| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
   |
Posted - 2009.07.02 21:44:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 02/07/2009 21:44:35
The following is a more complex, but I feel more natural, Sovereignty mechanic so please stick with me through this.
Goals:
Alliance ôsprawlö is curbed: No holding territory/assets on the other side of the galaxy.
Alliances must live in, and defend their own territory.
Territory expansion and control is more realistic.
Fights, of all sizes are encouraged.
Newer alliances have a better chance to gain a foothold in 0.0
A quick overview:
Sovereignty will be determined by planetary colonies. The growth and influence of these colonies will be determined by how well their governing alliance takes care of them.
POSs will have no effect on sov but will become logistic and strategic platforms instead.
Outposts will act as small colonies or seed colonies for the planets they orbit.
Under this mechanic, the only true sovereign systems would be those with colonies. Those colonies radiate an ôarea influenceö that encompasses nearby systems with the size of that area being relative to the size of the colony and its distance from the alliance capital.
I feel this Sov mechanic would work best in an expanded Eve Galaxy with far more 0.0 systems than we currently have but it would still be an improvement even without more space.
It works like this.
Colonies and Area of Influence:
At the implementation of this mechanic, every existing outpost begins to function as a small colony. The alliances in possession of these outposts will be required to declare one of them as their capital.
Each outpost/colony radiates an ôArea of Influence.ö The AoE is the area within which the colony can provide materials and labor that will allow the alliance to run deployable logistics platforms. Currently, we only have POS structures û moon miners, factories, refineries, etcà that would be called DLPs. Hopefully there will be a greater variety in the future but that is for a different post.
The AoE weakens further from the colony affecting the performance of not just DLPs but POS towers as well. Out in the sticks, workers slack off, build time increases, mining output decreases and even tower CPU/Grid is hurt. In and near the colony system, things go much smoother with bonuses to output possible.
The AoE each colony generates depends on the size of the colony and the colonyÆs distance from the capital; too far away and the colony will revolt and have no AoE at all. This captial AoE that controls the span of the entire nation is determined not only by the population of the capital but of the alliance nation as a whole. This AoE will max out before it reaches more than 1/4 across the current eve galaxy but not before the alliance can get uncomfortably close to its neighbors. That brings us to the next topic.
Expanding colonies:
Finding a home:
Much like an individual, a colonyÆs primary needs are security and sustenance. If the governing alliance can keep a colony safe and give it a place to grow, it will do just that.
Finding a spot of the colony is the easiest thing but not entirely simple. Some planets and systems are much better suited to colonization than others. The jewel every alliance looks for will be a planet just inside that not too hot û not too cold distance from the star; perfect for terraforming. The best planets could be as hotly contested as high end moons are now.
In addition, colonists need materials so the more belts and other resources in the system û the better. The colonists do not like having another allianceÆs deployables near their territory. Even if it is a friendly POS, if it is mining, they will gripe about resources.
cont...
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 21:50:00 -
[2]
Keeping it safe:
Security is more difficult. The more faith NPCs have in the allianceÆs ability to protect them, the faster they settle in your colonies. Conversely, if they loose faith in their alliance overlords they may pack up and go back to empire. This mechanic must be able to judge an allianceÆs ability to defend its borders and be as difficult to exploit as possible. Friendly, as well as unfriendly, NPC activity seems to be the best answer.
The first factor colonists consider is alliance military activity (ratting and plexing) in and around their system. Colonists just feel safer with a bunch of friendly warships roaming about doing bad things to any pirates that dare enter their space.
Protecting friendly NPC ships is just as important as killing hostiles. One alliance can harm another just by raiding colony systems and killing all the NPC ships (barges, haulers, etc) they find. The longer they stay uncontested in the system, the more they erode the colonistsÆ confidence. The defending alliance can, however, redeem itself by killing the invaders.
