These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

"Prime Time" Alternatives

Author
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2015-03-05 13:54:15 UTC
As far as time zone mechanics I think a binary window is contrary to the spirit of eve, as many have voiced. Eve is a place where you can get your **** handed to you 23/7 and I don't ever want that to change. If my enemy wants to alarm clock all 1,000 members of their alliance to catch me at my weakest time, more power to em, that's the stuff that makes eve great.

That said, with how it easy it seems to be to reinforce a structure, I do think it should be more difficult (read not impossible) to do so outside of the set prime time. Off the top off i my head i can think of a few options to (potentially) improve on the system.


1) Alliance chooses a Prime Time as in the suggested model but outside of the time zone is a flat multiplier that increases capture time instead of disabling it completely.


2) Alliance chooses a Prime Time. The further away from that time you are the longer it takes to capture.

One issue with this is that fighting after the Prime Time would be fighting an uphill battle as capture time increases. The opposite would be true in the hours leading up to it.


3) Alliance chooses a Prime Time and an "Off Time", these could be any length. During Prime Time the defense would be a challenge and during Off Time it would be easy. The time in between the two would be a medium.

There's lots of room for tweaking in this option. Prime Time could be a super vulnerable 1 hour period during which structures could be reinforced super easy and you need max dudes every day on that hour, or it could be a 4 hour period much like the plan laid out by CCP.

I think there's potential in this if executed correctly. During Prime Time you would be forced to have high numbers online and to be ready to respond quickly to invading fleets. During the shoulder hours you could mange it with with moderate numbers and pings to people who are actually awake, and during Off Time a system with high occupancy could be defended with a skeleton crew.

The complexity of this option would probably warrant an increase in the cooldown before alliance timezone changes take effect. Also a minimum number of hours between Off and Prime times would probably be needed among many other things i would never think of.


TL;DR timezones = possibly a good mechanic binary attack window = the worst idea I've ever seen.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#2 - 2015-03-05 14:48:01 UTC
no, as this would support larger alliance/corps.
Eve is about everyone being able to play in the "sandbox" as the creators and about every pilot good and bad love to say.
Max "dudes" for a small corp would still lead to them losing and having their face beat in within that time.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2015-03-05 15:01:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Terence Bogard
Agondray wrote:
no, as this would support larger alliance/corps.
Eve is about everyone being able to play in the "sandbox" as the creators and about every pilot good and bad love to say.
Max "dudes" for a small corp would still lead to them losing and having their face beat in within that time.


Any way you look at a large enough alliance will face roll a small one right out of their space. All they have to do is match the defending fleet and then every additional fleet gets to cap another system.

Say for instance its normaly a 2.5 minute vs a 40 minute timer. During the middle times it would be 2.5m vs 3 hours and during off period it would be completely off. TiDi also stacks heavily in favor of the defenders in this system.

Also that "max dudes" time frame would be the exact same as the already proposed window. The only changes here are the other times.
aquatac
Galaxy Investment
#4 - 2015-03-06 01:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: aquatac
The whole Prime Time Idea is crap.

Cause - some pple really enjoy the aspect of playing together with pple from all over the World in ONE Alliance.

That was always one of the most interessting aspects for me personally - for example.

Those timers should be set individually - like you can do for POSes for example - which would give an interessting tactical oppourtunity too...

It's fine to think about small entities too - but we dont play on one huge Server to have many small groups fighting each other - there must be Room for small, midscale and huge organisations.

Also if a small Entity concqueres a System / Constellation they might be faced with the same Problems in the following weeks over and over again...

You "Win" a System - and then ? - You'll loose it as fast as you won it...

Sov will never be for 10 Member Corps - cause there is more to deal with - then just taking a System.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-03-06 01:47:10 UTC
Good idea. Let Russians roll everyone while you're asleep. You wake up in Soviet Russia.Big smile
aquatac
Galaxy Investment
#6 - 2015-03-07 15:28:07 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Good idea. Let Russians roll everyone while you're asleep. You wake up in Soviet Russia.Big smile


It should be up to you or your Alliance to decide when Structures come out - individually for each System or maybe Structure... not sure if the time when its vulnerable should be variable too... but at least the aggressor could deal with the rules of the defender (which is after the proposed Plans already like this). But - there should be more then ONE Window... to avoid having 20 Structure Timers at one Hand... and be still able to spread this timers to different Timezones on the other.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2015-03-07 16:06:13 UTC
aquatac wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Good idea. Let Russians roll everyone while you're asleep. You wake up in Soviet Russia.Big smile


It should be up to you or your Alliance to decide when Structures come out - individually for each System or maybe Structure... not sure if the time when its vulnerable should be variable too... but at least the aggressor could deal with the rules of the defender (which is after the proposed Plans already like this). But - there should be more then ONE Window... to avoid having 20 Structure Timers at one Hand... and be still able to spread this timers to different Timezones on the other.



the point is to make it possible for the attackers to get multiple structures out of RF at the same time to force defenders to spread fleets and make it harder to hold large areas
aquatac
Galaxy Investment
#8 - 2015-03-07 16:35:54 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
aquatac wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Good idea. Let Russians roll everyone while you're asleep. You wake up in Soviet Russia.Big smile


It should be up to you or your Alliance to decide when Structures come out - individually for each System or maybe Structure... not sure if the time when its vulnerable should be variable too... but at least the aggressor could deal with the rules of the defender (which is after the proposed Plans already like this). But - there should be more then ONE Window... to avoid having 20 Structure Timers at one Hand... and be still able to spread this timers to different Timezones on the other.



the point is to make it possible for the attackers to get multiple structures out of RF at the same time to force defenders to spread fleets and make it harder to hold large areas


if thats really the point behind the plans - then we will just have huge white areas in nullsec.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#9 - 2015-03-07 16:48:53 UTC
aquatac wrote:
[quote=Lugh Crow-Slave]

if thats really the point behind the plans - then we will just have huge white areas in nullsec.


white? and yes i do believe that was the idea behind it stated in the dev blog
aquatac
Galaxy Investment
#10 - 2015-03-07 18:57:21 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

white?


white = unclaimed.
Nick Actilete
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2015-03-07 23:32:41 UTC
Keep it the way it is now, having a "prime time" ruins part of the sandbox aspect of eve.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-03-08 01:01:26 UTC
No, Prime time is inherently flawed but it is far better than preventing small active groups from holding a single system completely.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#13 - 2015-03-08 01:07:33 UTC
aquatac wrote:
if thats really the point behind the plans - then we will just have huge white areas in nullsec.


We already do, technically. They're called unused buffer zones.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2015-03-08 01:08:35 UTC
honestly **** all of the changes, 90% of them in phase 2 are so poorly thought out i can only assume CCP's future vision of EVE is an arcadey space farmville shooter for 12 year olds to throw cash at to get bigger numbers to appear on screen.

frankly they need to go back and rethink their entire design decisions, but as fozzie already stated, they are willing to change a couple numbers slightly here or there, but the mechanics as they are are set in stone


not to mention the tone of their "levers and dials" design explanation took, basically THEY will be curating the content and what people are allowed to do in null and when, if they think an alliance has held some space too long or organized themselves too well, theyll backdoor nerf the mechanics speciifically for what theyre doing just to force them to break apart

nullsec wont be about player conflict anymore, itll be about players playing minigames against eachother while rarely seeing a fleet, and all the real combat being against arbitrary "levers and dials" CCP throws behind the scenes for no toher reason than your alliance's name came up on the wheel to be the ones screwed with that day


this reeks of the same idiotic design philosophy Elite Dangerous has, and that game has turned into a ghost town spare the foaming at the mouth fanbois who themselves cant even defend the game as it is, only "the vision of what it might be".


I for one wont be going back to null after this announcement, was about to start messaging some old buddies for recruitment, but screw this, EVE keeps doing stuff like this itll end up just like SWG and CU/NGE, dying a dishonorable death, grasping for life. would rather CCP just unplug the servers tomorrow than make me watch yet another MMO be cannibalized to death
Sigras
Conglomo
#15 - 2015-03-08 01:51:40 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
honestly **** all of the changes, 90% of them in phase 2 are so poorly thought out i can only assume CCP's future vision of EVE is an arcadey space farmville shooter for 12 year olds to throw cash at to get bigger numbers to appear on screen.

frankly they need to go back and rethink their entire design decisions, but as fozzie already stated, they are willing to change a couple numbers slightly here or there, but the mechanics as they are are set in stone


not to mention the tone of their "levers and dials" design explanation took, basically THEY will be curating the content and what people are allowed to do in null and when, if they think an alliance has held some space too long or organized themselves too well, theyll backdoor nerf the mechanics speciifically for what theyre doing just to force them to break apart

In real life, if someone is becoming completely dominant because of a specific tactic or piece of equipment, you invent a new weapon to counter with. In a video game we're stuck with the technology in game, and the developers HAVE to play the role of the inventors otherwise they just end up with a broken game.

This is the same argument I had over the Technetium Alchemy situation. In real life if OPEC monopolizes the oil in the world you invent electric cars etc. In eve, you cant invent your way around technetium, so CCP had to come in and make a change.

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
I for one wont be going back to null after this announcement, was about to start messaging some old buddies for recruitment, but screw this, EVE keeps doing stuff like this itll end up just like SWG and CU/NGE, dying a dishonorable death, grasping for life. would rather CCP just unplug the servers tomorrow than make me watch yet another MMO be cannibalized to death

Whine more, then leave... you wont be missed.
Nick Actilete
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-03-08 03:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Nick Actilete
Sigras wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
honestly **** all of the changes, 90% of them in phase 2 are so poorly thought out i can only assume CCP's future vision of EVE is an arcadey space farmville shooter for 12 year olds to throw cash at to get bigger numbers to appear on screen.

frankly they need to go back and rethink their entire design decisions, but as fozzie already stated, they are willing to change a couple numbers slightly here or there, but the mechanics as they are are set in stone


not to mention the tone of their "levers and dials" design explanation took, basically THEY will be curating the content and what people are allowed to do in null and when, if they think an alliance has held some space too long or organized themselves too well, theyll backdoor nerf the mechanics speciifically for what theyre doing just to force them to break apart

In real life, if someone is becoming completely dominant because of a specific tactic or piece of equipment, you invent a new weapon to counter with. In a video game we're stuck with the technology in game, and the developers HAVE to play the role of the inventors otherwise they just end up with a broken game.

This is the same argument I had over the Technetium Alchemy situation. In real life if OPEC monopolizes the oil in the world you invent electric cars etc. In eve, you cant invent your way around technetium, so CCP had to come in and make a change.

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
I for one wont be going back to null after this announcement, was about to start messaging some old buddies for recruitment, but screw this, EVE keeps doing stuff like this itll end up just like SWG and CU/NGE, dying a dishonorable death, grasping for life. would rather CCP just unplug the servers tomorrow than make me watch yet another MMO be cannibalized to death

Whine more, then leave... you wont be missed.


I don't think you understand how much these proposed changes are screwing up nullsec for the people that live there even more than the force projection changes (which I understood had to be done for supers, but holy **** there isn't even a point to have jump bridges anymore). This isn't WoW, but that's what CCP is treating it like.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#17 - 2015-03-08 07:47:27 UTC
There's really no way around the mechanic if you want to make sov accessible to small groups. It's also required to promote fights, by ensuring that opposing sides have to be there at the same time.

Shadowbane used to use a similar system for mine fights. It sucked, but it did it's job of promoting good fights. As long as there are enough windows, spread widely enough, it will be ok. Speaking of which, make sure that a large alliance has different assets vulnerable in different windows. Let no two constellations be identical. Holding vast swaths of space should not be easy.
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2015-03-09 11:01:48 UTC
I agree time zones are a must, but i just cant help but feel a completely binary system is bad. I guess I don't see the the problem with a group committing to completely lock down a grid for hours on end to force a timer that would come out in the defending alliance's prime time anyway. Its still crazily stacked in the defenders favor. But at least if you're surrounded by people with completely different timezones you can all still have some fun.