EVE Search - Nullsec design goals feedback: Territory and conquest

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Nullsec design goals feedback: Territory and conquest

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2011.08.15 10:53:00 - [1] This set of threads exist to collect feedback for the separate parts of the devblog "Nullsec Development: Design Goals", which can be found here. This thread is about: TERRITORY AND CONQUEST Please read the blog and give specific feedback on this area of the blog. The more precise, reasoned and comprehensive you can be, the better we can utilize your feedback

Louis deGuerre Gallente Malevolence. Imperial 0rder	Posted - 2011.08.15 11:16:00 - [2] Edited by: Louis deGuerre on 15/08/2011 11:24:07 Nothing about dynamic 0.0 Big boyz will take all the best 0.0 0.0 space will remain static and no one will have any incentive to fight. I am disappoint. EDIT : PS FIRST *****ES
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2011.08.15 11:40:00 - [3] Diseconomies of scale Quote: Being big should bring drawbacks as well as benefits, and getting big should be a lifestyle choice or a chosen specialization, rather than a necessity. Some sorts of operations should benefit a little more than others from being larger, but it should not be the case that being big is a straight-up advantage. You get diminishing returns in terms of social value above a certain point, and anecdotally trying to grow quickly to remain competitive is a leading cause of corps and alliances failing. This is the case now which is why larger Alliances have to take more space. On a corp. member's basis, the more people in the Alliance, the greater the strains upon your ability to make money. In order to achieve what you're talking about here, there needs to be a disincentive to own multiple regions. Many dimensions of value Quote: When assessing the value of a given area of space, there should be many different possible measures of "good", and each area of space should have a different combination of "good" and "bad" measures, to as fine a granularity as is practical. This should ensure that all bits of space are good for something and therefore worth fighting over; that for any given measure of good there's a "best" bit of space that people after that particular thing will want to fight over and hold; and that there are many different "best bits" corresponding to different specific requirements, so there's no clear "best overall" bit of space that allows one organization holding it to dominate everyone else. Remember that an Alliance is only as strong as its constituent corporations. Corporations are only as strong as their members. All null sec regions, particulary conquerable regions, must have something that's "good" for an average player. Failure to do so will result in an exedous back to Empire again. Grunts involved throughout Quote: Corp and alliance leadership are very important to the game because they often do a lot of work to make sure that thousands of other players are having a good time. We should be careful not to put the cart before the horse, though. Wherever possible we should make sure that interesting tools and decisions are being given to all rather than just the few leaders. If a feature is trying to make the often-thankless job of leadership easier, it should be aimed at the leaders. If it's trying to add something new and interesting to the game, it should be aimed at the "grunts". The Corporate roles system is crying out for an overhaul. There needs to be a lot more flexibility within it. By extension, Alliances should be able to hand out roles without having to have characters within a holding corporation. Something like "Can have Alliance roles". When granted, Alliance executors can then hand out roles to people. Recruitment, standings etc. all being able to be handled on a persons main that does not need to reside within the executor corporation. This would ease the burden upon Alliance leadership. TZ-safe Quote: Up for removal. Still thinking about how much we should try and mitigate time zone issues for people, and how much we should leave them to figure out the problem themselves. You will undermine everything you're trying to achieve with nullsec if you allow tz sov ping pong games to return. This shouldn't mean you can't make inroads in to soverignty attacks outside of someone's time zone though. Time zone saftey also discourages neighboring Alliances from large scale invasions of each other and shifts the emphasis of combat back to the small scale. Allowing it so that you wake up one morning and find someone's taken all your sov will result in daily grinds and soverignty wars being even more firmly entrenched within the "He who gets bored first looses" way of winning wars. Find us on Facebook and Twitter
Newt Rondanse	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:12:00 - [4] It strikes me that if they make sov related to various activity measures instead of a binary condition enforced structurally, that as long as the measure of activity for sovereignty is in full 24 hr increments the TZ issue gets washed out.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:16:00 - [5] Constellation wide fighting for control of individual systems, a mash-up of Incursions and FW .. Specifics I won't comment on, but there should be options besides bringing "Da BlobÖ" when going on the offensive (ie. time invested should have same impact as manpower invested). Personally hate the idea of sovereignty timers, they were originally added to help with tz warfare, but have ended up being a huge encouragement to never meet new peoples giving us a Euro bloc, US bloc, Russian Bloc etc. I'll embrace any mechanic that breaks this trend towards homogeneous entities. Scale: Ack, there is a lot of overlap .. rephrasing from Logistics thread. Introduce a maintenance system (think Civ4( that adds penalties based on distance from a capital and number of 'external' holdings. Allow for said penalties to be somewhat mitigated by adding sovereignty upgrades that 'interfere' with other upgrades (like jammers/bridges). Reference: The Roman Empire was the single most powerful force in its time, yet it eventually collapsed due to the administrative burden of its size .. includes the scheming/shenanigans of citizens trying to get their dues and in the process hastening its demise.
