Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jyai Din
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 14:14:00 -
[1]
Sov bills in Dominion is an important factor in nullsec space distribution. In order to reduce their sov bills, most nullsec alliances only claims systems where strategic upgrades and stations are needed, leaving most of their space officially unclaimed, but not politically claimable either by another alliance.
In order to encourage these alliance to either exploit this space, or to welcome pets alliance in their space, i have a proposal
- Introduce "Constellation Sov" and "Region Sov", the dominant alliance of a constellation or a region, as displayed in the sov dashboard, has officially the sov of the constellation/region
- The alliance who has a Constellation sov pays for half of the price of the claim (TCU onlining) on unclaimed systems in the constellation
- The alliance who has a Region sov pays for the other half of the price of the claim on unclaimed systems in the whole region
|
VCBee 2fast2furious
GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 14:37:00 -
[2]
Not sure how this encourages either of the things you say it would. Wouldn't it be more likely to make the dominant alliance prevent any other alliance from claiming sov in 'their' region or constellation (since the dominant alliance would be lumped with half of any sov bill)?
|
Jyai Din
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 15:32:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Jyai Din on 09/02/2010 15:32:39 The situation now is :
Big alliance owns x regions Big alliance pays sov for stations/jumpbridges/hubs/stragegic systems Big alliance leave pockets/transit systems unclaimed Big alliance effectively has influence on the whole region, for a fraction of the sov bill They do not need to pay, they do not need to let other people live in these unclaimed systems.
With this proposal : Big alliance pays the minimum price for all the systems within their sphere of influence In order to reduce their sov bills, they must either exploit these unused systems, or rent this space to other people, as Dominion was intended to work They can also assume the cost of these sov bills, if they do not want intruders in their space.
It is only an incentive, and a fix, as the intended mechanic of Dominion was alliance to pay the more space they have influence on.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 15:39:00 -
[4]
Dominion failed miserably at opening up null-sec to smaller entities and something has to be done to curtail the "gun-nut neighbour" strategy used to claim unoccupied space. If you want to hurt the large alliances on their wallets make them pay for the unused space.
Example: Constellation has 5 systems, Region has 5 constellations. If alliance holds sovereignty in 2 or more systems and no other entity is present, alliance pays for entire constellation regardless of presence of TCU's. If alliance pays for 2 or more constellations and no other entity is present, alliance pays for entire region regardless of presence of TCU's.
That would get expensive really fast and forces alliances to either invite others or occupy smaller developed areas.
Create benefits to having actual sovereignty in all systems in a constellation to make it even more attractive to develop ones space.
|
Agent Unknown
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 15:54:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Dominion failed miserably at opening up null-sec to smaller entities and something has to be done to curtail the "gun-nut neighbour" strategy used to claim unoccupied space. If you want to hurt the large alliances on their wallets make them pay for the unused space.
Example: Constellation has 5 systems, Region has 5 constellations. If alliance holds sovereignty in 2 or more systems and no other entity is present, alliance pays for entire constellation regardless of presence of TCU's. If alliance pays for 2 or more constellations and no other entity is present, alliance pays for entire region regardless of presence of TCU's.
That would get expensive really fast and forces alliances to either invite others or occupy smaller developed areas.
Create benefits to having actual sovereignty in all systems in a constellation to make it even more attractive to develop ones space.
Of course, people can find ways around it, like owning the "border" constellations in two different regions. This would cause the universe to shift sov-wise in terms of regions even if they're named differently. Constellation-wise, owning less then the cutoff will just encourage bigger alliances to get MORE space to cover the systems lost in order to be under that cutoff point. Also, I now have one of those annoying sigs.
Originally by: CCP Fallout
And yelling is bad. It makes the baby Jesus cry and when the baby Jesus cries I'm forced to lock threads
|
domitesting
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 15:56:00 -
[6]
if im right im not sure this would work. Why would an alliance want to pay more money on more systems they dont want. Most dont even want pet alliances or renters anyway. Alliance would have to pay 50% of a system they never wanted sov in anyway. Which monetry wise is a loss. Even if the renter paid half its not going to the alliance, and infact the renter would benefit more as they only need to spend 50% of the amount required.
