–TLDR–
This is a proposal to overcome the conflict stagnation and a few other problems in Eve. It proposes an asset safety cap (3 times the hull price) per nullsec citadel, enforced by an asset safety “vault module” which can be equipped at most 3 citadels per system, effectively limiting assets you can safely keep in a system. The aim is to make it really a trade off for larger nullsec empires to enjoy asset safety, while smaller groups can still enjoy it as is.
Problems this proposal attempts to (partially) solve:
These are classic problems all of you are complaining about Eve nowadays.
-
No reason for some entity to attack someone’s sov apart from penis measurement. No conflict drivers, no war.
-
No motivation to destroy citadels.
-
Huge alliances clustered in small areas, all economic activity and players flocking inside a couple of regions.
One often proposed but also problematic solution:
Remove asset safety in null.
The crucial problem with the above solution:
A few largest entities seizing assets of everyone in their path, making the game even more favoring to null blobs. Ideally we want to encourage large entities attacking other large entities. One thing this solution gets right is that with the new sov citadels are in the center of the conflict. Perhaps a tweak in the asset safety system is still useful. The goal we should achieve here is selectively distinguishing blob-like null empires and making it really inconvenient for them to enjoy asset safety privileges, while protecting smaller entities and not completely forcing them outside the sov null gameplay.
Circumventing the crucial problem:
What if nullsec citadels had an “asset vault” service module which were capable of keeping only a certain amount (in value) of assets safe? Perhaps 3 to 5 times the hull value? E.g. if you deployed an Astrahus, it can hold 3 to 5 billion safe and the rest is dropped (perhaps with the same “drop” mechanics with ships) upon destruction of the citadel? This way since smaller groups will have less assets in their citadels, their assets will be under protection, thus they won’t attract large blobs on their citadels. Meanwhile large blobs can try and evict other large blobs and seize their stuff.
Issues:
Offensive citadels?
Once a citadel is online there is an 7 days period (or however much needed for an offensive campaign beachead) in which all assets are safe.
Null empires would move staging systems into NPC stations
This is a problem I did not anticipate. But that already brings some practical disadvantage. You won’t be able to dock your supers and titans. You will be forced to stage from a single area in your space. I’m not sure if mega alliances will want to opt in for this.
But in case they do, one solution is that we could convert them into NPC citadels and apply a “capture” mechanic in which once the citadel/station is 1% structure it surrenders and ejects all assets except 300 bil of randomly selected safe assets, like a keepstar would. Then the citadel would repair back. If you wanna live in NPC null you would see whether the citadel is “full” and live there at your own risk if it is. Or you could siege these citadels if they are full.
At any rate I am sure this problem is solvable in a delicate manner with further thought.
Won’t this encourage “citadel spam” for larger entities?
There should also be a cap on the number of citadels that can equip this module per system. Say 3 citadels can equip this module per system. Now you can store a maximum 1.5 t of stuff per system maximum, and even that requires deploying 3 Keepstars.
This way the game will have an effective hard limit on how many capitals (among other assets) you can stack in a system (or a region etc.) and have them protected. Large blobs will choose between spreading their stuff out or enjoying asset safety.
Which assets will be under protection?
This is not really super important imho, but it can be a “first docked first served” basis. When assets are undocked they can be put back on top of the list. Alternatively, if the limit is exceeded no assets could be put under protection. Alternatively, things could be manually put into the “vault” once the citadel is under siege (the module can be used even during the structure timer).
The number of asset value limit per citadel, and vault module per system should be X instead of Y.
As long as the principle is agreed upon the numbers can be tweaked for optimal targeted separation between blob-like entities and others. With all the data they have CCP should be in a better position to impose good number. That’s one advantage of this system, it is open to be balanced by merely playing with numbers.
Fozzie sov encouraged huddling up for large entities in small areas. Isn’t this system a step back?
Fozzie sov wanted to open up space for small entities. At the moment there is vast space for small entities to take. But nobody joins small entities anymore. Renting or carving up your own space became irrational instead of utilizing the already strong infrastructure of a null blob. Most ISKmaking activity happens in a couple of regions really. This is because the system gave large entities the capability of feeding thousands of accounts off a couple of constellations. If you have large number of capitals you can protect your PvE’rs, rendering null risk really low. Then everyone joins these entities due to significant comparative risk in null PvE activity, instead of carving their space. And there is no motivation whatsoever for these entities to limit recruitment.
So yeah, I think it’s fine if this system encourages large blobs to spread out if they wanted asset safety. Alternatively they can keep huddled but risk being evicted/seized, which could be fine as they might be confident in their defensive capabiltiies.
