EVE Search - [Issue] Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty System

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty System

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:56:00 - [1] ItÆs been expressed many times by many parties that the current 0.0 Alliance Sovereignty System is in a sub-optimal state, whether it be complaints about the grind of POS logistics, lamenting the need for blob warfare to achieve victory on the Sovereignty battlefield, or disappointment in the lack of strategic objectives achievable by small sub-capital gangs. IÆm defining support for this topic as support for the CSM to open a dialogue with the CCP reps about the state of 0.0 Sovereignty, and to urge CCP to address 0.0 Sovereignty in the following contexts: 1) Shifting the balance of ship classes used in Sovereignty Warfare towards sub-capital classes in some way. 2) Examining the options and incentives for multiple small gangs to participate in Sovereignty Warfare as opposed to single large fleets. 3) Removing the need for POS logistics (construction and fueling, siege and defense) as a critical component to Sovereignty Warfare. Rather than proposing a specific system to replace/revamp Sov Warfare as it currently stands, it makes more sense to begin by opening the dialogue with CCP to find out where we stand, what can be done about it, and how involved the CSM can be in the result. If you support the CSM raising this issue with CCP, please give a thumbs up.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:46:00 - [2] The simplification of POS logistics could fall under this topic. As could completely changing what Sovereignty is based on, so that POSes are no longer part of the equation.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.30 18:36:00 - [3] Originally by: Kasarandon I'd really like to see sovereignity removed from pos and put on a more diffuse system, making people use the space they hold to have sov in it. As an example of what a revamp might look like, I've posted an idea in the Features and Ideas forum: Link Based on translating some currently existing mechanics into a decentralized territory control system that takes the onus off of capital combat and allows for sub-capital small gang combat in territory warfare. Critiques or other ideas also welcome!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 15:15:00 - [4] Originally by: Allaria Kriss 2) Disagree. Smaller gangs are not capable of causing the damage that a large fleet can cause; letting them do so would not be realistic. Yes, you can harass or annoy a faction, but a bunch of people in dinghies with rocket launchers aren't likely to do any lasting damage compared to, say, the entire British Royal Navy. Besides, there are already many advantages that small roaming gangs have in 0.0, just that gaining sovereignty isn't one of them. Keep in mind that I'm suggesting multiple small gangs as an alternative to a single large one - not a single small gang instead of a single large one. The idea being you'd still need numbers to take and hold sovereignty, but you'd spread those numbers out across multiple systems/grids instead of having them all focus on one grid and strain the server. Quote: Anything that gives people a good, valid reason to gatecamp will quickly make 0.0 less safe than downtown Baghdad on Free Firearm Friday as people camp gate after gate to maintain or establish sovereignty. This also means that anyone jumping in is a potential sov threat, since they might see an unguarded gate and call in their friends. I guess my response to this is: Isn't 0.0 supposed to be unsafe? Secondly, the popular complaint about the current state of 0.0 sovereignty is that it's mostly empty space with the occasional massive fleet battle in which lag is a large factor. To take those massive battles and spread them out across space and time would ease lag issues and mitigate the ghost town feel of much of 0.0. The general principle is that the required military presence to hold sovereignty advantage in 0.0 should be less hot and cold (due to single timed reinforcement battles) and more a 'patrolled presence' style of control.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:22:00 - [5] Edited by: Kelsin on 02/06/2008 17:22:27 Originally by: Allaria Kriss I would like to see the larger alliances with massive holdings forced more into working to keep it, but I don't think 0.0 should be quite as dynamic as you do. Fair enough. But I'd suggest that there is a way to increase the dynamism of territory holding without adversely affecting the concept of empire building. The proposal I linked leaves the infrastructure building industrial POS side of things intact, but takes the territory-holding tools (Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers plus new additions of Gate-usage alarms) and grants those via a new more dynamic system based on sub-capital combat. I think it's fair to say that powerful tactical tools like the Jump Bridge should be based on an alliance's patrolling presence, rather than long term fixed constructs like the POS, which rely more on logistics and fueling than on active duty combat patrols, especially because the POS shield and reinforcement mechanic lead to massive battles at pre-determined times that necessarily involve Capital ships. While it makes sense to have a pitched battle over a fixed structure, the concept of territory ownership is not based on the outcome of a single conflict, but on a consistent military presence and enforcement on borders and chokepoints. The idea that ownership of territory should be determined by having two massive armies meet on a battlefield and duke it out is a bit outdated, and that's what this seeks to resolve.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:52:00 - [6] Originally by: Allaria Kriss The problem is it turns 0.0 spaceholding not so much into something you do in EVE, but a 40-hour-per-week job that doesn't pay any money. Not everyone wants to spend all their online time running patrols through empty space. But this problem is tweakable - you can have reinforcement-style timers (as the proposal I linked has) so that when a capture point is contested the defending alliance has a certain amount of time to reset their claim. If they fail to do so they lose control of the point. Under the current system there are no patrols at all, but that doesn't mean the alternative is non-stop patrolling "job-style".
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 19:11:00 - [7] POSes currently grant industrial and sovereignty benefits to their owners. Moving the sovereignty benefits to a different system doesn't mean the epic elements of POS warfare would go away. There could still be POS sieges and Capship warfare - but to gain the Jump Bridge, Cynojammer and some new abilities, Alliances would instead engage in subcapital territory control. Subcapitals engaging in territory security actions adds dynamism where constructing POSes top gain territory fails to, and it provides subcapitals with objectives to maintain the security or overturn the security of a given territory, where POS sovereignty fails to.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 21:35:00 - [8] The word dynamic (and the made up noun-form I'm using here, dynamism) is very appropriate: the proposal to re-examine 0.0 sovereignty is in response to an overly static sovereignty system. To make it more dynamic without making it a ping-pong of major objectives, we need a broad array of smaller objectives that add up organically to create a larger effect. This is where a distributed-objectives mechanic can really shine. Instead of a linear series of massive lag-inducing battles that is POS warfare, Stargate warfare would be a parallel set of objectives fought on separate grids and in separate systems throughout a region, the results of which would add up to a cumulative effect.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 21:35:00 - [9] Originally by: Tusko Hopkins I agree with this topic, sovereignty system needs reexamination. Another problem with sov is that 0.0 alliances usually claim far more space then they actually use, and newcomers to 0.0 do not really have a chance to take on them, with the reinforced timers and the fast capital deployment possible in EVE. I think some game mechanic change penalizing the claiming of space that is not actually being used by the claimer would do good to the game. Tusko I think this is an excellent point. The mechanics of sovereignty really should accurately reflect the usage/patrolling of space by the the controlling entity - so a revamp of sovereignty would want to have in mind mechanics that result in space being marked as "owned" by alliances that are frequenting that space, and unfrequented space should easily default to unclaimed status.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.04 12:58:00 - [10] Originally by: Goumindong That is boring and static it results in players who want to keep space having to have a job to maintain it. POS logistics are bad enough as it is there is no reason to go and make everyone do **** like that. There's no need for territory holding to "be a job" in the sense of a massive time sink. But an entity that claims to "own space" should have a player ship presence in that space to maintain that claim. If the population of supposedly held space is more often enemy than ally, that should be reflected in the sovereignty claim.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.04 21:17:00 - [11] Originally by: Allaria Kriss What sort of impact will this have on coalition forces that often patrol each others' space, or small alliances patrolling the space of a bigger partner they're allied with? Maybe a new Sov system could include a way for mercenary and coalition Alliances to act on behalf of the territory-holding entity.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 15:19:00 - [12] Originally by: Allaria Kriss Wouldn't that require a huge amount of work, coding, and scripting that could be better-used elsewhere? It's essentially writing an entirely new, from-scratch sovereignty system. There are many more thought-out proposals that could use this sort of attention right now. CCP is already looking into changing the sovereignty system and devoting resources to doing so - it's simply in the playerbase's best interest to get the CSM asking questions about how that is progressing and finding out what impact our thoughts and ideas can have on it.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 16:15:00 - [13] Let me point out that the example proposal is just that - an example. The topic at issue here is whether the CSM should get involved in CCP's re-examination of Sovereignty.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 18:42:00 - [14] Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville I like the idea of having to maintain a player presence in claimed territory to maintain the claim, which will promote more efficient use of 0.0 territory by pilots by increasing the number of alliances with territory and shrinking those territories to more practical and defensible sizes. One thing I'd like a re-examination of Sovereignty to address would be guarding against the kind of current scenario we have where an Alliance "owns" a large area of space, but it's generally very empty of players and the "ownership" is not reflected in terms of player presence. This would be rectified by devising a system where player ship presence and activity is more closely linked to the ownership mechanic - so that areas of space that are generally very empty are unowned, but more populated areas are more likely to be under the control of those who populate them.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 19:39:00 - [15] Originally by: Pezzle Actually no, this proposal wants sov looked at in very specific contexts. While sov should be examined I cannot support that context or agenda or the examples cited, as such I cannot support this issue. I hope enough reps can see the downside and not support this either. I'll point out that CCP representatives are already on record as pursuing alternative sovereignty mechanics. There is a sticky in the Features and Ideas about it. I think it would be foolish to want to stick our heads in the sand and not get involved in what the outcome of that pursuit is. But yes, the topic does involve certain contexts - although they are broad and commonly agreed upon.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 21:49:00 - [16] Originally by: Vantras If this is true then there is no reason whatsoever for this issue to be brought up. I think you're in a small minority if you aren't interested in knowing how CCP is going to handle a revamp of Sovereignty and having some input in the process.