These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2341 - 2015-03-05 13:15:59 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

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.


It's been a matter of public record on these forums for some time. It's been shown to you on no less than two occasions that I am aware of.

If you choose to ignore them, that's your problem.

The fact of the matter is that most truesec is worth less than slowboating highsec missions.

"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.

Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns
#2342 - 2015-03-05 13:17:49 UTC
After reading the dev blog three times and reading the forum posts for the first 100 pages, here are my inputs. Before the inputs I'll throw in some facts, why my words should have any effect at all.
- I have been playing the 0.0 game for pretty much my entire eve life as the small guy
- I have been grinding and defending dominion sov for several times in several entities (yes, also with 30 odd drakes)

The primetime
While this changes a little to nothing, compared to the present system, I still feel that it should be tweaked to individual structure basis. Gives bigger window to human error. Human error drives conflicts (b-r, Asakai etc). Conflicts are good.

The sov itself
We get way too little reasons to own sov. I haveto admit I have no answers to what those reasons could be, but as it is and as it will be, pretty much only reason to own sov is for epeen. The saved fuel costs are pretty irrelevant. Granted that it makes some reactions and low end moon minerals worth to do, but in bigger picture it has no place in planning of "should we get sov?".
Also loosing sov doesn't mean anything at all. We EvE players are used to the fact, that we put assets in risk. We need the destroyable stations. If you, Deat CCP, cannot figure out a way to deal with the "dead" assets on a station to be destroyed, then just create a wreck with the same rules a ship does. This would propably generate so much content just beacause ppl want to kill stations to get their hands on the assets.

The occupancy of the system
We have had the military, strategic and industry occupancy in the dominion sov. Everyone with sov knows, that the industry is next to impossible to get and to keep at lvl 5. Need to fix that, so that market pvp, manufacturing, moon mining and researching are involved in the industry meter.
However there is a bigger concern I have on this occupancy. As presented the occupancy is purely based on amount of PvE in the system. Propably about 90% of all 0.0 systems are unable to provide solid enough PvE activities for the upgrading to kick in. PvP HAVETO be involved to military index. Any entry system for example, are strategically super important systems that cannot support PvE at all, but there is a lot of PvP happening. Even worse I think is the fundamental flaw in the design, that PvE is the key in here and PvP has zero to no effect at all.
What I would like to see on the occupancy is, that any kind of activity and actual living in the system will be able to lift the system defences to maximum. There are hundreds of alliances and corporations who have no desire to PvE, but would love to PvP in their own sov space. Now alliances like mine are practically forced to mine to keep systems. I kind of like the fact, that this could encourage ppl to do alliances that does lilbit of everything, not just focused on pure pvp or pure pve. However we have seen it many a times, that pilots in this game are mainly focused on one over the other. PvP'ers like myself dislike PvE, beacause its boring. PvE'rs dislike the PvP, beacause the risk. Yes, I know generification.
Also staging systems are rarely used to anything, but lots of ppl in local + market and contracts. There are no ratting, no mining. Yet the staging systems are one of the most important systems to any alliances.

Reinforce times
One of the biggest problems in both dominion sov and the presented sov 3.0 I see is, that there is absolutely no penalties whatsoever to get your system reinforced for the first time. In dominion there is no penalty to get it reinforced for second time either. Maybe revert back to SBU's but make it so, that when SBU's are online, you loose all system upgrades, until the fortification is taken down. That would stop defencive SBU's. it would give a significant penalty to getting your system reinforced and thus it would force the defenders to actually defend. Loosing jump bridges, CSAA's, cynogens etc. would actually hurt. This would also give a reason to have 24/7 alliances timezonewise. Ofc the SBU mechanics would need to be tweaked to stop troll SBU's to be dropped everywhere.

Capitals and Supercapitals
The new system will invalidate quite a lot of capital and supercapital usage. That is a problem again. Mainly beacause every time a capital / supercapital is used, it has the possibility of generating content. Content is good. If you look back to killed supercapitals/capitals we can divide the deaths to three general cathegories (in k-space, not WH space):
- Moving a supercapital gone wrong (and yeah, I used to have a rag)
- Supercapitals are bashing structures with low / none support
- Dreads/carriers reinforcing structures or repairing structures/ships.
The new sov idea will take away quite a lot of those. So we would need a new reason to field those ships. Not that I would love supercapitals gamebalancywise, but the more they are used, the more they keep exploding. Explosions are good mmm'kay.

The change as whole
I like it way more than the dominion sov. Command nodes and freeporting is a awesome idea. I like the fact, that a non used system is super easy to take. Even the usage is based on flawed meters, but anyways. But with the all proposed changes at their stage I feel like Sov is more of a burden than anything else. I feel that this will create a environement, where sov may indeed change lot of hands, but just "beacause we can". Noone, but megacoalitions can afford to actually live in a sovspace, beacause the risk is too big to loose everything during your eastern holidays/xmas etc. I like the Entosis link gameplay. Even it is the same grinding that it has always been but without killmails, it still is way easier to do.

I like the way you are headed CCP. Tweak stuff and it will end up being the best thing that ever happened to EvE. So make Sov actually beneficial, wantable and useful to have.

Ugly Eric has spoken o7
M1k3y Koontz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2343 - 2015-03-05 13:22:34 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
I support these changes +1.

Change is good...


Change often is.

Change just for the sake of change... rarely is.


Are you insinuating that these changes are entirely unnecessary? In which case what game are you playing?

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#2344 - 2015-03-05 13:23:24 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

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.


It's been a matter of public record on these forums for some time. It's been shown to you on no less than two occasions that I am aware of.

If you choose to ignore them, that's your problem.

The fact of the matter is that most truesec is worth less than slowboating highsec missions.

I have seen claims masquerading as data, saying HIsec is worth fortunes, and Null is bad.

That hardly counts as data, I am talking about anomoly regen, isk available in anomolies for loot and salvage, (which we know has dropped) and bounties, officer and faction drops, and escalations over for a period of a week or two. For each class of truesec.

This is data, what I have seen so far is give me more statements 'cause incursions are OP.
You cannot expect CCP to work with this. Or the wider playerbase to support and campaign for the request

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2345 - 2015-03-05 13:25:07 UTC
Terence Bogard wrote:
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.


I still don't see an issue.

As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall.
Slaver73
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2346 - 2015-03-05 13:25:56 UTC
Spawning defense timers because just because of a single person

for a POS it is currently:

- you want to reinforce it alone? Go grab your dread and stay ~60min on the POS and risk your ship
- you and your corporation want to reinforce a POS? Go grab multiple dreads and stay ~5min

and that should be for the Entosis link too

- you want to reinforce the system alone? Do it and stay on the TCU/I-hub/station for 1hour
- you want to reinforce the system with you corporation? Do it and put multiple links on it and stay for 15min

for example 10ppl could reinforce it in 15min but 1 person alone had to stay min. 1h (for sure there should be a cap that like 15ppl reach the max. timer bonus - so that there is no difference between 15ppl putting the link on or 200ppl putting the link on)
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
Ronins
#2347 - 2015-03-05 13:27:26 UTC
This is just the hacking minigame. In space.
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2348 - 2015-03-05 13:28:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Schluffi Schluffelsen
So after a few days of this... I'm just disappointed and my motivation and hopes for this game are like the new wormholes... shattered.

Maybe I was expecting too much, some sort of miracle to get away from the blobs and grinds. But this system isn't it, the grind will just be in a different kind of way but still as time consuming as it was before, now it's not about HP but time spent hitting certain structures in a trololol ceptor. You always claim you want people to play as a team, making Eve something to experience with your friends and members, but how is this system doing this? You can just go RF everything in a frig or cruiser, on your own? But then the prime time thing kicks in? You RF a constellation and then you have to clear 100+ nodes? How is this going to be faster than sitting on a stupid SBU or TCU? This won't change the current layout of 0.0 - sure, the major empires are going to lose space they don't need, but it's still a numbers game. This will hurt N3 and PL even more than any other entity - don't get me wrong, I've never been a fan of them and their "elite" attitude, but this will just crush them. CFC is going to have a fun time annoying the **** out of n3 with marauding squadrons until they just stop playing the game. Well done CCP, so much is going to change...not.

Why couldn't you just come up with a system that promotes smaller entities that fight local wars, that encourages to deploy your capitals and supercapitals in a fight over a constellation - something that makes people put assets on the line, not dumb down the fight to even more ceptor ****. Sorry but you're not "reanimating" 0.0 with these changes, it's not supposed to be another big FW zone. There's a reason why each security area has its own meta and lure. I've supported you on Phoebe because I thought it was a step in the right direction or at least a necessary step to implement a totally new system, which makes it possible to soften fatigue afterwards again. But you're just crippling the long term motivation for a lot of people.

I do own a supercarrier but I don't have much love for it right now, after these changes it's even more just a symbol of luxury. Yes, call these tears or whatever - but these are no "omg losing space or whatever" tears, but this is the wrong direction we're heading to. I love Eve because of the diversity of depth of the ship tiers, the different things you can do and find your own niche. But you're killing off niches and diversity, you're dumbing down the game to frigs and cruisers online for the sake of new players but losing your long term paying members on the way.

I love to fly AFs, but I also love my recons, my battleships and my dread. I can't fly my battleships because a few nerds in bombers make them go pop, I can't fly my dread because there'll be no reason to. I can't move it to where the action is happening and even if I could, there's no action to be had after these changes. You think tweaking a few percents of damage on the Ishtar is the solution for its OPness, disregarding or not even answering to hundreds of useful comments by people who face them every day. This sucks and unfortunately I think you give a rat's ass about what we think or what the CSM says, I'm not even sure we're playing the same game here sometimes.

You've been on a good road, don't ruin it.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#2349 - 2015-03-05 13:31:14 UTC
I have removed a troll/rant post, and those quoting it.

Quote:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

Please stay on topic and be constructive if you're going to partake in the discussion.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#2350 - 2015-03-05 13:31:47 UTC
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2351 - 2015-03-05 13:31:53 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
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.


I still don't see an issue.

As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall.


Its helpful for owners as well. It will allow defenders to pursue an enemy when they leave a structure to go attack another one of the owners structures, which i imagine will not be uncommon. But I will cede that there are much larger issues than this plaguing the sov plans.
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2352 - 2015-03-05 13:35:26 UTC
Slaver73 wrote:
Spawning defense timers because just because of a single person

for a POS it is currently:

- you want to reinforce it alone? Go grab your dread and stay ~60min on the POS and risk your ship
- you and your corporation want to reinforce a POS? Go grab multiple dreads and stay ~5min

and that should be for the Entosis link too

- you want to reinforce the system alone? Do it and stay on the TCU/I-hub/station for 1hour
- you want to reinforce the system with you corporation? Do it and put multiple links on it and stay for 15min

for example 10ppl could reinforce it in 15min but 1 person alone had to stay min. 1h (for sure there should be a cap that like 15ppl reach the max. timer bonus - so that there is no difference between 15ppl putting the link on or 200ppl putting the link on)


Still that means that a fleet of 15 people cant defend a station from a fleet of 30 people without fitting a link on every ship. 1 link at a time is the only way this system works. Any more than that and it fails its entire premise.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2353 - 2015-03-05 13:35:27 UTC
Terence Bogard wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
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.


I still don't see an issue.

As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall.


Its helpful for owners as well. It will allow defenders to pursue an enemy when they leave a structure to go attack another one of the owners structures, which i imagine will not be uncommon. But I will cede that there are much larger issues than this plaguing the sov plans.


Indeed. I do think the occupancy should work as I suggested though.

Yes it's a double bonus to owners who use their space - but that's a carrot, not a stick. Needing to link it for 40 minutes on offence, but 2.5 in defence is a pretty big hurdle to get passed and a good reward for well used space.
bonkerss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2354 - 2015-03-05 13:36:54 UTC
being in a non sov holding alliance im really looking forward to those changes. it opens up a lot of possibilities to cause havoc and grief and probably generates a lot of small scale content!
M1k3y Koontz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2355 - 2015-03-05 13:42:09 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?


Actually, if you check the comments in the trollceptor article on TMC, I did the math: CONDI could mount an active defense of every sov structure it owns and still theoretically have 50% of its 11,997 members available to troll.

Quote:
I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key. Blink


Really? Cuz we don't. :)


The real question is how many of those 12000 players are active? I've never seen more than a few hundred CONDI on a single battle report.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#2356 - 2015-03-05 13:46:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Hairpins Blueprint
After Reading a lot of this stuff, i came to a conclusion.


