xttz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 07:32:00 -
[1]
I think a key part of breaking down the blob lies in the current soverignty mechanics. Or to be more precise, sov levels.
Before Revelations 2, multiple-week fights over a single system (or several systems at once) were common, resulting in system control shifting constantly. With the level-based sov we have now, its very easy for defenders to just give up if the other side throws in a single blob at their weakest time, reinforces every tower, and opens the potential to remove all defending bonuses within 2 days. Losing the highest level of soverignty is the current indicator to abandon a system, as it takes 5 weeks to reclaim. This results in a mechanic where a single huge blob of capital ships can login twice a week to conquer one and never need risk other combat. I'd like to see this spread out to see which side can control a system for a more sustained period.
Soverignty levels should instead be based on alliance control / presence in a system, rather than just time. The best current example of this is that an alliance can place a single small tower in a neutral system and gain the bonuses of sov3 by simply waiting 5 weeks. This does not lend to risk/reward, as Sov3 systems are valuable tactical tools while small towers are practically disposable to larger alliances. Instead I would suggest that sov levels can only reach a certain 'ceiling' depending on the quantity/size of starbases in the system, along with other factors like the proposed gate control or neighbouring system sov. It should be possible to reach high levels of soverignty faster, at a higher risk/cost in fuel. This encouarges more focus on true provinces and capitals, rather than having alliances drop single cynojammer towers in every single nearby system. I believe you will see less 'hard borders' of dozens of sov3 jammed systems by making it more expensive to maintain those borders.
In a similar vein, sov in contested systems should rise and fall in a more fluid manner. A focused, all-out attack could chip off the highest level of sov and remove the best defense bonuses, but defenders would still have something to work with rather than rushing to assemble a blob defense within 2 days. It should take at least a week of fighting to remove all defender benefits from a system, resulting in larger numbers of smaller fights. If neighbouring system sov affected a contested system, this would encourage the tactical capture of these weaker points first. It would also mean that defenders who lost all their starbases in a system in a very short space of time (due to a focused attack, poor stront timing or simply spies) would have a shot to fight back - neighbouring systems would conribute to defense bonuses.
Bonuses provided by sov levels should also be changed to reflect this, in order to prolong system invasions into multiple smaller engagements. Uncontested systems could have invulnerable starbase towers or longer strontium timers, but those bonuses can be removed at the next downtime by a focused assault to capture gates. As hostile presence in a system increases, the defenders gradually lose their defense bonuses. Conversely, they can regain these bonuses faster by beating back the attacker. As well as the level-based structures such as jump bridges and cyno beacons, why not adjust starbases to be more powerful based on sov. Tweak the tower bonuses to apply per level of soverignty. For example: Amarr towers have a 25% damage bonus to lasers. Adjust this to 15% per level of sov. Starbase defenses now scale well to the larger forces that will be attacking them, but are weaker in under-developed systems with small numbers of starbases.
|