open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked 0.0 Sov Fix
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

I'm Down
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:33:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: I''m Down on 21/03/2011 21:07:17
Restoring 0.0 mechanics.

There have been so many ideas for this. I propose a mixture of all of them. The TLDR version is this… Sov has 3 levels that affect different areas of control, System sov, Constellation sov, and Regional sov. As you lose sov in these areas of space, a “Steam Roll” affect happens that allows attackers to gain momentum by dropping more defenses. This means that you cannot just welp a timer or a single system and be ok. The more advances an attacker makes, the better they will perform in the future to prevent fortressing.

System Sov:

- Directly impacts upgrades to a system in financial terms. This means ratting, mining, POS fueling.

- Once you lose system sov, there is a 7 day period of claim required before you can online an i-hub, Station can only be repaired in armor, and Reinforcement timers are reduced by 1 day.

Constellation Sov.

Directly affects Jump bridges.

- Requires 50% control of a constellation in order to maintain jump bridge networks.
- Jump bridge fuel cost is directly related to % claim of a Constellation.

Cyno Beacons

- Requires 50% control to online a cyno beacon.

SBU onlining

- % claim directly affects SBU onlining.
- Once you lose 50% of a constellation, SBU onlining becomes 50% of it’s original value.

Reinforcement standards

- I-hubs require 50% Regional control to maintain Shield Reinforcement. Shield levels will be reduced based on how much % control of a Constellation is maintained. Loss of 50% control removes the ability of I-hubs to have a shield reinforcement timer.

Regional Sov.

Directly affects Cyno Jammers

- You must maintain 50% of a region to use cyno jammers

Station Defenses

- Station Shields and Services shield levels are directly tied to the amount of regional sov you claim.

Reinforcement standards

- I-Hubs lose all affect on system sov control.

SBU onlining

- % claim directly affects SBU onlining.
- Once you lose 50% of a Region, SBU onlining becomes 5 minutes.

Feudal System.

To Offset the complaints about regional control, a feuldal system will be implemented. The feudal system is as follows:

A system rental contract will be set up. Once a contract is in place, The holding alliance will receive a 10% reduction in system sov bills.
A constellation rental contract will be set up. Once the constellation contract is in place, The holding alliance will receive a 15% reduction in sov Bills.

Activity requirements to maintain contracts.:

Just like with current sov system. In a feudal system, There will be an additional calculator for the renter that requires their system activity levels to maintain x% of each activity in system including mining, ratting and station service use. This will prevent alliances from exploiting the reduced cost. Failure to maintain levels for at least 4 days per week will result in a revoking of the contract by Concord.

Tomcat
Gallente
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:37:00 - [2]
 

I support this product and or service if only because the current system is bad to the highest order.

I'm Down
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:40:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Tomcat
I support this product and or service if only because the current system is bad to the highest order.


I support anything tomcat supports

Traderjohn
Caldari
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:47:00 - [4]
 


Junior SvK
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:54:00 - [5]
 


Petyr Baelich
Valar Morghulis.
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:54:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: I'm Down
Directly affects Jump bridges.

- Requires 50% control of a constellation in order to maintain jump bridge networks.
- Jump bridge fuel cost is directly related to % claim of a Constellation.
SBU onlining
- % claim directly affects SBU onlining.
- Once you lose 50% of a constellation, SBU onlining becomes 50% of it’s original value.

Regional Sov.

Directly affects Cyno Jammers

- You must maintain 50% of a region to use cyno jammers

Station Defenses

- Station Shields and Services shield levels are directly tied to the amount of regional sov you claim.

SBU onlining

- % claim directly affects SBU onlining.
- Once you lose 50% of a Region, SBU onlining becomes 5 minutes.



Wouldn't this further penalize smaller 0.0 entities v. larger entities which can control an entire region, or a significant portion of one? If the 500-man alliance which owns a single constellation cannot online cynojammers they are left without a significant defense against entities who can drop 100 supers on him.

