EVE Information Portal

Copied from the dev blog:

In this Sovereignty update, the Entosis Link will be used for the following tasks (details later in this blog):

Activating newly deployed Territorial Claim Units and Infrastructure Hubs
Reinforcing Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts during their vulnerability period
Disabling and Enabling Station Services
Capturing Command Nodes during Sovereignty capture events

I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device.

Yes it is. Just look at the example.

The short version:

"we get that there is a lot of feedback, we also get that even now there's the start of major perception problems, we also get that there's not a lot of precedent for trust, but it's gonna be alright.

We would like everyone to please talk and discuss more, but for the sakes of discussion not getting in the way of plans moving ahead slowly as planned anyway we will be following the recommendations of some Community Management and Customer Interaction studies from last year and splitting up discussion paths while stimulating the development of those paths increasingly towards the detail level, away from thinking about bigger pictures. Just look at these one or two itty bitty little gritty things and focus all your energy on that.

Rest assured we take you seriously, just continue expending energy on theorycrafting and discussions but please follow these trenches so you guys don't look at what the field is shaping up to be cuz that's not what we want to see as our show has to go on. Got to end up soon with a nicely wrapped low maintenance product venture for the big boys after all. Grand plans got to be grand, but at least they've realised it comes at a price."

Don't get me wrong, in spite of the above I actually do *get* the objectives set, but I also understand the conditions required for them, and the room and resources you've got to come up with a working system within the guidelines of product development.

Let me just point out that within closed systems any top down design / development approach only ever results in internal dynamics finding and reinforcing status quo. If you want something else, it'll have to be rooted in behavioural bottom up developments - which is not compatible with mechanical design focus required to end up meeting the goals set by venture development.

The irony is that top down systems like this won't meet those goals by default, because in spite of innate extensibility and an initial period of adaptation (which is different from shake up) you will see that the behavioural aspects of group dynamics have not been changed (logically, since that's a bottom up dynamic, not top down) so after a little while you end up playing (again) for time till the next system ends up in a status quo post ante (as it's called). Leaving you to throw away all the work having to once again come up with a new system, since nothing you can come up with under top down constraints can truly address rooted behavioural triggers.

I appreciate the efforts, and I understand the challanges, but you base too much in data analyses innately vulnerable to confirmation bias, you don't take the role of CCP as part of the dynamic as inclusive to r&d requirements, and while they are unstandable there are things in product development which are simply incompatible with venture development as long as the conviction reigns that every part and the product as a whole can be wrapped up efficiently and passed on with shiny flags of low maintenance, advanced content development tools, built-in and highly flexible extensibility, and so forth.

If you look carefully, you can already see several sets of perception problems taking shape. Such problems aren't challenges, since there never is any solution to them but replacing the entirety of affected customers in a given feature or playstyle niche, and even then there's the issue of eve's stories lingering on in having a life of their own. They still create perception trends that dwarf every marketing effort of the pas decade. You can only prevent perception problems happening in the first place, and let's be honest, CCP does not have a grand track record in this. That's not a stab at people who do the real work, they tend to figure these things out, but this is one of those things where there has always been a grand canyon of a divide between that lot in the rooms upstairs beyond the cantina and the real world. EVE the game is a result of hard work, the venture - heck even the board agreed with that last year - has had a disproportional amount of luck in surviving a consistant strain of bad decisions having consequences for product level development. Each and every time rooted in avoidable perception problems.

You who do actual work have done a lot of hard work, but it is visible in these two devblogs that it rests on a focus which sets guided objectives within constraints. Understandable, but that doesn't make it the better approach - in truth it's an approach which never serves the venture as expected, wished, or envisioned to.

But I get it, once people figure it out - just like the last bunch of times - it ends up with that ancient question of "what to do about it" and that recent sense of "so if we do X what will that mean for me here", but that's an entirely different debate. In all these years though I've yet to see meaningful advocacy against the grand canyon upstairs. Just like people are getting smarter in managing customers, so they are getting wiser at guiding their own teams. It's about getting down in the detail level.

So I'm writing this because I feel as if the people posting about how this is horrible didn't read the actual post. I'm led to assume this because a lot of the Negatives they gave are not right/based on fact.

Lets cover the common complaints:
#1 The TimeZone issue: While it is true that AU and EU with have a harder time accomplishing the INITIAL attack, the period after reinforcement will still let Off-TZ players/corps/alliances help their friends/fight for their space, especially in max-system index space. This is due to the fact that the command nodes spawn directly after reinforcement ends, but only spawns 5 nodes (Ten are needed to win) Now if your system is lived-in and has max index then it will take 40mins for one timer. After each node is captured another will spawn somewhere else, this means that even if an Alliance could somehow have people waiting in the exact locations the nodes would spawn (which is impossible) it would still take 1 hour and 20mins to win the event. Considering for a moment that this isnt possible though allows us to use a more rational example of how it will play out.

Your alliance has a 2:00-6:00 GMT Primetime (So AU players). An enemy reinforces your Ihub and TCU. Your reinforcement ends at 5:00 GMT, meaning your guys in EU (+0-+2 GMT) probably wont be able to help out right away. Fighting at the nodes begins and you lose the first node after a large fight (The other nodes have small fights raging one, therefore no progress has been made on them) This will take at least 40 mins AFTER your fleet has lost the fight (Two ELinks cant be used at the same time, therefore the control slider doesn't move) So the first big fight ends and they capture the first node at 5:45 GMT (right before the end of your TZ) Since the fight hasn't been determined it continues after your TZ till someone wins. Now things happen more quickly.

Your node capture time - 10mins / Enemy capture time - 40mins (due to index levels)
First node (5:45) Enemy - 1 You - 0
Second node (6:35) Enemy - 2 You - 0
Third node (7:40) Enemy - 3 You- 0
Fourth node (8:00) Enemy -4 You - 0
Fifth node (8:45) Enemy - 5 You - 0
Sixth Node (8:45) Enemy - 5 You - 1 (You managed to win a battle with a smaller force away from the main fleet.)
Seventh Node (9:45) Enemy - 5 You - 2 (Again, you chose to fight away from the main fleet surrendering one to capture one)
Eighth Node (10:10) Enemy - 6 You - 1 (Its at this point that your corp is getting to the end of its TZ and players are logging off)
Ninth Node (11:00) Enemy - 7 You - 2 (It looks like you might lose this system, your running out of players!)
Tenth Node (12:00) Enemy 7 You - 3 (YAY! Your EU brethren have logged in and come to save the day)

Ofcourse this is highly theoretical and infact you coud lose your sov in a mere 2 hours or so without fighting, or by losing too much. But remember, if they send a large fleet to start capping a node, then just leave, it will take them 40mins for that one while your medium sized fleet rushes around fighting the little guerrilla fleets, takeing the nodes in 10mins each. If you both have equal fleets (1000) but u split 250 to 4 different nodes while thier 1000 captures one, you'll win in minutes! My belief is that fights wil go on for mulitple days sometimes(As they have in the past), thereby allowing cross TZ play.

#2: No Benefits to Sov:
There are so many more ISK opportunity's in Null than in High, I guess I don't understand why this is a thing. I personally made A LOT more by ratting/mining in Null than I ever made from L4s in HighSec. Also your in a MUCH safer place if you have friends to call in to back you up against some cloaky ratter killer. Ive died more in High Sec than Null (While making ISK) so the Risk vs Reward is amazingly onesided towards Reward. In my experience I've lost one ratting Tengu for every 4-6Bil I make. Maybe im just not seeing what they mean, If your index is high then there are plenty of Sites/Belts/Anoms for everyone, that to me is a benefit. Also having moons is pretty dope, as well as JBs, and abilities to restrict docking rights.

#3 Punks in Intys etc that try to ninja and just **** you off:
Really? Again, did you read it? "Requires a target lock on the structure." This means that an Inty will have to remain within 127km (Maximum Targeting Range of a Crow with 3x Sebos, 3x SigAmps, 1 MWD/AB, Targetting Rigs) So if I ever saw one I'd laugh and Undock my InstaNado and bye bye Inty. I can get a Harpy to 231km with the same fit, but its pointless, you wouldnt be able to keep that link up for very long once the "Someones captureing "blahblah") ping goes out. 40mins in a lived in system? forget about it. So primarily your 250km ELinkers would all be Cruiser or larger, and slow enough to be caught by an inty, tackled/webbed, and killed. Rememeber the T2 ones cost 80mil, thats more than most T1 Cruisers, so I doubt people will just be throwing them away like that. BUT this is EVE so i guess you should expect it a few times.

#4 Ships with Utility Highs always will be preferred:
Your whole fleet doesnt need to bring Elinks already fitted, Just have people carry them in their cargo bays and have a fleet member drop a mobile depot if they need to switch them out. Since one on either side being activated cancels the other out, only one person would realistically need a Link (and he would just be a crazy tanked faction BS or something) and then use the mobile depot for another one if he dies.

#5 This makes Sov too hard to hold:
How? Your capture time = x2 to x4 less than your attacker if you actually use the system your in, and if you don't you don't deserve it. Therefore if they are not SUPER organized (Which is extremely hard for a lot of big alliances even) then you can cap 2-3 for thier one

Not sure how this will all work out, but atleast ccp are trying something new. Maybe im wrong about all this!

BlackFangg

I dont doubt you can pull of the reinforcement phase for a long time, but getting CFC to respond to all timers created everywhere will be tricky. Even for you.

Just make the Entosis Link a Command Link with all associated restrictions.

No more trollceptors. Got to use T3s for that.

Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp?

I'm not scared. It's just question of risk/reward. Where on one hand 750 kk for iHub and on the other 20 kk for interceptor.

Very well, I will clarify, for you. The troll interceptor thing has been effectively demolished.. Unless one wishes to retain unoccupied systems, and expect to be able to secure them through closed borders, and gatecamps.

Don't put an ihub in the system unless you're willing to protect it?

I mean wow.