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 12:48:00 - [17] Originally by: Farrqua I would be interested in seeing what the Dev's have on the board to address the POS issue. Because you are eluding to the "fact" that they are working on the issue to give your proposal some kind of credibility. Please see the dev post Mothermoon quoted a couple posts after yours.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:45:00 - [18] Originally by: Vaal Erit First reason: How come no one really knows the definition of dynamic (except Goum)? Anyone who has taken a basic physics course can tell you that dynamics is the study of objects and energy in motion or continuous change. So when you say something like you don't want station ping-pong, you want something dynamic, you do realized that having a station change hands many times in a week would be very dynamic and that you look like you don't know what you are talking about, right? There are several definitions of dynamic - one relates to physics as you mentioned. The others are: 2. Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market. 3. Marked by intensity and vigor; forceful. See Synonyms at active. 4. Of or relating to variation of intensity, as in musical sound. Clearly, #2 is what we're talking about here - the antonym of static. While I recognize that a certain level of dynamics would be so chaotic and back and forth as to be labeled "ping pong" - that doesn't mean the only other option is trench warfare. Originally by: Vaal Erit Second reason: The almightly Chariman of CSM (Jade Constantine) gave a simple "I support this" answer. Are you aware of the discussions on other forums like Mothermoon copied here? Are you a massive sov holding alliance? Do you have any ideas? What are your thoughts? A simple "yup, ok" repsonse is a slap in the face to all the people in CSM who want to take it seriously. Many more people like mothermoon give out lots of helpful ideas in the *appropriate* place and do so without being asked or elected and knowing that their ideas probably have a snowballs chance in hell of making it into the game. I am aware of that discussion, and if you read it you'll see my posts in that very thread - in fact I referred to it and linked to it at the start of the example system linked in the OP :) Frankly, I don't see why either of these reasons you cite support not inquiring as to what CCP's plans are for Sovereignty and how much input the playerbase can have via the CSM.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 20:25:00 - [19] Originally by: Ikar Kaltin Ok, lets put this simply. CCP put a thread in general discussion i believe it was, asking for suggestions on improving the sov system. CCP have understood their is a problem. They have asked for an opinion. They are considering this. This thread is copletly unnecessary and if brought up in iceland ccp will say "well we have asked for player opinion, we have recognised this is a problem, we are trying to fix it....what more do you expect?" Yup, and this thread suggests that the CSM inquire as to where that revamp is headed so player input can continue to be a part of how it is fixed. Definitely something the playerbase should be represented on.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 22:47:00 - [20] Originally by: Vantras PErhaps you could repost the <issue> then. "Check with CCP to follow up on thier stated intention as outlined in a previous Dev. post to revamp Sov." I'd be happy to update the OP to clarify this point. However I think the only biases you're revealing are your own. I'm very happy to have a vigorous discussion about the positives and negatives of the current Sov system and how they might be improved upon, especially in light of what we've seen from the Devs so far about what they're thinking. But you have to get past your ingame political views to really have it be productive.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.07 00:11:00 - [21] Vantras, the thing is it is you who are choosing to view every proposal and action on these forums through the lens of ingame corp. All this thread is saying is that: 1) The balance of shiptype used to engage in Sov warfare is too far towards Capital ships and should be shifted toward the use of subcaps. 2) Blob warfare on a single grid is annoying and lag inducing and it would be a great solution to introduce split objectives so that multiple small gangs take the place of single large fleets. 3) POS logistics are a grind and constructing infrastructure has little to do with military dominance of territory. You can't seem to resist bringing ingame politics into something like that, which is puzzling because these are completely apolitical points.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.07 15:04:00 - [22] Originally by: Vantras Id be happy to leave in game politics out if I felt And that is the long and short of it. I can't control your feelings and perspective, and it's up to you not to bring your personal biases to the table if you feel personal biases don't belong. There's not much more to it than that. You will always see ingame politics where it doesn't exist as long as you choose to keep feeling that way.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 11:42:00 - [23] Originally by: Farrqua Originally by: Farrqua Ok what stops 150 man PL, RA, GOON gangs hitting the same system at once. Each taking a gate. Another words each gang has 150 dudes in it and the Responding force is 200? Freindly bump. Kelsin, I don't care what your motivations are, if any. I just had a question. Hey sorry Farrqua, missed that. I'm not sure what you mean by "what stops" 3 big alliances from attacking the same system. In the example system I linked (which I'll reiterate is not what the CSM is taking to CCP, it's just there as an example) alliances lay claim to stargates in areas they frequent and when those claims are contested they have a certain amount of time to respond and re-assert their claim. If they don't return to re-assert the claim the stargate falls back to a neutral state. So to answer your question it more depends on the long term presence of these forces - a single encounter in a single system isn't going to swing things one way or another, it's more the cumulative effect of an alliance's presence in an area. Nothing stops the scenario you're asking about from happening, but the long term effect is based on the presence of those alliances in the system over the long term.

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.