|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2386
   |
Posted - 2014.07.18 20:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Create some sort of mechanism that scales sov grinding based on how much a system is used.
If your alliance kills 10k rats / day mines hundreds of thousands of roids, sucks all the moon goo out of the system, runs all the anoms, etc.... then the sov grind should be hard.
If your alliance occasionally passes through a system once a day but otherwise does nothing, then sov should be much easier to grind.
Reason: Just because you pay CONCORD for sov doesn't mean you get to keep it. CONCORD wants you to use your system to its full economic potential as well. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2411
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 18:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:I want to own a piece of space. So basically you want to online a TCU, right? That, or you want to be recognized as a power to deal with? About a couple of weeks ago I personally have "claimed" a system in nullsec. I didnt online a TCU there, mind you. But if carebears in that system wouldn't pay a rent to me, they will suffer consequences. And they know that, so they pay. You see the difference? When I want a piece of space - I go and take it. So you are proving his point that you cannot have space in Sov 00 without renting it? 
He's the Wizard and he's telling you what he told the Scarecrow. "There are many entities out there that exert influence over a system no better than you do, but they have something you don't - a TCU." If your goal is a title, then yes that's out of reach. If your goal is to dominate a system to some degree, then you can do it. Put your valuable stuff in a low sec or high sec station. Put up a cheap POS or station container that contains mobile unit whatevers, and go harrass the locals until they start paying you isk. No TCU required.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2413
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 22:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I am watching this thread with great interest and am very happy to see the discussion it's spawning.
It's very interesting to compare the ideas being discussed here with concepts we're discussing internally.
The key is that "Sovereignty" should involve both overwhelming force as well as persistence on field. Not only do you have to defeat those who invade your lands (overwhelming force), you need to be able to keep your area safe and orderly (persistence).
Currently 0.0 Sov is all about overwhelming force.
How you add "keep area safe and secure" is up to you. Right now you've given the "guerrillas" great tools to harass the local population (mobile depots, inties immune to bubbles), but they have no tools to take Sovereignty even if the established powers make zero attempt to get rid of them.
You could envision a system where the guerrillas spend X amount of time on the persistence feature to gain Sov only to have the current "government" come in with overwhelming force to take Sov back. A sort of asymmetrical fight. The key is that the established powers would need to spend the effort to defend their space - either develop their own set of "special forces", or roll through the area every now and then with their main forces to clear out the area. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2434
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 16:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Why the big push for "freeports"? Shouldn't you just make it so that the stations can be conquerable, and that anybody can put up a station in any system they want?
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2442
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 07:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
lol two posts worth of text usually mean that a given proposal is "overly complicated". 
There needs to be two paths to sovereignty - Overwhelming force AND persistent force, not overwhelming force OR persistent force.
|
|
|
| |
|