EVE Search - Sovereignty 2.0

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sovereignty 2.0

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rufus Roughneck	Posted - 2005.11.01 12:51:00 - [31] Looks nice, but scale down from regional size claim to constellation sized. i.e., less levels of claim, lvl 4 giving constellation sized sovereignty instea dof a full region.
Yith Solarius	Posted - 2005.11.01 17:04:00 - [32] Apologies if I've misunderstood at all but in order to claim sovereignty of a constellation you need 2 large pos's in every system in that constellation, if thatÆs the case I don't think the ideas feasible, I would set it as this: sovereignty 0: Unclaimed space. sovereignty 1: Landlocked but non pos holding system. (see sov 2 for better explanation) Can be upgraded to sov 2 with addition of small or med towers (or a big one for that matter). Sovereignty 2: Any system with 1 or more large only towers in it. If in an area of space becomes landlocked between two sov 2 systems they all become sov 1. (note landlocking is only valid inside 1 constellation) Sovereignty 3: if an entire constellation gets claimed (i.e. sov 2 claimed in all the entry systems) and all the connecting constellations to this one get claimed in the same fashion the sov 2 systems in the central constellation are upgraded to sov 3. Sovereignty 4: If every constellation in a region gets claimed, the alliance can choose to upgrade 1 constellation in the region center (i.e. must have sov 3 in entry systems so no border systems allowed) to sov 4 to act as a home constellation. Sovereignty 5: Alliance can choose to upgrade one sov 4 system to a sov 5 to act as home system. When attacking you must start from the border systems and work your way inwards, 1 large tower contributes to a sov 2 claim remember so placing a large tower in an enemy sov 1 or 2 system will cause that system to become listed as contested, if this system is a sov 2 holding a claim for landlock then all the sov 1 inside that land lock disappear, and of course if that constellation is holding a constellation lock for a sov 3 system that will drop a sov level too as you no longer hold that system. However placing your large tower directly inside a sov 3 system will have no effect at all as you cannot beat the sov 3 claim Todays Idea: Eye for an eye
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 20:53:00 - [33] Well I'm glad there is some discussion going on here. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by landlocked sov 1s, I was trying to stay away from being able to claim vast areas of space by designing the system to make you concentrate on one area and expand from there. I think a revised idea would go something like this: (timetables dont change) Sov 0: No Man's Land Anything goes here. Sov 1: Territory Two ways to claim. If it's your first system (home) all you do is setup a POS. The second way would be to simply make all systems adjacent to Sov 2s into Sov 1, but very easy to contest. Sov 2: Protectorate You dont need to build more POSes for this (didnt in the original idea either). All surrounding systems revert to Sov 1. Sov 3: Province All adjacent systems revert to Sov 2 (and all the systems adjacent to them will revert to Sov 1). This makes for minimal claims of territory, but is easily attacked. Sov 3 cant be contested while the native POS(es) still exist(s). Can only be one per constellation. Sov 4: Still can only be one per region. Still needs an outpost. Sov 5: Still can only be one per territorial entity. Still needs a Sov 4. Still allows you to rename the Sov 5. This way you can pretty much decide how far you want to spread out. Now the biggest problem I have with 0.0 and Sovereignty is NPCs. In my opinion npc stations dont belong in 0.0 and neither do their sovereignties. Players needs a place to form into a frontier. PCS is also imo bad for 0.0 it's a gimmick that has been in this game for too long. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 20:54:00 - [34] Originally by: Rufus Roughneck Looks nice, but scale down from regional size claim to constellation sized. i.e., less levels of claim, lvl 4 giving constellation sized sovereignty instea dof a full region. Sov 3 is the constellation 'capital'. I don't think that needs to change. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.11.01 21:02:00 - [35] Hmm. Isn't it kind of weird that you'd get free sovereignty over systems by upgrading another system ? I'd say cut out auto-upgrades and simply make it more rewarding to establish sovereignty in adjacent systems rather then having spread out pockets. Like I once advocated limiting future static defenses to completely sovereign constellations, and not allowing them in single systems. This so that the price one pays (upkeep) for having this enforced homeground remains high enough to disallow claiming and reinforcing of key systems that govern 0.0- entrances for example. We already know that it's doable enough (if the space in question is of high enough quality) to put pos's in every system of a constellation. There are already quite a few of such constellation sized pockets in Eve at this time, and that is without giving any additional incentives. _______________________________________________ Power to the players !
Cummilla	Posted - 2005.11.01 21:09:00 - [36] I dont know why players would endorse the idea of continuing to have "sovereignty through pos" in any form. It was and is one of the worst ideas of the Exodus\Cold war time frame. Territorial advancement\progression in Eve MUST be tied to an ability to put people in ships to defend space. Not just gimps(you know who you are!) in haulers to sneak in before downtime.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 21:10:00 - [37] Yes it is kinda weird. Tbh the only other idea I can come up with is having to 'conquer' a whole constellation before you can claim anything outside of it. And you have to have a Sov 3 in that constellation. Also note, sov 1 and Sov 2 wouldnt require more than one POS unless it was contested. As for supporting all this, certainly there are corps out there that love the industrial side of the game enough. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 21:11:00 - [38] Originally by: Cummilla I dont know why players would endorse the idea of continuing to have "sovereignty through pos" in any form. It was and is one of the worst ideas of the Exodus\Cold war time frame. Territorial advancement\progression in Eve MUST be tied to an ability to put people in ships to defend space. Not just gimps(you know who you are!) in haulers to sneak in before downtime. I agree with that...but other than removing POS sheilds...how would you go about it? ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Cummilla	Posted - 2005.11.01 21:18:00 - [39] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Cummilla I dont know why players would endorse the idea of continuing to have "sovereignty through pos" in any form. It was and is one of the worst ideas of the Exodus\Cold war time frame. Territorial advancement\progression in Eve MUST be tied to an ability to put people in ships to defend space. Not just gimps(you know who you are!) in haulers to sneak in before downtime. I agree with that...but other than removing POS sheilds...how would you go about it? Do something that involves outposts and seeing them convert from vulnerable to invulnerable if a set of "time based victory conditions" are met. Invulnerable outposts would be your "win" peice on the gameboard. You'd only get it after you've held that structure in a vulnerable state for X amount of time. I'm not saying this is THE answer...but hell, at least it focuses on, imho, the right things, ie...holding a structure with miltary presence for a period of time. Your industrial prowess would be demonstrated in simply constructing the outpost to begin with.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 21:23:00 - [40] Outposts are already vulnerable when the POS infrastructure (ie sovereingty) is removed. Unless Im mistaken the outpost is owned by whoever owns the system. And I dont think conquering someone should be as easy as camping their outpost for a few hours. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Rufus Roughneck	Posted - 2005.11.01 22:41:00 - [41] Simple. pos need to have far fewer hp's, same defenses, and small and medium ones need to be disregarded for sovereignty purposes. Oh, and make a system have a max of 10 pos's in them. having 80 moons is what makes it a farce.
Cummilla	Posted - 2005.11.01 22:44:00 - [42] Yeah but you see that's the deal....it shouldn't hinge on the POS situation in any way, shape or form. That's where things started going bonkers and rewarding gimps in the night in haulers deciding territorial progression in Eve. Something else, anything else, would be a better "counter" in a wargame sense, than POS's are for determining soveriengty.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 22:44:00 - [43] Originally by: Rufus Roughneck Simple. pos need to have far fewer hp's, same defenses, and small and medium ones need to be disregarded for sovereignty purposes. Oh, and make a system have a max of 10 pos's in them. having 80 moons is what makes it a farce. I can agree with that...however it should be an odd number like 9. As for Small and Medium towers, they should count, but they should count for a quarter and half of a Large tower. So theoretically a system held with 9 Small Towers could be turned with only needing to kill two Smalls and setting up two Large. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Cummilla	Posted - 2005.11.01 22:47:00 - [44] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Rufus Roughneck Simple. pos need to have far fewer hp's, same defenses, and small and medium ones need to be disregarded for sovereignty purposes. Oh, and make a system have a max of 10 pos's in them. having 80 moons is what makes it a farce. I can agree with that...however it should be an odd number like 9. As for Small and Medium towers, they should count, but they should count for a quarter and half of a Large tower. So theoretically a system held with 9 Small Towers could be turned with only needing to kill two Smalls and setting up two Large. Another reason why I think POS's are lame as a fixture in determining soveriengty is because CCP just isn't up to the tasks of un-nerfing dreads. The natural enemy of the POS is massive gimped at the moment. Since they can't or won't perform that task we should go back to the old days where fleets of ships decide things. I guess that's my bottom line conclusion.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 22:47:00 - [45] Originally by: Cummilla Yeah but you see that's the deal....it shouldn't hinge on the POS situation in any way, shape or form. That's where things started going bonkers and rewarding gimps in the night in haulers deciding territorial progression in Eve. Something else, anything else, would be a better "counter" in a wargame sense, than POS's are for determining soveriengty. I think it emphasizes the need for a mix of industry and military. Going pure one way or the other is a lose/lose situation. But the need to have a military for more than conquering needs to be more evident, that much we agree on. I still wonder how simply removing POS shields would affect all this. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 22:49:00 - [46] Originally by: Cummilla Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Rufus Roughneck Simple. pos need to have far fewer hp's, same defenses, and small and medium ones need to be disregarded for sovereignty purposes. Oh, and make a system have a max of 10 pos's in them. having 80 moons is what makes it a farce. I can agree with that...however it should be an odd number like 9. As for Small and Medium towers, they should count, but they should count for a quarter and half of a Large tower. So theoretically a system held with 9 Small Towers could be turned with only needing to kill two Smalls and setting up two Large. Another reason why I think POS's are lame as a fixture in determining soveriengty is because CCP just isn't up to the tasks of un-nerfing dreads. The natural enemy of the POS is massive gimped at the moment. Since they can't or won't perform that task we should go back to the old days where fleets of ships decide things. I guess that's my bottom line conclusion. Yeah, the Dread situation is...not going to promote the use of them for certain. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Cummilla	Posted - 2005.11.01 23:00:00 - [47] At some level they have some good ideas in place. It's just the same ole tune in that they are moving headlong into new content before making critical balance adjustments in "less than new" content. There should not be a single carrier or mothership in Eve before dreads are un-nerfed. Why are they moving ahead? Does t0mb really enjoy seeing phoenix's mine in Orvolle? What a mockery -- yet it's all his own fault.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 23:09:00 - [48] Hehe, Im with you on that, but let's keep relatively close to the topic. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.01 23:21:00 - [49] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 01/11/2005 23:21:37 Alternate proposal: Unclaimed Claimed: Alliance with the most PoS, at the next DT. Claimed systems grant a 10% fuel benefit, and show the map. (Your border/disputed systems). Level 1: After 1 week of claimed, you get level 1. 20% POS fuel reduction Level 2: After 2 weeks of sov 1, you get level 2. 35% POS fuel reduction You can anchor 1 defence device in the system per 3 Large POS (round down). Level 3: After 4 weeks of sov 2, you get level 3. 50% POS fuel reduction. You can anchor 1 defence device in the system per Large POS. Level 4: See below, Outpost. Claim constelation at level 1 in all systems in constelation, if not allready 2 or higher. 75% POS fuel reduction. You can anchor 1 defence device in the system per Large POS, plus 4 at the outpost. A system cannot rise to Sov 2 or 3 if a hostile PoS is anchored there. A system can however maintain it's sov raiting. An outpost automatically raises the Sov of the system by 1, after it has been emplaced for 1 week. New PoS modules: Tachion Repeater. Moderate requirement module. It spreads the claim of the system by 1 jump, 1 level lower, unless allready higher. Gateway. High requirement module. Requires sov 2 or higher. Gateend. High requirement module. Requires sov 2 or higher. This pair of modules allows a wormhole to be formed between 2 PoS. The gateway must be one end, and where the creator must be, and the gateend is where it ends (obviously some range limits will apply). This would take fuel like a dread jump and cynclosure field, as usual, the end will radiate like a cynclosure field. It will be up for 5 minutes. In this time, the END'S PoS field will be DOWN. The gateway can be traversed by any non-capital ship (they're too big). (hence, you can now have points in your claimed regions where you can instantly travel between. Military response 4tw!) Defence Devices: Fixed Gun (think a small PoS gun) Minefield Local Scrambler Map Scrambler Etc. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 23:25:00 - [50] Interesting ideas, but how would you encourage local territory over vast empires such as we have now? ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.01 23:48:00 - [51] Actually, I think you'd get smaller clusters of claimed space with my idea. You could move military forces quickly between them in an emergency, so they'd not be isolated. I for one feel that alliances claiming more than say 2 regions are seriously overstretching in any case. Making the best benefits come from an Outpost serious encourages their building. And... I'd allow the higher level sovs to cancel NPC ones in NON-STATION systems. Say if you could use a tachion to drop a level 2 into a NPC-claimed system, it's switch to you (at level 1). "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.01 23:52:00 - [52] See my beef with npcs in 0.0 is that they essentially make it 0.0 on easy mode. Half of 0.0 has no need for player developement and that is just plain bad in the long run. Make the average 0.0 system richer, while at the same time making player structures the only way to 'settle'. Turn low sec empire into the pirate sovereignties...which tbh makes more sense to me. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.01 23:57:00 - [53] I really don't think you'll get that changed. Especially with Kali's factional warfare. Yes, it's annoying, but realistically... "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.02 03:37:00 - [54] Yeah, I doubt it will happen too. Perhaps all future 'unlocked' space won't be NPC sovereign. As for the current system vs the one being discussed here, I much prefer the ideas being laid out here. Mainly because it means you will have to put more thought into territory than just convincing Foiritain that you own such and such regions. I personally think that actual ingame sovereignty is all that matters in regard to whose territory is whose, but the mechanics for making that a reality just arent there. And that should change. If NPC space must remain NPC space, then it is also 'no man's land' for players. I want it to matter what the system info says in the top left corner. I just hope CCP does too. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Derron Bel	Posted - 2005.11.02 06:14:00 - [55] Features & Ideas forum please. -==- Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise! LooseCannoN> ahh! LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled!
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.02 07:01:00 - [56] Originally by: Derron Bel Features & Ideas forum please. Think that's up to the mods. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Graelyn	Posted - 2005.11.02 07:24:00 - [57] Great thread, I hope the devs see it. Minister of Foreign Affairs - Aegis Militia Fleet Admiral/CEO - The Aeternus Crusade
Chi Prime	Posted - 2005.11.04 20:08:00 - [58] Yeah, very good thread.
Arleonenis	Posted - 2005.11.15 13:30:00 - [59] im shocked very good idea on forum:) from me i will add another sovereignty level before regional capital made constellation capital: one per constelation
Nac MacFeegle	Posted - 2005.11.26 03:42:00 - [60] Lovely idea. I hate, hate, hate how alliances claim gigantic swathes of space and then expect to conscript production corps into fighting without any compensation. cough This would be a boon to the game, in allowing more, smaller empires to flourish.

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

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