| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LegendaryFrog
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2009.07.15 02:27:00 -
[1]
I propose that rather than a single definitive assailable structure being the end-all be-all of 0.0 sovereignty, sovereignty should be a relatively accurate representation of how much influence an alliance holds over a certain tract of space. This could be accomplished in the following way.
Have sovereignty represent a general ôconfidence levelö that an npc population (represented as simple statistics, without any actual physical presence needed) has in an AllianceÆs ability to protect them from harm. The construction by an alliance of a few initial settlement structures revolving around the planets in a system could trigger the influx of ôsettlersö into the various planets of a system. As time passes, the confidence level would raise, and more settlers would inhabit the planets of a system. This confidence level could be assailed by hostile pilots by making assaults directly on the planetary structures, on some of the moon-based industrial complexes, or on settler built defenses (to be explained later).
These settlers would pay taxes to the controlling alliance (which would directly scale with the number of settlers in the system, which in a sense is the sovereignty level of that system), and overtime could provide more dynamic benefits such as the production and sale of unique ships and modules in systems with player owned stations, a source for missions that would have a unique 0.0 flavor, and they could even provide a novel defense force (in the form of friendly npcs) that could protect the planet against invaders.
The system I envision could look something like this:
Sov 1: Build a planetary inhabiting module (PIM) in at least one planet in a system. This triggers the start of sov 1. Gradually settlers begin inhabiting the planets that have this PIM structure. The more PIMS in the system (at a max of one for every planet) the faster the overall system population rises. One important aspect of this is that the population growth HAS to be predictable, based on the number of planets in a system, so as to make managing multiple systems easier for an Alliance. As the population rises, gradually simple defenses like orbital defense guns and npc frigates and cruisers can develop around the planets. Once a certain threshold is reached (say, 60 million inhabitants)à
Sov 2: Sov 2 enables an alliance to build terraforming module for their planets, increasing the population cap of the planet. At this sov level, the population begins to settle down and offer missions for the home alliance (these missions come from a set of missions that are specifically created for sov related agents, and are in no way region specific), as well as increased defensive (npc battleships and larger caliber guns) and industrial benefits (offering assistance in moon POS maintenance, such as a reduction in fuel costs). At another population threshold (600 million?) sov 3 is reached.
Sov 3: This would be another gradual step up in the industrial and defensive benefits of the settling population. Better missions, better industrial rewards, more npc planet protection, etc.
Sov 4: This would rely on a certain population (in the billions) that would only be achievable at a constellation level, across multiple systems (much the way const. sov works now, except not station dependent). Sov 4 populations could be more resilient to confidence declines (explained later) as they have developed a long standing interrelationship with their host alliance. I would like to see the removal of ômysteriously invincible structuresö that exist with current sov 4 mechanics, and instead concentrate on it simply being a more difficult path to uproot the infrastructure (in the form of settlements) in such well-developed systems.
|
LegendaryFrog
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 02:28:00 -
[2]
Of course, thus far this has seemed pretty one-sided in favor of the defender. While there should be a definite advantage for wanting to put the effort into holding 0.0 space, it should not be a fortress that is unassailable to anything but the largest of capital fleets. That is why I want to see a system where the potential damage an assailing force can do is scalable with the size of that force.
The confidence in alliance protection is the ultimate thing that an assailing force wants to destroy. A small gang could assault some of the moon based, more lightly defended industrial structures which would have a minor negative impact on settler confidence (as well as causing some financial damage to the defending alliance). A massive fleet could directly assault the planets themselves, causing a markedly larger impact on settler confidence. As confidence goes down, settlers abandon the system. This essentially makes sovereignty a dynamic tug-if-war rather than set of hard, artificial levels of representation. However, concrete levels at some of the milestones would still exist (sov levels 1,2,3, and 4) so that both the attacking forces and defending alliance has a clear gauge on their current standing.
The intent is NOT for a small roaming gang of HACs to be able to cripple alliance infrastructure in backwater systems that are not scouted 24 hours a day. Such a gang could knock a few points off the confidence level in a region by going around and hunting settler npcs and less defended structures which would succeed in hurting the finances of the defending alliance a bit, but it would take a concentrated effort over time to have a more drastic effect such as lowering the sovereignty level of a system. Eventually, I think it would be interesting to see player kills also contribute to settler confidence (so by killing a member of the defending alliance, confidence goes down, if the defending alliance successfully defends a structure or system, confidence goes up). The details would have to be worked out for such a system though.
The advantages of this type of system are many.
-Incentivizes 0.0 space holding by providing 0.0 exclusive benefits (special missions and items offered by settlers) and creating a dynamic ôbuilding over timeö infrastructure base
-Makes 0.0 space more interesting and flexible. As it is, aside from the occasional gatecamp or ratter, 0.0 space is a barren, desolate place. Seeing some activity in the form of npc settlers around planets, dynamic structures built in systems, and the ability for less valuable systems (resource-wise) to be made valuable by space holding alliances would be a great boost to the overall attractiveness of 0.0 space.
-Utilizes existing alliance infrastructure by allowing settelers to make use of moon mining POSes and player owned stations (for selling their goods on the market).
-Allows for both small gangs and large alliances to assault defended space with SCALABLE degrees of impact.
-Increases the range of options for both attack and defense, evolving 0.0 warefare beyond ôattack/defend the POS)
-Allows for more vibrant, player driven stories and better represents the epic scale that 0.0 warfare should involve.
Thank you for taking the time to read all of this. Comments/suggestions/criticisms are all welcome.
|
Kytanos Termek
Darkstorm Command
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 05:23:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 15/07/2009 05:23:09
I like it. Though it needs some building, expanding. the basic idea I think is worthy of a big fat old support ^_^
Good idea chap.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 06:21:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 15/07/2009 06:21:13
As with every sov revamp thread, this is clearly a first draft. It needs work before CCP can even think of implementing it. However, it's certainly one of the more interesting first drafts I've seen in a while. You seem to have addressed all the usual issues fairly cleanly, and if it's done right, it'd be easier to understand and easier to get into than the current system. I like this, a lot.
|
Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 07:13:00 -
[5]
This is similar to some thoughts I've posted before as well, but goes a bit further by making planet populations automate as do improvements to the systems.
Bluntly, I don't think automation of the process is the wise way to go, as it cuts out the actions of the sov-holding alliance as economic entities.
Better would be to make planetary populations be trade goods sourced from Empire, and employed in specific planetary structures that produce sov points over time (or materials/goods of use, if you'd rather use your colonists in other ways).
Rather than automatically causing targets to appear in a system, sov would permit useful structures (defense, offense, and economic) to be anchored by the spaceholding alliance. That said, I could see a model in which probe-able "civilian" structures are automatically seeded as exploration sites in a system, and attacking those becomes ONE of the means to reduce sov points for attackers, as would taking out NPC "convoys" and the like.
In many ways, I think the future of sovreignty could (and should) be looked at as a mini-game similar to managing your cities in Colonization--only instead of the mother-country sending invincible elite troops to smash you flat, some other space-holding alliance eventually does that for you.  Colonization, in short, was all about generating advancement points, recruiting bonus people, and harvesting raw materials to be either sold in the distant market or refined to a finished good and then sold.
So, in general I support this idea.
--Krum
--Krum |
Orb Vex
R.U.R.
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 10:07:00 -
[6]
|
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 14:03:00 -
[7]
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 14:19:00 -
[8]
I think this idea is worth developing. It has something for everyone.
|
Aastarius
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 15:38:00 -
[9]
Looks like a pretty good first draft
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 15:52:00 -
[10]
Supporting the draft idea as worth development/consideration.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
Tenshiin
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 19:10:00 -
[11]
I hereby support this.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 22:43:00 -
[12]
This was suggested in the past a few times, most of the time people didn't see a point in moving from one grind bottleneck to another grind bottleneck.
Personally I think the idea would have merit if it incorporated restricting immigration to exotic dancers.
|
De'Veldrin
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 23:52:00 -
[13]
As a first draft, I support the idea.
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Sights Silo
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 05:23:00 -
[14]
Fantastic idea. |
CommanderData211
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 08:43:00 -
[15]
Wow, the Goons have finally gotten something right!
This is a great/wonderful/amazing/incredible... idea.
A concern that I do have is moving from the current system to this new system. Would it be just a mad scramble to set up planetary structures? Would sovereignty disappear when the new system is implemented, leaving the space vulnerable until the planetary modules are anchored?
I love the idea of naturally spawning NPC's that fight for you, but will they spawn in belts? If they do will they attack normal rats? If not, will they spawn in the belts and simply not attack the rats? Also, can their aggression behavior be set by the alliance, and if so, what about NRDS space where the alliance has no standing slots left?
What kind of other structures do you have in mind and what functions do you propose they have from two different perspectives?
1) What kind of actual functions will the structures serve other than sovereignty holding?
2) What is to prevent an alliance from filling their space to the gills with these things so that when they are destroyed the "confidence level" barely goes down.
An idea that I had a little while ago was mini POS's which could be anchored anywhere except asteroid belts. They could be set up by individuals within a corp instead of the corp as a whole. Something like this might be an interesting addition, growing confidence and making individuals have somewhere to go that is entirely their own. Of course they would need to be scaled down drastically both in terms of their defensive capability as well as their fuel cost but I think it would be great to see something like this.
Sorry for my scatterbrained response, but I think that more tweaking needs to be done to this idea and I wanted to cover some issues. Thumbs up but keep developing.
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 14:52:00 -
[16]
i need to think about it more but so far i like it
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Marik Starsong
Dominion Gaming
Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 17:34:00 -
[17]
Very interesting idea. As many have pointed out, it needs additional work but it's an excellent start.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 17:46:00 -
[18]
The general idea is good, only problem is that it isn't specific enough - there's too much left for interpretation. It could be implemented in a way that would totally rock or totally suck.
We should encourage CCP game designer team to flesh out this concept, but we shouldn't throw all support on whatever they come up with. We need to wait and see for the details. I'd estimate that fleshing out this concept to a good level of detail would take about 1 week, and if they commit to it, it would take like half a year to implement. So it's quite serious undertaking
|
Gaven Darklighter
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 06:28:00 -
[19]
you could outsource some work to EA and have them make a sims 3 expansion solely for Eve, based on sim city 2000, and please keep the cheats the same.
|
Aminam Proweco
Smegnet Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 07:27:00 -
[20]
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 00:50:00 -
[21]
|
Prexir
Sane Industries Inc.
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 13:42:00 -
[22]
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |