| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
32
   |
Posted - 2013.12.03 02:58:00 -
[31] - Quote
So with some of the colonies and their extras you would be destabilizing your system for more crops(rats)?
This I like. |
Radhe Amatin
Shadow State
Fatal Ascension
27
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 12:38:00 -
[32] - Quote
Right now all u need to get sov is drop sbus, kill ihub 3 cycles(shield and armor timers and final blow) then kill tcu and drop your own then drop ihub to make system invulnerable.
Ur suggesting switching from 2 structures to a dozen each with thier own reinforce timers.
And as a flaw in your population design what about the systems that only have uninhabitable planets like gas giants, lava, plasma, barren. where do you get your populations there?Not to mention how will dust players fight on those planets?
gas planets= a giant masses of gas , extreme temperatures,extreme wind velocities, pressure so extreme nothing can`t withstand there.
Plasma planets = temperatures so extreme in order for plasma to be formed,no atmosphere or a extreme toxic one at best etc
Lava planets= probably planets in early stage of development , where surface is cover by volcanic eruptions, extreme temperatures,toxic atmosphere and due to volcanic gases most likely corrosive, geological highly unstable.
Barren = most likely extreme temperatures differences,no atmosphere , no plant life basically dead planets.
The only ones that will work will be temperate,oceanic, storm and maybe ice.
|
Ivan Malik
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 18:51:00 -
[33] - Quote
While you are correct that there are a "dozen" structures that you have to hit, I don't think they would have the hp buffers that there are now and you wouldn't actually have to pop all of them to take a system. By having a population mechanic you can chose to pop them all and replace them, or you can simply force them into reinforcement. This system takes away the hp grind and moves to a system wide fight. It turns it from a time/hp grind and into a mobile warfare game. As a defender you can predict where your opponent will be and set up before hand or your can drop on them where they are if you have forces near by. By adding colonies and modules the system has a way to hinder your opponent if you don't have the man power to drop one of the higher valued targets and still have an affect on the sov game, or to force him to spread out his forces because there is actually a meaning to the term raiding party now that will have a lasting effect on the system. So it is a constant struggle of how to allocate forces and manage the space that you own. If things happen quicker, but you can predict the next few possible outcomes then more people will do dumb things and people can then react to those dumb things quicker, this forces more fights and a better game in general IMHO. The downside to this is there is little time for bat phoning. So that last battle for control should take a while to allow full force deployment if needed and give the blobs a chance to assemble... hmm still a WIP.
As for the uninhabitable planets bit it could be balanced by an increase in sockets for colonies in these systems. You would need to invest the extra sockets towards population increasing modules and sections which would make them in line with the other systems, seeing as you need population for many colonies to work if I understand the system correctly. While the population on gas, plasma, lava, storm, and barren (although you could argue this one...mars) would be low think about an indoor colony setting similar to a giant station just on/floating on the planets surface. It provides enough room for dust and population. As far as your argument for half of these, PI makes 0 sense on these planets if true. Think outside of people strolling around on the surface; we are flying around at faster than light everyday in clones that can dump their cognition into another body... lava is a piece of cake.
This would however draw attention to the population colonies in those systems... That said there needs to be a mechanic that forces more fights to the colonies in all systems or they will become extremely low value targets that no one really goes after. I thought that by adding the whole corruption via attack it would entice some of the fight away from the POCOs without negating it.
Dust invasions of these colonies would be an amazing way to strengthen the link between the two games and would give an more meaningful reason to transport dust mercs in eve ships. Heck there is even potential for Valkyrie integration if 2 different dust merc groups hold 2 sections they could launch the the ships and fight around the colony. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2305
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 21:26:00 -
[34] - Quote
You don't have to fight over dozens of structures. The DeCos are optional targets that influence system performance but they are not Sov relevant unless they are Civilian Colonies with population themselves. And even then the population there may be too low to be relevant, depending on the systems planetary composition.
The more habitable a planet is, the more population can live on them:
Quote:Maximum population is defined by the planet type. Planetary habitability by type from lowest to highest: Gas (5), Plasma (5), Lava (5), Storm (25), Ice (25), Barren (25), Oceanic (50), Temperate (100). Population mechanics could be more defined by a PI extension/overhaul.
To make the SAC vulnerable, you only need to control more population than the current owner. This can be achieved either by grinding through all the planets or only occupying a choice high population planet and disabling the population control from other planets without taking them over. The advantage for not only controlling a minority (yet still more than the owner) but the system's total population majority is making the SAC vulnerable to Conquest. Conquest means you only need to shoot the SAC in reinforced, make sure the Conquistador Bunker survives its timer during the reinforce timer and as soon as the SAC comes out of reinforced, the system is yours.
The point of the layered structure of DeCos is to create an array of soft targets that can be attacked by smaller entities to raid and grief bigger entities. Hyenas biting at the ankles of the Lion. While not bringing the system down, it will reduce or even disable any advantage the Sovereignty gives the holder. So maintenance and active patrolling of the systems will be in the interest of the controlling entity. And this will allow small roaming gang fights.
So to summarize: Point of this system is to give more than one way to gain and take sovereignty, more targets than only big structures, more integration of other (newer) game features (DUST and PI), more customizability of the systems, more immersive mechanics for sovereignty and more reasons for small fights to occur at tactical locations that are not directly related with taking over sovereignty. More playground, more sand castles, more stomping all over the place. It also presents more open spots to connect future development to.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics |
Ivan Malik
Viziam
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 00:56:00 -
[35] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:You don't have to fight over dozens of structures. The DeCos are optional targets that influence system performance but they are not Sov relevant unless they are Civilian Colonies with population themselves. And even then the population there may be too low to be relevant, depending on the systems planetary composition. The more habitable a planet is, the more population can live on them: Quote:Maximum population is defined by the planet type. Planetary habitability by type from lowest to highest: Gas (5), Plasma (5), Lava (5), Storm (25), Ice (25), Barren (25), Oceanic (50), Temperate (100). Population mechanics could be more defined by a PI extension/overhaul.
This might be a situation where the numbers that were put in as placeholders are the sticking point... but...
I think what Radhe is getting at is there are systems out there with just a handful of gas and a random lava or plasma/other low population planet. If the population in a system is to low then how do you deal with it? There are systems with only like 6 or 7 planets in the situation above, if the system has a population of around 30 and can't even support 1 DeCo properly then what is the point to it? While that could be by design to enable more war mechanics for fights over better systems, there comes a point when a system just isn't worth the effort. There would need to be a way to upgrade these worthless systems, and adding planets isn't going to happen.
You kind of already have a solution in place in your population colonies, but they would either have to increase the population by large numbers or the number of colonies allowed in theses "worthless systems" would need to increase so that more population could be built. I would go with more dead space areas in these systems because otherwise you could build the larger population boosting colonies in every system and the same problem occurs just with bigger numbers. If this route is chosen alliances would have to invest more in these systems to make them more profitable and they would be more vulnerable not to sov conquest but rather to the destruction of infrastructure. They would still be less desirable due to the extra resources and time but not worthless.
Would population be increased in the module/section or in the colony itself?
Also it might be an interesting idea to add a tax system to colonies, kind of like ownership of a poco. Maybe not taxes, best I could think of, something that makes it so you can use the existing colonies in your system, but you would be better off if you destroyed it and put up your own. I'm trying to work through a scenario where it is a good idea to actually knock out an opponent's colonies if you intend to live in the space afterwards. They work great for the little guys trying to break into the big game and nip at heels, but for the established groups, aka the bulk of the clientele, it would be smarter to just leave them untouched and waltz into a fully functioning system. There needs to be some reason to actually blow these things up not just incapacitate them, but at the same time the incapacitate mechanic is a good one... or am I misunderstanding something? |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2306
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 01:34:00 -
[36] - Quote
With Civilian Colonies you can increase the population, yes. By how much, I have not determined. But let's say you can add 5 Population per module and upgrade rank, which would, should you build up a colony completely out of them with 16 modules, yield 240 population at a 100 workforce requirement per DeCo, so 140 workforce surplus. You'd need 19 workforce to get this started. I doubt there are many systems with less than that.
This population would be highly vulnerable though, as they are 'created' by modules, which are at the lowest tier of the structure layering of the DeCos. So should a system with only uninhabitable planets exist, it would be inconvenient but not entirely worthless.
And yes, the population numbers are placeholders. I actually went through some random systems with those numbers and found them quite balanced, at least for a start.
If you plan to take over a system, It's more convenient to ignore the DeCos unless they put you at a tactical disadvantage as you can have the Governor just decommission the unneeded structures once you established Sov.
There is also the possibility to just topple Sov in a system, then incapacitate the offline DeCos and demolish the structures for building components to sell off as profits. Though I cannot really evaluate the profitability of such an action. The purpose of demolition is mainly to clean up after the storm.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2642
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:30:00 -
[37] - Quote
What would be needed to better develop this idea would be some input from someone more knowledgeable than me in alliance sized fleet tactics on if and how it would influence siege fleets and system defence with sovereignty implemented like that.
After all, while dog piles make great news, they tend to be awful in the fun aspect for the participants. A sovereignty system should discourage dog piling by being tactically unreasonable, if that is even possible with current fleet and combat mechanics.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2887
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 12:01:00 -
[38] - Quote
Instead of raw ISK, population on planets could instead produce trade goods, commodities or even PI or Moon materials, depending on how they were developed by the governors. These goods would then have to be moved to empire space for sale in order to pay for the sov bills. This would create some kind of colony- mother country type relation where the colonists (sov holders) have to pay increasing taxes to the motherland (empires) to maintain their recognition and support. Of course if pirate stations have buy orders for commodities those could be utilized instead of the empires. At least until prices drop.
The images of having null-sec ISK poor but resource rich while high-sec is ISK rich and resource poor to create a (grudging) interdependency strikes me as interesting. Though there's always the matter of high-sec alts. Then again, your play time per day is limited so it kind of balances itself.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3092
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:28:00 -
[39] - Quote
With the industry changes the benefit of installing Industrial Complexes or Science Stations would require some adaption.
One way could be that every such DeCo will count as another station in the system for workforce costs or even for every module dedicated for that purpose. Reinforcing the modules would then remove the associated benefits.
Another possibility would be to allow production lines at the DeCos and define the situational costs and benefits through the modules at the station with the risk of losing any production or stored items should the Section get reinforced and open for looting.
System wide benefits from modules would probably the easiest way to go about with it.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics |
Malphas Inanis
The Silent Few
The Volition Cult
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:34:00 -
[40] - Quote
I think this is something that should be looked at as part of a larger Null change, It definably has some very cool ideas.
This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous GÇô indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.
|
Itrala
Tycoon Innovations
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 12:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
I think people are in need to look at this tread for ideas and all. I think my post will serve as a overdue bump :)
I like what is discussed here. Even CFC people are discussing it here. I think that if we could get all the CSM and null block totalk together with CCP about making it possible for small alliances and small corp to hold sov over some systems in null sec that it would be a great game changer. Small often evolve into bigger once they get more interesting stuff to do :) |
Itrala
Tycoon Innovations
Joker's Legion
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 12:57:13 -
[42] - Quote
I think people are in need to look at this tread for ideas and all. I think my post will serve as a overdue bump :)
I like what is discussed here. Even CFC people are discussing it here. I think that if we could get all the CSM and null block totalk together with CCP about making it possible for small alliances and small corp to hold sov over some systems in null sec that it would be a great game changer. Small often evolve into bigger once they get more interesting stuff to do :) |
HTC NecoSino
Blackstar Privateers
Disavowed.
118
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 13:12:00 -
[43] - Quote
This thread seems great. The only issue is that it does not help Goons farm easier or safer, therefor CCP will never implement it, sorry. :( |
HTC NecoSino
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 13:12:04 -
[44] - Quote
This thread seems great. The only issue is that it does not help Goons farm easier or safer, therefor CCP will never implement it, sorry. :( |
Itrala
Tycoon Innovations
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 18:33:00 -
[45] - Quote
And that is why they must include other than goons for I am of the opinion that they are not alone.
Let's have N3 and PL along with their allies lobby CCP as well. High sec and low sec corp and alliances that want to get Sov but can't because of those bigger alliances keeps blocking them. Well let's make space a little bit more open to them. |
Itrala
Tycoon Innovations
Joker's Legion
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 18:33:54 -
[46] - Quote
And that is why they must include other than goons for I am of the opinion that they are not alone.
Let's have N3 and PL along with their allies lobby CCP as well. High sec and low sec corp and alliances that want to get Sov but can't because of those bigger alliances keeps blocking them. Well let's make space a little bit more open to them. |
SpaceSaft
Sub Par.
The East India Co.
78
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
This thread shall rise to the visibillity of the first page of F&ID!
Anyway I read up about SOV after looking at a SOV map again and found this thread. Looks like some very nice ideas.
Even though I admit you completely lost me after "Warfare". Modules? Specific structures? Dead space gates? Sorry but that doesn't sound very interesting or useful or "not tedious to engage".
From what I can see right the main problem of the SOV system is that it is too easy to hold SOV.
From what I can see an attacker on any system has to go to a system(1), deploy(2), online(3) and defend(4) sovereignity blockade units, wait a bit(5), then attack the sov claim unit(6) and win against the defending fleet that probably shows up. I haven't done this in game before but that sounds like a lot of effort.
The only thing the defender has to do is pay the sov bill (if nothing happens) and show up sometime in the process above to disrupt it.
Examples of things that don't happen:
Pirate raids
Sov expires because noone showed up
Sov claim prices rise exponentially with the amount of systems claimed
Sov units need fuel that has to refilled every 3 or 4 days
Population of the planets somehow playing into it.
I.e. any kind of push for the sov holder to do anything but pay some bill every two weeks.
Assets in these regions are mostly invulnerable and provide no targets for roam fleets, the intelligence tools consist of taking a ship and going there to see if there is a potential target which can take any number of hours, PvP activity has no influence on profitabillty of the system therefore the ones where PVP isn't are the better ones - which is btw motivating players to avoid player interaction, not seek it.
In summary SOV is held because attackers don't know if anything is there worth the effort (and mostly there isn't) and don't bother to challenge it.
Frankly it should be fairly easy to come up with any idea that ties player activity to the sov status making active systems more desireable for the potential attackers.
Hope restored. |
SpaceSaft
Sub Par.
85
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 07:47:21 -
[48] - Quote
This thread shall rise to the visibillity of the first page of F&ID!
Anyway I read up about SOV after looking at a SOV map again and found this thread. Looks like some very nice ideas.
Even though I admit you completely lost me after "Warfare". Modules? Specific structures? Dead space gates? Sorry but that doesn't sound very interesting or useful or "not tedious to engage".
From what I can see right the main problem of the SOV system is that it is too easy to hold SOV.
From what I can see an attacker on any system has to go to a system(1), deploy(2), online(3) and defend(4) sovereignity blockade units, wait a bit(5), then attack the sov claim unit(6) and win against the defending fleet that probably shows up. I haven't done this in game before but that sounds like a lot of effort.
The only thing the defender has to do is pay the sov bill (if nothing happens) and show up sometime in the process above to disrupt it.
Examples of things that don't happen:
Pirate raids
Sov expires because noone showed up
Sov claim prices rise exponentially with the amount of systems claimed
Sov units need fuel that has to refilled every 3 or 4 days
Population of the planets somehow playing into it.
I.e. any kind of push for the sov holder to do anything but pay some bill every two weeks.
