These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
flakeys
Doomheim
#3861 - 2015-03-15 07:39:53 UTC  |  Edited by: flakeys
VolatileVoid wrote:
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?



Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.

Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#3862 - 2015-03-15 09:58:08 UTC
flakeys wrote:
Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.

Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt.


Well, we already have our Pirate alts.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3863 - 2015-03-15 11:56:51 UTC
VolatileVoid wrote:
flakeys wrote:
Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.

Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt.


Well, we already have our Pirate alts.


And like all good "solo" PVPers, our pirate alts have each have their off grid boosting alts and our Falcon alts.

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

Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3864 - 2015-03-15 13:26:11 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
VolatileVoid wrote:
flakeys wrote:
Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.

Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt.


Well, we already have our Pirate alts.


And like all good "solo" PVPers, our pirate alts have each have their off grid boosting alts and our Falcon alts.

No no no, only one name shows up on the killmail therefore he's "solo."

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3865 - 2015-03-15 17:25:19 UTC
Kendarr wrote:
Also please give titans more bridge range, please. That would make me happy.


Hell, no! Instant teleportation is a broken gaming mechanic at all but the most restricted levels.


Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.


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.



Ok, give me $140,000 USD for a fleet of 100 titans so I or any other alliance can defend sov vs PL. (Does not include cost of buying the pilot characters.) Wut? You don't have that kind of money? Scrub. Go live in npc space.

Go build them? Ok, give me enough sov space, minerals, and time to build them. Wut? You don't have sov? Go take some!

Can't take sov without supers/titans? Buy them! And... the circle is complete. The only way anyone takes sov without a super fleet nowadays is because the previous owners abandoned it.

On nerfs, supers and titans were broken the moment they were introduced into the game. This isn't about players overcoming players. This is about players overcoming really bad game mechanics that have reinforced the the positions of the top alliances to the point where they are impossible to defeat by anyone not fielding an n+1 apex force. And since you can't take space without the ships, and you can't get the ships without the space, everyone but the current owners are pretty much screwed.

As much as I would howl with delight is supers and titans were removed from the game, I give that a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening. Therefore many of us are asking for the next best thing; give us a chance to succeed, otherwise, why play the nul-sov game?

CCP recognizes that there are plenty of other games to play that don't include the words Eve Online in their title. If they want to keep their customers and attract new ones, they have to do something about nulsov. "Fozziesov" is step 2 of their answer. We'll have to see how it plays out.

I am very curious to see step 3.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3866 - 2015-03-15 18:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Soldarius wrote:


On nerfs, supers and titans were broken the moment they were introduced into the game. This isn't about players overcoming players. This is about players overcoming really bad game mechanics that have reinforced the the positions of the top alliances to the point where they are impossible to defeat by anyone not fielding an n+1 apex force. And since you can't take space without the ships, and you can't get the ships without the space, everyone but the current owners are pretty much screwed.



This is not entirely true. Where are Atlas Alliance's Titans and Supers now? Where are those that belonged to BoB (and its decedents)? They didn't lose them all when they cascaded. They're scattered all over Eve now, because many of the people who owned them decided to save them rather than fight when it looked like a losing battle.

Titans and supers aren't the problem by themselves. The necessity of belonging to a coalition is, and the ability of a couple of coalitions to dominate the entire map, keeping the space they want and demanding rent for the space that they don't.

I think that this change will make renting, as it currently exists, a very difficult proposition. In the current model (especially before travel restrictions) is was easy to rent out space allowing your renters to deal with roaming gangs and only responding when a force capable of threatening sov rolled in. That won't really be possible anymore. You'll either have to actively defend your rental space or only rent to those who can defend it for you, and if they can defend it, they don't need you.

While the big coalitions exist, you are right, there will be nothing that a new entrant can do. They'll have to disband into smaller, more local entities that don't occupy as much of the available space. This change will knock out one reason for being that the coalitions have. If they can't hold and control a vast rental empire, they have less reason to exist.

Two more changes need to come, in my opinion:


  1. High value moons need to fall under the new sov system (iHub dependent). Moons in lowsec need to have an NPC tax applied that makes it less attractive for big coalitions to control them. This will knock out the other main reason for being that big coalitions have.


  2. System resources need to scale to their level of occupancy. Plexing and mining missions, instead of anoms, with an iHub upgrade that supplies offices for mission agents would probably be the easiest to implement. Systems with better trusec could have a better chance of high value drops from plexing missions, and better ore on mining missions. This would allow a good sized alliance to do well in a constellation or two, instead of needing an entire region, while allowing CCP the flexibility to control the size of the resource faucets, as necessary. The "prime time" window could grow if system density exceeds a certain level, to provide an incentive for alliances to try to claim more space if they outgrow what they have.


Titans and supers should continue to play a role that has value commensurate with their build costs, and the risk of fielding them. It needs to be adjusted so that they are force-multipliers, rather than an apex force by themselves. I think that super-carriers would be a natural logistics ship, fielding fighter-bomber sized logi drones while losing their fighters, thus becoming an anti-cap only ship, and titans could be the ultimate booster ships, boosting substantially more than a command ship. It would provide a reason to risk them, while making fielding them in great numbers less effective.

Edit:

I'd also be OK with CCP simply pulling Titans and Supers from the game altogether, and reimbursing their owners for their costs as current market value, and the skill points that only apply to them. That would further open up the game for re-alignment while giving CCP a "clean slate" to reintroduce super-caps at a later time, if they chose.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3867 - 2015-03-15 18:50:46 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
duplicate post. Oops
flakeys
Doomheim
#3868 - 2015-03-15 19:38:18 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
VolatileVoid wrote:
flakeys wrote:
Don't worry , you guys won't become pirates.Pirates tend to also pick solo fights , are not too scared for losses and don't have SRP.

Nope , if there is one thing i am not worried about is that a lot of null-sec guys become pirates.Now empire gankers sure , but then a lot of the null-sec guys are allready doing this on an alt.


Well, we already have our Pirate alts.


And like all good "solo" PVPers, our pirate alts have each have their off grid boosting alts and our Falcon alts.

No no no, only one name shows up on the killmail therefore he's "solo."



The three chars of you combined :

Total character age about 20 years .
Total damage done about 150 B .
Total solo shipkills is exactly 9 .
Best solo kill is a cheetah .


Next time you guys want to mock low-sec or high-sec people be sure to do it with characters that don't look like utter carebears themselves .

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3869 - 2015-03-15 19:48:40 UTC
flakeys wrote:


Next time you guys want to mock low-sec or high-sec people be sure to do it with characters that don't look like utter carebears themselves .


Sometimes, in Eve, people have multiple accounts. It's really kind of pointless to engage in these kinds of pissing matches here. Back on topic?
flakeys
Doomheim
#3870 - 2015-03-15 22:01:47 UTC
davet517 wrote:
flakeys wrote:


Next time you guys want to mock low-sec or high-sec people be sure to do it with characters that don't look like utter carebears themselves .


Sometimes, in Eve, people have multiple accounts. It's really kind of pointless to engage in these kinds of pissing matches here. Back on topic?


I didn't say they don't have chars with kills , i did however say post with those if you wish to make a bold statement about how you are going to ''kill carebearland'' when these changes hit Blink.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#3871 - 2015-03-15 22:20:35 UTC  |  Edited by: VolatileVoid
flakeys wrote:
davet517 wrote:
flakeys wrote:


Next time you guys want to mock low-sec or high-sec people be sure to do it with characters that don't look like utter carebears themselves .


Sometimes, in Eve, people have multiple accounts. It's really kind of pointless to engage in these kinds of pissing matches here. Back on topic?


I didn't say they don't have chars with kills , i did however say post with those if you wish to make a bold statement about how you are going to ''kill carebearland'' when these changes hit Blink.



Wow, didn't know that my PvE char has 150B damage done...
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3872 - 2015-03-16 07:07:22 UTC
Yeah it seems my bomber alt has more damage done than the alt with an undockable ship.

DaBigRedBoat, the hero we need

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 ?
D'vorien
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3873 - 2015-03-16 13:05:36 UTC  |  Edited by: D'vorien
There are some problems with this idea related to an imbalance in the time spent for attackers who are not committed to taking the system.

As it is in the current live system, an attacker must commit a large amount of strategic resources (even if just player and capital ship time) to reinforce a sovereignty structure. If the attacker does not show up when it comes out of reinforcement, the defender can commit much less to recapture it.

The problem with the new system is that disparity has been reversed.

For a fully upgraded system:
Minimum total player time for an attacker to reinforce a structure: 42 minutes.
Minimum total player time time for a defender to reclaim the structure: 120 minutes (10 control nodes)

It's get worse as the indexes get lower.

I see this being a problem as small groups can simply reinforce a structure and not return, causing the opposing alliance to consume valuable time running around collecting control nodes. Giving the defender a way to win from an attackers inactivity without committing the time and effort of capturing control nodes is a good idea I feel.

The basic premise here should be:

1) The attacker should not be required to bring large fleets of big ships, rather they need to bring enough to defeat the defenders ships. This is in the new system.
2) Same for the defender, as it is in the new system.
3) The attacker is asking for the fight, if they want the fight, the defender should know where and when to find them.

I propose that in addition to the new system as it is in the dev blog, the attackers should be required to have a link active on the contested structure to be able to activate a link on any control node. The defenders cannot block the attackers link to the contested structure with their own link, but they can still block control nodes with their own links. If one side brings capital ships, escalation can happen, but the attacker still needs to capture nodes before the defender, and the defender will want to capture them to end the battle themselves.

The defending alliance can capture control nodes as normal without any links on the contested structure. The defenders can give up the battle at the structure, and fight the more mobile battles at the control nodes.

4) If the attacker fails to show up or commits insufficient forces, the defender should not be overly burdened in reclaiming the structure. For this I propose that as long as the attacker is not ahead of the defender in the tug of war, the defender can use a link on the contested structure for some length of time to recapture it. This allows a defender to commit only a small force to restore the structure as long as the attacker does not show up.

The big con I see here is that it could make things too easy for the defender. The attacker has to do well in both parts of the battle, the one at the structure to maintain the link, and at the control nodes, to capture ten more than the defender. The defender only needs to stop one.
Kilab Gercias
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3874 - 2015-03-16 13:28:31 UTC
a Sov Struc is 42 mins under attack in the Prime Time and nobody shows up to defend it?
You dont deserve that system.
159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3875 - 2015-03-16 17:12:42 UTC
D'vorien wrote:

3) The attacker is asking for the fight, if they want the fight, the defender should know where and when to find them.

I propose that in addition to the new system as it is in the dev blog, the attackers should be required to have a link active on the contested structure to be able to activate a link on any control node. The defenders cannot block the attackers link to the contested structure with their own link, but they can still block control nodes with their own links. If one side brings capital ships, escalation can happen, but the attacker still needs to capture nodes before the defender, and the defender will want to capture them to end the battle themselves.

The defending alliance can capture control nodes as normal without any links on the contested structure. The defenders can give up the battle at the structure, and fight the more mobile battles at the control nodes.

4) If the attacker fails to show up or commits insufficient forces, the defender should not be overly burdened in reclaiming the structure. For this I propose that as long as the attacker is not ahead of the defender in the tug of war, the defender can use a link on the contested structure for some length of time to recapture it. This allows a defender to commit only a small force to restore the structure as long as the attacker does not show up.

The big con I see here is that it could make things too easy for the defender. The attacker has to do well in both parts of the battle, the one at the structure to maintain the link, and at the control nodes, to capture ten more than the defender. The defender only needs to stop one.


So you will remove the use of the nodes and avoid the small scale fights. Because now you just park your whole defending fleet on the contested structure so the attackers cannot use their link. This removes the entire idea of this sov system.

And on top of that you want to avoid him from moving out of his fortress to capture those nodes? If going after some nodes that are uncontested is too much for the defenders then they don't deserve their sov.
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#3876 - 2015-03-16 19:03:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Greygal
D'vorien wrote:
There are some problems with this idea related to an imbalance in the time spent for attackers who are not committed to taking the system.
...

For a fully upgraded system:
Minimum total player time for an attacker to reinforce a structure: 42 minutes.
Minimum total player time time for a defender to reclaim the structure: 120 minutes (10 control nodes)


From the dev blog, emphasis mine:
Quote:
Immediately as the structure exits its reinforcement period, five Command Nodes will spawn at random points throughout the constellation. More than one Command Nodes can potentially spawn in the same system. As soon as each Command Node is captured, a new Command Node will spawn somewhere else in the constellation.

In addition, as time passes extra Command Nodes beyond the initial five have a chance to spawn and capturing those Nodes will also spawn new Nodes instantly. This ensures that if a capture event starts running long it becomes easier and easier for it to reach a resolution and for any stalemates to break.

If one side is allowed to capture the Command Nodes uncontested, then capturing 10 nodes will be enough to win the event. This means that it will be possible for a defender with no opposition and at least five active pilots to complete the event and secure their structure in less than 30 minutes of capturing. This minimum time would also be possible for a small group of aggressors who are attacking an undefended solar system with no occupancy indices.


For an unopposed system, the absolute minimum amount of time for defenders to reclaim the reinforced structure(s) is actually 24 minutes, not 120. All the defenders need to do is have five people grab the first five command nodes that spawn, one defender on each. With one defender on each, 12 minutes later (using T2 entosis link) five more command nodes spawn (one spawning per command node completed), they go grab those five, and 12 minutes later, they have successfully defended.

Realistically, it'll be closer to 30-35 minutes, as there will be some travel time around the constellation finding the nodes, warping, jumping.

Now, if the attackers show up to finish the job they started in good numbers, and the defenders have good numbers, you've got good fights going on! All kinds of chasing each other, attacking, reshipping, blocking, camping, putting your own entosis links on command nodes that the attackers are linking to, to stop their progress, all kinds of mayhem and chaos and absolute fun!

Edit: Obviously, if the defenders don't bother showing up to defend, so long as the attackers show up with at least five people, a system with no defensive bonuses would take about 30-35 minutes including traveling around time to finish the attack, and in a system with max defensive bonuses, to capture 10 command nodes would take five attackers around 84 minutes - 42 minutes for the first five, then 42 minutes for the next five.

In other words, the defender always has the time advantage in any system with any defensive bonuses at all - it will always take less time for the defender to capture a node than the attacker. In a system with no defensive bonuses, defender and attacker take exactly the same amount of time to capture a node.

What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.

Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!

Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3877 - 2015-03-16 23:17:12 UTC
Greygal wrote:
D'vorien wrote:
There are some problems with this idea related to an imbalance in the time spent for attackers who are not committed to taking the system.
...

For a fully upgraded system:
Minimum total player time for an attacker to reinforce a structure: 42 minutes.
Minimum total player time time for a defender to reclaim the structure: 120 minutes (10 control nodes)


From the dev blog, emphasis mine:
Quote:
Immediately as the structure exits its reinforcement period, five Command Nodes will spawn at random points throughout the constellation. More than one Command Nodes can potentially spawn in the same system. As soon as each Command Node is captured, a new Command Node will spawn somewhere else in the constellation.

In addition, as time passes extra Command Nodes beyond the initial five have a chance to spawn and capturing those Nodes will also spawn new Nodes instantly. This ensures that if a capture event starts running long it becomes easier and easier for it to reach a resolution and for any stalemates to break.

If one side is allowed to capture the Command Nodes uncontested, then capturing 10 nodes will be enough to win the event. This means that it will be possible for a defender with no opposition and at least five active pilots to complete the event and secure their structure in less than 30 minutes of capturing. This minimum time would also be possible for a small group of aggressors who are attacking an undefended solar system with no occupancy indices.


For an unopposed system, the absolute minimum amount of time for defenders to reclaim the reinforced structure(s) is actually 24 minutes, not 120. All the defenders need to do is have five people grab the first five command nodes that spawn, one defender on each. With one defender on each, 12 minutes later (using T2 entosis link) five more command nodes spawn (one spawning per command node completed), they go grab those five, and 12 minutes later, they have successfully defended.

Realistically, it'll be closer to 30-35 minutes, as there will be some travel time around the constellation finding the nodes, warping, jumping.

Now, if the attackers show up to finish the job they started in good numbers, and the defenders have good numbers, you've got good fights going on! All kinds of chasing each other, attacking, reshipping, blocking, camping, putting your own entosis links on command nodes that the attackers are linking to, to stop their progress, all kinds of mayhem and chaos and absolute fun!

Edit: Obviously, if the defenders don't bother showing up to defend, so long as the attackers show up with at least five people, a system with no defensive bonuses would take about 30-35 minutes including traveling around time to finish the attack, and in a system with max defensive bonuses, to capture 10 command nodes would take five attackers around 84 minutes - 42 minutes for the first five, then 42 minutes for the next five.

In other words, the defender always has the time advantage in any system with any defensive bonuses at all - it will always take less time for the defender to capture a node than the attacker. In a system with no defensive bonuses, defender and attacker take exactly the same amount of time to capture a node.

The new Eve Online - Mini Games R US.

Problem with your theory is,
1/ What if 3 nodes spawn in the same system and you have only 1 person in each system (travel time increased)
2/ When a constellation has 7 or 8 systems, your travel time is going to add up (unless CCP foolishly allow the fitting of Entosis links to anything other than command ships).
3/ If one of the systems is NPC nul and some random decides to shoot the nodes for fun. Or better still, shoot the guy with the Entosis link.
4/ The mini game structure simply gives the largest groups a huge advantage over everyone else. Whether defending or attacking the larger group will always win.

I am curious though, where do the good fights come from?
The big groups have made it clear over the years, they won't fight each other. (that won't change)
They have also announced the new Entosis module combined with the sov mini game will be the best griefing tool CCP has ever given them.
Over 60% of sov nul is not capable of getting close to maximum defensive indexes (being generous here, I think it is closer to 80%, depending on alliance size), the rest is divided between the big 3.
The only unopposed systems you will find, will be those not worth taking sov in. I'm sure people will take sov in next to useless systems, for a while, then realize throwing isk into a pit that will reap no rewards is pointless.



You want to look at how the new sov mechanics are likely to play out. Go to faction warfare space for a few days, take a look around. There are swathes of uncontested systems (because they just aren't worth contesting) and a few major hot spots controlled by the large alliances involved in FW. There are a few groups who make trillions and the majority (by comparison) make pennies (but still a good income if you put in the time). Hundreds in each faction involved in FW have never contested anything more than capture points and the reason they do that is for isk, not because they actually want to capture anything.

The difference will be, the majority of sov nul has little to no rewards for capturing and holding systems.


There is a bit of an invasion going on right now, personally i think it is a swan song to days of old. These guys know once the new sov mechanics come into play, there will be no more "sov wars" so want to try and get 1 last "good fight" before Sov Nul settles into a static little piece of history in the annals of Eve. (it won't be "good fights", over 3,000 vs 600+-).

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.
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#3878 - 2015-03-17 00:06:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Greygal
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Problem with your theory is,
1/ What if 3 nodes spawn in the same system and you have only 1 person in each system (travel time increased)
2/ When a constellation has 7 or 8 systems, your travel time is going to add up (unless CCP foolishly allow the fitting of Entosis links to anything other than command ships).
3/ If one of the systems is NPC nul and some random decides to shoot the nodes for fun. Or better still, shoot the guy with the Entosis link.
4/ The mini game structure simply gives the largest groups a huge advantage over everyone else. Whether defending or attacking the larger group will always win.



It's not a theory, it's how it's designed: Five nodes will spawn immediately upon the 48 hour timer expiring, then one will spawn for each node that is completed. As I said above, minimum time to complete 10 nodes is 24 minutes, NOT the minimum time of 120 minutes that you stated.

There are NO constellations in nullsec that have BOTH player owned and NPC owned systems in the same constellation. Go check the map on Dotlan. Ain't a single one.

The overwhelming number of constellations in Eve are only 6-8 systems in size. Even a carrier will take only about 2 minutes to travel each system (depending upon how it's fit, of course... ) anyone attacking will plan the best they can to have eyes and links everywhere they can, moving them around like chess pieces on a board.

Randoms shooting the nodes for fun is to not only be expected, but, hey, maybe even hoped for Lol The whole point of the entosis link incapciating your warp drive is so people CAN SHOOT YOU, so yes, randoms (and maybe defenders) will shoot your link pilots. Let us hope so, in fact! Target rich environments benefit everyone!

The largest groups will have a huge advantage over everyone else. This is true now, ridiculously true, and it will remain true. The difference between now and when FozzieSov goes live is that small and medium groups have a significantly improved PROBABILITY of messing with the largest groups, attacking their sov, their station upgrades (boring), their ihubs and TCUs, forcing the big guys to undock and play with us, instead of just pos'ing up every time they see a single person in local.

I routinely roam deep nullsec, and I've entered systems that had 125+ people in local who ALL DOCKED UP, and would not undock even a single ship, to throw at my fleet of 28 players under 3 months old flying T1-fit frigates. (We hopped back through Thera, traveled another 18 systems, then had a fabulous furr-ball brawl with Brave). After these changes, I bet the next time I swing through that same area, not only will they undock, they'll engage us, because any one of us could be a potential threat to their structures.

Assuming, of course, it's their prime time. If it's not their prime time, I'm just another gang interfering with their afk ratting, no threat at all to their sov. Don't get me started on prime time... I've already posted walls-of-text in the proper thread for that :)

Not the place for the discussion, but I will admit I hope CCP sets it so the entosis link can be fit on virtually ANY ship. Limiting it to high/highly skilled and/or big ships completely defeats Goal #3 in the blog, which describes the pressure to keep bringing more and more heavy metal as a "major flaw:"

Quote:
One major flaw of the current Dominion Sovereignty system is that the use of structure hitpoint grinding forces players to use huge numbers of players or colossal capital ships to fight over space, even when they would otherwise prefer to work in smaller units.


While I can easily imagine - and may even be planning, muhahaha! - small gangs of 3 to 5 pilots for initial structure attacks, I doubt anyone who is even ever so slightly serious will go back at the end of the reinforcement timer with less than a gang of 25-40. Lots of small and medium sized groups are talking about entosis link squads of 15-20 people, plus ewar, logi, dps, and other support. Except for the big boys and their big toys, much of the early theorycrafting and strategising I'm hearing indicates gangs of 40-50 attacking systems that are in deep null, border systems that are poor true sec, and renter space will likely be common for the reinforcement timers.

And of course, the big boys will throw hundreds at each other ... assuming they are in compatible prime times....

Dang forum character limits... splitting up my response into two posts :)

GG

What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.

Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!

Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#3879 - 2015-03-17 00:43:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Greygal
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I am curious though, where do the good fights come from?
The big groups have made it clear over the years, they won't fight each other. (that won't change)
They have also announced the new Entosis module combined with the sov mini game will be the best griefing tool CCP has ever given them.
Over 60% of sov nul is not capable of getting close to maximum defensive indexes (being generous here, I think it is closer to 80%, depending on alliance size), the rest is divided between the big 3.
The only unopposed systems you will find, will be those not worth taking sov in. I'm sure people will take sov in next to useless systems, for a while, then realize throwing isk into a pit that will reap no rewards is pointless.


The big groups won't shatter and scatter, even with these changes the odds are exceedingly low of that. They will, however, contract some, and I would not be surprised if even contracting took a long time. Until someone insults someone else's girlfriend again at Fanfest, or a director goes major rogue, or bills don't get autopaid, I don't expect to see any major shifts in the major alliances. They are not only well established, they have strong leadership structures, excellent logistic and financial administrations, extended diplomatic and intelligence networks, strong cultural identities, and extensive experience. FozzieSov won't break them up nor will it force them to fight each other. The prime time mechanic, as it is currently designed, reduces the possibility of the major alliances engaging in full-on absolute warfare even more.

However, Renter space is going to collapse in on itself, and many who are more experienced and smarter than I am predict that will happen FAST. Significant drops in rental income will hurt some of the majors. Some believe that renter empires will simply become extortion rings - I don't think so, because the renters can always move out. Most - not all - have no shared cultural identity with their landlords, nor much of an emotional attachment to their rented system. If the landlords push the renters too hard, they'll leave. But rental space is mostly lightly defended, patrolled only by the renters themselves, opening the space up for lots of nuisance by the little engines that could, because they think they can...

Honestly, if there is to be a war of the titans coming this summer, it's going to take place in renter space. That is where I think we're most likely to see the big boys duke it out. Renter space isn't all entirely crap... some of those systems rent for as little as 500mill a month, others more than six to eight billion a month. The renters I know are all paying between one and three billion a month in rent - and all of them have been renters for extensive time.

I do think Fozzie is overstating the case that nullsec income is excellent based on the metrics... but I also suspect it's not nearly as dire as others make it out to be. Regardless, the economics of nullsec definitely need some tender loving care.

I've not looked closely at the frequency of high indexes in sov nullsec, but I don't think you are far off at 60-80% CURRENTLY having high indexes... I do believe more systems are capable of it than 60-80%, though the incentive to push those systems' indexes high is simply not there right now. The defensive bonuses that high indexes will bring, I imagine, will further encourage more index-affecting activities in sov space, because that time advantage is HUGE to the defenders.

Quote:
You want to look at how the new sov mechanics are likely to play out. Go to faction warfare space for a few days, take a look around. There are swathes of uncontested systems ... Hundreds in each faction involved in FW have never contested anything more than capture points and the reason they do that is for isk, ...The difference will be, the majority of sov nul has little to no rewards for capturing and holding systems.


The rewards of attacking, capturing, and holding a system are far more ephemeral than simple isk. The ultimate reward is home, this is my home, for however long I may hold it, it is mine, ours. We did this! For lots of little guys, that is priceless.

I am very familiar with faction warfare. I fought for the Amarr for 7 months with Agony about two years ago. You think the afk/cloaky plex runners are bad now? You should have seen what it was like before CCP nerfed the heck out of it with a pushed-forward patch that mid winter.

In fact, one of the best fights I ever had in all my time in Eve happened in facwar. It started in the middle of Australian time zone, in fact. We were bored one night, and I noticed that Kourmonen was oh, think about 35-40% contested. Half jokingly, I said, "Hey guys, why don't we push Kourmonen, let's see how high we can get it while all the Late Night guys are asleep..." So we started plexing. As the hours progressed, others joined us, and as the level got higher, the Euro TZ Minmatar started awakening, bringing a few small gangs in, and we started duking it out in small and medium plexes at first... then more... then more... and it just escalated into constant warfare, fighting over single plexes for hours at a time... I ended up in constant battles for 16 hours straight before I finally had to sleep... the fights continued for over 36 hours... people were logging in alts to rush to market to buy more ships 'cause we were running out... that last 2% took around four hours... but the Amarr did it. Kourmonen was flipped.

Ideally, with luck, we will see extended contests and fights and slugfests like that in nullsec. Won't be every day, or even every week... won't be every system or constellation or region... but it will be SOME of them.

And that's what we'll be talking about years later, like those of us in the battle for Kourmonen still talk about those days.

Assuming they fix prime time ♥

GG

What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.

Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!

Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#3880 - 2015-03-17 01:28:16 UTC
Greygal wrote:

The rewards of attacking, capturing, and holding a system are far more ephemeral than simple isk. The ultimate reward is home, this is my home, for however long I may hold it, it is mine, ours. We did this! For lots of little guys, that is priceless.


This belongs on a thoughtful card, not enshrined as a game mechanic.

Home implies worth living there, and worth defending, neither of which are true currently. High Sec and Low Sec still have much greater accessible bottom up income options, with none of the hassle or time required to maintain and defend.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?