These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Skalie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2015-04-20 17:42:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Skalie
Just a thought, sorry if it has already been suggested.

To allow for multi-time zone Alliances, could you not provide a choice for each SOV corp, of splitting your vulnerability windows?

So...

One 4 hour window = 4 hours to defend/ attack
or 2 x 2.5 windows = 5 hours to Defend/Attack
or 3 x 2 hour windows. = 6 Hours to defend Attack

It is a choice for each SOV owner.

or something like that.

Either combined with above or stand alone ...

If some one in the SOV owners Corp use an entosis outside of their chosen defending hours, Their SOV also becomes vulnerable to attack and for 15- 30 mins after the attack, better still their corps become War dec'd for 15-30 mins.

The second one might stop Griefing others outside your Alliance Defence Time Window without consequences.

Maybe it is a silly idea, but hey if you don't put it out there.....
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#162 - 2015-04-20 20:39:30 UTC
Lokitoki81 wrote:
Move russians and aussies to chinese servers.

problem solved

A lot of problems fixed.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#163 - 2015-04-24 09:54:52 UTC
Terra Chrall 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.

This would also penalize a large group that plays in the same timezone.


So there could be bonus to defense in the border regions of the larger timewindow.

The reasoning: There should be a compensation for being large and still only be in one timezone: In your primetime, you will be much stronger than another alliance of equal size that consists of several timezones' players. You already have an advantage by concentrating your pilots into the primetime / vulnerable time. Being vulnerable also off-primetime, but at better odds than in your primetime, puts you on equal terms with the many-timezone alliance again.

Also: SOMEONE from the large alliance in their prime time will be able to show up off-time. Less people than during primetime, probably. So the further away the timer exits from prime time, the easier those fewer defenders' job should get.

Larger windows by alliance size, with better defense bonuses off-primetime: Like.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#164 - 2015-04-24 09:59:22 UTC
OJ Simpson wrote:
"CCP Fozzie" wrote:

They prevent players from losing their stuff while they are unavoidably away from the game (work, sleep, etc). Nobody should feel the need to play the game 24/7 in order to compete.

They encourage players to show up at the same place at the same time, facilitating multiplayer gameplay. Playing with and outplaying other human beings is the core of EVE, and putting players in contact with each other is a big part of that. If people can fight over an asset without ever coming into contact with each other, we've lost something very valuable.

1. And it prevents alliances seeking to take sovereignty from doing so while unavoidably away from the game (work, sleep, etc). I agree, nobody should feel the need to play the game 24/7 in order to compete.

2. Good point, the current system definitely doesn't cause large fleet fights... right? Right? If you think about it, the current system actually provides more "around-the-clock" vulnerability for content creation, arguably "facilitating multiplayer gameplay" more so than the proposed changes could ever hope to.

Can you please post an actual reason you've decided these changes are worthwhile?


They are changing the core of the sov-system, but not the core of the timer-system: Defender can set the time when "the thing" happens.

But they are asking if the timer system can be improved.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#165 - 2015-04-24 10:29:44 UTC
Now, after parsing through all of this, I like this one best: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5585716#post5585716


TLDR: Your prime constellation is in your selected prime time. All other constellations have to be, each one, in a time window you have not selected so far. --> The larger your area grows, the more you must beprepared to defend in other times.

Also, this has not been mentioned so far:

24hr - window on WEEKENDS \o/
P3ps1 Max
Deaths Consortium
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2015-04-24 16:31:43 UTC
Maybe instead of making it so complex with time zones. Why doesn't EVE join the current mobile app era and provide something like "mobile alerts" for players in Null? Obviously the mobile app would be a little deeper in content and could also include checking mail, market information, etc etc.

Cheers
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#167 - 2015-04-25 02:59:21 UTC
We already use apps allowing our leaders to ping us

So that means magically timezone issues are fixed? Hardly

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 ?
Crimson Crowe
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2015-04-29 18:07:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimson Crowe
I don't know if this has been suggested or not but I say tie the window to level of military or industrial index that is maintained in the system and just take the highest of the two.

0 = 24 hours
1 = 20 hours
2 = 16 hours
3 = 12 hours
4 = 8 hours
5 = 4 hours

This ties the window directly to the usage of the system and even gives attackers a chance to take advantage of a 24 hour window. If the system doesn't get used it stays at 24 hours.

I like this as a compromise because the work put into a system will help defend it where the absence of work leaves it vulnerable.

With the changes to Ihub and upgrade sizes I think this fits perfectly in line with the route CCP is currently taking.

My thoughts on timezones:

1) The alliance sets the timezone they are comfortable with

2) The time in systems owned by that alliance should be altered to reflect that alliance's timezone
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#169 - 2015-04-29 20:28:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Enya Sparhawk
Sorry, I didn't really like your survey...

Hmm, how would some sort of an alliance 'aggression timer' work (starting to feel like a clock maker here; too many timers).