Assets in these regions are mostly invulnerable and provide no targets for roam fleets, the intelligence tools consist of taking a ship and going there to see if there is a potential target which can take any number of hours, PvP activity has no influence on profitabillty of the system therefore the ones where PVP isn't are the better ones - which is btw motivating players to avoid player interaction, not seek it.
In summary SOV is held because attackers don't know if anything is there worth the effort (and mostly there isn't) and don't bother to challenge it.
Frankly it should be fairly easy to come up with any idea that ties player activity to the sov status making active systems more desireable for the potential attackers.
Hope restored.
|
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 21:25:00 -
[49] - Quote
Wow! I love the complex, out of the box thinking! I love the idea, too! I especially love the multi-layered approach for multiple common types of gameplay. So a big +1 for me (more if I could).
To the comments regarding the ease of holding the Sov, I offer the concept of entropic decay. Systems of order, left unmaintained, revert slowly but steadily towards anarchy.
In this model, this might be expressed in a loss of control over x% of the system's combined population daily. There would need to be a counter to this to increase control that was equally difficult (or easy) as the effort required to take the system. thus maintaining the balance where it is equally difficult to maintain Sov in a system as it is to capture it. |
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 21:25:40 -
[50] - Quote
Wow! I love the complex, out of the box thinking! I love the idea, too! I especially love the multi-layered approach for multiple common types of gameplay. So a big +1 for me (more if I could).
To the comments regarding the ease of holding the Sov, I offer the concept of entropic decay. Systems of order, left unmaintained, revert slowly but steadily towards anarchy.
In this model, this might be expressed in a loss of control over x% of the system's combined population daily. There would need to be a counter to this to increase control that was equally difficult (or easy) as the effort required to take the system. thus maintaining the balance where it is equally difficult to maintain Sov in a system as it is to capture it. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:38:00 -
[51] - Quote
To the entropy idea. Maintenance should be easy while control is still high. After a week or two of total inactivity, it should start to get more difficult again, until eventually it is controlled in name only, with no benefits to holding sov at all. Making it exactly as hard to keep as to gain forces alliances to constantly be on the offensive, as the defender has no inherent strategic advantages as you proposed.
This provides a counter to massive unpopulated sprawl. Done right, it gives an incentive to create coalitions of smaller entities than the current corps as the smallest level of entities organized, and scale in a less heirarchical fashion up to major power blocks, as a coallition with only a very few active systems would end up paying bills just to put a color on the map.
That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
177
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:38:54 -
[52] - Quote
To the entropy idea. Maintenance should be easy while control is still high. After a week or two of total inactivity, it should start to get more difficult again, until eventually it is controlled in name only, with no benefits to holding sov at all. Making it exactly as hard to keep as to gain forces alliances to constantly be on the offensive, as the defender has no inherent strategic advantages as you proposed.
This provides a counter to massive unpopulated sprawl. Done right, it gives an incentive to create coalitions of smaller entities than the current corps as the smallest level of entities organized, and scale in a less heirarchical fashion up to major power blocks, as a coallition with only a very few active systems would end up paying bills just to put a color on the map.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 02:10:00 -
[53] - Quote
This conversation got me thinking about Sov mechanics an something was bugging me. Why is Sov as it stands now so bad?
It's not the grind - despite what many people scream. We all like to grind. Those people like what they grind to be tring to grind them as well, but it's all a grind. So what's the problem?
Then it hit me: it's the balance between taking Sov and holding Sov - specifically the active side.
I don't think anyone would argue that taking Sov isn't an active thing. You get a big-ass fleet and blow **** up. Active. Boom.
Holding sov is different. There's no active participation needed unless someone tries to take it from you. Pay a bill. All the activities (the indices) change the value of a system and make holding it worth more, but they do nothing to actually hold the system. You can do nothing in a system and let its military and industry indices drop to 0 and it does nothing to the actual Sov of the system.
And that's where the current system breaks down.
What I love about this suggestion is that to hold sov you need to be doing something in the system.
Do I love that multiple types of attacks can have different effects on the system? Yes.
Do I like the customization of the bonuses? Yes.
The thing I keep coming back to though, is this: to keep space you have to use space.
And that's the specific place that the current system breaks down. |
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 02:10:44 -
[54] - Quote
This conversation got me thinking about Sov mechanics an something was bugging me. Why is Sov as it stands now so bad?
It's not the grind - despite what many people scream. We all like to grind. Those people like what they grind to be tring to grind them as well, but it's all a grind. So what's the problem?
Then it hit me: it's the balance between taking Sov and holding Sov - specifically the active side.
I don't think anyone would argue that taking Sov isn't an active thing. You get a big-ass fleet and blow **** up. Active. Boom.
Holding sov is different. There's no active participation needed unless someone tries to take it from you. Pay a bill. All the activities (the indices) change the value of a system and make holding it worth more, but they do nothing to actually hold the system. You can do nothing in a system and let its military and industry indices drop to 0 and it does nothing to the actual Sov of the system.
And that's where the current system breaks down.
What I love about this suggestion is that to hold sov you need to be doing something in the system.
Do I love that multiple types of attacks can have different effects on the system? Yes.
Do I like the customization of the bonuses? Yes.
The thing I keep coming back to though, is this: to keep space you have to use space.
And that's the specific place that the current system breaks down. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project
Surely You're Joking
586
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 02:36:00 -
[55] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:let's analyse the problem.
there are too many systems relative to the game population.
there's your sovereignty and population problem.
Roughly 3500 systems, with about 40,000 characters logged in (at least when I'm logging in), makes for about 11 characters per system. There's no shortage of characters, and how crowded highsec is proves that. The issue is how difficult it is to get into nullsec.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project
Surely You're Joking
609
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 02:36:44 -
[56] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:let's analyse the problem.
there are too many systems relative to the game population.
there's your sovereignty and population problem.
Roughly 3500 systems, with about 40,000 characters logged in (at least when I'm logging in), makes for about 11 characters per system. There's no shortage of characters, and how crowded highsec is proves that. The issue is how difficult it is to get into nullsec.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 00:06:00 -
[57] - Quote
Was thinking that if a modified version of this system was also implemented for the FW system it would act as the FW system was initially intended (or stated to be intended) - as a entry point and training ground for PvP. |
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 00:06:11 -
[58] - Quote
Was thinking that if a modified version of this system was also implemented for the FW system it would act as the FW system was initially intended (or stated to be intended) - as a entry point and training ground for PvP. |
Amanda MonteCarlo
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 11:07:00 -
[59] - Quote
Bump for a good thread.
If structures would produce goods when not in use (mining structures produce compressed ore, research produce research components, etc), than it will be profitable to raid unused and abandoned systems. You'd gather a couple of friends and blow up modules with valuabe stuff inside.
Benefits of this proposal are twofold:
1. You provide passive income to system owner, also giving raw materials instead of isk helps with local industry.
2. You provide atractive target for small pirate gangs.
This leads to player induced system decay. If raiders would be unopposed, they'd simply farm the system untill there are no more targets to shoot, effectively removing sov from current owner.
That means local system defence fleets are necesity, and that leads to more small gang warfare  |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6210
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 11:37:00 -
[60] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:To the entropy idea. Maintenance should be easy while control is still high. After a week or two of total inactivity, it should start to get more difficult again, until eventually it is controlled in name only, with no benefits to holding sov at all. Making it exactly as hard to keep as to gain forces alliances to constantly be on the offensive, as the defender has no inherent strategic advantages as you proposed.
This provides a counter to massive unpopulated sprawl. Done right, it gives an incentive to create coalitions of smaller entities than the current corps as the smallest level of entities organized, and scale in a less heirarchical fashion up to major power blocks, as a coallition with only a very few active systems would end up paying bills just to put a color on the map.
Right, so instead we'd switch to the model used by modern alliances like northern associates., seen their sov on the map recently?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |