These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3801 - 2015-03-11 20:29:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Alp Khan wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Dear Alp Khan, my friend knows someone who met someone who said that he earns billions of isk in null by ratting in a cruiser.



Unironically, that pretty much seems like the only thing you can credibly say about the whole individual income debate. And mind you, your post is deceptive, you are projecting yourself onto the people who avoid word of mouth and talk of their own experiences.

Why? Because the posters who openly say that null individual income is the worst in EVE back it up with figures. They compare it to wormholes, low-sec FW and highsec L4s and incursions and find it to be minuscule in comparison with even highsec. Their figures and math show the obvious conclusion that can also reach through calculations.

On the other hand, I haven't seen you provide figures so far. You haven't provided a coherent argument either. In the absence of those, you will find it difficult to be taken seriously by your peers.




You're replying to someone who is the actual poster child for "don't touch my high sec income" (he even admitted it, he makes isk in high sec for pvp ships he uses in low sec).

The problem is that such people are so incredibly short sighted it's not even funny. they don't get that the imbalance hurts them (with people who WOULD be in null living instead being in other parts of EVE doing things that pay out in LP, that lowers the incomes of the Josef Djugashvilis' of high sec...).

I stopped being surprised by what you describe a long time ago. This happened when I noticed that EVERY high sec vs null (or anywhere else) discussion was comprised of non-high sec types with facts and figures and personal experiences on one side, and on the other side was 'high sec' aka 'a friend I know told me he makes 7 trillion isk per hour just by jumping into null and shooting one rat' lol.

In other words, they think we are as greedy as they are (that's psychological projection for you), so they think we're trying to nerf them to hurt them when the real truth is that a proper balance benefits everyone as much as an imbalance screws everyone.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to cash in some more Federation Customs and Khanid Navy LPs that I got form NOT being in null sec where I should have been.
Josef Djugashvilis
#3802 - 2015-03-11 20:49:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Jenn aSide wrote:
Alp Khan wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Dear Alp Khan, my friend knows someone who met someone who said that he earns billions of isk in null by ratting in a cruiser.



Unironically, that pretty much seems like the only thing you can credibly say about the whole individual income debate. And mind you, your post is deceptive, you are projecting yourself onto the people who avoid word of mouth and talk of their own experiences.

Why? Because the posters who openly say that null individual income is the worst in EVE back it up with figures. They compare it to wormholes, low-sec FW and highsec L4s and incursions and find it to be minuscule in comparison with even highsec. Their figures and math show the obvious conclusion that can also reach through calculations.

On the other hand, I haven't seen you provide figures so far. You haven't provided a coherent argument either. In the absence of those, you will find it difficult to be taken seriously by your peers.




You're replying to someone who is the actual poster child for "don't touch my high sec income" (he even admitted it, he makes isk in high sec for pvp ships he uses in low sec).

The problem is that such people are so incredibly short sighted it's not even funny. they don't get that the imbalance hurts them (with people who WOULD be in null living instead being in other parts of EVE doing things that pay out in LP, that lowers the incomes of the Josef Djugashvilis' of high sec...).

I stopped being surprised by what you describe a long time ago. This happened when I noticed that EVERY high sec vs null (or anywhere else) discussion was comprised of non-high sec types with facts and figures and personal experiences on one side, and on the other side was 'high sec' aka 'a friend I know told me he makes 7 trillion isk per hour just by jumping into null and shooting one rat' lol.

In other words, they think we are as greedy as they are (that's psychological projection for you), so they think we're trying to nerf them to hurt them when the real truth is that a proper balance benefits everyone as much as an imbalance screws everyone.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to cash in some more Federation Customs and Khanid Navy LPs that I got form NOT being in null sec where I should have been.


Dear, dear Jenn, CCP still ain't listening.

And CCP have acess to the facts, not the opinion of you and a few other malcontents.

Lordy, I only wish I did earn 100m plus per hour running missions in hi-sec to pay for my lo-sec pvp failures.

Fly safe Smile

This is not a signature.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3803 - 2015-03-11 22:14:59 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
How is it harder to defend?
A smart large alliance is going to spread members out to protect their most valued assets.
They, in most cases have armies of allies close enough, they don't need to rely solely on their own membership to defend things.

Isolated pockets of sov are not going to be any harder for the bloks to defend than protecting those same moons is now. In fact it will be easier for them because all they need is more Entosis modules active and the war is over before it starts.

So yes by all means tie moons to sov, then sit back for the next 4 or 5 years and see how badly it fails to create content and change of moon ownership.

I dislike the bloks but would never (as some seem to be doing) underestimate their will to survive and grow.

It is going to take a lot more than "capture the flag" (entosis module) and "how much gold can Mario collect" (capture the most nodes) to break the determined and well organised bloks.


Some of the suggestions put forward by players may help to achieve a more level playing field in sov but CCP has tuned out, they have made their decision and for better or worse we are stuck with it.

Divide and conquer, think that was Sun Tzu?

If they have to have small gangs spread out to protect their sovereignty boni for their moon goo then it means a relatively smaller group can pick off those smaller gangs rather than facing the whole army in one centralised location.

Sure they can bring in reinforcements for an RF timer 2 days later - but then the small gang can move to another isolated pocket etc etc.

It's almost the definition of guerilla warfare.

Their reinforcements are all around them, they are called blues and the small gang is soon going to get tired of running around "to another isolated pocket" only to waste another 2 days.

Ok sure, I'll concede a determined small gang may succeed in RFing a few systems holding moons but as long as these large bloks have a pool of 40K + blues to call on - It Is All Pointless.

If I wanted to do FW and play capture the node - I would live in FW Space.

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.
Flaming Butterfly
2 PIRATES 1 CUP
Grim Future.
#3804 - 2015-03-11 22:17:24 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Hmm, I guess the big question is will an uberfleet just crush the objective with a huge amount of points. in your system
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5568555#post5568555

Enough numbers in any system will crush the opponent.

Circumstantial Evidence
#3805 - 2015-03-11 22:42:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Circumstantial Evidence
(edit: this post being) Apropos of nothing, Eli Apol needs to make just one more post, FTW.

Top 10 ATM:

Eli Apol          199 (5,1%) 
Kaarous Aldurald  106 (2,7%) 
epicurus ataraxia 102 (2,6%) 
Arrendis           88 (2,3%) 
Alavaria Fera      87 (2,3%) 
Rain6637           74 (1,9%) 
afkalt             72 (1,9%) 
Lena Lazair        64 (1,7%) 
Jenn aSide         61 (1,6%) 
Lord TGR           61 (1,6%)
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3806 - 2015-03-11 22:44:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Apropos of nothing, Eli Apol needs to make just one more post, FTW.

Top 10 ATM:

Eli Apol          199 (5,1%) 
Kaarous Aldurald  106 (2,7%) 
epicurus ataraxia 102 (2,6%) 
Arrendis           88 (2,3%) 
Alavaria Fera      87 (2,3%) 
Rain6637           74 (1,9%) 
afkalt             72 (1,9%) 
Lena Lazair        64 (1,7%) 
Jenn aSide         61 (1,6%) 
Lord TGR           61 (1,6%)



Granted :)

Now do it by coalition

I was the lone wolf

*tears up*

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Circumstantial Evidence
#3807 - 2015-03-11 22:50:05 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
... Eli Apol needs to make just one more post, FTW.
Granted :)

Now do it by coalition
Completion-ists can click the link, Chribba does the heavy lifting Blink
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3808 - 2015-03-11 22:56:48 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
... Eli Apol needs to make just one more post, FTW.
Granted :)

Now do it by coalition
Completion-ists can click the link, Chribba does the heavy lifting Blink

Afaik that also includes about 100 posts of me denying that I'm purely a highsec salvager which have since hit the recycle bin :*(

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
HeXxploiT
Doomheim
#3809 - 2015-03-11 23:11:37 UTC  |  Edited by: HeXxploiT
I cannot imagine a single change that would encourage more pilots to move to nulsec.

This is Fantastic!

Also don't think the module being fitted onto small inexpensive ships is going to be a big problem. If pilots & corporations will spend 80 mil on a module fitted to a 15mil ship by the hundreds then making the module only fit on a 100mil battleship certainly isn't going to stop them.

The purpose of this change is to make nulsec more dynamic. If these modules could only fit on caps then what would be the point as nothing would change at all in nul.

These changes will make nulsec only available to those entities willing to put the effort into actively defending it.

Stick to your guns Fozzie. Cool
Erasmus Grant
Order of the Eclipse
Triumvirate.
#3810 - 2015-03-12 01:08:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Erasmus Grant
When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3811 - 2015-03-12 02:29:16 UTC
HeXxploiT wrote:
I cannot imagine a single change that would encourage more pilots to move to nulsec.

This is Fantastic!

Also don't think the module being fitted onto small inexpensive ships is going to be a big problem. If pilots & corporations will spend 80 mil on a module fitted to a 15mil ship by the hundreds then making the module only fit on a 100mil battleship certainly isn't going to stop them.

The purpose of this change is to make nulsec more dynamic. If these modules could only fit on caps then what would be the point as nothing would change at all in nul.

These changes will make nulsec only available to those entities willing to put the effort into actively defending it.

Stick to your guns Fozzie. Cool

Really, you can't see the difference between fitting to a ship that warps at 8AU and is immune to bubbles vs a battleship that warps at 3.5 AU and has no such immunity?

These changes will only strengthen the large groups holdings in nulsec.

There is nothing dynamic about - Get as many blues as you can to better protect your space.

The Entosis module is the highest possible command module in the game and should be treated as such.
Only battle cruisers and capitals can fit command links - Entosis is a command link.

T1 Entosis - Battle Cruisers and Carriers
T2 Entosis - Command Ships and Supers.

If as is planned and sov is to remain a numbers game, make the numbers high for ship costs as well.

NB; A Nyx with T2 Entosis link active is going to generate far more interest than if it is on a condor.

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.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3812 - 2015-03-12 02:44:18 UTC
Erasmus Grant wrote:
When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has


300+ is a tiny alliance.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Proton Stars
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3813 - 2015-03-12 03:23:56 UTC
There us so much stupidity in this thread from people who have never lived in null sec.

I can see that the first mass evac of a 0.0 entity has begun in the south. Pantsufarian and his rabble are starting to move out of space not worth owning! The mass exodus of sov space has begun.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3814 - 2015-03-12 06:25:38 UTC
Erasmus Grant wrote:
When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has

Like what they're doing with null... after it's been rendered of little value


You can go and grab r4 moons because, well they're not worth anything, really?

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 ?
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#3815 - 2015-03-12 08:58:34 UTC
Erasmus Grant wrote:
When are they going to redo moons to where they're not only in the hands of the largest and most powerful pvp communities. I cannot even get a days siphoning done on a remote moon because of API data. . . I want to have just as easy source of ISK for my 30 man corp has that 300+ alliance/corp has


Don't make the mistake of assuming siphons are a money-making mechanic, they're not. Their in-game implementation conflicted with the stated goals CCP laid out and instead we ended up with a griefing mechanic that's deeply unpleasant for both parties and encourages as little conflict as possible.

Siphons could have been amazing content generators, providing a source of income for attackers and combat opportunities for defenders. Instead we got a poorly thought-out game mechanic where both the risk and potential reward for the attacker are low, the required effort from the defender is a horrible chore, and CCP had to fudge the API to make it even barely passable.

Now that Greyscale has departed for pastures new, you may be better off campaigning for siphons to be made useful. This is a much simpler project than overhauling moon-mining (although I do agree that needs to be done also).
Irya Boone
The Scope
#3816 - 2015-03-12 11:29:51 UTC
NO CCP don't listen to them
let the entosis link be fitted by ceptors, with no malus.

Put a 5 hours timer instead.
remove off-grid boost ( i know i know nothing to do with the matter but i want this )
Delay ( not Wh-style ) but delay in term of time the local when you pop in system you'll pop in local chat in about 30 s :)


and for god sake open da door !!

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#3817 - 2015-03-12 12:05:35 UTC
As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them?

1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE.

2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright.

3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the "Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well.
Richard Marte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3818 - 2015-03-12 12:17:09 UTC
Not sure if somebody already mentioned/shot-down this idea, but I was wondering if a simple solution to the "trollceptor" problem would be to make any use of entosis links a fight to the death.

That is, if you deactivate your entosis link while anybody else still has one active, then you get a timer to re-activate your entosis link on the same target, and if that timer expires your ship explodes and perhaps even your pod as well. If you're jammed out then the timer wouldn't start until you're no longer jammed/etc, and the timer would prevent stupid stuff like drifting out of range from causing you to die.

This makes everybody contesting a structure put skin in the game. If you're uncontested you can still roll through and reinforce half of a region in a few hours, and that is fair. However, trollceptors would be limited to hitting a single target per ship, and then they have to go reship and of course eat their losses. Likewise, this would prevent defensive trolling - if a decent fleet shows up the defenders can't just send a bunch of interceptors to dance around making trouble for the attackers - at least not without expense. Either side could sacrifice ships as a delaying tactic if necessary to bring in reinforcements or whatever, but it would be at a cost. And, of course, the cost of the entosis link itself would be a factor in what is at stake.
Jessy Andersteen
In Wreck we thrust
#3819 - 2015-03-12 13:00:24 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:


NB; A Nyx with T2 Entosis link active is going to generate far more interest than if it is on a condor.


No. Because we know WHO have a lot of Nyx. And it's only generate mega blob of Invincible Supers whom can Cluster F u c k the cluster if they have issues.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#3820 - 2015-03-12 13:08:52 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them?

1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE.

2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright.

3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the "Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well.


Why would you make the ihub easier to capture than the TCU when it is the far more valuable and difficult to replace structure?