Occupancy Sovereignty Outline

One more quick one tonight, just to make sure I get it done.

With my latest post over on TMC, I really ought to get all the details I’ve been throwing around my head and occasionally at other people down on paper. A good way to start, though, would be to just sketch out the very basic skeleton. So, without further adieu:

  • Do whatever to the capture mechanics themselves. While the specifics absolutely matter, from a generic perspective it seems obvious that usage & occupancy will interact with them in some way as to make a highly occupied system more resistant to capture. On one end of the spectrum you’ve got the system touted by Endie and others, where usage literally is the sovereignty, and on the other end you’ve got it merely playing a role. I prefer it merely playing a role. Since this is just a skeleton post though, pretend that the Dominion mechanics stay in place largely as-is, with a few tweaks. The important tweak is a massive nerf to the EHP of the structures involved, we’ll revisit why (even though it’s probably obvious) later.
  • Revamp existing anomalies, other pve content and mining. This isn’t actually strictly necessary, but is a really good idea. My feeling is that any system in nullsec should have a basic standard of livability when at level 5 roughly similar to what you get out of a level 5 system with -1.0 sec now. Not TOTALLY even – better truesec already has a mining edge by virtue of their grav sites spawning the +5% and +10% ores and ice sites spawning more and better ice. Extending that concept to ratting, then, if you imagine that chain-farming sanctums and havens is worth 100m isk/hr, then lower end sites like Ports and such ought to come in around 80-90m/hr. At the base level (what I consider to be the current level 5) anywhere in nullsec ought to be undeniably worth living in, without making everything quite so homogenous as to remove reason to lust after better space. This is sort of what Greyscale tried to do back in 2012, but he badly missed the mark. More on that in the next point. One minor aside – Endie’s proposal uses missions, which I don’t like. However, they do alleviate UI based complications (eg finding one open anomaly amongst twenty in a busy system), and they oblige the users of space to move about that space instead of sitting tight in one system chaining sites. Both concepts are definitely worth incorporating, even if a purely mission based system isn’t.
  • Extend the military and industry indices out a number of levels. For the sake of argument just imagine they now go up to 25, and at successively higher levels you unlock new and interesting things. More solo content, more group content (especially more group content.) Incursion magnets? How about a Comet attractor…finally a way to implement “ring mining?” Use your imagination. Critical here is that the quality of what you can unlock is affected by the truesec of the system far moreso than in the base five levels, to the point where certain things are flat out unavailable in lower quality systems. Significant disparities at that point are more acceptable, since there’s a reasonable “base standard of living” everywhere. “We definitely make more than if we stayed in highsec so we’re okay here…but man, the Comet Array our neighbors are able to install is awesome, and one day we’ll take it from them!”
  • Leveling the indices up increases the usage needed to maintain any given system as well as the usage to raise the level further based on (at the very minimum) the total number of levels within your sov. Each extra system you want to raise is that much more difficult to maintain as a result. The equation to figure the usage for any given system at any given level would have some kind of exponential form.
  • Only usage by the sovholder counts towards the indices; unaffiliated usage does nothing at best, actually harms your levels at worst. This is critical as a check against the idea of splitting an alliance up and having each sub-alliance (“Goonswarm One”, “Goonswarm Two”, etc) take a portion of a much larger area of space. While it doesn’t prevent it outright, well… I happen to remember the drama and other problems Goons had way back in the day, before Sovereignty (the skill) existed and we had to form Goonfleet and Goonwaffe, and that was just living in Syndicate with nothing really at stake. If an alliance tried to segregate its members lest they damage their notional alliancemates’ space, well… the results wouldn’t be pretty. I do think there’s room here for treaties to allow shared usage without it being gamebreaking, but the why & how are details so we’ll leave them for now.
  • Moving on to the Strategic index, which also brings us back to capture mechanics. Link the strategic index into the other two indices, and extend it out to level 25 as well. It’ll progress up the levels naturally overtime just as it does now, but the expressed level would be capped by some combo of the other two levels. As moving up the strategic index would unlock all the upgrades it offers now as well as new stuff, including system defensive bonuses and the like – getting some of that lost EHP back – the effect is that an unused system would be very easy to take.
  • It would be preferable to have most or all of the new structures and upgrades accessible via the improved indices implemented as stand-alone structures that can be attacked/disabled/hacked/etc, breaking the infrastructure within the system out into discrete targets. Difficulty to take them down would be anything but flat – high value upgrades would generally be harder to take down than low value ones, and if there are multiple means of affecting them (there should be!) then the damage caused by each mechanism should be in line with the time & difficulty of doing it. This would be a tricky balance to hit – the idea is you want people to be active in defending their space, lest roamers be allowed to muck about with their infrastructure, but you don’t want a primarily USTZ alliance to have to spend the first hour of their primetime cleaning up the mess made by their EUTZ neighbors while they were all at work and vice versa.
  • And finally – do away with sov costs entirely. Yeah, you heard me right. No I’m not going to justify it now – it’s novel and a complete departure from almost every other suggestion I’ve seen, so I want to throw it out there undefended and see what kind of conversation it sparks.

That just about covers the basics. Yes, I consider several multi-sentence points to be “the basics”, is there a problem with that?

There is one other major aspect that has to be treated as well. If one of the goals of an occupancy system is to make leaving your space a considered choice, usage is one half of that coin. Power projection is the other, primarily projection involving cynos (if an occupancy system succeeds in prompting coalitions to break up & generally shrinks the amount of space any single alliance holds, jump bridges are even less of a factor than they already aren’t.) There are three basic avenues, any or all of which could do the trick. The most obvious is restricting mobility, anything from cooldowns to shorter ranges to the nuclear option of forcing them to take gates and re-imagining jump drives as a tactical (rather than strategic) movement ability – an MJD writ large, if you will. There’s also the option of redefining their role, which primarily involves looking at carriers and supercarriers; Dreads are already reasonably well balanced within the meta due to their niche and high vulnerability, and even Titans are arguably in an okay place. Finally, redefining the capture mechanics could significantly limit the usefulness of capital power projection, seeing as their most important role (aside from deterrence) is rapid grinding of EHP bricks.

 

Goddamn, over 1300 words for a skeleton. An outline. A summary. Frightning, ain’t it? But with this out there, it ought to encourage me to put in the effort to flesh it out.

9 thoughts on “Occupancy Sovereignty Outline

  1. you forgot the part where one mans pve activity is another mans pvp target (and i’m not talking about catching slow ratters here)

    siphons were a good idea implemented by a bad game designer ontop of a broken api.

    the ess actually has working mechanics, but it’s not good enough to risk using it in many cases

    more like this, please

    (maybe a refinery that gives 75%, but takes time to refine and can be attacked while running ?)

    Like

    Reply
  2. Excuse the lack of details, but it could be interesting for systems to be constrained (via decisions on deploying limited numbers of different structure types, or branching development trees in index levelling) to be very strong defensively or economically, but not both without compromising. Provided economic systems would yield loot, attackers would aim to raid these (as opposed to a full sov conquest) while defenders would seek to organise their territory with appropriate defensive fronts. As another possibility, certain systems could be developed to provide advantages to other connected systems (with diminishing returns according to the distance).
    KN

    Like

    Reply
  3. It’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I’m going to complain right at the beginning that it’s “ado” not “adieu”.

    Now, with that out of the way…
    Sov costs always struck me as being one of the ways that the Dominion sov system was trying to simulate the previous POS-spam system, basically by turning the expected fuel cost to keep claiming towers up into a straight ISK sink. (Full disclosure: I never lived under POS-spam sov.) I’m guessing the idea behind removing sov costs is that the act of holding a system is supposed to be the hard part, rather than the requirement of being able to pay so much money to CONCORD every two weeks.

    Having done the “ninja-reinforce targets with 10 ABCs” thing, about how many ABC-seconds (assume 1000DPS using blasters, just to keep the numbers round) were you figuring would be in the way of each timer, since you seem to be keeping timers? Also, do you have a plan for how to keep an aggressor from just shooting through reps for a short period of time to push onwards to the next timer? (For example, if it has 200k EHP, like an ESS, between timers, 200 Maelstroms could possibly push it straight into the next timer with one shot.)
    Actually, I feel like it could be useful to have targets come out of reinforce on a ramp. If you slowly ramp the resists down, an aggressor needs to hold the field for some time while the defender could be repairing, but then, if the defender doesn’t show up to repair, you can blast your way into the new timer without a lot of trouble. Sov upgrades could reduce the rate of resist decay and increase the base EHP behind it, in that case.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Just a random idea about power projection:
    How about a nerf on cyno ? There is a cyno in every system, it’s called a sun. You can even see it from any system when you are in space. If you want to travel huge distances, you align to that sun (new jump mechanics require that you are aligned towards the system you are jumping to) and press jump. You will end up somewhere in a sphere 2-3 AU from the sun. If you want to be more precise (like for a hotdrop or for jump freighter usage, you can still light a cyno, but the cyno range will be limited (like 1-2 ly or something). Large fleet movements to a fight on the other side of New Eden need a large jump to a system near the fight,regrouping the fleet in that system because of the sphere and then using a cyno for the last jump. Maybe a part of your fleet gets bubbled before they can join the fight, If you want to prevent this, you can decide to use more cynos, which includes more jumps.

    I know that this will lead to (super-) capitals moving save through New Eden because of jump-cloak-jump, but if you don’t need to light a cyno screaming “I am here !” across the universe, maybe we can ban cloak from them. Sure, you can get scanned down, but a titan should have support fleet near him to prevent him from going down (considering that capitals jumping to the system to kill him also land on a random point in the sphere and can be up to 6 AU away and exposed to tackle. Dreads and carriers can take the risk, since they don’t cost that much. If you want to move them save, you return to smaller jumps from station to station, using the cyno.

    Like

    Reply
    • (like 1-2 ly or something) -> pls change this to 5 ly. Just checked on dotlan and noticed you can’t leave Jita with less than 5 ly :D

      Like

      Reply
      • Delete my reply, didn’t set the “include highsec systems :P Even 3.5 ly is a lot of space you can jump to.

        Like

  5. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Hopefully the fact that your skeleton is 1300 words will remind people that there are a number of factors involved in any meaningful change in null sec and that ham-handed pot-shots at individual factors will likely make the game worse.

    I have to confess that I’m also a bit disappointed that you’re posting this: given your NDA with CCP, the implication is that they’re not terribly far along on this line of thought themselves. At this point, I’d like to know: do CCP have a plan (however high-level and imprecise) for the next year or two, or are they hoping that brownian mostion from release to release will carry them where they need to be?

    Like

    Reply
    • Hole in your logic there. They could have simply not quite shared their plans with us yet, or they could be quite far along and I’m just throwing my own ideas that I’ve shared internally out into the public domain.

      To the second part of your question, yes, they have a plan, and the parts revealed publicly follow along the roadmap revealed at Fanfest.

      Like

      Reply
      • Fair enough, and now that the dev post has been made, launching the usual thread full of mixed insight and banality I can hope for a bit more detail Real Soon Now.

        One question that’s come up in that thread, that I’m hoping you’re willing and able to shed some light on – what exactly are CCP’s goals with a sov re-hash?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s