These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#3121 - 2015-03-06 16:13:19 UTC
Duffyman wrote:
For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.


100 ceptors cannot reff a region in a few hours if the region is occupied by people.

Plz stop with this falsy argument.

Duffyman wrote:

In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships.


Only command ship is far too restrictive. Avoid it only on frig if you are scared by them.
Sara Sirlanka
FireStar Inc
#3122 - 2015-03-06 16:14:07 UTC
I think this entire thing needs to be scrapped and thrown away. We need to go back to the orginal sov system with some changes.

Chiefly you will use a new tower type that can only be used to take sov. The new tower will have no power grid or cpu, so you can't anchor anything to it, it is sctricly for taking sov. It will have build in uniform resist. With around a Large towers shields/armor maybe a bit more. It will also have no force field so people can not hide inside it. The fuel cost will be much higher then a large tower.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3123 - 2015-03-06 16:14:48 UTC
Quote:

Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. In THIS situation speed isn't worth a damn vs missiles, anaemic DPS is not relevant in the absence of reps or being able to warp out. You slap a handful of ravens or HML cerbs on field, defensive links of your own and the enemy speed linkers are going to have a very tough time staying alive. You are then free to engage the main fleet body - who, of course will be doing the same to you. Point is, all the fleet comps today will be viable. Frankly, in these kinds of fights I expect two things - EVERYONE with a slot having a link and marauders seeing use to be super heavy linkers with bastion to tank stupendous incoming dps.

As I posted a minute or so ago - serious contests are going to be fought tooth and nail for absolutely field supremacy - just like today.


My point wasn't that there is no counter to them, it was that you'll have no reason to counter them with anything that would invite an escalation to caps and supers. You'll counter them with HACs, just as you said, and the defenders will counter your hac and logis with hacs and logis. Escalating to bigger ships will be unnecessary, and probably unwise for the most part.

In a perverse way, this somewhat negates the travel restrictions that were just introduced. Defenders will just start building hac/logi stashes around their space now for defense, and JC to them when necessary.

I'm concerned that these changes bring us to the verge of marginalizing caps and supers to the point that they are only ever used to contest high-end moons, or force a cap-fight by assaulting someone's high-end moon.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3124 - 2015-03-06 16:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
davet517 wrote:


All in all, though, if you view 0.0 as a place to fight, you should be loving this change.


There are different kinds of fights. I like the fights I participate in in null. I can't stand what goes on in Faction Warfare which is why I left in 2010 and didn't come back for 3 years. Nothing wrong with small gang and solo/'dudes trying hard to catch you in a plex or mission' and system/tier ping ponging, but it's not for me.

And here comes a system that greatly favors a different kind of fighting and that *may or may not* escalate to something i might enjoy a bit. Which is all good, no one is paying my to live in null, and I've always wanted to live in a wormhole (looks like June is that chance lol).

But, as the guy who is fond of linking this 4 year old dev blog every chance I get to remind people what faulty thinking looks like, you BEST believe that you all will be seeing links to this 'discussion' from time to time after June Twisted
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3125 - 2015-03-06 16:17:37 UTC
I suppose that depends how much you want the save/kill.

I should say I'm setting aside the relative uselessness of BS in this - that hasn't been made worse by this but isnt improve either. If we could get back to the triangle of HAC/BC/BS type food chain, things would get a lot more interesting.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#3126 - 2015-03-06 16:23:03 UTC
afkalt wrote:
[Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. .
Okay chaps, listen up, this is the plan:

I want 75 of you in each of three systems for a total of 25 per SOV structure.
Now as to the other 100 of you, I want you to go and lock onto all the other SOV structures in interceptors, if you see three of your pals in one of their systems move on to the next one.
Wait for my "Go signal" for maximum chaos.

Tigger everything at the same time, every time.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3127 - 2015-03-06 16:28:22 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
afkalt wrote:
[Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. .
Okay chaps, listen up, this is the plan:

I want 75 of you in each of three systems for a total of 25 per SOV structure.
Now as to the other 100 of you, I want you to go and lock onto all the other SOV structures in interceptors, if you see three of your pals in one of their systems move on to the next one.
Wait for my "Go signal" for maximum chaos.

Tigger everything at the same time, every time.


You should have done that in 'Mittani Voice' for maximum effect Big smile Oh wait he doesn't actually play, ok , DBRB voice then.
Dark Spite
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#3128 - 2015-03-06 16:32:40 UTC
davet517 wrote:
While the constellation based capture mechanic might give CCPs servers a break, it's still trading one system that favors massive numbers for another, the winner is going to be the side that can bring a cast of thousands and control multiple grids simultaneously, and/or keep a constant stream of link fitted ships coming, so, the only way for small entities to "win" will be to harass the defenders until they simply get tired of defending and give up. Then your prize for all that effort is becoming the defender yourself.

If you make light fast ships able to run the link, it's going to make escalation to larger ships a lot less likely. If it'll be possible for the link ships to speed-tank a BS-backed by triage fleet, there'll be little motivation to bring such fleets, or the super-cap fleets that would be the counter to them. These fights will come down to grid control by hac-logi style fleets defending the speedy link-runners. Sure, someone could try the "defend it with a Titan" approach as a hail mary if they aren't able to control the grid with sub-caps, inviting a counter-drop, but I think that'll be highly unlikely, given how easy it'll be to flip the system back.

The only real loss with this mechanic will be loss of a pimped I-Hub, but, since they are now decoupled from sov, I'd imagine that the landlords of Eve are already drafting "bring your own i-hub" rental agreements as we speak.

All in all, though, if you view 0.0 as a place to fight, you should be loving this change. If you don't want the PITA of being the sov-holding defender, your ability force fights from those who are without having to bring a super-cap fleet that would get steamrolled just got a big buff. If your reason for taking sov is to invite fights, you likewise just got a buff to your play style.

If your reason for taking sov is to bear it up in the safety of an ocean of blue to be able to afford a war machine to build an even bigger ocean of blue, there's a lot to hate here. Your play style just got hammered.


This. Though massive numbers will always be favored. If they were not then ccp has restrained the sandbox and our choice to group together. That isnt their role, but Dominion sov so greatly favored large numbers that coalitions HAD to form. When reading the goals and principles behind the proposed mechanics I interpret them to mean that even small alliances can challenge sov-holding over a constellation or systems.

One large coalitons **** system is a small alliances treasure. Being smaller also means that expense level is greatly reduced. Being smart about alliance income generation is possible, there are other income models in nullsec than moongoo and being a slumlord.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3129 - 2015-03-06 16:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
afkalt wrote:
[Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. .
Okay chaps, listen up, this is the plan:

I want 75 of you in each of three systems for a total of 25 per SOV structure.
Now as to the other 100 of you, I want you to go and lock onto all the other SOV structures in interceptors, if you see three of your pals in one of their systems move on to the next one.
Wait for my "Go signal" for maximum chaos.

Tigger everything at the same time, every time.

Now lets just use 600 total alts and make CFC respond in every single one of their systems at the same time Big smile

Oh and only put cynos on 5 of them.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3130 - 2015-03-06 16:37:47 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Jenn aSide wrote:


There are different kinds of fights. I like the fights I participate in in null. I can't stand what goes on in Faction Warfare which is why I left in 2010 and didn't come back for 3 years. Nothing wrong with small gang and solo/'dudes trying hard to catch you in a plex or mission' and system/tier ping ponging, but it's not for me.


Yes, I agree. I don't see a reliable escalation path here. When these fights do escalate, it'll be because of a mistake, often as not. I also agree that it's going to make 0.0 more like the constant struggle that you see in FW. More like, but not exactly like. Distance will play a part here when you're not fighting in a system that's 4 jumps from Jita.

Still, fights are better than no fights, and stasis. The game has reached stasis - i.e. the current dominion mechanics have played themselves out, and this is what we got - two big coalitions and their hired guns controlling the map.

Will this change that? It can, but only if the change in mechanics bring a corresponding change in behavior. Will people still be motivated to belong to big coalitions with these mechanics? It's hard to say with certainty. I'll take some time to play out. If people are determined to hold the "blue donut" together, they will, regardless of the mechanics. If people see their chance to break it up here, and change their behavior, we're in for interesting times. What the players do with these mechanics will be more interesting than the mechanics themselves.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#3131 - 2015-03-06 16:39:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Finally caught up with the thread. :)
....
I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? Big smile


Still patiently awaiting these breakout threads 36+ hours later...
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#3132 - 2015-03-06 16:44:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Arrendis wrote:

Once again: There is not, and in all of human history never has been a problem that cannot be solved better using the application of more brainpower.


Cancer?



The medical industrial complex won't let us find the cause because the "cures" bring in billions in profits. Finding the cause is not profitable.

It's been fun watching you do a 180 on every ideal you have projected over other subjects. Here you are being against people playing the game when in the justification of ganking hapless freighters in hisec you are all about playing the game and HTFU.

Goes to show that, in the usual ways of Western society now, all rhetoric is "freedom and boons for me and not for thee" and anything meta to achieve is (like swaying a system your way instead of using your own brains) acceptable.


It's good at least knowing that all Church of HTFU dogma is as false as I assumed it to be. If the goons and their cast of 90K alts manage to pressure these changes into such a watered down state as to maintain the status quo, this game will continue to be "that game" that more people try than play. You will pretend you love the game when in the end it's all about sitting on piles of ISK just like any hisec miner who refused to fit a tank.

Hopefully CCP maintains their tendency for Viking level stubbornness and sticks to their guns. People will cry and say "they want profit!" and that means more people playing. Companies exist to make a profit - actually they owe that to the people working for them (it's called responsibility). And making a profit appears to conflict with the aspergian min-maxing tendencies of a few players - or maybe a generation of players who do indeed need to be told HTFU.

(and thankfully CCP has appeared to change their advertising )

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#3133 - 2015-03-06 16:56:43 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
afkalt wrote:
[Agree with all save one part - people are forgetting the drawbacks of the link mods and that the targets are (essentially) broadcast. .
Okay chaps, listen up, this is the plan:

I want 75 of you in each of three systems for a total of 25 per SOV structure.
Now as to the other 100 of you, I want you to go and lock onto all the other SOV structures in interceptors, if you see three of your pals in one of their systems move on to the next one.
Wait for my "Go signal" for maximum chaos.

Tigger everything at the same time, every time.
Now lets just use 600 total alts and make CFC respond in every single one of their systems at the same time Big smile
Oh and only put cynos on 5 of them.
CFC have the numbers to gate camp all the choke points.
It is the smaller alliances in Null that will have all these small things swarming in and stinging them until they give up.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Daniel Westelius
Shadow State
Goonswarm Federation
#3134 - 2015-03-06 16:57:52 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
What you are proposing is stagnation even worse than we have now: if I, as a small alliance, take a roaming gang through a WH during prime time to Catch looking for "good fights" or ratter ganks, nothing stops someone else from setting a bunch of horrible timers that anyone can third party.

Why do you need to take your fleet through a WH to catch for pewpew during your primetime?

Go put a simple highslot module on your neighbour's structure and make them come out and play with you whilst still remaining within defensive range of your own space.

If they don't come out to play you make the system neutral and might get better neighbours move in afterwards.


Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol,
Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough.
What happens next? The answer? Nothing.
Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems.
Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly.
So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3135 - 2015-03-06 17:00:16 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
davet517 wrote:
All in all, though, if you view 0.0 as a place to fight, you should be loving this change. If you don't want the PITA of being the sov-holding defender, your ability force fights from those who are without having to bring a super-cap fleet that would get steamrolled just got a big buff. If your reason for taking sov is to invite fights, you likewise just got a buff to your play style.


I am a "defender". When I used to play RTS's as a kid, I used the map editors to set up vast castles full of troops with enemy spawn points all around, and played to see how long I lasted before the relentless horde pulled me down. That's fun to me. I've been a member of the CFC since it was formed, and I intend to be until the day it disbands. I've frequently said I look forward to the day our coalition is brought down in fire and wreckage, and that I'll be shovelling ships in to the furnace as we burn. It'll be glorious. But there is no furnace in this set-up, there are no Armageddon battles, just a wet depressing fart-sound as the air goes out. Its just all something of an anticlimax.


Fixed quoting. ISD Ezwal.
Dark Spite
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#3136 - 2015-03-06 17:04:17 UTC
Daniel Westelius wrote:


Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol,
Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough.
What happens next? The answer? Nothing.
Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems.
Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly.
So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !


Not so sure who is the ignorant one here. Have you actually left the TNT pockets in Deklein and Tribute and seen the wasteland that already exists in nullsec and even cfc space??? And its even worse elsewhere. The wasteland has been created by the large coalitions and what he says here drives conflict, maybe even in areas players actually could be bothered to travel to.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#3137 - 2015-03-06 17:05:48 UTC
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:

About the station - you got me wrong there. I think if you can flip a station like this and dock up as enemy after the first timer, it's way easier to keep your enemy from evacuating, which is going to hurt forward deployments and the willingness of players to stack more than 2-3 doctrines in a major system. Just saying, the easier you make it to flip sov in comparison to the effort put in, the less likely it is that people are going to risk assets (like me having a dread, slowcat and t3s + support ships + fun stuff).


