These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1861 - 2015-03-04 23:00:10 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.

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

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#1862 - 2015-03-04 23:01:59 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.

the only thing that hits an interceptor at 100km+ is praying for a wrecking shot
Johnny Galnetty
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1863 - 2015-03-04 23:03:42 UTC
I like the proposed changes the only concern I really have is this 'prime time window' which the attackers cannot influence at all in its current form.

Fear not have a suggestion to the problem.
Base the size of the primetime window on the indices of the constellation on a sliding scale the higher the sov owners have all the systems in the constellation to 5 the smaller the prime time window is, meaning the more active they are in the constellation the harder it is to take straight off, the lower the indices the wider the attack window becomes.

This gives 2 benefits to the system you propose.
1 the less used a constellation the easier for an attacker to take which means that space changes hands easier (which seems to be something you are aiming for).
2 in more populated constellations the attackers can and should actively harass the defender to bring the indices down and thus widerening the window of attack, this could be used as a conflict driver and force passive space owners a real reason to form defence fleets to force these groups off and make there systems harder to attack.

Obviously this does rear the afk cloaker problem but it does give the attacker more influence on when attacks can be started and the defenders even more reason to be active in their systems

It also reduces the changes of sov warfare being compressed in to either us or rus primetimes for max defensive numbers or for them being set into the lower population times zone (thinking AUS TZ) for fight denial.
Devi Loches
Academia Solutus
#1864 - 2015-03-04 23:04:17 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.


Fit an interceptor same as before but with an oversized AB. The issue is that something that can move super fast shouldn't also be able to use the ranged version of the E-Link. If they can only use the T1 version and stay close, that's fine, it forces the same conflict and isn't just trolling. Larger ships that can't just zoom away are the ships that need the range for the E-Link.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1865 - 2015-03-04 23:04:41 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
That's the problem. Harassment as it looks now appears to be the best strategy. Breaking their armies is impossible, so break their wills. While, yes, that's one way to win a war, we are looking for fun gameplay here. Put some onus on the attacker.


Sov harassment is just the gateway drug to break up the blue stalemate. Once sov harassment is a part of daily life with your neighbors, it'll be that much easier to escalate into real sov fleet battles from time to time.

The primary difference in this mechanic vs. the current state of affairs is that line members can't participate in any meaningful sov harassment at the moment. Only cap pilots have that privilege, and they break rank and do so against alliance orders rarely, and even then it's pretty easy to smooth over diplomatically since without the backing of your alliance super fleet it's a meaningless incursion. But once your line members can form up any old 20 man fleet and go flip a little-used border system, good luck 1) stopping them from doing so and 2) keeping all those blue diplomatic ties happy in the aftermath of daily "incidents".
Mecca
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1866 - 2015-03-04 23:05:26 UTC
Honestly, you read the first part of this and how important it is to make the sov system understandable thinking; fine thats a very good start.

Then follows a book of text on how this stuff will work, and it´s not hard to understand the mechanic. But the meaning of it all just gets lost with all the complicated mechanics added just to make it work. Only vulnerable for certain timers, some module you have to activate on a structure to make it not love its current owner, stations made open to everyone for a certain time once you shoot it enough?

While the mechanic makes the game playable it´s completely not logical.

If you want to invade someone normally you do some of the below and this should be central for all wars.
a. Go to where they live and kill as many as possible until they flee in fear.
b. Go to where they have their strategic assets and lock/shoot it down making opposition very hard.
c. Destroy them from the inside making them fight each other, kill/recruit their leaders and so on.
d. Occupy them, patrolling their homes, show who´s in charge and hopefully they will surrender.
Plus probably a few more, but it´s simple and understandable.

Defender should of course always have the benefit of home turf and being able to fortify and choose which battles to fight. But the whole idea of having a sandbox where people matter is less rules and game mechanics, not more stuff that players have to do in order to justify the mechanics. Also already trollceptor online...

What about the maintance of space structures? Stations gotta have millions of ppl inside them to handle daily maintance. Why not have faction or corp NPC´s in null which you hire to do your sov maintance, kill the standings cap and give the PVE érs an impact on sov to grind standing for their alliances to make better deals with the faction to increase military/industry status. Also agents in null will bring more players to null = more content. CCP please dont fear, high sec mission runners will not unsub after being killed in null, they will just either take the challange or move back to high sec trying to do their stuff while suffer the broken HS gank mechanic.
If you want to attack sov you make a deal with the faction to weaken the defence for certain timer and launch your attack.

NPC´s can limit the amount of maintance any alliance can use and so limiting the blocks owning hundreds of systems.

Dunno, just writing as Im thinking but the fighting and conquer of sov needs to be somewhat related to how it actually works to be any fun in my mind.

Upside is Wormholes are going to see a massive increase in numbers by summer.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1867 - 2015-03-04 23:07:38 UTC
maybe an MMJD RLML drake would become the new counter?
Severn VonKarr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1868 - 2015-03-04 23:08:37 UTC
I like the proposal of a control point style gamplay in place of structure grinding. This is one of the more interesting game types in other games as it creates an objective rather than just mindless carnage. There are still a few problems though:

Player expectations - among the goals players have for a sov revamp are:
* removal of structure grinding focused gameplay. * make it more difficult to hold onto unused territory.
* reduce the need for blobbing.
* provide a way of building up for players to entrench/capitalize and get more use out of territory so as to reduce the need to expand.

This proposal only accomplishes half of these, so many players are still going to be unenthused about sov. A very narrow time window that can be focused around an alliance's prime time coupled with a mechanic that doesn't necessitate large numbers to defend may just make defense easier. Perhaps this could be tweaked so the vulnerability window grows with increased sovereignty claims.

The expectation of providing a means to build up could be satiated by reworking i-hubs. Tie upgrades and indices to specific player activities and make upgrades for different activities increase the effective number players that can be sustained by the system. This could be balanced by reducing the base available resources for non-upgraded systems and the upgrades themselves would only be available in focal points of these activities for alliances (like industrial/pve capital systems). Also the level of upgrade online/available would be directly determined by the level of player activity. This would prevent players from milking the system.

Aside from player expectations, the proposed system still has it's own potential headaches:
*Solo/gang entosis raiders flipping sov in cheap risk averse kiting ships.
*third parties bogarting on every capture for quick conquests.
*Reinforcement timers that are unnecessary on some things and too short on others. (TCUs vs. Stations)
*occupancy bonus is defender only.
*Offensively imbalanced sovereignty competition.

Others on the forum have already explained the headaches of cheap risk averse ship fits (kiting frigs+desys raiding everywhere constantly. So I won't touch this.

Currently EVERY attackers link counts together, while defenders only have their own count. This allows third parties to show up to any event having not done any of the initial work and still being able to claim structures at will. Each attacking alliance should have independent capture/reinforcement progress.

TCUs have such marginal advantages that having them flip overnight should not be a significant headache for anyone. They should not have a reinforcement timer. Stations and infrastructure however are more meaningful. Stations can have years of assets that should probably take more than a couple days of interaction to flip. They should still be quick to flip if other structures are already claimed. So perhaps TCUs should have no timers. I-hubs and Stations should have a week timer if all other structures are still owned, 4 days if only one other structure is owned and only a 2 day reinforcement timer if it is the only owned structure remaining.

Currently occupying and using someone else's space provides no advantages to the squatters, perhaps the occupancy bonus should be applicable to either side depending on their level of use.

Currently many attackers can aide eachother's progress directly but defenders can not be directly aided by allies. This means that this gameplay can be reduced to n+1 in which the attacker just brings as many disposable ships with links as possible and can just destroy the fewer links of the defender for an assured victory. As stated previously, capture and reinforcement progress needs to be specific to the alliance. e.g.: an alliance should not be able to simply show up to a capture event in which they did not start the reinforcement. They should have to start a new reinforcement of their own and can only make progress in a capture event they initiated.
Devi Loches
Academia Solutus
#1869 - 2015-03-04 23:09:03 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.


5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops.
Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure,
Sniper warps in to shoot them down,
Covop lights up and Blackops jump in,
Sniper dead.

Bring multiple snipers?
Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again.
Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors.
Axloth Okiah
Ehefkae
#1870 - 2015-03-04 23:10:23 UTC
It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1871 - 2015-03-04 23:12:24 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.


Since the **** when do you make sense?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Vic Jefferson
ElitistOps
WE FORM V0LTA
#1872 - 2015-03-04 23:13:58 UTC
Devi Loches wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
. If people are doing it purely for the 'troll' factor of making people undock then tittering like schoolgirls over to the next system then it sounds about as fun as cancer, I certainly wouldn't be signing up to waste my time in a fleet that does that.


That's the problem. Harassment as it looks now appears to be the best strategy. Breaking their armies is impossible, so break their wills. While, yes, that's one way to win a war, we are looking for fun gameplay here. Put some onus on the attacker.


It'll be harassment till either you take sov, or defenders bring something out worth dropping a blackops on. Long live the hotdrop meta.


I'd rather deal with hotdrops than interceptors. Seriously. It generates content, and there's guaranteed lossmails for at least one side.

Like, as it is now, or at least appears to be, it will be about speed and harassment, both of which are sort of boring in context.

Let's say the Entosis thing is deployable. I could un-dock a battleship gang to take it down, or any other gang of my choosing, and if they couldn't beat my gang, they'd accept a loss and move on. If they hotdrop on me, great, we should have a counter-drop prepared in this eventuality - We just got a real match! Let's go! If you can't defeat a hotdrop in your OWN system, you don't deserve that system.

Basically, by forcing a tangible, stationary ante to defend, it increases the chances of needing to escalate, which is a good thing. We all know our big toys are useless because everything is so fast, but this present system seems to be making that even worse, because speed is once again the answer.

The idea is to get big fleets undocked and blowing each other up. Much like FW, this system, with the Entosis thing as a ship module, appears to be encouraging its own low-risk meta akin to stabbed d-plexing.

If sov wants to succeed, it should promote skirmishes in prime time. Having the module instead be a deployable at least puts an entry fee on attacking to dissuade trolling.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
The Bastion
#1873 - 2015-03-04 23:14:09 UTC
While I don't agree that ceptors are going to be the main problem during major battles due to their ability to simply pop under fire. I do agree from a harassment standpoint they would be rather annoying. Are they going to be able to flip your station probably not, but get 100 ceptors running amoke in your space flipping **** would be really annoying.

What if CCP simply made the module so that ceptors were exempt from being able to use them?

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus

Praerian
Perkone
Caldari State
#1874 - 2015-03-04 23:14:30 UTC
I agree with the above poster.

I understand Sov is broken however clicking on a module and playing lock out tennis doesn't float my boat.

Warfare and occupation is about burning down assets, destroying or claiming everything and seizing control.

This feels like a bit of a wet slap approach.

Primetime window is worst idea, but everyone pretty much agrees with that.

I think you have two options one is continue down this path as CCP always seem to despite feedback, or scrap the idea and get more ideas on the table.

People want a game to be fun and strategic, I think there are better solutions that can be sourced from the collective players. At the moment it seems like a few devs have a favoured style of play and they are trying to shoe horn everyone into the same style.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1875 - 2015-03-04 23:15:57 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.

the only thing that hits an interceptor at 100km+ is praying for a wrecking shot


That's odd, my Cerberus ***** on them.

Are yours broken?
Studio Ghibli
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1876 - 2015-03-04 23:16:27 UTC
Reading from the beginning-

-but it sounds like they're trying to break up large sov-blocks, encourage play from smaller alliances, and also make it so power can easily trade hands.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
Just let it happen
#1877 - 2015-03-04 23:17:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Devi Loches wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, MICROWARP, MICROJUMP, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.


5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops.
Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure,
Sniper warps in to shoot them down,
Covop lights up and Blackops jump in,
Sniper dead.

Bring multiple snipers?
Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again.
Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors.

And the escalation begins. In a few iterations of counter vs counter, Titans will be on the field.
I propose we rename interceptors "butterflies". Who will know when one flaps its wings and triggers a hurricane?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Devi Loches
Academia Solutus
#1878 - 2015-03-04 23:18:32 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry.


Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around.

They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher.

There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one).
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#1879 - 2015-03-04 23:19:33 UTC
Some good ideas there CCP. The proposed capture mechanics should make for much more interesting tactical and strategic gameplay. Also I really like the way you have tied it to constellations, that is a really nice idea.

The main issue I would raise is with the prime time mechanic. It is a blanket approach, and instead of adding more strategic and tactical options it does the opposite.

An alternative would be a to require the structure to need to be resupplied and maintained at which time it would become vulnerable. This could be then set individually for each structure at a time chosen by the alliance.

The changes look promising though and should definitely make things a lot more interesting by allowing some smaller players into the sov warfare game.
Black Ambulance
#1880 - 2015-03-04 23:20:15 UTC
Devi Loches wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry.


Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around.

They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher.

There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one).

I wish it will have same fitting requirements as t1 salvager.