These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sov change dev blog

First post First post
Author
Speedkermit Damo
Invicta.
#1 - 2015-03-05 11:54:18 UTC
You lot seem to have gone very quiet. People are wondering why.

Perhaps some of you CSM hopefuls could trouble yourselves to comment on the proposed sov changes. It's not like this isn't important or anything.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2 - 2015-03-05 12:38:02 UTC
I posted Smile (explaining why I hadn't posted earlier, too)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Speedkermit Damo
Invicta.
#3 - 2015-03-05 13:03:17 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
I posted Smile (explaining why I hadn't posted earlier, too)


Indeed you did. You were the only one though Steve. So much for communication and transparency.


Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#4 - 2015-03-05 13:13:38 UTC
I suspect there's a degree of 'We'll let the waters calm a bit, before getting in with the Piranha'

As well as similar reasons to my own, for my favourite other incumbents.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

June Ting
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#5 - 2015-03-05 13:25:48 UTC
Traveling, should be able to comment by Sunday.

I fight for the freedom of my people.

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#6 - 2015-03-05 17:24:37 UTC
This thread has been moved to Assembly Hall.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#7 - 2015-03-05 20:32:20 UTC
Well, let's see. Steve has explained, Gorski has commented in a depth typical for him, Xander claims he is off on an oil rig somewhere, Mike is sifting valuable nuggets out of the thread, Sion is no doubt preparing an opinion piece for TMC, Sugar is actually talking to people, Corbexx probably doesn't care and everyone else is waiting to see what Mittani says.

:)

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-03-05 20:33:03 UTC
I am up to about page 75 out of 131 at this point. I will be answering things THERE when I catch up.

Here? I am in favour of the changes. I agree that numbers can be tweaked etc but that is why they put out the blog in the first place . . . for feedback.

Sadly some in that thread are making their feedback prove that they did not actually read the blog but are reacting off of second hand info. The way I recommend reading the blog is to make notes of the GOALS and then compare them to the choices made.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#9 - 2015-03-05 20:53:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Altirius Saldiaro
Should CCP make the use of the Entosis Link render the ship immobile. Like using a Cyno, Siege, Triage or Bastion module.

I see and hear complaints of the trollceptor. This could solve the problem, as it would force the use of the Entosis to be an actual commitment. Or have the Entosis link penalize the ship with a reduction in speed percentage.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#10 - 2015-03-05 22:16:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Xander Phoena's feedback:

Xander Phoena wrote:
Anyway, we got access to the first draft of this blog last week. Here’s the feedback I provided directly:

Whilst I like the technical advantage provided by spreading fights around, as others have mentioned, I am concerned about FC-overload. Bloc-level FCs already have a lot to deal with and this only increases the pressure and inputs to them. Yes, it will encourage more low-level FCs but it may actually reduce the number of top level bloc FCs in the process. But maybe this is something that the community needs to work out, evolve and adapt, dunno. Not a bloc-level FC here.
There appears to be a HUGE difference between the T1 and T2 Entosis Link variants. 5 mins vs 2 mins and 25 km vs 250 km. Given that the price difference isn’t that high (20m vs 80m approx.), how is this difference achieved in a practical way? If it isn’t cost, is it an SP thing? I can only imagine the skill reqs for the T2 variant are going to be infinitely higher but I’m not sure Informorph Psychology V vs I would be enough to justify the huge difference, particularly in distance.
Given that the TCU exists ostensibly only to put your name on the map, was there any thought given to removing it as a structure and simply integrating the ‘name on map’ functionality into the iHub? Given one of the points of this new system is removing grinding but also given that pretty much everyone I’ve spoken to does consider it imperative that the ability to put a name on a map is vital, keeping TCUs around in this new structure does seem a little arbitrary. I genuinely think we could cut SBUs and TCUs now.
I wonder how much thought has been given to the prevalence of bubbles in the new system and the importance of nullified T3s and the like. Especially the likes of Interceptors which become boss mode in an environment like this with a T2 Entosis Link strapped on.
I very much like that the strategic defensive bonus is substantially less than the two ‘active’ bonuses. I note that other active bonuses could be added to the system. Would the other bonuses be reduced to achieve the same final 4x bonus?
I know I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll mention it again – this new system is a huge nerf to supers and titans and one could argue that between the fighter nerf and the jump nerf, these two were already in a bad spot.
Now I spoke to Fozzie about the TCU thing and he very deliberately wanted to keep the ‘name on a map’ and ‘system indices’ structures and functionality separate which, upon thinking further, I have to agree with. The defensive bonus issue was addressed in the final dev blog. As Fozzie says, so much of this new system is malleable and can be quickly and simply tweaked to taste. My concerns with the differences between T1 and T2 Entosis Links, bubbles, caps and above and FCing still exist.

That said, I am very positive about about this new system.


I posted the link to the full blog post in the main thread, and given that it was completely ignored I figure that people there aren't actually curious about what CSM thought, they're just mad that CSM didn't come out screaming that it was a terrible change.

I'm personally amazed that people are more worried about badly-fit interceptors than they are about Kitsunes. A cowardmobile that can apply a sov laser while also jamming out a counter-sov-laser seems to me like more of a threat.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#11 - 2015-03-06 00:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Counting myself as a CSM "hopeful", here is the link to my feedback on this the day of.

Candidate for CSM XII

sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-03-06 01:24:01 UTC
While Kitsunes can target a full 250km of entosis's range, it's slow, and can be caught. A lulz fit trolleceptor may not be able to target a full 250km, but its targeting range can still be made large enough that it has a large radius to play hard-to-catch with while keeping the sov laser on.

I'm more concerned about "afk camping duty" that's coming. Afk camp will be the only effective way to drop system defense (no, not the small gang roam that only drops activity for 5 minutes). There's no excuse to not show up on "afk camping duty," since all you're doing is... nothing. This is NOT how I want to spend my Eve playtime...Roll

Any thoughts from CSMs on this?
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2015-03-06 18:05:43 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Xander Phoena's feedback:

Xander Phoena wrote:
Anyway, we got access to the first draft of this blog last week. Here’s the feedback I provided directly:

Whilst I like the technical advantage provided by spreading fights around, as others have mentioned, I am concerned about FC-overload. Bloc-level FCs already have a lot to deal with and this only increases the pressure and inputs to them. Yes, it will encourage more low-level FCs but it may actually reduce the number of top level bloc FCs in the process. But maybe this is something that the community needs to work out, evolve and adapt, dunno. Not a bloc-level FC here.
There appears to be a HUGE difference between the T1 and T2 Entosis Link variants. 5 mins vs 2 mins and 25 km vs 250 km. Given that the price difference isn’t that high (20m vs 80m approx.), how is this difference achieved in a practical way? If it isn’t cost, is it an SP thing? I can only imagine the skill reqs for the T2 variant are going to be infinitely higher but I’m not sure Informorph Psychology V vs I would be enough to justify the huge difference, particularly in distance.
Given that the TCU exists ostensibly only to put your name on the map, was there any thought given to removing it as a structure and simply integrating the ‘name on map’ functionality into the iHub? Given one of the points of this new system is removing grinding but also given that pretty much everyone I’ve spoken to does consider it imperative that the ability to put a name on a map is vital, keeping TCUs around in this new structure does seem a little arbitrary. I genuinely think we could cut SBUs and TCUs now.
I wonder how much thought has been given to the prevalence of bubbles in the new system and the importance of nullified T3s and the like. Especially the likes of Interceptors which become boss mode in an environment like this with a T2 Entosis Link strapped on.
I very much like that the strategic defensive bonus is substantially less than the two ‘active’ bonuses. I note that other active bonuses could be added to the system. Would the other bonuses be reduced to achieve the same final 4x bonus?
I know I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll mention it again – this new system is a huge nerf to supers and titans and one could argue that between the fighter nerf and the jump nerf, these two were already in a bad spot.
Now I spoke to Fozzie about the TCU thing and he very deliberately wanted to keep the ‘name on a map’ and ‘system indices’ structures and functionality separate which, upon thinking further, I have to agree with. The defensive bonus issue was addressed in the final dev blog. As Fozzie says, so much of this new system is malleable and can be quickly and simply tweaked to taste. My concerns with the differences between T1 and T2 Entosis Links, bubbles, caps and above and FCing still exist.

That said, I am very positive about about this new system.


I posted the link to the full blog post in the main thread, and given that it was completely ignored I figure that people there aren't actually curious about what CSM thought, they're just mad that CSM didn't come out screaming that it was a terrible change.

I'm personally amazed that people are more worried about badly-fit interceptors than they are about Kitsunes. A cowardmobile that can apply a sov laser while also jamming out a counter-sov-laser seems to me like more of a threat.


If a kitsune wants to come in close enough to jam you, it generally has to be within sniper range. Thus it can be blapped off the grid.They are also slower than ceptors, and not bubble immune.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Speedkermit Damo
Invicta.
#14 - 2015-03-09 10:42:18 UTC
Props to Xander Phoena and the crossing zebras team for their efforts regarding feedback on these changes, with podcasts featuring Manny, Eddie, Progodlegend, and Grath Telkin. Who are all big nullsec movers and shakers.

Thanks guys.

Go vote for these guys...

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.