The Dominion sovereignty system introduced in 2009 has led to the formation of mega-coalitions funded by sprawling renter empires, and the polarisation of nullsec politics.
In my first submission (found here http://tinyurl.com/sovproposal) I proposed a number of changes that could be introduced under the current system to shake up and improve the quality of life in 0.0 while new sov mechanics are being developed. These proposals included: reducing the speed at which groups can cross large distances, enabling alliances to be more self sufficient and to sustain higher populations, lowering the logistical entry bar, and tweaking capitals.
In this submission I will be outlining ways I believe the sovereignty capture and upkeep system could be changed to allow new alliances to gain a foothold in nullsec without joining one of the established blocs. It will also have the secondary effect of making renter empires a less desirable choice.
These include:
Changing the sov cost to a dynamic formula
Requiring system usage for sov to be maintained
Disrupting sov before capturing systems
A new capture method
Farms and fields
Under the current system there is no limit of any kind to the number of systems an alliance can hold. Once a TCU is placed a system requires no effort to maintain, other than paying the sov bill every two weeks. Sov bills cost the same per system, 84,000,000 isk/fortnight, and are only increased by strategic upgrades. This means there is no incentive for alliances to stop taking systems, or even to hold systems that are near each other.
Here are my proposals:
Allow alliances to designate a ‘capital system’, in which they would receive reduced infrastructure upgrade costs and perhaps even further POS fuel use reductions.
Change the sov cost formula from Flat Rate + Infrastructure cost, to a more dynamic one of Sov cost = Base amount x (modifier for distance from capital system + modifier for number of systems owned + modifier for alliance size) + Infrastructure cost.
Under this system it would become more expensive to pay for each system as more systems are captured. Also, holding systems far from an alliances home territory would incur a significant cost, and alliances would be forced to decide whether simply acquiring as many members as possible was the best strategy for them.
By creating a tiered system it would be possible to give discounts to smaller alliances, making it cheaper for them to live and hold sov.
For the number of systems owned, an alliance could get a discount for holding under 10 systems, pay the regular amount for 10-20 systems, and start paying higher costs for over 20 systems.
The alliance size modifier could also be used to give discounts for smaller alliances, with discounts for alliances under 500 members, standard costs for alliances of 500-2000 members, and increasing costs for alliances larger than 2000 members.
By limiting alliance sprawl and introducing discounts for smaller alliances it should be possible for more smaller alliances to own space of their own, instead of renting it off larger entities.
The increased costs for larger alliances, both in numbers and systems held, would make managing large rental alliances significantly more complex.
Under the current system all that is required for an alliance to maintain sovereignty over a system is for the bills to be paid on time. This has led to a number of alliances holding systems that they barely use, for potential benefit at a later time, without being required to invest any effort in maintaining those systems.
My proposal is to:
Replace the current Strategic index with a Sovereignty index, which would decay at a constant rate unless the alliance holding the system was actively using the system. If the index reached zero the system would automatically go into reinforced mode. Using planets for PI, ratting, mining, industry, managing POSs, and destroying ships would increase the index, however active methods should increase it more than passive, and it should not be possible to maintain control of a system with POS alone.
This change should force alliances to be more selective about which and how many systems they take. It should also reduce or remove the sprawling jump bridge and beacon networks (for example http://heofz.com/ncdotcynos.png), by requiring each system to be actively used in order to maintain sov. The loss of these networks, especially when combined with the reductions in movement speed that I proposed in my first submission, would greatly reduce the ability of alliances to project power across vast areas. This would hopefully increase the chances that small alliances could carve out a corner for themselves.
At the moment all that is required to initiate an attack on the sovereignty of another alliance is to anchor SBU’s at more than half the gates in a system, wait three hours while they online, and then attack the I-hub and station. The defending alliance generally has little say in whether their systems will be reinforced, as reinforcement operations most commonly occur in the defenders weakest timezone (while they are asleep or at work).
Thanks to years of capital and supercapital proliferation, the huge number of hitpoints possessed by I-hubs and stations can be ground down in only a few minutes by most established nullsec alliances. The obvious solution of simply increasing their hitpoints would likely put ‘structure grinds’ beyond the power of smaller, newer groups.
