These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists
Intergalactic Conservation Movement
#501 - 2015-03-03 19:21:23 UTC
I like the purposed ideas. I like the vulnerability window, however a rigid 4 hour window does go against current EVE organizational structures which over time as alliances grow they usually span all time zones.

I expect that this vulnerability window will be tweaked numerous times as this will be a major sticking point for content generation.

Some groups will want to focus on a specific time zone, they will benefit under this system. Successful alliances that offer great culture and experiences for their members, under this system will be forced to choose which time zones get A,B,C areas of content. I do not see breaking up these large entities as a good thing, but maybe I am wrong.

A scalable system might be a possible option where alliances choose their vulnerable windows and size but receive X, Y, Z benefits for accepting greater risk. This would allow time zone focused groups the best opportunity to defend their space, but also allow larger entities the ability to give their member base the full gambit of content by accepting more risk.

Interesting times ahead! Big smile
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#502 - 2015-03-03 19:21:40 UTC

Are the HP and Anchor/Online times for IHUBs and TCU's being adjusted?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#503 - 2015-03-03 19:21:54 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Rowells wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
xartin wrote:
gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.

Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.

UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.

How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly.

stront timers can differ, this primetime thing cannot. Some towers and structures may come out at different times than others for whatever purpose.


Then how is it different from current Ihub timers?

You cant have timers spread across 24hrs anymore with this. Only four. Not every (in fact not many) alliances are single-TZ.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#504 - 2015-03-03 19:22:06 UTC
Total Newbie wrote:
I finally figured out the reasoning behind this change.

Pre- Jump Fatigue it was normal to see 50K + people logged in.

Post- Jump Fatigue you're lucky to see 40K

After this change I imagine it will be around 25K

Hence, they have finally solved the lag problem.

You didn't read the first devblog and look at the pretty graphs did you...

More players in nullsec since the changes.
More activity in nullsec since the changes.
More pvp in nullsec since the changes.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/where-we-stand/ < for your convenience

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#505 - 2015-03-03 19:22:14 UTC
Schmell wrote:
Man, chaos is coming.

What are gonna do with sov upgrades? They grow for like month, and won'be viable in current state when a system can switch owners like 3 times a week


Sov can already change in three week's time, but nobody has the nearby enemies nor willingness to do so.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Box thatmunches
Mende Tech Group
#506 - 2015-03-03 19:22:53 UTC
fairly new with all toons.... maybe time to give up game for a while.. just getting used to null. to create a cluster **** seams to b the goal here
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#507 - 2015-03-03 19:23:41 UTC
na'Vi Ronuken wrote:
I think what you will end up seeing is coalitions consolidate to mega alliances based on TZ and corps would be tasked with living in their own consttillation.

This dev blog also does not describe what happens when sov flips while a super is in build.

The supers go kaboooooooom it's obvious they don't like supers so they will just go POOF.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#508 - 2015-03-03 19:24:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
I wonder if alliances, other than the original attacker and original owner, should be penalized during the Freeport capture event, for the sake of discouraging third parties from jumping in and having an easy time of things, while someone else does all the grunt-work for them.

The Time Zone Vulnerability Box mechanic seems direly ill-conceived, especially for small scale multinational groups, including Feign Disorder. What's wrong with letting sov holders choose the exit timers, rather than forcing the entrance timers to be during particular hours?
Novacrow
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#509 - 2015-03-03 19:24:58 UTC
Entosis module should deactivate propulsion modules, and the T2 variant should be made to have a max range of 100-150km.
Sarel Hendar
Avanto
Hole Control
#510 - 2015-03-03 19:26:59 UTC
Interesting changes. Some good, some less so...

Arrow Freeport idea is good. Discourages not showing up for second reinforce battle as is currently in vogue.

Arrow Is there any sane reason to have Infomorph Psychology as controlling skill for the entosis module? We have a perfectly good and logical skill that could be applied here: Hacking.

Arrow I'd recommend restrictions on entosis module so that it can't be fitted into frigate- or destroyer-class hulls. Otherwise we'll have troll-fitted T3 Destroyers or Interceptors that'll be MWD-orbitting at 200 kilometers and nearly impossible to stop or hit.

Arrow Idea: In a twist to command nodes, you could have in addition to normal ones "variant" command nodes that have to be probed out and capturing which is worth slightly more than "regular" command nodes (eg. something like 1.1-1.3 "regular" ones). Nothing overwhelming, just some edge to the side willing/able to have a combat prober in fleet...

Arrow Timezone segmentation could be problematic. Needs thinking about.

Arrow ECM interactions with entosis will need thinking about. 200-Falcon troll fleets aren't fun for anyone.

Arrow Capital- and Supercapital roles will need thinking about.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#511 - 2015-03-03 19:26:59 UTC
Zedah Zoid wrote:
If mining is going to play a role here (and I think it should) then please, PLEASE, CCP bring back scannable ore sites. Both in WH and Null space. AFK cloakers will be less scary to miners and miners are more likely to get help from combat pilots if they have a least some small chance of seeing the probes that are their impending doom.

Down with ore Anoms, bring back ore Sites. If you must keep ore Anoms in high sec so the noobs can find them on the overlay, then do that but there's no need to handicap everybody in null with the ore Anom mechanic. It's terrible and it makes mining nearly impossible.



Even though wormhole space was trolled mercilessly, when we dared to suggest this, it is regardless, still a good idea, ore sites should require scanning.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Zomgnomnom
Contra Ratio
GameTheory
#512 - 2015-03-03 19:27:04 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Wow.... just wow.

There are so many problems with this it is hard to believe that people who apparently " play in sov" helped come up with it.


Can we please ask that before the end of CSM voting that the CSM transcripts of this are released. This way we know who to throw onto the trash heap and never dream of re electing again.





Seriously.....
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Total Newbie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#513 - 2015-03-03 19:27:07 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Total Newbie wrote:
I finally figured out the reasoning behind this change.

Pre- Jump Fatigue it was normal to see 50K + people logged in.

Post- Jump Fatigue you're lucky to see 40K

After this change I imagine it will be around 25K

Hence, they have finally solved the lag problem.

You didn't read the first devblog and look at the pretty graphs did you...

More players in nullsec since the changes.
More activity in nullsec since the changes.
More pvp in nullsec since the changes.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/where-we-stand/ < for your convenience


Uh huh. Pretty graphs say whatever they want to say. Doesn't make them true. I live in null, and I just disagree there are more players here..... If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#514 - 2015-03-03 19:27:57 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
I'm really confused. So, if the defensive window is not during your availability you have nothing to do and if it is during your availability you can't do anything else.

So... living in nullsec means you spend all your time defending sov and that's it?


Unbelievable Shocked

Your place seems to be the highsec dude ...
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#515 - 2015-03-03 19:28:09 UTC
Princess Cherista wrote:
Hendrink Collie wrote:
Professor Headmash wrote:
So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?

Seems legit.


No offense, but if you can't quickly deal with a ceptor gang using a module on your sov structures, you shouldn't even bother holding sov. Blink

Show me how to tackle less than 2 second aligning interceptors that dont want to be caught.


That's the point - I don't have to tackle it, or even kill it. Hell, I don't even need to chase it. I can park a defensive link at 0 on the module in a RLML Caracal and wait until the Ceptor pilot gets either bored or suicidal.

Remember, only one offensive and one defensive link will be allowed at a time. You have to be able to control the entire grid, or your opponent can just sit there and stop you without bothering to kill you.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Nina Lowel
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#516 - 2015-03-03 19:29:04 UTC
So Alliance A wants to remove Alliance B from X Space. Alliance A has one TZ, alliance B has another. Alliance A can't do much to alliance B because alliance A doesn't have any alliance B TZ presence.

What does this do? Ensures that the large coalitions get even larger so they have full coverage of all TZ's.

Way to go CCP. It's a good thing I had absolutely zero hope in you actually fixing sov to begin with, at least now there's no real let down.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#517 - 2015-03-03 19:29:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Total Newbie wrote:
Uh huh. Pretty graphs say whatever they want to say. Doesn't make them true. I live in null, and I just disagree there are more players here..... If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.

Anecdotal evidence versus actual statistical evidence...nice


Also read the damn devblog, it explains why some areas of null have been quieter whilst there's been an overall increase across the whole game outside of your anecdotal situation.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#518 - 2015-03-03 19:29:26 UTC
"A clear visual effect shows which ships are applying Entosis Links." Will this also be apparent from brackets? Most large fleet fights require zooming out considerably. Even zoomed in, visual identification would become near impossible if the ship carrying the link is buried in a fleet of 100 - unless we're gonna get that Hot Pink Pony skin effect that has been clamored for!
Hilti Enaka
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#519 - 2015-03-03 19:29:43 UTC
Quote:
This means that Entosis Linking will replace shooting of structures in every part of the Sovereignty system. After the June release, shooting of structures will not play any part in Sovereignty.


\o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#520 - 2015-03-03 19:30:28 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
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


My alliance holds sov. The internal reaction? "This may unironically be the best thing that ever happened for our alliance."