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)
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.19 07:10:00 - [1] Edited by: Sobeseki Pawi on 19/10/2005 07:13:22 As many people know, POSes are very easy to setup and claim sovereignty with. This is not a problem in my opinion. Now, what I think the problem is with POSes and Sovereignty is that there is no focus about it. You can claim Sovereignty is any two systems you like (assume that they are unclaimed), regardless of where they are located in relation to each other. Under my idea, you would claim sovereignty in one system, then as you work that system up, you can gradually claim sovereignty in more. This has room for everyone. The big alliances can go for their Sov 4s and 5s, and the smaller ones can be happy with their 3s and lower. So here is my Sovereignty 2.0 Idea Sovereignty Level: Unclaimed (Sov 0) Completely unclaimed. No benefits to anyone. Territory (Sov 1) Requires a single Large Tower, 2 Medium Towers, or 4 Small Towers from claiming corp/alliance. This level gives 10% reduced POS fuel usage. Protectorate (Sov 2) Requires Sov 1 held for 48 hours and allows you to claim more Territory Systems. This level gives 20% reduced POS fuel usage. Province (Sov 3) Required Sov 2 for 96 hours and allows you to upgrade more Territories to Protectorates. This level gives 30% reduced POS fuel usage. Regional Capital (Sov 4) Can only be one per Region. Requires Sov 3 for 192 hours and an outpost. This level gives 50% reduced POS fuel usage. Home System (Sov 5) Can only be one per corp/alliance that is claiming sovereignty. Requires Sov 4 for 384 hours. Gives 75% reduced POS fuel usage (in the Home System) and an additional 10% reduced fuel usage for POSes not in the Home System (ex Sov 2 now would give 30% reduced usage). Can be renamed by the owner. For purposes of this explanation, I'll use UALX-3 (Tenerifis) as the base system. Sovereignty Timeline: Hour 000: Large POS Placed in UALX-3. Hour 024: Sov 1 is gained in UALX-3. Hour 072: Sov 2 is gained in UALX-3. Large POSes are placed in 3L3N-X, DT-PXH, and Y-ORBJ. Hour 096: Sov 1 is gained in 3L3N-X, DT-PXH, and Y-ORBJ. Large POSes are placed in 4-P4FE, Q-S7XD, S4-9DN, and 6-IAFR. Hour 168: Sov 3 is gained in UALX-3. Sov 2 is gained in 3L3N-X, DT-PXH, and Y-ORBJ (had to wait till UALX-3 gained Sov 3). Hour 192: Sov 1 is gained in 4-P4FE, Q-S7XD, S4-9DN, and 6-IAFR. Hour **: Outpost is built (this can happen any time, the counter is not affected by when it is completed, only that you have to have one to reach Sov 4). Hour 360: Sov 4 is gained in UALX-3. Tenerifis is now under a blanket claim and all unclaimed systems revert to Sov 1 default for the Sov 4 owners. All systems in Tenerifis can advance to Sov 3 (must have POSes) independent of UALX-3. Systems outside the region cannot be claimed. The non POS supported Sov 1s can be claimed by another party if they do not already have a claimed system elsewhere. Hour 744: Sov 5 is gained in UALX-3. Systems outside the region can now be claimed (none can advance further than Sov 4). UALX-3 is renamed to Sobe's Place. You get the idea. 31 days from start to finish. You don't actually have to claim more than one system, I just added in the new systems to explain how you would expand. As for taking systems, to take a Sov 1 that has no POS support, you simply act as if its unclaimed (the Sov 1 is for the map mainly). Sov 1 with POS support, same as now. Sov 2 will take 48 hours to change hands. Sov 3 will take 72 hours to change hands. So it is in the best interest of defense to build up sovereignty in your systems. Sov 4 and 5 require the outpost change hands. It needs some more work, but this is the basic idea. Feel free to add your constructive* input. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
CelticKnight	Posted - 2005.10.19 07:41:00 - [2] would be rather cool.. instead of seeing an alliance controll 2-3 systems and LAY CLAIM to a region... it would actually SHOW on the map they CLAIM that region.... instead of only a scattering of systems... IMHO could be quite cool... could be even better after X Amount of hours NPC sellers start moving in... but i can imagine that would require a MASSIVE overwrite of Soverignty and huge amounts of work for CCP... so itll probably never happen... but it would be SO SWEET! looks at map... sees ASCN HOME as a system name.... DROOL Originally by: Oveur I can make 100 Trillion ISK with a single click.