If other players donÆt threaten a colony enough, special NPC pirates will step up to the plate. These NPCs are the special forces of whatever pirate faction roams that area of space and behave more like sleepers than belt rats. They are emboldened to attack by a lack of activity around a colony and if they are not driven away quickly, they will step up their attack. These NPCs will drop capitals, siege colonies and enslave colonists if not stopped. Needless to say, confidence in the governing alliance will fall sharply if that happens. Quick responses will keep colonies growing.
Short absences from a colony system may not lead to an NPC attack, especially if an alliance has a capital fleet sieging one of a neighboring allianceÆs systems. Still, if that fleet is moved to far away, the NPCs will come out to play.
Pets: A friendly alliance can come in and save a neighborÆs colony system from assault by NPCs or another alliance but that will do nothing for the colonistsÆ confidence; they want to see that their governors have the ability to protect their own space.
Getting underway:
With all that out of the way; to expand a colony, there must first be an outpost in place. From there, the alliance can build an orbital elevator from the outpost to the surface. Doing so will allow terraforming stations to be constructed or colony construction to begin if terraforming is not needed.
The colonists will build homes and work centers on their own but the alliance can build government buildings and schools to increase the colonyÆs output. Government buildings with properly skilled player characters in charge of them can increase the AoE a colony generates. Schools, also with players in charge, will increase the number of skilled and expert workers in the colony û more on that later.
Each alliance must designate a capital colony. Not only are capitals special in that they become the center of their allianceÆs territory they also grow faster than other colonies. This growth bonus makes it easier for newer alliances to gain a foothold in 0.0 Large alliances could split up to get more capitals but each part would still have to defend its own space.
I can see more complexities coming into play but nothing that needs to be addressed yet.
Benefits of bigger colonies:
The first and most obvious benefit is a larger AoE around a colony. A larger AoE means more moons in range and more systems where POSs can be set up for building, researching and refining. In addition, the total population of an alliance nation increases the capitalÆs special AoE, allowing colonies to be effective further from the capital. Finally, The number of skilled and expert laborers in the colony gives a bonus to the number of build and research slots in the outpost attached to that colony.
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 21:52:00 -
[3]
Caveats:
Before setting up a colony in its best ratting/mining system, an alliance should take into consideration that the colonists need resources too. The number of NPC barges and haulers roaming around a colony system will be evidence of this.
Mid sized colonies will raise the sec status of the system they are in. That means fewer rats and poor ore. Maxed out colonies will also raise the sec in the nearest system. A maxed capital will raise sec in the nearest three systems. (most capitals will not be maxed out)
Btw: The colonists can take care of the weaker belt rats themselves but will still need help with the special ones.
Conquest and Defense:
With POSs no longer having an influence on Sov, all that is left is to shoot the outpost. The catch is that outposts are now fully armed and operational battle stations that can have guns and other nasty stuff anchored around them just like a POS.
An outpost with no planet side colony has the equivalent power of a faction POS but once a colony begins to grow on the other end of an orbital elevator, it feeds more power to the outpost. A mid sized colony gives an outpost the firepower of three faction POSs and a maxed colony outpost can begin to fit super weapons (One shot a BS). A maxed out (or close) capital can deploy orbital guns that can hit anything in the system. No cyno jammer required in that system.
The only way to assault the larger colonies is indirectly. Kill NPCs in space, destroy logistics, deploy towers and erode the colony. Similarly, most capitals will be unassailable until the other colonies are dealt with.
Once the outposts defenses are down to something a bunch of dreads can handle, it is shot just like it has always been done, only taking the outpost isnÆt the end of it. Even with the primary government office (the outpost) taken, colonists, especially happy colonists, will hold out for some time before they will recognize their new overlords. I can see this lasting anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks for a capital.
Even if the invaders are driven off, loosing control of the outpost erodes colony confidence in their alliance and many of them will head for empire as long as the colony is in enemy hands. The outpost will be that much easier to take next time.