Here is what I propose:
Remove SBU’s from the game
Replace the SBU mechanic with a Faction Warfare style tug-of-war mechanic. Instead of orbiting buttons the defenders should be able to bolster their control of a system by using it (through the methods I described above in System Usage), while the attackers should be trying to disrupt the defenders usage of the system by destroying their ships and infrastructure. Destroying the defender’s ships and infrastructure should reduce the defenders sov index, and once it is reduced to zero the system should enter reinforced mode.
I believe reinforcement timers are necessary for a fair system. Timers enable alliances whose strongest timezone is one of the less dominant timezones, for example AU or RU, to compete and hold sovereignty without it simply being taken while they sleep or work. It could be argued that alliances should be forced to possess a round-the-clock presence, however this could be difficult for some ethnic groups because of language issues. RF timers protect minorities, and provide defenders with a much needed advantage.
Under the Dominion mechanics, a system has between two and four RF timers standing between the attackers and conquest (I-hub shield and armour, station shield and armour if present). These timers simply require a large number of hitpoints to be shot off an inanimate object before progressing to the next mode.
Unfortunately, the amount of hitpoints involved presents a significant challenge to smaller alliances, but is able to be completed in minutes by the capital and supercapital fleets of established blocs. This creates an environment where it is hard for smaller groups to get a foot in the door without simply joining one of the blocs.
Here is what I propose:
Remove timers from stations, and have them change hands with system sovereignty.
Increase the number of timers on I-hubs to five, and dramatically lower their hitpoints.
Change the mechanic for an I-hub to be pushed into a new RF cycle to one similar to FW complex capturing. Introduce a ‘control bar’, which would count up or down for the attacker or defender. Uncloaked ships within 100 km of the I-hub should be able to contest the timer, and whichever alliance could maintain control of that area for 30 minutes would win the timer for their side. Victory for the attackers would push the I-hub one RF timer closer to destruction, and victory for the defenders would restore it back towards a full five timers, potentially bringing the system out of reinforced and enabling the defenders to make it invulnerable again through activity. If no ships from the attacking or defending side are present in the capture range when the I-hub exits an RF timer the side that did show up (or in the case of neither side showing up the defenders) instantly wins by default and doesn’t have to wait the 30 minutes.
These changes would remove the ‘structure grind’ of sovereignty capture, and refocus it onto ships fighting each other, not simply shooting inanimate objects. The removal of vast numbers of hitpoints would allow smaller alliances to contest timers, and provide for more variety in fleet compositions, as supercapitals would no longer be the best choice for conquering space.
The concept of farms and fields, or the ability of roaming gangs to actually have a lasting impact on the territory that they roam through, has been around for a long time. Player owned customs offices may have been an attempt to introduce this in some form, however because of their reinforcement timers and low value they are almost never used in that manner.
The ESS, though relatively recently introduced, has been modestly successful at providing a target for attackers.
I believe roaming gangs should be able to impact how the defenders are able to use their system if the defenders are unwilling to form up and stop them.
I propose to:
Introduce a mechanic by which a roaming gang (or solo pilot) can ‘hack’ a I-hub or TCU in the same manner as paying out an ESS. If successful they could choose between a) rerouteing that system’s taxes to their own corp, or b) disabling a single sov upgrade of their choice (could be anomaly spawner, could be jump bridge, or even cyno jammer). This effect would last for two hours.
This would enable significant disruption by the attackers, however the relatively short duration would ensure it could not be used to punish an alliance for a lack of presence in a different time zone. If the timer was longer, for example six hours, an EU alliance would be able to raid a US alliance late in EUTZ and cause effects that would last deep into USTZ. The aim of this change is to provide reasons to fight, not reward avoiding conflict.
In conclusion, I believe that by adjusting the sovereignty cost formula to be more dynamic, removing the structure grind, and forcing alliances to actively use all of their systems to keep them, it is possible to reduce the power of established blocs and make room for new alliances to form and conquer space.
