These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
ImageQuest
Standings Consortium
#101 - 2015-03-15 06:38:37 UTC
Also Use it or lose it- would be ********. You can't just lose systems because you dont use them. There needs to come somebody to actually claim it, even though it should be way easier.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#102 - 2015-03-15 08:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
I've given my thoughts, and an example of the sort of emergent gameplay/content generation (bona fide 'butterfly effect') that comes from the 'complexity' of strontium timers (aka. when timers go `bad'...)

I think they are still the best of the 'TZ safety net' mechanics available.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#103 - 2015-03-15 13:21:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
I realise this thread is a high-level 'collecting information' one, but I've prepared a (detailed) amendment to strontium 'mechanics' to protect timezones, but one which requires active participation to do so.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5582838#post5582838

Basically apply the law of radioactive decay to strontium and expand its use in timers.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2015-03-15 19:13:56 UTC  |  Edited by: SilentAsTheGrave
Miner Hottie wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
ckinoutdahoe wrote:
"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.

How much money and how old should a player be to contest your sov and assets?


Wrong question: the question should be how much should any player commit to capturing your space. Right now you need a lot of expensive toys or a lot of mates. BNI proved that sov is conquerable by anyone with the will and the mates. New sov will be boring FW style solo play for the most part in cheap disposable ships. That shows a distinct lack of commitment to me.

I guess we will just ignore the fact that BNI was given permission from the existing coalitions to take Catch. But did BNI solo take Catch with its mass numbers and cheap ships? Nope. NC. came in to help grind all the sov so we can take it.
Manurtia
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2015-03-15 19:28:48 UTC
So, I answered the survey.

What I don't like about the current system, is that Sov is kind of a big deal. It has a major affect on the alliance as a whole. It SHOULD require significant effort to remove an alliance's hold on a system.

That being said, a new system should take the best of the current system, and integrate with it a subset of the proposed system.

Example:

Alliance A claims 30 systems. Systems 1-20 are heavily used, but buffer systems 21-30 are rarely used.

Hostile Alliance B wants to wipe Alliance A off the map. They send in small fleets to utilize the proposed system to claim ownership of Systems 21-30. Alliance A and Alliance B power struggle over those systems until either one gives up trying to take them. Since occupancy is low to non-existent to start, it becomes a test of mettle.

Having won Systems 21-30, Alliance B now decides to take on the core systems of Alliance A. Since Systems 1-20 are heavily used, there is an occupancy bonus covering the systems. This will require a Sovereignty Blockade Unit to be deployed, per hostile alliance. This allows Alliance B to start the process of generating a negative occupancy by the same actions that increase occupancy in claimed systems. Once the occupancy level is reduced to 0, Alliance B can then start the process of claiming the system, just like Systems 21-30. This requires Alliance B to be dedicated to the process of removing the claim of Alliance A. The occupancy bonus could be a % decrease in the effectiveness of Alliance B's efforts to generate negative occupancy, which would also change effectiveness as Alliance A's occupancy bonus is reduced.
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2015-03-16 01:15:29 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Miner Hottie wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
ckinoutdahoe wrote:
"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.

How much money and how old should a player be to contest your sov and assets?


Wrong question: the question should be how much should any player commit to capturing your space. Right now you need a lot of expensive toys or a lot of mates. BNI proved that sov is conquerable by anyone with the will and the mates. New sov will be boring FW style solo play for the most part in cheap disposable ships. That shows a distinct lack of commitment to me.

I guess we will just ignore the fact that BNI was given permission from the existing coalitions to take Catch. But did BNI solo take Catch with its mass numbers and cheap ships? Nope. NC. came in to help grind all the sov so we can take it.

I was one of the many sorry bastards that ground his way across all of Fountain, Delve, Period Basis and Querious in a bomber. Fountain was contested by NC. & PL (and Test on occasion), NC. giving you permission and helping just made it easier. Capturing sov in cheap, disposable sub caps can be done. Of course stabbing oneself in the face with a spoon may be a more entertaining game, but at least I got something out of capturing Fountain.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Alexis Nightwish
#107 - 2015-03-16 17:20:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
Reposting the best idea I've seen regarding TZ mechanics:


Edward Olmops wrote:

Suggestion:
FORCE alliances to choose one DIFFERENT time window for each constellation where they hold sov.
Implications:
-I am a small group, 1 timezone: I can hold sov in one constellation, people will have to fight in my prime time.
-I want to be bigger and hold multiple constellations: I need to be able to defend multiple 4-hour-windows in different
timezones
-if I want to attack CFC or N3 with a small group, I will always find a constellation where they are vulnerable in my timezone. The other way round does not work. They have to fight me where I am strongest.
-if 2 large entities battle each other, there will be all sorts of shenanigans. They will have to carefully choose which constellations get vulnerable in which timezone, but generally they will be vulnerable somewhere 24/7.
-basically, the more territory you have, the longer your vulnerability time gets
-maybe even narrow the vulnerability window down to 3 hours and create 8 non-overlapping fixed timeslots. Own up to one constellation: you must be ready to fight for 3 hours each day. 2 constellations: 6 hours... and so on. If you have 8 or more constellations, at least one constellation will always be vulnerable.
-in very large alliances, people from all timezones will have "their" constellations they can/have to defend
-if an entity wants to attack a small sov holder, place AND time are in favour of the defender
-if attacking a large entity, the attacker has the choice of EITHER choosing a strategically important constellation OR attack something less valuable in a maybe slightly better timezone (assuming the vulnerability windows would be visible on the starmap or the like and assuming the defender did his homework and assigned the most important constellations to his best timezones)


I really like the new approach. Sounds promising.
I see many people in this thread though who fail to see the implications, because they are thinking in the old ways.



EDIT:
Survey feedback: The language used is somewhat confusing ("If applicable, please describe the specific aspects of the new proposal that prevent it from meeting your needs more effectively." <-- this is oddly worded IMO).

Also, why just a survey? You put up a thread about the Entosis link and got a mega fuckton of feedback. Some of it was even good! Why not do the same with this?

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2015-03-16 19:52:59 UTC  |  Edited by: SilentAsTheGrave
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Reposting the best idea I've seen regarding TZ mechanics:


Edward Olmops wrote:

Suggestion:
FORCE alliances to choose one DIFFERENT time window for each constellation where they hold sov.
Implications:
-I am a small group, 1 timezone: I can hold sov in one constellation, people will have to fight in my prime time.
-I want to be bigger and hold multiple constellations: I need to be able to defend multiple 4-hour-windows in different
timezones
-if I want to attack CFC or N3 with a small group, I will always find a constellation where they are vulnerable in my timezone. The other way round does not work. They have to fight me where I am strongest.
-if 2 large entities battle each other, there will be all sorts of shenanigans. They will have to carefully choose which constellations get vulnerable in which timezone, but generally they will be vulnerable somewhere 24/7.
-basically, the more territory you have, the longer your vulnerability time gets
-maybe even narrow the vulnerability window down to 3 hours and create 8 non-overlapping fixed timeslots. Own up to one constellation: you must be ready to fight for 3 hours each day. 2 constellations: 6 hours... and so on. If you have 8 or more constellations, at least one constellation will always be vulnerable.
-in very large alliances, people from all timezones will have "their" constellations they can/have to defend
-if an entity wants to attack a small sov holder, place AND time are in favour of the defender
-if attacking a large entity, the attacker has the choice of EITHER choosing a strategically important constellation OR attack something less valuable in a maybe slightly better timezone (assuming the vulnerability windows would be visible on the starmap or the like and assuming the defender did his homework and assigned the most important constellations to his best timezones)


I really like the new approach. Sounds promising.
I see many people in this thread though who fail to see the implications, because they are thinking in the old ways.



EDIT:
Survey feedback: The language used is somewhat confusing ("If applicable, please describe the specific aspects of the new proposal that prevent it from meeting your needs more effectively." <-- this is oddly worded IMO).

Also, why just a survey? You put up a thread about the Entosis link and got a mega fuckton of feedback. Some of it was even good! Why not do the same with this?

Wouldn't the work around be to just shard all large alliances into smaller alliances for each constellation and then have them all set to the same time zone?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#109 - 2015-03-16 20:34:21 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:

Wouldn't the work around be to just shard all large alliances into smaller alliances for each constellation and then have them all set to the same time zone?

Except then you can't 'defend' the structures because you count as an attacker. So.... Not really.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-03-16 21:48:06 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:

Wouldn't the work around be to just shard all large alliances into smaller alliances for each constellation and then have them all set to the same time zone?

Except then you can't 'defend' the structures because you count as an attacker. So.... Not really.

Interesting.
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#111 - 2015-03-17 01:33:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Greygal
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:

Wouldn't the work around be to just shard all large alliances into smaller alliances for each constellation and then have them all set to the same time zone?

Except then you can't 'defend' the structures because you count as an attacker. So.... Not really.

Interesting.


Yup, only the defenders can capture nodes that will count towards their control level. Anyone not in their alliance who captures a node counts towards the attacker's control level.

However, that doesn't mean your out-of-alliance friends and family can't attack the attackers, protect the defender's entosis link ships, provide logi and ewar support (although entosis ships can't be remote repaired while linked up), and whatever their friends/family/coalition mates need to keep from losing your space Cool

Your out-of-alliance/coalition mates can also halt the progress on attackers' entosis links by putting a link on the same node (if I understand that correctly).

I expect we'll see some third-party shenanigans, too, where others show up to a battle to attack the attackers, or the defenders, or both, depending upon their mood, just because they can... ;)

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
Anthar Thebess
#112 - 2015-03-17 14:56:32 UTC
Remove all timers : Agree
But we need a carrot for people to fight for the space.
You only can loose assets when you loose access to a station.
Simple solution :
1. Make all stations dock-able at any time.
2. Only owning alliance can use services.
3. Make random 16-32h timer on each structure , so every one can get 4 am timer.

Upgrades?
Link system upgrades to payout.
So if you don't own Ihub all bounty is reduced by 1/3rd

TCU?
Fuel cost on towers , and extended RF timers for them.


Still if CCP do not like all those ideas, maybe only apply the service limitation to alliance only members.
No more by standings , as a blue to owning alliance you can for example dock , but all services are blocked from your access.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#113 - 2015-03-17 15:10:19 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Thanks for the responses so far everyone! We have over 2000 responses so far and we want even more.

We've put together localized versions of the survey in Russian and German to widen the net further, those can be found here.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#114 - 2015-03-17 20:19:53 UTC
in retrospect adding the "are you currently a sov haver" question makes it p easy for y'all to discard the responses that answer "currently yes"

after all "entosis" is a term used to talk about fighting cancer, makes you think
Malcaz
Omni Paradox Securities
#115 - 2015-03-17 21:58:48 UTC
Horrible mechanic. This way, only people from the same timezone can compete. It is very hard to take sov from people who have large numbers in a specific rare timezone and it is very hard for them to take sov from the majority, which are on different timezones. It also gives issues for alliances with lots of people in more than one timezone, because they won't have a lot of content. Also it will be abused by alliances who set their "timezone" to a time specifically to make it impossible for other alliances to attack them properly, regardless of their own timezone.
Perkin Warbeck
Higher Than Everest
#116 - 2015-03-17 22:51:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Perkin Warbeck
Dear Perkin Warbeck

I write in response to your e-mail of xx March 2015 regarding the proposed sovereignty changes.

As a valued subscriber to EvE Online we recognise that the proposed time zone mechanic will treat the residents of Australia as 'second class citizens'. Putting aside for a moment that we believe Australians probably are second class citizens, we have decided to offer you a discounted subscription of €1 per month (which I believe equates to 347 of your Australian dollars).

We hope this helps. However there is little we can do about the other concerns you raised in your e-mail, including the internet speed, super dangerous flora and fauna, climate change or the accent.

Many thanks


Fozzie
Lyckeus Morre
can't do that while warping
#117 - 2015-03-17 22:59:55 UTC
Answered, but since I lack SOV exp and i'm just over a year old this month, not much I could offer in the way of opinions. Only real points i brought up was Titans vs Structures (now they are just giant bridges?) and the possibility of TZ segregation occurring.

So hope something helps

o/ cheers

If your guns like us more, chances are, our guns wont hate you any less...
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#118 - 2015-03-18 00:16:39 UTC
Perkin Warbeck wrote:
Dear Perkin Warbeck

I write in response to your e-mail of xx March 2015 regarding the proposed sovereignty changes.

As a valued subscriber to EvE Online we recognise that the proposed time zone mechanic will treat the residents of Australia as 'second class citizens'. Putting aside for a moment that we believe Australians probably are second class citizens, we have decided to offer you a discounted subscription of €1 per month (which I believe equates to 347 of your Australian dollars).

We hope this helps. However there is little we can do about the other concerns you raised in your e-mail, including the internet speed, super dangerous flora and fauna, climate change or the accent.

Many thanks


Fozzie


Was good for a laugh and reminded me of this:

"I don't mean to put down your black widow spider, but the funnelweb spider can kill a man in eight seconds, just by lookin' at him."

The more I think about the time zone aspect of this new system, the less I like it. Just make the attacker commit more to the initial push (make it fit on battle cruisers and above), then make structures able to be hit initially at any time. Have them come out at one of two four-hour blocks the defense selects.

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

Rob Kashuken
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#119 - 2015-03-18 01:23:11 UTC
You know... thinking about the TZ thing more, especially in terms of the AUTZ, the situation is readily exploitable through CCP's own system maintenance mechanics.

Primetime AUTZ is when DT occurs. This naturally makes the window shorter - from 4 hours to a $random time anywhere from 3.5hrs to 0 hours effective gameplay, largely dependent on factors outside of gameplay.

Given that often after a major patch, and at semi-regular system maintenance windows, there have often been times when DT has been extended for 4+ hours.

I can readily see a sov war scenario effectively being completely reset owing to CCP systems maintenance.
Haijuswo Kup
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2015-03-18 01:56:20 UTC
That survey started to feel quite redundant after the third question asking me about things I already answered in the first two.

Whatever you do CCP, just try to tie any changes in to the lore somehow. It would just be silly to make these huge sweeping changes and not have any reason for it when this game and it's game play are already ridiculously deep.