These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#101 - 2015-05-08 12:30:34 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Masterplan: wouldn't the accumulation of points by another alliance persisting (and not decaying) be easily exploitable?

For example: Alliance A is a big alliance. Alliance B is their renter alliance. Alliance B takes sov in a system and alliance A, before any sov levels are accumulated, runs the entosis link to move the points as close to winning as possible. This ensures any attackers must take almost TWICE as long to take sov.

Actually, I'd recommend someone in a 1 person alliance run by the executor do this for security reasons. And while this would take quite a bit of time, I view it as worth it. I mean, you essentially DOUBLE the capture time and it takes minimal effort.

EDIT: and stront. But seriously, stront is a joke. Who doesn't have stockpiles of it?



If you're meaning that Alliance B, during a vulnerability window, uses Entosis on a sov structure, it's a /really/ bad idea.

There are 2 sides to entosis:

The defender. (the owner)
The attackers (/everyone/ else)

Alliance B counts as an attacker. So Alliance C comes along, runs a little entosis, and knocks the system over into reinforce. B counts as an attacker. So does C. So their efforts combine.

I still believe alliance C and alliance B should be counted as individual attackers. Alliance A is then the defender, of 2 individual attacks not 1 combined attack.
This could also create conflict between alliances B and C as both are competing for the same individual prize. It also makes blobs from various alliances working together less effective.

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.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#102 - 2015-05-08 12:45:31 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I still believe alliance C and alliance B should be counted as individual attackers. Alliance A is then the defender, of 2 individual attacks not 1 combined attack.
This could also create conflict between alliances B and C as both are competing for the same individual prize. It also makes blobs from various alliances working together less effective.


The "individual attackers" claim their prize by dropping new structures (IHUB/TCU)
Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#103 - 2015-05-08 12:52:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Makari Aeron
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Masterplan: wouldn't the accumulation of points by another alliance persisting (and not decaying) be easily exploitable?

For example: Alliance A is a big alliance. Alliance B is their renter alliance. Alliance B takes sov in a system and alliance A, before any sov levels are accumulated, runs the entosis link to move the points as close to winning as possible. This ensures any attackers must take almost TWICE as long to take sov.

Actually, I'd recommend someone in a 1 person alliance run by the executor do this for security reasons. And while this would take quite a bit of time, I view it as worth it. I mean, you essentially DOUBLE the capture time and it takes minimal effort.

EDIT: and stront. But seriously, stront is a joke. Who doesn't have stockpiles of it?



If you're meaning that Alliance B, during a vulnerability window, uses Entosis on a sov structure, it's a /really/ bad idea.

There are 2 sides to entosis:

The defender. (the owner)
The attackers (/everyone/ else)

Alliance B counts as an attacker. So Alliance C comes along, runs a little entosis, and knocks the system over into reinforce. B counts as an attacker. So does C. So their efforts combine.


That's what I thought was going to happen. But that's not how I understood what Masterplan had said.

CCP Masterplan wrote:
B) A link from outside that alliance starts capturing, at which point the accumulated progress must first be reduced down to 0 before the new capturer can start building up his progress.


This statement makes it sound like every alliance is its own side. And that different alliances will conflict. Thus allowing for adding reinforcement to your own timers. Kinda like how you can SBU your systems now.

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#104 - 2015-05-08 13:02:51 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Ab'del Abu wrote:

Goons will probably be the first to use large slowcat fleets to defend their timers Roll At least carriers can be broken within the two minutes window by a well organized mid-sized fleet ... moms however, not so much. Imho supers & titans shouldn't be able to fit entosis links.


That's the point of the 5x role bonus, it isn't a 2 minute cycle time for caps, its 10 minutes for a T2 e-link (and 25 for a T1). Thats more than enough time to nail an incautious Supercarrier, and maybe even a Titan. By not disallowing them completely, it means a Super can be dropped to force a harrasser to nut up or shut up (ewar immunity means troll jamming/dampening wont be able to stop a cap elink), and bring a force that can kill the Super in the 10 minute window, but it wont be the default defence strategy or suddenly that smug Titan finds a Dreadnought fleet landing on it.


iuh I forgot all about that role bonus, shame on me.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#105 - 2015-05-08 13:05:17 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:

CCP Masterplan wrote:
B) A link from outside that alliance starts capturing, at which point the accumulated progress must first be reduced down to 0 before the new capturer can start building up his progress.


