These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
#1821 - 2015-03-04 22:03:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Cleanse Serce
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Can I ask of the Devs what happened to 'option #2'?

As I understood it, there were two general ideas going forwards for 'Sov', which had been mentioned in CSM notes somewhere, some months back (so I'm paraphrasing a little here):

Arrow Replace the Dominion era system with a new mechanic (which this appears to be), but still have 'Sov' structures e.t.c

ArrowGet rid of 'Sov' mechanics altogether, and pursue a 'free-form' model (the players 'write' the map)

So, given from an outsider perspective, #2 is technically simpler to implement (we had this with the very first alliances, before in-game alliance mechanics existed and before Starbases contributed to 'Sov'....), and in many ways, far more immersive, why didn't it make the cut? You even mention in the blog, the best multiplayer game systems involve simple mechanics...

So, I also have to ask again, why do we even need 'Sov' at all?

Straight



Best thing imo is the second.

Make the Jove destroy each and every Null Sec systems, and let the player rebuild the null sec themselvs, with the Ô so promessed player buildable STARGATEs !

But well, i guess it'll never happen, or withing another "region".

HighSec
LowSec
NullSec
WH Space
5th space with buildable stargates !
Torsnk
Mustang Capital
#1822 - 2015-03-04 22:04:13 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Torsnk wrote:
Just some ideas to make Sov a -real thing- that actually has some significance. The ideas are limitless....
The UN doesn't collect revenue nor enforce laws, the sovereign entity does.


True, but that's how I think it should work within the context of the game.
Devi Loches
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#1823 - 2015-03-04 22:04:15 UTC
The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.

Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them?
Proton Stars
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1824 - 2015-03-04 22:07:13 UTC
Devi Loches wrote:
The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.

Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them?



But carriers can't skynet anymore and with a huge increase in loss projection I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to use them unless in blob formation. Way to go ccp, now we have to blob capitals.
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#1825 - 2015-03-04 22:10:29 UTC
Actually... can we get a clarification on whether the increase in Entosis cycle time on capitals increases the time it takes them to capture, or if it only increases the time it takes them to start capturing?
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1826 - 2015-03-04 22:11:27 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
One thing you didn't think about: Entosis trolling against a prepared defence is the same amount of boredom as defending against it; therefore they won't troll a prepared defence unless their objective is to break morale.

Why bother orbitting the same defended point for 4 hours when there's more than likely going to be some undefended ones elsewhere in null?

Why don't you escalate the fight?

It's only boring for the defender if the attacker wants them to be bored (and is willing to take the same boredom themself).


Actually, I can directly answer this with experience from siegefleets: Not true.

See, running around in enemy space w/friends on mumble, everyone watching enemy movements and laughing as you drive the defenders nuts and they can't catch you? Not boring at all. We used to giggle ourselves stupid(er) during the Fountain War doing pretty much exactly this.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#1827 - 2015-03-04 22:12:08 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Karash Amerius wrote:
I am thinking the Troll Laser needs to be restricted to a heavier ship such as a battle cruiser or above.

Love the tears here...great work CCP.

Definitely not. If you can't respond to a frigate fleet, you don't live locally enough.

Restricting it to larger hulls completely undermines the concept of using your space.

why should you get to contest sov without even putting a t1 battlecruiser at risk? the issue isn't being unable to respond to an interceptor fleet, it's that an interceptor fleet has no risk whatsoever to its pilots

if you're too much of a coward to even risk a single t1 battlecruiser you have no business in the big leagues


If you can't kill and interceptor you have no business logging on the server bud.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1828 - 2015-03-04 22:12:29 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:

ArrowGet rid of 'Sov' mechanics altogether, and pursue a 'free-form' model (the players 'write' the map)

So, I have to ask again, why do we even need 'Sov' at all?

Straight


It's a fair point, but all this would really do is get rid of TCU's. You'd still have to grind IHUBs and stations to have any meaningful sov conflict between large entities. Which brings us back to supercaps online.

In short, even if we get rid of the TCU and the very idea of sov, I'd STILL support E-links & constellation control nodes as a mechanic to remove structure grinding. There needs to be a way to compete over the "real" assets (IHUBs, stations, etc.), and leaving these unchanged as structure grinds puts us in the supercap stagnation we have today.

Basically, remember that supercaps are not a deterrent to sov warfare (e.g. large scale alliance conflict over in-space assets). They are a deterrent to structure grinding. Structure grinding itself is the deterrent to sov warfare. There's no way to fix the incentives to sov warfare that doesn't involve removing or changing the structure grinding mechanic itself.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1829 - 2015-03-04 22:13:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Devi Loches wrote:
The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.

Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them?

Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.

These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at

5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s

edit: doh my maths, fixed

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1830 - 2015-03-04 22:14:39 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
No wonder you like Gevlon for this proposal.


Oh, no no, I don't agree w/Gevlon regarding the cost of these things. Really, the cost of these things is immaterial. I agree with his analysis of '4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result'.

Mostly, I'm just shocked about agreeing with Gevlon at all. The guy routinely bans me from his blog because I take too much glee in demolishing his nonsense.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1831 - 2015-03-04 22:18:39 UTC
People want fights, not boring chases of hard to catch, low value ships. Think of how annoying warp stabbed farmers are in FW.

Why is the Entosis thing not a deployable structure? Rather than fitting it on a ship, why not make it like one of the new deployables? Cost it around 50/100m, and have the attackers defend it until it has produced a timer on the TCU/Ihub/Station. Once it has, it can be scooped and re-used, but it could give the defenders something concrete to attack.

Avoidance is already way too dominant a strategy in this game, don't make it even more powerful. Right now all the costs are put on the defender. Make the attacker ante up, and actually have to commit rather than just abusing fast things.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#1832 - 2015-03-04 22:20:00 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Can I ask of the Devs what happened to 'option #2'?

As I understood it, there were two general ideas going forwards for 'Sov', which had been mentioned in CSM notes somewhere, some months back (so I'm paraphrasing a little here):

Arrow Replace the Dominion era system with a new mechanic (which this appears to be), but still have 'Sov' structures e.t.c

ArrowGet rid of 'Sov' mechanics altogether, and pursue a 'free-form' model (the players 'write' the map)

So, given from an outsider perspective, #2 is technically simpler to implement (we had this with the very first alliances, before in-game alliance mechanics existed and before Starbases contributed to 'Sov'....), and in many ways, far more immersive, why didn't it make the cut? You even mention in the blog, the best multiplayer game systems involve simple mechanics...

So, I also have to ask again, why do we even need 'Sov' at all?

Straight

Oddly, as the TCU, IHUB and station are now all separate, you do not need to claim Sol to hold a system. Keep everyone else out with ships, just like if there was no Sov. Many have asked "Why claim Sov?" If you don't think there is a valid reason, then don't do it! Just occupy the system.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1833 - 2015-03-04 22:24:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Vic Jefferson wrote:
People want fights, not boring chases of hard to catch, low value ships. Think of how annoying warp stabbed farmers are in FW.

Why is the Entosis thing not a deployable structure? Rather than fitting it on a ship, why not make it like one of the new deployables? Cost it around 50/100m, and have the attackers defend it until it has produced a timer on the TCU/Ihub/Station. Once it has, it can be scooped and re-used, but it could give the defenders something concrete to attack.

Avoidance is already way too dominant a strategy in this game, don't make it even more powerful. Right now all the costs are put on the defender. Make the attacker ante up, and actually have to commit rather than just abusing fast things.


The attacker forces the defender to actually undock and come on grid to defend...then the attacker gets to choose whether to engage or move on.

If the attacker wants to fight it's a guaranteed fight or an RF timer for the defender if they shirk their responsibilities. Solo PvPers are gonna love these entosis links.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#1834 - 2015-03-04 22:24:20 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.

These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at

5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s

edit: doh my maths, fixed


As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh.
Devi Loches
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#1835 - 2015-03-04 22:30:00 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Devi Loches wrote:
The Entosis trolling will be insane if put into effect right now. Speed tanking will be the best defense with them, especially since any cap ships trying to use them will just get piled on since it takes so long for them. The Entosis needs an effect like siege and triage mods that force the ship to remain stationary, or at least a huge movement penalty.

Also, in many ways this makes Dreads only useful for POS grinding and anti-carrier ops. Carriers can at least triage and support with fighters, but Dreads, and in some ways Titans, are almost obsolete. I always saw dreads as the ultimate structure grinder, but if that doesn't happen anymore, what's the use of them?

Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.

These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at

5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s

edit: doh my maths, fixed


So you propose sniping them? You'll need much larger ships in order to snipe at frigates orbiting 120km away from you. That is exactly what trolls are looking for, a single BS trying to snipe them down so they can bring something else in and get a good kill. The issue isn't that it's impossible to hit the trollceptors, it's that they either leave grid too fast if you get close, or are just a pain if you don't.

By freezing them in place, it's just as much about keeping them in the same grid as it is about keeping them from speed tanking. That and the fact that a handful of frigates can create the havoc that a fleet of cruisers used to do, while still requiring the same level of defense commitment, is just unreasonable.

I'm not in a large bloc that is looking to protect whole regions of space and complaining it's going to be harder. I'm coming from a small alliance that just got sov and sees this as ridiculous to defend against.
Gorgof Intake
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1836 - 2015-03-04 22:30:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorgof Intake
Arrendis wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
One thing you didn't think about: Entosis trolling against a prepared defence is the same amount of boredom as defending against it; therefore they won't troll a prepared defence unless their objective is to break morale.

Why bother orbitting the same defended point for 4 hours when there's more than likely going to be some undefended ones elsewhere in null?

Why don't you escalate the fight?

It's only boring for the defender if the attacker wants them to be bored (and is willing to take the same boredom themself).


Actually, I can directly answer this with experience from siegefleets: Not true.

See, running around in enemy space w/friends on mumble, everyone watching enemy movements and laughing as you drive the defenders nuts and they can't catch you? Not boring at all. We used to giggle ourselves stupid(er) during the Fountain War doing pretty much exactly this.



CFC has always overstated the effectiveness of Siege Fleets and the result on enemy (ie my bro's) morale. Ive never met anyone who was frustrated at siege fleet. We just thought it was lame.

Do you know what is annoying though? Having proposed a much better (yet similar) sov mechanic that would solve/ abate so much of this splurgethread and having not a single person in CCP acknowledge its existence :(
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#1837 - 2015-03-04 22:30:56 UTC
Baneken wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.

These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at

5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s

edit: doh my maths, fixed


As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh.

A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1838 - 2015-03-04 22:33:36 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
People want fights, not boring chases of hard to catch, low value ships. Think of how annoying warp stabbed farmers are in FW.

Why is the Entosis thing not a deployable structure? Rather than fitting it on a ship, why not make it like one of the new deployables? Cost it around 50/100m, and have the attackers defend it until it has produced a timer on the TCU/Ihub/Station. Once it has, it can be scooped and re-used, but it could give the defenders something concrete to attack.

Avoidance is already way too dominant a strategy in this game, don't make it even more powerful. Right now all the costs are put on the defender. Make the attacker ante up, and actually have to commit rather than just abusing fast things.


The attacker forces the defender to actually undock and come on grid to defend...then the attacker gets to choose whether to engage or move on.

If the attacker wants to fight it's a guaranteed fight or an RF timer for the defender if they shirk their responsibilities.



But this again makes avoidance the dominant, boring strategy. People in this system undock and use an Entosis to counter mine? Okay I move along, switch structures, or go log off in a safe and then come back and start again. Avoidance and annoyance seem far too effective with no cost.

There is a slight opportunity cost of danger, but there needs to be a non zero cost for just trying to flip every thing that can be.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Devi Loches
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#1839 - 2015-03-04 22:34:50 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Baneken wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Speed tanking at 120km doesn't work so well because your angular velocity drops as you get further from the origin.

These 5km/s trollceptors orbitting at 120km are only moving around the central point at

5/120x2 = 0.02 rad/s

edit: doh my maths, fixed


As I stated earlier in this thread, time to dust that sniper Rokh.

A interceptor can keep a lock at 120 km?


With the right fit, yes. Some fits have already been shown using sensor boosters.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1840 - 2015-03-04 22:36:54 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Rendiff wrote:
I like where they're going with this, but they need to make each system able to sustain the activity of a larger number of players.
If a system can sustain ratting/mining/etc for more players each alliance will require less space, allowing more groups entry into null.
I think this is the part that's missing, tbh. Once this is done, you have completed the trifecta of live where you work, and defend your space with local forces.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=392810

More team / squad sites so that people are more battle ready right where they are.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.