| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
78
   |
Posted - 2014.06.11 19:50:43 -
[1] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I don't see a lot of concrete objectives to complete when taking an enemy system:
Prevent PvE by harassment.
Destroy POS's if deployed.
Attack Outpost if it exists.
But these objectives aren't present in every system. Furthermore, in a well-utilized star system, you really need some critical objectives that can reasonably be defended (like IHUBs with RF timers).
While FW certainly has it's problems, it does some things very well. There are very concrete take/defend objectives that even a solo pilot can accomplish. I'm kinda rambling now, but I feel like claiming sov should entail more than just system activity, and I'm a big fan of investing to improve your space.
Agreed. The addition of SP boosting stuctures that are necessary to move forward (or keep from sliding backward) as far as the sov level is concerned would be a nice way to add conflict, and would be a good balancing point for CCP to be able to track and change SP gains/losses.
Cedric
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
78
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 19:57:27 -
[2] - Quote
Overall this is a fantastic idea. Activity based sovereignty is what I have been advocating in a recent thread and, in my opinion, is just what 0.0 space needs.
As far as needing to spread out and claim region-wide space in order to maintain alliance level income (moon goo) this is simply a matter o CCP reworking the way moon mining and the like work. It again seems arbitrary that only a single structure can be placed at a moon and only that structure can pull out moon goo. The simple fix for this is to revamp moon mining to resemble PI, and moreover have efficiency of the new MI (moon interaction) tied in some way to system sov.
Cedric
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
50
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 20:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Klatu Satori wrote:Dr Cedric wrote:The addition of SP boosting stuctures that are necessary to move forward (or keep from sliding backward) as far as the sov level is concerned would be a nice way to add conflict, and would be a good balancing point for CCP to be able to track and change SP gains/losses. That is a very interesting idea. I'd prefer them to have additional uses though, so they are not purely sov structures. Player owned stargates (of limited range) and gate guns are the first things that come to mind.
Or perhaps they facilitate the next better way to gain SP from the various sources you listed in the OP. they would make the gaining of SP easier, so their destruction would make the loss of SP easier as well. Again, they would be targets of opportunity for guerrilla warfare, but not absolutely necessary to destroy. Perhaps ownership of them could even be transferred to the new sov holder and
Cedric
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
78
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 20:00:06 -
[4] - Quote
Klatu Satori wrote:Dr Cedric wrote:The addition of SP boosting stuctures that are necessary to move forward (or keep from sliding backward) as far as the sov level is concerned would be a nice way to add conflict, and would be a good balancing point for CCP to be able to track and change SP gains/losses. That is a very interesting idea. I'd prefer them to have additional uses though, so they are not purely sov structures. Player owned stargates (of limited range) and gate guns are the first things that come to mind.
Or perhaps they facilitate the next better way to gain SP from the various sources you listed in the OP. they would make the gaining of SP easier, so their destruction would make the loss of SP easier as well. Again, they would be targets of opportunity for guerrilla warfare, but not absolutely necessary to destroy. Perhaps ownership of them could even be transferred to the new sov holder and that group would want to protect them to speed up the SP gains
Cedric
|
| |
|