This statement makes it sound like every alliance is its own side. And that different alliances will conflict. Thus allowing for adding reinforcement to your own timers. Kinda like how you can SBU your systems now.


Masterplan is using our internal technical language, where both the structure's owners and everyone else are considered a "capturer" when they have links active.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2015-05-08 13:07:35 UTC
Thank you for clarifying.

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#107 - 2015-05-08 13:14:34 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Masterplan: wouldn't the accumulation of points by another alliance persisting (and not decaying) be easily exploitable?

For example: Alliance A is a big alliance. Alliance B is their renter alliance. Alliance B takes sov in a system and alliance A, before any sov levels are accumulated, runs the entosis link to move the points as close to winning as possible. This ensures any attackers must take almost TWICE as long to take sov.

Actually, I'd recommend someone in a 1 person alliance run by the executor do this for security reasons. And while this would take quite a bit of time, I view it as worth it. I mean, you essentially DOUBLE the capture time and it takes minimal effort.

EDIT: and stront. But seriously, stront is a joke. Who doesn't have stockpiles of it?

From what I understand, the owner is at +100%. The attacked always faces a starting point of (From his point of view) -100%.
if a third party came in and pulled it to 99%, then the attacker would have an easier time, they would see -99% to start.

Another way to say it: There is only one score. The current winner sees the score as a positive number, everyone else sees the same score, just as a negative number.

A starts with SOV. The score they see, and B and C see:


A:100 B:-100 C:-100

B does 190 points of effort

A:-90 B:90 C:-90

At this point C would still have to do 190 points of effort to win. Say C did 30.

A:-60 B:60 C:-60

CCP: Did I get it right?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2015-05-08 13:17:52 UTC
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
Sigras wrote:

Well, that is exactly the point isnt it? Everyone wants to be in the same system for protection yet they have to kinda spread out to make money...

Its a fantastic balance of risk vs isk.
.


No, no one really cares about protection. They do, however, care about getting a haven/hub all to themselves. This only happens in owned sov. You can only spread out 100s of alliance members so far although.

Fixes -
1.) make true sec adjustable
2.) spawn more anoms
3.) increase the number of spawn waves an anom currently has

More spawns mean more people have something to do however.

Yes.

Quote:

Also - kill jump bridge fatigue.

No.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#109 - 2015-05-08 13:33:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Philip Ogtaulmolfi
Ravcharas wrote:
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
Free intel through CREST: IMHO there is to much free intel in the game


Agree

Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
For occupation, I would prefer a system where what advances the indexes is just that, occupation. So any ship in space, not cloaked, outside of a field force, 50 km away from a station, adds to it.
This way there is no pressure to grind rats or asteroids, and the ones camping a gate, or guarding miners, or adding bonuses, or moving staff, or exploring -anybody in space- putting his ship at risk- will be adding to the system.

Ok everyone we need to get the occupation index up so I want everyone to undock in your interceptors and starburst from the station until we ping irc this a max nerds cta all undock in ceptors go go


Yea, can happen, if they so enjoy. And they could be killing rats and earning money at the same time. Lol

And perhaps it is time that when we probe we also get the speed and direction of the target so we can jump in front of fast moving ships and intercept them. If those interceptors are AFK they will die, if they are active = content.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#110 - 2015-05-08 13:37:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Makari Aeron wrote:

CCP Masterplan wrote:
B) A link from outside that alliance starts capturing, at which point the accumulated progress must first be reduced down to 0 before the new capturer can start building up his progress.


This statement makes it sound like every alliance is its own side. And that different alliances will conflict. Thus allowing for adding reinforcement to your own timers. Kinda like how you can SBU your systems now.


Masterplan is using our internal technical language, where both the structure's owners and everyone else are considered a "capturer" when they have links active.


I will become a capturer. Pirate

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Talia Soucu
Monkeys Violating the Heavenly Temple
#111 - 2015-05-08 13:38:12 UTC
I like the intent of the changes, but IMO a system starting with 18 hours of vulnerability makes it very hard for small alliances to set up, since they can be kicked to the curb outside their timezone. Here's a suggestion to fix that without sacrificing the intent of the changes.

Make the starting vulnerability much smaller, maybe between 4 and 6 hours, and then make it rise or fall based on player activity after a certain time (say, about a week). Player activity counters would be running from the start, but they would only begin to affect the vulnerability window after the grace period is over. So a system that isn't getting used would still very quickly have an 18-hour window, and a heavily used system would still get its window reduced to 3 hours. This way, uninhabited space would still be trivially easy to capture, but new alliances setting up sov would have to fight in their preferred timezone only.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#112 - 2015-05-08 14:06:05 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Masterplan
Vincent Athena wrote:
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Masterplan: wouldn't the accumulation of points by another alliance persisting (and not decaying) be easily exploitable?

For example: Alliance A is a big alliance. Alliance B is their renter alliance. Alliance B takes sov in a system and alliance A, before any sov levels are accumulated, runs the entosis link to move the points as close to winning as possible. This ensures any attackers must take almost TWICE as long to take sov.

Actually, I'd recommend someone in a 1 person alliance run by the executor do this for security reasons. And while this would take quite a bit of time, I view it as worth it. I mean, you essentially DOUBLE the capture time and it takes minimal effort.

EDIT: and stront. But seriously, stront is a joke. Who doesn't have stockpiles of it?

From what I understand, the owner is at +100%. The attacked always faces a starting point of (From his point of view) -100%.
if a third party came in and pulled it to 99%, then the attacker would have an easier time, they would see -99% to start.

Another way to say it: There is only one score. The current winner sees the score as a positive number, everyone else sees the same score, just as a negative number.

A starts with SOV. The score they see, and B and C see:


A:100 B:-100 C:-100

B does 190 points of effort

A:-90 B:90 C:-90

At this point C would still have to do 190 points of effort to win. Say C did 30.

A:-60 B:60 C:-60

CCP: Did I get it right?

For a structure that is currently owned by alliance A, you can consider it as though there are two 'teams' fighting over the structure:
Team Alliance A and Team Everyone Else (every single character who is NOT in alliance A). Each character scores for his team, so any member of Team Everyone Else is contributing to the same pool regardless of their actual affiliation. This is why the suggested 'exploit' of having another alliance friendly to A come and build up some score as a buffer would not work - all they would be doing is scoring points for Team Everyone Else.
The objective of Team Everyone Else is to make alliance A lose the contest, rather than win it for themselves individually. That part happens in the next contest once the structure has become neutral...

For a neutral structure (ie a newly-deployed IHub/TCU, or a command node for an outpost in Freeport mode) every alliance is its own team. Once one alliance gets the score up to 100% in their name, they win the contest for that structure.

Remember that to take over an outpost, you have two sets of contests. The first contest is A vs Everyone Else (where A is the defending owner). If A loses, the station goes to freeport mode. This then triggers the second contest where there is no owner/defender, and so this is where every alliance is individually trying to be the one with the score.

Quote:
Another way to say it: There is only one score

This is exactly how to see it, because this is exactly how it is implemented :) The structure tracks its current score (0 to 100%) and which team that score belongs to.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#113 - 2015-05-08 14:59:37 UTC
Talia Soucu wrote:
I like the intent of the changes, but IMO a system starting with 18 hours of vulnerability makes it very hard for small alliances to set up, since they can be kicked to the curb outside their timezone. Here's a suggestion to fix that without sacrificing the intent of the changes.

Make the starting vulnerability much smaller, maybe between 4 and 6 hours, and then make it rise or fall based on player activity after a certain time (say, about a week). Player activity counters would be running from the start, but they would only begin to affect the vulnerability window after the grace period is over. So a system that isn't getting used would still very quickly have an 18-hour window, and a heavily used system would still get its window reduced to 3 hours. This way, uninhabited space would still be trivially easy to capture, but new alliances setting up sov would have to fight in their preferred timezone only.


I am really in two minds on this, mainly because I see it from the small alliance like you do, however you have to look at it from the space not being worth much to say a bigger entity, so if you take it then you have to put effort in to secure it quickly. Also if you are a small entity which had you system taken by another small entity then you want the ability to try and take it back immediately and if the other entity is Russian and yours is US you cannot do it.

Overall I sort of like the idea of 18 hours, because it also prevents people doing LOL reinforcement and capture and locking it down to your worst TZ as a spoiling action, though they might just blow it up, but then drop another TCU. On balance I would take the 18 hours, CCP can adjust this over time to take into account how things pan out.

I still really do not like the free intel of all systems being detailed via API/Crest or even in game without visiting the place, make it so people have to go the system and find out the status of the sov with an entosis link.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#114 - 2015-05-08 15:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Philip Ogtaulmolfi
Dracvlad wrote:
I still really do not like the free intel of all systems being detailed via API/Crest or even in game without visiting the place, make it so people have to go the system and find out the status of the sov with an entosis link.


Completely agree. Reading you I realized that in my last post I forgot about in-game intel.

Intel, be it in-game or via API should only be updated when someone in the alliance/corporation visits the system.


Unless the owner explicitly wants to make it public.
Alexis Nightwish
#115 - 2015-05-08 15:46:13 UTC
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I still really do not like the free intel of all systems being detailed via API/Crest or even in game without visiting the place, make it so people have to go the system and find out the status of the sov with an entosis link.


Completely agree. Reading you I realized that in my last post I forgot about in-game intel.

Intel, be it in-game or via API should only be updated when someone in the alliance/corporation visits the system.


Unless the owner explicitly wants to make it public.

Absolutely this.

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Theon Borealis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2015-05-08 15:54:18 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I still really do not like the free intel of all systems being detailed via API/Crest or even in game without visiting the place, make it so people have to go the system and find out the status of the sov with an entosis link.


Mind if I ask why, please?

Without this data being available via CREST/API we will end up with a situation, where small groups of people have no realistic chance of finding the odd systems 'occupied' by two people and their alts. Read: Renter 'empires'. It would be trivially easy to hide in the plethora of nullsec systems out there in the middle of nowhere, and we will be back to where we are today.

If your alliance is large enough to realistically hold a system against a few bored people during your prime time, then having this info publicly available won't be an issue. The large coalitions will know anyway, one way or another.

Use it or loose it, I say.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2015-05-08 15:59:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Could result in the creation of dummy alliances to get a foothold for a larger alliance, though.

This is the major problem with the first system bonus idea, unfortunately.

Have you guys thought about penalties for an alliance controlled system that borders a system not part of the alliance? I hate to Bain storm in public, but maybe there is a lower cap on these systems so they are more susceptible to attacks instead of turning into the Great Wall of China. Perhaps a system that has every border system under the same alliances control allows other thing not possible in a border system.

*shrugs*
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2015-05-08 16:00:20 UTC
Another thing. All this free intel is a bad idea.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#119 - 2015-05-08 16:07:34 UTC
Theon Borealis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I still really do not like the free intel of all systems being detailed via API/Crest or even in game without visiting the place, make it so people have to go the system and find out the status of the sov with an entosis link.


Mind if I ask why, please?

Without this data being available via CREST/API we will end up with a situation, where small groups of people have no realistic chance of finding the odd systems 'occupied' by two people and their alts. Read: Renter 'empires'. It would be trivially easy to hide in the plethora of nullsec systems out there in the middle of nowhere, and we will be back to where we are today.

If your alliance is large enough to realistically hold a system against a few bored people during your prime time, then having this info publicly available won't be an issue. The large coalitions will know anyway, one way or another.

Use it or loose it, I say.


Lets reverse the question, why should people have free intel of that degree? It makes space in Eve feel very small, which adds to the ease of force projection. Lets make people gather intel, I would also get rid of stuff like cyno's, NPC kills and people in system too it would make the game more interesting and develop specific intel gathering entities.

I know those things were in Eve at the start but the game has moved on with a lot more people and an issue of force projection that will still not go away with these changes.

A major part of warfare is gathering intel, and blocking that data being gathered, its just reduces gameplay to supply it on a plate like that.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Talia Soucu
Monkeys Violating the Heavenly Temple
#120 - 2015-05-08 16:31:04 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I am really in two minds on this, mainly because I see it from the small alliance like you do, however you have to look at it from the space not being worth much to say a bigger entity, so if you take it then you have to put effort in to secure it quickly.


Hmm. I might be misreading you, but I don't see what the problem is. Can you clarify?

Quote:
Also if you are a small entity which had you system taken by another small entity then you want the ability to try and take it back immediately and if the other entity is Russian and yours is US you cannot do it.


Right, but with these mechanics, if you're a USTZ alliance, a Russian entity can't take your system in the first place as long as you care about the space and keep the vulnerability window within your timezone.