removing enemy POS (reduce the need for large scale cap warfare)
There should be a method to capture enemy POS when Sov has been gained

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:16:00 - [26]
 

Akita, I still think that actually destroying several POSes would really help keep dreads and POSes from being obsolete.

On a note of using POSes as staging points, perhaps make it so that at a certain sov level neutrals and enemies cannot anchor POSes within a constellation. This might make a real front appear since you would have to fight your way up to the particular main system, rather then just invading the main system right away.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:21:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: TornSoul on 10/07/2008 20:22:19
I wrote the following back in jan 2004, judging by the file timestamp, and actually send it of to CCP as a proposal.

Note that this is *before* POS where introduced to the game.

While 4.5 years old, EVE only just beeing 6 months old, most (not all) of it can stand unedited, so I'll simply post "as is".


Cliffnotes:
Lots of cheap and "easily" killed structures.

The idea beeing to have alliances deploy *many* of these, if they want to "dig in".

Conversely it means that an attacker will not need a 500 man blob in order to take out each target.

And also that there will most likely be so many targets that it's unfeasible to defend all at the same time, giving small roving gangs a chance to weave and dudge the defenders, while still nibbling away at the "defenses".

It has the potential for giving more fluid frontlines, instead of a few must kill "BIG targets".



Heres the ancient text...

-------------------------------------------------

Proposal for 'Territory Claiming Structures (TCS)'

The fundamentals of this idea is to have 'frontlines' constantly moving back and forth.
To accomplish this TCS should not be overly expensive, so that the loss of one would not be a devestating blow.
Rather they should be fairly easy to replace (but still take *some* effort).

The basic idea beeing that an alliance (maybe even a corp) would 'scatter' these structures 'all over' in order to claim a territory.
That way alliances would have some physical object to defend, rather then the current - "kill all you see and the territory is yours".

The structure itself should be undefended.
The structure should have enough HP to withstand, say 20 Bships for 5 hours - thus give the defenders time to response.

A price for such a structure should be in the range of 50M ISK (remember a lot will be needed, and most likely constantly replaced)
I'd also like to see 2 'cheaper' versions of the TCS, which would cost less and have less HP.
Say a 25M and a 10M version (with respectivly fewer HP's)
It would then become a tactical decision which lvl of TCS to place where (as long as you have the majority of TCS HP's in a system - its 'yours')
Also - The larger an area you wish to claim - the more it's going to cost you!

Assuming alliances are implemented, TCS should be deployable by both alliances and corps (maybe only alliances?)

In a given system TCS can only be placed near stargates and stations.
This would mean that some systems would become strategically more important, as they would be easier to 'defend', as it would take longer for an attacking force to wipe out all the TCS (and indeed new ones could be placed in place of those destroyed, while the attackers attacks the next TCS)
Also means that an attacker wanting to place TCS of their own *has* to take out existing TCS if all 'slots' (gates/stations) are already 'occupied' by TCS.


It should also be able for more than one party (alliance/corp) to place TCS in a system (as long as there is a 'free' gate/station).
Whichever party has most TCS HP (3 types with diff HP's remember) in a given system, will be said to be 'in control' of the system.
I suggest that the *current* HP of TCS is counted towards this total (and not it's max HP).
Example : Alliance A has 2 50M ISK TCS in a system but both with less than 50% HP (because of prior attacks), and Alliance B has only one 50M TCS, but it's at 100% 'health' - and thus Alliance B has more TCS HP in the system, and is thus 'declared' 'in control' of the system.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:22:00 - [28]
 


A TCS should 'repair' itself over time - but it should be very slow (as they have a lot of HP).
A TCS should be able to repair itself fully (from 1 HP to max) over a period of say 3 days (or something similar)

TCS should ofc not be deployable in the middle of empire space, as those systems are claimed by the Empires.
Aywhere outside Empire controlled space should be fine.
This includes (NPC) pirate claimed space (it's after all 'free for all' in those places - and the residing NPC rats, just might decide to pay the player deployed TCS a visit every so often)

Those are the basics.
Now for all the possible 'features' with this (and theres *alot*).

1)
To make the TCS actually having a 'purpose' (apart from signifying 'ownership' of a region), except beeing some very expensive bulls eyes for roving pirates whishing to 'grief' the alliances, one idea would be to 'bestow' some kind of bonus on the alliance(/corp) having the control of the system (when fighting *in* that system).
It makes sense afterall that the defenders have an 'edge', as defenders are usually 'entrenched' in one way or another.
Attacking is usually more 'expensive' than defending.
The possibility of bonus is almost endless...
a) Bonus to damage
b) Bonus to range
c) Bonues to tracking speed
etc
etc
etc
d) One intersting bonus could be that of : Defenders (owners of the majority TCS HP) can warp to 'safespots' where others are hiding (they are after all the defenders and should know the system well (very vague RP reason I know...), or simply because the TCS have some tracking gizmo build in (triangulation) making it possible.

Bottom line is - There are a *ton* of different possibilitites open for adding one sort of bonus or another to the defenders.
It could also work 'in reverse' ofc - ie. giving the attackers a negative bonus of some sort.
- How about the inability to warp out from battle around a TCS if you are the attacker (the TCS have long long range scramblers)... Pretty radical I know, but just to show that anything can be thought up really...


2)
Say a TCS gets knocked down below 1/3 'health' - It no longer is able to repair itself.
It needs minerals/components/ISK in order to get vital repair facilities 'up to speed' again, before it can begin it's self repairing again.
Thus puts an emphasis on the alliance to get that done if at all possible, and not just let it sit there 'taking care of itself'.
(Ofc most likely an attacking force able to knock down a TCS to 1/3 HP, will most likely finish it of anyhow....)

3)
Unless an alliance(/corp) has declared war on the alliance owning the TCS it can not be attacked.
This would somehow inhibit roving pirates to 'grief' the alliances(/corps) owning the TCS.
(opens up the whole can of 'consentual vs non-concentual wars' debate....)

4)
TCS has an 'upkeep' that has to be paid
Could be ISK and/or items
I prefer some combination - Because if a TCS once a week requires some materials in order to 'function'. it means that aliances can't just deploy it - and then just leave it there for good without bothering more about it.
If the materials/ISK is not supplied on time, the max HP of the TCS drops by 10% (or something)
And it would take *double* the normal amount of materials/ISK to get back those lost 10% again.

5)
Lots and lots and lots more 'details' can be thought up.......

The above are *only* suggestions - I'm sure there are pretty many other good ideas that could be put in to 'action'.
Some of the suggestions might even have flaws I havent spotted ets.
So - It's nothing more than a 'deabate starter'

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.11 00:02:00 - [29]
 

TornSoul - no offence, but this sounds an awful lot the same as a POS.
Sure, there are some key differences (slightly cheaper, probably not linked to moons, probably not needing fuel, ceases self-repair after a certain HP count, probably harder to damage compared to current POS - you mention 20 BS and 5 hours, that's something akin to 200-300 mil raw HP) but overall, your proposal isn't significantly different from whatever was actually implemented (e.g. the POSes we have nowadays).
So, again, no offense, but how is your proposal any different BETTER compared to the current system ?
Or, for that matter, compared to a generic FW-like activity based sov-granting system like the one I proposed (not necessarily that one, but something similar).

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.07.11 00:06:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/07/2008 19:39:59

Any solution is perfectly valid as long as it

1. Simplifies Sov warfare - i.e not make the whole thing more complex and time consuming.
2. Forces people to fight to with ships, insted of a chepo PvE Structure to tie up a attacking pvp force as a delaying tactic or even used by attackers to spam faster than the defenders can remove them.


The current system is boring because it isn't very sophisticated nor skilled. It is very simple atm. Put POS into re-inforced, defender picks time of "return leg" battle.

It is a grind to refuel POS and a case of bring more numbers (of the right ships) and win.

The key is in how you create the new system to avoid it being overly complicated. Or rather the detail is the tricky bit

Originally by: Kelsin
The flaw in Sovereignty is that it's just a "build more to get more" linear system. Instead we could have each benefit governed by discreet mechanics so you can attack, say, the fuel efficiency of the enemy POSes, or their Jump Bridge network, or their Cynojammers, without having to deal with POSes and seiging.



There are two ways you can do it. Either you build structures which directly affect certain things RTS style. So you build a caldari fuel depot and you get a % bonus on nitrogen isotope used in POS.

Or you have NPC's who have needs like education and healthcare Sim City style, and by being good at providing that stuff, you get a higher sov % and thus get general bonuses on the overall %. Say you need +75% to online a cyno jammer

---

Think of it like this

POS = castles
Civilian Structures = villages

You can go round burning all the villages and leave the defenders tucked away in their castles. Sure you won't take and control the country but you'll leave a burned wasteland when you leave.

Or you can just go straight in and seige the castles. Harder, but once taken you control the land around and can start making use of it straight away


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only