If invaders just want to hurt the enemy alliance, they can target the colony itself and rain fire upon the colonists. The drawback is that the colonists will now hate the attacking alliance and capturing the colony in tact will be next to impossible should they decide to try.
Misc:
Building and refining in a POS will be faster than in an outpost.
The POS interface will be like that of an outpost.
A one time move for alliances with outposts on bad planets?
Should Alliances choose a separate name for their nation?
Colonists have bunkers so even a long siege wonÆt kill them all.
Colonists will send mails about pirate attacks and suspected pirate bunkers.
Colonists can give missions?
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Joe Starbreaker
Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 23:30:00 -
[4]
First thought: Seems like a lot of game content for only twenty or thirty people in EVE to be able to have access to.
Second thought: Where's the profit for the alliance in building colonies? Is it just the ability to set up cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc?
- / buy my alt / - |
Rhohan
Minmatar
Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 23:37:00 -
[5]
I like much of what you said, but...
Some questions:
Will the AOI of other Alliances affect the range or your AOI? Kind of like Rise of Nations? (the sov map has someting like this as well)
Will an Alliance that suddenly grows in power right next to one of your colonies, cause you colony to seriously degrade?
Will all the Stars need a Goldielocks Zone rating? Such as 5-14 AU (which would be a very bright star)
Will there be variable stars, with varible Goldielocks Zones?
Will this just cause some Alliances to break up into smaller pieces? to get more Capitals for their numbers? Is that really bad?
Shouldn't the size of the Alliance, as well as their activity affect their colonies and AOI?
-Rho
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 23:40:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tommy Blue on 02/07/2009 23:40:29
 Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
First thought: Seems like a lot of game content for only twenty or thirty people in EVE to be able to have access to.
Second thought: Where's the profit for the alliance in building colonies? Is it just the ability to set up cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc?
Everyone one living in 0.0 would benefit.
The profit comes from increased sov AoE, which results in profit/ more profit from moon moon mining at least. Don't know if the colonies will be producing isk/materials themselves.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 00:56:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 03/07/2009 00:58:40
Thanks for the responses so far.
Rhohan:
I see the AOI of one alliance indirectly affecting that of another. Both AOI's can overlap but colonists don't like having another alliance's installations near their space so a colony with, say, some non alliance POSs and daily mining ops nearby would grow slower or perhaps even shrink thereby affecting AOI.
So yes, An alliance growing in power right next to your colonies, putting down POSs.. etc and just being active near by could degrade a colony. Not as much as if they were to directly attack it or ships in its space though.
I suppose different stars would have different zones and would need ratings but I hadn't thought much about the terminology. Goldilocks works for me 
I can see alliances breaking up to get more capitals but given that this system forces alliances to be self sufficient to some degree I don't think that would be such a bad thing.
As for the size of the alliance.. Im not sure? Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Tommy: You answered Joe's question as well as I could 
I could see the colonies playing a role in material production or some other kind of industry I just felt such an addition could be addressed later.
Further ideas/ additions/ changes are welcome.
Logistics deployables mean less grind and more pewpew! |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 14:36:00 -
[8]
Surely there are more than three speed readers on these forums.
Colonies and Capitals |
Masuke
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 18:24:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Caveats:
A maxed colony outpost can begin to fit super weapons (One shot a BS)
A maxed out (or close) capital can deploy orbital guns that can hit anything in the system.
This seems a tad overpowered...
Perhaps have colony outposts that has "linked" turrets (all turrets fires on one target at a time), that can down BS-es in 2-3 salvos.
and perhaps a maxed out capital can deploy sentryguns to asteroid belts, and jumpgates etc, make them have a limited powersource so they are depleted after.. say 48 hours without refulling?
But systemwide hitting capability is a little too much.
"The problem is usually found between the screen and the chair" |
Kazuma Saruwatari
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 19:14:00 -
[10]
I'm sorry but...
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Outposts will act as small colonies or seed colonies for the planets they orbit.
That just sounds like a cop-out to shifting the fire from the POS to the Outpost instead. Even with OP weaponry to deal with BS-level podpilot targets, what decides how this'll affect how people deploy capitals to siege an alliance? All they have to do is basically tank the OP-ed outpost (unless its SO OP that it oneshots capitals, then you'll just get massive whinage) and blast it apart, causing the colonies to pack up and leave en-masse.
You also did not account for the server load of NPC generation in 0.0. Most of what you're suggesting requires more work from TQ to generate the targettable NPC's of the alliance taking care of the space to be protected from rats and actual enemy podpilots.
Coupled with this, how do these NPC's call for help when no one's on? It doesnt help when on off-peak another alliance can field numbers to attack these NPC's in 50man groups when the tending alliance only has 20-30 members on. You forget that not everyone plays in the same timezone as you on EVE. This just sounds like a massive nerf to the defending alliance, who MUST have the numbers to protect their slice of 0.0 from small 5-10man groups to 50-100man ganktrains. Whilst this will be a true test for larger alliances, smaller ones will just fade back into empire, unable to keep up the guard duty.
You also did not specify even rough mechanics for colonies on planets. Considering EVE, you could technically have colonies on all the planets in a system regardless of terraform viability. Ever heard of dome/underground cities? Another copout would just be looking for a system with the most amount of planets and roid belts to support them and sacrificing the sec status in that for sov.
Colony management sounds like more skills and thus SP sinkage. More alts?
just my 0.02isk. Sorry for being rough, but considering how Sov works ingame (and how bloody broken/boring it can be), if someone is going to suggest a better sov system, I'd rather they have a bloody good idea and cover all the bases so as not to get shot down.
-
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 23:24:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Trent Nichols on 04/07/2009 23:26:48
Thanks again for responding.
The idea by behind the super weapons is that they are overpowered and so attacking a colony becomes a matter of depleting surrounding resources until it can no longer support such defenses.
This is a partial answer to Kazuma's first issue as well. A healthy colony would indeed down dreads fast enough to discourage a direct assault.
The idea here is to replace a week of spamming towers and sieging dreads with a few weeks of smaller fleet fights and eroding resources until the caps are called in for the final assault.
Colony NPCs would increase server load but how much strain would a 6-7 active haulers/barges in each colony system really add?
Attacks during off peak hours would happen just as you say. Fortunately, every alliance has an off peak and such attacks would just be a part of the system.
The part about 100 man fleets is especially good. What may be called for is a system to take attacking numbers into account. How much shame can there be in hiding from that ganktrain after all?
I left planetary mechanics for later posts. I see no problem with multiple colonies and dome/underground cities are good ideas.
I left things a bit rough around the edges partly because I felt I was already pushing things posting as much as I did. My other reason is that I feel such an idea should be a product of the Eve community as a whole. I presented a framework that I hope can be further refined with ideas from others (Rohan for example) and tested under fire from posters like Masuke and Kazuma.
After all, we have to come up with something before CCP goes ahead with this gate madness they are speaking of.
Colonies and Capitals |
Space Divider
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 13:16:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
After all, we have to come up with something before CCP goes ahead with this gate madness they are speaking of.
This. I might be bit unfair towards CCP but I have very little faith that their gate madness will work. (So please CCP, let us players know about your specific plans before you actually start coding them)
I would like to see more strategical approach to alliance warfare and territory holding and your idea certainly has a good direction. One issue is the blobs we are seeing in todays EVE and no doubt they are getting even bigger and heavier. 100 Dreads hammering posses is no longer a major event and whatever the new system will be I hope it takes the ever growing capital ship heavy blobs into consideration.
|
Nikita Alterana
Gallente
Clearly Compensating
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 15:39:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Nikita Alterana on 05/07/2009 15:41:06
i like this idea, a lot, and would definitely prefer it to the gate junk their trying.