Benilopax	Posted - 2005.10.19 08:47:00 - [3] Edited by: Benilopax on 19/10/2005 08:47:49 Very nice idea one addition if i may sovreignty 5: Allows placment of sentry guns etc. As is being brought out soon. That way i think is best so that only one system is made relatively safe rather than several.
Steiner	Posted - 2005.10.19 08:51:00 - [4] I think that one outpost claims a whole region is a bit big, how about Consteallation ?... one outpost per const, then the corp/alliance will have to put up few to have regional claim and thus we would see more station pop-up and it would see it becoming more like a "Empire". ------------------------------------- -Steiner Es and Whizz, for your special stuff
Dao 2	Posted - 2005.10.19 11:52:00 - [5] i like it, can u remove posses and still claim sov.?
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.19 12:17:00 - [6] Edited by: Sobeseki Pawi on 19/10/2005 12:16:55 Originally by: Steiner I think that one outpost claims a whole region is a bit big, how about Consteallation ?... one outpost per const, then the corp/alliance will have to put up few to have regional claim and thus we would see more station pop-up and it would see it becoming more like a "Empire". The alternate plan: Unclaimed (Sov 0) Completely unclaimed. No benefits to anyone. Territory (Sov 1) Claimed by building a Large POS. Province (Sov 2) Upgrade from Sov 1. Claimed by building a second Large POS. Constellation Capital (Sov 3) One per Constellation. Claimed by building an Outpost. Entire Constellation must be Sov 2, before the CC system can be selected. Regional Capital (Sov 4) One per Region. Claimed by building a Station. All Constellations must have a CC before the RC can be selected. Home System (Sov 5) Only one per entity. Upgrade from Sov 4. Any RC can be upgraded to HS. Once selected, it's a permanent choice (for as long as the owner can hold it that is). ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.19 12:18:00 - [7] Originally by: Dao 2 i like it, can u remove posses and still claim sov.? Well, one option would let that be possible, and the other one wouldnt. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.19 12:18:00 - [8] Originally by: Benilopax Edited by: Benilopax on 19/10/2005 08:47:49 Very nice idea one addition if i may sovreignty 5: Allows placment of sentry guns etc. As is being brought out soon. That way i think is best so that only one system is made relatively safe rather than several. Yes, I think that should be the case too. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
Antic	Posted - 2005.10.19 12:22:00 - [9] would be nice if they redid the galaxy map some too. Like adding a layer that actualy adds borderlines between territores and assign a color to a player empire. That way you can see more clearly on the galaxy map wich area belongs to whom currently and wich area is contested.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.19 12:26:00 - [10] Originally by: Antic would be nice if they redid the galaxy map some too. Like adding a layer that actualy adds borderlines between territores and assign a color to a player empire. That way you can see more clearly on the galaxy map wich area belongs to whom currently and wich area is contested. Like an ingame version of Joshua's, that would be cool. I think the reason they haven't done that yet is the map is 3D. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
Somatic Neuron	Posted - 2005.10.19 13:22:00 - [11] This is pretty much covered, with feedback from Oveur, in this topic ----------
Jak'ai	Posted - 2005.10.19 13:57:00 - [12] It's a good outline - would make for much more meaningful PvP. The alternate scheme is better IMO as you really should have to drop a Large Tower in a system to claim it. Again, IMO there needs to be fortifications introduced as soon as sov is claimed. Nothing on the scale of Empire sentry guns, but something that would slow down large fleets. I would suggest that as soon as Sov 1 is claimed then the owning alliance can build and anchor gate fortifications on any gate in the claimed system, as well as at any gate leading to that claimed system. Fortifications would have some offensive and defensive abilities as well as granting a "minefield" effect in 20Km radius around the gate. Entering the minefield area (mines wouldn't need to be visible individually) would cause damage based on speed and sig radius. The goal would be to have a system that requires invaders to either take out the fortifications and sweep the minefield (new ship/module and takes a bit of time) or use a fleet of small, cloaked ships that have to go through the minefield slowly to activate the gate. Of course once titans and carriers come in they'd be able to jump behind enemy lines, but then they need the fuel to get out. Probably would also need to have an extended timer for log out in claimed space if you're not a member of the claiming alliance. Mainly, for sov to actually mean something there has to be a way to slow down an enemy fleet wanting to enter claimed space. That gives the defenders time to marshall the defences. Anything else is really just using crayons on the map. Another neat addition would be to allow the systems to change as well once sov is claimed. Sec status raises and ore content changes or something. I think the idea would be to have small islands of safer space surrounded by lawless 0.0 space. Something anyway to entice some more players out to alliance-run areas. Currently it's just not appealing enough to build up an infrastructure out there.
ildra	Posted - 2005.10.19 14:48:00 - [13] Edited by: ildra on 19/10/2005 14:47:42 what about the conquerble stations, at which step would they become invulnerable ?
