These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maya Cinderfort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2015-03-03 17:28:38 UTC
MiliasColds wrote:


everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in.



points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty
Total Newbie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#262 - 2015-03-03 17:28:53 UTC
Trii Seo wrote:
I would like to correct the statement that it's a CTF. It is, in fact, a totally different gamemode - Domination.

Sooo uh, to provide some actual criticism instead of just saying how bad Domination was, I'll ask a few questions:

- How does the following system create an incentive to go and take sov?
- How does the following system in any way benefit "the small guy" who is "trying to carve out his own system?"

The effort to distribute one system being captured over a constellation to take advantage of its layout is a good idea, in fact - it might be the only good idea out of it. As it stands, unless I'm misinterpreting it, the entire system would reward evading a fight rather than encouraging it.


We will not question Dear Leader when he gives us a sandbox to play in, and we will not allow common sense to creep into this argument
Olya Tsarev
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#263 - 2015-03-03 17:29:07 UTC
I do love the complaining these dev blogs generate. It's usually the same four or five people sharing their hyperbolic responses. ^_^
Total Newbie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#264 - 2015-03-03 17:29:54 UTC
the sargent wrote:
Total Newbie wrote:
the sargent wrote:
Cheyennes wrote:
the sargent wrote:
It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"

I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.

Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text.


Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history.


You're right I don't have any 0.0 employment history. Didn't feel like joining one of the big power blocs and small independent corps can't exist in 0.0 space. With some adjusting this system could actually allow smaller groups to effectively claim SOV somewhere and keep it. Is what CCP proposing perfect probably not.

However, for the first time I'm actually considering 0.0 space as a viable place i would want to go to and live in for an extended period of time, and isn't that the point of all this. To get more people to want to fly out to 0.0 space?


How can you comment about it if you haven't experienced it? If you do not understand it in its current form, then quite frankly you have no clue about the ramifications that will even more, negatively affect the little guy


Please explain how it will negatively affect the little guy. I'm being genuinely curious here not a smart a$$. like I said it could use some adjusting but as a basis to start from it seems easier for new people to get into the game of SOV since it doesn't require several capital ships plus full support fleet to take down one system.
Again i don't think its perfect but from the outside looking in it looks like it actually has some potential after some tweaking.


I sent you an eve mail.
Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#265 - 2015-03-03 17:30:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberian Deci
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:
Aryndel Vyst wrote:
HEY LETS MAKE SOV EASIER TO TAKE FROM LARGE ENTITIES BUT GIVE NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER TO THE RESIDENTS.

Do you want everyone to do high sec incursions or something?


~content creation~


Not emptying quoting.


I'm convinced that every sov holder that cries about lack of benefits doesn't want to actually fight anyone, they just want it to be easy to sit on what they have and continue making money and not fighting people. This isn't to say that there is no merit to the 'lack of benefits' claim, but no one complaining about it has presented one yet.
Resgo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#266 - 2015-03-03 17:30:42 UTC
So, I can understand the desire to spread out conflicts to avoid 4000 ships in a ti-di CF. How does this work to prevent encouraging a game of stealth bombers where a new strategic fleet concept of 250 stealth bombers going out and attacking 250 different systems simultaneously? This sounds like an awesome setup for constant annoyance and trolling. Coordinating a defense of all those systems and travel time involved would take more time than the capture. Now having the vulnerability windows also pretty much means home turf advantage for defenders but also assumes the alliance in question has a prime time. Many of the larger alliances have multiple and forcing a choice screws some of the players and is more likely involve choosing prime times that are less convenient for potential attackers then based upon your own availability. With the ease of flipping systems how does that affect things like super capital production (assuming with these mechanics there are any reason to have them or build them)? Since you don't destroy I-Hubs is the payment for sov upgrades going to be on an hourly basis rather than current time table? What incentive is there to take the I-Hub? If someone else has to pay the upgrade bills and the TCU determines system ownership an upgraded I-Hub sounds like a liability rather than a bonus. I get its benefits without actually having to pay for it if I let the other guy keep it.
Nyan Lafisques
Blue Horizons.
#267 - 2015-03-03 17:31:24 UTC
Maya Cinderfort wrote:
MiliasColds wrote:


everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in.



points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty


So basically you don't want to have to protect your space?
Baron Holbach
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#268 - 2015-03-03 17:32:45 UTC
RIP capitals, honestly CCP - give any reason way to use capitals in future

also this station structures disable/enable seems like ultimate grief scheme, the main things to worry in my option would be various industry upgrades (factory and lab services)

pleas also add option to remove upgrades from ihub (or at-least disable them somehow to remove massive cost linked with some upgrades - like jb or jammer upgrades)
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#269 - 2015-03-03 17:33:07 UTC
Tiberian Deci wrote:
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:
Aryndel Vyst wrote:
HEY LETS MAKE SOV EASIER TO TAKE FROM LARGE ENTITIES BUT GIVE NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER TO THE RESIDENTS.

Do you want everyone to do high sec incursions or something?


~content creation~


Not emptying quoting.


I'm convinced that every sov holder that cries about lack of benefits doesn't want to actually fight anyone, they just want it to be easy to sit on what they have and continue making money and not fighting people. This isn't to say that there is no merit to the 'lack of benefits' claim, but no one complaining about it has presented one yet.


No, it's a conflict driver. Find me a war in history that was had "because it was fun". If you de-incentive the reasons to hold space, null will become pretty boring after a while. Simply having your flag in space is not enough.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#270 - 2015-03-03 17:34:15 UTC
"The result of all these design features is that the best method to exert control over a structure with the Entosis Link is to establish effective military control over the grid around the target structure."

And there you go -> N+1 mechanic trap pit spotted. Will be interesting to see if the 4X capture speed mechanic is enough to kill N+1

Everything else - looks good to me.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#271 - 2015-03-03 17:35:23 UTC
Tia Aves wrote:
If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

/r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.
waltari
State War Academy
Caldari State
#272 - 2015-03-03 17:36:02 UTC
So basically sov nullsec turns into some weird form of Faction Warfare with a benefit to literaly nobody, full of 24/7 hellcamped freeports filled with trolls who doesnt realy want to hold the SOV anyway (due to reason mentioned earlier), whilst denying the current holders possibility to protect it effectively due to split timezones, great concept realy, keep up good work.
Nyan Lafisques
Blue Horizons.
#273 - 2015-03-03 17:36:31 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Tia Aves wrote:
If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

/r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.


Grrr goons. People there enjoy the changes not because of goons, but because they believe these changes are good.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#274 - 2015-03-03 17:36:39 UTC
Saidin Thor wrote:
I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes.

If you want to stick with the "but sov logistics should be hard" mantra, then at least resizing them for jump freighters would be better than nothing. Ideally, making IHubs and their upgrades Blockade Runner size would open up a lot of options for the little guy.

Another change related to IHubs I would suggest is allowing IHubs to be placed on moons (so you can place them next to POSes). This gives an alliance the OPTION to have a VERY LOW barrier to messing with system upgrades. A POS isn't particularly difficult to defang even with a small group, but gives an IHub some level of protection against marauders that are just trying to salt the fields.



Also the premise that defenders will regularly use jump bridges during capture events has to be a joke, right? Have the CCP employees that live in null sec ever tried chaining jump bridges since the fatigue changes went through? Let us know how that worked out for them for the subsequent two weeks.


Yeah if they intend to go on with these new mechanics then ihubs and all of their upgrades need to be reduced in size to fit in a JF. Might want to think about introducing some of those new upgrades when these changes go live because right now it's really borderline as far as it being worth it to live in null to make isk.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#275 - 2015-03-03 17:36:40 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Tia Aves wrote:
If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

/r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.

when it comes to this, its not so much an anti-cfc circlejerk as a bunch of people who no longer hold sov

people who hold sov but hate us realize how bad this is
Proton Stars
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#276 - 2015-03-03 17:37:16 UTC
To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#277 - 2015-03-03 17:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Amyclas Amatin
This primetime ****. The **** are the Australians going to do?

Also we can now rat 20 hours a day while only worrying about that 4 hour window when **** becomes vulnerable. What.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2015-03-03 17:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Touchie Mc TwiddleHands wrote:
However, CCP should support this transition as much as possible, by adding a proper Coalition system. Alliances should be able to create and join Coalitions (Hey, you could even name your coalition Brave Collective etc so you can still 100% identify with your buddies in other timezones!). They would be visible in-game just like alliances, and provide basic management features such as a Coalition chat, an overview state ("pilot is in my coallition"), standings and, maybe, shared access to the new sovereignity overview.
This would allow the current big alliances to keep their names and identities aswell as provide sov combat to members of all timezones.


Meh, I'm going to give the same answer to this that is so prevalent when carebears ask for social corps in highsec... "that is what chat channels are for".
Maya Cinderfort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2015-03-03 17:37:52 UTC
Nyan Lafisques wrote:
Maya Cinderfort wrote:
MiliasColds wrote:


everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in.



points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty


So basically you don't want to have to protect your space?


ofc but a single guy should just not be able to do anything in the first place it's a system not worlds collide lvl 4

& again i like the idea of fighting over nodes, maybe in class limited nodes to make it "different"

BUT getting a system should allways be boring, because the reward you get is better.

out of eve example here.

grinding eggs for a netherwing drake in WoW for maybe 30 hours straight sure wasn't fun but the reward was awesome.

same goes for systems.
Current Habit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2015-03-03 17:38:04 UTC
Is the implementation of Command nodes a first step towards allowing EVE:Legion and EVE:Valkyrie people to influence sov by capturing nodes on the ground or inside special 'Valkyrie-arenas' (if/when they are ever released)?