These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3621 - 2015-03-09 12:55:46 UTC
Drogo Drogos wrote:
From Super pilots to burned out nullsec players getting fed up with constand defence fleets day in day out.

I dunno, I'm tentatively looking forward to seeing if these changes'll turn into more small fleets engaging other small fleets, rather than the 1kv1k or bigger fleet fights which have become de jure sov fights as of the last 4 years.
Baden Luskan
Freeworlds Collective
#3622 - 2015-03-09 12:57:38 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Ultimately, I just cant be optimistic about the sov changes. It strikes me as overly complicated and needlessly disruptive. The fact that these idea come from the same folk that gave us industry teams and the minigame with its spew doesnt help. A simpler system would in my opinion be much more desirable. Sov decay would achieve most of the results that ccp is looking for without the disruption - what is sov decay? It is the idea that if enough people dont live/play in a particular system, they will progressively lose control over the system. As time goes on, npc events appear in the system disrupting game play, and if not responded to, ultimately besieging the system in an incursion like event. If the event is not defeated, the npc would take over the system rendering it contestable npc sov. To prevent these event from being farmed, the npc would not have any appreciable reward for killing them apart from control over the sov of the system. Because no alliance has the people to live everywhere, this type of system would naturally lead to npc sov systems spreading across the map, which would in turn give smaller alliances the opportunity to either stage out of the systems or to grab the systems to live in themselves. So sov decay achieves the same results of promoting access to null for smaller groups while limiting the size of alliances, all without the needless complexity and disruption.


I support this system 1000%
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#3623 - 2015-03-09 13:03:43 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
That is a pretty good appraisal - Only thing you left out is how long you believe the novelty of taking sov just because you can and not getting anything in return, except a few fights, will last.

My guess - About 6 months, by then the novelty of being griefed out of your sov regularly will have worn off and people just won't bother. The large groups will persevere because they can afford to but the small groups will just give up trying.

Lets all spend 6 months doing Empire and saving isk so we can go take sov for a few weeks and get some fights. Then pack up go back to empire and start over.
Sounds exciting doesn't it


Its a tough one and the big unknown in terms of what is left in the game, in the past I would have been fairly confident that people would have gone for it, but too many people in Eve are instant gratification people who think a good hunt is an easy catch for them and a kill mail.

I am aware of one alliance that has sov at this very moment to generate fights but one of the leaders of that alliance has posted here in support of these changes.

But I cannot see it, I had decided to stick about 5bn into a war chest for this and see what happens, then think again, but I am also waiting for some people to come back to the game who might well go for it longer term and with a hell of a lot more in assets. We shall see...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#3624 - 2015-03-09 13:05:51 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Drogo Drogos wrote:
From Super pilots to burned out nullsec players getting fed up with constand defence fleets day in day out.

I dunno, I'm tentatively looking forward to seeing if these changes'll turn into more small fleets engaging other small fleets, rather than the 1kv1k or bigger fleet fights which have become de jure sov fights as of the last 4 years.

I like both kinds of fights. I felt like we had plenty of small fights. Now it seems that's all we'll have.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#3625 - 2015-03-09 13:17:32 UTC
Good afternoon folks.

We're working on a survey to help us filter the high volume of feedback about the time zone mechanics, and since we don't want to ask people to answer the same questions too many times we're going to wait until that survey is ready before starting the specific feedback thread for that area.

I have created a new thread in F&I that goes over the intentions behind the Entosis Link mechanics in a bit more detail, and provides a place for targetted feedback surrounding that module and the ships that fit it. You can find that thread here.

I'm still catching back up to the posts in this thread after the weekend, but thanks again to everyone posting constructive feedback.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3626 - 2015-03-09 13:18:21 UTC
See my other posts.

My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it.
Elenahina
Embark
Triumvirate.
#3627 - 2015-03-09 13:20:04 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Can we also remove standings?
What you have in your alliance ... is blue , every thing else neut.