To put it simply most alliances dont want to rent their space anyway, they want it for themselves, they dont need to sov all systems they just need the stations which effectively gives them control over the region. So they are not going to pay for systems and renters they dont want.
Now Dominion as settled in a little, I actually think its a case of the rich get richer, big get bigger and others well tough sh*t..
|
Jyai Din
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:13:00 -
[7]
Alliances do not want to pay for space they don't use, but they do not want people to come in this unclaimed space either, as this is a bother. They can't have both, they must choose between paying sov, or have people in their space
If they let a neutral alliance settle in their space (if NRDS), they won't have to pay for the sov, as it is claimed, reducing their sov bills. If a red alliance settle in their unclaimed space, they will probably kick them out, because it is a threat, but then they should have been claiming sov on these systems (and paying bills). Cf Provi/Catch war.
Either pays sov, or have someone pay it for you
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:15:00 -
[8]
so because you are too weak to claim the space you want to punish others for leaving unclaimed systems?
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:19:00 -
[9]
I would suggest : REMOVE LOCAL FROM UNCLAIMED SYSTEMS. So they cant gather free easy intel anymore from space they do not pay for.
They want to leave a free pocket of space = security risk.
|
Hotako
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:23:00 -
[10]
CVA butthurt much?
|
|
Jyai Din
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:25:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Jyai Din on 09/02/2010 16:26:52 Edited by: Jyai Din on 09/02/2010 16:26:34 If they are too weak, they should find allies, or do not claim sov at all. Dominion is not intended to have your 100 man ally to have independant sov. It is intended to make bigger alliances welcome smaller alliances in their space to support the sov bills (and it has failed to do so, but it has sucessfully pwned goons)
|
CommmanderInChief
Unorganised Crime
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:29:00 -
[12]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 I would suggest : REMOVE LOCAL FROM UNCLAIMED SYSTEMS. So they cant gather free easy intel anymore from space they do not pay for.
They want to leave a free pocket of space = security risk.
Thats an interesting concept actually...
On the other point, so your saying that every system must be claimed in one way or another? The problem is and always has been that smaller corps/alliances wont even venture into that space anyway for the fear of getting blobbed. Dominion sadly hasnt made it easier, SOV really isnt that important its about being able to live in 0.0 without too much aggro. I mean, if you want to live in 0.0 build a POS and live out of that. The problem is firstly the blobbage to kill you and secondly logistics, you have no access to stations, and thats important and fundamentally the problem. Large space holding alliances now now they dont need to hold sov in every system anymore, people are only interested in the best moons systems and the stations thats it.. Thinking about it im not sure why people claimed sov before in systems they didnt need...
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 19:22:00 -
[13]
This would be far too easy a system to game. I don't see it working well at all. Getting rid of local in unclaimed systems, and making it optional on the part of the owner in claimed systems, might work, but that's only a maybe. But an automated method of sticking people with bills for systems they don't own or want to own? I doubt it.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 20:29:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto This would be far too easy a system to game. I don't see it working well at all. Getting rid of local in unclaimed systems, and making it optional on the part of the owner in claimed systems, might work, but that's only a maybe. But an automated method of sticking people with bills for systems they don't own or want to own? I doubt it.
Sort of like the current, Dominion system, is far too easy to game. The problem is that even though it is in the best interest of individual players in an alliance to hold a tight corner of space that builds up the infrastructure level in each system for maximum profit per hour of whatever your favorite money making method may be (okay, it may not benefit scamming), it is in opposition to the best interest of the alliance as an entity.
Moon gold remains spread out, so alliances continue to hold a wide swath of systems because the moon gold is what they want. Until there is a money making device, that promotes less sov sprawl, for the alliance entity that benefits alliances more than moon gold, you will always have alliance sov sprawl.
Fix Local |
XXSketchxx
Gallente Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 22:31:00 -
[15]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 I would suggest : REMOVE LOCAL FROM UNCLAIMED SYSTEMS. So they cant gather free easy intel anymore from space they do not pay for.
They want to leave a free pocket of space = security risk.
great idea.
Make local an expensive system upgrade for claimable 0.0 (leave local in NPC 0.0) _____________________________________________
-Sketch, Certified Pharmacist
Need a Boost?
|
Grimstate
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 00:43:00 -
[16]
The best way to get people to use a system or concept is to reward them for doing so in the first place. Give big Alliances a benefit for renting out space to smaller alliances. Any empty space occupied by a renting alliance should automatically give the bigger alliance a reduction in their total sov space bill the longer a renter stays. Doing so would help to avoid short term scams. So coupled with the having to pay for the empty space mechanic also add an incentive to make it in the best interests for big alliances to rent out space to smaller alliances for the long term by gradually reducing their over all sov bill for the length of duration a renter stays in unclaimed space. This would probably give most big alliances an incentive to do what was actually intended by the deployment of Dominion and its new sov mechinism.
|
titains
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 03:22:00 -
[17]
I suggest that the first system an alliance can claim can be anywhere and after that they can only claim adjacent systems.
|
XXSketchxx
Gallente Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 04:34:00 -
[18]
Originally by: titains I suggest that the first system an alliance can claim can be anywhere and after that they can only claim adjacent systems.
I actually like this concept and when dominion sov was first announced, I thought they would so something like this
Reminds me of UT4's Assault matches. _____________________________________________
-Sketch, Certified Pharmacist
Need a Boost?
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 11:10:00 -
[19]
Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 10/02/2010 11:10:06
Originally by: titains I suggest that the first system an alliance can claim can be anywhere and after that they can only claim adjacent systems.
How about the more unclaimed systems is in the way from "main" system the higer the cost.
Less artificial rule , similar effect.
You can avoid it by compressing your territory, you can do your own way if you rellay want to ( at cost ). Sounds more like sandbox, yet it promotes less sprawling.
|
Rounaid
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 18:52:00 -
[20]
Another proposal : For each neighbor unclaimed system, the sov tax is increased by X%. X must be quite high (60 ? 75 ?), as it should incitate alliances to claim all the nearby space, or allow other alliances to claim them. For example : http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Delve/4K-TRB This unclaimed system will cost IT 75% more for D-W and QX-, so it will be a good idea to claim it.
This renders the sov bill calculation a bit more complex, but should solve the current issue. And it will also force alliances to make more stategic choices for their space, to avoid huge bills for useless space. It will also force them to concentrate on their core regions, and claim it at a whole, without holes in it.
|
|
Bunyip
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 19:53:00 -
[21]
Originally by: titains I suggest that the first system an alliance can claim can be anywhere and after that they can only claim adjacent systems.
When I was in the CSM and made my proposal to CCP for the new Sovereignty system, this is kinda what I included. Have the price a set amount, but make it an exponential multiplier the further away from the highest sovereignty system.
For example, an alliance owns one system of Sov level 3, and then others of lower sovereignty. The cost of the main system would be marginal (maybe 100k or something). The next systems over might increase that amount by 50%, compounded the further you are from the highest sovereignty. For this example, the cost of the bordering systems might be 150k each, the cost of the next systems from that would cost 225k each, et al.
These values are mapped based on the shortest route. If the alliance had sovereignty 3 at their core system (where the jump bridges are), and then didn't have any systems in the intervening systems for quite a ways, they would have to pay 1m if the systems were 7 jumps out, compounded from there.
This makes it far more valuable to develop the space you have. I also included other benefits for sovereignty including moon goo, defenses, and agents in space - which CCP seems to have neglected. They went with their own system which, thankfully, incorporated some of my features but unfortunately not all of them.
In either case, the sov system works a lot better than it used to, and I'm thankful for that. It's still got it's bugs, but I feel the current mechanics are an exploit of the spirit of the new rules of sovereignty, if not the mechanics itself.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
Jyai Din
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 19:36:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Jyai Din on 22/02/2010 19:36:27 A thread with more suggestions : http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1268924
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |