What if sov was activity based

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

So people hate sov warefare nothing but countless complaints and arguments about it all the time all over the internet, so much so that Fozzie Sov is now an insult.

So what if Sov was almost per system and based on activity within the system, so it would work like this, An alliance would actually live in a system, the system would register the alliance being in system and for every site done or asteroid mined or citadel/structure placed or industry performed the system would gain sov points toward that alliance.

The more work an alliance does in a system the more points they gain until they eventually cap the system and it’s ownership flips over to the new alliance, once the alliance holds sov on a given system the longer they hold it, their sov points start to spill over into the neighbouring systems, so System A is 100%, System A is connected to 1 other system, any additional points gained in System A which is at 100% then spill over into the connected system B with some loss, with more connected systems each take a percentage of the overflowing points, 3 connected systems would each take 30% of the over-spill minus some loss.

So how would this change Sov, well initially it would take that Sov map and make look anaemic, but only initially, as sov points slowly start spilling over the sov map would start filling out and filling in all the gaps, something else that would happen is that renters would probably actually become sov holders because their alliances would be the ones spending time in a given system and thus it would be their alliance that would gain the sov, in fact that whole aspect of the game would have to change.

Massive alliances like Test or Goons would need to spread their players out over their space to make sure their ticking up and maintaining the sov, no more flying through endless system after system of nothing and then 1 system with hundreds of people in it, this system would encourage alliances to spread out and actually live in the space they want to hold.

It’s also going to change how war’s are fought, at the moment we have these stupid huge 2000 v 2000 player battles, honestly these can last days, suffer massive tidi and are boring life sucking and dull, sure they make the news but for most people actually taking part their crap.

Sov like I describe would not work this way any longer, Alliances would need to move into a system and then actually hold it, stay in it, work it, mine it, all while fighting on comers until they have gained enough sov points to actually pull it away from the enemy or prev sov holder, war’s will be longer, more spread out, more structured toward smaller more organised faster paced fleet combat.

Question is , would you rather keep fozzie sov, or try something new.

2

I can’t see anyone wanting to keep fozziesov. It’s painful, especially when the ADMs are high.

I’ll be honest. There are some problems which may not be surmountable.

For starters, renters become sov holders. Evicting them really won’t be remarkably harder, but it takes the sov space away from the owners. Normally I would say “meh that’s the landlord’s problem”, but the goal is to remove the tedium of “assisted sov transfers”.

Another issue, is fortification. There are advantages to holding sov, and there are advantages to removing sov.

Consider the GOTG keepstar that died whilst anchoring in MTO-2; GOTG killed the IHub, allowing their keepstar to anchor in a day instead of a week.

GOTG would have had a week-long timer if they could not rapidly push that IHub out, which would have in turn lead to them getting curb stomped twice as hard. They created a new northern front for the DRF whilst the DRF was down south. The whole reason it wasn’t a complete roflstomp was because the DRF had just 24h to relocate their capital and supercapital fleet farther than they could travel in that time.

In order for SOV to provide strategic value, which it does, you need to be able to take it away with a decisive fight of “some kind”. By simply basing it on activity, you can’t rapidly do anything, which gives the encroaching party no way to go in dry.

3

okay

to fix sov all you need to do… you ready for this??? remove sov

get rid of it, you hold a system because you SAY you hold the system that’s it, introduce system upgrade structures and its all set. you can keep TCU so you can tell everyone its your system and get your map E-peen but nothing more is needed.

4

The whole point behind owning sov is the advantages it confers to the home team.

For example, the TCU reduces fuel costs by 25%. All the more important with stations going poof in nullsov.

With no iHUB, anyone can install a JB or a system-wide Cyno/Inhib. They can anchor them quickly, with no notifications.

The outright removal of sov makes it extremely hard to maintain a battle line.

Consider the previous example I used, MTO-2. They could have completely blindsided DRF by not even worrying about the ihub. They could have installed a system-wide cyno jammer to prevent the only tactic that would have worked under the limited circumstances the DRF was already under.

I’m all for increasing fights, but I don’t think this increases fights… I think it just adds the ability to say ■■■■ you to anyone trying to run anything resembling a strategy in a war.

5

did you even read what I said?

all of your concerns go away with the addition of a system upgrade structure(s)

6

Did you even read mine?

At no point does your post even touch on the topic of anchoring citadels. At no point does my post even touch on the topic of system upgrades, save for the TCU which we’ve both already accounted for.

My argument is that the presence of the ihub provides tangible benefit. The point behind entosis is that it gives sov holders time to go defend their space and maintain that tangible benefit.

If all you want to do is add upgrade structures, why not just remove the toaster mechanics and make the TCU/IHUB dps-able with an appropriate damage cap based on ADMs?

7

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.