Mandating Resources for nullsec SoV

New idea to help fight nullsec donuts and generate content.

  • Create an upkeep system that alliances pay with a specific item.
  • Bind the specific item to sov capture and its related mechanics
  • Distribute the spawn of these around null
  • Bind the upkeep cost to the size of the alliance (corporate count) and member count. Say 1 a month per every 1000 members.
  • Make the item non-transferable and credit to the wallet of an alliance, this way trading the resource becomes impossible, at the loss of territory for the rival alliance.
  • Make these events trigger between two specific entities, forcing them to fight or disband its alliance
  • The cost should be applied to the alliance once it started claiming null
  • Alliances and corps that own or open offices in null have an default, low upkeep.

Some more conditions may be made when we look at it.

Just fyi, “Age of Chaos” is over.
Team Talos has taken over now.

Thanks for the update.

Better idea.
Ban rival devs from the forums for suggesting dumb ideas hugely open to abuse that will ultimately lead to EVEs death.

Also for why this idea is dumb, alliances would just do the events needed for sov then trade the sov back.

There are mechanical changes that can be made to prevent that, like applying a timer to prevent it.

To be honest, we really should look at shifting sov ownership into a more official form then it is now. id be nice to have hardset limits on alliances own space, for example if we could set it so that you could only take entire constellations, and limit the the amount of them owned, and prevent swap back for 3-6 months or what ever seems to prevent this kind of abuse but still keep the game open to actual content.

By the way, we should be aware that we will never create a solution that will stop all forms abuse. the purpose of change is not to prevent abuse generally, its to generally fix current problems. Yes, some wisdom should be applied in changes, but this is what testing is really for.

Right now, we need to generate content, so that at the least, we can help keep eve a live.

That does not look fleshed out enough.
I could list a bunch of problems I see right now, but I don’t feel like it’s worth it.

Your right, its not. As with many things you keep to RP (rapid prototype) and work out the idea.
I believe the conditions need tweaking, but its an interesting direction.

In the past ccp acted quickly t resolve serious issues of abuse, for example the temp 3 limit wardec change in place of a more permanent scaling system for war decs.

I Kind of feel like some hard-set mechanical change needs to be made to null, and i really believe we can kill two birds with one stone by changing null in a way that will allow us to not need to overhaul the corp/alliance system, and remove a lot of the donuts.

One of the drawbacks of null coalitions is the mass space they have to live in. If we could force those entities to fight, we’d effectively break up the population, generate content, and heal the nullsec population in one go.

What is this abuse in the context of SOV from your point of view exactly?

I like to have a defined problem before coming up with any kind of solution.

How do you plan to make them fight again? By making them pay an item as tax to keep their SOV?
Sorry, but I just don’t see how that makes anyone fight against another group.

The greatest form of abuse in eve that is taking place, is generally taking place in null, though i generally attack the one after it (suicide ganking). That abuse is the conversion of players into (for lack of a better way of putting it) industrialized star-wars clones that are there are the demand and call of their coalition overlord.

I am not knocking an alliances ability to become a coalition, i do think however that this level of game play should be significantly more difficult, and at the same time significantlly more supported by the gui and game mechanics.

Let me explain further in detail by this example, starting with the (pretend) condition that you are a vet player looking for a nullsec home

Now i ask:
Would you rather have 1 corp for your potential perspective corp, or 10?

The question is asked because it puts one into the mindset of the game, that we are forced into one option, and often that option is abusive to us, especially and specifically more so to non-pvp inclined playerbase.

You see, players need options. Its vital for a healthy game. We need to be able to look around to find 10-20 corps with the level of access (and have all levels of access) with unique atmospheres, personalities, rules, and way of operation (to name a few things) To find a place we fit in.

When we are forced into industrialized mode, we get bored and leave the game. By default we are social people and people are logging to be accepted, and in general to grow old with. Its a internal mechanic we have as a species, something as primal as fight or flight.

To clarify further,

In the old days there was delicate balance between pvpers and industrial players, and a lot of respect was given for the ones building, and supporting the economic backbone of the game. This was removed when systems came into eve that made passive income an option for larger entities, and granted (bob) Was largely responsible for the onset of this disease in the game.

in the advent of that passive income introduction, we also killed the deaths of alliances, ultimately bringing about what i will term as the “age of immortality”, where alliances like nc, and goons never die, maybe just change name, or location depending on the year.

Life and death is important. As a species we are not built live in the manner we do eternally, and it brings about social disease and corruption. Also, with new people are new idea’s and concepts.

We can heal eve by addressing this (being one of two) major problems.

Lets say we have a region, like delve. We break that up into 2 constellations, and limit the alliances to 1 constellation (or more) each. We then say

"if you dont get this item, that will spawn in the sov game this week, your alliance may be disbanded, or enter some sort of state that will start that process (it may be better to have a 30 day, get an item, or you die warning state, instead of a hard on/off).