Kurren	Posted - 2005.10.19 15:15:00 - [14] Personally I think it's a great idea. Sounds very well thought-out. Maybe I should've read all the posts before asking this, but (to all the flamers) oh well... Once you claim Sov. 5... can you create another Sov. 4 system? Or does the Sov. 5 simply take precidence over and you're now stuck just creating Sov. 2s and 3s? Doesn't really matter either way, honestly. Can or can't it still sounds like a bad ass idea. Might actually open up 0.0 to more than just 5 corps =P And for those of you who can't sense sarcasm... I know there are more than 5 corps in 0.0... ************************************************ I'm not a pirate, I'm a business-extremist...
Kurren	Posted - 2005.10.19 15:21:00 - [15] Originally by: ildra Edited by: ildra on 19/10/2005 14:47:42 what about the conquerble stations, at which step would they become invulnerable ? sort of a contradiction in your statement... if you can claim soverenity, then everything must be defeatable. thus keeping things fair and blah blah... IMHO the stations, POSes, insert here, should all remain able to blow up or be captured. It just adds to the difficulty of being in 0.0. Makes a corp/alliance work together to accomplish goals, such-n-such, blah-zey... ************************************************ I'm not a pirate, I'm a business-extremist...
Somatic Neuron	Posted - 2005.10.19 15:28:00 - [16] Originally by: Somatic Neuron This is pretty much covered, with feedback from Oveur, in this topic and here ----------
Mercade	Posted - 2005.10.19 15:45:00 - [17] Great idea. Very endorsed with only one point of contention. You should not automatically get further borders of sovereignty. Just because you have a XXX capital doesn't extend your sovereignty further. You should get reverse benefits though. Something like all POS are invulnerable as long as all adjacent systems have sovereignty of X level. Basically providing front lines to a fight something that will give defense an advantage where right now defense is the hardest thing to play in this game. Make the owners sally out to defend the edges of their empire but also allow them with organized defenses, some turret augmentation and maybe hireable small scale NPC concord to be able to keep small forces from barreling in and punching holes in their area. This would make pipelines very rarily claimed or held well with the number of interconnecting systems. But offshoots would become small empires. An Alliance might become a coalition of city states each a governor of a small area. In order to do that and truly make it all happen we still need two things. Better mineral value in all 0.0 systems, hell all systems. You should be able to expect in -0.4 to find XXX ore and that ore should be at least one of the abc's. But other then that I really like the idea. Let's encourage smaller stronger territorial groups with greater space value rather then large. No one likes traveling 20 systems to defend flanks anyway, only reason it's done is NPC stations sprawl, defense can't make a full claim and often you need to hold a full region of conquerables to live in an area. A good sovereignty system and outposts will make those points mute if there is sufficient rich ore in most areas.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.19 19:11:00 - [18] Originally by: Kurren Personally I think it's a great idea. Sounds very well thought-out. Maybe I should've read all the posts before asking this, but (to all the flamers) oh well... Once you claim Sov. 5... can you create another Sov. 4 system? Or does the Sov. 5 simply take precidence over and you're now stuck just creating Sov. 2s and 3s? Doesn't really matter either way, honestly. Can or can't it still sounds like a bad ass idea. Might actually open up 0.0 to more than just 5 corps =P And for those of you who can't sense sarcasm... I know there are more than 5 corps in 0.0... The Sov 5 System would replace the Sov 4 in regards to functionality. If the entity only controls one region, then they would only have a Sov 4 for as long as it took for it to become a Sov 5. Sov 4 will come into play more as multi region entities advance. BoB for example would have 1 Sov 5, and 3 Sov 4s. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.19 19:22:00 - [19] Originally by: Mercade Great idea. Very endorsed with only one point of contention. You should not automatically get further borders of sovereignty. Just because you have a XXX capital doesn't extend your sovereignty further. You should get reverse benefits though. I agree, the originaly plan had the auto region claim as a perk to being the most powerful entity there. But a Constellation based turf system (as later explained) would solve this issue. Quote: Something like all POS are invulnerable as long as all adjacent systems have sovereignty of X level. Basically providing front lines to a fight something that will give defense an advantage where right now defense is the hardest thing to play in this game. Yes, I didn't think about this. Perhaps instead of invulnerability, grant all 'locked' systems a 250% bonus to shield strength. Also, 'locked' systems wouldn't allow POSes from outside the entity to be anchored. Quote: Make the owners sally out to defend the edges of their empire but also allow them with organized defenses, some turret augmentation and maybe hireable small scale NPC concord to be able to keep small forces from barreling in and punching holes in their area. I like this idea less than I woulda thought. Players should be defending player space. Quote: This would make pipelines very rarily claimed or held well with the number of interconnecting systems. But offshoots would become small empires. An Alliance might become a coalition of city states each a governor of a small area. Mush as it should be. Quote: In order to do that and truly make it all happen we still need two things. Better mineral value in all 0.0 systems, hell all systems. You should be able to expect in -0.4 to find XXX ore and that ore should be at least one of the abc's. These are the things I think should be changed about 0.0 to make this work better: 1. Remove NPC and Conquerable Stations 2. Move Pirate Agents to low sec empire (ya know, where pirating happens) 3. Upgrade all non empire system belts to at least Dark Ochre. 4. Add an ice field to every constellation that does not have one. Quote: But other then that I really like the idea. Let's encourage smaller stronger territorial groups with greater space value rather then large. No one likes traveling 20 systems to defend flanks anyway, only reason it's done is NPC stations sprawl, defense can't make a full claim and often you need to hold a full region of conquerables to live in an area. This is the idea, but also allowing for larger empires as well. Quote: A good sovereignty system and outposts will make those points mute if there is sufficient rich ore in most areas. Agreed. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.20 02:12:00 - [20] Originally by: Somatic Neuron Originally by: Somatic Neuron This is pretty much covered, with feedback from Oveur, in this topic and here Those ideas don't seem to be much like mine...unless I'm mistaken? ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
Khargos	Posted - 2005.10.20 04:21:00 - [21] Your idea sounds very good to me. also what would really cool though is if the controlling alliance could NAME the system (something appropreate of course)
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.20 06:06:00 - [22] Originally by: Khargos Your idea sounds very good to me. also what would really cool though is if the controlling alliance could NAME the system (something appropreate of course) That is part of the Sov 5 perks already ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Captain Cutie does not speak for the Phoenix Alliance.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.21 18:38:00 - [23] No more comments? ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Winterblink	Posted - 2005.10.21 18:42:00 - [24] Very cool idea, I like it. With one exception: I think your timelines for increasing sov levels are WAY too short. Essentially, you've just thought up a great annexation system for the game, which is awesome. But I think the timelines need to be MUCH MUCH longer. winterblink warp drive active.http://winterblink.com/wda nature vraie.http://winterblink.com/env
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.21 18:49:00 - [25] About how long? 31 days is quite awhile, and building outposts is no small thing. Plus with the added Sov levels, it will be easier for an enemy to guess where you are building them. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Winterblink	Posted - 2005.10.21 19:00:00 - [26] Just my opinion, but annexing territory in EVE should take longer than training to fly a battleship. I'm talking months. If the time it takes to do it is too long, then maybe the problem is that there's not enough reward from completing the process. winterblink warp drive active.http://winterblink.com/wda nature vraie.http://winterblink.com/env
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.10.21 19:05:00 - [27] Mmm, well it would certainly take longer than it does now. The expansion is what will prove to be the real challenge for most entities, not necessarily a single system or constellation. Having at least one POS in every system you need to claim to get the systems you want...can be an interesting logistical problem. But like someone said, it would promote federalism. systems = counties/districts Constellations = states/provinces Regions = united states/canada ~Captain Cutie, HFS Iron Fist Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
LWMaverick	Posted - 2005.10.21 23:11:00 - [28] cool stuff /Mav If you want peace prepare for war !
Serenity Steele	Posted - 2005.10.27 03:40:00 - [29] Levels of soverignty is a Cool idea. An alternative (maybe CCP already mentioned somewhere) is if the 'levels' were implemented by having sovreignty of an entire constellation or region, it would be cool. Screenshots
WRAITH666	Posted - 2005.11.01 12:38:00 - [30] I think this is a good idea.
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.
Panta Rei Millennium E.R.A	Posted - 2006.09.08 11:45:00 - [61] bump :)
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.09.08 13:09:00 - [62] Looks good, but make those timings way way more. I want to see alliances committing to a region for months before they gain any tactical advantage. What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass!
