open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Sovereignty: Use It or Lose It
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Overs
Posted - 2011.08.29 22:57:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Overs on 29/08/2011 22:59:48
CCP said they wanted ideas about Sovereignty, or at least about null sec.

Why Sovereignty? Let me skip the history of POS spamming and how we got to where we are today. Basically Sovereignty was a system set into play to determine who controls a station or outpost.

CCP worked in a few perks like POS fuel economy, jump bridges, cyno generators and jammers, and super capital production. I think fuel economy is a nice perk but for the sake of this thread I'd like to ditch the sovereignty limitations on POS structures and instead have those structures influence Sovereignty.

In the current manifestation CCP developed a means by which occupied space could be improved. Conceptually I think this was a well received, but iHubs, TCUs, and SBUs feel forced and gimmicky - almost like capture the flag. I remember some of the first Sov fights were not fleet engagements, but who could shoot down the other guys structure first. This became an obstacle to a raw fleet fight, which CCP thought it would inspire. From hence forth I excommunicate any mention of sovereignty structures; any post harboring or in support of discussing such structures shall be met with chiding and ridicule.

Sov Indices provide some possibilities for expansion and reinterpretation. In general this idea attempts to base sov more on player activity than static structures. POS shooting will be involved, but hopefully not so much.

Industrial indices are based on all industrial activity. Volume of ore mined and refined, rarity of moon goo harvested, science and industry (including super cap production), and PI could all contribute and buffer the industrial index of a system. The Industrial Index should be the prime drive of Sovereignty.

Strategic Indices are based on jump bridges, cyno gens, and cyno jams and traffic (use of those structures). This should be a minor driver of sov. With the sov limitations removed from such structures, a hostile force could incap one of these structures and set up their own to challenge or reduce sov and facilitate their own logistics.

Military Indices. Instead of being based on how many rats players kill, it could be based on skirmish and fleet fight results. Major routes and victories should have a large influence. The data base exists for it, why not use it.

I'd also like to suggest the influence of market activity, but wether that should be it's own index or not? I do think it should have a significant impact on such a sov system.

High sov influences sov in surrounding systems.

As for "improving" space NPC Pirate Factions and Rogue Drones should be attracted to the surrounding space of high industrial activity, and perhaps shy away from war zones. The greater the industrial activity, the more weird stuff shows up on your borders.

When sov is won, a station simply capitulates to the management of the winning alliance holding corp.

Aside from implementation, there are a lot of loop holes in these ideas, but that's what criticism and ridicule is for.

Nariya Kentaya
Coalition Of Gentlemen.

Posted - 2011.08.29 23:11:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Nariya Kentaya on 29/08/2011 23:11:18
Originally by: Overs
Edited by: Overs on 29/08/2011 22:59:48
CCP said they wanted ideas about Sovereignty, or at least about null sec.

Why Sovereignty? Let me skip the history of POS spamming and how we got to where we are today. Basically Sovereignty was a system set into play to determine who controls a station or outpost.

CCP worked in a few perks like POS fuel economy, jump bridges, cyno generators and jammers, and super capital production. I think fuel economy is a nice perk but for the sake of this thread I'd like to ditch the sovereignty limitations on POS structures and instead have those structures influence Sovereignty.

In the current manifestation CCP developed a means by which occupied space could be improved. Conceptually I think this was a well received, but iHubs, TCUs, and SBUs feel forced and gimmicky - almost like capture the flag. I remember some of the first Sov fights were not fleet engagements, but who could shoot down the other guys structure first. This became an obstacle to a raw fleet fight, which CCP thought it would inspire. From hence forth I excommunicate any mention of sovereignty structures; any post harboring or in support of discussing such structures shall be met with chiding and ridicule.

Sov Indices provide some possibilities for expansion and reinterpretation. In general this idea attempts to base sov more on player activity than static structures. POS shooting will be involved, but hopefully not so much.

Industrial indices are based on all industrial activity. Volume of ore mined and refined, rarity of moon goo harvested, science and industry (including super cap production), and PI could all contribute and buffer the industrial index of a system. The Industrial Index should be the prime drive of Sovereignty.

Strategic Indices are based on jump bridges, cyno gens, and cyno jams and traffic (use of those structures). This should be a minor driver of sov. With the sov limitations removed from such structures, a hostile force could incap one of these structures and set up their own to challenge or reduce sov and facilitate their own logistics.

Military Indices. Instead of being based on how many rats players kill, it could be based on skirmish and fleet fight results. Major routes and victories should have a large influence. The data base exists for it, why not use it.

I'd also like to suggest the influence of market activity, but wether that should be it's own index or not? I do think it should have a significant impact on such a sov system.

High sov influences sov in surrounding systems.

As for "improving" space NPC Pirate Factions and Rogue Drones should be attracted to the surrounding space of high industrial activity, and perhaps shy away from war zones. The greater the industrial activity, the more weird stuff shows up on your borders.

When sov is won, a station simply capitulates to the management of the winning alliance holding corp.

Aside from implementation, there are a lot of loop holes in these ideas, but that's what criticism and ridicule is for.


some parts yes, some parts no

i really enjoyed the idea of pirates showing up to encroach on your high-value systems, maybe make it so that as well as industrial, your alliance's standings come into play, if you have major-negative with amarr for example, you might see some amarr task forces attacking your ****, or the like, would eb interesting to see the established NPC SOV at least TRY to interact with the rest of SOV, as it is it seems NPC and player empires are separate from eachother entirely, compleetly different universes, and the NPC's shoudl at least try to "harass" systems near them of their "enemies", even if it is something as little as making their belts an ass to mine in, null-sec should get that what with ABC being moved to them and them only, they could use soemthing to add a little extra risk and put a spin on things.

Vhulheim Oct
Old Timers Guild Inc.
Fusion Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.30 03:04:00 - [3]
 

This is by far the best idea I've seen to address this issue to date. It's not perfect but its a hellova start. It also adds credence to pirate factions taking interest in these systems and risk / reward increases as a result. This adds to the immersion of the game. Certainly a better system than having a module that "spawns" more pirates and more sanctums and such non-sense.

Suddenly ideas like the population of a station in 0.0 looking at the situation during a war and choosing sides with invaders if they see a potential partnership that places them in a more favorable position. Or if not a population, how about a despot?

Suddenly ideas start to flow. Work with this some more guys.

Andrew Gunn
Battlestars
S E D I T I O N
Posted - 2011.09.05 16:20:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Andrew Gunn on 05/09/2011 16:22:11
This idea is far better than magic obelisks to claim space or magic upgrades to attract signatures, which I must admit was some improvement over POS spam sov.

I like the attempt in this idea to make SOV more of a result of player action and activity and less of a goal.

Hypothetically, in a system where two alliances are fighting over a system with jump bridges, cynosural generators, and cynosural jammers, there is the possibility of spam tactics. Basically as an alliance is losing, say a cynosural jammer, they could offline it and online one somewhere else in the system; sort of a wild goose chase defense. A time delay could be incorporated into these structures detrimental to whomever's structure is lost (becomes incapacitated) or off-lined, perhaps a ten minute timer. More consideration is required for situations involving multiple alliances, especially two coalitions of multiple alliances fighting over a system.

With one structure as the focus of contest, fleets have more impetus to meet ...with blob and lag the remaining concern.

As far as timezone considerations, it takes a fair amount of time anchor and set up a POS let alone organize an invasion. If an alliance doesn't notice a host of hostiles establishing control towers in their system, then they aren't using it and deserve to lose it.

Cyniac
Gallente
Twilight Star Rangers
Posted - 2011.09.05 17:43:00 - [5]
 

(TL;DR - nice idea, but need to avoid farming for sov pitfalls)

I love the idea but...

How do you avoid the "flog me to death to get sov" syndrome?

Let me explain.

Alliance 1 wants sov over a system owned by Alliance 2 - so they get buddies in Corp 1 to deploy large fleet of disposable ships which they destroy in that system.

Alliance 1's sov index skyrockets. They gain sov. without even having to fight Alliance 2...

Yeah I know twisted. But then so are some players of EVE I know.


Overs
Posted - 2011.09.06 04:46:00 - [6]
 

TL;DR addressing Cyniac's sov farming loop hole

Cyniac, interesting loop hole. If I understand your scenario correctly Corp 1 is not part of Alliance 2. I suppose if Alliance 2 holds sov, Alliance 2 has to receive the flogging to destabilize or lose it's sov. If Alliance 2 ships are not being destroyed and structures are not being incapacitated, should unaligned kills in system mean anything?

Aside from that, the continuous presence of Alliance 1 and Corp 1 should by itself contribute to destabilizing the Sov of Alliance 2 by deterring Alliance 2's use of the system, but should their presence alone be a factor itself? Could Alliance A blob Alliance B's system and eventually flip it? Why not? Gaining sov and keeping sov are two different tricks.

Your scenario also begs a few questions. What is Alliance 2's response to Alliance 1? How does Alliance 2 have sov established?

Let's say the minute Alliance 2 responds to the presence of Alliance 1 and Corp 1, Alliance 1 and Corp 1 leave or log off. What does that mean? Could that be interpreted as the route of Alliance 1 by Alliance 2? Let's say Alliance 1 engages Alliance 2 after accruing all those Corp 1 kills, but loses. Why not interpret either of those cases as Alliance 2 > Alliance 1 > Corp 1, basically nullifying Corp 1 kills' value to Alliance 1? If Alliance 1 defeats Alliance 2 what's the point of all the Corp 1 kills? If Corp 1 never engages Alliance 2 how could you compare Alliance 1 vs Corp 1 against Alliance 1 vs Alliance 2? Also I think Alliance 1 vs Corp 1 should have signs of being statistically useless, and there's always the petition.

If Alliance 1 and Alliance 2 are rarely online at the same time in mass, how should that resolve? Should it just balance out?

If Alliance 1 successfully blob flipped Alliance 2's system, what happens when Alliance 1 leaves? What Alliance 1 or 2 structures are left standing?
If a system is razed and deserted, it should return to sov zero.

What if Alliance 2 gets Alliance 3 to fight Alliance 1 and Alliance 3 is defeated but there is no game mechanic to associate Alliance 3's loss to Alliance 2's sov?

Overs
Posted - 2011.09.06 04:49:00 - [7]
 

Giving an alliance the ability to online a cynosural jammer might make it easier for smaller alliances to claim space. It could mitigate the threat from getting hot dropped while establishing a foothold.

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows
Posted - 2011.09.06 06:00:00 - [8]
 

This seems rather interesting.

As for the conquering of the system i think it would be best if it was kept per alliance.

That means if you have 3 alliances defending a system owned by one of them, and 4 alliances are attacking it, kills or losses by the other 2 defending alliances do not count, also kills by the 4 attacking alliances are counted each for it self.

That would mean that alliances that actually bring ships can earn that space, not some filler pets.

Overs
Posted - 2011.09.07 11:44:00 - [9]
 

I reposted this thread and quoted all of the comments up to this point in to the new forums under features and ideas.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=28082&#post28082


 

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