These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2461 - 2015-03-05 15:34:02 UTC
Super Stallion wrote:
I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.

Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess.

It introduces the ability for small groups to harass and stretch out a larger group WITHOUT needing to drop (and whelp) a vulnerable supercap fleet to do so...

Did you miss the bit of the thread about trollceptors?

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2462 - 2015-03-05 15:34:34 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Alp Khan 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.

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.



And this is precisely why the whole proposal is incredibly, ridiculously weak when it comes to risk-reward and game balance. Even worse, I'm not seeing an easy to way to make this workable. It would probably take less time to modify the existing mechanics and increase the null-sec life benefits to make this non-sense workable.

I'm betting that the majority of CSM already said no when this was revealed to them.

Sometimes, I feel as if my words are falling short to describe the level of incompetency here. I thought before, when the pre-Phoebe blog hit, that this shortsighted and shallow approach was an issue specifically with Greyscale. However, now I fully realize that it is not something that is isolated to Greyscale.



Yea, the CSM overwhelmingly disagreeing with this is why we've seen so many CSM speak out against it--oh wait, they haven't.


I don't see much in the way of positive affirmation of these changes from the CSM either. Silence doesn't not imply they condone or endorse this change.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
flakeys
Doomheim
#2463 - 2015-03-05 15:38:16 UTC
Miner Hottie wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Alp Khan 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.

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.



And this is precisely why the whole proposal is incredibly, ridiculously weak when it comes to risk-reward and game balance. Even worse, I'm not seeing an easy to way to make this workable. It would probably take less time to modify the existing mechanics and increase the null-sec life benefits to make this non-sense workable.

I'm betting that the majority of CSM already said no when this was revealed to them.

Sometimes, I feel as if my words are falling short to describe the level of incompetency here. I thought before, when the pre-Phoebe blog hit, that this shortsighted and shallow approach was an issue specifically with Greyscale. However, now I fully realize that it is not something that is isolated to Greyscale.



Yea, the CSM overwhelmingly disagreeing with this is why we've seen so many CSM speak out against it--oh wait, they haven't.


I don't see much in the way of positive affirmation of these changes from the CSM either. Silence doesn't not imply they condone or endorse this change.



It implies they need to ask 'their leaders' aka reall CSM on what position 'they' should take or it implies they rather await till the storm of complaints from players has lowered so that they can pick the most popular concerns as 'their own concerns' .

That is what it implies . If that is the case is a second thing Lol.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#2464 - 2015-03-05 15:41:06 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Miner Hottie wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Alp Khan 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.

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.



And this is precisely why the whole proposal is incredibly, ridiculously weak when it comes to risk-reward and game balance. Even worse, I'm not seeing an easy to way to make this workable. It would probably take less time to modify the existing mechanics and increase the null-sec life benefits to make this non-sense workable.

I'm betting that the majority of CSM already said no when this was revealed to them.

Sometimes, I feel as if my words are falling short to describe the level of incompetency here. I thought before, when the pre-Phoebe blog hit, that this shortsighted and shallow approach was an issue specifically with Greyscale. However, now I fully realize that it is not something that is isolated to Greyscale.



Yea, the CSM overwhelmingly disagreeing with this is why we've seen so many CSM speak out against it--oh wait, they haven't.


I don't see much in the way of positive affirmation of these changes from the CSM either. Silence doesn't not imply they condone or endorse this change.


It also doesnt mean that they hate it. Considering that the last time CCP went over the CSM's head they were quite vocal, it seems safe to assume the CSM were aware of the changes, and werent strongly opposed.

Edit: or as flakeys said, they are waiting to take a public stand because they are playing politics.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2465 - 2015-03-05 15:43:19 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Super Stallion wrote:
I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.

Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess.

It introduces the ability for small groups to harass and stretch out a larger group WITHOUT needing to drop (and whelp) a vulnerable supercap fleet to do so...

Did you miss the bit of the thread about trollceptors?


I am not seeing a difference between a troll ceptor and a troll-industrial erecting a blockaid unit. Both accomplish the same thing. Both annoy the defender to no end. Both need to be dealt with.

But I would not declare the swapping of one for the other as a fundamental change to how sov war is conducted.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2466 - 2015-03-05 15:43:59 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Arik Alabel
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#2467 - 2015-03-05 15:51:24 UTC
Super Stallion wrote:
I do not see changes to how sov wars are actually fought today.


then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting.
Arik Alabel
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#2468 - 2015-03-05 15:54:00 UTC
Super Stallion wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Super Stallion wrote:
I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.

Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess.

It introduces the ability for small groups to harass and stretch out a larger group WITHOUT needing to drop (and whelp) a vulnerable supercap fleet to do so...

Did you miss the bit of the thread about trollceptors?


I am not seeing a difference between a troll ceptor and a troll-industrial erecting a blockaid unit. Both accomplish the same thing. Both annoy the defender to no end. Both need to be dealt with.

But I would not declare the swapping of one for the other as a fundamental change to how sov war is conducted.



You seem to be completely missing the point. A "troll-industrial" doesn't exist because the owner's defensive SBU would have to be killed first. And kill and replace 51% of the sbu's in that system. You don't do that in a no effort "troll-industrial".
Killbac Orator
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2469 - 2015-03-05 15:57:06 UTC
My two isk worth...

Good initial concept for nul sov changes. Entosis module should fit and function according to ship class. All ship classes retain same activation timer.

1. Inability to warp off once activated, and for duration of cycle.
2. Cap consumption penalty based on ship class ( pulse that MWD ceptors!)
3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).
4. No external repps, links, ect.

TZ needs some added consideration. Wouldn't want anyone excluded from game play. Sad

Fight!!!

As far as the detractors and naysayers are concerned...

"Overall score for Sovereignty Conquests: We’re successfully off life support, but we absolutely need to do better."

This has been a long time coming. The long debated "null is stagnant" refrain by the Eve community is largely a result of the big bloc alliances who have carved out their niche space and became complacent. Meanwhile CCP sat idly by and failed to act upon a negative trend. Now CCP is fixing it. Adapt or go elsewhere!

"Over the medium term, we see the potential for more substantial changes in the nullsec status quo as the various competing parties work to adjust their internal objectives to the new situation; it seems plausible that the general reduction in travel capabilities will lead to more localism, but we don't want to make any firm predictions in this area. We're confident that these changes improve the overall system of lowsec and nullsec gameplay and take them in better directions, but any set of changes that would allow us to accurately predict their consequences would by their nature be too simple to be interesting for very long."

Please note: "nullsec status quo" and "localism". I read that as a good thing. We all know that the real stagnation in null is not null itself, but the controlling alliance blocs that are resistant to anything that forces them to defend against anyone smaller than their crony enemy alliances. Change is coming, like it or not.
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia
#2470 - 2015-03-05 15:59:16 UTC
Well once these changes are made I see me and my corp mates coming out on top. It will be very fun continuously flipping systems with nothing more than a small gang. "You can't be everywhere all the time"
flakeys
Doomheim
#2471 - 2015-03-05 16:01:08 UTC  |  Edited by: flakeys
Killbac Orator wrote:

3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).



This actually looks by far one of the better solutions.Might want to also add a different cycletime according to shiptype going from a shorter period for bs to a longer period for frig size but if you do the difference should not be too far from each other.

So make it one type of module but different versions of it wich can only fit to X type of shipclass.Basically the same way a shield booster is now.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#2472 - 2015-03-05 16:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Shorten range of module to 75 km so that a reasonably spec'd anti-interceptor Destroyer can engage. Interceptor immunity gone.

No T2 module in game increases performance by a factor of 10. This module shouldn't be the first. I have a feeling the devs put the 250km number out there as a red herring. They are setting expectations "high" so that when they come back with a number like 100km you will be happy rather than upset that most ships can't hit an interceptor at 100km.
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2473 - 2015-03-05 16:10:21 UTC
Arik Alabel wrote:
Super Stallion wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Super Stallion wrote:
I agree that there is far less grinding. I also agree that less grinding is good. But, this isnt being brought to us as a system to reduce grinding. This is being brought to us as a system which will change how sov war is conducted.

Sadly, this system does not change how sov war is conducted. It only changes the final stage, cleaning up our mess.

It introduces the ability for small groups to harass and stretch out a larger group WITHOUT needing to drop (and whelp) a vulnerable supercap fleet to do so...

Did you miss the bit of the thread about trollceptors?


I am not seeing a difference between a troll ceptor and a troll-industrial erecting a blockaid unit. Both accomplish the same thing. Both annoy the defender to no end. Both need to be dealt with.

But I would not declare the swapping of one for the other as a fundamental change to how sov war is conducted.



You seem to be completely missing the point. A "troll-industrial" doesn't exist because the owner's defensive SBU would have to be killed first. And kill and replace 51% of the sbu's in that system. You don't do that in a no effort "troll-industrial".


I guess we will just have to see how these changes actually play out. I would love to see a major change. I would love to see a change that truly impacts how wars are fought.

Sadly, just as i have gotten side tracked in the conversation, I think that this design for null sov got side tracked into producing a mini game to replace the very final stages of a war with some fun opportunities for trolling mixed in.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2474 - 2015-03-05 16:10:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
flakeys wrote:
Killbac Orator wrote:

3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).



This actually looks by far one of the better solutions.Might want to also add a different cycletime according to shiptype going from a shorter period for bs to a longer period for frig size but if you do the difference should not be too far from each other.

So make it one type of module but different versions of it wich can only fit to X type of shipclass.Basically the same way a shield booster is now.

I don't think this is really necessary because there's already the hard limits of how many sebos and rigs you can fit to your ship to extend the locking range far enough anyways (and the associated gimping that does to the rest of your fit)...

Seems like the fear of the 80dps with no application beyond their own noses, no tackle, no tank trollceptors is getting to people too much

edit: Forgot to say 100m per ship, 80dps with no application beyond their own noses, no tackle, no tank trollceptors...

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
FourDrink Minimum
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2475 - 2015-03-05 16:11:15 UTC  |  Edited by: FourDrink Minimum
Killbac Orator wrote:

3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).

To expand on this, divide entosis mods into separate classes like the 1MN/10MN/100MN propulsion mods and balance accordingly.

For example:
The capital version takes 4x longer to cap.
The battleship version has a huge range.
The cruiser version caps the fastest, but has short range.
The frigate version has the shortest range and scaling penalty to cap time based on sov index.

Then you can tune the sov capture process based on individual ship classes and you don't have to have a one-size-fits-all approach to the module. For obvious reasons, you'd have to lock the entosis mods to ship size, unlike with propulsion mods.
Killbac Orator
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2476 - 2015-03-05 16:12:37 UTC
I'm game for anything that includes common sense, fun, and of course, Fights!!! :)
flakeys
Doomheim
#2477 - 2015-03-05 16:14:39 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Shorten range of module to 75 km so that a reasonably spec'd anti-interceptor Destroyer can engage. Interceptor immunity gone.

No T2 module in game increases performance by a factor of 10. This module shouldn't be the first. I have a feeling the devs put the 250km number out there as a red herring. They are setting expectations "high" so that when they come back with a number like 100km you will be happy rather than upset that most ships can't hit an interceptor at 100km.



A trick my wife does a lot .


You can guess in wich way Lol.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#2478 - 2015-03-05 16:16:38 UTC
Systems are empty because they are not even worth advertising them for rent:

Open the map, look for military and industry indices. Every system that has both at 0 and and bad security status is totally worthless (maybe just enough for a single player, but no single player will take the risk and live there). Some systems have strategic functions, some are just for travel and the rest of empty systems are just for having an alert if your alli gets invaded.

As nearly all systems in renter space are free to rent, even the low status and strategic ones, and noone rents them they must be worthless. This i see as proof.
flakeys
Doomheim
#2479 - 2015-03-05 16:18:42 UTC  |  Edited by: flakeys
Eli Apol wrote:
flakeys wrote:
Killbac Orator wrote:

3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).



This actually looks by far one of the better solutions.Might want to also add a different cycletime according to shiptype going from a shorter period for bs to a longer period for frig size but if you do the difference should not be too far from each other.

So make it one type of module but different versions of it wich can only fit to X type of shipclass.Basically the same way a shield booster is now.

I don't think this is really necessary because there's already the hard limits of how many sebos and rigs you can fit to your ship to extend the locking range far enough anyways (and the associated gimping that does to the rest of your fit)...

Seems like the fear of the 80dps with no application beyond their own noses, no tackle, no tank trollceptors is getting to people too much

edit: Forgot to say 100m per ship, 80dps with no application beyond their own noses, no tackle, no tank trollceptors...



Come on it's nullboys , they ain't used to going after fast solo ships , hence why you see the FW guys going all 'the ****'s the problem it's only a ceptor. LolBlink

On a sidenote , if you want to screw around then with a 50km limited ceptor you can do that just as much .BUT then you should be able to mwd the hell out too.After all 'they' are talking about risk vs reward so you are taking more risk with mwd active as a reward.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Killbac Orator
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2480 - 2015-03-05 16:20:46 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
flakeys wrote:
Killbac Orator wrote:

3. One module class that incorporates range penalty based upon fitted ship class ( ceptor = 50km, BC = 100km, BS = 250km) with 250km max for any fitted ship class greater than BS, ( no need for a T2 variant ).



This actually looks by far one of the better solutions.Might want to also add a different cycletime according to shiptype going from a shorter period for bs to a longer period for frig size but if you do the difference should not be too far from each other.

So make it one type of module but different versions of it wich can only fit to X type of shipclass.Basically the same way a shield booster is now.

I don't think this is really necessary because there's already the hard limits of how many sebos and rigs you can fit to your ship to extend the locking range far enough anyways (and the associated gimping that does to the rest of your fit)...

Seems like the fear of the 80dps with no application beyond their own noses, no tackle, no tank trollceptors is getting to people too much

edit: Forgot to say 100m per ship, 80dps with no application beyond their own noses, no tackle, no tank trollceptors...


Agree about the ceptor fear. There are as many ways to kill a ceptor, as there will be strategies to use the new module.Twisted