These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#3881 - 2015-03-17 02:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Greygal
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Greygal wrote:

The rewards of attacking, capturing, and holding a system are far more ephemeral than simple isk. The ultimate reward is home, this is my home, for however long I may hold it, it is mine, ours. We did this! For lots of little guys, that is priceless.


This belongs on a thoughtful card, not enshrined as a game mechanic.

Home implies worth living there, and worth defending, neither of which are true currently. High Sec and Low Sec still have much greater accessible bottom up income options, with none of the hassle or time required to maintain and defend.


Oh, I don't disagree - high sec and low sec do have much more accessible bottom up income opportunities. It's true. Isk earning in low/high is ridiculously low/no risk, minimal defense, virtually no maintenance. It's completely whacked.

But it's also not home, you can never own low/null sec space (well, you can dominate an area, but never own it). You are simply renters in a tenement with no security guard or doorman stopping anyone from entering your station.

Those who call a system home define for themselves what makes it worth living there. For some, it's about the isk, and only the isk... for others, it's about the emotional engagement. That sense of home is a strong motivational factor - at least, for many of us who never had the experience of actually flying through a system, seeing our name in space, knowing we took the risk and won.

Emotional connection is a mighty powerful incentive to put it all on the line, an incentive not to be discounted.

As I also said above, though, nullsec economics definitely need some tender loving care Big smile

What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.

Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!

Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3882 - 2015-03-17 02:44:37 UTC
Greygal wrote:

Ideally, with luck, we will see extended contests and fights and slugfests like that in nullsec. Won't be every day, or even every week... won't be every system or constellation or region... but it will be SOME of them.

And that's what we'll be talking about years later, like those of us in the battle for Kourmonen still talk about those days.

Assuming they fix prime time ♥

GG

Renter space will go 1 of 2 ways - Large areas of renters paying little more than "Protection Fees" or a multitude of empty systems.

Many renters could not protect their space if push came to shove, so yes many will just leave, or as indy becomes more important to survival in sov, be absorbed into one or other of the bloks.

I'm not expecting much to change with the large coalitions at all, these changes are ideal for them. They simply drop sov in all the systems they never use anyway and reduce the cost of holding sov. A smaller contained area of sov is far easier to defend than having it spread out all over the map.
What we are likely to see is the large bloks leaving 1 or 2 decent systems close to them unclaimed, thereby ensuring at least some content for the masses as "someone" will get it into their heads they can take it. They will only hold sov there for as long as they are providing content (killmails) for the coalition, who for all intents and purposes, owns the system/s without the added costs of maintaining them.

Some sov contests (not fights initially) are quite likely to escalate into "a fight" depending on who has the most allies close enough to escalate it. Smaller groups trying to escalate and hold their sov, will simply be over run by sheer numbers.

You are right about 1 thing; currently holding sov has little to do with the ability to earn isk and is more about "Your Place" and planting your flag.
The coming changes also change that in a very big way for anyone serious about keeping "Your Place". Defensive indexes based on system use = Every system you hold must be financially viable, or you have no defensive index.

We all have memories of "good fights", "great fights" and a few "Epic Fights" but that is all they are and likely to remain - Memories.
The mini game concept and fixed "time to fight" prime time means there is no need for or time for extended large scale fights.
Large groups will simply blob anyone who threatens them (or just for fun) so unless you have 20,000 or 30,000 allies to call on, it will all be over relatively quickly.


- - - - - - - - - -
Off topic but related;
Smaller groups are at a huge disadvantage from the start with all the movement restrictions. A small group trying to relocate in nulsec is faced with a real task that for many will just mean, they don't bother.
Moving a few carriers is now an epic task, with what was 2 jumps with a max skilled carrier pilot now 6 jumps (2 through hostile territory) or 12 jumps (relatively safely) just to get from point A to B. Then another 8 jumps to the proposed new home. Taking gates is out of the question, unless you are prepared to risk everything you own going gate to gate in hostile space.. The 6 jump route can be reduced to 4 by taking 9 gates, in hostile space. The longer route can't be reduced, unless you takes 3 or 4 gates between each cyno jump, again all through hostile space.
I am a director of a +-100 man corp who is in the process of doing this now. We had a choice, try to join the invading alliance when/if they take sov, or relocate and go it alone for a while. Going it alone was a pretty much unanimous vote, so we are faced with a task that (only a few months ago would have been difficult) is now horrendous.

CCP say they want smaller groups to have opportunities in sov nul yet all the changes, so far and those to come, favor the large entities almost to the exclusion of smaller groups.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
D'vorien
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3883 - 2015-03-17 06:00:12 UTC  |  Edited by: D'vorien
I should note that my proposal was not "here is how it should be done", but rather "changes could be made to the core idea in order to fix some of the problems with it, here are some ideas." My ideas have problems, I agree.

159Pinky wrote:

So you will remove the use of the nodes and avoid the small scale fights. Because now you just park your whole defending fleet on the contested structure so the attackers cannot use their link. This removes the entire idea of this sov system.

And on top of that you want to avoid him from moving out of his fortress to capture those nodes? If going after some nodes that are uncontested is too much for the defenders then they don't deserve their sov.


I do agree there is some problems with my suggestion in this regard, but I don't think it's as bad as you suggest.

First, as it stands now, the attackers still need to defeat the defenders, or keep their DPS ships alive long enough under the defenders fire to reinforce/kill the structure. In this new system's first phase they need to keep their link ships alive long enough to reinforce the structure, in the second phase, depending on the system development index, they need to outperform the defender in the capturing race.

In the changes I proposed, even if the defender puts a large fleet at the structure and ignores the control nodes, a clever opponent could use maneuvers and timing to get a link active on the structure, and allow their smaller fleets at the control nodes to begin the capture. They also need to stop the defenders from capturing control nodes.


Greygal wrote:
D'vorien wrote:
There are some problems with this idea related to an imbalance in the time spent for attackers who are not committed to taking the system.
...

For a fully upgraded system:
Minimum total player time for an attacker to reinforce a structure: 42 minutes.
Minimum total player time time for a defender to reclaim the structure: 120 minutes (10 control nodes)


From the dev blog, emphasis mine:
Quote:
Immediately as the structure exits its reinforcement period, five Command Nodes will spawn at random points throughout the constellation. More than one Command Nodes can potentially spawn in the same system. As soon as each Command Node is captured, a new Command Node will spawn somewhere else in the constellation.

In addition, as time passes extra Command Nodes beyond the initial five have a chance to spawn and capturing those Nodes will also spawn new Nodes instantly. This ensures that if a capture event starts running long it becomes easier and easier for it to reach a resolution and for any stalemates to break.

If one side is allowed to capture the Command Nodes uncontested, then capturing 10 nodes will be enough to win the event. This means that it will be possible for a defender with no opposition and at least five active pilots to complete the event and secure their structure in less than 30 minutes of capturing. This minimum time would also be possible for a small group of aggressors who are attacking an undefended solar system with no occupancy indices.


For an unopposed system, the absolute minimum amount of time for defenders to reclaim the reinforced structure(s) is actually 24 minutes, not 120. All the defenders need to do is have five people grab the first five command nodes that spawn, one defender on each. With one defender on each, 12 minutes later (using T2 entosis link) five more command nodes spawn (one spawning per command node completed), they go grab those five, and 12 minutes later, they have successfully defended.

Realistically, it'll be closer to 30-35 minutes, as there will be some travel time around the constellation finding the nodes, warping, jumping.

Now, if the attackers show up to finish the job they started in good numbers, and the defenders have good numbers, you've got good fights going on! All kinds of chasing each other, attacking, reshipping, blocking, camping, putting your own entosis links on command nodes that the attackers are linking to, to stop their progress, all kinds of mayhem and chaos and absolute fun!

Edit: Obviously, if the defenders don't bother showing up to defend, so long as the attackers show up with at least five people, a system with no defensive bonuses would take about 30-35 minutes including traveling around time to finish the attack, and in a system with max defensive bonuses, to capture 10 command nodes would take five attackers around 84 minutes - 42 minutes for the first five, then 42 minutes for the next five.

In other words, the defender always has the time advantage in any system with any defensive bonuses at all - it will always take less time for the defender to capture a node than the attacker. In a system with no defensive bonuses, defender and attacker take exactly the same amount of time to capture a node.


My point was that it was the minimum time spent by all players participating. If you had 5 players, each spending 24 minutes capturing, then 24 minutes is the absolute minimum time to reclaim, but that's 5 players spending 24 minutes, or 120 player minutes total. On the other hand one player can spend 42 minutes and reinforce the structure.

I don't know how easy it would be to use a very small force to reinforce structures, whether it's something that the defenders can respond to regularly, or on the defenders side whether they can manage to split their forces when unrelated groups may be there to simply harass them. It may very well be more commitment on the attackers side than I imagine to reinforce structures, and not as bad on the defenders side.

In the second phase with the control nodes, the defenders do have a time advantage against the attackers, but attackers using less gametime to force the defenders to use more I feel is a poor choice, it leads to weaponizing boredom.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3884 - 2015-03-17 10:26:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
D'vorien wrote:


The basic premise here should be:

1) The attacker should not be required to bring large fleets of big ships, rather they need to bring enough to defeat the defenders ships. This is in the new system.
2) Same for the defender, as it is in the new system.
3) The attacker is asking for the fight, if they want the fight, the defender should know where and when to find them.

I propose that in addition to the new system as it is in the dev blog, the attackers should be required to have a link active on the contested structure to be able to activate a link on any control node. The defenders cannot block the attackers link to the contested structure with their own link, but they can still block control nodes with their own links. If one side brings capital ships, escalation can happen, but the attacker still needs to capture nodes before the defender, and the defender will want to capture them to end the battle themselves.

The defending alliance can capture control nodes as normal without any links on the contested structure. The defenders can give up the battle at the structure, and fight the more mobile battles at the control nodes.

4) If the attacker fails to show up or commits insufficient forces, the defender should not be overly burdened in reclaiming the structure. For this I propose that as long as the attacker is not ahead of the defender in the tug of war, the defender can use a link on the contested structure for some length of time to recapture it. This allows a defender to commit only a small force to restore the structure as long as the attacker does not show up.

The big con I see here is that it could make things too easy for the defender. The attacker has to do well in both parts of the battle, the one at the structure to maintain the link, and at the control nodes, to capture ten more than the defender. The defender only needs to stop one.

Working on the slim premise the sov is valuable enough to want to defend it or take it.

1) Do you in any way believe a 10,000 man alliance is not going to send the biggest possible fleet they can muster?

2) Same for defender ?- What is proposed is only going to see small alliances fielding small fleets (because that is all they have) large alliances and coalitions will still send as many as they can because there is one thing that has been proven over and over in eve - Biggest Blob Wins. The proposed changes will not change that.
Just because something can be done with 5 ships in no way means that 5 ships is all they will send.

3) Control nodes spread out over a constellation of systems the alliance may not have any interest in is just a really bad idea.
It is just too easily griefed to be a valid mechanic. Neither the defender or attacker need to take the nodes, it could be any random player or group who feels like griefing or has their own agenda, just because they can.

For control nodes to be valid tools for holding or losing sov, they need to be in the contested system, not spread around 5 to 8 systems the alliance does not control to start with. 5 nodes spread around the average size system is just as likely to bring about small engagements as having them in different systems.
3) a/ All Entosis links should only be activated by a parent control link - attacker and defender need to have an active link on the ihub to capture nodes. The parent link adjusts the capture and defense of the ihub in real time, as a node is won or lost the ihub is directly affected. If it becomes system wide skirmishes for node control, extra nodes can still spawn at random positions around the system until there is a clear winner.
If no attackers turn up to contest the nodes, defenders can reclaim their ihub by simply having 6 active links for the duration of the capture process.
If no defenders turn up, the process for capture is the same, 6 active links can flip the ihub after X amount of time.

EG; Stationed system held by XX alliance is in a constellation of 7. Their system is one of 3 stationed systems in the constellation, the other 2 are in NPC nul. 3 other systems in the constellation have R16 and R8 moons (reasonable income for a small alliance or largish corp) but their security status means they are unlikely to be taken as sov due to the lack of content in them, they will never be able to get a defensive index. One of the 3 is also in the NPC part of the constellation so no sov there.

XX only hold the one system due to small numbers. They wanted to achieve the sov dream and plant their flag.
Alliance XY attacks XX with the intention of taking sov from them.
Alliance YZ is not aligned to either and are happy to live in the NPC part of the pocket with no sov bills or imminent threats of eviction but do want control of those moons. Moons which XX defends like a mother dog watching over her puppies. (my brothers *****, usually a friendly dog just had pups and i have the scar to prove, she is a good mum)

Alliance XX is not only fighting XY for the sov but YZ decide to join the fray in the hope of getting rid of XX and take those moons. Defending the system and their sov for XX is possible, unless it means fighting on 7 different fronts against multiple enemies (with different agendas but the same initial goal of - get rid of XX)

4) See 3) a/
(if the attacker doesn't turn up, it should be relatively easy for the defender to "win")

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns
#3885 - 2015-03-17 12:28:59 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Working on the slim premise the sov is valuable enough to want to defend it or take it.

1) Do you in any way believe a 10,000 man alliance is not going to send the biggest possible fleet they can muster?

2) Same for defender ?- What is proposed is only going to see small alliances fielding small fleets (because that is all they have) large alliances and coalitions will still send as many as they can because there is one thing that has been proven over and over in eve - Biggest Blob Wins. The proposed changes will not change that.
Just because something can be done with 5 ships in no way means that 5 ships is all they will send.

3) Control nodes spread out over a constellation of systems the alliance may not have any interest in is just a really bad idea.
It is just too easily griefed to be a valid mechanic. Neither the defender or attacker need to take the nodes, it could be any random player or group who feels like griefing or has their own agenda, just because they can.



1) Ofc they will. However the 5 man hitsquads from any smaller alliance will always have their mobility and agility way way way above the 100+ man fleets. Time will show, wether that is going to be enough or not.

2) Bigger numbers should always have the edge. No matter what. If they are able to get 10x fleetsize to the same grid with the attackers 5-10 man fleet, there should not be a realistic way the 5-10 men win that fight. It would be the worst kind of inbalance.
However, again, the 5-10 man squadrons move faster, work better, communicate better and thus are able with their mobility to do some harm. Hopefully. Unless we get a new meta of 250km sniping tachyon apocs just sitting at 0 of the beacon and blapping everything.

3) Wrong. That is exactly a perfect idea. A nowday traditional blobwarfare fleet consists of 1 fleet commander who does all the work. Spreading around the nodes to different systems gives room for RL skill to counter numbers. Not infidinetly, but to certain level. Coalitiona warfare duders need to start to school more FC's, more capable dudes etc. For example, if VFK was reinforced for a real attempt of sov by everyone else, but CFC, CFC would field a full fleet to each command node. Then the attackers would be forced to form 5 fleets to fight the full fleets in each node. It's way more possible to fight with 100 vs 250 in each command node, than it is to fight with 2x250 fleets vs 5x250 fleets as we have it now.
Also this command node system makes the fights more prolonged. If one attacking fleet looses it's fight, but four wins, the loosing fleet has to reship fast and get back in action, or it will create a chaineffect of losses. Same goes to defenders.
This will also bring us a completely new variety of roles in fleets. As simple as it seems, the guys with sovlazor needs to be killed. If the trollceptor concept stays alive, that means, that the fleets will actually need anticeptor squads to take care of the ceppies. etc etc etc.

All in all, this just increases opportunities for content, opportunities for GF's.
Griefing may become a thing, but so what? What do you loose by having your sov reinforced to the first cycle? Nothing at all. If someone want's to reinforce your respected region for trolling causes, so what? You have 0 things to loose on that. If you then are not able to get atleast 1 set of eyes to each reinforced system, you do not deserve that amount of sov. And again, even in this scenario a small focused group can move fast and agily around the region to poke on the weak spots and search for responsefleets. If the said defending entity is not able to scramble together a fleet to defend their entire reinforced region, they do not deserve a region of sov.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3886 - 2015-03-17 13:22:28 UTC
Ugly Eric wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Working on the slim premise the sov is valuable enough to want to defend it or take it.

1) Do you in any way believe a 10,000 man alliance is not going to send the biggest possible fleet they can muster?

2) Same for defender ?- What is proposed is only going to see small alliances fielding small fleets (because that is all they have) large alliances and coalitions will still send as many as they can because there is one thing that has been proven over and over in eve - Biggest Blob Wins. The proposed changes will not change that.
Just because something can be done with 5 ships in no way means that 5 ships is all they will send.

3) Control nodes spread out over a constellation of systems the alliance may not have any interest in is just a really bad idea.
It is just too easily griefed to be a valid mechanic. Neither the defender or attacker need to take the nodes, it could be any random player or group who feels like griefing or has their own agenda, just because they can.



1) Ofc they will. However the 5 man hitsquads from any smaller alliance will always have their mobility and agility way way way above the 100+ man fleets. Time will show, wether that is going to be enough or not.

2) Bigger numbers should always have the edge. No matter what. If they are able to get 10x fleetsize to the same grid with the attackers 5-10 man fleet, there should not be a realistic way the 5-10 men win that fight. It would be the worst kind of inbalance.
However, again, the 5-10 man squadrons move faster, work better, communicate better and thus are able with their mobility to do some harm. Hopefully. Unless we get a new meta of 250km sniping tachyon apocs just sitting at 0 of the beacon and blapping everything.

3) Wrong. That is exactly a perfect idea. A nowday traditional blobwarfare fleet consists of 1 fleet commander who does all the work. Spreading around the nodes to different systems gives room for RL skill to counter numbers. Not infidinetly, but to certain level. Coalitiona warfare duders need to start to school more FC's, more capable dudes etc. For example, if VFK was reinforced for a real attempt of sov by everyone else, but CFC, CFC would field a full fleet to each command node. Then the attackers would be forced to form 5 fleets to fight the full fleets in each node. It's way more possible to fight with 100 vs 250 in each command node, than it is to fight with 2x250 fleets vs 5x250 fleets as we have it now.
Also this command node system makes the fights more prolonged. If one attacking fleet looses it's fight, but four wins, the loosing fleet has to reship fast and get back in action, or it will create a chaineffect of losses. Same goes to defenders.
This will also bring us a completely new variety of roles in fleets. As simple as it seems, the guys with sovlazor needs to be killed. If the trollceptor concept stays alive, that means, that the fleets will actually need anticeptor squads to take care of the ceppies. etc etc etc.

All in all, this just increases opportunities for content, opportunities for GF's.
Griefing may become a thing, but so what? What do you loose by having your sov reinforced to the first cycle? Nothing at all. If someone want's to reinforce your respected region for trolling causes, so what? You have 0 things to loose on that. If you then are not able to get atleast 1 set of eyes to each reinforced system, you do not deserve that amount of sov. And again, even in this scenario a small focused group can move fast and agily around the region to poke on the weak spots and search for responsefleets. If the said defending entity is not able to scramble together a fleet to defend their entire reinforced region, they do not deserve a region of sov.

You didn't actually read my post did you?
Simply picked a few lines out and wrote a response that had nothing at all to do with what i was trying to convey.

Well done.,.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#3887 - 2015-03-17 13:50:22 UTC
I read nearly all post's and my summary is that the new sov system is all but not about sov.

The new sov system isn't about bringing new entities to sov null.
The new sov system is not about harming the rent system.
The new sov system is not about soften the blue donut.
The new sov system is not about populating empty sov space.
The new sov system is not about making it easier to understand.
Imagine here some more points i missed.

A good sov system should be like the following:
The owner of a system is the corp that has the most activity in a system and pays the ccp fees.

My conclusion is that the real goal of the upcoming sov system is to get more but smaller fights with accepting that the sov null will be less populated in special by smaller entities. This is short sighted and does not meet the ccp team.

Some thoughts to your goals.

Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
- Replace players with attackers.
Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
- Needing several pages with images clarifies this for sure.
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
- In fact this is an empty sentence.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
- This is good and will happen (until the new sov holder realize that the former empty space is worthless in most cases).
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
- This is an empty promise.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New Eden’s varied geography and to better manage server load.
- Most player would support that.
Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.
- Sounds that you don't trust the new sov system yourself.
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3888 - 2015-03-17 15:34:44 UTC
VolatileVoid wrote:

Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.
- Sounds that you don't trust the new sov system yourself.


Nope CCP learned the hard way, that we the player are doing always every unthinkable thing which is possible.
The Playerbase of Eve 99% MR Murphys testing every System to the breaking Point.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#3889 - 2015-03-17 19:10:15 UTC
Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:


  • Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
  • Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
  • Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
  • Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
  • Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#3890 - 2015-03-17 19:58:31 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:


  • Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
  • Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
  • Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
  • Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
  • Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?


Noone is interested in this details as this capture the flag system wont work for sov.
Joe Themachine
Sleeper Tech. Research Foundation
#3891 - 2015-03-17 19:59:13 UTC
Look, I like the new system in that it takes out the shooting of structures out of the equation and replaces it with the entosis system, but for God's sake, the whole reinforcement and timer system defeats the purpose of being able to wardec larger alliances effectively because it gives them time to organize a defense, which we know is not always the case in reality. What's the point of a sneak attack if my opponent has 24-48 hours to prepare monstrous defenses? you can change the entire system but unless you're able to make it so that a small corp/alliance is able to jump in during some specific timezone and be able to capture a structure almost instantly, the whole system still gives the advantage to the defending alliance, which , in most cases, is a larger well funded alliance. This is the reason behind nullsec stagnation.

Moreover, creating a system where sovereignty mechanics are so difficult to understand that new players and new corporations and new alliances have a hard time figuring out how to get into the sovereignty game. It creates a barrier to entry which cannot be overcome unless you've been playing the game for years on end. This means that you've created another advantage for larger alliances and corporations that have been around for longer and have much more experience than their smaller counterparts.
Ultimately, small gang warfare and minor sov. Warfare cannot be increased and helped unless the timer system is completely abolished. If the timer system is completely abolished guerrilla warfare, sneak attacks, and perhaps even economic warfare become an effective possibility for strangling your opponents economically, and militarily regardless of their size while still allowing them a size advantage which they could capitalize on.
On a more theoretical note, the timer and reinforcement system makes no sense from the lore perspective.

If you will force smaller alliances and smaller corporations to always wait until large alliances and large corporations get their act together through some kind of timer system then you can never create a dynamic nullsec regardless of which system is chosen to claim any given system.

My proposal is that the timer system be done away with completely, that the system of fulfilling certain requirements in the constellation be done away with completely, and that a simple system of "you sit on it you claim it" be implemented given a specific time zone or a time of vulnerability that the defending alliance or corporation can choose at their will. This is the closest possible modeling for real warfare in real life because one can claim that even capsuleers Need to Sleep.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#3892 - 2015-03-17 20:49:09 UTC
VolatileVoid wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:


  • Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
  • Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
  • Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
  • Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
  • Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?


Noone is interested in this details as this capture the flag system wont work for sov.


It certainly looks like it will work quite a bit better than the current system.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3893 - 2015-03-17 21:56:06 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
VolatileVoid wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:


  • Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
  • Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
  • Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
  • Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
  • Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?


Noone is interested in this details as this capture the flag system wont work for sov.


It certainly looks like it will work quite a bit better than the current system.

How exactly will it work better than the current system?
It completely favors large groups, so before it is even released CCP have not achieved at least 2 of the stated goals for these changes.


My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#3894 - 2015-03-17 22:20:42 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

How exactly will it work better than the current system?
It completely favors large groups, so before it is even released CCP have not achieved at least 2 of the stated goals for these changes.


Everything in an open-world game favours larger groups. However, this new capture system favours split fleet tactics. It obviously won't completely remove the ultimate power of The Blob, but at least tones down the alpha by splitting the blob into smaller blobs. By making sov easier to take from entities not willing to fight for it, and to an extent more accessible to smaller alliances, it also has high potential for increasing the number of conflicts.

You don't provide any arguments for your opinions about CCP not meeting their design goals, so I just have to disagree with you there and state that the currently published plan looks likely to meet player's wishes and CCP's vision for null better than current sov system.




Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3895 - 2015-03-17 23:37:33 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

How exactly will it work better than the current system?
It completely favors large groups, so before it is even released CCP have not achieved at least 2 of the stated goals for these changes.


Everything in an open-world game favours larger groups. However, this new capture system favours split fleet tactics. It obviously won't completely remove the ultimate power of The Blob, but at least tones down the alpha by splitting the blob into smaller blobs. By making sov easier to take from entities not willing to fight for it, and to an extent more accessible to smaller alliances, it also has high potential for increasing the number of conflicts.

You don't provide any arguments for your opinions about CCP not meeting their design goals, so I just have to disagree with you there and state that the currently published plan looks likely to meet player's wishes and CCP's vision for null better than current sov system.





Go back a few pages. I have (I think) clearly shown arguments as to how these changes fall short of goals.

How is a constellation wide mini game in any way going to help a small entity capture or hold sov?
You say by splitting the blob, I say it won't split the blob and will simply mean they send 5 blobs instead of 1.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Flaming Butterfly
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3896 - 2015-03-17 23:48:14 UTC
unless CCP makes it some arbitrary system with up to 100 people (50/50) involved in a series of 7 matches with winner of 4 taking the series/sov, anything CCP does is going to be abused by the ones with the greatest numbers. if CCP made freighters have 2 billion hull and a DCU, you'd not see the end of suicide ganking, you'd see suicide ganking fleets of 2000 nados. The reason Sansha doesn't control almost anything is because of capsuleer numbers... make the incurion more powerful and you'll just see more pilots...
BIGDOG4
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3897 - 2015-03-18 00:54:56 UTC
Why do you bother discussing something that you gonna do nomatather if players want the change or not ? You are pushing the sov to the point where people gonna ask themselves the question why bother owning sov at all ?
Furthermore wont be the first time you change somethin in the game even tho players got outraged about ! Ill give you the example remooving the jukebox even tho thousand of players protested and petitioned you to bring it back. So i don't think our opinion matters at all. Instead of probing the players moods start to actually play the game to see how things work instead of just guessing!
Zhul Chembull
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3898 - 2015-03-18 03:00:33 UTC
Listen guys,

I am not against all this necessarily, but the recent changes to capitals range, now to drones and now to sov changes will have a lot of unintended consequences. Let me explain a bit and if I am wrong, please point it out.

1: Removing the usefulness of supers and carriers with the sov changes mean they will be in less demand. We have already seen in our alliances how people are getting rid of these like hot cakes. With less demand, means less demand for minerals, since they are the mineral hogs of the game. In turn I think this will stagnate the market and make the life of the miner a lot less profitable as it is right. if that was possible right ?

2: I really think that the long term interest in the game will die down, as there is no reason to train towards the big toys anymore. Most people I know were so excited to work towards that big carrier, just on observation on my part. With the changes geared toward small fleet battles with small ships, there really is no reason to train into a carrier.

Overall, I think the consequences will be a smaller player base as it will become more of a capture the flag routine than anything. There are a lot of games that do that a lot better at the current time. I might be wrong here, but just some friendly advice. I have been here for 11 years and don't see much good in this upcoming expansion. However, I was wrong about the JC changes and perhaps I am here as well. We will see.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#3899 - 2015-03-18 05:08:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Go back a few pages. I have (I think) clearly shown arguments as to how these changes fall short of goals.

How is a constellation wide mini game in any way going to help a small entity capture or hold sov?
You say by splitting the blob, I say it won't split the blob and will simply mean they send 5 blobs instead of 1.


The only counter to the blob is arranged X vs. X contests, which are antithetical to EVE's design.

The only available limiters, such as they are, are wormholes and acceleration gates. The latter only limits type, not number, and the mechanics of the former would be gamed six ways from Sunday.

What CCP is hoping to do is:

1) lower the bar enough that smaller groups can contest sov, knowing full well that all such systems will also make it easier for large groups to contest sov (EVE's design makes that inevitable), and;

2) try to spread any conflict out over multiple systems to prevent 10% Time Dilation, the lag monster, and full-on node crashes.

The first is merely meant to make it easier for anyone to grab a system whose local defenses they can meaningfully contest. It's not meant to do anything else, and quite honestly it can't do anything else. CFC will still be CFC; N3 will still be N3; and so on. If Goonswarm decides to throw their weight around by effectively acting like dozens or hundreds of small alliances, v0v. It's a sandbox. That's their decision. As one of them noted above, they're only going to listen to "daddy" anyway, not act according to any in-game carrots or sticks. And they're big and wealthy and well-organized enough to do that within any system CCP decides to roll out.

The second is why they're insisting on constellation-wide contests, instead of your (admittedly pretty) idea of multiple contest points in system. The problem isn't that there are 4000 people on one grid, it's that there are 4000 people on one node.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Pursche
ProLogics
Professional Logistics
#3900 - 2015-03-18 05:51:31 UTC
ok So you had about 3800 posts from pvpers here. Now you got one from a renter and industialist. Roll

I live in 0.0 with a small corp. I pay my rent and have been doing so for the last three yers to different sov holders. I do not care who owns the systems as long as I can dock and sell everything I make out here. I do not care how they/you hold or take sov But I really dislikes when CCP is going to take my SBU- Bpo away and give me a few isk and then I need to go to the dreadfull Empire to get the new Entosis Bpo.Shocked

So wake up and just change my Bpo to the other one and let me do my Planetary interaction out here as I have done the last three years.

What I do like is that you open up the outposts for 48 hours. I can see my isk growing even bigger when we have the buy and buildrace before the final fight. Big smile

/Pursche CEO