| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
Libertas Fidelitas
   |
Posted - 2008.12.05 13:24:00 -
[1]
I think the POS's applying directly to system sovereignty is too fixed and not flexible enough. I propose that instead of directly affecting sovereignty, they create an 'influence' over a system. Multiple alliances can exert influence over a system, but it takes a significant majority of influence to exert sovereignty. The total activity in a system (POS's, Outposts, Planetary interactions, whatever else ends up affecting it) all add up to a 'Total influence' score. The actual influence is a time based approach toward that Total influence. This helps to slow down the fluctuations, and prevent daily sovereignty swapping. The actual sovereignty level (which is what is used to determine benefits such as anchoring abilities, and gate monitoring and such) is based on the top influence score, subtracting out all other influences.
Influences also spill over to adjacent systems. Trying to exert territorial control over system A should be easier if you already have control over adjacent systems B, C and D. Conversely, if you already have control of A, B, C, and D, and an attacker comes over, presses in, and takes over C, your hold on A, B, and D should be weakened. I basically see sovereignty much more variable, instead of a tiered level (though still updating only at downtime, to minimize crazy fluctuations). Having a score in a system will excert a 1/5th of that influence on neighboring systems.
Example:
A-----B
(1.6) (0.64)
| |
| |
| |
C-----D-----E-----G
(8.0) (1.6) (0.32)(---)
|
|
|
F
(0.32)
Your Alliance has a fairly strong hold on System C, with many POS's and an Outpost. This puts it's Influence score at 8.0. This influence is spread to systems A and D, applying a 1.6 on each of them. That 1.6 goes on to exert a .32 influence on each neighboring systems. (with double the effect on B, as it has 2 x 1.6 neighbors). To stop the everpresent diminishing spread, systems with <1.0 influence will no longer spread onto neighbors.
Now, say the Enemy claims system G, with a strength of 5.0 (a few large POS's) Their influence would start to affect E.
A-----B
(1.6) (0.64)
| |
| |
| |
C-----D-----E-----G
(8.0) (1.6) (0.32)(---)
(0.2) (1.0) (5.0)
|
|
F
(0.32)
As you can see, just by claiming G, they have put a significant influence on E, and started the push into D. They don't have enough to claim sovereignty on E, as their 1.0 minus your 0.32 is only 0.68, but it wouldnt' take much activity IN E to get it there.
Also notice the colored jump paths between A, C and D. This is Stargate Control. It's not locking gates, just the ability to monitor the activity at those gates. Having system sovereignty on each side is enough to enable stargate control. This goes along with my wish for changing Local away from immediate mode, while still allowing defenders to know what's going on in their systems (to a degree).
POS Personal Storage |
Gantor Tesla
|
Posted - 2008.12.05 14:53:00 -
[2]
I like this idea, but I do not think you influence should be more than 1 jump from actual hardware. Other than that, right on.
|
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
Allied Caprican Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.12.05 15:19:00 -
[3]
This would be an interesting change from current mechanics, however alliances should be required to have at least 1 tower in a system to claim sov... otherwise it would make it too easy for big alliances to sov even larger swaths of space.
ç¦ |
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.12.05 17:41:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Gantor Tesla
I like this idea, but I do not think you influence should be more than 1 jump from actual hardware. Other than that, right on.
Well, the effect 2 jumps out is virtually nothing, and not enough to claim sov anyways. even with the max of 10.0 in the system, that would mean that next door it would have an influence of 2.0, so the second system would only get 0.4. This is less than the 1.0 needed to claim sovereignty.
Originally by: Kiki Arnolds
This would be an interesting change from current mechanics, however alliances should be required to have at least 1 tower in a system to claim sov... otherwise it would make it too easy for big alliances to sov even larger swaths of space.
I'm not sure this is really required, especially since if you aren't anchoring anything in a system, there no benefit to the sovereignty anyways. Basically, all this spillover does is solidify sovereignty into an area of effect, instead of a sporadic field of dotted systems. After all, the Caldari State certainly has a lot of systems under it's rule that don't have any stations.
System Influence |
Gantor Tesla
|
Posted - 2008.12.05 19:07:00 -
[5]
Here is the problem though...
System ABC-XY has 2 gates. BCD-YZ and XYZ-AB
XYZ-AB Connects to both BCD-ZA and XYZ-BC
BCD-YZ connects to OMG-ZA, WTF-AB, BBQ-CN, and LOL-WT
If you control BCD-ZA and XYZ-BC, OMG-ZA, WTF-AB, BBQ-CN, and LOL-WT, you havw 1.2 in ABC-XY.
|
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.12.05 19:29:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Gantor Tesla
Here is the problem though...
System ABC-XY has 2 gates. BCD-YZ and XYZ-AB
XYZ-AB Connects to both BCD-ZA and XYZ-BC
BCD-YZ connects to OMG-ZA, WTF-AB, BBQ-CN, and LOL-WT
If you control BCD-ZA and XYZ-BC, OMG-ZA, WTF-AB, BBQ-CN, and LOL-WT, you havw 1.2 in ABC-XY.
That DOES however show an overwhelming presence in the area, so why WOULDN'T you have control of ABC-XY? Under the current system, you can have constellation sovereignty without having system sov in every system. In the example you made, that ABC-XY system is a pathway between your two power-blocks, which would mean you likely WOULD have rather exclusive control over that area.
As an alternative, I did think about putting a cap on how much influence a system can obtain from neighbor systems. If it is capped at 2.0, then it would limit the proliferation. Still, if a system has a TON of gates, and you control the system on the other side of nearly all those gates, it makes since, at least to me, that you would have significant control over the happenings in that system.
System Influence |
Kabantik
Caldari
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.22 14:14:00 -
[7]
Clever, I like it, too many things in EVE right now are black and white it either is or it isn't, it needs a more dynamic approach to the whole MMO aspect of the game
|
Clansworth
Blackwater USA Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 09:00:00 -
[8]
Just throwing this back to the top. I'm just oping that after the march expansion, some more work is done on the sovereignty mechanic.
System Influence |
Valorous Bob
Locusts Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 01:38:00 -
[9]
I like this system a lot. Its much more dynamic and realistic in that a sovereign power has at least some power in neighboring areas.
_______________________________________________
Originally by: Faekurias
Edited by: Faekurias on 12/11/2008 18:25:39
What, you get to write **** now? Sweet!
Edit: I see what you did there
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 09:14:00 -
[10]
This is nice. Kind of like a "spheres of influence" thing going on.
|
|
|
Vaerla Myshtana
Gallente
LiveTech
Cold Fusion Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 12:01:00 -
[11]
Interesting. I like this.
I also support limiting influence to 1 jump and requiring a tower in a system to assert sovereignty.
|
Clansworth
Blackwater USA Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 13:17:00 -
[12]
well, in all actuality, what benefit would there be to 'asserting' sovereignty if there was no tower in system? The only thing under this mechanic would be the stargate monitoring, which still kind of makes sense. If anything, all this would do is smooth out the map colors a bit.. ;-)
System Influence |
Colonel Xaven
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 07:56:00 -
[13]
I really support this idea. Makes sense in many ways.
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
John Grimm
Amarr
Rendili StarDrive Yards
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 15:41:00 -
[14]
This is an excellent idea. I really love it, especially the stargate control if coupled with removing Instant Local.
|
Doctor Penguin
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 13:14:00 -
[15]
Very clever!
________________________________________________
http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |