Doctor Invictus
Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:27:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Doctor Invictus on 23/01/2011 00:28:28 *shameless plug*
A while ago I posted thoughts on how to correct some of the repeated 0.0 issues. I think my proposal (here) addresses the following at least partially.
1) Works towards taking the blob out of sovereignty warfare using incentives, rather than fiat (e.g., in-system ship caps).
2) Makes it easier for small groups to claim space by shrinking the scale of sovereignty from systems to individual planets, moons, and asteroid belts.
3) Introduces an efficient pricing mechanism for sovereignty costs, which takes into account the level of activity in the system and its perceived value. Prices for holding space can be made to go up by reducing activity via small gangs.
4) Introduces an escalating mining system, which optionally extends the career arc for miners.
5) Disconnects POS from infrastructure, and makes them much simpler to anchor/operate.
6) Make 0.0 more self-sufficient.
Below is a much-shortened version of the original proposal.
Make sovereignty contingent on control of colonies on the surface of planets, moons, and asteroid belts (belt stations). To be claimed, a world has to be habitable, based on factors such as temperature, air pressure (etc), which are rigged with probabilities that make few worlds habitable by default. Habitability factors can be changed by alliances (at great cost in ISK, time and effort) to create new habitable colony sites; however, the habitability factors will revert if not maintained (pruning feature to prevent proliferation). The lowest level of sovereignty would be individual planets, moons and belts, rather than systems.
ColoniesÆ populations would naturally grow given various circumstances, which allows for greater and greater amounts of infrastructure that could either be restricted to alliance members or rented out to non-alliance players. Based on their population, colonies would generate personnel, in the form of colonists (can be used to increase the population of other colonies) or recruits (can be trained into troops for sovereignty warfare). Troops have cyclical costs associated with ownership (e.g., daily, weekly, or monthly), which would act as an ISK sink. Troops are functionally active while on a colony, even if no pilot is directing them. To claim sovereignty on a given colony an alliance must control the majority of the population, which means killing off the defending troops using troops they have transported from their colony via ship. The rate of elimination of troops would be capped at some number, thereby disallowing rapid sovereignty flipping (unless the colony is poorly defended). Beyond transporting large numbers of troops and preventing enemy ships with interfering with the same, huge fleets would be unnecessary for sovereignty warfare, as there would not be a single target on which maximizing DPS would be particularly helpful (e.g., POS, TCU), besides enemy ships themselves. Troop-on-troop battles would decrease coloniesÆ populations based on the length/size of the battle, thereby reducing the ability of the defending colony to produce new troops and sustain infrastructure. Infrastructure in an area would wax and wane based on player actions relating to things like exploitable resources and war. The index system could be re-worked and linked with minimal troop to population ratios for sovereignty claims in order to provide a strong financial incentive to use claimed space (particularly if it contains highly-populated/developed colonies).
Infrastructure would take the form of satellites that can be anchored near colonies (based on population), which would take over most from POS (leaving them with basics like mining and storage). De-linking infrastructure from POS would allow for greater variability in the former, and simplicity in the latter. POS could simply be sold as mining and storage platforms, as opposed to towers with various combinations of modules.
|