| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
   |
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:12:00 -
[1]
Perhaps a mechanic like the factional warfare one could be introduced.
Lets say you can add a new level of sovereignty called "Constellation Sovereignty" that would be based on the sov level of the systems in that Constellation. Now each level would make the POS in that constellation harder to kill in some way (increased resits, more HP, etc...).
Now in order to lower the constellation sov an invading force could take compounds as in FW. Each might have a gate that limits Cap ships from coming in, though not anything smaller then BS (this is 0.0, no need to limit the gangs) Each can be taken by only a single ship if he says in the area for the right amount of time. This could give black ops a role without changing the ship and force defenders to roam and patrol.
Of course the specifics could be changed but I think the general idea would work to force players to escalate the conflict rather then just invade with capital ships.
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:58:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Akita T
Stuffs
I'm not sure removing POSes from sovereignty is a good idea. I still think that POSes should be the final fortress, they just need some form of escalation and should not be part of the escalation. Your idea is also really complex; I think a simplification is in order, but once POS is removed from your idea it is quite similar to mine and not near as complex, just to take final control of the system you have to use the current POS mechanics.
This also allows players to "spread out." Why have 100 BS in just sitting there when you could roam around and start capturing the next constellation?
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Akita T
This post is much clearer. I like the idea, but perhaps make several POSes able to hold each level or have the level escalate the number of POS you could use to keep, say up to 3 for sov3 and 6 for sov 10. This allows a dug in alliance to hold space more easily and still requires the capturing of smaller installations to reduce to sov2, thus the escalation.
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:27:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kayn Otar
How about a wider variety of POSs, scaled like ships.
Small structures are hard to hit with big guns, but provide localized intelligence fed back to HQ. Easy to build and destroy.
Medium structures are more durable, and provide resources of some kind, like an ammo depo.
Large structures are capable of one or a few specific functions, like providing ship repair services.
Super Large structures could be like current POSs.
Encouraging alliances to set up lots of smaller structures means they need to patrol larger areas and encourages roaming assault gangs as well.
I like this, perhaps smaller POSes could be "cloaked" if you just warp to a moon, but could be probed out and maybe have no stront bay. They might serve as a listening post, not too easy to find, but once you do quite easy to destroy. They could be a nice place to start your covert ops from and to start a small gang from, once you get small gang objectives. Not so sure of the roles of the others though.
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:32:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Lieutenant Isis
This post is much clearer. I like the idea, but perhaps make several POSes able to hold each level or have the level escalate the number of POS you could use to keep, say up to 3 for sov3 and 6 for sov 10. This allows a dug in alliance to hold space more easily and still requires the capturing of smaller installations to reduce to sov2, thus the escalation.
See edit 
You don't need more than one POS per system to hold Sov2, and if you manage to get to Sov3, you don't even POSes much anymore, as long as you keep patrooling your space against wartargets.
Of course, if you fail to patrool it, having many POSes is an advantage - but it's no longer a necessity.
Also, JUST having POSes is no longer enoug to gain and maintain Sov levels - without a constant presence and activity level, wartargets can simply erode your Sov levels by making you lose SovP - even without actually DESTROYING any of your POSes.
No what I was saying is that if you had only maxed at sov2 then the enemy would only need to destroy that one POS. Once you get up to sov3 they would need to destroy 3 POSes to reduce you from sov2 to sov1, etc. I think this will help alliances "dig" in since once you only need to cap beacons from sov4 down to sov2 you could basically "power rush" when an alliance is not really ready. There needs to be some way to "slow down" the attack and give the defenders a chance to regroup. Thus my simple minded you get extra POSes approch.
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:57:00 -
[6]
Forgot to mention that I LOVE the idea of having to be at official war with the alliance in order to start taking the compounds, this might make freeports actually viable!
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:19:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kelsin
I think we need to do away with Sovereignty levels via only POS and instead compartmentalize the benefits of Sovereignty into multiple layers of objectives that can be constructed/attacked independently by different sorts of forces (one layer of which can still be the POSes).
Yep thats pretty much what everybody else has said in the thread. We seem to agree, maybe it will make it easy for CCP to get on the ball then!
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:16:00 -
[8]
Akita, I still think that actually destroying several POSes would really help keep dreads and POSes from being obsolete.
On a note of using POSes as staging points, perhaps make it so that at a certain sov level neutrals and enemies cannot anchor POSes within a constellation. This might make a real front appear since you would have to fight your way up to the particular main system, rather then just invading the main system right away.
|
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:23:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Onchas Erivvia
Most of the suggestions I've read regarding make 0.0 warfare more scaled and more responsive to small-gang action just serves to turn 0.0 Sov warfare into a glorified game of wack-a-mole. The last thing you should do to this game is create situations where defenders have to run around responding to fast-moving nano gangs or have to mount static defenses. In those scenarios you're creating fun for attackers by making extremely onerous tasks for the defenders.
'Weight-of-force' (the presence of force determines the speed of a flag (in this case Sov) change) type mechanics end up being the fairest, but the sorts of issues created there become EXACTLY the problem that these sorts of anti-blobbing mechanics are trying to stop.
The easiest way to get around the wack-a-mole or standing army issue is allow Alliances who have achieved certain Sov-levels the ability to build NPC defense forces and mount gate guns. All destroyable objects.
Let the weight of infrastructure available, the number of POSes, the number of POS modules, the presence of an outpost, etc, should all allow for more defensive infrastructure to be built. And I mean built. Let the Alliances have to build and fit their own NPC ships for use in systems where they have significant Sov levels.
As roaming gangs move through these systems there's a definite incentive for player-gangs to form up in defense and keep their NPC defense ships from getting blown to hell.
It gives roaming gangs something to do that has a tangible impact on your opponent, it ties in industry and infrastructure with PvP operations. It gives people a reason to defend, lest they see several billion in npc ships blow up.
I disagree. No one would use the NPC if they are too weak and will just get blown to hell, and if they are stronger what is stopping a gang from blobing the NPC? Really I don't see how NPCs could serve any purpose in sovereignty mechanics; too expensive for too little value.
You can look on the FW stats pages and see that it takes a damn long time to capture a system, even with very dedicated teams of plex cappers. You, as a holder of sovereignty would not have to respond to every threat that comes about, but it does give players a reason to patrol their own space, rather then just dock up to save their ships. I suggested using the constellations as a sovereignty rather then the systems alone. This provides a smaller ground for small groups of defenders to patrol.
When the fight becomes "escalated" the defenders would only have to defend the flag, that is the number of capable spaces becomes smaller thus forcing a bottleneck and larger fleets now have a role! At some point you WANT large fleet fights you just don't want them being the beginning, middle and end.
There is no need to whack-a-mole since there is no need to destroy every attacking force, so what if they cap a few plexes; the point is to keep that number small by patroling space and keeping the noob gangs from capping everything. Plus it encourges the breakup of blobs as having one ship cap a plex vs 100 ships makes no difference in the amount of time. Its more effective to break up a 100 man gang in to 10 10 man gangs.
One last comment. I see the average take time for a whole constellation being around a week to 2 weeks, the final escalations will take about 2-3 days. This give far more time and pew-pew then the current mechanic. Basically almost all the other post here have copied FW. I find that the main reason FW is not small gangs and all blobs is because people have no reason and therefore don't attempt to cap plexes. Since the reason behind sov is to keep your space people now have reason to defend it more then just to blow stuff up.
I'd like to see some CSM delegates or CCP members respond to these ideas. Mainly about the viability and fun factor.
|
| |
|