Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1459
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 09:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
~ What is a sovereign without people? ~
Current sov mechanics are rather detached from the systems that are laid claim upon. It almost completely consists of grinding structures and arbitrary indexes to claim, improve and conquer systems.
This thread examines a method to make sovereignty more involved with the planets and their populace, giving methods to project their workforce into space and improve systems individually with structure complexes that give different sized targets for a variety of fleet sizes offering different tactics and opportunities to harass and conquer systems.
This is a first draft, just one step after a simple brainstorming and the concepts are little refined. Any numbers are more or less arbitrary and only used to better outline the concepts. Filling in the variables only makes sense when the equations are defined and finalized, not at this stage.
If you find holes, logic mistakes and/or contradictions, please point them out and resolve them. If you want to merely display your support or rejection of this idea, please create a thread in the Assembly Hall. If you want to discuss whether or not a change of sov mechanics are necessary, please create a thread in General Discussion
Let's flesh this out and create something awesome! Sovereignty and Population |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1459
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 09:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Population and Workforce
To control a system, you must control the people. People loyal to you will support with Workforce. This Workforce can be directed to different areas with Deadspace colonies and Planetary Administration Stations.
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.
Every Outpost adds population to the system, the more and higher the upgrades, the more Workforce will be available. As long as the system is claimed by the same alliance as the Outpost, the Outpost is invulnerable.
Every system has a number of Deadspace areas that can be build up with colonies, adding population or focussing the work force. Workforce in those Deadspace Colonies (DeCo) is assigned by source. This means if control of population is lost, the workforce in the assigned location disappears and the Colony, Section or Module goes offline. Offline Colonies are vulnerable to conquest.
Unassigned Workforce will produce a small amount of ISK from taxes and small scale trade.
Sovereignty and Population |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1459
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 09:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sovereignty
Planets are controlled through the Ownership of the Player Owned Customs Office (POCO). A POCO can be upgraded to a Planetary Administrations Station (PAS) that allows installation of Sections and Modules to it for improving the planet via Workforce support. This upgrade is only available when sovereignty through installation of a System Administration Complex (SAC) is claimed. Other than DUST Integration, a PAS follows the same rules for conquest and destruction as Deadspace Colonies.
DUST 514 Integration Instead of a destroying the PAS in orbit, the planetary Districts can be taken over with DUST troops. Once all Districts of a planet are controlled a POCO or PAS becomes vulnerable to conquest.
If you have a majority influence of the system population, you can build a System Administration Complex in a Deadspace location to claim Sovereignty of the system. Sovereignty is required to use Workforce in any installations.
As long as the Sovereignty is stable, the SAC is invulnerable on top of normal vulnerability mechanics of Deadspace Colonies.
Should you lose the majority of population support for any reason, the SAC becomes vulnerable like any other DeCo.
Some Structures are tacked with 'corruption'. Any Workforce assigned to those Structures will reduce the effectively controlled population, making the system's Sovereignty less stable. For example, you control 150 Population and assigned 100 of them to work with corruption, the effective controlled Population will be 50 and a enemy entity taking over 55 Population will threaten your Sovereignty.
Should you lose the Workforce that keeps the SAC running, it will be scheduled to go offline and become vulnerable until sufficient Workforce is assigned to it. As a Outpost is invulnerable until Sovereignty drops, it is advisable to use Workforce gained from Outposts to staff a SAC.
Should the Sovereignty Bill for the system not get paid, the SAC will be scheduled to go offline until the payment goes through.
After 24 hours of the SAC being offline, Sovereignty in the system will drop with all consequences. Should Sovereignty drop, all Workforce assignment is lost and all DeCos and PASes will be scheduled to go offline. PASes will still act as POCOs for PI functions.
When a structure is scheduled to go offline there is a grace period of 8 hours before going offline, allowing to rectify the situation. ISK needs to be paid, before the counter stops, depending on how long it went on. Onlining again will cost the full 8 hours grace period, even when all other conditions are met. The System Governor can offline structures without the timer and it will not incur a fee to online them again. Sovereignty and Population |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1459
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 09:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Warfare
-Vulnerability
A Module is always Vulnerable until it is Incapacitated A Section is Vulnerable when all connected Modules are Incapacitated until it itself is Incapacitated A Colony is Vulnerable when all connected Sections are Incapacitated until it enters Reinforced The SAC is Vulnerable when the controlling entity no longer has a system Population majority A Outpost is Vulnerable when the controlling entity has no Sovereignty in the system
-Incapacitation
When a Module or Section takes Hull damage, Hull is reset to 100% and the Structure is considered Incapacitated until all Armor is repaired and Shields are back above 25%. Incapacitated structures with some kind of cargo capacity will have all cargo accessible by any player. This will allow shipyard theft and bandit raids.
-Destruction
A Module can be Destroyed when the associated Section is Incapacitated. A Section can be Destroyed when the associated Colony is Reinforced. A Colony can be Destroyed when the Reinforced Timer has run out.
-Conquest
A Colony can be Conquered when it is offline. A SAC can be Conquered when the attacking entity has a system Population majority. A POCO or PAS can be Conquered when the Planet is controlled by the attacking entity (DUST). A Outpost can be Conquered when the attacking entity has system Sovereignty.
To Conquer a Structure, a Conquistador Bunker must be anchored next to it and survive through the conquest timer. At the end of the timer the ownership switches to the attacker. If the condition for Conquest is no longer valid when the timer finishes, the conquest fails.
-Demolition
The System Governor can Demolish a Module or Section if it is Incapacitated instead of repairing it, yielding a proportionate amount of construction components to the hull damage received. Demolition is not possible when the Structure has cargo capacity and still contains items. There is a demolition timer that can be aborted at any time and a container with the components will be dropped once it runs out. Demolishing is useful for replacing Structures faster than repairing takes or to quickly remove threatened assets.
If a system is without sovereignty and the complexes are offline, anyone can incapacitate and demolish the structures to salvage the abandoned facilities, albeit at a lower yield.
-Transfer and Defection
Alliance Leadership appoints System Governors on a system per system basis. These Governors are Corporations through their CEOs and Directors and may be a role available to the members. The corporation has to be part of the alliance (possible entry point for Pet Contracts, giving out governorship for money).
If the Governor changes Alliances, the System Sovereignty switches in 24 hours. If the Governor drops out of any alliance, the SAC is scheduled to go offline in 24 hours unless a new Governor is assigned. If the Alliance dissolves, the Governor has 24 hours to join up into a new one and transfer Sovereignty. If the Governor dissolves, the Alliance has 24 hours to assign a new one. Sovereignty and Population |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1459
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 09:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Deadspace Colonies
A Deadspace colony consist of three types of installations: - The Colony, which defines the purpose of the installation. - The Section, which define the areas within the purpose that can be upgraded - The Modules, which define the type and amount of upgrade.
A Deadspace location has room for one Colony, which can be upgraded thrice to host up to four Sections, which can be upgraded thrice to host four modules, which can be upgraded twice for increased performance.
To online a Colony 8 Workforce need to be directed towards it. The Workforce need increases by 4 for each upgrade to a total of 20 by the third.
To online a Section you need 2 Workforce and 2 more per upgrade to a total of 8.
To online a module you need 1 Workforce and 1 more per upgrade to a total of 3.
This means, a fully upgraded and operational colony will need 100 Workforce. [Colony (20) + 4 x [Section (8) + 4 x Module (3)]
Following is a collection of ideas what kinds of Colonies could be available and the improvements they can give. They are in no way exhaustive, set in stone, they merely give a overview of the possible complexity and display the necessity to choose what to upgrade with the limited population available in a system. Sovereignty and Population |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1459
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 09:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
System Administration Complex - Station Defence Bunker -- Small sentry slot -- Medium sentry slot -- Large sentry slot -- Ewar sentry slot - Outpost Administration Center -- Manufacturring slot -- Copy slot -- Invention slot - Starbase Administration Center -- Fuel usage -- Shield recharge -- Sentry damage -- Silo capacity - System Administration Center -- Workforce increase by percentage -- Tax income -- Structure shield hitpoints -- Complex sentry damage
Planetary Administration Station - Station Defence Bunker -- Small sentry slot -- Medium sentry slot -- Large sentry slot -- Ewar sentry slot - Planetary Administration Center -- PCC PG -- PCC CPU -- PI production duration - Planetary Transportation Control -- PI expedited transfer cooldown -- PI storage capacity -- PI link PG/CPU need - Planetary Prospection Array -- PI extraction rate -- PI scan resolution - Orbital Colony -- Population - Orbital Market -- Buy order slot -- Sell order slot
Military Installation - Station Defence Bunker -- Small sentry slot -- Medium sentry slot -- Large sentry slot -- Ewar sentry slot - Surveillance Post -- Magnetometric site count -- Magnetometric site quality -- RADAR site count -- RADAR site quality - Armored Warfare Command Bunker -- Damage control link -- Passive defence link -- Rapid repair link - Information Warfare Command Bunker -- Electronic superiority link -- Recon operation link -- Sensor integrity link - Siege Warfare Command Bunker -- Active shielding link -- Shield efficiency link -- Shield harmonizing link - Skirmish Warfare Command Bunker -- Evasive manoeuvring link -- Interdiction manoeuvres link -- Rapid deployment link
Logistics Depot - Station Defence Bunker -- Small sentry slot -- Medium sentry slot -- Large sentry slot -- Ewar sentry slot - Jump Portal -- Fuel capacity -- Fuel usage -- Jump range - Cyno Jammer -- Small sentry slot -- Medium sentry slot -- Large sentry slot -- Ewar sentry slot - Cyno Generator -- Small sentry slot -- Medium sentry slot -- Large sentry slot -- Ewar sentry slot - Super Capital Docking Facility -- Small sentry slot -- Medium sentry slot -- Large sentry slot -- Ewar sentry slot - Super Capital Logistics Support - Alliance logistics
Mining Colony - Refinery -- Refinery slot -- Refinery efficiency general -- Refinery efficiency maximum, ore specific above 100% - Foreman Post -- Foreman link - harvester capacitor -- Foreman link - laser optimization -- Foreman link - mining laser field -- Ore hold capacity -- Mining drone velocity -- Ore compression speed -- Industrial configuration fuel use - Prospecting Station -- Gravimetric site count -- Gravimetric site quality -- Gravimetric site specific ore -- LADAR site count -- LADAR site quality
Science Station - Metallurgy Laboratory -- ME slot -- ME research speed - Research Laboratory -- PE slot -- PE research speed - Science Laboratory -- Copy slot -- Copy speed - Experimental Laboratory -- Reverse Engineering slot -- Reverse Engineering speed -- Wormhole count - Invention Laboratory -- Invention chance -- Invention speed - Fundamental Research Laboratory -- Datacore production (specific)
Civilian Colony -Residential District -- Population - Market Hub -- Tax income - Pirate Outpost (corruption) -- LP store -- Pirate agent - Pleasure Hub (corruption) -- Pirate anomaly count -- Pirate anomaly quality - Black Market Hub (corruption) -- Pirate site count -- Pirate site quality
Industrial Complex - Assembly line -- Manufacturing slot - Prefab Facility -- Manufacturing time -- Manufacturing waste - Recycling plant -- Reprocessing facility -- Reprocessing efficiency -- Manufacturing waste - Super Capital Shipyard -- Manufacturing slot -- Manufacturing time -- Small sentry slot -- Medium sentry slot -- Large sentry slot -- Ewar sentry slot
Trading Post - Alliance Market -- Corporation store front - Public Market -- Corporation store front - Storage Facility -- Storage capacity - Pleasure Hub (corruption) -- Pirate anomaly count -- Pirate anomaly quality - Black Market Hub (corruption) -- Pirate site count -- Pirate site quality Sovereignty and Population |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1517
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 11:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Alright, post FanFest bump and some more stuff from my side.
Target Sizes
The modular system is intended to offer different sized targets for different sized fleets. So a roaming gang can harass the Colonies but most likely will not be able to outright destroy them. So a Module has around 1-2 million HPs, a Section 10-20 million and the Colony 100-200 million.
Keep in mind, you don't have to grind through all Colonies to take over a system.
The vulnerability mechanics are there to prevent a roaming gang to outright destroying all Modules in every system they pass. They can Incapacitate them, but destruction is put up another tier as they would first need to Incapacitate the Section before the Modules can be destroyed.
Keep in mind, Incapacitated structures with cargo can be accessed by anyone, so it is possible to Incapacitate the Fundamental Research Laboratory of a Science outpost and steal any Datacores stored in there from production.
Tactics
Let me outline some tactics for warfare I had in mind while designing the mechanics.
Overwhelming Force: You jump in with everything you have, reinforce up all POCOs and PACs to make the SAC vulnerable, then you reinforce that one and blow it up once the timer is down. Then you replace everything with your own structures and take over sovereignty.
Step by step: You blow up one POCO or PAC after the other, replace them with your own to take over Population majority, reinforce the SAC once it's vulnerable and Conquer it with a Conquistador Bunker, taking over sovereignty.
Bunny Invasion: You take over every planet with DUST, conquer every POCO and PAC with bunkers, then conquer the SAC, taking over sovereignty.
Thanks for all the Fish: You infiltrate the enemy alliance, become system Governor of any desired system, then promptly defect to your original alliance with all the sovereignty.
I'm sure you can come up with more tactics, but that would be the gist of it. Sovereignty and Population Moulds and water for the sandbox. |
Elizabeth S
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.04 08:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
This... is very interesting. +1 |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1706
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 12:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
A little bump from page 10
On Population
With the numbers given, most systems will have around 200-300 population to use when fully controlled. Some systems may be below 100 and others can go up to 600. This will give a system varying value for claiming and will influence whether it will be considered worth maintaining and how it will be used and upgraded. A uneven distribution among space of high population systems may create a source of conflict and a shift in alliance occupation.
As 100 population are needed to fully upgrade a complex, systems will rarely support multiple purposes and the alliance will have to decide how to use a system (or just rent it out and let the governors figure it out. While upgrading a POCO into a PAS may increase defensibility of a planet and thus the system, it is also a investment of resources and it will use up population that could be used for other system upgrades. A outpost supersedes control of a POCO/PAS, so those are best placed on strategically important planets, usually of the temperate type, to secure the population of the SAC with the circular vulnerability prerequisites. At least until a majority of the population is controlled by the opponents.
On Deadspace
The number of available deadspace areas should be limited. Somewhere between 3 and 6 areas to put DeCos in should suffice and put enough restriction in to make choices matter. They could initially either be public beacons or require scanning down or be simply available as bookmarks through the System Governor interface and only become public beacons when a complex is established. The amount could either be random or fixed and/or increase with the upgrading of the SAC, for example starting with 3 and adding one more per SAC upgrade to a maximum of 6.
Why Deadspace is used for those complexes has a simple strategic reason: The warp in location for the complex can be determined, is fixed and can thus be easier protected. A warp disruption bubble at the warp-in can put a combatant in a predicament and dug in pilots can position them at the perfect optimal range for dealing with enemies. Area of effect weapons can be used effectively when a fleet is piling up at the warp in and the bomber pilots will know exactly where the pile with heap up. This of course works both ways, depending on who gets there first.
As you can see, the use of limited resources, the vulnerability of the resource, the strategic considerations required when using these resources and the influence on tactical decisions when fighting in or over the complexes makes for a much more interesting and dynamic gameplay than the current rather grindy and static sovereignty mechanics. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Alexila Quant
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
55
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 19:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Holy **** this is long. Gonna read this on the way to my movie later :) |
|
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
105
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 20:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
+1
I like it! |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2074
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 11:04:00 -
[12] - Quote
Well, it's been a month and all the stickies are gone from the front page, so here's a bump for exposure. I don't have anything in my head at the moment to add, so the first response gets to decide what aspect of the concept I'll elaborate on next time I post a bump. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Vincenzo Arbosa
Badabing Salvage Corp
28
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 15:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
These are great ideas to explore, I hope something along these lines is being looked at by CCP. You shoot em, we loot em.. that's mother truckinGÇÖ right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuyLTDAC7fE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oz3RpU45_E
|
Grace Ishukone
Ishukone Advanced Research
22
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 18:20:00 -
[14] - Quote
Outstanding ideas ...
....but it won't work.
The critical issue with nullsec at the moment is that it is too hard to get to for non-mega alliance players, and too hard to keep systems for independent alliances. There are three or four alliances who control all of that null space, and you must be one of their pets to live there. The Odyssey changes have reinforced that, not diminished it, sadly. Bad design consequences have made null invalid for many small alliances.
So the above changes, while exciting and well thought through, would amount to nothing more than extending the sov grind for the major alliances. Until the fundamental problems in nullsec are addressed, these changes would be qonderful but meaningless. |
Decoe DeTouront
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 18:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
Very nice! I like it. This could be the best integration of DUST, PI and EVE ever. Now I hope, that ccp will think about and comment it. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
522
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 18:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
I didn't read the whole thing, but what I did read seemed good. I especially like that you planned for DUST integration, although Districts only exist on Temperate planets. It seems to me that this means POCOs around temperate planets would be less vulnerable (or perhaps more vulnerable if your alliance's mercs are terrible) than POCOs around other planets that don't have districts. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2139
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Last day of my subscription (for now), so let's bump these one last time. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
It would certainly make sense that having sov over a system would require and utilise actual planets in that system .
PI could be expanded to include proper colonies that can be used to improve bonuses from that system and keeping them happy and secure should be necessary to hold sov over them and the system
- say there are 5 planets in that system then you should have to develop and defend them and keep any colonised planets happy.
-Pirates could play an active part in eroding sov if they are unchallenged much like an incursion ... so it would have to be actively defended to keep the sov of that system... perhaps pirates could take over systems and behave like real alliances and expand build ships/ POS etc.. and start attacking real alliances/corps .. possibilities.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
you could have structures that are owned by the planet so whoever gains sov gets access to those structures ..
- orbital satellite system - Trade Station - orbital defense system - Asteroid belt stations ( at belts) stores ore and can refine - Research Facility - Factories ( produce products/ammo etc. ) Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
639
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 11:48:00 -
[20] - Quote
Reopening this thread CCP Gargant | Community Representative | Tournament Referee |
|
|
novellus
The Special Snowflakes
88
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 13:35:00 -
[21] - Quote
Very interesting. I like the immersion factor, probably more than anything. The idea of controlling colonies really appeals to me, and the integration with DUST just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
SOMETHING needs to be done with SOV, and SOMETHING needs to be done with DUST. Honestly I think this is the best proposal presented to the community to solve both simultaneously (albeit a little complicated, be what the heck, EVE is complicated -- which is why it's so much fun).
I believe this is definitely worthy of discussion. A smart post deserves smart responses. |
Xia Kairui
united system's commonwealth
65
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 08:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Where does "What is a sovereign without people?" come in?
All I see is some arbitrary number called "workforce" that you can assign, not people. You're also simply replacing blowing up SBUs and TCUs by blowing up other stuff - and mind you, you want to blow up stuff like hostile POCOs anyway.
I'd rather like to see a system where the number of players that work on a system actually count. As in, real people |
Endovior
Osmosis Inc Li3 Federation
124
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 17:39:00 -
[23] - Quote
Interesting ideas, and worthy of further consideration... it'd be more interesting than grinding existing sov structures, at least, and the more valuable colonial structures could serve as targets for roaming gangs.
That said, a couple points. One is that there should be some reason for the governors to be the actual players living in the space, instead of the alliance leadership (notably; it should not be possible for one person in the alliance holding corporation to personally be the governor of all the systems controlled by the alliance). Two, similarly, is that although the proposed system is more scalable than the current system, it still has more to do with control over structures than the individual players involved. |
Seranova Farreach
Lion Squadron
459
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 21:11:00 -
[24] - Quote
maybe use the FW mechanic for takeing/holding/loseing land but for nullsec? and the plexs can be restricted too perhaps to ship type so you can effectivly block the hotdrops and such and keep dreads and carriors for the blob warfare nullbears just love to waste isk on :P |
Preto Black
Solar Clipper Trading Company
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 22:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
I really like the ideas expressed in this thread and hope they are adopted in some form.
However, going back to controlling the people, this could be done by the more or less benevolent means as suggested here, but there should also be some scope for control by just military force.
This could be done with some sort of planetary garrision force (using all those marine units?), say put in place by a DUST related mechanism and/or orbital bombardment structures which force the planet and system to be under the control of the tyrannical military conquerors.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage Fidelas Constans
143
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 01:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
let's analyse the problem.
there are too many systems relative to the game population.
there's your sovereignty and population problem. Click here for LP store weapon cost rebalancing |
Ivan Malik
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 02:47:00 -
[27] - Quote
I like where this is going, but I think it can be refined a bit... mainly in the realm-ish of what Xia is referring to without over doing it. What if you expanded your idea of corruption to decrease your workforce upon an attack? For example if you get the shields of a colony/section/module below 50% you lose x amount of the workforce working on that colony/section/module and/or from that colony/section/module. Then at 25% shields or armor (the numbers are just place holders) you would lose more of that population to corruption. The actual intervals of a loss are who knows what but you get the idea. Basically it adds a more fluid feel to the system and requires constant policing, people actually have to watch all of their colonies or they wont be utilizing them to there fullest. Even a random roams could pose a small threat to sov if unchecked. Death by a thousand cuts? It might make breaking into sov a bit easier... keeping it on the other hand...
Corruption due to attack actually leading to sov being vulnerable would have to be a Goldilocks situation, if possible at all. You would need to loose enough population that your sov could be affected if everything is perfectly aligned and I mean perfectly and someone has to be an idiot, but at the same time you don't want this to be a remotely common occurrence. The idea is to have this be a "hey we dented them! I wonder if we come back in something better how far can we push our luck?" It is a piece of feedback to make people feel as though they are making a difference no matter how small that difference is. The pecked to death should be one of those stories that you hear about and cant believe that they took the castle with only a handful of people and are now local heroes. At the same time though you need to lose enough population that you can potentially affect them and they feel it enough to actually be there next time you come knocking. There needs to be a threat of losing the castle, but you rarely ever do; the thing that every small timer dreams of pulling off, but only one in a million ever does.
The second piece of this is an NPC component.
Harvey James wrote:Pirates could play an active part in eroding sov if they are unchallenged much like an incursion ... so it would have to be actively defended to keep the sov of that system... If you pair the part of Harvey's idea that is shown here with the increase in corruption upon attack stated above, and make NPC pirates attack colonies/sections/modules then there is even a threat to sov inside giant blue blobs... if systems go unchecked regularly. Have them be big, lots of rats of all shapes and sizes, like a whole mission warped on you at once, but your not ready for it and have no warning. If they really go unchecked and a module is incapacitated then you could have some of the cargo spill into space, as a double whammy. A short term loss in productivity/vulnerability to the system as well as a long term loss of product/supplies as a double penalty for negligence.
I personally would shy away from NPC pirates attacking heavy military installations like outposts and focus more on the lower hanging lighter defended colonies. This would limit them to the dead space pockets, meaning that their impact would be limited to the sov mechanic and potentially not obvious as soon as you enter system. This means you actually have to stay in the system longer than a hot sec to know if they are there. Also it is way more inline with what a pirate actually would do.
The downside to this is there is potential for farming and removing bounties on these guys really wouldn't make much sense. This could however provide an income for the guys who are supposed to be on patrol so that it is actually kind of profitable for them, and it would help to "level out" the loss of isk that could stem from the potentially smaller power blocs... the NPC section is the weak link, but the purpose it serves is needed. Ideas? |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
32
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 02:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
Giving this a general +1 Would like to see a bit more fleshing out of the corruption mechanic side of things. |
Bobby Frutt
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 07:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Gargant wrote:Reopening this thread Are you the same person as the OP? |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
2277
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 11:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
With the corruption I was only touching the topic of population status. I basically only felt the need to include it because I felt pirates needed a reason to be more abundantly around and allowing them to have a foothold in your system would be a good enough reason to stick around despite getting blown up constantly. A mechanic that has pirates creep in and corrupt a system slowly over time unless they get farmed could be used to allow growing of pirates like crops in frontier systems that don't need much stability. It would be the inversion of what we have now with the indexes and it would in my opinion make much more sense.
This basic link in can of course be expanded on with more influence of population status (happiness, loyalty, etc.) which could spawn a huge load of content linking in with PI and DUST: New planetary structures like District Capitals and Planetary Capitals with surface to orbit defences and the option for planetary bombardment and/or DUST assaults.
Diplomacy and covert operations to incite rebellions, create insurgencies, sabotage and all of that in counter format to allow a DUST independent takeover of a planet's population for conquests or to temporarily disable workforce to offline DeCos.
The whole slew of Civilization games kind of population interaction could be added, making sovereignty more a turn based strategy game with real time strategic space (and ground) battles. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
|
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. |
|
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] |