Alliances each pick their own four hour windows... easy, simple

An alliance that attacks another alliance's sovereignty (even one ship; obviously attacking assests in someone else's sovereignty is something completely different than actually attacking that sovereignty) starts the timer, attackers' window opens to a twelve hour window (four hours added to each side; ie. 4-8 becomes 12-12) for the first day, 8 on the second, 4 on the third if the time is allowed to count down with no further aggression on the part of the attacking alliance past the initial start. Each new act of aggression past the first day resets the timer to twelve. (or whatever time increment that best suits this idea; could be for a week period instead. I dunno.)

A defending alliance obviously doesn't create aggression (until they go out and attack someone's sovereignty) so the window stays at four even when physically defending their own.

1. All your 'battle' gameplay isn't a... hmmm, the right word? "tube or pipeline" but sort of like a pulse (easier workload on the program without the possibility of a jam, intentional or not; also becomes more apparent when 0.0 markets become hmm, better... right now this presents a possible high and low between periods of war.)

2. Aggressive alliances are given the option to increase window as a mechanic but also become more vunerable to the world (a twelve hour window opens them up to attacks, coordinated or not from various timeszone alliances in a single day.)

3. Defensive alliances are left with a certain amount of institutional security (remember some alliances are just part time players too)
Key: The options and abilities of an alliance are spread over a few days...

Just a few ideas for you...
(give it life, don't just feed it through a tube.

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Trajan Unknown
State War Academy
Caldari State
#170 - 2015-05-05 09:05:03 UTC
I am not involved into the whole SoV thingy anymore and SoV grinding was a pain for sure but it more so because there was little to no benefit from doing it. Nice, we´ve grinded a system with a station and now? It would be nice to see a mix of old and new SoV. So you could actually build some kind of "Empire" that means something instead of just holding X systems.
Make it easy to attack stretched out "Empires" and hard to crack some well defended pockets. That together with giving a benefit to actually hold the system sounds pretty nice to me. To keep the "defense" of large clusters up have a high resource cost of whatever fits to make it actually hard to hold huge amounts of space without a functional infrastructure. That way smaller groups can harass the supply lines to may get a chance to increase the costs of holding a cluster/system to an amount where the defenders have to react or simply "drop" it. It´s all theory but it might give mercs/pirates a whole new way of playing, give all TZ´s something to do, prevent power blocks from holding space without problem and yet giving them a reason to actually work on holding big clusters of space. Combined with these increasing timers when not "fueled" seems to be a start.
Furthermore, when High-Sec and zero-zero get connected to a point where you have to import/export certain resources to maintain your production it would connect all three sec regions together instead of more or less isolating them. Right now it´s more like "produce/farm some stuff in zero-zero and sell it in Jita while buying ships and modules to bring on the way back."
Last but not least I think it would be a good idea when smaller groups can maintain their their SoV without too much resources from High-Sec to not cripple them. But when you want to maintain a bigger empire there should be some need to actually interact with the rest of New Eden instead of isolating yourself and keep it closed.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#171 - 2015-05-06 01:49:26 UTC
Trajan Unknown wrote:
Last but not least I think it would be a good idea when smaller groups can maintain their their SoV without too much resources from High-Sec to not cripple them. But when you want to maintain a bigger empire there should be some need to actually interact with the rest of New Eden instead of isolating yourself and keep it closed.

So what exactly are these smaller groups doing that is protected but somehow magically isn't possible for any group that's larger?

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 ?
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#172 - 2015-05-07 14:58:30 UTC
P3ps1 Max wrote:
Maybe instead of making it so complex with time zones. Why doesn't EVE join the current mobile app era and provide something like "mobile alerts" for players in Null? [...]

Splendid. And then what? Do we tell our bosses, clients, patients, co-workers and what-not that we will be away for a few hours and return once we have defended our pixel empires? Big smile

Nullers already have these instant alerts.

This is about when players are available to show up, not when they are informed.
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
RAZOR Alliance
#173 - 2015-05-08 12:56:55 UTC
Crimson Crowe wrote:
I don't know if this has been suggested or not but I say tie the window to level of military or industrial index that is maintained in the system and just take the highest of the two.

0 = 24 hours
1 = 20 hours
2 = 16 hours
3 = 12 hours
4 = 8 hours
5 = 4 hours

This ties the window directly to the usage of the system and even gives attackers a chance to take advantage of a 24 hour window. If the system doesn't get used it stays at 24 hours.

I like this as a compromise because the work put into a system will help defend it where the absence of work leaves it vulnerable.

With the changes to Ihub and upgrade sizes I think this fits perfectly in line with the route CCP is currently taking.

My thoughts on timezones:

1) The alliance sets the timezone they are comfortable with

2) The time in systems owned by that alliance should be altered to reflect that alliance's timezone


i like this idea, it will force ppl to create living null systems, hopefully. and i want to add mirrored Windows. instead of 4 hours(1300 - 1800 for example), mirrored time periods of 2 hours (for example 1am - 3am / 1pm - 3pm). we all know this new system, add a content of marauding and pillaging to new eden.

btw, what happens if the alliance chooses a time period which it contains DT?

anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
45thtiger 0109
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#174 - 2015-05-28 23:37:08 UTC
Lokitoki81 wrote:
Move russians and aussies to chinese servers.

problem solved



No No and No do not move aussies and NZ to the chinese servers X

**You Have to take the good with the bad and the bad with the good.

Welcome to EvE OnLiNe**