Reicine Ceer Rodents of Unusual Size	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:36:00 - [6] Hiya, just a quick thing i think would be cool and maybe add something to Sov as a whole. In high-sec, if you attack someone randomly, CONCORD appears and blows you up. If an alliance owns a system, and their people are randomly attacked, it'd be cool if those holding Sov had the ability to warp to the conflict, a la CONCORD, and police their own space. -- You're a stark example of just what is wrong with the youth of today. I wish your parents had the presence of mind to have you recycled into a nutrient soup with which to feed the elderly
Ishina Fel Caldari Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:43:00 - [7] Originally by: Reicine Ceer Hiya, just a quick thing i think would be cool and maybe add something to Sov as a whole. In high-sec, if you attack someone randomly, CONCORD appears and blows you up. If an alliance owns a system, and their people are randomly attacked, it'd be cool if those holding Sov had the ability to warp to the conflict, a la CONCORD, and police their own space. People do that already. It's called a "standing fleet" and is completely player-driven. - Signature? What signature?
Siena Petrucis Caldari Jelly Kings BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.08.15 13:51:00 - [8] Concerning "Descriptive ownership" I am fully with you. Drop the sov concept. Instead, allow players to anchor POSes or other offensive/defensive structures (e.g. sentries) at key locations in 0.0 - gates, stations, ice belts, whatever. If your alliance/corp can keep these structures alive, it obviously has control over its space, and it also has the benefit of a tactical advantage. No TCU needed for that.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:05:00 - [9] Edited by: Furb Killer on 15/08/2011 14:05:18 Originally by: Siena Petrucis Concerning "Descriptive ownership" I am fully with you. Drop the sov concept. Instead, allow players to anchor POSes or other offensive/defensive structures (e.g. sentries) at key locations in 0.0 - gates, stations, ice belts, whatever. If your alliance/corp can keep these structures alive, it obviously has control over its space, and it also has the benefit of a tactical advantage. No TCU needed for that. Problem is who owns the stations? Right now the main reason you need sov is to secure your station ownership, with JBs quite a bit behind and cyno jammers really far behind that (yes sov level is important to get cyno jammers up, but by far the main important reason people want those cyno jammers up is to protect stations, and to a lesser extent jump bridges). But while a solution is required for that, I fully agree sov should describe who is from the day to day situation in control of that system. Then timezones also dont matter that much, in the unlikely event that in US TZ one entity lives in a system and in the euro TZ another (hostile) entity lives there it is simply a matter which entity lives there most of the time. Quote: Unused 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward -1.0 making them valuable. Heavily used 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward 0.0 making them less valuable. So promoting empty wastelands instead of groups that actually use their space? No.
Siena Petrucis Caldari Jelly Kings BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:28:00 - [10] Edited by: Siena Petrucis on 15/08/2011 14:28:24 Originally by: Furb Killer Problem is who owns the stations? Right now the main reason you need sov is to secure your station ownership, with JBs quite a bit behind and cyno jammers really far behind that (yes sov level is important to get cyno jammers up, but by far the main important reason people want those cyno jammers up is to protect stations, and to a lesser extent jump bridges). Who builds the station owns it. Make stations destructable instead of conquerable, problem solved. Maybe make them a bit cheaper as compensation.

