These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Author
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#741 - 2015-03-03 22:14:28 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
How far can an interceptor target anyway? I doubt there is any fit that gets it to 250 km.


And if it does, you undock... well, pretty much anything with a T1 sov laser on it, activate it on the same thing that the interceptor is targeting, and just like that you've hard countered the interceptor.

People keep forgetting that you can counter their sov lasers with yours. You don't even need EWAR.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar
Goonswarm Federation
#742 - 2015-03-03 22:17:35 UTC
Aryndel Vyst wrote:
CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?

Thanks.

Yours in christ,

Aryndel Vyst
Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics
Goonswarm Federation



you do aroud 20-30 mil with one aacount runing lvl 4's in hi sec. You do 80+ mil with one account runing anoms in null sec.

What else would you like?
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#743 - 2015-03-03 22:17:40 UTC
I agree that there should be more reasons to live out of nullsec, and hopefully that will be in phase n+1.

I more or less kind of like everything but the push module and wait mechanic...

I elaborated on an idea here, to make that meaningful, that would go well with others suggesting making it a siege type thing on an earlier page:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5546663#post5546663
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#744 - 2015-03-03 22:17:56 UTC
Thoirdhealbhach wrote:

If each structure has its own prime time, prime times will be evenly spread out in order to minimize the occurrence of multiple capture events at the same time.

Choice of prime time will not be a realistic reflection of when most people are online, but it will be a purely strategic decision, geared towards annoyance and attrition; at least that's what I would do.


From my experience:
You THINK you would do that. You will try it one or two times.
Then you will see that all you will get from spreading the vulnerability timers is 24/7 CTA with no chance of defending ALL the timers because fleet morale and participation quickly goes down.
(remember: you probably need a fleet on standby to keep space clean while an attacker in your off time might attack with single troll ships)

Then you will be scrambling to get all timers within a time window as small as possible. In your prime time.
And people will be happy to (hopefully) get a well-dosed amount of action and fights each day before they enjoy their off time doing other stuff.

You will NOT change the time window any time a new neighbor appears or a potential threat shows up on D-Scan, because any change takes 4 days to become effective.

Guaranteering military superiority for 4 consecutive hours in your space every day is not a small thing.
Anthar Thebess
#745 - 2015-03-03 22:18:07 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
So again big guys are getting head start before every thing starts.

CCP can we get something earlier?
Like removing some of the timers?
Let us put eve on fire a bit earlier.
Pretty please Blink

Look what happen on first changes - give people something that they can use to fight now.

*Snip* Please refrain from posting private in game correspondence. ISD Ezwal.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#746 - 2015-03-03 22:18:42 UTC
and so begins the subbing of accounts.. month to month screw paying you guys months upfront.. EVER AGAIN.
take your plex and stick it.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#747 - 2015-03-03 22:19:16 UTC

I like the idea mentioned earlier, where unused systems have a wider window of vulnerability.

A heavily utilized system has only a 4 hour window of vulnerability, whereas a completely unused system might have a 12 hour window instead. I think this might be important for cross timezone assaults!
Killah Bee
Shiva
Northern Coalition.
#748 - 2015-03-03 22:19:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Killah Bee
Classic eve community dev blog rage.

Still no way you can put these changes in like that.

Groups like reavers will literally take regions in intie gangs while having like 0 risk.

RIP AU TZ / RUS aswell.

So I wonder what its gonna look like when you reinforce the entire const instead of just one system aswell .. gonna be like 50 beacons to claim and groups like the CFC can still just steamroll all beacons at once .. dunno how thats gonna split them apart.

and so on ...

CCP pls fix these changes.

tyvm
Lord Parallax
Dolphin Noises
Wormhole Society
#749 - 2015-03-03 22:19:29 UTC
Just and Idea, since this is all about protecting a ship that is cycling some module and blowing up the ships that are counter cycling,

1. systems that are being actively contested should have a preventive measure on stations, If a entosis link is being used on the station, after the 3nd cycle is completed the station goes into lockdown, preventing anyone from docking or undocking from the station until the entosis link has been stopped or the capture is completed.
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#750 - 2015-03-03 22:20:12 UTC
Nullsec will remain terrible until the answer to "What is the best way to make money in Eve Online?" is not "highsec incursions."
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#751 - 2015-03-03 22:22:02 UTC
KelSaor wrote:
I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.

The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.

Bye bye supers, no point to them now.


...and we all move to NPC space.

If everyone currently in null moves out, then it will be quite easy for a small group to claim a system. And, as no one in their right mind wants sov, that small group will have no trouble holding it. All you need is a few players who "Are not quite in their right mind", and all of null is yours.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#752 - 2015-03-03 22:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
I guess what's most disappointing isn't what is in this proposal, rather what is absent from it:

- Any mention of being able to upgrade your space to encourage occupancy or conquest? Nope. The same old crap anomalies with the same old flaws and limitations, encouraging nullsec players to just log into their highsec incursion alts to make money like so many do now.

- Anything that either side can do to affect the battle in between reinforcement and the capture event? Any sign of secondary objectives or side-goals to carry out while the clock ticks down? Nope. Hurry up and wait, scrubs, no fun allowed for 48 hours and god forbid you have any alliance members outside the defender's chosen timezone, they're just deadweight.

- Any suggestion of nuance or strategic decision making in attacking sov? More than one way to storm the castle? Nope. Spam ento-ceptors to get timers, wait 48 hours, alarm clock for your opponent's primetime and then derp around the constellation capturing Sov Nodes whilst Yakkity Sax plays in the background.

- Any suggestion of nuance or strategic decision making in establishing or defending sov? Nope. Grind out your indexes as best you can to get the defensive bonus, CTA for your primetime and then derp around the constellation securing Sov Nodes whilst Yakkity Sax plays in the background.

- Any real new mechanics? Nope. You've pretty much grafted FacWar onto 0.0 and called it done. You're even recycling the IHubs and TCUs and sov indeces and fixed reinforcement phase from the system we have now. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Let's not call this a new sov system, it's effectively Dominion 1.2 with the EHP grind removed.

On the bright side, this can't have taken you much more than 10 minutes for you to throw together so it won't take long to rewrite something much better!

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar
Goonswarm Federation
#753 - 2015-03-03 22:22:45 UTC
Ryan Air wrote:


Time zones: you have created a system that will force time zones into a specific role. Either attackers or defenders. Those of us "in between" guys are being left out (I live in Alaska for instance). We will see even bigger collations (NC. EU, NC. US, NC. AU, ect) to make this work or it would pointless to be in a multi timezone alliance. A possible fix for this is to make it so corps can pick the vulnerability window, not the alliance.



Is not a curent sov the same damn thing right now? Come on....

But +1 for this corp thing, timers ashould be set by corps that hold not allaince.
Vajrabhairava
Perkone
Caldari State
#754 - 2015-03-03 22:23:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Vajrabhairava
(1) TCU can be within 50 km of a POS
(2) Entosis Link (T2) has a range of 250 km
(3) Jammers and Large POS weapons can reach out > 300km
(4) Entosis ship cannot warp or be repped; the can presumably speed tank or burn off grid.

Post #35 discussed ceptor swarms with Entosis modules; I'm thinking at least pretty suicidal for the TCU.
In fact, this could be quite difficult for many ships, and maybe even impossible for a dickstar with gunners to manage the jams (assuming Entosis requires maintenance of lock, and assuming it is possible to tell who is activating one if you are a defender.)

Perhaps it would be best to require that no TCU can be anchored in range of any POS module, and vice versa?
KC Kamikaze
Blue-Fire
Great Blue Balls of Fire
#755 - 2015-03-03 22:24:18 UTC
KelSaor wrote:
I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.

The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.

Bye bye supers, no point to them now.


...and we all move to NPC space.



Actually wormholes are the riskiest place to live. The 4 hour timer is fine. It's the reverse of no timer. It means you only get attacked at your peak time. Thats fantastic in my opinion. That way the aggressing force can't use your lack of activity in a particular timezone to their advantage.

In wspace we don't get that luxury. Somone attacks you and to maintain hole control you are in the game for 12 hours a day fighting to keep your **** after working for 8 hours. The 4 hour window will lower the divorce rate amongst eve players.
Escuro
Russian Thunder Squad
WE FORM V0LTA
#756 - 2015-03-03 22:24:30 UTC
Killah Bee wrote:


So I wonder what its gonna look like when you reinforce the entire const instead of just one system aswell .. gonna be like 50 beacons to claim and groups like the CFC can still just steamroll all beacons at once .. dunno how thats gonna split them apart.

tyvm

have 5 smaller groups, don't engage, make them rush to a single point while you capture 4 others. profit?
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar
Goonswarm Federation
#757 - 2015-03-03 22:25:48 UTC
captain foivos wrote:
Nullsec will remain terrible until the answer to "What is the best way to make money in Eve Online?" is not "highsec incursions."


I think best thing to do with hi sec incursions is to remove them from hi sec.

Risk/reward right? move you ass to low or null for good isk, not hi sec ;/
Soaran Sikadi
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#758 - 2015-03-03 22:27:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Soaran Sikadi
I'd like to propose an amendment to the system. The revamp overall has me very excited, but I'm worried about the effect on off-timezone players of the declared "primetime" and the weakness of the occupancy bonuses.

Goals:

  1. Allow off-timezone players to participate in sovereignty warfare.
  2. Make the occupancy bonus more meaningful.


Let the multiplier on capture difficulty, already defined by the changes, be O (for occupancy, ranges between 1 and 4).

  • Allow defenders to pick, per system, but not per structure, a (24 / O) hour window of vulnerability.
  • Allow defenders to select floor(O) different 4 hour slices as reinforcement zones.
  • When a structure goes into reinforce, executor corp directors have the opportunity to select one of the different slices for the structure within some number of hours of the reinforce. That timezone will have the reinforcement timer randomly rolled within it.


It's possible I've missed some obvious flaw in this plan, but it seems like this would allow off-timezone players to be able to participate without making it easy to just flip around timezones to random values, since each additional potential timezone comes with an occupancy cost. It also allows occupancy to define the battlefield rather than just giving structures the equivalent of more hitpoints.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#759 - 2015-03-03 22:27:33 UTC
I do like the idea of unused systems being wide open, and the tz being narrowed down by use. The TZ thing does have the potential to overly compartmentalize, still not sure of an alternative that doesn't equal griefing and turning this into Neverest online....
RadiantShadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#760 - 2015-03-03 22:28:59 UTC
CCP Nicely done, very very nice.

I like it.

The only thing I have is if you make it this far through the 800 whatever comments, one more vote for a bigger prime time window. At least 6 but 8 or 12 hours for any big alliance shouldn't be an issue.

Massive applause.