1. Sov linki mod should be fited only to Battlecruisers or bigger ships.

2. you should be able to anchor pos modules on sov structures.
Not as much as large tower, but how about we give sov structures PG/CPU of a small POS?


Than the atacker must bring sme thing more than just single ship and blanket he whole sov.
They need to bring an actual small working fleet, but it will still be easy to take the sov.



I think it's very reasonable to give Sov sructures option to have POS mods on it.

4 small guns 1 scram and 1 web are easy to tank, come on :)

You could tank it in a single BS but you need to bring a BS, not an interceptor!




It would kill the problems we have now, and you could not blaket whole region risking nothing.
You would have to bring some small force to reinforce sov, not a bloody frigate Blink
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2357 - 2015-03-05 13:49:35 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
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.


I still don't see an issue.

As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall.


Its helpful for owners as well. It will allow defenders to pursue an enemy when they leave a structure to go attack another one of the owners structures, which i imagine will not be uncommon. But I will cede that there are much larger issues than this plaguing the sov plans.


Indeed. I do think the occupancy should work as I suggested though.

Yes it's a double bonus to owners who use their space - but that's a carrot, not a stick. Needing to link it for 40 minutes on offence, but 2.5 in defense is a pretty big hurdle to get passed and a good reward for well used space.


The problem is there's going to be a good chunk of low level occupancy systems until the isk starts raining in 0.0 and tbh even after. It should be harder to defend such space but not impossible. Say I own two constellations, there will probably only be a handful of high level occupancy systems with the rest being medium to low. The strategy for my oppenent is just going to be to bounce around my space reinforcing all of my stuff bit by bit. If i drive them off they go to the next system. I then have to follow them leaving marginally degraded timers all around my space.

I'd be satisfied if they only regened if they were above say, 85% and slowly at that.
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns
#2358 - 2015-03-05 13:51:01 UTC
Alp Khan wrote:
Ugly Eric wrote:

ppl worried of the "trollceptors" or any superfast ships attacking from 200+km. Wake up lads! All the defender needs to do, is that they undock 1 ship per structure to sov-laser their own structure. If a sov entity having 50+ structures cannot undock 50+ defenders on their primetime, they simply do not deserve those amounts of sov.


What you are saying is patently false. Interceptors can kite and deal DPS to ships of any size. Undocking one ship per structure will never be enough even if we assume there will be one unstoppable, uncatchable interceptor per structure. The Interceptor trolling with sovereignty components will either kite the responding 'one ship' and easily deal with it, or if the one responding ship poses a realistic threat against it, will just speed out of that grid before it can be caught.

There is absolutely nothing that an attacker needs to commit, there is zero risk that any contestant needs to take while the defender needs to commit and risk everything. Even assuming that the asset involved in contesting (Interceptor) is actually risked here, it looks ridiculous as a fitted interceptor is just a throw away ship, while gains that can be contested in sovereignty take time, a lot of collective effort and ISK to materialize.

This is why Fozzie & Co needs to wake up, stop pretending to be sociologists attempting to change human behaviour and propensity to collude and collaborate for mutual gains, and instead, smell the ashes of risk-reward balance they have burned here.

Developers need to focus on good sandbox design, not pretending to be spaceship-Marx, spaceship-Engels, spaceship-Arendt or (even though she isn't an accepted sociologist like the names I mentioned) spaceship-Rand. Human nature is what human nature has always been. Let's not kid ourselves, a rag tag team of game developers such as yourselves are not going to change it in this game by railroading the sandbox principles and any tangible risk-reward balance that was established previously in EVE's design.

Now, any EVE player worth their salt and carefully following CCP as a company know very well that they are bleeding out subscribers (therefore, revenue) and even the Phoebe changes that were supposed to stop this bleed out did not end up alleviating it. What I'm saying here is that the development philosophy that seems to be taken up at CCP which hilariously reads out as "we will change human behaviour, we will cause more spaceships to explode over no tangible benefits to be had, and this will create new revenue for us".

Contrary to what Fozzie, Seagull and the rest seems to believe, we, the player base that actively play, invest in and influence the world of EVE are not a congregation of stupid sheep. We will not suddenly start to spend our in-game and real-life resources for meaningless destruction and conflict that offer us no rewards just because a developer like Fozzie or an executive producer like Seagull decided that they prefer that we should in order for CCP to raise more revenue from an already dwindling player base in a 10+ years old game.

