These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#201 - 2015-05-15 20:34:48 UTC
Klyith wrote:
The mechanic for caring about space is indexes. Plenty of alliances in nullsec right now will have terrible defensive windows on the day fozziesov begins, they'll be in just as bad a situation as guys who just moved in. Here's how you should be thinking about it: sov is going be a fuzzy system where getting your name on the map or control of a station is just the beginning.


This may be a completely crazy idea, but what if any index-boosting activity in a system set a starting index for that person's alliance whether or not they owned the space? Then, if that alliance took the system, their starting index would be (some percentage of) what it would be if they had already owned the system? Maybe 50%, to keep it from being silly?

So you'd have to drive off neutral ratters and explorers and miners because they might be an advance force designed to make the system more secure after a flip. If you neglect the system then a new group can move in, use the system before capturing it, and get some reward for having lived in the system immediately.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#202 - 2015-05-17 16:39:31 UTC
Cebrith Tivianne wrote:
I think the new Sov mechanics could be an interesting addition to the game. However, they also seem to be a poor Band-Aid for a larger design problem:

For all practical purposes, the universe is flat and featureless in every meaningful way except resource allocation. This is a shocking oversight for a game that has such a robust economic platform and diverse player base.

  • For example, the fighters in Afghanistan have been able to fight back much larger, more well-equipped forces throughout history for reasons that were anything but economic. They thrive in an environment that is hostile to invading forces in a vast number of ways. While there is little danger of those fighters taking over other countries, it is extremely difficult to push them out or break their spirit -- for reasons that are much more closely tied to geography than economics.
  • The designers of Eve appear never to have considered this.
  • The Eve "sandbox" is a completely flat collection of scattered resources, devoid of mountains, rivers, oceans, diseases, technological disparities or any of the other numerous obstacles that have changed the tide of war throughout human history.
  • The Sov changes do nothing to change this massive lack of imagination.




Quoting a fantastically accurate point. The best way to drive conflict is to make space much less homogeneous than today.
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#203 - 2015-05-18 06:04:27 UTC
xttz wrote:
Cebrith Tivianne wrote:
I think the new Sov mechanics could be an interesting addition to the game. However, they also seem to be a poor Band-Aid for a larger design problem:

For all practical purposes, the universe is flat and featureless in every meaningful way except resource allocation. This is a shocking oversight for a game that has such a robust economic platform and diverse player base.

  • For example, the fighters in Afghanistan have been able to fight back much larger, more well-equipped forces throughout history for reasons that were anything but economic. They thrive in an environment that is hostile to invading forces in a vast number of ways. While there is little danger of those fighters taking over other countries, it is extremely difficult to push them out or break their spirit -- for reasons that are much more closely tied to geography than economics.
  • The designers of Eve appear never to have considered this.
  • The Eve "sandbox" is a completely flat collection of scattered resources, devoid of mountains, rivers, oceans, diseases, technological disparities or any of the other numerous obstacles that have changed the tide of war throughout human history.
  • The Sov changes do nothing to change this massive lack of imagination.




Quoting a fantastically accurate point. The best way to drive conflict is to make space much less homogeneous than today.



Its calld provistan
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#204 - 2015-05-19 08:33:35 UTC
Could we have an answer from a dev about newcommers issue ?

Is this problem identified by your team and are you looking at it ?

Do you think there is no issue at all ?

What is your point on that ?

Thanks.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#205 - 2015-05-20 08:16:18 UTC
Daily bump, could we have a answer for this critical issue ?
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#206 - 2015-05-20 08:27:39 UTC
Papa can u mail me ingame with more indetail with your issues aorund the subject?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#207 - 2015-05-20 09:23:09 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:

These two posts are correct.


To expand on this some more. Hopefully this makes it clearer for everyone, instead of confusing you further!..


How to determine who is on what team:
Is the target already owned by an alliance?

  • Yes: Members of the owning alliance are one capture team. Everyone else in EVE is together in another capture team.
  • No: Each alliance's members comprise their own unique capture team, representing their alliance.



The target tracks three bits of information that are used for the contest:

  • The current score (0-100%).
  • Which team owns the current score? Always exactly one team if the score is non-zero.
  • Which team (if any) has Entosis Control? Either zero or one teams.



Which team has Entosis Control right now?

  • If exactly one team has any warmed-up links on a target: That team has Entosis Control
  • If two or more different teams have any warmed-up links on a target: No team has Entosis Control (because they block each other)
  • If no teams have any warmed-up links on a target: No team has Entosis Control



What score does a target start with?
Some targets will start off with a score of 100%, where the score will be initially owned by the structure owner (An alliance-owned outpost/IHub/TCU entering its daily vulnerability window, or station services on a new outpost, for example). Other targets might start off with a score of 0% (Command Nodes during a constellation-wide event, or a newly-launched IHub/TCU)


How does the score change over time?

  • If no team has Entosis Control, the score will stay unchanged (including across downtime)
  • If the team that has Entosis Control is also the team that owns the current score, then the score will increase over time. Once the score reaches a maximum of 100%, it will not increase any further, and that team is considered to 'win' the target*.
  • If the team that has Entosis Control is different to the team that owns the current score, then the score will decrease over time. Once the score reaches zero, then one of two things will happen:
  • [1] Targets that begin with an initial score of 100% are considered 'won' by the attacker and 'lost' by the defender/owner.
  • [2] Targets that begin with an initial score of 0% will now have their score owned by the team with Entosis Control, and that score will then increase over time.



What happens when target is won/lost?

  • An unowned (new-launched) IHub/TCU will become owned by the winner. This is why you should not deploy such a structure until you are confident you can maintain control of the grid long enough to own it.
  • A station service won by the owner will be re-enabled (if it has previously been disabled)
  • A station service won by the attackers (or lost by the owner, if you want to see it that way) will be disabled
  • A vulnerable outpost/IHub/TCU won by the owner will not change anything if the outpost is still within its vulnerable window. Otherwise it will return to invulnerable until the next day's period
  • A vulnerable outpost/IHub/TCU won by the attackers (or lost by the owner, if you want to see it that way) will become reinforced and trigger a future constellation-wide event.
  • A command node in a constellation-wide event will advance the winner's progress in that event.



Edit: This post is almost turning in to a FAQ!

Thank you for clarifying just how much the new mechanics favour existing groups.
Eve sov - mini games designed for blob fleets.

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.

Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#208 - 2015-05-21 08:35:00 UTC
Daily bump to get an anwser from CCP.

The issue is :

With the current design, a new ally taking fresh sov will have to defend it 18h long for several days / weeks.

This is completly crazy and give a big advantage to already implanted sov holders.

As i said, the prime time windows exist to protect our real life. And the Occupancy based index exist to represents the real occupancy of space and to avoid rental empire. You have to use the space you hold to keep it.

It is not supposed to be mecanisms to penalize newcommers.

Currently you cannot hold freshly captured systems without puting your marriage or your job into the balance.

This is a huge issue in the current design and need at least some comments from CCP dev.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#209 - 2015-05-21 09:05:35 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
A simple fix for newly conquered systems could be to apply a +2 or +3 index bonus (like the alliance capital bonus) for the first week. This would cut the window significantly, giving time to earn Strategic Level 1 plus carry out other activities like ratting and mining. Sov ping-pong due to huge vulnerability windows isn't a great thing, and only encourages stagnation in a drawn-out conflict.

With that in mind however, the Strategic Index should probably be reviewed. It currently builds at a linear rate and is little more than a metric of how long an alliance has held a system, it doesn't reflect any player activity beyond "not losing sov".

What if the rate this index accumulated was based on other factors, such as adjacent systems owned by the same alliance? That would put a little more pressure on invaders taking an initial beachhead, but make it easier to sustain an established invasion or re-take recently lost territory.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2015-05-21 22:22:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Saq
Harry Saq wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
The 6x multiplier needs more factors to be reflective of player activities. Market transactions, industry jobs, research, and refining need to be added AT A MINIMUM. These activities are already tracked, just need to be added to the matrix and given a multiplier. Why is this something that wasn't considered A LONG TIME AGO. As though mining and shooting red crosses are all that indicate active areas of eve...


The other crucial factor is WE NEED MORE INDICES. Sooner rather than later, and while they are in design mode and not "oh crap what did we do" mode. They kick these down the road and it will either be forgotten or designed away from, either way, we will be forced to do stupid things to maintain numbers in areas that SHOULD track more logical activities in various systems.


...this also ^^

Some people said something or other about how this and how that, but at some point devs gotta do something...but seriously, the point is occupancy and tracking it broad spectrum is important. Yes you can game it, but that's called game balance, don't not do because of outliers. CCP makes balance decisions and all kinds of actual business decisions based on metrics, can't imagine why this can't be done for a bean counting index for sov. This would help newcomers immensely as you are ticking all the indicators it should creep the index up faster, just by actually living there and being active.

2 to 3 data points (where we are now), do not an aggregate index make...where is that stats guy that presented at fanfest that CCP Seagull is in love with, HE WOULD KNOW!

We are well beyond unintended consequences, and have plenty of those in our future anyway (between sov and structures), might as well be bold over being skered, and address the occupancy elephant in the room that we all know is there. This is all about use it or lose it, so do it right already, and make your legions of statisticians work for a living...just sayin
Clacker McDucky
#211 - 2015-05-22 19:02:13 UTC
This new s-h-i-t is making me think too hard to be any fun. I think I'm gonna skip it and hope that something more interesting pops up in Eve in the near future.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#212 - 2015-05-25 18:28:57 UTC
@CCP
Bump, could we have a answer for this critical issue ?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#213 - 2015-05-26 23:32:55 UTC
Papa Django wrote:
@CCP
Bump, could we have a answer for this critical issue ?

Good luck

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.

marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
The Bastion
#214 - 2015-05-27 14:10:27 UTC
I still see nothing in this lot that is going to kick start industry in Null Sec on any level, Mining and Cap building are dead issues and with transport costs it,s now cheaper to build in Empire or One jump into Lo-Sec and constant pecking at Null Sec income generation has left a lot feeling it is simply not worth the effort for being out there at all and no matter how much hype and spin goes into this New Sov mess up I still believe it will get very old very quickly resulting in it being pointless in the end.

There has to be a motivation factor to any change and simply placating the moaners and squealers is not one of them, That simply results in no motivation for anyone.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.

davet517
Raata Invicti
#215 - 2015-05-27 17:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
xttz wrote:
Cebrith Tivianne wrote:
I think the new Sov mechanics could be an interesting addition to the game. However, they also seem to be a poor Band-Aid for a larger design problem:

For all practical purposes, the universe is flat and featureless in every meaningful way except resource allocation. This is a shocking oversight for a game that has such a robust economic platform and diverse player base.

  • For example, the fighters in Afghanistan have been able to fight back much larger, more well-equipped forces throughout history for reasons that were anything but economic. They thrive in an environment that is hostile to invading forces in a vast number of ways. While there is little danger of those fighters taking over other countries, it is extremely difficult to push them out or break their spirit -- for reasons that are much more closely tied to geography than economics.
  • The designers of Eve appear never to have considered this.
  • The Eve "sandbox" is a completely flat collection of scattered resources, devoid of mountains, rivers, oceans, diseases, technological disparities or any of the other numerous obstacles that have changed the tide of war throughout human history.
  • The Sov changes do nothing to change this massive lack of imagination.




Quoting a fantastically accurate point. The best way to drive conflict is to make space much less homogeneous than today.


You're actually quoting a fantastically irrelevant real-life analogy commonly made here. The defenders of Afghanistan would not have held off a militarily superior invader that was willing to kill them all and destroy everything that they ever built. The US could do so, easily. We choose not to, for moral reasons. There are no such moral strictures in Eve.

It's not likely that you are going to create "terrain" in Eve that will hold off a completely amoral and determined superior force, regardless of how much imagination you apply.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#216 - 2015-05-27 17:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Raising indexes for activities that do not put you at risk is a bad idea. Sovereignty = control. Doing things that put you at risk (in space, not cloaked, not behind a force field) demonstrate that you have it. Things like ratting, mining, exploring, and killing hostiles/neutrals. Running research jobs, markets, manufacturing, and things that you can do while you are invulnerable do not. You can do those things with tons of hostiles right outside, holding effective control over the space.

You don't want to create a situation where an entity is essentially camped into their structures, but can maintain their indexes without having to go outside. Not with a system where the space is invulnerable 20 hours out of each day. If a hostile entity has military control of the space, the indexes should decay fairly rapidly.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#217 - 2015-05-27 22:20:37 UTC
davet517 wrote:
Raising indexes for activities that do not put you at risk is a bad idea. Sovereignty = control. Doing things that put you at risk (in space, not cloaked, not behind a force field) demonstrate that you have it. Things like ratting, mining, exploring, and killing hostiles/neutrals. Running research jobs, markets, manufacturing, and things that you can do while you are invulnerable do not. You can do those things with tons of hostiles right outside, holding effective control over the space.

You don't want to create a situation where an entity is essentially camped into their structures, but can maintain their indexes without having to go outside. Not with a system where the space is invulnerable 20 hours out of each day. If a hostile entity has military control of the space, the indexes should decay fairly rapidly.

Sorry but your wrong.
You can't sit in station and do anything with hostiles around.

Post June, you won't just be able to sit in station and manufacture things or buy anything off the market. See with Fozziesov, station services can be Turned OFF. Presuming of course "disabled" means what it says, once a station service has had an entosis link run on it, it no longer works until the owners run an entosis link on it. All manufacturing jobs would stop, all research jobs would pause, switching clones in station would not be allowed. Effectively, if you don't undock with hostiles outside - you can sit in your station for as long as you like and nothing will change, except you will lose your sov much faster.

Allowing groups to use things other than the normal avenues to raise indexes does in some small way help new groups wanting to take territory. The ease with which the large groups can defend even unoccupied sov is just another barrier for new groups wanting to stake their claim. Every detail of sov available to every player in eve via the API and 48 hours to respond - Devs aren't looking to change the balance of power in sov nul, just trying to provide the existing groups with content.
It is likely to work too, until new groups work out that is all the new sov mechanics are about and give up trying.

If you believe sov nul is in a good place, by all means make it as hard as possible for new groups to get established.
You don't really need to though, CCP have done an excellent job of that already.

PS; Read the blog, look at how vulnerability and invulnerability work. It is actually the opposite of what you seem to think. Nobody but the established entrenched groups will get 20 hours per day of invulnerability. Even unoccupied space held by the blobs will have better indexes, lower vulnerability and be easier to defend, than a new group entering the sov game trying to take their 1st system could hope for.
CCP's idea of balance at work Roll

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.

davet517
Raata Invicti
#218 - 2015-05-28 21:35:03 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Sorry but your wrong.
You can't sit in station and do anything with hostiles around.

Post June, you won't just be able to sit in station and manufacture things or buy anything off the market. See with Fozziesov, station services can be Turned OFF. Presuming of course "disabled" means what it says, once a station service has had an entosis link run on it, it no longer works until the owners run an entosis link on it. All manufacturing jobs would stop, all research jobs would pause, switching clones in station would not be allowed. Effectively, if you don't undock with hostiles outside - you can sit in your station for as long as you like and nothing will change, except you will lose your sov much faster.



That's not exactly how it's going to work. Station services can be disabled at any time the way things are. You just have to shoot them. Post fozziesov, you'll only have a window during the day when they'll be vulnerable. The rest of the day, they won't be, so, yes, outside that window, players will be able to dock up when hostiles appear and continue ginning up their index if indexes are tied to activities that you can do while invulnerable.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#219 - 2015-05-28 21:42:15 UTC
davet517 wrote:
That's not exactly how it's going to work. Station services can be disabled at any time the way things are. You just have to shoot them. Post fozziesov, you'll only have a window during the day when they'll be vulnerable. The rest of the day, they won't be, so, yes, outside that window, players will be able to dock up when hostiles appear and continue ginning up their index if indexes are tied to activities that you can do while invulnerable.


Go back and re-read the blog. Station services are vulnerable to DPS 23.5/7.

The vulnerability window is for entosis links, and even then, they're just windows in which something can be made vulnerable. The structure remains vulnerable until the attempt is successfully countered or the structure is flipped or destroyed. So in fact, with a sustained effort you can cripple a station's services before the vulnerability window, and as long as you get a toehold during that window and hold it, you can force a defense well beyond the end of the window.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#220 - 2015-05-28 22:06:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Papa Django
Station services are not protected by the prime time window. Post FozzieSov you will be able to deactivate service station 24/24.

But Dave517 is right when he says that indexes must reflect active space control and not passive control (PI, jobs, ...)