These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Feedback Wanted] Time Zone Mechanics Survey

First post First post
Author
Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2015-03-13 20:22:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Alp Khan
Eli Apol wrote:
Terra Chrall wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
xttz wrote:
Fozzie, what do you think about scaling vulnerability windows linked to how the space is used? Barely used territory would be very easy to take, actively used systems would be harder.


I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size.

What if an alliance could set their prime time window as big as they wanted, just with a minimum of 4 hours? Larger alliances that want action or want to cover multiple time zones could set it to 8 or 12 or 23 if they wanted.

I like this in theory but there has to be a tangible benefit to making yourself open like that

Local only during primetime .oO


Thanks for the superficial input, but people still should be aware of the fact that you are a high-sec denizen with no proven track record of having a previous residence in sovereign null. I wouldn't consider you as being qualified to be able to make remarks like the one above, because you have never lived in a sovereign null system as a resident. The fact that you cannot see the balance problems inherent in your continued rhetoric and speculative suggestions about the new proposal is showing.

And no, keep your "I'm an alt of a null-sec resident" smokescreen for yourself, nobody is going to be deceived by it. Unless you post on your mythical main that is supposedly a character with sovereign null background, I don't believe you'll possess any credibility per your wild rhetoric.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#62 - 2015-03-13 20:26:12 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:

Now if I went to bed one night woke up next morning to see my system was conquered. I should be able to do something to retake the system that doesn't involve hours/days of grinding. Potentially why can't it be as simple as flipping a switch?Especially in systems that are not utilized or have been "lived in". If the system is lived in and there is some sort of index I would expect a dynamic game play that reflected how "lived in" the system was and difficulty in trying to conquer it. This doesn't necessary have to be reflected in a HP grind type game play or one that has a countdown timer but one that means the attacker has to have a stand out reason why they need to take that specific system.



Station ping-pong is bad.

Also, I bet you would love it if you put in an IHub upgrade, after doing a freighter escort mission to get it put in, then it got destroyed that night while you were asleep. That would be great gameplay and really would encourage developing your space.

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

Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2015-03-13 20:36:29 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is:

  • Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes

  • Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.


No, because such scaling is senseless and stupid. Not all the sovereign null systems are the same quality, most of the sovereign null systems today with bad truesec cannot sustain a resident population. But of course, this is something you would have known if you weren't a high-sec resident with no sovereign null life experience. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are lying to everybody when you claim that you are an alt of a sovereign null resident.

Besides, any such scaling is easily bypassed by the defender if it's unfavorable for defense. Creating multiple alliances and distributing members between them is easy. But then again, if you had any idea of what you are babbling about and if you had prior experience in sovereign null, you would have known.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#64 - 2015-03-13 20:49:15 UTC
Alp Khan wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is:

  • Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes

  • Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.


No, because such scaling is senseless and stupid. Not all the sovereign null systems are the same quality, most of the sovereign null systems today with bad truesec cannot sustain a resident population. But of course, this is something you would have known if you weren't a high-sec resident with no sovereign null life experience. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are lying to everybody when you claim that you are an alt of a sovereign null resident.

Besides, any such scaling is easily bypassed by the defender if it's unfavorable for defense. Creating multiple alliances and distributing members between them is easy. But then again, if you had any idea of what you are babbling about and if you had prior experience in sovereign null, you would have known.

Yeah the idea of holding alliances which are shells etc has always been known.

This and many other silly "why not just make the big alliances suffer by -THIS-" all run into this issue, but one day ccp will pick it up and run with it...

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 ?

Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
#65 - 2015-03-13 21:00:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Alp Khan wrote:
Besides, any such scaling is easily bypassed by the defender if it's unfavorable for defense. Creating multiple alliances and distributing members between them is easy. But then again, if you had any idea of what you are babbling about and if you had prior experience in sovereign null, you would have known.

Keep in mind tho that Entosis effects are tied to the alliance. I can't predict how much that matters but I'm sure it's a factor - when defending but also when attacking. After reinforcement / during the control node phase you can't group fleets based on those split alliances and in fact have to be very careful _only_ players of the right alliance use their links. (Oh, can't wait to listen in on fleet comms after the change)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#66 - 2015-03-13 21:30:10 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Alp Khan wrote:
Besides, any such scaling is easily bypassed by the defender if it's unfavorable for defense. Creating multiple alliances and distributing members between them is easy. But then again, if you had any idea of what you are babbling about and if you had prior experience in sovereign null, you would have known.

Keep in mind tho that Entosis effects are tied to the alliance. I can't predict how much that matters but I'm sure it's a factor - when defending but also when attacking. After reinforcement / during the control node phase you can't group fleets based on those split alliances and in fact have to be very careful _only_ players of the right alliance use their links. (Oh, can't wait to listen in on fleet comms after the change)

You're making it sound like some unsurmountable task, but it shouldn't be.

I'm inclined to think even willful self-deception won't be enough to bridge this gap

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 ?

M1k3y Koontz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2015-03-13 23:32:28 UTC
Duffyman wrote:
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
Thanks for the survey.

Here would be my tweaks on the system:

- switch from an alliance-wide timer to a constellation based timer
- up the 4h window to 6h
- tie the prime time to indices - 5/5/5 gives the lowest timer of 6h, less "occupied" systems have a larger window (let's say up to 12h, for example - just a number though)

This way you could hit more alliances and unloved space is ripe for taking by different TZ alliances, strongholds have defensive boni and a tighter window.


What this guy said but if a system has 0 indices, give it a full 23h vulnerability. If it's not used, let someone has get a better shot at using it


What about systems that were just taken? After taking a system the indexes are 0, leaving the system extremely vulnerable. It takes time to build up those indexes, especially so for Strategic, requiring the space to be owned for X number of days, and industrial which is notoriously difficult to maintain.

That's something I'd like to see addressed by the advocates of the variable prime time idea.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Irya Boone
The Scope
#68 - 2015-03-14 00:20:57 UTC
And how about allowing a scale of a minimum of 4hours to a maximum of 10 hours ( or more) for the timer

and maybe why not just put timer on corporation and not on alliance so you have to decide if you choose a Holding corp for the alliance to store the Sovs or each corp withing the alliance manage its own sov/timer

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

Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2015-03-14 00:27:28 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Duffyman wrote:
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
Thanks for the survey.

Here would be my tweaks on the system:

- switch from an alliance-wide timer to a constellation based timer
- up the 4h window to 6h
- tie the prime time to indices - 5/5/5 gives the lowest timer of 6h, less "occupied" systems have a larger window (let's say up to 12h, for example - just a number though)

This way you could hit more alliances and unloved space is ripe for taking by different TZ alliances, strongholds have defensive boni and a tighter window.


What this guy said but if a system has 0 indices, give it a full 23h vulnerability. If it's not used, let someone has get a better shot at using it


What about systems that were just taken? After taking a system the indexes are 0, leaving the system extremely vulnerable. It takes time to build up those indexes, especially so for Strategic, requiring the space to be owned for X number of days, and industrial which is notoriously difficult to maintain.

That's something I'd like to see addressed by the advocates of the variable prime time idea.


That's a very good point. I wouldn't mind making 0/0/0 space attackable all day but that is a very fair point for contested space, maybe you can include a kind of "cooldown" or change the way iHubs and their upgrades work to gain indices faster. Another idea would be to use the 6h prime time window as buffer for a week and then go for indices based timer after these 7d. Problem might be abuse by certain entities to cover lower used space by holding alliances.

Always hard to tweak - imo the current ihub mechanics need to be changed (including volume, price, upgrades), then it'll be easier and simpler for smaller / newer entities.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#70 - 2015-03-14 00:48:01 UTC
Please do NOT tie vulnerability window size to infrastructure indices.

That SOUNDS convincing, because of occupancy & stuff, but:
A small time window is only necessary/good for small defending entities.
The larger an entity the easier it is to grind any number up to maximum.
Result: more players -> less vulnerability.
Example:
50 players must defend 6 hours per day.
400 players must defend 4 hours every day (of which probably 200 do not live in the main alliance TZ and 30 are Australians who will complain they can never help defending).

It really should be the other way round.
More territory -> more vulnerability.
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2015-03-14 00:58:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Schluffi Schluffelsen
Edward Olmops wrote:
Please do NOT tie vulnerability window size to infrastructure indices.

That SOUNDS convincing, because of occupancy & stuff, but:
A small time window is only necessary/good for small defending entities.
The larger an entity the easier it is to grind any number up to maximum.
Result: more players -> less vulnerability.
Example:
50 players must defend 6 hours per day.
400 players must defend 4 hours every day (of which probably 200 do not live in the main alliance TZ and 30 are Australians who will complain they can never help defending).

It really should be the other way round.
More territory -> more vulnerability.


That sounds convincing to you, but you'll have to be able to defeat the enemy on the field if you want to take actually used space from them. No sov change will change that particular problem, it'll only be easier to get your hands on the less loved space and edges of the bigger entities space.

50 or 500 or 5000 players, each entity should decide on their own what space they want to claim and utilize, then each stronghold constellation should be reasonably defendable and with a good short timer. The alliance size thing can be circumvented in so many ways, this won't solve your issue. You can put all pvp/entosis characters in a holding alliance, reducing the "pilot" weight of alts to blue sister alliances, yadda yadda. More territory can be split upon different alliances, I think that most alliances are probably considering keeping only the necessary systems and trimming the fat to reduce timers and vulnerability.

tldr: No matter what factor you tie it to, there'll be exploits and evasion methods used by 0.0 alliances, that's what we're all good at - looking at mechanics and trying to find loopholes and weaknesses to gain advantage. If you want to keep it simple, use the indices as general mark for reference - and you can always tweak how they work in general.
Cae Lara
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2015-03-14 00:59:58 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Nice to see CCP trolling people who want to give thorough detailed answers to the survey by including a 90 minute timeout and reset.

Thanks for that, an hour and a half down the pan.

id recommend people write out their answers to the questions prior to starting the survey.


Thank you for this. I managed to copy my responses out to notepad just before getting booted.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#73 - 2015-03-14 01:27:47 UTC
Cae Lara wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Nice to see CCP trolling people who want to give thorough detailed answers to the survey by including a 90 minute timeout and reset.

Thanks for that, an hour and a half down the pan.

id recommend people write out their answers to the questions prior to starting the survey.


Thank you for this. I managed to copy my responses out to notepad just before getting booted.


no problem, they broke up the long answer questions a bit which helped but tbh one of those i wrote a pretty detailed account of what i thought about the mechanics and how it interconnects with other aspects of the game in a very non-optimal way, and it took me a fair while to draft it, go through and clarify it and remove errors and tidy up the grammar.
ckinoutdahoe
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2015-03-14 01:28:53 UTC
"it'll be easier and simpler for smaller / newer entities."


This will NEVER happen.

Nothing will make it easier for smaller entities.......This is NOT WOW This is EVE it is suppose to be hard or it is not worth playing.

There are very large alliances that will make anything that is remotely smaller than 500 to 1k members even have a decent chance of owning space for long.

Now then:

If I plunk down 30 bill for a station egg plus billions more for upgrades then the station should be a huge pain in the ass to take.
It should be ground down and not taken by some panzy timer for noobs to take down because they got the timers right.

You want my stations and my space then fight over it, burn it to the ground, but either way you will have to put time and effort into doing so........We have; We all have and have done so since as long as I can remember (2006 member of EVE)

Nothing in this game should be easy.....this is EVE.

If you want noobs in null then make null bigger....a lot bigger....then they can have space.....but they wont come anyway.... If they wanted to live in null they would be here already.

Those who do live here are members of corps that are always taking in new members or they can join a number of "rental" corps that charge a very small fee if any.

I know that CCP wants to rid EVE of rental space.....so now it will become extortion space to live in........same but different name.

It is very easy to come and live in null if you want to ...... I have seen time and again see CCP bend to the will of high sec and they still don't come to null space.

Timers in Eve for taking null space is useless. Time will tell as in any other experiment.

CCP did make mention some time back about making our own gates; maybe like a permanant type from x space to x space with a longer reach than the current JB's but maybe at far greater expense.

At least then you can reach the far reaches of eve without gates 100 jumps or 20 JB's.
Ben Ishikela
#75 - 2015-03-14 01:36:57 UTC
answered.
imho PrimeTime is a mandatory feature for the gamers who are working and/or have families. 4h is a very good time. come home, eat, play, go to bed, be fit on next day.
But i understand the other guys, who think that there will be nothing to do for them. but this simply wrong/selfish. They can still attack alliances that are vulnerable at that time or go to hostile neighbors to disrupt their defence bonus.
And that brings me to my proposal: how to disrupt someone, who docks up as soon as a "nonblue" shows in local, and have fun/provoke fights while doing it?
1st: set nullsec local to show count of players in system. also show only those that have set their standings blue to the viewer/ the owner. ---------- no explanation needed P
2nd: introduce a new deployable ("listening post"). it is similar to an anchorable FWplex, that reduces the defence bonu , when completed (on def side, no running timer needed. just destroy. low hp. no gate). 5-30 minutes time idk.----- this is the provoking part.
3rd: the listening post provides local for owning(=attacking) party.
4th: truesec adapts: industrial actions benefit truesec and security actions do it no good. number of finished listeninposts contribute to reduction. Now you construct a metric around this. The best 1% systems get -1.0. the next 1% get -0.99 and so on. (dev can tweak here easily) --- this is to balance security/ratting around nullsec and spread it. Now it is more disruptible!
4.1: Do a lesser variant of this and put it to lowsec. So players can get comfortable with the gameplay in a safer environment and can start moving on.
(also: LP to upgrade a FW system is bad. Please use the same contribution factors as in sov to determine its level.)
5th: If the effective System Level reaches zero it is Vulnerable regardless of owner's primetime. reduction should take a long enough time but also be fast enough What?. also, a system that is actively used should never reach zero. but disruption should hurt defence and economy. ---- now AUTZ can conquer land as well. wouldnt you, on the other side, like that?
6th: work out the bugs and flaws of 1-5th Roll. though 1st is not so important.

Would you like something like that?

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#76 - 2015-03-14 03:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Alp Khan wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Terra Chrall wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
xttz wrote:
Fozzie, what do you think about scaling vulnerability windows linked to how the space is used? Barely used territory would be very easy to take, actively used systems would be harder.


I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size.

What if an alliance could set their prime time window as big as they wanted, just with a minimum of 4 hours? Larger alliances that want action or want to cover multiple time zones could set it to 8 or 12 or 23 if they wanted.

I like this in theory but there has to be a tangible benefit to making yourself open like that

Local only during primetime .oO


Thanks for the superficial input, but people still should be aware of the fact that you are a high-sec denizen with no proven track record of having a previous residence in sovereign null. I wouldn't consider you as being qualified to be able to make remarks like the one above, because you have never lived in a sovereign null system as a resident. The fact that you cannot see the balance problems inherent in your continued rhetoric and speculative suggestions about the new proposal is showing.

And no, keep your "I'm an alt of a null-sec resident" smokescreen for yourself, nobody is going to be deceived by it. Unless you post on your mythical main that is supposedly a character with sovereign null background, I don't believe you'll possess any credibility per your wild rhetoric.

Attacking the man instead of his points, something got you rattled there chief?

I lived in WHs longer than I lived in highsec, why else would I be a fan of removing local?
Lol

You goons have really got a hard on for my main, maybe I'll biomass Eli and join the CFC with him

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

Nina Lowel
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2015-03-14 06:00:29 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Any system by which players from one timezone are told "you can only affect this territory at 4am, set your alarm clocks or don't bother" is failing those players fundamentally. There should always be SOMETHING to do to attack or defend space, even if the core vulnerability window remains there has to be some form of secondary objectives for out-of-timezone players to play a part.

pretty much the nail on the head there.

outside of the 4 hour window there's NO way to participate in sov warfare (and no, station services aren't participating in sov warfare)



Their answer to this is "well you can AFK camp the system to bring defenses down"

FUN FUN.
Nina Lowel
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2015-03-14 06:11:02 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Tbh I don't think the fime zone thing is an issue. Previously you had no control over timers, even if they came out at 3am.

It's entosis modules on frigs and cruisers. Really, this survey to me addresses sort if the least worrying part of the new sov mechanics. There are bigger fish to fry in terms of making the new sov mechanics viable than the time zone bit.


I've heard people suggest that making the links very expensive will ensure less trolling in those types of ships. Say 1 billion for the T1 and 2 billion for the T2. I think that would ensure that people aren't just loading up 50 ceptors and trolling a large alliance. Their current proposed cost of 25 million I think it was is nothing and people can easily afford to just troll sov if that is the case. If people want to take Sov, require them to commit to it and not just troll sov just to be annoyances with a simple 25 million isk module.
Noriko Mai
#79 - 2015-03-14 06:36:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Noriko Mai
Nina Lowel wrote:
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Tbh I don't think the fime zone thing is an issue. Previously you had no control over timers, even if they came out at 3am.

It's entosis modules on frigs and cruisers. Really, this survey to me addresses sort if the least worrying part of the new sov mechanics. There are bigger fish to fry in terms of making the new sov mechanics viable than the time zone bit.


I've heard people suggest that making the links very expensive will ensure less trolling in those types of ships. Say 1 billion for the T1 and 2 billion for the T2. I think that would ensure that people aren't just loading up 50 ceptors and trolling a large alliance. Their current proposed cost of 25 million I think it was is nothing and people can easily afford to just troll sov if that is the case. If people want to take Sov, require them to commit to it and not just troll sov just to be annoyances with a simple 25 million isk module.

So we fix a stupid design be making the module stupidly expensive? This Entosis Magic Wand Capture The Flag idea is just crap. The whole design is so artificially bloated, it isn't even fun to read about it.

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2015-03-14 06:49:46 UTC
If we tie the window to the size of the organization holding it, it will be gamed to death, mininalliances or corps banding together as a coalition bypass all of the structure limitations.

If we tie the window size to indices . . . but not the way you think. What if the owning corp could set the window larger at the benefit of a higher indice for milittary (or one of their choosing). Welcome battle? Have a cookie. And a chance to make isk. Got a really big groups with full TZ coverage? the make it wide open and reap benefts as well as the downside.

Put an isk carrot on the window stick

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)