We then spawn the fight between alliance a and b, forcefully. We default victory to one side, if one does not show up, or a number of them are not met.

If A does not take the win from B, then B will claim A’s Sov, and A will not have the item to maintain their alliance and will go into its warning state (or may do so if it cannot pay).

This will force alliances that claim sov to fight others for space, and for survival. its a sort of “Food” mechanic for humans. We need to eat, and so to should alliances. That hunger for survival is primal, it existed in us at one point in eve, but the large groups have basically made everyone fat, and lazy by ordering domino’s for everyone every night

Have you ever tried to run a coalition?
That’s already a pretty difficult thing because people. The big and stable ones are big and stable because they are that well organized IN and OUT of the game.
If you don’t find a way to ban forums, discord, mumble, teamspeak and other thrid-party software being used together with Eve, then I do not see any way how you would strip away players ability to create and maintain bigger-than-ingame organsiations.

Are you? Are you really?
Do you really think that if I want to live in null there is only a hand full of viable options?
If you truly believe that than I pity you a bit for your lack of creativity.

That sounds like a great way for a blob circle around the map through all of nullsec and just claim everyones sov without much of fighting but this “one big battle” every month.
Their opponents will get stomped by a Titan fleet. But at someones doorstep they will get stopped because of time zones and the blob’s people getting sick of fighting in TiDi every month from downtime to downtime.

GG. /s

lol. easy fix :

  • all jump freigthers : effective travel distance reduction bonus to 75% (was 90%). That means effective cost of moving a m³ ×2.5 (from 10% to 25%)
  • ansiblex : added fatigue generation based on traveled distance, at a rate of 50%
  • tenebrex :
    1. allow to manage cynosural jamming on the adjacent systems, if they are controlled by your alliance. eg if a system has two adjacent systems you fight against, you will need to reinforce up to three tenebrex before you can jump in those systems.
    2. give access to a temporary system shutdown effect in current system : after 1min of loading, all gates are shutdown (can’t exit, but can come in), all jumps are shutdown, jammers are forced on. Lasts 1H, can’t be turned off, cooldown 12H. Jumping a gate will actually move you around the gate like you had moved out, and came back, with the same mechanisms (cloaked and invul for up to 1 min)

I’m just going to stop you right here. Your assumption is that A can only obtain the item by force and can not simply reach an agreement with B to purchase the item every week (or provide capital support against B’s enemies, etc). In reality the existing coalitions will simply form agreements to provide the required resources and renter trash will continue to be renter trash.

But hey, maybe if you weren’t such a narcissist you’d be able to admit that your claim of being a “prodigy game designer” is a lie and stop embarrassing yourself with poorly thought out ideas.

2 Likes

He has never run an actual coalition nor an alliance. At best, he’s run a predatory corporation in highsec that’s been funneling tax monies away from unsuspecting newbros.

This guy has been nothing but lies and exaggerations since the first day he set foot on this forums, and I wouldn’t waste time with him.

You can just read through his CSM campaign post: CSM, Naari Naarian and realize that he has barely even set foot in null, much less have any actual idea of how it works. This is why he’s just talking in vague generalities and doesn’t actually provide specific information, statistics, or evidence.

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about and if you press him for any actual information, he’ll come up with lies about why he can’t give you anything.

2 Likes

Thanks for the link.

Fits my first impression well.

You know, I was one of those 5000 supporters of his. Until i found out he never applied for CSM. I felt betrayed.

1 Like

Yes, but not a null based one. Your overselling the hardship in this however. The truth is that when you are an entity like nc dot, goons, etc people flock to you and walk on eggshells to not piss you off, and if they do they get ejected.

Yes, you are.

Imagine if people played wow and they were forced to stay in town because they cannot handle the content.

Do you think people will stay long?

Oh right, we will default to the standard eve mentality (that is a poison) “if you dont like it, leave”.

This would be dependent on the rate at which these events occur. If we set the sov to be randomly selected by the system, it would be still leave player optional random choice to hit something or not, leaving in tact the current system will allow people to conquest, but prevent a specific alliance from retaking an event based area.

In this way, the space itself forces sov change, but still keeps its currents mechanics out side of punishing people for not protecting their space.

I did not qualify for that term, because i had not been active in eve for the required amount of time. I was short by two weeks, so i did not run, sadly.

Like I said. He won’t actually provide specific details (because he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about) but will talk in vague generalities.

If you want to change behavior - you need to change the incentives. If you want smaller alliances, you could restrict sovereignty bonuses to the capital constellation. There may still be strategic benefit to holding sov outside your capital constellation but there would be no economic benefit. This would not prevent large coalitions - these are maintained using out of game tools beyond CCP’s control, but more voices at the table means more diversity of opinion which should lead to more conflict.

1 Like