These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chirality Tisteloin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2421 - 2015-03-05 15:01:17 UTC
Interesting concept.

Concerning the prime time:
Idea I support the idea that the width of the time window when structures can be reinforced should be tied into occupancy. System boni acquired from usage reduce the time window. Unbonused systems should have rather large window +-6h around the prime time (which becomes a point in time). The exit window should be unaffected by occupancy and tight around prime time (+-2h)
Idea To alleviate multi tz concerns: Enable alliances to set a different prime time per constellation?
Idea Decay of occupancy bonus with time (taking effect if system becomes unsed)?

Fly smart, Chira.

See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#2422 - 2015-03-05 15:01:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Hairpins Blueprint
Idea to fix "sov is too easy to take now"



Allows to Put Guns on Sov structures.


You will be able to BPC's For them from NPC's in Hi-sec;
Concord LP store for isk only no lp. 5 run BPC for 100 mil isk


Sov Guns will be Drifter Wepon Based tech sleeper what ever.

250 km optimal

200 dps, all damage types, infinite tracking.

they will have 2 mil EHP and can be just killed/blaped


50 mil building cost from PI mats.


We should be able to put just few like 3-5 max


Boom Sov is no longer super easy to take, no need to limit sov link module to hulls, every one is happy.
Sov is no longer super easy to take and we have another cool ISK sink and buff to PI.


And people are forced to take a small fleet of eaven t1 cruisers to take the sov Big smile And you are still able to reinforce every thing with frigates if there are no guns on sov structures ! Lol

All cool, PLz Fooozziieee


And we can completely get rid of time zone thing! Only reiforced timers would go out in 4h window that we set

But we can reinforce 24/7!
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2423 - 2015-03-05 15:03:44 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:

I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though.


They are. That's why the attacker is dead.

I have still not seen a reason why you think the attacker's influence should remain even after they totally failed a reinforce attempts.


Quote:
No-one is asking them to spend hours per object.


That's actually exactly what you're asking them to do. Either defend the TCU 24/7, or come back for four hours per structure every day forever.


He's hung up on "THE OWNER" = the alliance the object's connected to.

If he thinks the game'll get better if someone has to constantly run around and spend x minutes to reset a structure's timer or setting, that's one thing, but I see no problems with enabling someone to hold f.ex the TCU, someone else hold the IHUB, another the station etc, and not requiring all 3 to pop by if the people who are living there fend off the attacker successfully.

I mean, we could of course do something silly like create an alliance called the greater co-prosperity sphere and stick tons of people in there, instead of having all these silly alliance names, and have the defenders be "the owners".
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2424 - 2015-03-05 15:03:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
This thread needs an index to cover points made, 123 pages is kinda tl:dr for many ideas and questions. Mine for example is:

Wont "prime time" sov mechanics lead to regional (time zone)specific corps and alliances? That is, just because the corps A,b,c of alliance WorldOfGamers are in pacific time, and corps X,Y,Z are in greenwich time wouldn't it put half of the corps out of their "prime time?"

I quite like being in a very diverse corp, in a very diverse alliance, where nationality means nothing ( except during world cup).

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2425 - 2015-03-05 15:04:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Chirality Tisteloin wrote:

Idea To alleviate multi tz concerns: Enable alliances to set a different prime time per constellation?

This idea keeps on coming up and it's nice in theory for the AU tz guys IF they can persuade their leadership to agree... but unless those AU tz guys are the only ones using that space during the 24hr window it's more than likely not going to be the optimal defence.

I prefer the idea that larger alliances get larger windows, forcing them to fragment or defend across a wider band (also sov bonuses are only applicable to the owning alliance in system to prevent buffer alliances for a multitude of smaller windows)


edit: also think about how this affects the trollceptor conundrum - large alliances are susceptible to it 24/7 whilst small alliances only have to put up with it for 4hrs a day

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2426 - 2015-03-05 15:04:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Super Stallion
I do not see this changing how sov war is actually conducted. Shooting sov structures only occurs after the war is already won. swapping shooting a sov structure with missiles to shooting the sov structure/cap point with an entosis module doesnt change how the wars are actually fought.

look as the last war between Goonswarm Federation and Test Alliance Please ignore as a reference
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#2427 - 2015-03-05 15:05:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:

I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though.


They are. That's why the attacker is dead.




You seem to have a bit of difficulty grasping the difference between actual owners (i.e. the sovholding alliance) and the whole defending party (i.e. coalition, blues, whatever).
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2428 - 2015-03-05 15:06:23 UTC
Super Stallion wrote:
I do not see this changing how sov war is actually conducted. Shooting sov structures only occurs after the war is already won. swapping shooting a sov structure with missiles to shooting the sov structure/cap point with an entosis module doesnt change how the wars are actually fought.



There will be WAY less structures to shoot. The structure grind at the end will be a mere formality.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2429 - 2015-03-05 15:07:58 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:

I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though.


They are. That's why the attacker is dead.

I have still not seen a reason why you think the attacker's influence should remain even after they totally failed a reinforce attempts.


Quote:
No-one is asking them to spend hours per object.


That's actually exactly what you're asking them to do. Either defend the TCU 24/7, or come back for four hours per structure every day forever.



Why the hell do you think you deserve to hold SOV if you can't deal with inties in your systems especially with the timezone lockout? If you only have enough people to defend 3 systems then how about you stop trying to control more than 3? You don't need a supercap fleet around the clock, you need a few dudes in your self determined prime time to counter a few trolls throwing 100 mill KM at you. The only reason why it will be stupid if implemented like stated right now is the BS 250km range on the module.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2430 - 2015-03-05 15:08:19 UTC
Super Stallion wrote:
I do not see this changing how sov war is actually conducted. Shooting sov structures only occurs after the war is already won. swapping shooting a sov structure with missiles to shooting the sov structure/cap point with an entosis module doesnt change how the wars are actually fought.

look as the last war between Goonswarm Federation and Test Alliance Please ignore as a reference

For the initial RF fight, you're correct. For the actual defence of an RF'd structure the war now needs to be fought across many different battlefields concurrently with the defender having upto a 4x advantage in capture speed.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2431 - 2015-03-05 15:09:20 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Welcome to eveafkcloakycamping online.

Going thru with this until afk clocky camping is solved will kill all the point of living in nullsec.
I mean, I'm still gonna be doing pew there, but since disruption is going to be a major thing, we will see easily over 20x rise in afk cloaky camping.

My thoughts on issue are simple: afk cloaky camping is 100% disruption of any non-deadspace activity in a system. Trolls and stupids can argue on that, they are going to be ignored anyway, as long there is no way to survive hotdrop other than not undocking, it'll be that way.

So, every system in a "targeted" region is going to have an afk cloaker in it, there is no meaningful defense against it, thus we can assume ratings are always 0-1 and don't mean anything anyway, as it takes just 1 afk cloaker to make them decay to nothing.

Next major thing is a permanent 4 hours long CTA every day with no weekend or vacation. As if current ones weren't disgusting enough.

Industry rating is about an order of magnitude harder to get and maintain. I couldn't imagine why it got the same influence as military rating (which is a total joke, a week ago just 2 dudes bumped it from 3 to 5 in one evening right before my eyes, while watching a movie), until I saw it's Fozzie who's responsible for this, and it kinda made sense - every time this pile of Fozzie touches some part of industry, the said part takes a nosedive, sometimes into non-existence.

Also, industry rating is an order of magnitude easier to disrupt as well, since barges all barges but 2 are completely defenseless, and both of the 2 are pretty much nonviable in mining (thanks to Fozzie as well, of course).

Overall this might be making eve more of an eve, but nullsec is going to lose a lot of population with this. It is a SPECTACULAR failure to shake the blue donut, while areas which already have too much pew going on are going to get even harsher.

If this goes through like this, see me afk cloaking in Deklein. With one account, the rest become useless, unless I move into hisec with them to have at least some way to make ISK in its nerfed state.


Please take this useless post to the afk cloaking thread. The whole point of this stuff is to encourage group play and protection of said ratters as it is in the best interest of the defense of your space. Were you even paying attention?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2432 - 2015-03-05 15:09:22 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Current method at least offers some initiative to the attackers to actually start a meaningful fight as the defender has to come on grid and push them off or remain on grid with them whilst risking a 20m module on even their cheapest ship.


Quite the opposite, actually. It encourages any prospective attacker to spread out as much as possible, and fight as little as possible, since the cycle time on these things is so incredibly low.

It actively discourages defensive fighting pre-reinforce. Which, in turn, basically puts a four hour per structure time tax on the defender.

I elaborated this earlier. I can get a separate monitor, put up a few clients on it with an "afk" cloaked ship each, wait until I have two minutes, reinforce half a dozen structures(because let's not even pretend that is feasible or reasonable to tell people to defend a system 24/7. That's not a game, that's a job), and then they have to guard each and every one for four hours to make sure I don't show up and cap their **** like I'm sniping an Ebay auction.

That is the optimal sov capture method. Barely more effort than afk cloaking, and I can capture sov from even determined defenders after a little while, since eventually they will get tired of it or their wives will kill them.

And then you'd have the Republic of Kaarous, and I didn't fight anybody to get it. At least until someone wanted to take it from me, then we'd take turns trolling each other until somebody gives up.

That's what made me laugh about the "weaponize boredom" line.

"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.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2433 - 2015-03-05 15:11:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Current method at least offers some initiative to the attackers to actually start a meaningful fight as the defender has to come on grid and push them off or remain on grid with them whilst risking a 20m module on even their cheapest ship.


Quite the opposite, actually. It encourages any prospective attacker to spread out as much as possible, and fight as little as possible, since the cycle time on these things is so incredibly low

Yep the initiative is with the attackers, exactly what I said. Even after the cycle time they have to stay on grid for another 10-40minutes AFTER the first cycle.

Defenders HAVE to react which enables the attackers to attack them or move on.

Solo PvPers could fit a link and force someone to undock and come on grid with them wherever they like (provided it's within the primetime)

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2434 - 2015-03-05 15:12:38 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Why the hell do you think you deserve to hold SOV if you can't deal with inties in your systems especially with the timezone lockout?


Why the hell do they think they deserve to hold sov if all they do is troll me with interceptors?


Quote:

If you only have enough people to defend 3 systems then how about you stop trying to control more than 3?


Hey, that's a great idea that nobody ever though of before! Oh, wait, except that it's impossible to do given the current income system. I'd be able to support about ten players with 3 systems.

Great plan, bro. Roll

That's what a bunch of my posts in this thread have been about, by the way. This MUST be accompanied with a full rework of individual level income in nullsec space.

"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.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2435 - 2015-03-05 15:15:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Hey, that's a great idea that nobody ever though of before! Oh, wait, except that it's impossible to do given the current income system. I'd be able to support about ten players with 3 systems.

Great plan, bro. Roll

That's what a bunch of my posts in this thread have been about, by the way. This MUST be accompanied with a full rework of individual level income in nullsec space.

And the plans for income changes haven't been released yet (presumably phase 3)

Instead of gifting 10b/moon to the alliance execs passively it would be nice for a bottom up income to go to the line members through actively needing to mine the moons and have ships in space (which could also add to the industry indices)

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2436 - 2015-03-05 15:15:44 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Current method at least offers some initiative to the attackers to actually start a meaningful fight as the defender has to come on grid and push them off or remain on grid with them whilst risking a 20m module on even their cheapest ship.


Quite the opposite, actually. It encourages any prospective attacker to spread out as much as possible, and fight as little as possible, since the cycle time on these things is so incredibly low

Yep the initiative is with the attackers, exactly what I said. Even after the cycle time they have to stay on grid for another 10-40minutes AFTER the first cycle.

Defenders HAVE to react which enables the attackers to attack them or move on.

Solo PvPers could fit a link and force someone to undock and come on grid with them wherever they like (provided it's within the primetime)


Read the whole thing, the scenario I laid out for you. I dare you to tell me that what would result is a good thing.

"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.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#2437 - 2015-03-05 15:16:06 UTC
Chirality Tisteloin wrote:
Interesting concept.

Concerning the prime time:
Idea I support the idea that the width of the time window when structures can be reinforced should be tied into occupancy. System boni acquired from usage reduce the time window. Unbonused systems should have rather large window +-6h around the prime time (which becomes a point in time). The exit window should be unaffected by occupancy and tight around prime time (+-2h)
Fly smart, Chira.


And why not scale it regarding to alliance members number from 2 hours to 10.

Something like that :
- 2 hours for <100 members
- 4 hours for < 500
- 6 hours for < 1k
- 8 hours for < 5k
- 10 hours for > 5k

I think also RF duration should be lowered to only one day to allow more battle on week-end and holydays for people not single / unemployed / not student.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#2438 - 2015-03-05 15:16:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[quote=Eli Apol]
If it immediately hard resets then suddenly falcon screws up absolutely EVERY capture attempt whether by trollceptors or battleships (exception for ewar immune marauders and caps) So definitely not a hard reset.


See, I fail to see the issue with that. If you aren't willing to fight the defenders for it, you don't belong there in the first place. I do not believe that anyone should be able to troll their way into sov just by vomiting enough interceptors at somebody. And I don't believe that is the intended purpose of this system, either.

Im sorry, have you tried fighting a falcon? Good luck with that.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2439 - 2015-03-05 15:18:30 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

Im sorry, have you tried fighting a falcon? Good luck with that.


Oh, it's not fun, I'm fully aware of that. I did used to be a logi pilot, after all.

My point was in regards to the people shouting from the rooftops that they think the attacker will have zero burden of effort.

Because I truly, truly doubt that will be the case.

"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
#2440 - 2015-03-05 15:18:41 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

If it immediately hard resets then suddenly falcon screws up absolutely EVERY capture attempt whether by trollceptors or battleships (exception for ewar immune marauders and caps) So definitely not a hard reset.


See, I fail to see the issue with that. If you aren't willing to fight the defenders for it, you don't belong there in the first place. I do not believe that anyone should be able to troll their way into sov just by vomiting enough interceptors at somebody. And I don't believe that is the intended purpose of this system, either.


Im sorry, have you tried fighting a falcon? Good luck with that.



Stuff falcons, humble maulus FTW.

I'd LOVE to see these "mighty trollceptors" deal with a simple maulus/caracal combination.