Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
37
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 01:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lets face it, we would all rather be doing something other than grinding structures. As the nullsec game is all about fleets building up numbers and the lesser number standing down, why not have an automatic-role for systems/structures that you don't want to actually form for?
Kinda like a game of R.I.S.K you have say 140 active players so you have a 140 rolls to spend each week. You put down a number what that system is worth to you and the enemy can counter with his active points.
That way the players can do stuff they actually want to do, like plex, roam or play dayz.
|
Kenny Drein
Big Shadows Initiative Mercenaries
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 01:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
I approve of DayZ!
On a more serious note, Devs are looking into the sov mechs, this I've been reassured several times. I do believe that they'll do a good job, because they know that If they do a bad job, the Jita Riots will be like an appetizer to the rage that's coming. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2193
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 02:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
I hope the devs do a bad job just so I can see if your words are true or not.
Not that I think there's any "good" solution to formal sov outside of removing it. |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 14:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I hope the devs do a bad job just so I can see if your words are true or not.
Not that I think there's any "good" solution to formal sov outside of removing it.
personally I believe sov tied to influence is the way forward. They have all the stats to be able to effect sov based on K:D / Rats killed / active players in space etc that they could implement sov that is gained by use.
However this maybe too hard to CCP, let them rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic for a few more years before they build a new ship. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
685
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 14:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
All trolling aside, why do we have Sov at all? The game would still work if we just removed it and all the arbitrary sov related restrictions entirely. Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0 |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 18:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Most of the time Sov is attained for supercap production (as it requires it to anchor CSAA) and ratting/Renting (system upgrades also require sov)
Personally, I don't know why you have to follow such rules in "lawless space", if you want to upgrade a system or build supers or stations for that matter, the only thing stopping you should be the other people in that space. The problem there however is power projection, which leads me back to my latter point.
If sov was gained via player influence, power projection would end. Because its one thing to hit a tower or Ihub once a day for three days a week at max strength but 250 pilots couldn't possibly interact with the space as much as the 1,000's of pilots do on an day to day basis. Yes they could come in and stomp on your sand castles, however unless they decided to evict you and live there they wouldn't be able to take sov. If they did that, then they would lose sov in their previous home.
Point of this thread was to highlight the fact that even an idea as stupid as an auto-roll for sov based on active players would STILL be better than the current, abysmal, awful mechanics in play presently. |
Chick Sauce
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 18:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
Agreed. Holding sov should be about defending space. If I drop my fleet into your system, you should not have 24 hours to get your crap together. You should either be there to defend it or watch it crumble from afar. |
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
46
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 21:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
I totally agree with the ideas herein this thread. I've posted a longish idea that is totally based on activity/influence in a system to determine "dominance" of the system. Please read if you're curious
Yes, ownership of a system should be based on activity in that system, not on structures that were anchored there a month ago and nobody has been there for that amount of time. Cedric
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2686
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 23:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yes. Ratting ops should be the only way to take sov, and PVP should have no part in it.
|
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 18:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Yes. Ratting ops should be the only way to take sov, and PVP should have no part in it.
that is not what people are saying. If you kill a player for example, that can be a statistic used in the influence of sov. Just like dying could be used to negativity impact sov. The game already tracks activity within systems, docked players, inactive for more than 30mins for the map tools, why not expand on that to have a real influence map?
How do you prevent gaining the system, put in place diminishing returns. If you kill your alt repeatedly for example the gain in reduced each time, think of it like the current standings system and each time you kill a ship you lose some standing to the point where you are -10 and can no longer lose any more standing until they improve again.
|
|
Hesod Adee
Kiwis In Space
337
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Yes. Ratting ops should be the only way to take sov, and PVP should have no part in it.
PvP would still affect sov indirectly by disrupting the sov activity. Think of how easily a single, cloaked ship with an AFK pilot can stop all PvE in nullsec systems right now.
Or PvP kills could count towards sov.
Quote:How do you prevent gaining the system, put in place diminishing returns. A better solution would be to base it on the value of stuff destroyed. That would mean that anyone wanting to game the system would need to: - Have enough ISK that gaming it will outperform other system activity. - Move those assets into the target system. - Protect those assets from the enemy.
Chances are that gaming the system will only work in systems the enemy doesn't care about. If the system is defended, gaming the system will get expensive with a high risk of the defenders blowing up the sacrificial assets instead of you.
Removing any bonuses for holding sov would remove most incentive to game the system. Leave SOV as just the name on the map. If you want to build a CSAA, you just need an empty nullsec moon*. If you want to upgrade the system, the structures that do it don't care about sov. Sure, someone could game the system and put it in their name. But, unless they disrupt the activities of the people using the system, the defenders might not care as the system will flip back when the gaming stops.
*The side effect of allowing CSAAs in wormholes would need to be considered. |
Icarus Able
Revenant Tactical
393
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Chick Sauce wrote:Agreed. Holding sov should be about defending space. If I drop my fleet into your system, you should not have 24 hours to get your crap together. You should either be there to defend it or watch it crumble from afar. What about TZ differences? |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
39
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 22:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:Chick Sauce wrote:Agreed. Holding sov should be about defending space. If I drop my fleet into your system, you should not have 24 hours to get your crap together. You should either be there to defend it or watch it crumble from afar. What about TZ differences?
off-timezone entities often band together with active-timezone entities to provide cover during that timezone, this would be adventitious in a influence based sov structure because it only takes small numbers to prevent larger ones from settling. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |