These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Summer 2015 Nullsec and Sov Status Report

First post First post
Author
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#21 - 2015-05-07 16:35:08 UTC
Just remember the abomination that was constellation sov when you mess with capital systems. Don't repeat failures from the past.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2015-05-07 16:36:42 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Xttz's fingerprints on the timezone mechanics, mine all over the mineral changes, sov is just goons all the way down.


Goon is love, goon is life? P
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2015-05-07 16:51:28 UTC
Its awsome too see alot of the changes made are a result of actual player input. At the winter csm summit we already have been shown how there could be tweaks and moderations made too keep thr endresult in mind. And this blog reflects that input and desire too put aside ego and work togteher on this.

As csm we pushed for a quick release on the blog so players can anticipate early, both in offensive, defnesive and other tactical ways. As provi csm ofc i want too postpone it 5 months too keep goons and their falls emperor out :)

The sov release leaves for me personally drivers open, why be in null, why own space, and so on. Whichisnt about isk per hour, but feeling of ownership. Within the csm that debate is often raised, ccp fozzie is aware of that, and it wil lcome up ofc. More complex indexes , better reflecting activity, and perks derived from that would make a nice phase 3 in the eyes of many. But that for later. Within the proposed mechanism, these changes make sense, so job well done on that one
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#24 - 2015-05-07 16:53:29 UTC
Reading the update has me very excited to play a bit in null! Any chance standings loss issues for FW players in null will be changed by the time these go live so we can bring our experience with gurilla tactics and grid control to the table?
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#25 - 2015-05-07 16:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Whats the lore behind invulnerability window? Is it some corporate vide defensive network, that reacts as barrier for Entosis link connection, network that spans light years and connects with capsuleers minds?
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#26 - 2015-05-07 17:05:48 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Xttz's fingerprints on the timezone mechanics, mine all over the mineral changes, sov is just goons all the way down.


Yeah I know. 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Evil

I do agree the new revised timezone mechanic is a very good idea though. Smile
Bobby Artrald
Capitalist Pigs Inc.
#27 - 2015-05-07 17:08:27 UTC
Sov Dashboard

I saw this graphic and could only think "dear god, I hope this information is available through CREST".
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#28 - 2015-05-07 17:13:50 UTC
Thank you to CCP for all the hard work on this.

Initially I was a little concerned about the increase to system defensive bonuses. Then I read the time zone changes and saw that they were linked.

So I have no further major concerns at this time.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Def Monk
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#29 - 2015-05-07 17:14:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Def Monk
I like the updates a lot. The changes put the plans in a much better place, especially with regards to the prime time windows. Much better indeed.

The only thing I think it's still missing is a sort of attacker index. Currently, if the current owner does not use the space, it makes no difference whether an attacker has been living in the space or not. If a group has been living in someone's space unopposed for months, they should have some kind of advantage over people just rolling in day-of the end of reinforcement.

EDIT: Adding a quote of my previous idea for this. The numbers are far too harsh and would need to be tweaked accordingly (especially with the window changes) but I'd leave that up to people with better game balance statistics ready for use. The idea is what I'm trying to get across.

Quote:
To put out an example, space perfectly actively used by owners would work as proposed. That means there is a 4x time for others to capture things (40 minutes for a node). Say this attacker has also managed to use the space just as actively, either through subverting the inhabitants (small groups stealing sites and ore) or a friendly alliance living there as well (who decides to betray their friend and attack). Since they cannot gain strategic index (they do not own the system), the max they could manage would be a 3.5x multiplier. This would then be used to reduce their timers: 4 / 3.5 = 1.14x, or managing to drag the timer back down to 11 minutes, 24 seconds. The owner would keep their timer of 10 minutes.

Likewise, if the owner does not have any use of a system and has simply held it for a long time, they can manage a multiplier of 1.5x. If the attacker has been using the space as above, and has the 3.5x multiplier, it would only take 4 minutes and 17 seconds (1.5 / 3.5 = 0.4286x of 10 minutes) to capture a node, making it much easier to take abandoned space if they have been living there unopposed. If the owner still decides to show up to defend the space they're not using, they still have their 10 minute timer.

Last, if a group has no activity AND they have just recently taken the space (ie, like a big bloc taking space just because they can and moving on in a large sweep), they would have a multiplier of 1x. Another group with 3.5x results in only taking 2 minutes and 51 seconds to take the nodes, which is significantly short.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#30 - 2015-05-07 17:22:07 UTC
Bobby Artrald wrote:
Sov Dashboard

I saw this graphic and could only think "dear god, I hope this information is available through CREST".


I have good news for you! Other than the exact real time status of the fights for each structure (which will only be available in-client), we plan to make everything available via a combination of CREST and the XML API. You'll be able to look up the exit timers of every reinforced sov structure in the game (yours and everyone elses) via CREST whenever you want.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2015-05-07 17:29:42 UTC
Hendrink Collie wrote:
I like that the max capture time has been increased in heavily used systems, should help out defense some. The changes should allow medium sized groups that use space and can small gang fairly well hold at least small chunks of space. The 18 hour gap for non-used systems almost seems to be too much; however, it does scale down really fast, so meh. All in all, can't wait to try it out and see how the new sov system feels.


The strategic level alone can cut the time in half so it really isn't that much, I'm looking forward to the changes and the fights it will bring!
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
#32 - 2015-05-07 17:47:48 UTC
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:



I think the incentive for most Null-Sec'ers (me included) is that if I want PvP, I can do it, if I want PvE, I can do it, and for the most part, the people around me want to do it also. Moreover, we want to do those things in groups rather than solo.

The incentive is already there. People are living in Null Sec and making ISK and having fun and shooting stuff. I suppose New Fozzie-Sov will allow those things to continue to happen, and probably a little bit more on the PvP side.

ISK isn't the incentive... if it was no one would live in Null-sec or Low-sec and we'd all be friends in an incursion fleet Ugh



This new sov system will create a trend of everyone moving closer together in order to better defend, which is a good idea. It will definately increase the ~peeveepee~ aspect of the game. I have no problem with the sov changes.

However, when you start getting more and more people into closer quarters your income is going to drop. When the income decreases you lose ability to buy new ships. Lacking the ability to support your pvp hobbies means you stop fielding ships to fights. Yes, alot of people will still make isk from moongoo and production, but a majority make their income via simplistic routes such as ratting.

Making isk to enjoy the other aspects of the game is the incentive, my friend. You can't shoot stuff from a pod.


We won't know how Fozzie Sov will affect the distribution of people around space until it happens. Its premature at this time to assume everyone in an alliance will move to the capital system and be fighting over a few anoms and some DED's.

Its a feasible thought that once these changes hit players will identify an "optimal" alliance size and start spreading out on their own to accomplish a better space-to-player ratio, especially if it becomes possible for sov defense to be successful on uneven terms.

Also, I'd be willing to wager a few ISK that once a few months of people dealing with Fozzie Sov have passed CCP will have a better idea about how ISK is generated and moved around. Lets be patient and play it out.

Cedric

Arkumord Churhee
Perkone
Caldari State
#33 - 2015-05-07 17:56:20 UTC
I love it! All of it!

- The further extended Activity multiplier helps to fend off the sov trolls
- Not having to grind all indices to 5 also is a nice addition
- Capital Systems are great
- TZ shifting and length changes are absolutely wonderful! They really help to make your space more vulnerable if you don't use it, and it also works the other way around.

The UI mockups are nice and (mostly) understandable.

And finally: Sov Info available in the Show Info panel!
FINALLY!
Alexis Nightwish
#34 - 2015-05-07 18:00:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...our first generation Activity Defense Multiplier system will not include contributions from typical capital system activity such as trading and manufacturing. We hope to work towards including these factors in future iterations of the Activity Defense Multiplier mechanic, but in the meantime we need an effective way for alliances to defend their staging systems.
You stated that anything that contributes to indexes must be disruptable in space which is why you didn't want manufacturing to contribute to the industrial index. Now you're saying manufacturing and trade (both very easily gamed) will eventually contribute?


CCP Fozzie wrote:
...the bonuses in the new capital will not take effect for several days. This is intended to prevent alliances from shifting their capitals rapidly to react to invasions or to stabilize newly captured territory.
Make it at least a week. With the new, higher defense bonuses, an alliance can easily stall attackers for a few days.
Or, even better, don't allow movement to a system whose TCU has been attacked (not necessarily captured) within the past few days. This would allow attackers the opportunity to deny gaming the system by the defenders, but if an alliance is not under siege then moving their 'capital' would be simple.


CCP Fozzie wrote:
Firstly, it will be possible for alliances to set custom vulnerability timers per structure.
You've gone from no granularity to too much granularity. The problem with allowing every structure to have a different window is you make it a massive chore for attackers to strike. Now instead of "Alliance X is vulnerable from 12:00-16:00" you have "Alliance X, System ABC-D: TCU is vulnerable from 12:00-16:00, Station vulnerable from 16:00-20:00, IHUB is vulnerable from 20:00-0:00, System WXY-Z: TCU is vulnerable from 0:00-04:00, Station vulnerable from 04:00-08:00, IHUB is vulnerable from 08:00-12:00, System OMG-Y (on the other side of the constallation): TCU vulnerable from 12:00-16:00, Station vulnerable from 16:00-20:00, IHUB is vulnerable from 20:00-0:00, etc., etc., etc.!

Large alliances will love this however as they will need fewer guarddog alts in tanky elink ships to watch over their nodes. As one window ends, they just fly the alt over to the node that's becoming vulnerable.

This change will result in entrenched alliances becoming absolutely unbreakable as they can bring their collective might onto one single grid because they do not have to defend all of their space during the same vulnerability window.

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Current Habit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-05-07 18:04:00 UTC
Quote:
As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.


After one side can't or won't fight (anymore), they might resort to harassment to delay the attackers from actually using the Entosis Link on the target node/structure. To which extend do you think the capturing should be susceptible by harassment ?

For example an alliance fielding a short-mid range doctrine might drive off all hostiles other than single hostiles at max range using falcons or damps trying to use their E-war on the ships with the Entosis Links. Another example are interceptors fitted for very short align times (<2 sec) and with an ECM-Burst can warp in to the capturing ships, use their bursts and warping out again. In both examples the hostiles could try to break the lock on the capturing ships delaying the conquest without challenging the grid control of the other alliance.

It's understandable that harassment like this is acceptable to some degree and can be negated or eliminated by having more people bring Entosis Links on their ships. Then again, if half the fleet is bringing Entosis Links just to combat harassment the fleet is likely to perform worse than one in which everyone uses all their slots for combat.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2015-05-07 18:13:32 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...our first generation Activity Defense Multiplier system will not include contributions from typical capital system activity such as trading and manufacturing. We hope to work towards including these factors in future iterations of the Activity Defense Multiplier mechanic, but in the meantime we need an effective way for alliances to defend their staging systems.
You stated that anything that contributes to indexes must be disruptable in space which is why you didn't want manufacturing to contribute to the industrial index. Now you're saying manufacturing and trade (both very easily gamed) will eventually contribute?.

manufacturing requires extensive in-space flying to bring in raws and export finished products
Alexis Nightwish
#37 - 2015-05-07 18:36:17 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...our first generation Activity Defense Multiplier system will not include contributions from typical capital system activity such as trading and manufacturing. We hope to work towards including these factors in future iterations of the Activity Defense Multiplier mechanic, but in the meantime we need an effective way for alliances to defend their staging systems.
You stated that anything that contributes to indexes must be disruptable in space which is why you didn't want manufacturing to contribute to the industrial index. Now you're saying manufacturing and trade (both very easily gamed) will eventually contribute?.

manufacturing requires extensive in-space flying to bring in raws and export finished products

JFs are basically unkillable, so until that changes manufacturing is not disruptable.

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#38 - 2015-05-07 18:43:33 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...our first generation Activity Defense Multiplier system will not include contributions from typical capital system activity such as trading and manufacturing. We hope to work towards including these factors in future iterations of the Activity Defense Multiplier mechanic, but in the meantime we need an effective way for alliances to defend their staging systems.
You stated that anything that contributes to indexes must be disruptable in space which is why you didn't want manufacturing to contribute to the industrial index. Now you're saying manufacturing and trade (both very easily gamed) will eventually contribute?

Maybe that whole first part of, "We hope to work toward including..." implies they plan on working on those aspects.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#39 - 2015-05-07 18:45:01 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Xttz's fingerprints on the timezone mechanics, mine all over the mineral changes, sov is just goons all the way down.


Yeah I know. 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Evil

I do agree the new revised timezone mechanic is a very good idea though. Smile



/me takes the melted gummy bears off his fingers.

There's a reason my name is mentioned, you know.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2015-05-07 18:47:39 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...our first generation Activity Defense Multiplier system will not include contributions from typical capital system activity such as trading and manufacturing. We hope to work towards including these factors in future iterations of the Activity Defense Multiplier mechanic, but in the meantime we need an effective way for alliances to defend their staging systems.
You stated that anything that contributes to indexes must be disruptable in space which is why you didn't want manufacturing to contribute to the industrial index. Now you're saying manufacturing and trade (both very easily gamed) will eventually contribute?.

manufacturing requires extensive in-space flying to bring in raws and export finished products

JFs are basically unkillable, so until that changes manufacturing is not disruptable.


Does everyone who does industry have a JF?