Berentais Gallente Operations and Development Group	Posted - 2011.08.15 14:56:00 - [11] Quote: Unused 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward -1.0 making them valuable. Heavily used 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward 0.0 making them less valuable. So promoting empty wastelands instead of groups that actually use their space? No. While you may be against it, it makes complete sense. If someone overworks an area, they deplete the resources and it becomes less profitable. Think about it this way. if you kill the belt rats in a -1.0 system over and over, why should more come if they know they're just going to die like the others.
Grytok KL0NKRIEGER	Posted - 2011.08.15 15:09:00 - [12] Edited by: Grytok on 15/08/2011 15:11:32 We've made suggestions of how to improve 0.0 for how long now? Ever since Red Moon Rising I guess. My take at it would look like this... 1. remove jumpbridges -> travelling large distances should take time -> reduces the area you can control 2. remove jumpfreighters -> maintenance should involve work -> the bigger the area the more hauling-OPs are required 3. destructable Outposts -> building of Outposts is really cheap actually -> a homebase should be built up and not conquered 4. revamp motherships -> turn motherships into mobile cloningfacilities and remove their massive damage 5. revamp titans -> turn titans into huge shiphangars (100 battleships should fit inthere) -> in combination with motherships this will be your mobile base for attacking others 6. revamp system-sovereignity -> sovereignity should be based on player-activity not lifeless structures -> shooting NPCs, mining, etc should be the only thing that turns a system -> more activity unlocks better content (better explorations, mission-agents on player-built outposts) 7. POS -> POS should be the little men outposts -> more modular system to make it a real mini-outpost 8. no free intel -> setting up a POS should not send a Mail to anyone -> players should actively patrol their areas All this would turn the 0.0-thingy into something that requires more player-activities and it would reduce the areas a single alliance/corp can claim and control. The unlocked content based on activity would require more active gameplay in more centralized areas. Think of it this way... the amount nd strength of NPCs grows bigger, as they sure want to take their space back. The removal of fast travel and transport (jumpbridges/jumpfreighters) would make it way harder to maintain large chunks of space. In combination with the possibility to destroy outposts this would turn 0.0 into a real investment again, as alliances/corps would only take the sapce that is really required leaving room for smaller entities to make for a living in 0.0.
Thur Barbek	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:52:00 - [13] Originally by: Siena Petrucis Who builds the station owns it. Make stations destructable instead of conquerable, problem solved. Maybe make them a bit cheaper as compensation. What happens to the stuff in the station? If a player was docked, what happens? What if that player's clone was at the station and the player has no jump clones? Does he get podded?(losing implants). What happens if you open the market tab and there are no stations left in the region? People who have BPOs in station and are using POS slots, what happens at the POS? If stations were made destructible, most of the work planned in the devblogs to get more people into 0.0 would be undone. Who wants to move all their stuff into a 0.0 station that can be destroyed. Major assets would be stored in the closest NPC station in the neighboring region. Consequently, the big alliances would shove all the little corps out of NPC space to protect their assets.
Invitus	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:53:00 - [14] Originally by: Berentais Quote: Unused 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward -1.0 making them valuable. Heavily used 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward 0.0 making them less valuable. So promoting empty wastelands instead of groups that actually use their space? No. While you may be against it, it makes complete sense. If someone overworks an area, they deplete the resources and it becomes less profitable. Think about it this way. if you kill the belt rats in a -1.0 system over and over, why should more come if they know they're just going to die like the others. No it doesn't at all... . It would mean that there is not point in investing into space you own, no point in alliances settling down long term and spending good money to do so.
Zirse Minmatar Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.08.15 16:59:00 - [15] I think this will eventually tie into DUST, so I think you guys aren't showing us the whole hand just yet, but here's how I think it could work. 50% + 1 planet sov needed, but does not equal system sov. Ship superiority in planet orbit equates to very beneficial bonuses/abilities to your dust compatriots. This is still kind of structure based though, to a certain extent. Which is why this would just be a precursor to sov: actual sov is dtermined a la perpetuum: Linkage A similar system would work great in EVE, mostly as a metric to determine 'de-facto' control.
Ishina Fel Caldari Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.08.15 17:25:00 - [16] I like the way you think. Suddenly it makes sense that the "planets" part is covered up in the photo. Also, Perpetuum is almost a 1:1 copy of EVE anyway, might as well take elements from that game and build them into EVE if it fits :p - Signature? What signature?
Vincent Jarjadian	Posted - 2011.08.15 17:57:00 - [17] I quite like having structures... Gives the attacker/defender somewhere they know to go to for a fight... The attacker wants a POS dead... the defender wants it alive.... usually a battle happens if both sides think they can achieve what they want. Unlike some... i also like POSs... having a POS setup a certain way can make your enemy fight in a way to counter it... An Estar fit with 60 ECMs can be a real pain to your enemy if he doesnt bring ships equipped to deal with it... A ****Star can take ages to take down without dreads... This means the defender can use what tactic they like best to defend their POS... If you own the space and pay for the space you should have some distinct advantage in defending structures within it... Currently the only sure way to break down a POS is with Supercarriers/titans or dreads... but each of those has it's own counter... Give us better POSs with more armaments/more customizable reconfiguration so we can use them as an extension of our fleet when the times come to defend them. Something to attract peple into sovernity would be bonuses per sov level to POSs/Stations/anoms/iHubs Maybe they have more EHP the longer you've held sov or require much less fuel... Maybe sov 5 could allow XL POSs or something new... This gives entities a reason to hold their space and allows long time residents to combat people dropping cap fleets on their structures... Extra time before Reinforce on a POS is more time to get together enough to kill the enemy... Currently things sometimes happen too fast and the only thing POSs really do well is reinforcement timers...
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Electus Matari	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:03:00 - [18] Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 15/08/2011 18:05:41 I had posted the following a while back on a different forum. Some people seemed to like it and it's relevant here, so I thought I'd post it here as well. The context is the well-loved "structure grind" thing. The basic mechanic of "getting a fight" has roughly the stages challenge, scramble, engagement. Basically, the attackers march in on the battlefield and say "I challenge you to a fight!" (attack a structure, sit next to a capture point). The defenders then have "some time" to scramble together a defense fleet. Once they have one, there hopefully will be an engagement. If they do not engage, they lose "something". You can balance the fleet sizes that will engage with the amount that is at stake and the time you give for scrambling. The amount that is at stake primarily encourages attacking fleet sizes. E.g. "this thing will gain us the whole system" will encourage attackers to bring a huge fleet. Less grand objectives will attract smaller fleets (that's the reason why you rarely see 1k blobs hunt ratters - the potential gain is not exciting enough to attract so many people and make the cat herding worthwhile). On the other hand, it has to hurt the defender a bit, or he will just wait it out (one of the main FW problems). The amount of time you give for scrambling is the main factor for the defense fleet. Defenders have the home advantage of (usually) being able to field bigger fleets, but they need time to form the fleet as the attack happened at a time not of their choosing. This is something FW did very right - if I see a minor plex going up in local, I know I have under 10 minutes to get together a frig/destroyer fleet to throw them out. Which gives an incentive to go in there with whatever you got after 5 minutes and hope it's enough. Giving longer will just increase the defender's blob size (a sov timer of 2-3 days is a very long "scramble time", hence the huge fleets). FW gets this wrong because the goals you can achieve are limited to bragging rights, and because the "marching in and say 'I challenge you to a fight!'" 90% of the time happens without the defender knowing about it, which removes the whole point of it. Structure shooting gets this wrong because it gets the scramble time wrong. Smaller fleets need longer to accomplish the goal, meaning the defender has more time to scramble a big fleet - a small fleet attacking should give less time to scramble, not more. It also encourages huge fleets because they get the objective done faster. So if you want small-scale fights, you need to first identify something that's not earth-shattering to the defender, but still annoying; then pick a time you want to allow the defenders to react on; and then go with that. Ideas I've heard in the past are things such as "stealing the contents of the current moon miner silo", "downgrading the industry index to reduce ratting efficiency", even station services if they'd not require so much damage to take down, etc. Just as a silly example, with numbers requiring more thought and adjustment: Moon miners and silos become structures independent of POSes, but also invincible. When you "hack" one with a codebreaker, a timer of 20 minutes starts, after which you can open the silo and take the contents with you. A roaming fleet comes to a system and starts doing this. Now the defenders have 20 minutes to set up a fleet - no 60 minutes of "x up x up" in the Supercoalition Intel Channel, they need a fleet, fast. They might even be able to get a smaller fleet in first to distract the attackers so the bigger fleet can slowly form in the background, or whatever other tactics they can come up with. I think this would provide a lot more incentive to start small-scale fights.
Miraqu Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:17:00 - [19] There should be the single rule 1 corp = 1 system. There should also be a mechanic to keep the players from abusing this rule, e.g. altcorps/ 1 man corps. Sov should not work on the alliance level but on the corporate. If a corp wants to claim sov they should do so as corp, administrate the system as corp, upgrade it as corp and live in it as corp. It should require constant attention, which should be not a hassle if you really live in that system but too burdensome to abuse it just to take more space.
Thur Barbek	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:28:00 - [20] Originally by: Miraqu There should be the single rule 1 corp = 1 system. There should also be a mechanic to keep the players from abusing this rule, e.g. altcorps/ 1 man corps. Because creating an algorithm to detect alts accurately is remotely possible right? While they're at it, they can write an auto-bot detector.

Miraqu Caldari	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:49:00 - [21] No that wasn't meant with mechanic. I rather meant that you need to be active in that system. If you have an !active! alt corp which is fully active and pays the rent, in other words is really active and uses the system, it would not be an issue. With that I meant that you should not be able to create corps with just one char in it for the sole purpose of holding space. If you claim a system you should live in it and use it or lose it.
Arganato	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:53:00 - [22] Originally by: Arkady Sadik lots of stuff about small gang pvp incentives... Great suggestion! And great analysis of pvp incentives. But doesnt it really belong in small scale pvp section? ;)
Newt Rondanse	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:54:00 - [23] Much simpler to not have a "claim sovereignty" mechanic at all. You plant structures, you do things, if you are doing much more of these things than anyone else you have sovereignty. If Sovereignty is reported rather than claimed, it makes nullsec completely different. Do away with passive denial of space by game mechanics and the current empires shrink dramatically.
Siena Petrucis Caldari Jelly Kings BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:55:00 - [24] Originally by: Thur Barbek If stations were made destructible, most of the work planned in the devblogs to get more people into 0.0 would be undone. Who wants to move all their stuff into a 0.0 station that can be destroyed. Major assets would be stored in the closest NPC station in the neighboring region. Consequently, the big alliances would shove all the little corps out of NPC space to protect their assets. It's a risk vs. reward calculation. If the nearest NPC station is 10 jumps away and logistics become more risky as intendet - people will definitely take the risk. BTW, what you said is also true for POS, and people still build them, even if they can be destroyed with near finished Titans in them.
Taedrin Gallente Kushan Industrial	Posted - 2011.08.15 18:56:00 - [25] In my opinion, sovereignty should be based off of pilot activity - not by the fact that your alliance is rich so it can afford to buy a bunch of sov structures and pay the sov bills for a bajillion systems every month regardless if you even use the systems or not. An unused system should be up for grabs and easy for "the little guy" to move in and hold on to - provided that they actually use the system. Perhaps make it so that PvE activities within a system influence your ability to hold on to sovereignty easier. For example, you could make it so that in order for you to have "time zone assistance" in holding sovereignty, you need to have a certain amount of PvE activity in that system. If you do not have any PvE presence in a system, your enemy (or a neutral entity) can simply take it immediately - no waiting for reinforcement timers. If you don't want to make too many changes to the way sovereignty works, you should introduce mechanics which make it beneficial for a large power bloc to allow neutral entities to utilize unused space. You could make it so that an alliance can set a tax on market transactions or NPC bounties in their unused systems. This makes it so that a large power bloc doesn't mind smaller corporations or alliances living in or near their space, and can even profit from it automagically without the need find a renter alliance fill the "useless" space. ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
Rrama Ratamnim	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:09:00 - [26] - More small targets that impact systems in different ways, causing delayed local, causing no alarms on entry to system, causing adverse reactions, disabling system defenses (station/gate guns).... - Add targets that can be hacked and turned against there owners (see gate guns and station guns :)), and hacked intel modules that locals use for gathering system and constillation intel - Disable the ability for supers to hit structures for dear god.... - Bring supers jump range down to make them defensive or hard to use as offensive... - Increase dreadnaught range to that of carrier so they can be a TEAM for offensive deployments for taking soverignty. - Soverignty should be something that the little guy fielding all he can, can actually prevail against the larger agresser because hell its his sand castle he has the home field advantage, it shouldn't be a "oh we have 100 supers we win"
Ma Eies	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:26:00 - [27] Edited by: Ma Eies on 15/08/2011 19:35:01 TLDR : add factional warfare mechanics to nullsec you could have the SBUs activate complexes to take over for system control, similar to factional warfare. Controlling each one for an 15 minutes ( or 1 to multiple hours) grants points based on the size of the plex. Certain levels of points grants benefits or bonuses. Highest level makes SBUs or TCU vulnerable. New decisions; go all in for the biggest point giving plexes or split focus When TCU/SBU becomes vulnerable guard it or keep getting points to make the other vulnerable? Lots of ways to adjust as feedback and testing is done; adjusting the time to hold an objective changing the points required for bonuses or control anchoring timers for SBUs number and type of objectives point "decay" adjustable rate and/or time (hourly, daily, weekly?) This isn't a really well thought out idea but i figured i'd contribute even a bad one for now Rambling thoughts: I'm not sure if plexes like the factional warfare ones exactly (limiting shiptypes) would be good and it would also bring about the question on how do you prevent the gates from being camped. Maybe making the beacon/bookmark only accessible/warpable by the correct shiptype? Exploration complexes? Hidden plexes that need to be probed out which despawn and respawn as claimed? These need beacons hacked or analyzed or salvaged maybe? What is control of a plex? More numbers alive inside? overwhelming majority? no one other than your alliance within a 5km radius of the beacon? I was thinking there could be a timer that counts down for as long as i meet the requirements of control and counts back up to full for as long as i don't, allowing someone else to start a countdown. Plexes than need beacons shot?
Louis deGuerre Gallente Malevolence. Imperial 0rder	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:27:00 - [28] Originally by: Invitus Originally by: Berentais Quote: Unused 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward -1.0 making them valuable. Heavily used 0.0 systems should have a sec status moving toward 0.0 making them less valuable. So promoting empty wastelands instead of groups that actually use their space? No. While you may be against it, it makes complete sense. If someone overworks an area, they deplete the resources and it becomes less profitable. Think about it this way. if you kill the belt rats in a -1.0 system over and over, why should more come if they know they're just going to die like the others. No it doesn't at all... . It would mean that there is not point in investing into space you own, no point in alliances settling down long term and spending good money to do so. There is no point now after the anom changes. Every region now has a few systems worth upgrading. Those are being ratted to death and the rest of the 0.0 players is doing L4s in highsec on their alts. The rest of the region is deserted. This would make the entire region interesting to live in and develop and force the players to spread out making life better for everyone. More targets, less AFK cloaking hassles, more gate fights and more income to pay for the fights.
Bloodpetal Mimidae Risk Solutions	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:36:00 - [29] Just make it viable for alliances to own single solar systems and defend them viably! AURUM NOSTRUM NON EST AURUM VULGI
SKARIII Minmatar SOL Industries Black Thorne Alliance	Posted - 2011.08.15 19:42:00 - [30] I think the whole system of basing Sov on structures is fundamentally flawed. Sov should be based on ppl in system in space, i.e. feet on the ground Even more to the point, it should be tied in to among other things, the CEO or leader of an alliance/corp as well as the presence of members. There needs to be a minimum of hours spent in space in a system for sov to be held. Thus to remove sov you can easily 1) kill everyone in system and keep the field, running up the hours 2) chase them into base (i.e. not in space) 3) chase them out of system and you start running up hours. The higher the sov lvl, the more ppl need to be active in space in that system to the point where sov 4 (as an example) needs a 30% of a large alliance's members in that system for at least a day a week, scaling back exponentially for sov 3,2,1. A sov lvl 1 should be achievable by a small highly active corp in one system. This will encourage corps/alliances to get members into nullsec As a further thought, maybe each system with sov should have a governor, governor needs to spend x amount of time in system in space (cloaked does not count) in order to hold sov.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.