It wouldn't do anything. People would just use out of game tools like Provi does to manage their standings.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#3628 - 2015-03-09 13:38:38 UTC
afkalt wrote:
See my other posts.

My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it.

That's nice for you?
I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3629 - 2015-03-09 13:52:26 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
That is a pretty good appraisal - Only thing you left out is how long you believe the novelty of taking sov just because you can and not getting anything in return, except a few fights, will last.

My guess - About 6 months, by then the novelty of being griefed out of your sov regularly will have worn off and people just won't bother. The large groups will persevere because they can afford to but the small groups will just give up trying.

Lets all spend 6 months doing Empire and saving isk so we can go take sov for a few weeks and get some fights. Then pack up go back to empire and start over.
Sounds exciting doesn't it


Its a tough one and the big unknown in terms of what is left in the game, in the past I would have been fairly confident that people would have gone for it, but too many people in Eve are instant gratification people who think a good hunt is an easy catch for them and a kill mail.

I am aware of one alliance that has sov at this very moment to generate fights but one of the leaders of that alliance has posted here in support of these changes.

But I cannot see it, I had decided to stick about 5bn into a war chest for this and see what happens, then think again, but I am also waiting for some people to come back to the game who might well go for it longer term and with a hell of a lot more in assets. We shall see...

5 billion war chest? I hope you have at least half a dozen friends with as much or more than you.
Be sure to let them know ahead of time, their isk is already gone and they will still have to provide everything they need to stay in sov, even for a limited time, so another 4 or 5 bil.

- - - - - - - -
That's the thing, is CCP looking for alliances to take sov and it only be a short term thing or are they wanting to see sov nul develop into a place where there is some constancy.
All the restrictions CCP have placed on player movement, including Home System clones, jump nerfs, fatigue, would indicate they are expecting players not to move around too much.
Yet the style of Sov they are planning on introducing is the opposite. It will encourage griefers and large groups to push whoever they can out of where ever they can, so Sov Nul will to a large extent be a like a mobile home. You plant your flag, just long enough for someone to decide they don't want you there and then you move.
A minimum 4 hour per day window for sov defense is a guarantee many small groups will remain highly mobile, or would if they could move "home Clone".
Not sure how that little mechanic is going to work, not even convinced the master minds behind this change even considered it during planning.
New sov mechanics - not going to work very well if you can only move your clone every 12 months, is it?
Unless everyone just switch side each time your home gets threatened - WOW how big could the big 3 grow by manipulating that mechanic.
- - - - - - - - - -
Of course the alliance who only holds sov to generate fights supports this, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. They have already accepted they will lose sov when it suits someone to take it from them.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3630 - 2015-03-09 13:52:51 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
afkalt wrote:
See my other posts.

My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it.

That's nice for you?
I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance.



So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently.

Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix.
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3631 - 2015-03-09 14:28:34 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
afkalt wrote:
See my other posts.

My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it.

That's nice for you?
I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance.



So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently.

Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix.

Capitals are alliance level assets used to further the goals of the organisation as a whole. There's a reason why they specifically give you the capital hull rather than a pile of ISK to blow on exotic dancers or interceptors to derp around in lowsec, because they expect you to give them a return on the investment by showing up to structure shoot/rep ops.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3632 - 2015-03-09 14:50:25 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
afkalt wrote:
See my other posts.

My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it.

That's nice for you?
I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance.



So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently.

Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix.

Capitals are alliance level assets used to further the goals of the organisation as a whole. There's a reason why they specifically give you the capital hull rather than a pile of ISK to blow on exotic dancers or interceptors to derp around in lowsec, because they expect you to give them a return on the investment by showing up to structure shoot/rep ops.


Absolutely - but you take my point - it is something I DONT need to buy, so it is income of a sort.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3633 - 2015-03-09 15:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
afkalt wrote:
Absolutely - but you take my point - it is something I DONT need to buy, so it is income of a sort.

Net Profit = Gross Profit - Expenses

edit: In Eve terms:

Income = Amount earned - (PLEX + PvP addiction)


:)

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

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#3634 - 2015-03-09 15:22:57 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#3635 - 2015-03-09 15:36:17 UTC
I am sure I replied to the Goon who said 50m ratting in anoms, but it has disappeared, maybe I thought I posted it, which is odd, there was certainly nothing controversial in it and it was pertinent to the question of whether space is worth using and I said that I was able to earn 108m an hour in Cobalt Edge with a carrier and oracle on grid and this is what a Goon posted in the new thread:

Anya Solette wrote:
100m isk is literally an hour of ratting on an afk alt, i sneeze and more isk comes out my nose than that. Also, unless you have a dictor with perfect coordination and a good warpin at the instant you alpha the trollceptor, you're not catching that snaked pod.


So 100m = 50m when it suits you.

Please stop going on about hisec income vs null, there is no comparison, we are talking about whether the income in low truesec systems is worth taking space for, and my opinion is no it is not.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3636 - 2015-03-09 15:50:17 UTC
Anya Solette wrote:
100m isk is literally an hour of ratting on an afk alt, i sneeze and more isk comes out my nose than that. Also, unless you have a dictor with perfect coordination and a good warpin at the instant you alpha the trollceptor, you're not catching that snaked pod.
That snaked pod which now has to find it's way out of a hostile system through the bubble camp that the inties ignored? Puh-lease.

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

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#3637 - 2015-03-09 15:53:36 UTC
Yeah let's just spam every gate with bubbles.
That's definitely the nullsec I want to see.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3638 - 2015-03-09 15:55:29 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Yeah let's just spam every gate with bubbles.
That's definitely the nullsec I want to see.

Kinda seems like the CFC plan by trying to remove interceptors from the equation...

I mean nullified ships are basically the most effective way to AVOID that situation are they not?

Nice to have you onboard.

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

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#3639 - 2015-03-09 16:00:13 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Yeah let's just spam every gate with bubbles.
That's definitely the nullsec I want to see.

Kinda seems like the CFC plan by trying to remove interceptors from the equation...

I mean nullified ships are basically the most effective way to AVOID that situation are they not?

Nice to have you onboard.

I think there's a lot more that needs to be fixed with this mess than simply removing interceptors from the equation.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3640 - 2015-03-09 16:02:02 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
afkalt wrote:
See my other posts.

My alliance BUYING me a fitted capital....yeah, that's a few billion I'm NOT spending (well, covering half). Thus I view it as income, a benefit in kind - as the taxman would see it.

That's nice for you?
I bought my dread and carrier with my own ISK, and so has almost everyone else in this alliance.



So all that demonstrates is different alliance distribute the moon income differently.

Put another way - that's a player problem MADE by players. This is not CCPs "problem" to fix.


All this discussion about alliance-wide programs is a red herring. These are symptoms of flaws in the current state of the game.

SRP and subsidisation programmes were borne directly from sovereignty mechanics designed by CCP to favour the biggest, strongest ships. Both POS-based sov and its successor Dominion made capital ships a necessity for taking and holding space. Such ships have always involved an element of tedium in 99% of ops; waiting around for hours to find out if you're even going to fight anyone does not make for exciting gameplay. Then when these expensive ships are inevitably lost, it's unreasonable to expect casual players to spend weeks replacing them for the promise of more boredom.

It's human nature to take the path of least-resistance, so the result at the end of the day is our current meta; alliances grouping up into coalitions to:
increase the number of expensive ships to defend their territory
decrease the number of expensive ships attacking their territory
generate income to maintain all the expensive ships defending their territory

By removing the capital fleet as the barrier for null-sec entry, these new sov changes are a step in the right direction. Done properly they could even undermine the necessity for having SRP in future nullsec alliances.