Quote:

---

3) Removing the need for POS logistics (construction and fueling, siege and defense) as a critical component to Sovereignty Warfare.

---

Originally by: nlewis

---

jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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!

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

So long as number 3 is a part of this agenda, this is an incredibly bad idea. You will only support this if you want to see the game become a **** hole.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

econdly, 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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Originally by: Vantras

---

If this is true then there is no reason whatsoever for this issue to be brought up.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

3) Removing the need for POS logistics (construction and fueling, siege and defense) as a critical component to Sovereignty Warfare.

---

Originally by: Farrqua

---

Yea this another one of those "I heard from the g*****vine" things. I want to actually know what they are addressing. I could not find anything about this topic by the Dev's, could you please link the source?

---

Quote:

---

A lot of you seem to want to patch up the old system, which is what we've been doing ever since it was released. Many of the ideas you've posted would indeed improve the current mechanics. However, we think it's pretty much broken at the core. The sovereignty system doesn't "feel right". Just to show you how much of a change we're willing to consider I'll post a little draft of one of our ideas.

Borders:


From wikipedia:
Borders define geographic boundaries of political entities or legal jurisdictions, such as governments, states or sub national administrative divisions. They may foster the setting up of buffer zones. Some borders are fully or partially controlled, and may be crossed legally only at designated crossing points.

EVE has borders; this is where most fights take place and what really matters when holding systems. Stargates are borders; weÆve got different types of borders. Within constellations, between constellations and between regions. We want to create a new system to improve the dynamics of space dominance and make the borders actually mean something. The current mechanism is flawed and the task to gain control over systems, constellations and regions is a tedious timesink that no one seems to likes.

Capturing:


Claiming space would revolve around capturing gates. In order to claim large areas of space you'd have to start small and "spider out". You'd start by capturing a system, then a constellation and finally a region. An attacking entity would have to follow the same trend, by first disrupting the control of the region, then the constellations one by one, and finally the systems.

In order to increase the possibilities of fun and well coordinated battles, as well splitting up blobs, we want to introduce simultaneous goals in 0.0 warfare.

* Capturing a system would require a presence at every gate.

* Capturing a constellation would require a presence at every constellation gate.

* Capturing a region would require a presence at every region gate.



Disrupting control over a system, constellation or region will require presence at multiple gates, but obviously not all of them, since then the defenders could just blob up at one of the gates.

Capturing will probably not be hit point based, as that goes against the anti-blob objective. We'll probably want to introduce a system where a certain amount of ships needs to be present to take over the gate. We could base it on ship size, so you might need 20 crows or 10 ruptures or 5 battleships (Random numbers) to begin the take over. We could also scale it, so you need very many people to capture region gates, a bunch of people to capture constellation gates and just a hand full to capture a system gate.

Of course there will also have to be a "reinforced" system. The defenders should be able to choose when to defend.

Border control:


Is something missing from EVE. We want give the sovereigns the ability to monitor and defend their borders. Allowing them to anchor defenses as well as tools to see who, when and what has been using the gates. The sentry guns will primarily be gate defenses, they'll have high locking times and will have to be manned by players.

We'd probably only want anchorable objects at region and constellation gates. Outpost systems could get beefed up gates etc.

Treaties:


Although IÆm sure weÆll have evolved somewhat in 20k years, currently borders and peace are negotiated through treaties. We want treaties to work like free form contracts, but with regards to space and gate control.

An alliance holding every constellation except for one

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Originally by: CCP Casqade

---

Please refrain from making assumptions on game mechanics and then presenting them as facts before testing them yourself.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Oh is this the issue? Then my opinion, is GTFO CSM.

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?

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. But they all add in much more thought and time and effort than the csm chairman, nice. Grats all, grats all.

I gave the CSM a fair shot, but all these terrible reponses by CSM members gives me the attitude of GTFO out my game you whiners.

Also, IBTmitnal

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?"

---

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."

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

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.

---

Originally by: Vantras

---

Id be happy to leave in game politics out if I felt

---

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?

---

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.

---