These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ISD Rontea
ISD STAR
#101 - 2015-03-03 16:24:07 UTC
Change SBU BPO to Ensotis link BPO. Is this possible?

ISD Rontea

ISD STAR Executive

Волонтёр группы по взаимодействию с игроками

Interstellar Services Department

marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
The Bastion
#102 - 2015-03-03 16:24:09 UTC
Apart from the GIF, which was poor judgement on the part of CCP in my view Alliances should CSM this one as failure to engage with this proposal is the players only true defense.

Alliances should drop all Sov return to Empire and simply make the game unplayable by camping all trade hubs 'Burn it all' as one of my members just put it to me as in his view with the travel restrictions as they currently are hitting player behavior so severely, investing time and money owning Sov anywhere is going to be a worthless exercise for any Alliance and untenable for most Corporations.

The own nothing, build nothing, plan nothing state this will generate flies directly in the face of the EVE ethos and achieves the console gamer ideal state, Log in, blow everything up, get blown up, log off again, That is going to get very old...VERY quickly.

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

Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#103 - 2015-03-03 16:24:19 UTC
I kinda like the sound of things, with condition it is actually well implemented in the end.

I also like the goon tears. Hearing a lot of excited murmur from smaller PvP entities.

After this, there might actually be something to shoot at when roaming in nullsec.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#104 - 2015-03-03 16:24:59 UTC
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:
Tiberian Deci wrote:
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now.


Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up.

They said the ship can't receive remote assistance while it's active. I assume that'll be the same as triage, siege and bastion.


I think the idea was that when the Entosis link is active you would become ewar immune similar to how you are in triage/siege/bastion.
Aryndel Vyst
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2015-03-03 16:25:09 UTC
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:
I kinda like the sound of things, with condition it is actually well implemented in the end.

I also like the goon tears. Hearing a lot of excited murmur from smaller PvP entities.

After this, there might actually be something to shoot at when roaming in nullsec.



If you can't find something to shoot at in nullsec now, you're probably not good at PVP and should stick to faction warfare. Because roams are plentiful and frequent if you care to make the effort to look.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#106 - 2015-03-03 16:25:17 UTC
Looks like a well thought out plan to me. Gratz CCP ! Big smile

Will bring combat back to nullsec on a gigantic scale. Love it !
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#107 - 2015-03-03 16:26:21 UTC
Dev Blog wrote:
In the new Sovereignty, systems full of active occupants will be vastly easier to defend and control than abandoned ones, bustling empires with a variety of activities will be stronger than AFK ones, and disrupting your enemies everyday activities in their space will help you gain advantages both strategic and economic. More details on how we intend to begin achieving this goal will be discussed later in this blog.


So AFK Cloakers will be a real popular thing now? Blink
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#108 - 2015-03-03 16:26:52 UTC
the short answer is that there is no incentive to hold space in this model - it's just too easy for anyone to take it from you. you invest in your space in any way and someone will squash it for funsies. it's insanely overpowered from the attack side, and my guess is that the design team at no point considered "well, why are people going to be here to be attacked in the first place?"

i am sure that the response will be "well someone else will move in!". but then we'll squash them for funsies from either our fortress region or our new home in lowsec because null just isn't worth the effort.

you cannot just make sand castles insanely easy to kick over when there's no motivation to have them. what will happen is nullsec will quickly devolve into an orgy of destruction, which will be used to justify this bad design through ~statistics~ with nary a thought of what happens once that orgy of destruction finishes. that orgy of destruction will only be possible because of the years of sand castles built up under previous systems, and once those are all gone, there won't be any more. but by that point we will have a dev blog full of cherry-picked statistics about how much of a success this is and then years of stagnation that are ignored

well, guess i'll have some fun in the upcoming orgy at the end of the world~~~
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#109 - 2015-03-03 16:27:43 UTC
Quote:
Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.

But will they be high enough to be fitted on ships not smaller than cruisers... because you know why... ceptors.

And yea... primetime.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

MiliasColds
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-03-03 16:27:45 UTC
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:
Tiberian Deci wrote:
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now.


Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up.

They said the ship can't receive remote assistance while it's active. I assume that'll be the same as triage, siege and bastion.


I think the idea was that when the Entosis link is active you would become ewar immune similar to how you are in triage/siege/bastion.


that's probably the case if it's literally disallows remote assistance as it likely uses the same code :)
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2015-03-03 16:28:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
Anhenka wrote:
As a US player in a alliance slanted towards EU for active players, I would just like to say:

"Thanks CCP for stripping me of opportunity to participate in defensive timers for my alliance, now I can instead just sit around and leech off my alliance without having any chance or obligation in participating in defense OTHER THAN RATTING IN DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS"

It's so refreshing to know that not only will I never be around to stop an enemy from fighting for the initial timer, but that 100% of the time, it will always come out in a period of time I won't be there for.

Thanks CCP!



nEUlli secunda

nulli secundAU

nulli USecunda
RogueHunteer
Doomheim
#112 - 2015-03-03 16:28:17 UTC
Must say this new systems looks nice and new sov system will make lot of have fun pew pew! nice job ccp!
Few things I would like to maybe change on this idea is fact you place to much on IHUB and not lot of the TCU.

I was hoping the TCU would effect the strategic index levels. Since you place the 25% fuel saving with the TCU.
Let TCU control the strategic index levels for the STARBASES.
Let the IHUB control the upgrades for system.
Station is worth on it's own!

Anthar Thebess
#113 - 2015-03-03 16:29:45 UTC
Hole?
I create alliance A , B, C
A : refout starting from 9:00
B : refout starting form 11:00
C : refout starting from 12:00

If something is going bad for alliance B , i move my 3000 people to corp B to defend "final timers" , then move them to corp A , to defend something else.

If not corps, i have alts that move between corporation/ alliances.

We need some grace period.
In order to use this device for alliance you need to be member for at least 2 weeks?
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#114 - 2015-03-03 16:30:09 UTC
Gypsien Agittain wrote:
Almost forgot that:

/when/
Fatigue + constellation-wide sovops=1
Capitalshipsvalue=0

Just for you to know.



Can use gates
Angry Mustache
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#115 - 2015-03-03 16:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
Here's an idea, what if they were battleships only.

It would give battleships a reason to be flown, and not make sov into a giant game of "catch these men in ceptors"

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

Hemmo Paskiainen
#116 - 2015-03-03 16:30:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
6 Years too late, and it will probably take another 4 or 5 before before all the Tech-Isk-Poison is out of the system. Ugh

Long live the Greyscale!

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?

MiliasColds
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2015-03-03 16:30:54 UTC
Airi Cho wrote:
Gypsien Agittain wrote:
Almost forgot that:

/when/
Fatigue + constellation-wide sovops=1
Capitalshipsvalue=0

Just for you to know.



Can use gates


^^^

also it's just constellation wide, spread them out ??
Anthar Thebess
#118 - 2015-03-03 16:31:09 UTC
ISD Rontea wrote:
Change SBU BPO to Ensotis link BPO. Is this possible?

BPC only from drifters?
Current Habit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2015-03-03 16:31:17 UTC
Thank God you released this devblog today, I was seriously worried the number of icons in the top left corner wouldn't rise as steadily as they did in the last six months. This is a great relieve for me and all other icon-loving people.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#120 - 2015-03-03 16:31:33 UTC
"Incentives? What are those?"