Wake up, and smell the ashes CCP.


And if the attacker speeds away? Contest won. GF.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2359 - 2015-03-05 13:51:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
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.


So CCP doesn't know how much null systems are worth. You're literally accusing CCP of being unable to do math.

Time and time again on these forums and others we've recounted how bad most anomalies are and how worthless most null systems are. CCP gave it a pass when they buff the "EHP/isk ratio of anoms, but the only thing it did was made one lower end class of anomalies (Forsaken Rally Points) somewhat more viable. This is because they added more cruisers and battleships but didn't address the real problems (where the npcs spawn in the site, the fact that some sites have stupid triggers thus creating monster incoming dps situations that aren't worth the time to do because you entire ship is nothing but tank, etc etc).

That was 2011 the last time they did any work with null sec anomalies.. And the EHP/Isk 'buff that wasn't a buff' was in reaction to this change that created the Renters Desert sov null is today. If you think that no one (including CCP) knows how bad things are you're crazy. They do know, the ESS was a sort of back hand 'buff' of lower end anomalies (with loyalty points).

Look at any map of null. Count the rental alliances. People don't rent out things it would be more profitable for them to use themselves.

Quote:

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.


Null anomalies generate something like 70% of the isk injected into the game. That seems like a lot and it is, but that's because you have people full time afking anomalies and people spread out so that they can get apiece of the 'good' anomalies.

The issue is mo0re complicated than 'null doesn't make enough space cash. You can (and I do) make a good space-living farming anoms and doing escalations from them. The problem is that you can make the same amounts easily in high sec, under certain conditions you can make MORE in high sec as an individual pilot than you can in null (mission farm setups where you use standings to get good missions form several agents and farm them for 7 days, or high sec shiny incursion fleets). You can make WAY more in low sec and wormholes too. Here is a good recent thread.

There was a time when you couldn't do better than to stumble upon a DED 10/10 in null. Hell, BELT RATTING was enough income to keep you in ships for pvp. Nowadays real pro PVE players avoid Sov Null like the plague . Sov null isk making isn't impossible, it's just a poor choice compared to, say, flying a stealth bomber in faction warfare and spamming missions, (they don't make 600 mil per hour anymore, but 200-300 mil per hour flying a stealth bomber is obviously superior to the 90-100 mil per hour a pirate battleship could generate in null...).

As long as player can make the same or better isk elsewhere, there is no need for people to 'settle' in null. Renters exist all over null because renters have pretty low standards when it comes to isk making (for a newer corp, renting makes sense because sov null ratting and mining does have a pretty low barrier of entry compared to other things like high sec incursions).

CCp needs to take a good top to bottom look at pve and isk making. As We've been saying, you can't just change HOW sov works without working on the 'why'.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2360 - 2015-03-05 13:55:09 UTC
Terence Bogard wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
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.


I still don't see an issue.

As it is currently presented, at WORST the defenders spend 9.9 minutes rolling it back. If we reverse occupancy multipliers to assist that, it is 2.5 minutes - 150 seconds to secure the objective. That's not a huge effort wall.


Its helpful for owners as well. It will allow defenders to pursue an enemy when they leave a structure to go attack another one of the owners structures, which i imagine will not be uncommon. But I will cede that there are much larger issues than this plaguing the sov plans.


Indeed. I do think the occupancy should work as I suggested though.

Yes it's a double bonus to owners who use their space - but that's a carrot, not a stick. Needing to link it for 40 minutes on offence, but 2.5 in defense is a pretty big hurdle to get passed and a good reward for well used space.


The problem is there's going to be a good chunk of low level occupancy systems until the isk starts raining in 0.0 and tbh even after. It should be harder to defend such space but not impossible. Say I own two constellations, there will probably only be a handful of high level occupancy systems with the rest being medium to low. The strategy for my oppenent is just going to be to bounce around my space reinforcing all of my stuff bit by bit. If i drive them off they go to the next system. I then have to follow them leaving marginally degraded timers all around my space.

I'd be satisfied if they only regened if they were above say, 85% and slowly at that.



Perhaps after the window ends. Maybe. It's only 10 minutes - nothing compared to a current structure repair.

But then, I think occupancy should be not system limited, perhaps a combination of adjacent systems values, or the sum thereof or similar.