Even today when station hits last RF timer there is little reason to panic and today it is relatively hard to flip stations. All it takes is a little patience for getting the stuff out. Today the most common approach is getting a alt in some entity blue to the new owners and evacuate the assets that way - often with the help of conquerors logistics services.

So unless people attacking your station are going to actually live in there it's a minor inconvenience as the station will be again a free-port within a week after they go away.

The attackers being able to dock in there is not that huge issue either. Whole NPC null is like that and people live in there just fine. On additional bonus aspect hobo-jamming was nerfed a little while ago.

Although under the new sov system it might perhaps be indeed reasonable to keep your assets a bit more spread out instead of putting all eggs in one basket. For example, MOA (or more precisely individual pilots/corporations) is keeping a number of stashes throughout the region as whenever we poke goons hard enough to **** them sufficiently off they try to "hellcamp" us for a week or two. Under such conditions you just shift 3j to the left, keep killing whoever is careless enough and eventually the campers lose vigilance and wander off and you move back in.

So yeah - attacker, if sufficiently stronger can lock you out of your station, however, it takes constant work on the attacker side to keep it that way.

It can be a bit hard to get used to at first when coming from traditional sov null but it is certainly not the end of the world.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Phig Neutron
Starbreaker and Sons
#3138 - 2015-03-06 17:10:34 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Phig Neutron wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems.

As I understand it, renters will not be able to defend their host's sovereignty. Any alliance other than the sov-holder will be treated as an attacker -- their entosis links if they use them will help reinforce the structures rather than defend from attack.

Interesting, so basically it will need the current renters to actually be part of the alliance that places the sovereignty units.well they are now, but what is in it for them?
So in short the renters will be doing the job that they are currently paying rent for, the defence of their space. Will they be negotiating to be paid a fee rather than paying one?

That could be a nice additional source of income, but I can see that that could prove unpopular with those losing an income stream and having to pay instead. But is that the cost of retaining sovereignty?

No, basically "rent" will be replaced with "protection" fees -- good old fashioned racketeering. They will not be paying their hosts to protect them, but rather paying tribute to not be attacked.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3139 - 2015-03-06 17:13:23 UTC
Daniel Westelius wrote:
Oh dear ignorant Eli Apol,
Let's say that one of the major alliances/coalitions loses a handful of systems on the edge of their territory because they cannot respond quick enough.
What happens next? The answer? Nothing.
Most of the major alliances/coalitions have consolidated their space after the Phoebe expansion, what you will have now are wasteland systems.
Systems that are a bit too far to respond to quickly and defend, but close enough that no small alliance can move in without getting wiped out rather quickly.
So I guess congratulations are in order ! You just created wasteland systems ! Such content ! Much wow !

Ad hominem apart, you're admitting there will now be gaps in the donut for people to attempt to take sov without requiring supercaps?

And that the blocs will consolidate down into systems they actively use where they can keep the indices high and maintain a constant vigil themselves?

I've admitted from the start that the blocs will still throw their weight around but how many new mini alliances are going to appear in all these little patches of black that we can look forwards to?

Are some of the rental alliances going to do this as well since they don't need your supercap protection anymore?

What about your other big neighbours who will probably look at the map and define very similar areas as yourself when looking for somewhere for a condensed empire to reside now that sprawling ones are so susceptible to trololololing?

What's the difference between a wasteland with a flag in it and a wasteland without a flag in it?

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#3140 - 2015-03-06 17:20:18 UTC
Torgeir Hekard wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

The 2 minute cycle time is too short, can be done at too long of a distance, and if it's available to frigates it does not give the defender any ability to respond to a pre-reinforced attack short of sitting on that structure literally all the time.

It's not a 2 minute cycle time to cap a structure. It's a 2 minute cycle time to start capturing it. Which is, IMO, is good idea, because if you only want to use the entosis link to force defenders to undock and get a fight, you don't have to spend half an hour for that.

The question is, how long is the actual capture time. If it's about half an hour, the defender actively living in the same constellation (which seems to be the intent behind the proposed system) has all the time to pull out his own trollceptor, and block your capture until he can form up a proper defence fleet to clear out the ninjas (and no, it's not as impossible as some people running in little circles waving their hands and shouting make it out to seem).


Instead of using your own entosis link to pause his capture, just sensor damp him so he loses lock, and the whole thing should reset back to zero, right?