Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Friday, November 9, 2012

Proposal: Tug of war sovereignty

There are only 24 posts on this blog tagged "Proposals" because I recognize that EVE players tend to be poor game designers, and I am an EVE player.  Still, it's been more than a year since CCP promised that they were looking into some major change to 0.0 sovereignty.  The situation there is becoming truly dire: a tiny number of super-powers utterly rule null at this point.  Given another year to develop, I can see a time coming when only two super-powers will control all of null-sec space.

Meanwhile, the average sov-held null-sec system will be completely empty.

This stands in direct contradiction to a region like Syndicate which nobody owns... and yet Syndicate-dwellers control and live in their systems far more than virtually any null-sec entity does today.  Ten months ago, I published a little Syndicate "sov map".  Since then, John Revenant of I-RED has been keeping it up to date much better than I could do so.  It's only a touch out of date: a week or so back, Flying Dangerous (FIGL) moved out of Syndicate for Curse.(1)  But other than that, each group in this faux sov map holds those systems far more forcefully than pretty much any actual sov-holding group.  Where a typical sov-held null-sec system is empty, you can find fights in Syndicate at all hours of the day and night.

So how to change that for null-sec sov?

I've been giving it some thought, and I keep coming back to a "tug of war" style arrangement.  I first wrote about this more than a year ago, and I thought I'd take a few minutes to write up a somewhat more formalized version of it for EVE.  Here goes.

First thing: the SBU mechanic goes away.  Nobody likes them except as a source of fights (which I'll be replacing in a moment) and as a game mechanic, they make no freakin' logical sense whatsoever.  Infrastructure Hubs can stay.  Stations can also stay, but there will be no more shooting at them until they become destructible, at which point their current timer mechanic comes back.  Shooting at a space station to flip its ownership also makes absolutely no freakin' logical sense whatsoever.  Shooting at station services to disable them will stay, and the mechanic will be expanded to NPC stations as well.

The SBU art model and statistics get reused as a Station Control Module.  All current SBUs are converted to SCMs.

Each system in 0.0 -- including NPC 0.0 systems -- is tracked based on "ownership" ratings.  Up to five alliances or NPC corps will be represented.  The list will be made up of the five alliances that most recently had an impact on the ownership of that system.  Each of these five entities will be graded from 0% to 100%, with a total no higher than 100%.  The entity with the highest ownership rating in a given system is termed as owning the system.  If two entities tie, the one that most recently changed their ownership number is deemed the owner.  If something happens to change the ownership of a system and total system ownership is not yet at 100%, the percentage change is added to the entity that caused the change.  If something happens to change the ownership of a system and total system ownership is already at 100%, the percentage gained by one potential owner is taken from either the current owner of the system, or the second-place owner of the system if it is the owner of the system that makes the change.

When the system is launched, ownership will be set as follows:
  • NPC 0.0 systems: 100% ownership by the NPC entity that traditionally owns that system.
  • Sov 0.0 systems at level 5: 100% ownership given to the player alliance that owns that system.
  • Sov 0.0 systems at level 4: 90% ownership given to the player alliance that owns that system.
  • Sov 0.0 systems at level 3: 80% ownership given to the player alliance that owns that system.
  • Sov 0.0 systems at level 2: 70% ownership given to the player alliance that owns that system.
  • Sov 0.0 systems at level 1: 60% ownership given to the player alliance that owns that system.
The ownership date will be the date the system goes into effect.  The other four ownership slots for all 0.0 systems will initially be unfilled.

Before the system goes into effect, all player alliances owning a station will be required to anchor a Station Control Module at the Infrastructure Hub.  And NPC Infrastructure Hub and NPC Station Control Modules will be anchored in NPC 0.0 systems.

Higher percentage ownership of a system will confer bonuses.  The exact bonuses and where those bonuses are conferred, I leave an an exercise for the student.  Sample bonuses:
  • The Infrastructure Hub becomes invulnerable (recommended at 80% ownership);
  • cheaper POS fuel in the system;
  • cheaper (or free) station repairs;
  • cheaper (or free) station manufacturing and research;
  • cheaper (or free) cloning;
  • cheaper purchase of goods at LP stores (for NPC stations with agents);
  • ability to cyno-jam a system;
  • notification of when POSes are anchored in a system;
  • bonuses to DUST 514 mercenaries in system;
  • orbital strike bonuses of some sort;
Et cetera.  Additional bonuses can be added at the whim of developers.  However, one bonus will be fixed: at 51% system ownership or higher, the Station Control Modules in that system become invulnerable and the system owner takes control of all stations with SCMs in the system for purposes of setting docking rights and fees.  At 50% or less ownership, the SCMs all become vulnerable and they can't.  If the SCM for a given station is destroyed, the station is uncontrolled and open for docking to all, with special privileges to nobody, until a new SCM is anchored (at which point it follows the rules for system ownership).  SCMs use the same anchoring and timer mechanics that SBUs do today.  Infrastructure Hubs are vulnerable unless system ownership climbs to the bonus point where they can be made invulnerable, but otherwise have the same anchoring and timer mechanics they do today.

Taking owernship of a system is done in four ways:
  1. completing ownership sites within that system;
  2. destroying a vulnerable Infrastructure Hub in a system;
  3. destroying a vulnerable Station Control Module in a system; and,
  4. taking control of DUST 514 districts.
Completing an ownership site in a system will shift 3% ownership to the player alliance or entity that completes that site.  Taking control of some number of DUST 514 districts (I recommend three) will shift 1% ownership to the player alliance or entity that takes control of those districts.  Destroying a vulnerable Infrastructure Hub (even by the system owner) in a system will shift 4% ownership to the player alliance that destroyed it.  Destroying a vulnerable Station Control Module (even by the system owner) in a system will shift 2% ownership to the player alliance that destroyed the SCM.  Remember: only the five entities that most recently changed the ownership of a system will be tracked.

Ownership sites will spawn in each system three per day at random intervals throughout the day.  Some will be public beacons that don't need to be scanned.  Some will spawn at the Infrastructure Hub.  And some will be locations that have to be scanned down.  The exact nature of the ownership sites, I again leave an exercise for the student.  However, sites will be classified as "passive" and "active".  Some sample ownership sites could be the following:
  • Pirate invasion site (active): a fleet must be brought in to destroy a pirate base.
  • Pirate invasion fleet (active): a pirate fleet is moving through the system and must be destroyed.
  • Station Control Module refueling (passive): an NPC Orca will un-dock from a station and warp an SCM, and must be defended for a period of time.
  • Infrastructure Hub refueling (active): the I-Hub must be supplied with a large quantity of some sort of fuel spaced out over a period of time.
  • Territorial claim site (passive): a CONCORD battleship is moving through the system.  A claimant ship must orbit the CONCORD battleship at 10000m for 15 minutes and all competing claimants must be pushed away.
  • Mining site (passive): an NPC mining fleet is operating in the system and must be defended.
  • Mining site (active): a location in the system must be supplied with a large quantity of ore spaced out over a period of time.
  • Exploration site (passive): a Talocan artifact has been detected in the system.  It must be scanned down, recovered, and returned to the Infrastructure Hub.
Et cetera.  Again, additional types of sites can be added at the whim of the developers as long as some are active and some are passive.  Each site will remain active for some period of time (I recommend 4-6 hours) or until run.  Some sites (notably the pirate sites) will have bounty rewards for completion in addition to the ownership benefit accrued.  Other sites (notably the mining and active fueling site) will have costs to the alliance.  In sov null-sec space, there won't be any real difference between active and passive sites.  However, in NPC null-sec space, if a passive site is not completed by a player entity, it will be considered automatically completed by the NPC entity that traditionally owns that system.

That's it.  Those are the rules.  Some examples:
  • Goonswarm owns VFK-IV at a 93% level.  A pirate invasion site spawns.  A Goonswarm fleet completes the site.  Goonswarm now owns VFK-IV at 96%.
  • Later that day, a scrub alliance completes an ownership site in VFK.  They take 3% ownership, making total ownership of that system 99%.
  • The next day, Goons run another site in VFK, making their ownership 99%, and reducing the scrub alliance's ownership to 1%.  Later that day, their DUST mercenaries take control of three planetary districts, pushing Goon ownership to 100%.  It can go no higher.
  • The Sansha's Nation owns FV-SE8 at 56% level.  A passive mining site spawns.  No player completes the site.  As an NPC organization Sansha's Nation gets credit for the passive site; they now own FV-SE8 at 59%.
  • Some weeks later, the Sansha's Nation owns FV-SE8 at 72%.  Over a period of several days, a player alliance completes enough sites to take 49% ownership of FV-SE8.  They complete another site, making their ownership 52%.  Sansha's ownership drops to 48%.  At that point, FV-SE8 transfers to their control, along with the Station Control Module for the single station in system, which becomes invulnerable.  They may lock other players out of that station.  The player alliance celebrates, then goes to bed.  However, that evening, a passive territorial claim site spawns and the players do not run it.  Sansha's ownership increases to 51% and the player entity ownership drops to 49%.  The station unlocks and the SCM becomes vulnerable again.
  • -A- owns UX3-N2 at 32% level.  However, there have been no -A- ships there running sites in several weeks.  Four other player alliances fight over the system, gaining an average of 12% ownership each.  The second-place owner has 14% ownership.  A fifth player alliance enters the fray, completes a site, and gains 3% ownership of the system.  -A- loses all ownership of the system and total system ownership drops to 51%, still split five ways.  The new owning alliance, however, has only 14% control of the system.

I think the system has a lot of advantages: it's simple to understand, broadens the potential audience for sov fights to even very small entities, and forces entities to live in the systems that they supposedly own.  If a player entity doesn't frequently run sites in a system, sooner or later the control they have of a system will decay.  This decay will happen particularly quickly in NPC systems.  If the site spawns are set such that one passive site spawns per day, NPC systems will decay to their NPC owners at a rate of 3% per day with no player intervention.  Making more spawns passive will increase this rate of decay.

It also opens system owners to griefing at a variety of levels.  Five alliances working together to run five sites in a row, giving one site to each participating alliance, can strip even a 100% system owner of their rights in only two days (by bumping them off the "five most recent" list).  This will force at least some of the owning alliance back home to defend their rights at least once every other day, or maintain some sort of home defense force to rapidly complete ownership sites when they spawn.  A player entity that actually chooses to live in a far-flung part of space can rapidly whittle system ownership below the 50% needed to obtain docking rights, then use those docking rights to make a massive nuisance of themselves.

Still, particularly large powerful entities can maintain a high level of control: they can quickly use overwhelming force destroy I-HUBs and SCMs, kill station services, and flip system ownership as much as 20% or more in a single day if they're willing to use scorched earth tactics to do it and they have DUST 514 mercenaries backing them up.  That can very rapidly make life untenable for a griefer that can't match this level of overt force.  A guerrilla force can be an annoyance, but they'll have a hard time taking control from a very powerful foe.  Yet they can still be a nuisance by constantly keeping system ownership below high ownership levels that confer the best bonuses.  Powerful alliances can even push potential invaders out of nearby NPC space if they're willing to work hard enough at it.

But less aggressive alliances that aren't willing to come out to defend their rights will slowly lose them.

Best of all, I think this would open sov to a lot of groups that would find it impossible to hold sov today.  In particular, small groups would have a pretty easy time finding out-of-the-way systems to set up shop in and take control of.  If you're TEST, even with 10000 members, do you have the numbers to clear more than 600 ownership sites per day?  And even if you did, how long would your members be able to keep it up?  No, even the biggest alliances would quickly consolidate down to space they could maintain ownership of.

tl;dr version:
  • All 0.0 systems (including NPC 0.0 systems) have an ownership percentage; there can be up to five owners for a given system.
  • Increase ownership by running "ownership sites" in a system, some PvE, some PvP, some industry, some mining, or by shooting structures, or by taking control of DUST 514 planetary districts.
  • Ownership of 51% or more in a system gives you the ability to lock docking rights for all stations in that system.
  • Higher ownership than that confers additional bonuses (cheap clones, cheap repairs, et cetera).
  • NPC systems would naturally decay back to their traditional owners if you don't frequently run sites.
  • Alternately, ownership would be challenged by other player alliances running sites.

Anyway, that's the proposal.  What do you think?


(1) And given how things are going for them there, I expect them to move back shortly.  What's happening to them is why you'll likely never see Rote Kapelle move to Curse unless things change markedly in that region.

55 comments:

  1. This is a moot point and doesn't have a whole lot to do with the general direction of your argument, but it is about time you (and Rote Kapelle) and this syndicate pole map creator ought to realize that RF-GGF is held by CAS! It is the longest-lived group out of any in Syndicate that still exists, continuously, in the same system for years. Killboard will attest to that :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I recognize that EVE players tend to be poor game designers, and I am an EVE player."

    This fact hasn't stopped CCP from making Raivi into a dev... wny should it stop you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Creating entirely new content is one skill; fixing existing/broken game mechanics is a different skill.

      I believe that long time players, such as Jester, are indeed much more capable of making valid suggestions for fixing broken game mechanics than devs who don't play the game, and CCP is foolish not to take better advantage of these suggestions.

      Delete
  3. So basically adding PvE to the endgame PVP in the game. Reminds me of the 'plexing' in faction warfare, which is something I've resolved to never, ever get involved in..

    If you subject this to the EVE poopsocking minmaxer test, what will happen is this: People will grind a shit-ton more, including silly PVE sites, and complain about how boring that is, instead of complaining about how boring/frustrating structure shoots and logistics are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ignore that the sort of PvE Jester is proposing is more of the sort of Incursions or what Winterblink had suggested recently as "Dynamic World Events" ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=151641 )

      They involve PvP potential ! The PvE site is only a pretext, a beacon to meeting on the battle field.

      That is how I understand the design anyway...

      Delete
  4. I like the idea of people losing sov for a system they don't use, but your idea have so much consequence that it's hard to think if it would be good or bad... also as a member of a big alliance, I obviously don't like some of it :P

    You forgot some things also ;
    on sov null you can set all fee to 0 if you want, we don't care about a system allowing us to do it, we can already do it.
    also lots of sov space have no stations... so most of your idea have no use at all.
    you don't talk about the stuff we care about like jump bridges :P
    And having to do things like FW everytime is not really funny... it would be way more boring that to shoot structures for more time but less often. Your numbers (6hours site, 3% by site...) seems pretty off. It's true that big alliance have too much space, and are empty often, but I think with your numbers it would be crazy way too hard for big alliance to live. i'm pretty sure with things that lower pretty slowy, it would be enough to avoid people claiming too much things. and you should count "normal" sites like anomalies and signature stuff as rising % of ownership, why a need to run special things ? sure enemies will do it as it's easier for them (and should give more %), but why force people living here to do it ? no need to, if they are killing rats and depleting asteroids it means they live here, it's enough.
    What may be interesting to add however is counting kills on the systems ; killing red roaming gangs is holding your space, so you should also raise your % doing that.
    Also works for reds who want to interrupt you : doing roams often on enemy territory will have strategic value.

    td:lr : the broad idea is interesting, but you seems a bit off to me.
    I'll suggest making so that farming and pvping on your space raise your ownership, doing so on enemy territory also raise yours on theirs, so a grunt earning money has a strategic value, but the roaming gang trying to kill him also has some.
    Makes it that not using your territory lower your sov, but very slowly, so that it's not an issue on short term, but that you know if you don't use it you'll lose it long term (like after 1 month), so you don't have much reason to hold it.
    You can add you special events sites as better chance to gain % to your stuff / attack red stuff, but not mandatory at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. first thing I noticed: if 5 alliances can steal sov in vfk in two days, you can be sure those 5 will be -A-, and 4 purpose-built sov-flipping alt aliances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is one thing that bothered my about Jester's proposal in that it directly violated Jester's own "200 ships" rule.

      He should have automatically rejected his own proposal based on that rule.

      Delete
  6. You're adding pve to the game. Pilots have to spend their limited gametime completing pve content before they get onto pvp.

    Why not base ownership off activities that already exist in the game? Destroying rats in a system gives you ownership, killing other players gives ownership, etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is destroying rats (and by extension running PLEXes etc) any different to what he's proposing? And how does it have to happen "before they get into pvp."? If anything having sites that give sov will actually PROMOTE pvp by giving focal points for fleets to fight over control of the system, instead of this bullshit gate games and pos shield BS that goes on now?

      Delete
  7. I don't know... it sound as I would be trying to fight another alliance indirectly, through PvE sites... it doesn't sound nullsechy...
    Maybe the dominance over a system should be counted through enemy/neutral ships destroyed, using some sort of pointing system a la Alliance Tournament...
    An then the NPC ships destroyed would also count, but as a fraction of a player flown ship...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love the idea Jester, and i'm thinking, what if these "sov sites" also replace/supplement anomalies and other ratting sites.

    Instead of scanning down sites or belt ratting, players would go to to sov sites, and earn money while shoring up their alliance control of a system.

    What if these "sov sites" have a trigger that dictates who gets the sov boost. Small enemy gangs can gank sov runner groups, killing enemy ships as well as weakening hold on the system.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Agreed philosophically Jester. Anything is better than what we have now which is an increasingly boring and predictable two mega-corporation monopoly. Even if the two fought each other it doesn't solve the essential problem - which is if you are a smaller and/or newer corp just kiss goodbye your chances of any real non renter sovereignty and control in null it's been game over for a long time.

    Another suggestion which may be politically more palatable than making the two megacorps actually vulnerable to losing some of their space would be to simply create a new area of the game specifically designed for smaller corp sovereignty and pvp, maybe we take Jesters suggestion as a start for that design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cannot create any game rules that would only allow small-gang pvp because the organization of larger entities is outside of the game.

      Even if you limited gangs to 10 less subcaps (or any other random number); if 30 gangs of 10 in your system belong to "Followers of Internet Messageboard X" then your 1 gang of 10 in "Alliance Y" will not stand much of a chance.

      Delete
    2. Wow, letting all forms of pvp become blobs has become the sacred cow of eve now.

      No it's not impossible to implement game rules that favor smaller groups, right now we simply have the opposite.

      Other games have successfully done this, it's not impossible, and even Eve has managed to do it in WH by limiting mass and even ship compositions.

      Delete
    3. I don't know how you pulled a sacred cow out of hat. Certainly I didn't express any bovine preferences in my previous post. Personally, I would like to see small gangs more of presence in Eve, but every proposal I have seen can be immediately invalidated by superior numbers.

      Just look at Jester's post. Easily invalidated by blobs creating hundreds of alliance so that they always appear on the "last 5" sov list; the tide washing away any attempt by small gangs to get a foothold.

      Other games have created situations that favor small gangs by placing artificial limits on participants to playfields, but this is expressly against the sandbox. Your fun in the sandbox is small gang, but what if blobs think that destroying small gangs is fun?

      Just because the blobs have so far not shown an interest in wormholes does not mean that they cannot. What if that large blob camps wormhole spawns? What if they find every possible wormhole location and send their ships though before your small gang? What if they bomb the wormhole with sacrificial ships to close it before you can get any of your ships in or out?

      Delete
  10. I had typed up something along the lines that you had put. http://blog.orderofthevoid.com/?p=261

    I like your idea of sites governing some of the stuff as well. It allows the mixxed bag of PvP and PvE that I think of when thinking about Faction Warfare.

    Regardless, as someone that would love to stand a chance on their own in Null-sec (NPC 0.0 is the best we can hope for at the moment) this sounds like a great idea. As it stands, unless you have a 500-1000 man alliance AND friends that are already established...you don't have a chance in hell.

    Wish CCP would get more on the ball with such things. Sov-Null is getting really stagnant and I agree that we will see a point of two big entities that own it all and only fight's we'll have are "fer teh lulz" type scenario's.

    Love your blog overall...long time reader, first time commenter.

    twitter: @PyroTech03

    ReplyDelete
  11. Interesting, but is it a way to fix null sov issues or a way to allow Rote to lay claim to their area of influence in Syndicate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Seriously, don't you agree that small committed groups should have a shot at owning a system or two? Without needing 75 super-caps or forming up for 12-hour structure shoots to do it?

      So yeah, there's a certain amount of vested self-interest here. But I want there to be a place in null sov for small gang owners, too.

      Delete
  12. NPC is NPC. No one should be capable of locking other players out of NPC stations. There is no point in calling it NPC if it's player controlled. The idea of being able to take an NPC station already exists in EVE, but in sov areas they're called conquerable stations. It sounds great for, say, a small gang specialist group living in, I don't know, Syndicate. But it means you would get all the benefits of housing true null without the work involved in putting up an outpost. What about multi station systems. How does that work out? Does one group get control over a system with 5 or 6 stations in it? Can you imagine your little Syndicate playground when the ability for lots of people to setup shop and PvP goes away? Do you think you'll still have all those little gangs running around if they have only 1 or 2 places to dock in Syndicate? BTW will you be Black Frogging anything into your station? Blues? ETC.

    Sorry Ripard, but NPC station control is bad bad bad.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm with Jester on this one. I like his idea. Getting people in small fleet to do pve is a great way to get pvp. PvE is the number 1 reason for pvp in wormhole. It gets people out there and that means more fights!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hmm hadn't thought of it that way but yes people often enter a WH to run the sites or to gank people running the sites.

      of course being that CCP probably has zero players who actually live in WH my bet is they probably screw up WH life by nerfing strategic cruisers too much before they fix Null sovereign issues.

      BTW..Ravi is great but he is in a mega corp alignment by being with PL so he probably has no clue of the problem from any kind of an outside or small gang perspective.

      Delete
  14. So, cap NPC nullsec at 49% ownership (assuming there are benefits for <50% control)

    Simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could also just not have SCMs work in NPC space. No reason you can't have access to the better rewards without having control of the station.

      Or just make it so you can't control station docking rights.

      Delete
  15. I like it. Although, I feel like pvp should have some effect on the status of a system. It doesn't make sense someone who is losing lots of ships, but managing to ninja some sov sites at odd hours to still hold sov.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So you knock eve pve, and then you suggest that sov mechanics be based on npc sites? lulwhut?

    That said. I that instead of sites it watches that evp and pvp occurs in the system. So (without going into gory details), running havens all day adds to control (but it capped at something) as would mining (again with a cap). I like what you said about dust mercenaries.

    There should also be control that is affected by ships lost in that system. So say, a small efficient gang over the course of a few days could remove a controlling alliance from a system. PvP should be key here. I also think that bigger ships (or more expensive ships) should have a greater effect.

    This could apply to NPC 0.0 to a lesser extent.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The only point living in a system is to PvE in it, if you want PvP you better off having no sov and roam.

    None of your mechanics have PvE. Current mechanics (paying sov fees, fueling things) demands PvE. So PvE players become useless for the alliance. Since PvP players don't care about sov, no one will be left to care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and you sir still have no fucking idea what you are talking about

      Delete
    2. Yeah right, and CFC and HBC are currently taking sov because they want to life there... ehm... don't think so.
      They simply want to kill there opponents and take their toys.

      The current "problem" only is: If you have enough toys (or friends with even more) you can deny anyone else the ownership by simply dropping all your toys at once on a system.
      Having a hundred dudes in fleet is big for a roam but grinding sov is boring and long. Split up in groups of 10-20 and do PvE which can be countered with PvP sounds way more interesting.

      Delete
  18. Would you mind considering a simpler system of presence and defense measurement?
    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=675312

    Drox

    ReplyDelete
  19. There are some ideas in this that I kind of like, but when you get down to it there are too many other problems with null other than sov mechanics that need to be fixed along with any sov update. So much of null is just worthless pipe systems that no one ever uses because there are a couple ot high truesec systems capable of supporting a large chunk of an alliance. No one wants to go anywhere else to rat and thus most systems are just never used. Null needs to be made more valuable, either by fixing anomalies, making changes to belt ratting, changing how mining works in null, or something to make these systems worth owning beyond defense.

    Until then having active/passive system control like this has little value and would probably lead to more PvE grinding from sov alliances and less PvP. Now if these sites offered some type of award that made them worth running then you might have just solved all the above issues. One thing to keep in mind is that any PvE element in sov mechanics will hinder how nullsec works. What incentive will big alliances have to try and expand their territory if they are too busy holding a whole region or two? Sure it opens the door for smaller alliances but they might have the same problem once taking over one constellation. There's just no reason to expand beyond the moon mining mechanics already in place.

    This is definitely something that can work in npc null but it needs work before being a good thing for player controlled null.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm confused. You want people to DO things in null? How scandalous! Maybe I would actually go there if it looked like this.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I like the principle, but, as others have said, i think pvp should come into it. Killing enemy ships should contribute to your sov %.

    ReplyDelete
  22. its terribly complex and similar to FW
    what anbout another idea - simple and leading to more PvP :
    1. station can be captured only by DUDT mercenaries
    2. they can enter station only when shield down
    3. station has active shield booster which is fueled
    4. so until it has fuel and is manned actualy cannot be captured (reinforcement mode also comnsumes fuel)
    5. fuel is unstable so one cannot stokpile infinite ammount)
    6. additionaly owner should control stationguns
    7. in systems with no stations - TCU working same way but less resistant
    8. who controls stations - controls I-Hub also

    - it leads to blocade and blocade running fleet operations as a new form of warfare - to prevent enemy from suplying station attecker need high level of real space control

    - integrates strongly DUST & EVE

    - is simple and realistic

    ReplyDelete
  23. What mechanism do you use to determine which enities have (or are contesting) sov in NPC space? Or is it simply a matter of consensus among Syndicate's big dogs? Apologies if you've already described this elsewhere - in that case a link will do.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So basically, changing around (and adding to) the Faction Warfare mechanics for 0.0 space right? CCP did say that FW was a testbed for 0.0.....

    ReplyDelete
  25. so now it would be grinding sites instead of structures.

    ....i'd take the structures tbh. if it comes down to grinding, why take the harder path?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Your idea is interesting, but some things to consider.

    First. Control of a system or a region is dependent neither on physical occupancy nor on the ability to plant an in-game flag. That's not changing under your system, and won't allow smaller alliances to homestead except, as now, under the aegis of a powerful coalition.

    For example, Intrepid Crossing has been the exclusive owner of Cobalt Edge for almost a year -- since Solar Fleet dropped sov in its renter systems there in January. However, Intrepid Crossing did not take sov of those systems for months, because it didn't need those systems and reasonably did not want to pay CCP for them, when it could evict anyone who set up shop there at a whim. Because IRC could kick out a prospective homesteader, it owned those systems, even if it did not occupy them on the sov map.

    Similarly, Rote owns more of Syndicate than it physically occupies. You've kicked out at least one alliance, and are planning to 'install' another alliance or corp in its place in that system. In all but name you control those systems, save that you don't have a nice in-game flag for ego-boosting. You're even planning to farm those alliances for easy PvP.

    I do not consider this an issue. An alliance that doesn't want to work with others has no business in sov null space. It doesn't take much effort to work out an arrangement with a larger alliance or coalition; for everything else, there's NPC null or WH space.

    Second. You haven't gotten rid of the grind. You replaced one grind (timers) with another (mindless PvE). The NPC sites you propose will have to take some time to run, so that a response can be formed. Imagine if Rote had to run three HQ sites a day, every day. Currently, once a system is flipped, it stays flipped, and the grind is over until that system is SBUed again. Under your system, the grind will never end. To hold a system, an alliance will have to form daily fleets to run PvE content at odd times. To take a system, an alliance will have to be on constant standby all day for a week or more because the site spawns are random, instead of burning through a handful of known timers using supercaps.

    Third. If the purpose is to get fights through PvE content, then CCP should simply make profitable sites that require a group to run. Granted, most so-called PvP in EVE is ganking, but never know. Currently, there's no point in grouping for PvE content in EVE outside of mining, wormholes, and Incursions. Your ISK/hour actually goes down with every new addition, not up, for most sites.

    Last. Never conflate realism with good game mechanics. The two are not one and the same.

    I like the idea that alliances would have to actually live in their space, but I don't think this mechanic will work in the form proposed. It just replaces one form of grind with another, and involves too many sticks and not enough carrots. If my alliance goes through the trouble of taking space away from another and defending it, why then should it be penalized for its success? The sov fees are bad enough.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I like it! All that it would mean for large alliances is that they could/would hire renters and attract PvE types into their systems to hold the PvE line for Sov. This would give a higher level of importance to PvE and perhaps ending the slum/slave lord mentality when it comes to PvE in null. In addition, I can easily see organized PvE fleets for alliances going from system to system to run the needed PvE sites with an orca in tow to refit and carry ammo/loot, along with a cyno or 3 and a PvP gang on standby to pop any roving gang that got found out. Imagine that you have a group running sites set up where they can do them in 15 min or so, they become like an incursion fleet with support and who doesn't want to hot drop a roving gang that decides to inturrupt them?

    Seriously, PvE doesn't have to be boring, doesn't have to be evil and should be a valued part of any alliance holding Sov. After all, even CFC promotes how important it is that their logistics wing supports their wars. You have to balance the beans and bullets.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "There are only 24 posts on this blog tagged "Proposals" because I recognize that EVE players tend to be poor game designers, and I am an EVE player."
    CCP Devs, by and large, don't seem to play EVE much...so...what's their excuse? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Too much grind and reliance on PvE.

    In the end, what purpose does SOV serve? Far as I can tell, its just a name on a map, the other benefits were simply tied to it, but why should they be?

    What I'd do is:

    1. Remove SBUs and TCUs.

    2. Unlink Stations from IHUBs in every way. Allow multiple stations and IHUBs per system.

    3. IHUBs are owned by an alliance or corp, and the sites it spawns are initially scannable only by members of that alliance/corp. Once someone activates the site by warping to it, it becomes scannable by everyone. Similar way to attack and destroy them as exists now. Benefits of IHUBs can extend to multiple alliances (so yes, multiple alliances may be able to set up jump bridges or cyno jammers, etc).

    Have a problem with someone else's IHUB? go PvP and blow shit up.

    IHUB upgrades are available for each IHUB in system.

    4. Stations are owned by alliances/corps. They can control all rates, access, ect as they do now. Similar fights for control for them as they exist now, except possibly allowing them to be damaged and in need of repair (destructible outposts). Disabling station services allowed like they are now.

    5. Lastly, how to have pretty colours on the sov map? Server checks count of players of each alliance in system, not including any docked up, in pos shields or cloaked (possibly). That's done every 15 mins or whatever, and the daily totals are tallied up at downtime. The next day, the sov map reflects the alliance that has the highest figure.

    In this way, "Sov" is just an abstract thing, and just a relative indicator of who is most active in any given system.

    To me, this is a much more sand-box approach to nullsec. It removes the artificial and forced game mechanics of today's version of capture the flag sov system. It simply gives players the tools to build up nullsec if they want, and doesn't say how they should use it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Add to this the removal of sov held stations, and place customisable new-style POS's, attackable via mercenaries or normal siege/blockade tactics and people have a reason to hold space, and be in a system. POStations become the focal point both for DUST and EVE.

      Delete
    2. The PvE in Jester's approach is very similar to your suggested sites in that they are points on the map where enemies meet on the battle field.

      Look at Winterblink's "Dynamic World Events" suggestion ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=151641 ) : they give a lore-backed backdrop for engagement.

      The center piece of Jester's proposal is the 100% total, where each contestant share a maximum and need to compete for it. The exact "events" can be tweaked in design.

      Jester was clever enough in also including DUST514 mechanics.

      Delete
  30. I like the idea mostly but I would also think that adding pvp points to the system control would be good to. Something that I find very interesting as a npc nullsec player ( sansha space) is ur idea of a giving docking rights to the owner corp in npc space. I'm sure this was very deliberate and hope you could shed some light on why you think this is a good idea? Form me this idea destroys npc nullsec. It would just become more sov space. The beauty of npc space is being able to dock where ever there is a station IMO.I currently run missions for 2 or 3 days a month to fund all my pvp activities in stain except I run them in deeply hostle controlled space solo. By controling docking rights it I would never be able to take control of that system as the hostle corp there has some 300 or so people? What would be the point of npc space that can have its sov taken. It just becomes sov space then. How is this a good idea?

    ReplyDelete
  31. The so called 'farms & fields' system has merit. However; wouldn't this simply encourage larger alliances to pad out their space with renters? It's good suggestion but has a little too much PVE in it for me.

    I'm also not that keen on NPC 0.0 Sov. As someone who did the sov thing and moved to NPC 0.0 to free myself of it I don't want to get sucked into it again.

    It's a hugely difficult problem and one I think CCP needs to attack at the root. That being the moon goo. This is what allows huge groups to exist and by removing it from the game you'd remove the incentive of these groups to hold massive amounts of space they'll never really live in. Mon goo can be replaced with an alliance level income tax system where alliances can tax their members much more elegantly. By doing this you remove the need to hold huge amounts of space without nerfing these groups income.

    I know moon goo was meant to drive conflict and to some extent it has, but only until a small number of groups own it. Three quarters of 0.0 will soon be pretty much blue to each other or have NIPs in place, which are essentially the same thing. Those that want to hold sov will be left to fight over space which is of far far less value than the rest of 0.0.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Too complicated.

    Just eliminate POS shields and reinforcement mode, and make everything in null sec more easily destructible by a small gang of ships.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Great idea .. but I personaly would add a method to make unused systems more valuable ..so that the useless not used pipe systems will be used ...

    1) Every System has a worth counter and a True sec counter
    2) If you mine ore get moon goo you reduce the worth counter (wich heals over time)
    3) If you kill pirates (both player and npc) you make your system saver ... if a pirate is for amount x in the system he reduces the value
    4) If a System is worth more then x a NPC Station will spwan .. if it is a secure system it will be an industrial corp giving good refining and stuff
    IF it is an unsecure system there will be an big asteroid in one belt (actually minable ) with an hidden pirate base .. every player with an standing to this pirates and an low sec status can dock here and get pirate goodies ..
    5) You get valuable systems with an drive for pve and pvp .. because the miner want the good valauable save systems .. the pirate wants his big rocks for the pirate stations ... and the miner also don't want other miners reducing his worht rating more then the healing factor because under a value y his nice refining station will going into an evacuation mode and disapear .. leaving his stuff in ancored containers floating in space ....

    ReplyDelete
  34. I like it. It will add that sense of ownership to the game and especially sov mechanics that are severely lacking at the moment. Large power blocks would have to actually send pilots to systems they control and occupy them, even if it is just to run a site every so often. It would also add effectiveness to now rarely used or misunderstood of warfare, more specifically black ops or insurgency still of play. Allowing a small group to canvas a group of systems scanning for sov sights and having a pve fleet on standby near a black ops to quickly run them before the locals can run them also allowing the same group to engage any fleets running sights.

    This would greatly increase pvp activities in what is now dead null sec corridors and to promote the carrot arguement you could offer a small amount of moon goo as the reward to the fleets members running the sites. That would also promote the shift from top down alliance wealth to bottom up. Excellent idea honestly ccp should pay ripard as a consultant.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Been playing Perpetuum recently? This seems pretty similar to its station capture mechanism. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It definitely encourages PVP

    ReplyDelete
  36. Part 1:

    Hi, I read your blog for a while, I never post replies even when I do not agree with you, but this time I would like to share my view since I spent a lot of time discussing and thinking about this with other eve players in the last year.

    In my opinion your idea is good, but only to be applied in NPC 0.0 Space.

    For 0.0 the current system is not so bad, just needs to be fixed. My vision is a little more simplistic, the idea is to reuse the current system to reduce implementation time and focus more time into new features.

    First the new game features:

    - Introduce the coalitions concept (a way to group alliances)
    - Introduce the treaties concept (dinamic way to control standings depending of space you use and make tax/income/rent from external sources outside your corp/alliance/coalition opening space to outside 0.0 entities that want to rent/try/use 0.0 owned space for a period of time)
    - Introduce the station destruction concept
    - Introduce the Battlestation concept (station in 0.0 with more hit points and guns (that can be gunned) - the idea is: if you can destroy them at least let the owner try to defend them)
    - Allow multiple stations in a system (but only 1 can be upgraded to battlestation also the alliance can only have 1 battlestation for x number of systems it owns, and it costs lots of money to maintain) -> choose wisely, once you set them it takes weeks to upgrade and cannot be reverted for many months after.
    - Allow an alliance to designate a capital system in their "empire" (it must have a minimum of systems to be able to do this) that will give it the possibility to upgrade 1 station to a battlestation in that system for free + more bonus to define

    Reduce structure shooting:

    - No more SBUs. TCUs, IHubs and stations are always vulnerable.
    - There is only 1 ownership struture in a system that determines the ownership of the system, 1 TCU is the basic stucture that can be upgraded to a Infrastructure Hub.
    - Who owns the TCU or iHub owns all the stations and all the pocos in a 0.0 system, with the exception of the battlestation that cannot be fliped and needs to be destoyed before a new TCU can be anchored.
    - The TCU and ihub have 2 reeinforce Cycles; 1º cycle deploys at 50% and 2º at 1% shield for iHub. -> TCU and Ihub shield and armor values need to be updated. Stont needs to be present or there is no reeinforce cycles.
    - You can only be anchoring/onlining 1 TCU in a system at a given time, but I will lower the anchor/online time to 3 hours and Nothing else can be anchored in the same grid where the SBU/iHub is, no more POS and guns defending TCUs.
    - If a system has no owner any station can be destroyed with no reeinforcement timers, otherwise the same 2 reeinforce Cycles applies than the ones used in the SBU/iHub. Stont needs to be present or there is no reeinforce cycles.
    - Station stats needs to be bigger, you want to destroy a station fine, but be prepared for the pain!
    - Also only capitals can lock and shoot a station, this makes you deploy a capital fleet and have the means to defend it near the station what opens new variables of warfare.

    continues...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Part 2:

    Other changes:

    TCU and Ihub need to be scanned down, no more tips in the overview.
    JB, cyno beacon and Cyno Jam is a iHub upgrade and can only be anchored near it. The JB and Beacon have low shield and once it hits armor shuts down (small roaming gangs can do damage here). Cyno Jam have a huge shield and will take some time to shut down.
    No more pos anchor notifications unless you have L5
    Cannot place Pocos if not owner of system
    If system doesn't have a owner, no poco access or deployement is possible

    Bonus:

    L1 - Fuel bonus 5%, can use and deploy pocos, moon mine
    L2 - can upgrade to Ihub + Fuel bonus 10% + can add L2 upgrade mods to ihub (if ihub is missing level doesn't go up anymore)
    L3 - JB and becon can be placed + Fuel bonus 15% + can add L2 upgrade mods to ihub
    L4 - Station can only be placed at + Fuel bonus 20% + can add L2 upgrade mods to ihub (if station is missing level doesn't go up anymore)
    L5 - Cyno Jam and battlestation upgrades + Fuel bonus 25% + add L5 upgrade mods to ihub

    Finally my view on alliances having more systems they use is this:

    - First, with the exception of NPC space, if you do not own a system you can not moon mine on it.
    - Only pos belonging to a corp that is in a alliance can moon mine.
    - System maintenance is a formula between the number of people the alliance has and the number of systems if owns, so for each 250 people you can only own 1 system at normal maintenance prices. any ratio bigger than this and maintenance prices go up for all your systems:

    final maintenance cost per system = total systems / (total alliance people / 250) * "sov maintenance cost per system"

    So basically if you have more than you should expenses will become exponencial and in the end it will become impossible to maintain a big space with a big alliance to help it to populate it.

    for example: Test Alliance Please Ignore: 10078 members; 208 systems

    Current sov bill with no upgrades: 208 * 180,000,000 ISK = 37.4B every 30 days.
    Future sov bill with no upgrades: 208 * ((208 / (10078/250)) * 180,000,000 ISK) = 205.92B every 30 days.

    So it becomes very expensive to hold sov you dont need! and this bill is not taking in account JB, beacons and so on. ISK will solve this problem and free systems to smaller alliances.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Just one thing. Maybe you aren't up on current events, but Nullsec is already completely controlled by GSF/HBC. Nothing is happening here that at least one of them does not allow or support. And yes, Solar is being supported by GSF, making them the biggest pet in the game. Nullsec game over dude.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Replace all Goon and TEST players with NPCs.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I personally like the idea and it gets rid of the blob really. As you can't blob pve sites and flip a station in a day as only 3-5 sites spawn a day. This means that the fleet would have to stay in the area to run the sites when it could be killing other roams. If the local alliance still runs the sites so it would only be temparary for them. If you go to war it would take longer and force fights to take control of the system. Also if a large coalition goes to war it still takes about a week if it was at 100 in favor of the defending alliance while having to camp the defending alliance in so they can not run the sites.

    I would add that you have to shoot the I Hub to take the system. And with only one timer you get that large fight for the last defense of the system.

    The pve part is vital for 2 reasons. 1. It provides income and mining gives resources for the local industry to monopolise on. 2. It gives you a reason to use the system even if there is no station. The side affect of that is pvp for rival alliances and it provides incentive for high sec people to move to null. So by populating null brings more fights. Win win for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey Jester!

    I just wrote a post about this too! I hope you'll take a look at it:

    http://lifeofzenith.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/thousand-little-papercuts-0-0-sov-an-idea-to-burn/

    ReplyDelete