These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1761 - 2015-03-04 20:31:04 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).

Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.


Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it.
Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1762 - 2015-03-04 20:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberian Deci
Gorgof Intake wrote:

The Bad[/b][/u]
4. Still no tactical geography. By breaking up the blobs into these little "command node" missions, CCP lost a good opportunity for fights to be varied by adding elemental or environmental effects that would only effect a particular grid. For example, a command node that spawned in a dense asteroid field that needs to be navigated, or a grid that has bonuses to shield tanks or some ****. Varied tactical environments providing varied game play and necessitating specific gang types while punishing generic "one fleet fits all mentality". If interested in this idea, check out the posts in my sig

5. Still no real reason to hold sov, though this will probably be addressed in phase 3 I would imagine.

6. Supers now nerfed into the ground and. quoting Manny apparently "will be used primarily as suitcases".

[u]
[u][b]


4. I agree there's no tactical geography, and like your idea (it would be so cool to hide fleets in magnetic fields created by the sun, or the moon, or hide in an asteroid belt, etc), but I don't want to play a mini game while playing a PvP game every time I'm trying to take someone's sov.

5. Building your own supers, though outsourcing it to alts/renters is probably what most people are doing/have done. In addition to that, I refer you to my previous post:

Tiberian Deci wrote:
GOB the Magician wrote:
Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this.


I can think of several:

You enjoy living there
You enjoy living with the people there you live with
You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby

If that isn't the case for you maybe you're better of in highsec. Or renting.


6. Supers are still useful for killing caps, but if PL is going to stop doing that with them I don't think anyone would be sad. (Side note, is Manny really being used as a suitcase? Sounds like quite a journey, from respected PL member, to CSM candidate, to suitcase :O)
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#1763 - 2015-03-04 20:32:58 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).

Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.


Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it.

that is not what an nda does
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
#1764 - 2015-03-04 20:34:09 UTC
Another note.

This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.

Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1765 - 2015-03-04 20:34:35 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).

Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.


Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it.

that is not what an nda does


That would depend entirely on the specific wording of the NDA, and precisely what it is they're not allowed to disclose, now wouldn't it?
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1766 - 2015-03-04 20:39:13 UTC
Logan Revelore wrote:
I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.

And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely.


Logan Revelore wrote:
Another note.

This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.

Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.

I like this man.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#1767 - 2015-03-04 20:45:04 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).

Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.


Or, you know, that the CSM is under NDA, which means they can't tell you if they were consulted and/or agree with it.

that is not what an nda does


That would depend entirely on the specific wording of the NDA, and precisely what it is they're not allowed to disclose, now wouldn't it?

pretty sure it's okay

hint: scroll to sion_kumitomo's entry
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1768 - 2015-03-04 20:47:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Skia Aumer wrote:
Logan Revelore wrote:
I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.

And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely.


Logan Revelore wrote:
Another note.

This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.

Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.

I like this man.

Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on.

Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems.

I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
lilol' me
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#1769 - 2015-03-04 20:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: lilol' me
i just read the whole thing again, and i have to say it sounds and looks very very complicated. I thought CCP was trying to get away from complicated. Looks like its been thought about a little too much and made way over complicated.

Also why do we never hear from CCP Seagull on anything?
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1770 - 2015-03-04 20:53:47 UTC
Lady Zarrina wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:


We would burn null to the ground.


And you seem to assume no one will be attacking all the empty space you leave behind. The more you take the wider spread you get, the easier it is to just take what ever you eventually decide is not worth defending.

I get how strong CFC is, and in the short term how much chaos can be inflicted. But sooner or later you will start acting rationally.



All I heard was a bunch of bees shouting "Challenge Accepted!"

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Zip Slings
SCI Zenith
Flying Dangerous
#1771 - 2015-03-04 20:55:27 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Logan Revelore wrote:
I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.

And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely.


Logan Revelore wrote:
Another note.

This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.

Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.

I like this man.

Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on.

Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems.

I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho.


You are doing God's work sir.
lilol' me
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#1772 - 2015-03-04 20:57:54 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Logan Revelore wrote:
I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.

And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely.


Logan Revelore wrote:
Another note.

This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.

Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.

I like this man.

Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on.

Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems.

I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho.



Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.
Zip Slings
SCI Zenith
Flying Dangerous
#1773 - 2015-03-04 20:58:18 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
i just read the whole thing again, and i have to say it sounds and looks very very complicated. I thought CCP was trying to get away from complicated. Looks like its been thought about a little too much and made way over complicated.

Also why do we never hear from CCP Seagull on anything?


Imo this is very good complexity. And seeing as I can sit down with my alliance and explain it in about 10-20 minutes means it's not any more complex than learning not to die in an interceptor.
Ereilian
Doomheim
#1774 - 2015-03-04 20:59:11 UTC
When CCP introduced Faction Warfare I joked with a few friends that give them enough rope and they would screw nullsec by making translating the plex spinning into real Sov.

:Drumrolls: Well looks like I was right. Rather than actually design a new system, they have just taken FW "Sov" and added a few bells and whistles to make it work in real Sov.

A good day to start training all frigate 5's.
Serene Repose
#1775 - 2015-03-04 20:59:26 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
This seat isn't cheap, it costs $15 per month. You know how many starving children that could have fed?
It's one-tenth what I pay for a Friday night....and you get it for a month. I knew you have a skewed sense of proportion.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Sieonigh
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1776 - 2015-03-04 21:04:16 UTC
Ion Blacknight wrote:
I had the same response as Rena: the Command Node thing is very gamey, it has no logic to support it. Give us something we can begin to believe in.

This discourages me from having a lot of assets and market inventory in null. I can only imagine what major industrialists and cap/supercap owners are feeling.

The range of the entosis link needs to be short to ensure fights. We don't want kitey uncatchable entosisers as well as cloaky afk campers do we?





im a touch your ihub :p
Sodamn In-sane
Doomheim
#1777 - 2015-03-04 21:04:27 UTC
gotta say i love it ,
take down JB systems
take out super building ability

go pain some old alliance that kicked you

this will be fun!!

Fozzie

job change is good but you're still a muppet
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1778 - 2015-03-04 21:06:35 UTC
At least we agree on "prime time".
As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1779 - 2015-03-04 21:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
lilol' me wrote:
Well lets hope so... but they would need to do it en masse, rather one by one because what will happen is the coalition will lhotdrop kick them out and then put someone back in, and tell them to behave or else. You know the usual stuff, if you don't do as we tell you we will destroy you trick, which usually works for the weak. The threat is usually enough to keep people on side.


The point is, the threat is now completely empty and everyone knows it (or will learn it soon enough). The only threat that existed before was that the renter could not easily claim sov after you burned them out, because to claim sov they'd need to structure grind, and to structure grind they'd need a structure grind fleet, and a structure grind fleet is expensive AND fatally vulnerable to a supercap drop.

Now, they pull down any valuable assets, declare independence, and log off for a week while NC. tantrums. Then when NC.'s fleet leaves to do something more important, the renters login, take 10 minutes to flip the timers back, risking nothing but an AF or T1 cruiser fleet in the process, and then what? Sure, NC. might send a fleet to stop them, the first time. But then the other 49 renters realize that if NC.'s fleet is busy there, they can't be everywhere. Before, this wasn't worth the risk because if you were the unlucky renter picked as the object lesson that week, you just lost a capfleet. But now? They've welped a T1 cruiser fleet. They'd be insane NOT to risk contesting sov while you are busy, the cost will just be so low.

Rent works now because the potential cost of contesting sov, ANYWHERE, is higher than the cost of rent. You have to put significant cap assets on the line. Post E-links, the cost of contesting and defending sov in a system that no one else WANTS TO LIVE IN will drop from the cost of a capital fleet to practically free. It's only a matter of time before behavior catches up to these economics. Renters will still exist in lucrative systems that large groups are "effectively" living in via proxy-defense fleets, but the range and economics of where/when that is feasible is going to shrink quite a bit.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1780 - 2015-03-04 21:10:09 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.

Exactly why I think it should scale with the amount of sov held.

Maybe even start at 1 hour primetime if you only hold one system as a small bunch of friends that can all log on each day at the same time to defend it versus 24 hours for a huge multiTZ alliance holding several regions.

It definitely needs polishing by taking into account the numbers of players that each alliance has online at various times of the day versus how many systems/constellations/regions they hold sov in.

Without primetime the whole idea of being able to quickly flip unprotected sov falls flat on its face as you just do it at 4am for the defenders and give the attackers too much advantage in avoiding any kind of contest.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager