These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Summer 2015 Nullsec and Sov Status Report

First post First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#81 - 2015-05-08 07:14:18 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Huh, I thought this would be more of a threadnought. Good changes, I like the capital idea and making the max defensive multiplier less diversified. There just arent enough miners to get Industry indexes up high enough in more than a few systems


I thought so as well. Almost surprised at the low level response, so far.

m

Possibly because this new iteration confirms the whole sov system favors existing groups maintaining control. With little to no incentive for newcomers to join the fray.

When looking at how defensive indexes are gained and lost. Then add in vulnerability windows based on same. Any new comer wanting to try and make a home is at a huge disadvantage.
Plant a flag, then everyone needs to be online and active 24/7 for the few days to, fight off attackers while at the same time attempting to build up indexes to reduce the vulnerability window.

Any new group planning on trying to take sov needs to be prepared to fight to keep it around the clock for as long as it takes to at least claim it as a capital system. This is a real disincentive when included in there is the fact, every griefing group in the game can see, each time the API updates, exactly where the new comers have planted their 18 hour vulnerable flag.


Quote:
Under this system, each alliance will be able to designate one system as their “capital”. The system they choose must already have an active Territorial Control Unit belonging to their alliance and when changing capitals, the bonuses in the new capital will not take effect for several days.
How about as an incentive and small safety net for newcomers, if the TCU you planted is your only one, when designating it as your capital system the +2 defensive bonus becomes effective immediately.

There will be large tracts of claimable sov, much of it with far less than "true sec", so giving those willing to try and establish a place for themselves in nulsec small incentives (+2 defensive index with 18 hours vulnerability is not a huge advantage) would go a long way toward longer term conflict and content for all.

Overall the proposal is starting to take shape but needs something to entice newcomers, aside from 18 hour vulnerability windows and the "easily achieved" 100 days for strategic 5.


My 2 cents - probably only worth a halfpenny.


This is actually a pretty sensible suggestion

+1

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#82 - 2015-05-08 07:28:51 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bobby Artrald wrote:
Sov Dashboard

I saw this graphic and could only think "dear god, I hope this information is available through CREST".


I have good news for you! Other than the exact real time status of the fights for each structure (which will only be available in-client), we plan to make everything available via a combination of CREST and the XML API. You'll be able to look up the exit timers of every reinforced sov structure in the game (yours and everyone elses) via CREST whenever you want.


Will one be able to look up individual time zones on a structure basis as well?
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#83 - 2015-05-08 07:37:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Ab'del Abu
Klyith wrote:
Saidin Thor wrote:
Perhaps I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the role bonus for capitals, but is the reasoning for that something other than "they have lots of HP so we'll give them a role bonus to make cycle time longer" ? Because as is, all that role bonus seems to do is make capital fleets pretty worthless for attackers (which seems like it gives a relative buff to defender capital fleets, further entrenching the already entrenched defenders).

I'm sure there was an actual logic to the specific choice of a 5x additional cycle time role bonus, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been shared. Is it possible to share that reasoning?

It makes capital ships less useful / more dangerous for both sides. I'm not sure why you think defender caps are much better off for defenders.

#1 - HP. Caps and especially supers have lots of HP. In the direction CCP is pushing nullsec, which is smaller scale fights and more local action, fights aren't going to be like BR5B or Asakai where caps got volleyed off the field. In future entosis fights it's very conceivable that heavily tanked carriers or supers could survive a 2 minute cycle and get reps, allowing them to push control without loss. A long cycle means they're definitely at risk if used incautiously.

#2 - Ewar resistance. Since the link requires a lock to work, ewar will probably be important in node contests. Supers are ewar immune, caps can use siege or triage. That's a big advantage, they need a disadvantage to balance it out. OTOH a triaged carrier is an easy way to avoid someone trying to troll you with ecm burst interceptors like Current Habit was worried about. So you have a much longer warmup but after that you're gonna capture as long as you own the grid and keep the carrier alive.

#3 - F--- caps. The cap/supercap meta has been stagnancy and slow death for nullsec. Carrier & supercarrier spidertanking blobs are OP, dreads are mostly pointless meat for supers, titans are an impossible balance problem. Why not mostly keep them off the board while we find the balance the new system?


Goons will probably be the first to use large slowcat fleets to defend their timers Roll At least carriers can be broken within the two minutes window by a well organized mid-sized fleet ... moms however, not so much. Imho supers & titans shouldn't be able to fit entosis links.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2015-05-08 08:00:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Quote:
Under this system, each alliance will be able to designate one system as their “capital”. The system they choose must already have an active Territorial Control Unit belonging to their alliance and when changing capitals, the bonuses in the new capital will not take effect for several days.
How about as an incentive and small safety net for newcomers, if the TCU you planted is your only one, when designating it as your capital system the +2 defensive bonus becomes effective immediately.

There will be large tracts of claimable sov, much of it with far less than "true sec", so giving those willing to try and establish a place for themselves in nulsec small incentives (+2 defensive index with 18 hours vulnerability is not a huge advantage) would go a long way toward longer term conflict and content for all.

Overall the proposal is starting to take shape but needs something to entice newcomers, aside from 18 hour vulnerability windows and the "easily achieved" 100 days for strategic 5.


My 2 cents - probably only worth a halfpenny.


This is actually a pretty sensible suggestion

+1

Very much agreed! Fozzie make this happen.
Zappity
Kurved Trading
#85 - 2015-05-08 08:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Yeah, good idea. Could result in the creation of dummy alliances to get a foothold for a larger alliance, though.

I like the changes in the blog. Looks solid.

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

Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#86 - 2015-05-08 09:36:06 UTC
Ab'del Abu wrote:

Goons will probably be the first to use large slowcat fleets to defend their timers Roll At least carriers can be broken within the two minutes window by a well organized mid-sized fleet ... moms however, not so much. Imho supers & titans shouldn't be able to fit entosis links.


That's the point of the 5x role bonus, it isn't a 2 minute cycle time for caps, its 10 minutes for a T2 e-link (and 25 for a T1). Thats more than enough time to nail an incautious Supercarrier, and maybe even a Titan. By not disallowing them completely, it means a Super can be dropped to force a harrasser to nut up or shut up (ewar immunity means troll jamming/dampening wont be able to stop a cap elink), and bring a force that can kill the Super in the 10 minute window, but it wont be the default defence strategy or suddenly that smug Titan finds a Dreadnought fleet landing on it.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#87 - 2015-05-08 10:10:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
I liked everything that I saw until I realised that all the systems status will be easily available on CREST/API and then I did a total brain-fart at the easy intel...

And the suggestion to make the first system you capture get the capital bonus is a good one.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#88 - 2015-05-08 10:29:06 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Could result in the creation of dummy alliances to get a foothold for a larger alliance, though.

This is the major problem with the first system bonus idea, unfortunately.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

1212659
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#89 - 2015-05-08 10:49:20 UTC
What exactly happens to the prime window when a station is captured? Does the new station inherit the alliance wide prime time window by default and will the new owner suffer the penalties for changing it? Or can you set whatever prime time for your newly acquired station without any penalties no matter what your alliance wide prime time is?

For example:
Alliance A's EU TZ forces are attacking another alliance. Alliance A has their default alliance wide timer set to US TZ (which allows the EU TZ force to be attacking in the first place). Alliance A captures a station. If the prime time window is inherited from the alliance the EU TZ forces can't really defend their new station so they have to call in the US TZ. No big deal I guess. But if Alliance A wants to change the station window to EU TZ, so the EU TZ guys can do their thing, the new station will be vulnerable for several days in a row because it will be missing all defence bonuses. This seems a bit too much.

Also what happens if Alliance A is in the middle of changing their prime time? Will the newly capture station also have two prime times or just the new one?


I think the new owners should be able to choose, without penalties, their newly captured station (or other deployed structure) windows. The thing will probably be vulnerable for 18 hours a day anyway. This would also make it much less desirable to have multiple alt alliances with different alliance prime times and corps hopping in and out of them to suit their needs.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#90 - 2015-05-08 11:04:58 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Could result in the creation of dummy alliances to get a foothold for a larger alliance, though.

This is the major problem with the first system bonus idea, unfortunately.



At some point the dummy alliance has to relinquish, at which point they're back to square one with no bonus.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Archetype 66
Perkone
Caldari State
#91 - 2015-05-08 11:16:16 UTC
Nice. Thx to have listened us about custom timer by stucture + scaling windows on activity defense multiplier !
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#92 - 2015-05-08 11:22:20 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
I'm still unclear on how the entosos link works. Say I have run through the warmup timer, then ran it for 5 more minutes. At that point I get interrupted by the enemy.

What happens to that 5 minutes? Does it persist forever? Does it decay? Does it just go away, and I have to start over once the enemy has been cleared off?

If it does persist in some way, what happens if the enemy uses an Entosos link? Do they first drive my time to zero before building up their own time? Or do they have their own timer, and its first to the total that wins? Or what?

On another note : I propose an Entosis link never destroys any structure. It only allows capture. In addition, all structures (ALL structures) have a self destruct system. Said system cannot function if an Entosis link is active on the structure, or the structure is in its timer.

Now, you want to capture? Use your link. You want to destroy? Capture, then push the button. You want to evacuate and leave nothing for the enemy? You better do it before the enemy shows up, and remember one spy with an Entosis link can cancel the self destruct.


Any progress accumulated by an entosis link that has completed its warmup cycle will stay on the structure indefinitely (including across downtime) when that link shuts down, until
A) A link from the same alliance starts capturing, at which point that alliance continues building score on top of the previously-accumulated progress
B) A link from outside that alliance starts capturing, at which point the accumulated progress must first be reduced down to 0 before the new capturer can start building up his progress.

This is quite similar to the King-of-the-hill mechanic used on other games. Only one team (alliance) can have any score at a time, and another team must grind that score down first before they can start building up their own.

You can imagine score as a progress bar that goes from -100 points to 0 to +100 points. Your alliance is always at the +100 end, and everyone else is at the -100 end. Your capturing moves the bar to the right, and anyone except you moves it to the left. The speed at which the bar moves (points/second) depends on the occupancy bonuses.

Behold amazing ascii arts skills!:
Defeat   -100   -50    0    +50   +100  Victory
           |     |     |     |     |
           -------------<+>---------
SCORE:                   ^

Score moves left or right depending on controlling team


There is no time-based decay of progress if no one is capturing. We have considered adding this, but right now we don't feel that the design needs it.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2015-05-08 11:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Makari Aeron
CCP Masterplan: wouldn't the accumulation of points by another alliance persisting (and not decaying) be easily exploitable?

For example: Alliance A is a big alliance. Alliance B is their renter alliance. Alliance B takes sov in a system and alliance A, before any sov levels are accumulated, runs the entosis link to move the points as close to winning as possible. This ensures any attackers must take almost TWICE as long to take sov.

Actually, I'd recommend someone in a 1 person alliance run by the executor do this for security reasons. And while this would take quite a bit of time, I view it as worth it. I mean, you essentially DOUBLE the capture time and it takes minimal effort.

EDIT: and stront. But seriously, stront is a joke. Who doesn't have stockpiles of it?

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP

Strata Maslav
Captain's Quarters
Aegis Militia
#94 - 2015-05-08 11:40:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Strata Maslav
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Could result in the creation of dummy alliances to get a foothold for a larger alliance, though.

This is the major problem with the first system bonus idea, unfortunately.


The x2 multiplier by itself isn't that strong.

The disadvantage to having multiple smaller alliances will be the entosis system. As its currently proposed 'blue status' won't allow you to use your entosis link to help defend space 'blue space.'

It means that each entity will be required to defend their own space, making a coalition of smaller alliances taking advantage of 'capital' denotation will be less flexible as a defensive force.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#95 - 2015-05-08 11:55:21 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:


EDIT: and stront. But seriously, stront is a joke. Who doesn't have stockpiles of it?


People have discussed much about Trollceptor fleets.
The stront is not meant to increase ISK costs.
It's actually a good idea. It is quite cheap and big (3m³). It will make life harder for guerilla forces that are parked behind enemy lines for too long and just harass an alliance by using Entosis Links on everything and fleeing all the time.

Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#96 - 2015-05-08 11:57:14 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Masterplan: wouldn't the accumulation of points by another alliance persisting (and not decaying) be easily exploitable?

For example: Alliance A is a big alliance. Alliance B is their renter alliance. Alliance B takes sov in a system and alliance A, before any sov levels are accumulated, runs the entosis link to move the points as close to winning as possible. This ensures any attackers must take almost TWICE as long to take sov.

Actually, I'd recommend someone in a 1 person alliance run by the executor do this for security reasons. And while this would take quite a bit of time, I view it as worth it. I mean, you essentially DOUBLE the capture time and it takes minimal effort.

EDIT: and stront. But seriously, stront is a joke. Who doesn't have stockpiles of it?


Its not about cost, but about cargo - so small frigs need to refuell often and cant perma entosis your structures for days
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#97 - 2015-05-08 12:01:54 UTC
In general, I think this looks very promising, but:

@CCP Masterplan

Up to now I always understood that when the lock was broken you had to start over again, no acumulation. I dont really like it this way.

@ CCP Fozzie

Free intel through CREST: IMHO there is to much free intel in the game, and this is too much. For a small entity to have an opportunity stealth is a must and this ruins it.
Make it so that you get sovereignity intel trough CREST, but it is only updated after a member of your alliance visits the system. And for bragging rights, make it optional for an alliance to make the information public.

For occupation, I would prefer a system where what advances the indexes is just that, occupation. So any ship in space, not cloaked, outside of a field force, 50 km away from a station, adds to it.
This way there is no pressure to grind rats or asteroids, and the ones camping a gate, or guarding miners, or adding bonuses, or moving staff, or exploring -anybody in space- putting his ship at risk- will be adding to the system.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#98 - 2015-05-08 12:20:46 UTC
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
Free intel through CREST: IMHO there is to much free intel in the game


Agree

Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
For occupation, I would prefer a system where what advances the indexes is just that, occupation. So any ship in space, not cloaked, outside of a field force, 50 km away from a station, adds to it.
This way there is no pressure to grind rats or asteroids, and the ones camping a gate, or guarding miners, or adding bonuses, or moving staff, or exploring -anybody in space- putting his ship at risk- will be adding to the system.

Ok everyone we need to get the occupation index up so I want everyone to undock in your interceptors and starburst from the station until we ping irc this a max nerds cta all undock in ceptors go go
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#99 - 2015-05-08 12:20:58 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Masterplan: wouldn't the accumulation of points by another alliance persisting (and not decaying) be easily exploitable?

For example: Alliance A is a big alliance. Alliance B is their renter alliance. Alliance B takes sov in a system and alliance A, before any sov levels are accumulated, runs the entosis link to move the points as close to winning as possible. This ensures any attackers must take almost TWICE as long to take sov.

Actually, I'd recommend someone in a 1 person alliance run by the executor do this for security reasons. And while this would take quite a bit of time, I view it as worth it. I mean, you essentially DOUBLE the capture time and it takes minimal effort.

EDIT: and stront. But seriously, stront is a joke. Who doesn't have stockpiles of it?



If you're meaning that Alliance B, during a vulnerability window, uses Entosis on a sov structure, it's a /really/ bad idea.

There are 2 sides to entosis:

The defender. (the owner)
The attackers (/everyone/ else)

Alliance B counts as an attacker. So Alliance C comes along, runs a little entosis, and knocks the system over into reinforce. B counts as an attacker. So does C. So their efforts combine.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#100 - 2015-05-08 12:22:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Could result in the creation of dummy alliances to get a foothold for a larger alliance, though.

This is the major problem with the first system bonus idea, unfortunately.

I agree but the reality of alliances creating dummy alliances to take sov is not as big an issue as getting new blood into nulsec.

If sov can't be just given away, dummy alliances remain dummies. They can go take sov for someone else but then the someone else has to win it off them in an arena where you have others wanting the same space.
If sov can't be transferred, dummy alliances are not an issue. (each alliance becomes responsible for their own sov)

About newcomers to sov and an option for the vulnerability window.
Instead of starting at 18 hours, start it at 4 hours for 48 hours, then it increases incrementally back to 18 hours or whatever the alliance can get it to in the 48 hours.
First 48 hours have 2 X 4 hour windows, over the next 48 hours it goes up to 18 hours in a system that is not being used or increases to whatever it would be under the current proposal.
This would give new comers 96 hours with limited vulnerability in which to begin the grind of establishing sov and encourage use of the system.

No system bonus as such just a change to initial vulnerability.

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.