Sure if you can field 100 supers you can probably out-subcap blob too; but at least with a cynojammer up the attacker has to make it about taking sov and not just harassing/moon harvesting with cap/super fleets.

My own alliance would have been sorely put to defend against PL in Pure Blind if these changes were in effect during that campaign. As it was we were able to use our cynojammers to our advantage, allowing us to fight holding actions with subcap fleets and calling in cap/super support when needed.

I see the proposed changes having a paradoxical effect from the one I believe you intend where the small, 500-man alliances *have* to band together and form bigger alliances that are able to control 50%+ of a region in order to have any systems at all. We have some of that now with coalitions, but if game mechanics force you to control lots of space in order to control any space that's what people will do.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding part of your proposal.


Kesper North
Caldari
Gentlemen of Means
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:00:00 - [7]
 

Not emptyquotin'

I'm Down
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:04:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: I''m Down on 21/03/2011 21:06:31
Originally by: Petyr Baelich
Originally by: I'm Down
Directly affects Jump bridges.

- Requires 50% control of a constellation in order to maintain jump bridge networks.
- Jump bridge fuel cost is directly related to % claim of a Constellation.
SBU onlining
- % claim directly affects SBU onlining.
- Once you lose 50% of a constellation, SBU onlining becomes 50% of it’s original value.

Regional Sov.

Directly affects Cyno Jammers

- You must maintain 50% of a region to use cyno jammers

Station Defenses

- Station Shields and Services shield levels are directly tied to the amount of regional sov you claim.

SBU onlining

- % claim directly affects SBU onlining.
- Once you lose 50% of a Region, SBU onlining becomes 5 minutes.



Wouldn't this further penalize smaller 0.0 entities v. larger entities which can control an entire region, or a significant portion of one? If the 500-man alliance which owns a single constellation cannot online cynojammers they are left without a significant defense against entities who can drop 100 supers on him.

Sure if you can field 100 supers you can probably out-subcap blob too; but at least with a cynojammer up the attacker has to make it about taking sov and not just harassing/moon harvesting with cap/super fleets.

My own alliance would have been sorely put to defend against PL in Pure Blind if these changes were in effect during that campaign. As it was we were able to use our cynojammers to our advantage, allowing us to fight holding actions with subcap fleets and calling in cap/super support when needed.

I see the proposed changes having a paradoxical effect from the one I believe you intend where the small, 500-man alliances *have* to band together and form bigger alliances that are able to control 50%+ of a region in order to have any systems at all. We have some of that now with coalitions, but if game mechanics force you to control lots of space in order to control any space that's what people will do.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding part of your proposal.




Which means a small alliance has only a few choices, feudal system, or the desire to grow and claim more space. This means more conflict.

The alternative is a reduction in their ability to defend, also creating more conflict. Most small 0.0 space holding people are there for conflict in the first place.

As for super cap production, it can be changed to reflect the feudal system to allow building.

You still get the bulk of protection just from constellation sov. However, affording you all abilities simply b/c think it's fair removes the willingness for conflict. Conflict makes 0.0 interesting.

These changes also make it easier for another small entity to come in and fight you at a more reasonable level. Yes, it also allows a larger entity to do the same, but ideally, the complexity of holding space because of the way these changes impact everything means they'll be too busy guarding their own space.

Rixiu
The Inuits
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:21:00 - [9]
 

Can you explain more about the "Feudal System"? To whom are the contract set up to? Is it concord? Or maybye your local blob who will make more isk than ever after this?

I'm Down
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:24:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Rixiu
Can you explain more about the "Feudal System"? To whom are the contract set up to? Is it concord? Or maybye your local blob who will make more isk than ever after this?


Both. There will always be a cost to renting b/c nobody is willing to allow it for nothing. But there will also be a sink to concord that would be paid.

deadmaus
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.22 02:34:00 - [11]
 


Tenn soki
Gallente
Multiplex Gaming
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.22 06:36:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Tenn soki on 22/03/2011 06:41:15
Edited by: Tenn soki on 22/03/2011 06:36:42
well if one alliance owns too much space, then it just takes a few other alliances all attacking different places to take some of their space... in the end one alliance isn't worth a whole lot, takes a few alliances working together to do anything big. all these alliances that supposably own most of 0.0 actually hardly do anything with any of their space, so, as this topic is about, its fairly common to steamroll them... the reason why coalations like NC work is because its a whole bunch of smaller alliances working together with the bigger ones.

if by any chance any of the big alliances decides to defect, or go against what the coalation wants, the rest of the coalation is still bigger than that one alliance, so the coalation can survive it.

Ray Tucker
Posted - 2011.03.22 06:56:00 - [13]
 

Well this is ******ed, why boost alliances holding entire region(s) of space and allow to steamroll the smaller guys? Isn't that the opposite of what CCP always declares they want - to allow smaller entity entrance to 0.0?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.22 07:10:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 22/03/2011 07:11:56
Originally by: I'm Down
Which means a small alliance has only a few choices, feudal system, or the desire to grow and claim more space. This means more conflict.

The alternative is a reduction in their ability to defend, also creating more conflict. Most small 0.0 space holding people are there for conflict in the first place.

As for super cap production, it can be changed to reflect the feudal system to allow building.

You still get the bulk of protection just from constellation sov. However, affording you all abilities simply b/c think it's fair removes the willingness for conflict. Conflict makes 0.0 interesting.

These changes also make it easier for another small entity to come in and fight you at a more reasonable level. Yes, it also allows a larger entity to do the same, but ideally, the complexity of holding space because of the way these changes impact everything means they'll be too busy guarding their own space.

So, small alliances should have the choice of either being way more vulnerable due to game mechanics than larger ones (and then add the numerical differences), or they may become pets?

How does this actually solve any of the dominion problem? It only makes the last part of steamrolling a dying block or just attacking a smaller alliance easier. You should be aware (hell anyone who makes posts about 'fixing' 0.0), that pretty much everything you do to 'promote conflict' ends up in more people NAP'ing each other to compensate for the decrease in safety.

Sessym
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.22 07:29:00 - [15]
 

'Fortressing' should be a valid way of holding off attackers regardless the territory an alliance controls. It will not work if morale drops or you run out of assets. And this propsal will just discourage sub-region level sov brawl. I'd think very carefully through any changes of territorial mechanics.

I'm Down
Posted - 2011.03.22 10:30:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: I''m Down on 22/03/2011 10:30:37
Originally by: Sessym
'Fortressing' should be a valid way of holding off attackers regardless the territory an alliance controls. It will not work if morale drops or you run out of assets. And this propsal will just discourage sub-region level sov brawl. I'd think very carefully through any changes of territorial mechanics.



Because one of the lunacies of 0.0 atm is that it's a massive grind reguardless of who holds the space. Small alliances atm still can't hold space on their own without big brother, all this does is make it a defensive disadvantage. This proposal only speeds up the attack on the current system of moronic space holding making the larger alliances more vulnerable if they choose to keep it in place.

It's also incredibly hard for larger alliances to hold huge amounts of space they way they currently do using the new system. For example, I'll use MM.

Currently, MM holds part of Pure blind and part of Vale space. Under the new system, those territories would be much weaker. Also, MM jump bridge and jump beacon network across the north would be removed under this system because of the requirements not being met.

This means MM would have one of two choices, give up the space to someone else, or claim the entire region/constellation. This means there's a higher cost, and a much easier way to break the sov than trying to grind an i-hub just in the primary system.

Attackers can now attack the entire constellation, and force morsus to defend 6 + systems rather than stack 1 system with crazy numbers. It effectively deblobs an entity to some degree. This means using a large coalition as an example, the larger alliances can fight the pirmary fight, while smaller groups can achieve secondary task in other systems left undefended. This actually adds viable goals for smaller groups.

If you're asking me how this changes the ability of smaller organizations in todays eve, the simple answer is, it doesn't. It changes the requirements of the larger entities to actually defend their renters/pets from a lot of attacks, or for those renters and pets to actually lose more of their freedom. Both of these ultimately create more conflict.


 

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