| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
   |
Posted - 2007.09.18 08:07:00 -
[1]
Sovereignty, a new system.
All over Eve we get these huge blobfights over 1 system in order to conquer it, and it all has to do with the way Sovereignty is currently generated and thus contested.
How about completely changing the system sovereignty is determined, and thus also how it can be gained/lost.
My suggestion would be to base sovereignty not solely on the possession of POS, but also on the use of the system in question and thus also changing the way as to how sovereignty can be removed.
The idea is as follows: Gaining sovereignty.
Starting with a base sovereignty rating of 0, every POS in a system generates a certain amount of sovereignty per day. Say 0.25 for a small POS, 0.5 for a medium POS, 1.0 for a large POS. (and you could make it 10-20% more for faction POS). (Note: using these numbers just as an example, should certainly be looked at and tweaked before any kind of implementation).
Then every relevant activity is rated with a sovereignty gain. PvP, mining and ratting.
For every PvP ship the holding alliance destroys in a system, it gains a number of points. For example 0.25 points for a BS, 1 point for a carrier etc. With a maximum of say 50 per day.
Similarly for mining, for every X amount of certain ores mined, an alliance gains a small Sovereignty gain. Also with a cap, say 20 per day. And for ratting, I could see an award either per type of rat killed similar to the security gain, or a direct relation with the bounty gained. Say for every 100m in ratting bounties collected, an alliance gains 1 sovereignty point in a system, with a max of 20 points per day.
Losing sovereignty:
Of course, aside from gaining sovereignty, there also needs to be a mechanism to lose sovereignty of course. First of all, there needs to be natural attrition, I would say a natural attrition of 1% per day would be good. Time would in itself never reduce sovereignty to 0 as its always 1% of the total of the previous day, but it would slowly erode it.
Then of course, activity from hostiles should have an effect. For every 100m of ratting bounty collected by non-alliance members in a system, the sovereignty should drop 1 point (with the same maximum of 20). Same for mining.
In PvP, for every BS lost in a system by the owning alliance, Sov would drop by 0.25 (again with a maximum of 50 points per day lost like that).
And any hostile POS of course would generate 'negative sovereignty' for the alliance holding the space, and losing POS would cost 10 times the sov gain it brings ( 2.5 loss for losing a small POS, 5 for a medium, 10 for a large.
------------------------------------------------
Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 08:07:00 -
[2]
Example:
Xelas Alliance owns the Jita system and puts up 5 POS. After 1 day, it has 5 Sovereignty points. On day 2, since Xelas are true carebears they also mine 100,000 units of arkonor that second day. They gain 5 more sovereignty points for the POS and 10 more for the arkonor being mined (1 point for every 100 arkonor). At the same time, they lose 0.05 sovereignty in natural attrition leaving them with 5+5+10-0.05 = 19.95 sovereignty.
Xelas lives happily in Jita for a long time and mine 100,000 arkonor every day and keep their 5 POS fuelled. Eventually the natural attrition of 1% per day is equal to the gains of 15 per day for mining arkonor and having 5 POS up. In this example, it would level off at 1500 Sovereignty points (note, after 365 days of getting 15 points per day, and with the 1% attrition it would still only be at 1461 sovereignty.
Then one day, the evil pirates known as m0o discover Jita and decide to invade it. On day one they jump in and attack the Xelas mining fleet. Blowing up 10 hulks, then 2 POS and to add insult to injury, also blowing up the whole Xelas fleet consisting of 20 battleships and 1 carrier without losing any ships. This of course is a sad day for Xelas, increased by the fact that they can't generate any isk or sovereignty by mining. So what happens with sov: they lose 15 for nornal attrition (1% of 1500). They also lose 5 points for the loss of 20 BS, 1 for the loss of a carrier, 1 for the loss of 10 hulks, 20 for the loss of 2 POS. Total loss of 42 points. Their sovereignty is down from 1500 to 1458.
At the base attrition of 1%, the time to take over a system that has long been held by a certain alliance will take a lot of time as this example shows. Its easy to modify by increasing the attrition rate. 1 year with 1% attrition per day leads to 1461 sov points under this system, if you use an attrition rate of 2%, it would only be 750.
------------------------------------------------
Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 08:12:00 -
[3]
Advantages of this system are that it requires no huge blobs to take over a system, but rather a consistent dominance. Some blobs can be useful at times, to destroy POSses and reduce the amount of Sov. But its not a system that makes the POS the final determining factor in sovereignty war.
Furthermore, the real kicker in terms of reducing blobs lies in the fact that it will force alliances to actively defend their space. You can't just conquer a system, put 3 POS up and forget about it. A hostile force can come in, start ratting and mining there, and break your hold over the system unless you are actually there and live in it. With this threat to all your home systems, no entity owning 0.0 space could afford to constantly send out its full combat forces into huge blobs with other alliances, because even a small gang harassing them at home could start making serious inroads over time on their sovereignty ratings.
------------------------------------------------
Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
|
Ovno ConSyquence
Amarr
The Plebians
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 08:18:00 -
[4]
I like it, would need to be properly balanced but the idea definatly has potential 
|
Clansworth
Point-Zero
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 02:48:00 -
[5]
It does have merit as a system, making sovereignty seem to be a little more natural, but there would be complications in shared systems. NAP'd alliances who are allowed to use each other's space would actually weaken each other's sovereignty, thereby discouraging cooperation among alliances. There would have to be some sort of formal treaty/pact system to allow the sovereignty rules to understand the cooperation aspect, and treat shared effort accordingly.
Also, I believe there shold be some sort of neighbor system effect as well. Much like increasing standing with a faction, has a smaller effect on that factions allies, so shuld work in one system, have a slight (like 5%) effect on neighboring systems. This would lead to a more natural sovereignty effect. I do like the idea, but it would be a major change, and have some serious consequences if done improperly.
Prospector Class |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 08:15:00 -
[6]
A carry-over effect from neighbouring systems is an excellent idea. That way you spread it around a bit and make it possible to rat in a whole constellation and give benefits to the station systems.
------------------------------------------------
Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
|
Useless alt
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 14:59:00 -
[7]
I like the idea the only risk I see is that the big alliances would simply get to keep sov in most of their systems du to their sheer numbers, it might make it hard for a smaller alliance to gain/keep sov simply due to their numbers being insufficient to mine and rat as well as defend their system where a big alliance can setup camp near by mine and rat while atacking the sov system of their smaller enemy.
Though I do think it will atleast be a big improvement over the current system.
|
Clansworth
Point-Zero
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 19:24:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Useless alt
I like the idea the only risk I see is that the big alliances would simply get to keep sov in most of their systems du to their sheer numbers, it might make it hard for a smaller alliance to gain/keep sov simply due to their numbers being insufficient to mine and rat as well as defend their system where a big alliance can setup camp near by mine and rat while atacking the sov system of their smaller enemy.
Though I do think it will atleast be a big improvement over the current system.
Numbers SHOULD affect sovereignty. I think that is the problem with the current system, is that actual activity in the systems has nothing to do with it. If you have a system, where there are constaltly a large number of people active in that system, then they SHOULD have the sovereignty, regardless of how many towers are there.
Prospector Class |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 21:21:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Useless alt
I like the idea the only risk I see is that the big alliances would simply get to keep sov in most of their systems du to their sheer numbers, it might make it hard for a smaller alliance to gain/keep sov simply due to their numbers being insufficient to mine and rat as well as defend their system where a big alliance can setup camp near by mine and rat while atacking the sov system of their smaller enemy.
Though I do think it will atleast be a big improvement over the current system.
I am extremely sure that large alliances will go down in size.
------------------------------------------------
New idea for sovereignty:
Sovereignty revisited |
Stockarian
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 16:03:00 -
[10]
Nicely thought out Mal, I think any idea to reduce the pos spammage is a good one. This seems to be a "workable" alternative, or at least a base point to start from. Well done M8.
Stock |
Svetlana Scarlet
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 19:48:00 -
[11]
This seems like a somewhat more complicated version of what I proposed a few weeks ago here:
Sovereignty: A Population-Based Approach
--
CAPT Svetlana Scarlet
CAIN Chief of Diplomatic Staff
|
NATMav
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 19:56:00 -
[12]
My biggest concern over this idea would be the macro factor, though it would certainly promote broader TZ coverage among alliances, and also do away with some of this renting 0.0 crap.
|
Baxalusx
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 10:53:00 -
[13]
One word invalidates your entire idea: "Macro."
---------
im ghey xD |
HirschG
Grettistak
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 11:10:00 -
[14]
Nice Idea.
Will cut down on the HUGE sums the alliance invest in spamming and give a real view on the system owners.
Matari ships ARE the real deal |
Ulesi
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:51:00 -
[15]
I like it. It sounds like a more natural way to claim a system instead of we blew up your POS and dropped our 5 so we win and got all your stuff.
Originally by: Puupuu
dude... your face...
|
HirschG
Grettistak
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 12:31:00 -
[16]
Anything new in this matter ?
-------------
Matari ships ARE the real deal |
Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 14:33:00 -
[17]
Well its an intereing idea but should probably be reposted
in Sovereignty and starbases, the future!
you might get better feed back there anyways.
-------------------------------
bring back Eve TV |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |