These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#3841 - 2015-03-13 06:02:08 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
ICBMs still take a while to destroy the hell out of the other guys

Where did our remote aoe doomsdays go again

I was referring to the 2 billion space wing that we have like 100 of :)
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3842 - 2015-03-13 07:02:32 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:


War is a contest of two opposing wills and the side who gives in first loses. That doesn't make for a very good game, but that is how it has played out in Eve for as long as I have been playing it. Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. They are almost always beaten psychologically long before they reach that point. Only a few organizations have the morale to fight to the last ship - most will give up or failure cascade long before that point.

Weeks of AFK camping, followed by a few rounds of troll pinging, followed by an overwhelming assault once you have crushed the opponents' morale and desire to log in will still be the best way to capture space. That doesn't make for a very fun game, so most of the time, it is in everyone's best interest not to engage in massive sovereignty fights between the great powers.


I agree, there will be no fights to defend sov. It is not worth it. It will be easy to deny others to take sov on the other hand, and many will try but fail and burn-out in the process.

The new Entosis-based sov-mechanics will make even the most well-organized entity burn-out rather quickly if they try to defend it. Since sov is not worth much (anything) for the large well-organized entties, why should they fight over sov? At least they won't fight to keep sov, just to take/destroy others sov.

There has to be a really strong incitament for large well-organized entities to wage war for sov, otherwise sov will be very rare - those who try to take it will have it ripped from them rather easily.

I on my part am looking forward to this, there will be much fun in taking away sov for those who try to hold it. But i guess CCP will have to iterate a lot on this until there is a good balance between the value of owning sov and the simpleness of taking it away or denying it to others.

So lets play that game for a while then, and have a lot of fun doing it! Game of denial is on!

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#3843 - 2015-03-13 07:43:56 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:

And thus, when you have the sov lasers, sov will be more than just an option on the table for moa, right? I mean you are willing to fight tooth and nail, but aaah supercap what can we do?!?! Thankfully the NPCs in your home station won't lose it or deny you access even though there's some sort of hilarious camp just outside the station.

That endless optimism, it can only come from massadeath


Show on the doll where did Massadeath touch you ;)

On a more serious note I'm not sure from where are you getting a note that MOA has plans to claim sov, put up IHUB and start farming "fighting tooth and nail" against Goons or whoever else ends up holding Pure Blind. Mordus Angels are more like low sec pirate entity than a sov holding alliance. All fun and pewpew instead of regular mandatory CTA's and/or alarmclock ops. Not right "attitude" to hold sov long term.

Yeah we will probably end up with sov from time to time whenever your block decides to be busy elsewhere with something but meh, easy comes easy goes.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#3844 - 2015-03-13 09:04:06 UTC  |  Edited by: VolatileVoid
There was a question about why people playing in certain aereas of space.

Highsec: You don't need to play together at all.

Nullsec: You need to play together in many ways but don't need to be online all the time and can do many things alone.

Wormhole: Only able to play if your corpmembers are online aswell.

Lowsec: Event style playing, often together. The reason why many pirates living there.

After the proposed sov changes nullsec playstyle might not change that much except one thing:
Either you are online every day or your corp has something like your phone number and you can go online within less than 12-42 minutes if the batphone calls.
You doing something for your corp that is worth keeping you as member.

If you can't fullfill this you have just two options:
First choice for carebears will be highsec but they will retire because lack of group playstyle.
Join a big enough alli that can afford a certain amount of leisure player but they might control your playstyle soon.

If you are online on a regularly basis you might aswell go into a wormhole system without the disadvantages of the new nullsec sov at least if local changes go live.

Where will be the room for leisure players that like to play together?

Edit: After posting i realized that there is in fact a room for that playstyle, commonly known as pirate playstyle. This leads to the next question.
From where shall we get the targets if all that are leisure player and like to play in groups became pirates?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3845 - 2015-03-13 11:15:04 UTC
VolatileVoid wrote:


If you are online on a regularly basis you might aswell go into a wormhole system without the disadvantages of the new nullsec sov at least if local changes go live.



I agree with this, to a certain extent. As I have been thinking about it the last few days, it has occurred to me that Wormhole Space is simply Pre-Dominion sovereign space. You claim your space with towers and the defender has to make a serious effort to evict you. And, what are the horribly unbalanced things that are not allowed in Wormholes? Supercapitals...

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

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3846 - 2015-03-13 11:56:42 UTC
After thinking on this subject a little more, CCP should introduce the new sov system exactly as they have outlined

New sov mechanics will mean only fools and members of large coalitions will actually try to make a home in sov nul.

So not too far into the future, you end up with 3 major sov holders who after a short period of too and fro will no longer fight each other because each has too much to lose. Why have a war where you could lose as much as the guys your fighting, true empire builders won't risk it all fighting someone who may beat them.

Their biggest threat will come from npc nul and the odd group of day trippers that venture into sov nul. So no threat at all really to their sov and due to member boredom the bloks will be doing all their real pvp in lowsec (so much the same as things are now)

Win Win - The Empire builders get to keep their empires and CCP gets to claim to have fixed the issues surrounding sov.

The undesirable systems in sov nul will stay unclaimed. Except for, as someone has already stated, the odd crappy system turned into a sov holding just to get a few fights while it is being lost.

Anyone else can either move out of sov nul (pirating sounds like fun) or join one of the power bloks.

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.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#3847 - 2015-03-13 13:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Keuvo
Skia Aumer wrote:
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
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?

I just want to see diversity. I want to see place for capital fights in new sov warfare.
Swap construction costs and freighter requirements, whatever.


Yeah actually what might not be too terrible would be:

1. TCU can be RFed and then killed using Entosis link mechanic. If there is no TCU in system the station/ihub can be immediately attacked as outlined in point 2 below.

2. When the TCU is dead the station can be RFed using Entosis link mechanic into Freeport mode. The ihub retains the HP it has under current sov mechanics and can also be RFed into it's first timer.

Additional station timers use the Entosis link mechanic, additional ihub timers use HP grind mechanics.

Only one ihub can exist per system (you have to grind the old ihub before you can drop one and place upgrades).

This way you can shut off station services, Freeport stations, kill TCUs using the new mechanic but to kill someone's ihub/upgrades and make the space worthless requires some commitment and actually provides capitals/supers some role in fozziesov. It also gives the TCU some value and eliminates the troll killing of ihubs that will make sov worth even less than it is now.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3848 - 2015-03-13 14:34:02 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:

Those who cannot currently organize themselves enough to hold space in Eve under existing mechanics will be no more successful in the new system.

War is a contest of two opposing wills and the side who gives in first loses. That doesn't make for a very good game, but that is how it has played out in Eve for as long as I have been playing it. Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. They are almost always beaten psychologically long before they reach that point. Only a few organizations have the morale to fight to the last ship - most will give up or failure cascade long before that point.

Weeks of AFK camping, followed by a few rounds of troll pinging, followed by an overwhelming assault once you have crushed the opponents' morale and desire to log in will still be the best way to capture space. That doesn't make for a very fun game, so most of the time, it is in everyone's best interest not to engage in massive sovereignty fights between the great powers.


In my experience the current system is not really anymore about will at its core but about having a critical supercapital mass. You can be willing to fight tooth and nail for your sov but under the current system if you do not have the supercapital blanket there is little you can do about it.

A entity with sufficient number of supercaps can hold an empty system currently by doing about 4 ops a month (final timers) for keeping it.

A new system is better in that regard. A smallish entity willing to fight for its space has a possibility of clinging into a system or two as actually keeping these systems would require a daily presence from the contestant. A large supercapital heavy entity still has an option to nuke the POS towers when ever feeling like it.


Warfare is always about will.

Clinging to a charred and fragmented chunk of rock - for no reason whatsoever - is very in keeping with some people's idea of nationalism and patriotism. Ultimately, if every time you try to build something in space, someone else comes through and burns it with 10% the effort you require to build and maintain it, you have to accept that you are insane.

I am not supporting the current Supercapital usage. They need to go (as I have said elsewhere). An alliance that loses space should be able to retreat into other Sovereign Space, NPC 0.0, or low sec to regroup. Regrouping means moving to a position where they can rebuild the tools needed to reclaim Sovereign Space. So long as Supercapitals can only be produced in Sovereign Space, new groups have a huge barrier to entry. New groups should be able to stage in low sec or NPC 0.0, purchase or build the capital ships needed to make a serious effort to take and hold space, and get a foothold somewhere that is far enough from an opponents' core space that they have a chance of success. One thing that would help this more than anything is more NPC 0.0 in areas of the map that currently do not have any.

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

xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#3849 - 2015-03-13 14:37:03 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
I would like to see more opportunity for using capitals in this system, even if it's not essential to do so.

What if Entosis Links could only deactivate an Infrastructure Hub, and you needed to shoot it or online your own to get rid of it permanently?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3850 - 2015-03-13 15:06:00 UTC
xttz wrote:
I would like to see more opportunity for using capitals in this system, even if it's not essential to do so.

What if Entosis Links could only deactivate an Infrastructure Hub, and you needed to shoot it or online your own to get rid of it permanently?


At the very least, there should not be a penalty for committing capitals to the fight.

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

Kendarr
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#3851 - 2015-03-13 18:15:24 UTC
I like the changes. I am looking forward to new neighbours to shoot.

I do not like how useless capitals and super capitals are.

Also please give titans more bridge range, please. That would make me happy.

Zebra-Corp
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3852 - 2015-03-13 21:09:00 UTC
With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3853 - 2015-03-13 23:24:59 UTC
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:
With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables.

That would be nice...

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 ?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3854 - 2015-03-13 23:58:14 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:
With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables.




This would be great. I would also reduce their hitpoints quite a bit as well.

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

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3855 - 2015-03-14 07:14:24 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:
With everyone and their alt having supers... why not remove their immunities to all forms of ewar so they're just beefier carriers instead of untouchables.




This would be great. I would also reduce their hitpoints quite a bit as well.

Why is it people seem to be fixated on the strengths of capitals? How about some of the drawbacks to owning capitals, especially supers.
Capital warfare has all but been removed from the game, now you want to whine because those who choose to use them in their new limited capacity are too hard to kill for you and your 5 buddies in subcaps.

If you want to kill capitals and especially supers, spend the time and money and do it the way everyone else has had to. Buy your bloody own!!!
Eve is about players overcoming not CCP nerfing to make it easier for the whiners.

All the nerfs are slowly killing any real content in eve and you guys just keep screaming for more.

- - - - - - - - -
Just get it over with, remove all capitals from the game, refund SP and isk spent and let eve die the slow death it has coming.
And by capitals, I mean ALL capitals, freighters, bowheads, rorquals all need to go. We don't want someone having an advantage over anyone else so all need to go to create the level playing field people are crying for.
While your at it;
Covert cloaks also need to be removed as does bubble immunity for interceptors and the combat recons need to be scannable again. These create an unfair advantage over those who don't use them so they must be bad and need to be removed.

I used to say I fear for the future of eve - No need for that - As long as these attitudes prevail, eve has no future.

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.
Bellak Hark
New Eden Media Organization
#3856 - 2015-03-14 09:48:40 UTC
Thought I would ask some goon friends what they thought about the changes, here you go.
159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3857 - 2015-03-14 14:36:55 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:


I am not supporting the current Supercapital usage. They need to go (as I have said elsewhere). An alliance that loses space should be able to retreat into other Sovereign Space, NPC 0.0, or low sec to regroup. Regrouping means moving to a position where they can rebuild the tools needed to reclaim Sovereign Space. So long as Supercapitals can only be produced in Sovereign Space, new groups have a huge barrier to entry. New groups should be able to stage in low sec or NPC 0.0, purchase or build the capital ships needed to make a serious effort to take and hold space, and get a foothold somewhere that is far enough from an opponents' core space that they have a chance of success. One thing that would help this more than anything is more NPC 0.0 in areas of the map that currently do not have any.


More NPC space, but this should be added near current low sec / high sec. Else no new entity will be able to settle there. So no need to add NPC space in deep null.
But how will this fix the supercapital problem? You can still not buid your own supers so you can't engage the other entities?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3858 - 2015-03-14 19:50:19 UTC
159Pinky wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:


I am not supporting the current Supercapital usage. They need to go (as I have said elsewhere). An alliance that loses space should be able to retreat into other Sovereign Space, NPC 0.0, or low sec to regroup. Regrouping means moving to a position where they can rebuild the tools needed to reclaim Sovereign Space. So long as Supercapitals can only be produced in Sovereign Space, new groups have a huge barrier to entry. New groups should be able to stage in low sec or NPC 0.0, purchase or build the capital ships needed to make a serious effort to take and hold space, and get a foothold somewhere that is far enough from an opponents' core space that they have a chance of success. One thing that would help this more than anything is more NPC 0.0 in areas of the map that currently do not have any.


More NPC space, but this should be added near current low sec / high sec. Else no new entity will be able to settle there. So no need to add NPC space in deep null.
But how will this fix the supercapital problem? You can still not buid your own supers so you can't engage the other entities?

Are you still worried about that?

In the other thread your hero massadeath was convinced that sov lasers are all it will take to end our 00.0 nightmare...

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 ?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3859 - 2015-03-14 19:56:18 UTC
159Pinky wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:


I am not supporting the current Supercapital usage. They need to go (as I have said elsewhere). An alliance that loses space should be able to retreat into other Sovereign Space, NPC 0.0, or low sec to regroup. Regrouping means moving to a position where they can rebuild the tools needed to reclaim Sovereign Space. So long as Supercapitals can only be produced in Sovereign Space, new groups have a huge barrier to entry. New groups should be able to stage in low sec or NPC 0.0, purchase or build the capital ships needed to make a serious effort to take and hold space, and get a foothold somewhere that is far enough from an opponents' core space that they have a chance of success. One thing that would help this more than anything is more NPC 0.0 in areas of the map that currently do not have any.


More NPC space, but this should be added near current low sec / high sec. Else no new entity will be able to settle there. So no need to add NPC space in deep null.
But how will this fix the supercapital problem? You can still not buid your own supers so you can't engage the other entities?


NPC space in deep nullsec helps make it less safe and secure, since it gives a place for small alliances to stage for raids into sov space (as MOA, EH, and Pizza/Pasta have done for years. It also helps with logistics.

I currently have four characters skilled for Supercarriers and two for Titans. I also own a couple of Titans. With that as my background, I think they need to be seriously nerfed to the point where they are a cool, bling factor in a fight, rather than a true APEX force.

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

Telizane
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3860 - 2015-03-15 04:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Telizane
Dear Eve Developers (Or the ones who came up with prime time)

I play with people from over the pond, down under and a few from the far east.... (I'm in the US) and these are some of the best people in the game that I have come to know and fly with for many years.

This idea "APPEARS" to rule out the specific play times, or just times that mates will be online. I hope that this truly isn't the case because in all honesty you are going against one of the main reasons EVE is still relevant in the gaming community.


EVE "Online" which means that people from across the globe can be online at the same time and fly together, work together conquer the universe as a team ..."ONLINE".

If you start a system that segregates time zones, where the games you compete with don't...do the math.

I hope this will not be the case going forward, otherwise you are about to defaecate on the people we call friends....