Garramon Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2006.09.08 13:12:00 - [63] Originally by: Panta Rei bump :) Raise the dead? For some reason the fact that ~50% of the people replying to the thread fail to read and understand the point of the OP is hilarious.
SweetMelissa	Posted - 2006.09.08 18:09:00 - [64] /signed
Thor Xian EarthForce E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.07.10 21:05:00 - [65] Edited by: Thor Xian on 10/07/2007 21:08:38 Apologizing in advance for the huge necro. But I'd like to thank CCP for using my ideas for Sovereignty (I do not own the char that made the OP anymore). Now to get CCP to read my Transwarp ideas :p ________________________________________ ~Fleet Admiral Thor Xian, Strategic Commander Meet the Overlord
Del Narveux Obsidian Angels Enterprises	Posted - 2007.07.10 22:09:00 - [66] Interesting, might work. Only thing I would add is bump all those sov levels up by one and have sovereignty 1 be held with one of any pos for 2 days. Couple that with adding more 0.0 regions...and I mean a lot more, and maybe well have a situation where sovereignty can be enjoyed by everyone, not just ~20 really big alliances and their vassals that show up on the political maps. Even crappy browser games set in space normally have the means for normal people to have their own little tiny corner of uncharted space, and it annoys me that the crown prince of space games has nothing of the source. It wouldnt requrie much more in the way of server nodes, since .0 is by nature sparsely populated you dont need uber big empire space class equipment do get it done. _________________ [SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base? Originally by: Wrangler Well, at least we have forum PvP..
PeaceThroughBlood	Posted - 2007.07.10 23:56:00 - [67] Something similar written on the subject a few days ago as well in one of the other forums. Talk about resurrecting old posts Other post on dynamic sectors
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.11 00:00:00 - [68] The problem is that if you are trying to capture an enemy system you woulndt be able to contest sov if he is too far away. And it wouldnt change much because the allainces which like to horde space would just create alt allainces to claim the space the main couldnt. . Do not read this thread!!!
Thor Xian EarthForce E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.07.11 00:17:00 - [69] Originally by: ghosttr The problem is that if you are trying to capture an enemy system you woulndt be able to contest sov if he is too far away. And it wouldnt change much because the allainces which like to horde space would just create alt allainces to claim the space the main couldnt. Well that is partly the point. Why invade someone irrelevent and unrelated to your immediate domain...other than because you can I mean? As for alt alliances...why, pets/tenants fill the role fine now, they could do it then too. ________________________________________ ~Fleet Admiral Thor Xian, Strategic Commander Meet the Overlord
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.11 01:15:00 - [70] Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: ghosttr The problem is that if you are trying to capture an enemy system you woulndt be able to contest sov if he is too far away. And it wouldnt change much because the allainces which like to horde space would just create alt allainces to claim the space the main couldnt. Well that is partly the point. Why invade someone irrelevent and unrelated to your immediate domain...other than because you can I mean? As for alt alliances...why, pets/tenants fill the role fine now, they could do it then too. Not be able to take out hostiles, your a carebear arent you . Do not read this thread!!!
Thor Xian EarthForce E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.07.11 13:33:00 - [71] Originally by: ghosttr Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: ghosttr The problem is that if you are trying to capture an enemy system you woulndt be able to contest sov if he is too far away. And it wouldnt change much because the allainces which like to horde space would just create alt allainces to claim the space the main couldnt. Well that is partly the point. Why invade someone irrelevent and unrelated to your immediate domain...other than because you can I mean? As for alt alliances...why, pets/tenants fill the role fine now, they could do it then too. Not be able to take out hostiles, your a carebear arent you Certainly not. Havent been for 3 years. I just dont see the logic in being able to arbitrarily tear down an empire for no apparent reason than that you can. Also keep in mind the OP is over 2 years old. ________________________________________ ~Fleet Admiral Thor Xian, Strategic Commander Meet the Overlord
Banedon Runestar Gallente Twin Power Enterprises LTD	Posted - 2007.07.11 16:24:00 - [72] There are two things that amuse me about this thread. First that the Sov. levels were used, fairly closely to the OP, which is cool. It will be interesting what and how the alliances change because of it. My guess is that as empires collapse and die and new blood comes in, people will be fighting over constellations, not regions. Second, that this thread got necroed not once, but TWICE. /Zombie Thread ----- Twin Power Enterprises

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.