| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6473
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 11:37:39 -
[61] - 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.
|

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4027
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 12:18:00 -
[62] - Quote
A more indirect mechanic for entropy could be implemented with the "Corruption" aspect reflecting pirate faction activity and influence in a system. While it won't flip a system, it makes it easier for someone else to do so by reducing the required population control percentage to contest sov and allow conquest of structures.
Corruption would increase over time and decrease with pirate kills with a minimum corruption defined by DeCo adding corruption and a maximum restricted by planetary security in Settlements*. Amount of corruption defines the quality and quantity of ratting anomalies, signatures and belt rats. To balance the possible bounty income loss Settlements* can produce trade goods and other commodities that can be exported for ISK.
Point of this whole system is to create sov mechanics that offer choices, consequences and customizability compared to the linear, static and rigid system we have right now.
*Settlements is something I am currently working on formulating out. Gist of it is that every planet gets at least one disitrict where a settlement can be put on of different types, which can be fitted in different ways to gain benefits for the planet and/or provide stability/security.
These then can be attacked through covert operations by other players by dropping a covert command center, landing supplies from orbit and engage operations of sabotage, theft and/or propaganda until uncovered and removed. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4993
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 12:18:04 -
[63] - Quote
A more indirect mechanic for entropy could be implemented with the "Corruption" aspect reflecting pirate faction activity and influence in a system. While it won't flip a system, it makes it easier for someone else to do so by reducing the required population control percentage to contest sov and allow conquest of structures.
Corruption would increase over time and decrease with pirate kills with a minimum corruption defined by DeCo adding corruption and a maximum restricted by planetary security in Settlements*. Amount of corruption defines the quality and quantity of ratting anomalies, signatures and belt rats. To balance the possible bounty income loss Settlements* can produce trade goods and other commodities that can be exported for ISK.
Point of this whole system is to create sov mechanics that offer choices, consequences and customizability compared to the linear, static and rigid system we have right now.
*Settlements is something I am currently working on formulating out. Gist of it is that every planet gets at least one disitrict where a settlement can be put on of different types, which can be fitted in different ways to gain benefits for the planet and/or provide stability/security.
These then can be attacked through covert operations by other players by dropping a covert command center, landing supplies from orbit and engage operations of sabotage, theft and/or propaganda until uncovered and removed.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|

GodsWork
Realm of God
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:09:00 -
[64] - Quote
Way to complex.... why not something simple???
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=356422&find=unread |

GodsWork
Realm of God Northern Associates.
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 15:09:44 -
[65] - Quote
Way to complex.... why not something simple???
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=356422&find=unread |

Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 21:38:33 -
[66] - Quote
I'm going to bump this discussion because I really liked the idea and wanted to hear what others thought of this one, and not on the one that was posted above this.
As to that one, I'll just say that imposing restrictions isn't the answer. We need to change the tools we have access to and the ways those tools interact.
In part Sov is messed up because force projection has outstripped sov mechanics. It's too easy to bring huge fleets to bear anywhere you need them and trigger RF in multiple places in rapid succession. if I'm living on your north border, I shouldn't be able to attack your south border.
We need to change both, as addressing either one alone would require too drastic a change. I think this concept is a very good step towards meeting a compromise in a way that integrates DUST514 as well. |

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4993
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 16:56:44 -
[67] - Quote
I guess they already made up their minds on how to change Sovereignty, so this thread doesn't really serve a purpose anymore.
One last bump before oblivion.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|

Sakaron Hefdover
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 15:31:14 -
[68] - Quote
Great Idea, they may change their minds yet |

WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1181
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 15:56:13 -
[69] - Quote
you're a bit late with your bad ideas OP.
occupancy based sov was requested by quite a few alliance leaders a while ago, so your ideas arrived late and don't make much sense, on top of requiring a big overhaul of planetary interaction. nulsec sov through control of NPC populations is not viable and has no place in the game known as EVE Online.
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4993
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 15:57:37 -
[70] - Quote
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote: Check the date of the OP, please.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|

WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1181
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 15:59:52 -
[71] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote: Check the date of the OP, please. no 
A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg
|

Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
273
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 17:36:30 -
[72] - Quote
This is an outstanding idea.
CCP, after 12 years, still hasn't come up with anything remotely close to as cool as this.
Kinda sad, to be honest.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |