These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2321 - 2015-03-05 12:58:16 UTC
afkalt wrote:
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.


Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead.

That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2322 - 2015-03-05 12:58:25 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't be defended.



Yes but the point I'm making is this is the ENTIRE reason behind the division of "sides" in the links. To FORCE the OWNERS to take action, to be unable to rely on "blues" for the whole thing.

It also opens interesting tactical possibilities insofar as the attackers can primary a single alliance to try and get a timer to extend by breaking the links.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#2323 - 2015-03-05 12:59:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

I noticed one box in the flow chart stating that the capture progress is paused if no Entosis links are active, so my base assumption is leaning towards having to use an Entosis link to set it back to 0 so taht would mean the defender setting it back to 0 by doing a win cycle.



I am almost positive that is to un-reinforce a structure.


I hope so, but it defines capture progress which includes setting it to reinforced so could be both.

EDIT: As others have pointed out it forces people to do this as the act of defending their space so I think you would have to do a full defence cycle to remove it, well I could live with that.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2324 - 2015-03-05 12:59:30 UTC
Terence Bogard wrote:
As far as time zone mechanics I think a binary window is contrary to the spirit of eve, as many have voiced. Eve is a place where you can get your **** handed to you 23/7 and I don't ever want that to change. If my enemy wants to alarm clock all 1,000 members of their alliance to catch me at my weakest time, more power to em, that's the stuff that makes eve great.

That said, with how it easy it seems to be to reinforce a structure, I do think it should be more difficult (read not impossible) to do so outside of the set prime time. Off the top off i my head i can think of a few options to (potentially) improve on the system.


1) Alliance chooses a Prime Time as in the suggested model but outside of the time zone is a flat multiplier that increases capture time instead of disabling it completely.


2) Alliance chooses a Prime Time. The further away from that time you are the longer it takes to capture.

One issue with this is that fighting after the Prime Time would be fighting an uphill battle as capture time increases. The opposite would be true in the hours leading up to it.





This is a good idea on my eyes. Binarization seldom is a good solution. Just make that in prime time things are as fast as planned and in opposite side of the day it is something like 8-10 times longer.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2325 - 2015-03-05 13:00:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.


Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead.

That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.



You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?

This is the case even today.

CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things.


Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?
lilol' me
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#2326 - 2015-03-05 13:01:14 UTC
VolatileVoid wrote:
Too often read here about unoccupied space.

To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.

If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.

A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.


Don't you rent quite a lot of these useless regions for many billions?
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2327 - 2015-03-05 13:02:27 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't be defended.

Yes but the point I'm making is this is the ENTIRE reason behind the division of "sides" in the links. To FORCE the OWNERS to take action, to be unable to rely on "blues" for the whole thing.

Well, they did, didn't they? They thwarted the reinforcement attempt, and either they someone from their alliance . What's the problem?

I'm guessing what you're going to end up with is instead of "blues", you'll have corps joining an alliance, just like today.
afkalt wrote:
It also opens interesting tactical possibilities insofar as the attackers can primary a single alliance to try and get a timer to extend by breaking the links.

I've no idea what you're trying to get at, since at worst there'll be a specific alliance which all the corps are in, so no matter what you do, you've got "a single alliance".
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2328 - 2015-03-05 13:03:42 UTC
afkalt wrote:
You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?

You mean like POSes are completely incapable of regenerating their own shield after they've been reinforced?
GsyBoy
Doomheim
#2329 - 2015-03-05 13:03:43 UTC
Solution - Only the rorqual can fit the new mod and window of 10 hours.


Agression needs to be readded to bubbles if free port a go.

https://www.twitch.tv/gsyboy
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2330 - 2015-03-05 13:04:35 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.


Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead.

That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.



You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?

This is the case even today.

CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things.


Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?


Alphaing links of the field is an imperfect solution by itself. There will always be more links from both sides. Its still a losing battle to try and defend a timer without the owner present.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2331 - 2015-03-05 13:05:44 UTC
afkalt wrote:

You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?


No, not like that at all, or to put it a different way, exactly like that. Because if I only knock a chunk off the shields of a contemporary structure but fail to actually reinforce it, it replenishes itself on it's own and my work is undone.



Quote:

Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?


They are. They killed the guy doing it before he could finish.

Why should the attacker be allowed to have his influence linger after he's already dead?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2332 - 2015-03-05 13:06:02 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't be defended.

Yes but the point I'm making is this is the ENTIRE reason behind the division of "sides" in the links. To FORCE the OWNERS to take action, to be unable to rely on "blues" for the whole thing.

Well, they did, didn't they? They thwarted the reinforcement attempt, and either they someone from their alliance . What's the problem?

I'm guessing what you're going to end up with is instead of "blues", you'll have corps joining an alliance, just like today.
afkalt wrote:
It also opens interesting tactical possibilities insofar as the attackers can primary a single alliance to try and get a timer to extend by breaking the links.

I've no idea what you're trying to get at, since at worst there'll be a specific alliance which all the corps are in, so no matter what you do, you've got "a single alliance".



I think we're talking at cross contexts.


What makes the most sense is to apply the occupancy bonuses in reverse to the owners in terms of times. So for the owners, DIVIDE the 10 minute capture time by the occupancy bonus factor.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2333 - 2015-03-05 13:06:50 UTC
Terence Bogard wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.


Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead.

That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.



You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?

This is the case even today.

CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things.


Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?


Alphaing links of the field is an imperfect solution by itself. There will always be more links from both sides. Its still a losing battle to try and defend a timer without the owner present.


As it is presented today, yes. People are asking for the thing to tick back itself after attackers die, thus directly going against the NEED to have the owners on field.
VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#2334 - 2015-03-05 13:08:28 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
VolatileVoid wrote:
Too often read here about unoccupied space.

To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.

If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.

A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.


Don't you rent quite a lot of these useless regions for many billions?


No we dont and does not change that they are useless.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2335 - 2015-03-05 13:09:03 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
afkalt wrote:
You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?

You mean like POSes are completely incapable of regenerating their own shield after they've been reinforced?



I was referring to both the new and the old worlds.

If you RF under this proposition, the defenders MUST take action or it stays RFd.


>>If nobody shows up to defend or attack a capture event, or if the involved parties are perfectly matched, the event can go on indefinitely
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2336 - 2015-03-05 13:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
afkalt wrote:

As it is presented today, yes. People are asking for the thing to tick back itself after attackers die, thus directly going against the NEED to have the owners on field.


Wrong.

People are asking for the thing to tick back, or completely reset, after the attacker FAILS to complete a cycle.

If you don't complete a cycle, you should get the Willy Wonka. "You get nothing!".

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2337 - 2015-03-05 13:13:39 UTC
Whats wrong with applying occupancy bonuses like I suggested then.

A quarter of the time is hardly onerous.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#2338 - 2015-03-05 13:13:46 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
VolatileVoid wrote:
lilol' me wrote:
VolatileVoid wrote:
Too often read here about unoccupied space.

To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.

If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.

A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.


Don't you rent quite a lot of these useless regions for many billions?


No we dont and does not change that they are useless.



This may very well be true, but can someone PLEASE provide accurate independent and most importantly public data to show exactly how good or bad this is.

For wormhole space Corbexx, our CSM spent days running sites in all classes of WH space to give accurate data that enabled CCP to rebalance lower class holes.

If you do the same, you hopefully will benefit from similar results.

Good active space is good for EVERYONE. But someone has to step up and start the work.
And EVE being EVE, without that hard data, everyone will assume you are rolling naked in isk and just wanting more. And it really seems like that is not the case.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#2339 - 2015-03-05 13:14:31 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.


Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead.

That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.



You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?

This is the case even today.

CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things.


Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?


Alphaing links of the field is an imperfect solution by itself. There will always be more links from both sides. Its still a losing battle to try and defend a timer without the owner present.


As it is presented today, yes. People are asking for the thing to tick back itself after attackers die, thus directly going against the NEED to have the owners on field.

How did the attacker die if there were no defenders (owners) on field?
Attacker dies - timer resets, otherwise you could simply keep sending in 1 attacker at a time, let them die and still capture.
If a person had enough ships in a nearby system he could capture alone.

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.
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2340 - 2015-03-05 13:14:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Terence Bogard
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.


Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead.

That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.



You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?

This is the case even today.

CCP is quite clear that they are forcing OWNERS to be on field and taking action or they are losing their things.


Tell me why the OWNERS should not be fully involved in saving their own things?


Alphaing links of the field is an imperfect solution by itself. There will always be more links from both sides. Its still a losing battle to try and defend a timer without the owner present.


As it is presented today, yes. People are asking for the thing to tick back itself after attackers die, thus directly going against the NEED to have the owners on field.


What im saying is, if you are presented with a batphone defense and no owners there's only so many alpha fleets they can field. Bring links in something that fleet cant hit and all of the sudden they're useless.

Also I proposed an exponential regen with a delay. Say for example they volley off all the links. It could take 5 minutes to even start regen and another 20 for it to be a meaningful amount of regen. All you need to do is barely start one cycle to reset that. Meanwhile that alpha fleet is hanging out in the open waiting for another group to roam on in and kill them.