These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#1781 - 2015-03-04 21:10:15 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Logan Revelore wrote:
I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.

And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely.


Logan Revelore wrote:
Another note.

This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.

Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.

I like this man.

Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on.

Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems.

I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho.



Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.


In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It also has absolutely nothing to do with blobbing. Large alliances are large alliances and have large numbers of people (duh) and therefore will have more people than smaller alliances at any given moment. No game mechanic other than one that breaks EVE will change this.

In agreement with your criticism: Invulnerable sov 20 hours a day is not ideal in my opinion. Currently I see 2 different ideas on how to alter this mechanic:

1. Sliding window based on alliance size. Larger alliances have larger windows where their structures are vulnerable and smaller ones have smaller windows to defend.

2. Sliding difficulty. The further away from primetime it gets, the harder it is to reinforce a structure. This difficulty could take the form of longer reinforce times (Sov Lazer has to cycle for longer) or any number of other ideas and mechanics.

The bottom line is that people, like you and I, want there to be smaller entities holding space. If we want that then we have to want some form of the primetime mechanic. Expecting a small group to be able to cover all timezones is simply not going to happen and they will lose their space.
Jin Kugu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1782 - 2015-03-04 21:13:53 UTC
Heh FW in null sec because FW is such a vibrant place.

I guess we'll have a few crazy months of fun destroying all the things before people realise orbiting buttons is even worse than shooting structures.

Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1783 - 2015-03-04 21:17:47 UTC
If only CCP would invest the time it took to write this blog, never mind come up with all the sov changes, into updating missions they would get a lot more toons playing....... This is the newest gift to nullbears, among a long list of gifts over the years, to only get a, BWWWAAAAAA that is not what we wanted thread. Roll
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#1784 - 2015-03-04 21:19:02 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
At least we agree on "prime time".
As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day.


But then you have the counterpart to "weaponized boredom," which is forcing someone to log in and fleet up at 3am their time.

The system hopes to basically get rid of the current meta of war by attrition, of victory by being the last people to not log out for a week in frustration.

It's impossible to prevent that, of course. A sufficiently ruthless alliance can still drive a targeted alliance into high sec and then use wardecs to hound them out of the game. But CCP can at least try not to encourage it.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Ereilian
Doomheim
#1785 - 2015-03-04 21:19:21 UTC
Personally, I do not see this as being a viable long term solution.

Yes the current Sov system has creaked and groaned for 6 years, but if all I need to do is plex 10 more than you ... how does this help a small 3-4oo man alliance vs the current superblobs?

Unused space is unused for a reason, it is bolloxs. The Anom nerf made most -0.5 space pointless to occupy [I will add a rider here, yes you can still mine]. If anything I am certain the superblobs would LOVE fresh meat to take these systems ... more Brave newbies to farm.

Ultimately this is a griefers system, small groups of disaffected or bitter-vet(tm) can mess around with sov in unused systems but when it comes down to it they will not have the stamina or numbers to plex their way to victory.
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#1786 - 2015-03-04 21:20:40 UTC
Dalilus wrote:
If only CCP would invest the time it took to write this blog, never mind come up with all the sov changes, into updating missions they would get a lot more toons playing....... This is the newest gift to nullbears, among a long list of gifts over the years, to only get a, BWWWAAAAAA that is not what we wanted thread. Roll


You're wrong.

BUT! Speaking of missions, I know this isn't what this change is targeted at but CCP, allowing alliances to "hire" mission agents to come live in SOV Null stations would be the literal ****. Can you imagine a better "carrot" for sov null?
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1787 - 2015-03-04 21:22:23 UTC
Zip Slings wrote:
In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced."

It doesnt work like this. Let me explain.
Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B".
Weaponized boredom, as thay called it.
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns
WE FORM V0LTA
#1788 - 2015-03-04 21:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ugly Eric
-Even I am not fan of the primetime idea as is, it really doesn't change a lot. That's what everyone does alraedy now. All that changes is, that the attacker cannot attack when they want, but when the defender wants.

-ppl worried of the "trollceptors" or any superfast ships attacking from 200+km. Wake up lads! All the defender needs to do, is that they undock 1 ship per structure to sov-laser their own structure. If a sov entity having 50+ structures cannot undock 50+ defenders on their primetime, they simply do not deserve those amounts of sov.

-ppl complaining that the primetime idea messes multiTZ alliances/coalitions up totally, maybe it kind of is intentional to get the megacoalitions to be not as useful as they been up till today?
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1789 - 2015-03-04 21:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Skia Aumer wrote:
Zip Slings wrote:
In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced."

It doesnt work like this. Let me explain.
Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B".
Weaponized boredom, as thay called it.

Dummy alliance gets promptly rolled because they need to have active members within the alliance to actually use the entosis links in defence. Big daddy alliance's links count as hostile for the purposes of capturing/RFing.

Edit: and or mercs from the right TZ can be hired to assist in flipping it to Freeport status at which point the TZ war is inconsequential.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1790 - 2015-03-04 21:27:47 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems.

The problem I saw with this about an hour after I initially suggested it is, this is also gameable by using stub alliances to hold the base sov so you keep the prime time low, which means that basically this mechanic can't be added. Either that or using stub alliances has to be banned, and I'm not sure CCP wants to spend time on that.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1791 - 2015-03-04 21:28:44 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.


The prime time mechanic disproportionately favors small groups on defense, not large ones. TZ coverage is just another form of force projection, like jump distance. Fatigue nerfed force projection in space, prime time nerfs force projection in time. The ONLY people suffering from this change are large groups with complete TZ coverage now. They will no longer have the same scale of force projection that they are used to.

The prime time TZ mechanic only effectively comes into play when first trying to reinforce a structure with E-links. It simply prevents a larger group from reinforcing things belonging to small groups "at their leisure"; instead they can ONLY do it if they have local dominance in the prime time TZ of the smaller defending group, where they should be at their strongest. The TZ aspects of the contest after structures come out of reinforcement is basically unchanged from the current stront system (though the mechanics of control nodes ALSO tend to disproportionately favor small groups on defense for reasons not related to TZ).

TZ coverage is still an important part of control node contests, since they go on indefinitely until resolved. A close control node tug of war can be won simply by staying online longer than your opponent, so TZ coverage does not becomes totally irrelevant.

Any idea that small groups currently can use TZ's to their advantage against large groups is basically a strawman borne out by exactly 0 real world examples of this happening in practice.

In short, the TZ coverage thing is being blown way out of proportion. It doesn't actually change that much at all. The biggest impact, frankly, is in the ability for mutli-TZ alliances to coexist internally, and I think proposals in this thread about allowing alliances to set prime time by constellation or something along those lines would probably be reasonable ways to address that.
Oceane Chevalier
Maple Moose
#1792 - 2015-03-04 21:28:47 UTC
Some aspects of it are actually interesting but without changes, this will not drive more fights.

A- You need to commit more than a frig, inty or destroyer. Make it so at least you need a cruiser. The bigger here the better.
B- Adjust the duration to make it longer and the range shorter. Basically to ensure the attacker is committed and that defenders actually have a chance to setup a fleet and fight. That will force attackers to support their sov laser dude and so will congregate enemies in only 1-2 systems at a time improving the odds of an actual fight. "Real" sov Attackers will have nothing against this principle.

Ultimately however this system will force everyone to live in less systems since it does still favor attackers. That in itself is not bad but right now null is not able to support more people per system. Why wouldn't you address that aspect and then introduce sov changes? The same logic you used when you addressed force projection.

If big alliances could live in only a few systems, then making sov holding more of a challenge is a much smaller issue...
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1793 - 2015-03-04 21:30:41 UTC
where can i buy those interceptors with 250km lock range btw?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Zip Slings
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#1794 - 2015-03-04 21:30:51 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Zip Slings wrote:
In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced."

It doesnt work like this. Let me explain.
Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B".
Weaponized boredom, as thay called it.


Then party "B" has their off-TZ guys (or mercenaries) come in and RF the whole region in a night because "A" is in bed. Then "B's" mercs' off TZ guys take the whole region uncontested because "A" were dumb enough to put their region in the hands of a dummy alliance with not enough people and not enough Sov lazers and in a ****** timezone for themselves. Counterplay.

AND CCP planned for this:

"When an alliance changes their prime time window, their new choice will not take effect until after 96 hours have passed. At the end of this 96 hour waiting period all the structures belonging to that alliance will be vulnerable twice in the same 24 hour period (one in the old window and once in the new one). The new setting will then take effect and become the new daily vulnerability window."

However, in defense of your scenario, I would hope that any SOV transfer would, and should, make the window unchangeable for a further amount of time in addition to the 96 hour primetime change.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1795 - 2015-03-04 21:33:21 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
At least we agree on "prime time".
As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day.


But then you have the counterpart to "weaponized boredom," which is forcing someone to log in and fleet up at 3am their time.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. With strontium, attacker at least has some influence on exit timer. You can either reinforce it unusually early and get a timer in 01am instead of 03am. Or you can kite the timer to get it in the evening instead of at downtime. Both of this tricks work in POS warfare, and work more or less tolerable.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1796 - 2015-03-04 21:36:04 UTC
Logan Revelore wrote:
Another note.

This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.

Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.

Game Design is more important than lore.
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1797 - 2015-03-04 21:36:18 UTC
The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.

The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.

Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.

The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com

Ereilian
Doomheim
#1798 - 2015-03-04 21:37:07 UTC
Has anyone else noticed that the capture mechanics actually PROMOTE super alliances? Rather than have 2-3 alliances over a region it makes more sense to have a single alliance logistically.
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
The Bastion
#1799 - 2015-03-04 21:37:34 UTC
Zip Slings wrote:

In agreement with your criticism: Invulnerable sov 20 hours a day is not ideal in my opinion. Currently I see 2 different ideas on how to alter this mechanic:

1. Sliding window based on alliance size. Larger alliances have larger windows where their structures are vulnerable and smaller ones have smaller windows to defend.

2. Sliding difficulty. The further away from primetime it gets, the harder it is to reinforce a structure. This difficulty could take the form of longer reinforce times (Sov Lazer has to cycle for longer) or any number of other ideas and mechanics.

The bottom line is that people, like you and I, want there to be smaller entities holding space. If we want that then we have to want some form of the primetime mechanic. Expecting a small group to be able to cover all timezones is simply not going to happen and they will lose their space.


I like both of these ideas. The primetime thing is the only aspect of concern because there is a very large EU presence in my alliance so with only 4 hours I see it impossible to make everyone in the alliance happy for a prime time. Particularly because I am on Mountain time (-7) so by the time I'm getting home from work all the EU TZ guys are mostly getting ready for bed.

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus

Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1800 - 2015-03-04 21:38:31 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.

The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.

Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.

The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.


It happened. A Gevlon post that I actually agree with.

I think I've just won Eve.