EDIT: someone link this in that sov mechanic post
__________________________________________________
I was Amarr before they were the FOTM and I'll be Amarr after it!
I'm also training Minmatar Capitals!
And I eat Lions! |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 15:51:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
After all, we have to come up with something before CCP goes ahead with this gate madness they are speaking of.
Can you give some details on what CCP are intending to go with? Was this in EON magazine?
|
Psihius
Caldari
Russian Falcons
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 15:58:00 -
[15]
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=16#476
&
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=19#542
Read them thought
|
Cailais
Amarr
Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 22:18:00 -
[16]
I strongly support this proposal. The concept of nurturing and to an extent protecting your colonies makes very good sense = the NPC colony is what gives your 'sovereignty' legitimacy.
Harming these npc colonies, through a variety of degrees (destruction of npc shipping, habitats and infrastructure) gives a scale of smaller objectives - reducing the need for massed blob warfare and enabling a 'death by a thousand cuts' approach.
This concept is by a far margin much better than the awful 'gate system' CCP have proposed.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente
Mercurialis Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 02:53:00 -
[17]
TBH this sounds like the AOI from civilizations 3, works well in that game, but Im not sure how well it would work in eve. Would be a lot more interesting though.
Support the DEAD HORSE POS's |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 21:06:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Space Divider
I would like to see more strategical approach to alliance warfare and territory holding and your idea certainly has a good direction. One issue is the blobs we are seeing in todays EVE and no doubt they are getting even bigger and heavier. 100 Dreads hammering posses is no longer a major event and whatever the new system will be I hope it takes the ever growing capital ship heavy blobs into consideration.
Exactly; to a fleet with more than 30 dreads, a POS isn't an exciting battle, it is 10 minutes of boredom until your siege runs out and you move to the next POS.
In attacking a colony, tactical decisions are possible. An alliance can decide if they want to attack a not completely diminished colony and risk loosing dreads or play it safe and keep whittling away. Even mostly powered down, I see it being one exciting and risky fight to replace dozens of boring sieges.
Syberbolt8: I played many hours of Civ I see the Colony AoI being similar with a few notable differences, one being that AoIs can overlap ensuring many fun resource conflicts.
Colonies and Capitals |
Bluestreak2k5
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 21:27:00 -
[19]
I like most things that you said, however I don't like the idea of reaching a max colony.
My suggestion:
No max colony, the longer you hold that capital the larger and larger it becomes, million to billions of citizens. therefore there would be no max super weapons either. However for every X amount of people your colony on the planet had you could deploy an additional defense weapon.
Or you could have the population affect the CPU and powergrid of the outpost. Say like every 10 citizens means 1 more powergrid point. This would make defending and taking capitals much much harder for those alliances that manage to hold them.
Not sure I agree too much with NPC colony miners, but I could definately see a certain amount of isk being generated for each citizen that goes to the corp who owns the outpost.
Also you would have to change the way the POS fuel required goes down according to population. Make it a logarithmic formula, like your ship resistences. Instead of when you reach max capital size.
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 21:46:00 -
[20]
I personally think you have some good ideas, why don't you air it in the Assembly Hall?
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 21:53:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Trent Nichols
After all, we have to come up with something before CCP goes ahead with this gate madness they are speaking of.
Can you give some details on what CCP are intending to go with? Was this in EON magazine?
Ditto, whats this gate madness you speak of?
On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 23:35:00 -
[22]
This "gate madness" is explained right here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=19#542
Roughly its about holding X amount of gates which force people to spread out.
|
Nikita Alterana
Gallente
Clearly Compensating
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 07:21:00 -
[23]
posting to bump this cause I find it dumb that ccp is missing this topic but replied to the TITAN R BAD topic # 1468.
__________________________________________________
I was Amarr before they were the FOTM and I'll be Amarr after it!
I'm also training Minmatar Capitals!
And I eat Lions! |
Centurion Vorenus
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 15:39:00 -
[24]
I Think you've really got something with this and i hope ccp takes notice. Also, i like the idea of being able to anchor guns at your station. I never understood why a pos out in the middle of nowhere could be bristling with guns but the giant station in the middle of the solar system was completely undefended. I'd also like to see 0.0 alliance controlled gate guns. Even if its only into and out of your capital static defenses could turn the tide of a battle.
|
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:09:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Tom Peeping on 07/07/2009 16:10:50
it seems as. though this would seriously nerf alliances ability to have diplomatic relations, and that it would prevent "coalitions" of alliances from residing in the same territory. The reason being that there would be "blue" POS's doing moon mining, being safe jump points, etc... You've mentioned that even blue pos's belonging to other groups would cause the colony not to develop as well.
Doesn't this make it so that a coalition of smaller alliances can no longer face the big alliances on equal terms?
Edit... also, it's an interesting idea, but it seems like it might involve a lot of calculations/database information for each colony in game. Won't that hurt game performance in all other areas?
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 23:00:00 -
[26]
My thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I'm getting some good ideas and critiques from what I'm reading so I may end up with a new draft soon - perhaps to post in Assembly Hall.
Bluestreak:
You are the second person who has a problem with maxed colonies so it may be time to change that bit. I suppose a colony would eventually reach a natural maximum if it is just left up to alliance activity and available resources. I'm thinking Ill replace "Maxed out" with "Well established" Anyone else want to weigh in on this?
I see the NPCs as mining/hauling etc for the colony to support its growth though there could be benefits for the alliance as well.
Suggestions for outpost CPU/powergrid and POS fuels sound good to me.
Tom:
This mechanic, by design, would make peaceful relations with neighboring alliances more difficult. Were it to be implemented I wouldn't consider it a complete success until most of 0.0 was on fire.
I see your point regarding coalitions of smaller alliances though. One thing to remember is that alliances get a boost when building up their first colony since capitals build faster. Still, a way to form official coalitions may be needed - only one capital per coalition though.
Calculations would be needed as events happen that affect the colonies but I don't see a need for them to happen any more than once an hour if that.
Colonies and Capitals |
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:48:00 -
[27]
Giving this a bump. I would really like to see it go far enough to grab Dev attention.
Colonies and Capitals |
Sturdy Girl
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 20:04:00 -
[28]
I like most of these ideas a lot... but I think they could be improved, and involve more pilots if done slightly differently:
I think that the 'revolt' mechanic and roaming rat npcs should be one single mechanic for simplicity, but with different factions (rat scumbags, and local revolutionaries).
The revolutionaries can either be quashed by simple good governance (so they shut up), or by crushing them mercilessly (they fear you too much). Whereas the rats can also be crushed mercilessly, or can be kept 'on side' by horribly corrupt governance... this could potentially allow for an 'effective' dynamic concord rating maybe.
I think that alliances should only be allowed to build military and infrastructural developments to their colonies... the resources of the planets should be available to the open market, through the influx of NPC corporations... with taxes set by the alliance (although, for prosperity those taxes need to be low, and the market kept as open as possible).
I also think that every colony should have a governor and open ministerial positions, which can either be thrown open to election from the populace (with the risk of being ousted by NPCs or other pilots, but with the possibility of MUCH more productivity) or merely assigned by the executors of the alliance.
|
Tommy Blue
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 14:46:00 -
[29]
Bump for an awsome idea
|
Destruction Theory
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 15:06:00 -
[30]
/signed... utterly and completely dead on.. the current mechanic is just appalling. and the gatemadness ccp suggested is pathetic. THE ONLY THING i'm worried about, is again, the extra load it will put on tranquility. but hey ccp get enough money out of us a month, they're payed to make us happy so why don't they just increase tqs power
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |