These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kah'Les
hirr
Pandemic Horde
#2841 - 2015-03-06 03:33:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Kah'Les
Tamdra Beebort wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


There isnt anything extreme about it.

Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.



I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone.

We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose.

If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity.


There are so many people here that are like this, Goonswarm gone burn out because of this mechanice because they can't keep up the pressure. I bet few of you have been on the reseving end of what Goons can do to a single corp or how much time they can put down to RF towers and remote systems.

Goons have the biggest propeganda machine in this game, no other alliance can spewe out so much news about their own doing as them. In the short fountain war that lasted 2 weeks, right after Pheobe goons travled over 60 jumps several times back and forth to defend their systsmes from N3 and not enought with that they had own groupes that spent days behind enemy line RF systems fare away from the front. If you think your little 10 man operation to get some uesless space that no one us is gone tier out goons and not make them griefe you even more you are wronge. And this is just why we trying to fight this FW 2.0 systems Fozzie have made, is because of the amount of griefe that this glitchy game mechanics make avaible for goon to use.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#2842 - 2015-03-06 03:36:37 UTC
Burl en Daire wrote:

Then they should **** or get off the pot. I don't care who it is. Defend it or lose it.


Not everyone has the timezone coverage to defend 16 hours a day. So no, I disagree with you to a certain extent. Defend it or lose it, yes. But don't make it unnecessarily difficult to defend, based on arbitrary penalties grounded in arbitrary limits.

baltec1 wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


I do not agree with removing the sov laser from inties.


Then reduce the range on the t2 laser so we cant make the trollcepter.


The lock range of a ceptor will ensure you cannot make a trollceptor. They have difficulty reaching past 150, a range at which Eagles can hit without much issue. And we all know how well railguns track.

Trollceptors will not cost me sleep.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2843 - 2015-03-06 03:41:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The whole point of the trollcepter is to avoid fights.

So why the hell are a highsec pvp group gonna come into nullsec to avoid fights Shocked

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2844 - 2015-03-06 03:53:31 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The whole point of the trollcepter is to avoid fights.

So why the hell are a highsec pvp group gonna come into nullsec to avoid fights Shocked


Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game.
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#2845 - 2015-03-06 03:54:45 UTC
Kah'Les wrote:
Tamdra Beebort wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


There isnt anything extreme about it.

Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.



I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone.

We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose.

If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity.


There are so many people here that are like this, Goonswarm gone burn out because of this mechanice because they can't keep up the pressure. I bet few of you have been on the reseving end of what Goons can do to a single corp or how much time they can put down to RF towers and remote systems.

Goons have the biggest propeganda machine in this game, no other alliance can spewe out so much news about their own doing as them. In the short fountain war that lasted 2 weeks, right after Pheobe goons travled over 60 jumps several times back and forth to defend their systsmes from N3 and not enought with that they had own groupes that spent days behind enemy line RF systems fare away from the front. If you think your little 10 man operation to get some uesless space that no one us is gone tier out goons and not make them griefe you even more you are wronge. And this is just why we trying to fight this FW 2.0 systems Fozzie have made, is because of the amount of griefe that this glitchy game mechanics make avaible for goon to use.




Never had a problem with goons or their methods, in fact I am a fan of how they operate. My point is that with the new mechanics it will not be as easy for them to defend what they have like they can now. I totally think they can do whatever they want to do but only for a few months. Not many players will want to play if they can only warp to a point and warp away, not saying it can't or won't be done. I'm just saying that it won't happen for extended periods of time. Goons like to blueball not get blueballed and they like to win. This type of game play won't allow them to win unless they stay to fight and these types of fights won't allow large blobs to form as easily and won't cater as easily to blueballing. Those are two of the main tactics for Goons.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Kah'Les
hirr
Pandemic Horde
#2846 - 2015-03-06 03:57:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kah'Les
Burl en Daire wrote:



Never had a problem with goons or their methods, in fact I am a fan of how they operate. My point is that with the new mechanics it will not be as easy for them to defend what they have like they can now. I totally think they can do whatever they want to do but only for a few months. Not many players will want to play if they can only warp to a point and warp away, not saying it can't or won't be done. I'm just saying that it won't happen for extended periods of time. Goons like to blueball not get blueballed and they like to win. This type of game play won't allow them to win unless they stay to fight and these types of fights won't allow large blobs to form as easily and won't cater as easily to blueballing. Those are two of the main tactics for Goons.


So you defending this FW 2.0 system because it will chase all the people running null sec at this moment out of the game, bravo.

Have fun orbirting Command Nods <.<
DragonZer0
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#2847 - 2015-03-06 04:02:04 UTC
http://evenews24.com/2015/03/05/tar-palantirs-take-on-the-proposed-sovereignty-changes/

This is something CCP as well as everyone needs to look at.
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#2848 - 2015-03-06 04:02:09 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Not everyone has the timezone coverage to defend 16 hours a day. So no, I disagree with you to a certain extent. Defend it or lose it, yes. But don't make it unnecessarily difficult to defend, based on arbitrary penalties grounded in arbitrary limits.



I agree 100%. The prime time to player ratio should be very conservative and it shouldn't put arbitrary penalties on groups, it should promote emergent play and by lengthening prime time it adds player error and organization to the equation. It would force larger groups to depend on more people for defense but allow smaller group to rely on fewer players. I don't have a number in mind but it shouldn't be so long the group is always open to attack but it shouldn't be so short that the largest groups can game the system.

Player count may not be the best metric to use. I don't know what what number would be best but I do think that the PT (prime time) should fluctuate with some type of metric tied to the group.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#2849 - 2015-03-06 04:05:43 UTC
Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking."
Everyone else: "Well actually..."

It's like arguing with tumblr.
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#2850 - 2015-03-06 04:07:44 UTC
Kah'Les wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:



Never had a problem with goons or their methods, in fact I am a fan of how they operate. My point is that with the new mechanics it will not be as easy for them to defend what they have like they can now. I totally think they can do whatever they want to do but only for a few months. Not many players will want to play if they can only warp to a point and warp away, not saying it can't or won't be done. I'm just saying that it won't happen for extended periods of time. Goons like to blueball not get blueballed and they like to win. This type of game play won't allow them to win unless they stay to fight and these types of fights won't allow large blobs to form as easily and won't cater as easily to blueballing. Those are two of the main tactics for Goons.


So you defending this FW 2.0 system because it will chase all the people running null sec at this moment out of the game, bravo.

Have fun orbirting Command Nods <.<



I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up, every change dredges up these same types of arguments. Some are valid and some are not and I want what is best for the game not a group. Change will always hurt or help some group and discussion is the best way to work out kinks.

Also, maybe the people running null sec at the moment need to chased out of null sec or out of their way of thinking because look at where we are at.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#2851 - 2015-03-06 04:10:13 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking."
Everyone else: "Well actually..."

It's like arguing with tumblr.

I thought you knew that the average person that lives in highsec and lowsec has an IQ lower than tumblers.
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2852 - 2015-03-06 04:10:23 UTC
Perkin Warbeck wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Perkin Warbeck wrote:
Okay posting in the whine thread when I promised myself I wouldn't.

My two main issues are:

1. Capturing and defending sovereignty looks and feels similar to the FW model. It's wrong on so many levels. After experiencing the rate at which systems can be flipped and spending the best part of a year chasing stabbed frigates out of FW plexes in Sahtogas, I can testify that it is the most God awful, soul crushing gameplay you can imagine. There is a reason FW is best experienced when you don't actually live in the war zone and a reason why so many established corps have left.

2. The four hour window. I get the reasons for it but it kind of leaves the Aussies up the billabong without a didgeridoo.


1. The frigates can't just warp away in the sov situation, they have to finish their cycle first. Also, there's no cap on the size of the ships brought, so I'm not forced into frigates in many situations.

2. I can't argue with this because analogy is too amusing.


My issue isn't actually with whether a frigate, cruiser, small gang or whatever captures a system it's actually that CCP are trying to introduce a concept of 'perma war'. That your sov can be quickly attacked during a certain period every single day. Now perma war is great for the aggressor but it's terrible for the defender. After a while it becomes a grind and burn out and boredom set in. In theory it sounds fun but in reality it's awful. The defender actually needs some stability to develop and maintain growth in an area.

To me it appears that CCP has only developed one side of the equation. On the one hand it will be easier to take sovereignty. But what then? How does a small alliance/corp keep it unless they log on every single day and play capture the flag every single damn day.


This needs to be shouted right the way to ccp hq. I still doubt they would get it.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#2853 - 2015-03-06 04:11:08 UTC
HarlyQ wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking."
Everyone else: "Well actually..."

It's like arguing with tumblr.

I thought you knew that the average person that lives in highsec and lowsec has an IQ lower than tumblers.

You have a very high opinion of tumblrites.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#2854 - 2015-03-06 04:11:35 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Kah'Les wrote:
Tamdra Beebort wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


There isnt anything extreme about it.

Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.



I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone.

We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose.

If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity.


There are so many people here that are like this, Goonswarm gone burn out because of this mechanice because they can't keep up the pressure. I bet few of you have been on the reseving end of what Goons can do to a single corp or how much time they can put down to RF towers and remote systems.

Goons have the biggest propeganda machine in this game, no other alliance can spewe out so much news about their own doing as them. In the short fountain war that lasted 2 weeks, right after Pheobe goons travled over 60 jumps several times back and forth to defend their systsmes from N3 and not enought with that they had own groupes that spent days behind enemy line RF systems fare away from the front. If you think your little 10 man operation to get some uesless space that no one us is gone tier out goons and not make them griefe you even more you are wronge. And this is just why we trying to fight this FW 2.0 systems Fozzie have made, is because of the amount of griefe that this glitchy game mechanics make avaible for goon to use.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.


But also, don't forget it doesn't mean that anyone wins. Imagine if there was a button in jita and you only had to shoot it to drop all sov. There wouldn't be any sov holders at all.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Kah'Les
hirr
Pandemic Horde
#2855 - 2015-03-06 04:15:19 UTC
Burl en Daire wrote:



I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up, every change dredges up these same types of arguments. Some are valid and some are not and I want what is best for the game not a group. Change will always hurt or help some group and discussion is the best way to work out kinks.

Also, maybe the people running null sec at the moment need to chased out of null sec or out of their way of thinking because look at where we are at.


Making null sec into a part time job is not what's best for the game. But guess the mighty high sec dwellers always know best and they are defentily gone defend their space that day they get it without no resistance because no one wants it. Only 10% of null sec systems are worth living in I say if you guys want to live in the rest 90% I wont stop you guys. FInaly maybe you will see how useless null realy is and why we all got High sec alts doing our ISK making. BUt if this system get implemented just know it's gone be years at least until they will change it again.
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#2856 - 2015-03-06 04:17:28 UTC
I think they should implement this in FW to see how it goes I mean they need to test it someplace right and this is just another way of doing things I say we test it in lowsec and see how it goes ;)
Kah'Les
hirr
Pandemic Horde
#2857 - 2015-03-06 04:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Alavaria Fera wrote:

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal..


But also, don't forget it doesn't mean that anyone wins. Imagine if there was a button in jita and you only had to shoot it to drop all sov. There wouldn't be any sov holders at all.


I just think goons are gone be the one more suited for the new system, NCdot is more about the fights than constant griefing.

Thou letting someone win by default seems like boring game play.
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#2858 - 2015-03-06 04:18:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Same reason we would use them, to ruin someone else's game.

Why the hell would you ruin someone else's game at the expense of your own game?
Well, goons would do it to prove a point. Which is like proving that meat grinders are dangerous and should require operation license by shoving your hand into one. But why would RvB take part in this idiocy if they don't get their fun from it?
Alli Ginthur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2859 - 2015-03-06 04:20:42 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Reasonable people: "If you want people to take sov, you need to make sov worth taking."
Everyone else: "Well actually..."

It's like arguing with tumblr.

So true. Null needs a few hundred carrots right about now.

The only issue when null gets those carrots, if null becomes worth it to take, what happens when either your group, or NC.'s group, decide that because the improved space is wonderful, and worth to take and use, they want even more of the improved space? Doesn't it become a point where the big guys only stand to get bigger either way? If mechanically you can't break the coalitions because of the organizational prowess of the blocs, which I totally agree is something to marvel at, and you can't break the coalitions through the metagame, how DO you make it in the players' best interests to break up the coalitions and regain a null where smaller groups can gain access?
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#2860 - 2015-03-06 04:21:26 UTC
Kah'Les wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:



I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up, every change dredges up these same types of arguments. Some are valid and some are not and I want what is best for the game not a group. Change will always hurt or help some group and discussion is the best way to work out kinks.

Also, maybe the people running null sec at the moment need to chased out of null sec or out of their way of thinking because look at where we are at.


Making null sec into a part time job is not what's best for the game. But guess the mighty high sec dwellers always know best and they are defentily gone defend their space that day they get it without no resistance because no one wants it. Only 10% of null sec systems are worth living in I say if you guys want to live in the rest 90% I wont stop you guys. FInaly maybe you will see how useless null realy is and why we all got High sec alts doing our ISK making. BUt if this system get implemented just know it's gone be years at least until they will change it again.



Like I said before, phase three will probably be an upgrade system for sov holders. I know that most space is useless, unprofitable and whatever else you want to call it and without incentives to live in that space there is no reason to hold it. Even my inferior high sec mind can grasp that, that's why I left null over a year ago. It is not interesting to me and if and when it becomes interesting again I will move back. We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson