These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2541 - 2015-03-05 18:25:37 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Here is some thoughts on addressing income.

1) make moongoo mineable by the players, and not a pos.


I love that idea. There is the 'bottom up alliance income' CCP keeps talking about we need. And I agree.

As far as the income structure/mechanic in null, I'll just copy and paste Mr Megathron himself from another thread:

baltec1 wrote:


Combat anoms don't work.

You cannot support a small corp in a system let alone an alliance of our size on the current anoms. If CCP want us to shrink our empires then they have to get rid of the need to hold vast areas of space. Moving to a mission style setup would allow us to fit several hundred to a system as opposed to todays max of 10

Another issue is to do with the way we earn isk in null. The bulk of the income from anoms comes in the form of bounties which is a rather big problem. There is roughly twice as much isk entering the economy than leaving it which has lead to isk buying you less than it used to (Carriers for example have doubled in cost over the last decade). This means that mission income has risen over the years due to the fact that most of their reward comes in the form of LP. Anom income has been fixed in place due to bounties while mission rewards have effectively risen which has resulted in missions overtaking anoms in reward.

We need a new way of earning isk in null, anoms simply don't work in the long run.



Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2542 - 2015-03-05 18:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:


100's near thousands of post about afk cloaky camping, and ccp refuses to acknowledge that its a problem
That's because it's not a problem except for the weak, lazy and un-creative.

What I tell afk cloakers:

[Typhoon, F YOU AFKguy]
Internal Force Field Array I
'Repose' Core Compensation
'Repose' Core Compensation
'Repose' Core Compensation
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Drone Damage Amplifier II

Large Micro Jump Drive
Target Spectrum Breaker
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
'Copasetic' Particle Field Acceleration
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster

Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II
Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I

Curator II x4
Hornet EC-300 x5


So you prefer to give up expensive ships? Which system are you in?


What do you mean give up expensive ships? What you just posted makes no sense (and as far as ratting ships go, my anti-afk phoon is dirt cheap, less than an afktar).

Oh and besides, if ( between an MJD, target breaker, warp core stabs, a heavy neut and ECM drones) you can't escape a cloaker that decloaks for a hot drop, you deserve to die.
Senyu Takashi
NGC research and development
#2543 - 2015-03-05 18:31:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Here is some thoughts on addressing income.

1) make moongoo mineable by the players, and not a pos.


I love that idea. There is the 'bottom up alliance income' CCP keeps talking about we need. And I agree.

As far as the income structure/mechanic in null, I'll just copy and paste Mr Megathron himself from another thread:

baltec1 wrote:


Combat anoms don't work.

You cannot support a small corp in a system let alone an alliance of our size on the current anoms. If CCP want us to shrink our empires then they have to get rid of the need to hold vast areas of space. Moving to a mission style setup would allow us to fit several hundred to a system as opposed to todays max of 10

Another issue is to do with the way we earn isk in null. The bulk of the income from anoms comes in the form of bounties which is a rather big problem. There is roughly twice as much isk entering the economy than leaving it which has lead to isk buying you less than it used to (Carriers for example have doubled in cost over the last decade). This means that mission income has risen over the years due to the fact that most of their reward comes in the form of LP. Anom income has been fixed in place due to bounties while mission rewards have effectively risen which has resulted in missions overtaking anoms in reward.

We need a new way of earning isk in null, anoms simply don't work in the long run.




Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo?

You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game.
El'Grimm
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2544 - 2015-03-05 18:34:39 UTC
If its not ceptors it will be something else if trolling is going to be so easy. If trolling is in any way feasible with this new system holding sov is going to be a 28 hours per week job, no matter how small or big your space is.

28 hours per week being trolled, I might as well just watch jita local instead, responding to troll pings is NOT going to be engaging game-play for anyone other than the trolls, and if they are the only ones having fun, they will be the only ones playing.

Drop the e-wand price, keep the low fitting reqs, but limit to BC or bigger hulls.

If these mystical new bros who want sov cant even scrape together a few t1 BC hulls, then they definitely cant do anything else that relates to sov, like living in it, making it even approach being worth while.

And please just stop referencing the 40 min timer, its so insanely hard to achieve that 5/5/5 index that its irrelevant even talking about it, let alone claiming that occupancy as it stands in this proposed system is good, it is a laughable bonus.

I reckon average index bonus will turn the 10 minutes, into 15-25 mins average, thats why the flood of cheap fast troll ships (whatever they are) being able to ping every timer is going to make defending so awkward. To be able to get to every timer effectively means a defenders space will need to be so small, that the small space wont be able to sustain isk wise the number of defenders needed until the area covered is so small that ANY large force will just roflstomp them. I just see the whole equation untenable.

Large alliances will have to have large amounts of space, to be able to support there players, thus flood attacks will just troll them relentlessly.
Small alliances are still going to be at the absolute mercy of any alliance even slightly bigger than them, or shock horror to the new guys, better skilled or better equipped.
Basil Pupkin
Strategic Incompetence
#2545 - 2015-03-05 18:34:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
What do you mean give up expensive ships? What you just posted makes no sense (and as far as ratting ships go, my anti-afk phoon is dirt cheap, less than an afktar).

Oh and besides, if, between an MJD, target breaker, warp core stabs, a heavy neut and ECM drones you can't escape a cloaker that decloaks for a hot drop, you deserve to die.


A hotdrop will kill you so easily they won't even have time to laugh at you.
And efficiency of that fit is on par with... I dunno, the only thing that bad... I don't know anything that bad, actually.
I mean, you can get something with THAT (in)efficiency for at most 1/7 of your hull price. Which is why that whole idea is looking like stupid and dumb already.

Also, fit me an anti-afk barge. You know, the thing you can't keep indy rating without. And don't wink at the mining frigs, they suck. Barges suck as well, but less.

I don't mind how many less-than-bright people can't acknowledge it, but AFK cloaking is the problem, and it's going to be 20x more of a problem in this system.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#2546 - 2015-03-05 18:35:40 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Cleanse Serce wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious.


125 pages, 2 CCP posts. This shows how little CCP is concerned. Roll

Logic is overestimated.


I think they are very interested, they are most likely waiting for the noise to die down, and the suggestions, that completely undo all they are trying to achieve, being demolished by intelligent players, before they step in and take in the more serious suggestions.

Possibly when players stop trying to remove interceptors and change timers etc to continue to allow unoccupied systems to be safe, then we may see them.

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

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2547 - 2015-03-05 18:38:19 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Well if the goal is to allow any single pilot to ring the doorbell or even reinforce a structure in 40 minutes, then I guess there is no way around the fact that it will get abused on a grand scale. Sovereignty warfare is not, nor should it be, the domain of any individual pilot to accomplish. If you can't get past a POS then you probably shouldn't be trying to get into the sovwar game. That's just my opinion of course, and I will await to see the abuse that results from thinking that it should be. Because if any single pilot has the capability of doing so, then thousands will organize just to show just how broken that mechanic truly is.

On the contrary - sov should not be holdable by people that can't even respond within 40 minutes to a single ship ringing their doorbell and asking if they're in - and - if they are in, what are they willing to commit right there and then to forcing them off grid?

Yes it's gonna be 'griefable' but I don't really see the joy for the griefers.

All this threat of goons being able to troll the whole of nullsec is them simply showing their fear that they won't be able to drop their whole blob across every single one of their systems in defence and will have to split up into multiple locally based groups to protect their key areas from spawning 10n command points every couple of days.

Yes they can try and steamroller across the whole of null if they want to - but it's a completely futile exercise unless they then commit to grinding up the indices and actually defending it from thereon. It will just get flipped straight back 2 days later.

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

Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#2548 - 2015-03-05 18:41:59 UTC
Corey Lean wrote:
My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc.


Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal?

This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.

Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2549 - 2015-03-05 18:44:26 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Corey Lean wrote:
My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc.


Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal?

This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.



lol

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2550 - 2015-03-05 18:45:24 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
All this threat of goons being able to troll the whole of nullsec is them simply showing their fear that they won't be able to drop their whole blob across every single one of their systems in defence and will have to split up into multiple locally based groups to protect their key areas from spawning 10n command points every couple of days.

Is it, now?
Basil Pupkin
Strategic Incompetence
#2551 - 2015-03-05 18:47:38 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Corey Lean wrote:
My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc.


Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal?

This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.



Can I join Mordu's Angels sometime this summer?
I have good referrals.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2552 - 2015-03-05 18:47:47 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
All this threat of goons being able to troll the whole of nullsec is them simply showing their fear that they won't be able to drop their whole blob across every single one of their systems in defence and will have to split up into multiple locally based groups to protect their key areas from spawning 10n command points every couple of days.

Is it, now?


TGR we just don't have the numbers

it's too late

abandon everything

we're done for

this is the end

rip goonies

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.

Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2553 - 2015-03-05 18:48:24 UTC
Just wondering

What forces an attacker to use this system instead of the standard: hit cap building facilities, hit money moons, blue ball the crap out of them, and wait until the defender fail cascades to clean up the system via the proposed game mechanics instead of using the proposed game mechanics to fight the war itself?
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2554 - 2015-03-05 18:49:15 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Corey Lean wrote:
My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc.


Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal?

This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.


The projection/confirmation bias is strong with this one.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2555 - 2015-03-05 18:49:34 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:

Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.

I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.

What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks.

Kinda works, kinda doesn't... now you're forcing them to bring something that can deal with a POS either in terms of tanking it for upto 40 minutes (without RR) or first killing the POS and then capping the point...which is back to n+1 capital warfare again.


Simpler solution would be to give IHUBs a limited PG and CPU to be able to have a limited amount of guns surrounding it.
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2556 - 2015-03-05 18:52:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Basil Pupkin wrote:


A hotdrop will kill you so easily they won't even have time to laugh at you.

Funny thing that, I haven't died yet.

Have you tried it? Rhetorical question, we know the answer is no lol.

Quote:

And efficiency of that fit is on par with... I dunno, the only thing that bad... I don't know anything that bad, actually.
I mean, you can get something with THAT (in)efficiency for at most 1/7 of your hull price. Which is why that whole idea is looking like stupid and dumb already.


So, you don't understand what you are looking at, don't know how well it works or how much isk per hour it makes (hint, it's more than an afktar) and yet you think it's dumb. You sir are brilliant.

The point of that and my other anti-afk fits is that , rather than docking up and doing nothing, you get to keep ratting (thus making isk and keep getting chances at escalations). It does make less than my pve fit rattlesnake, but m,aking some isk is better than making none.


Quote:

Also, fit me an anti-afk barge. You know, the thing you can't keep indy rating without. And don't wink at the mining frigs, they suck. Barges suck as well, but less.

I don't mind how many less-than-bright people can't acknowledge it, but AFK cloaking is the problem, and it's going to be 20x more of a problem in this system.


EFT is free, fit your own anti-afk mining ship.

Secondly, the above poster is a good example of WHY afk cloakers in null (and gankers in high sec) exist in the 1st place. People with this loser "I'm not even going to try to defend myself or think outside the box, I'm just gonna ask ccp to fix it for me" mentality are the only reason afk cloaking (and high sec ganking) are effective psychological tools. Without this kind of mental weakness, the afk cloaker/gankers/bumpers of the world wouldn't even be playing EVE because their would be no prey for them.

So, keep on crying to CCP to fix a "problem" I've already fixed for myself (and you could too, if you weren't lazy), that begging ccp to help you has been so effective over the last 6 years (since 'afk cloaking' became a real thing).
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#2557 - 2015-03-05 18:53:25 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Here is some thoughts on addressing income.

1) make moongoo mineable by the players, and not a pos. reclassify the rorqual to a active moon mining ship. So the rorqual can moo mine and boost a fleet and miners can mine. Subsequently, price could drop on these.

basicaly make active hunting out of moon miners. Also gives people the option to do moon mining in total.

A few items to add regarding this

The rorqual cannot be in a pos and moon mine.

The rorqual cannot mine on a moon that has a pos present (so pos dumping is a strategy to stop miners). Yes you can grief with it, but you'd have to bring a hauler just to dump one.

Allow players to hack dead sticks to unanchor them (avoids dead sticking).

The rorqual industrial core should provide bonuses to moon mining and resistances to survive a assault on the rorqual (think of it as mega tank mode). The industrial mode should also protect the rorqual from ewar (same as siege or triage). This gives a lowsec rorqual some protection from being tackled by a subcap, and in some respects makes people require a hictor. The other option is to give the rorqual a flat out ewar immunity that supers have. I would also add dscan immunity to the rorqual also for less "I just found you by dscan move".

What this does is put industrial and miners on the same level of the entire pvp player base. You need them to mine, they need you for protection.

This does a few things. Pos fuel for mining pos is no more. Players have to actively mine. Defense fleets matter. Your location matters even more because you must have people to actively mine moons and pay attention to do it.

This does murder corporation and alliance funds for large and enormous groups. This also gives individual players a way to supplement their income by doing a mining process.

Obviously speed up how much a rorqual mines moons.

I would supplement what the rorqual does with what the orca could do. Basically allow the orca to compress minerals and ore and ice without the need for the mining pos item. Obviously you can still have it and use it if you want. Also I would allow moongoo to be stored in a orca's ore bay for transport.

siphons for moongoo is basically broken and could be removed if this change was considered.

The only reason I bring this is up is because people keep talking about anomaly ratting as the only income. I think the ultimate income should also just be put directly into the players hands. As this is a Sov revamp, the fight for the most valuable part of it also needs a revamp.



That is a really interesting idea, But would that be a step too far at this point? I know a lot of people are upset with the changes, and how it will mean a greater responsibility for their own defence, and higher levels of engagement, It they are also cut off from the security of their protectors, whether real or perceived, would it be too severe a shock, even if their income rose substantially.
Very interesting, people might well think deeply on this.

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

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#2558 - 2015-03-05 18:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Promiscuous Female
Senyu Takashi wrote:
Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo?

You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game.

lawl if you think line members aren't allowed to own reaction POS in GSF

also lawl if you think deklein isn't the #1 0.0 industrial region in eve (czech out the industry indices cost indices if you don't believe me)

we like to push red crosses because the skillset for shooting them dovetails well into skills needed to defend our empire

they are also the best way to get people out in space where they can be murdered, pos and industry don't do that (and mining is still too terrible to be worth doing yet)

also lawl if you think we will give neutrals docking access after crius

this post manages to betray your inexperience with nullsec in a remarkable number of unique ways, usually it's just the one or two things

e: i goofed it up into a boner
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2559 - 2015-03-05 18:55:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Senyu Takashi wrote:



Minig belts? Making stuff and selling it on trade hubs? Allow line members and smaller corps in your alliance to own reaction POSes? How about industry, invention and ancient relic invention(since slots are gone there shouldnt be a problem with "not enough stations")? Maybe allowing neuts to dock in your stations and trade with you instead of just exporting moon goo?

You know, red crosses arent the only source of income in this game.


I don't run any alliance so none of that applies to me.

"shooting red Xs" is the primary income making mechanic in null. "Do industry" is not a solution to the combat anomaly problems lol.
Gypsien Agittain
Gypsy Queens
#2560 - 2015-03-05 18:57:15 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Corey Lean wrote:
My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc.


Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal?

This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.



As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way.