Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Narciss Sevar
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 07:16:00 -
[1]
I would like to see 0.0 sovereignty changed as it is currently boring and except for fights at pre-arranged times discourages pvp. The change i would like to see is to move away from actual structures causing sovereignty and a move to actual things people do ingame.
These actions ingame that would effect sovereignty are astroid mining, moon mining, npc ratting and player kills. Obviously each moon may not necessarily give the same amounts of points, each npc or even each player ship. Or perhaps even diminishing returns on the amount of ships killed within a certain period.
Now i don't claim to be clever enough to work out a formula for this to work, but i do think there are clever enough people developing this game or playing this game to work it out either themselves or as a group.
As for what i think this change would do, i think this would reduce large 0.0 empires and if the formula is worked correctly encourage pvp of all kinds while not introducing limits. It leaves all the same resources to fight over, but gives more people a chance at identity. And more reason to run through in small gangs ganking people. More small gangs ganking people equals more small gangs running into each other and fighting each other as well. And this is what we really want to promote.
I see this formula being calculated every x amount of time. Preferably quite smallish sort of time, or with specific bonus' if you control surrounding space of specific infrastructure points, like expensive moons. But this sort of stuff can be discussed, changed or even scrapped.
If you've read this far thanks and i hope you liked the idea. If you didn't well, **** you.
|
Skyraker7
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 08:40:00 -
[2]
First of all I thought your account had been hacked.. but I see where you're going with this.
Personally i'd like to see POS's go down first time they're attacked instead of the make believe reinforced mode... buff them a bit but let them be destroyed first visit.
Cynojammers... something needs to change here. ----
|
Carin K
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 11:09:00 -
[3]
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 12:33:00 -
[4]
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Thud
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 13:11:00 -
[5]
Nice idea. The sov system needs a change,0.0 warfare is way to mutch focused on large blobs and boring poswarfare nowdays,pvp in eve could be so mutch more fun. ____ ____ My english is bad. |
Wicked X
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 13:22:00 -
[6]
|
herasin
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 14:28:00 -
[7]
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 14:39:00 -
[8]
I definitely support the principle. We do really need a more detailed proposal though. CCP have specifically asked us (on the CSM) to chase up some good detailed ideas for overhauling sovereignty and its pretty clear there is a serious problem with the status quo. Any chance of spending a bit of time this week working on the proposal in more detail Narciss? (as long as the op can be updated by a week this sunday August 12th) we could submit it to the final CSM approval meeting in session 2 prior to the end of August CSM/CCP meets.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Elektrea
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 14:44:00 -
[9]
----------
|
Berious
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 15:04:00 -
[10]
I've had an idea quite like this for a long time.
You'd need a rolling total of points rather than some X day calculation, so defenders can build up an advantage. They should have something on an inherent advantage just so 0.0 isn't a total cluster**** and there's time to plan - but as it's rolling it won't help them our for long and only works at all if they're using space.
Also PVP should be heavily weighted in points compared to say mining, just because a Hulk invasion is conceptually silly. The "usage points" would mainly be a not insignificant top up for people living there. Something to get carebears involved and useful in the sov game beyond logistics.
You'd also need to be able to trade/pool your alliance's points with any other alliance, to allow for rental arrangements - but that's a minor thing.
Like you I haven't really worked out details but there's a germ of a great idea there.
|
|
Aiko Intaki
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 15:20:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Aiko Intaki on 02/08/2008 15:21:11 Add a few more metrics and you're golden: complexes run, LP gained, etc. So... something like THIS.
|
Akira117
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 04:10:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Akira117 on 03/08/2008 04:14:23 Well starting off I would like to point out the definition of sovereignty.
Quote: sovereignty is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself.
Meaning I am the one that makes the rules here, not I make money here/have a shop or house here. So making sov related to kills/efficiency would make a lot more stance, than the current system of being only related to how many poses you have.
I don't see a good reason to have it being related to asteroid mining or ratting since these are usually done for just personal gain and not in groups or for corps (at least in 0.0). It should in my opinion default to who has a pos there.
What would get interesting if you get a good efficiency percentage and you break their sov. for a cynojammer. Also having a cynojammer turn off for an hour (or how ever much time) after a DDay is turned on could also be a nice addition.
p.s. posting at 12am hope this makes sense
-Akira117
999.times {print " The Cake is a lie."} |
IHurricane
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 09:45:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I definitely support the principle. We do really need a more detailed proposal though. CCP have specifically asked us (on the CSM) to chase up some good detailed ideas for overhauling sovereignty and its pretty clear there is a serious problem with the status quo. Any chance of spending a bit of time this week working on the proposal in more detail Narciss? (as long as the op can be updated by a week this sunday August 12th) we could submit it to the final CSM approval meeting in session 2 prior to the end of August CSM/CCP meets.
It's being worked upon, so stay tuned
---------------------------------------
|
crockp0t
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:27:00 -
[14]
|
Xialis
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 02:31:00 -
[15]
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 03:10:00 -
[16]
Originally by: IHurricane
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I definitely support the principle. We do really need a more detailed proposal though. CCP have specifically asked us (on the CSM) to chase up some good detailed ideas for overhauling sovereignty and its pretty clear there is a serious problem with the status quo. Any chance of spending a bit of time this week working on the proposal in more detail Narciss? (as long as the op can be updated by a week this sunday August 12th) we could submit it to the final CSM approval meeting in session 2 prior to the end of August CSM/CCP meets.
It's being worked upon, so stay tuned
Good stuff I'll look forward to it.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Otellus
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 05:34:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Otellus on 04/08/2008 05:35:25 I made a proposal for this a while ago.
The basics are simple. Every activity in a system or constellation (I would move to constellation based sovereignty instead of system based to spread fights out more) gives you points. Per type of activity there is a max number of points per day. Lets go with the following activities: POS, Mining, Moonmining, Ratting, PvP.
For each of these 5 activities you set a max amount of points that can be gained per day. Say 10 points per actvity. So 50 points in total.
Then you have to determine the amount of points a specific part of that gains. Say a large POS gains you 2 points a day, a medium POS 1 point. A small POS 0.5 points. Mining X amount of ore: 1 point, collecting X amount of bounty: also 1 point. Destroying ships also (say 0.1 per battleship, 0.5 per carrier/dread etc etc.)
Then of course, other alliances doing these kinds of things to you means losing points. If they blow up your carrier, you lose 0.5 points that day. If they setup a large POS, you lose 2 points of sovereignty a day.
Now what you finally need is a natural attrition rate. Say 1% per day. That means that if an alliance collects 50 points of Sov a day, they lose 1% of their total. So a new alliance occupies a system/constellation. Day 1 they gain 50 points. Day two, they lose 0.5 points due to natural attrition, and gain 50 more points. Total 99.5 points. Day 3, they lose 0.95 points and gain another 50. Etc etc. Over the longterm that means that an alliance using these figures as an example can build up 5000 sovereignty 'points' because at that point natural attrition of 1% equals the max buildup of 50 points (10 per activity per day).
This proposal would seriously shrink the size of alliance space, and also restrict the use of jumpportals to areas actually used by said alliance, balancing them a bit in my opinion. It would also allow for small gangs to start affecting sovereignty in the long run if they keep harassing an area.
Finally, it makes it much less attractive for an alliance to go to war at the other end of the galaxy with everything they have. Because that would immediately start to eat away at their sovereignty if they stopped mining and ratting enough to keep up the 10 points per day max for those activities. Might help a tad to reduce the size of blobs.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 09:05:00 -
[18]
This was my previous post on the issue (Otellus is me), a bit more elaborated.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=597572
|
McDonALTs
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 09:42:00 -
[19]
KEY POINT:
Whatever solution you think is best, you need a system to force the defenders to.... well, Defend.
Just now its too easy to pos spam since a single dyso reaction moon brings in enough isk to put up a new pos almost every day. People are defending by having hardner pos. In the past before cynojammers, people attacked by using hardner pos's.
SO MOST IMPORANT THING - Find a way to force defenders to defend insted of useing NPC structures to delay attackers
|
Narciss Sevar
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 01:44:00 -
[20]
Continuation from op~~~
This system would encourage more alliances to recruit the miners/npcers of eve into 0.0. These players would then feel like they can and are effecting 0.0 sovereignty, encouraging them to come out to 0.0 also. These players would also provide more targets to pvpers, encouraging them to roam in small groups. I believe this would give more purpose to smaller groups and encourage smaller gangs to roam around stopping people gaining points and reinforcing their sov. The more smaller gangs roaming around also means more smaller gangs running into each other and causing smaller fights spread over many systems. While this is all going on there would still be the same incentive to fight large battles over the best resources(moons) as there is now and also if you had the ability to brute force your way in you could lock people from their assets by taking their stations.
I believe this would make it a lot harder for alliances to control vast swathes of space and compress people more densely, opening up a lot more space for people to exploit and find their own little niche.
|
|
LetsDoThis
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:12:00 -
[21]
The idea of getting influence points for mining, jumping, or even just ship presence, terrible ideas. Kills and moon control, fine. All that other BS, no way. Come on, amend that stupid shit out and you have a good idea.
You should still be required to put up at least 1 control tower to have any say in the system, otherwise you have nothing to defend, and nobody can contest your claim to dominance.
However, POS spamming shouldn't have a say. Whether you have 1 or 20 POS up should not effect claim to dominance of a system.
So sov warfare would work like this: you put up 1 tower, activate some special module that would make it contest sov (or else allies would be perpetually stealing sov from each other) and then kill kill kill, influence points push your influence over the other parties involved, you gain sovereignty. OR Put up 1 tower, activate sov contesting module, then go blow up all the other POS that have sov contesting modules. If you don't defend your sov claiming tower, then how could you deserve the system?
To be clear: all the other activities counting for influence = terrible idea.
|
Deldrac
Bat Country Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 22:11:00 -
[22]
Quote: Sovereignty points would be gained by doing a number of things, these include npc ratting, complex running, asteroid mining, moon mining, player kills, pos kills, number of stations owned and gates used. By gates used, i mean people moving around unopposed should have an effect, probably very small but it would work for both the raiders and the people living there, unless of course you are camped into your own stations.
Sov should be determined by pvp imo. And sov should be impossible to switch without a significant pvp confrontation.
If you want to make new pvp objectives to go alongside what we have and give them some sort of sov impact, that is worth talking about (so long as they actually encourage pew pew unlike some other suggestions).
Racing to mine or kill npcs shouldn't be what this is about. And this could cause practical problem where sov gets switched accidentally between friendly organisations who rat/mine/plex in each other's space, affecting the function of critical infrastructure such as jump bridges.
This would also cause big problems for corps who hold sov but rent space out.
Sov is about the ability to control space, not about what you do with it.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |