These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#161 - 2015-05-10 00:29:15 UTC  |  Edited by: TheSmokingHertog
Pfffft, that was a wall of txt, and a lot of comments, some replies... most things are worked out nicely this way.

Rowells wrote:
I will chime in and say that the fidelity of timer usage might need to be scaled to system-wide. Otherwise the possibility of having a system 3 different windows might be a PITA.


Just wondering if Constellation wide would not be more logical, due to defense spawning.

Zappity wrote:
Yeah, good idea. Could result in the creation of dummy alliances to get a foothold for a larger alliance, though.

I like the changes in the blog. Looks solid.


So, maybe their should be a financial incentive in play, so Alliances would be discouraged for the use of the mechanic, but people coming to plant their flag could choose to get the ISK together before planting the flag.

CCP Masterplan wrote:

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.


Can't you poke scope to setup a demonstration video of a typical event as described in here?

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#162 - 2015-05-10 01:19:50 UTC
TheSmokingHertog wrote:
Pfffft, that was a wall of txt, and a lot of comments, some replies... most things are worked out nicely this way.

Rowells wrote:
I will chime in and say that the fidelity of timer usage might need to be scaled to system-wide. Otherwise the possibility of having a system 3 different windows might be a PITA.


1) Just wondering if Constellation wide would not be more logical, due to defense spawning.

Zappity wrote:
Yeah, good idea. Could result in the creation of dummy alliances to get a foothold for a larger alliance, though.

I like the changes in the blog. Looks solid.


2) So, maybe their should be a financial incentive in play, so Alliances would be discouraged for the use of the mechanic, but people coming to plant their flag could choose to get the ISK together before planting the flag.

CCP Masterplan wrote:

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.


3) Can't you poke scope to setup a demonstration video of a typical event as described in here?

1) Would favor well established alliances who have armies of allies. Also forces alliances toward 1 TZ membership.

2) What do you set the level of financial commitment to, when taking existing power blocks with trillions of isk in reserve into account? Set the entry bar too high you exclude newcomers, set it too low it gives large established groups a "pay to win".

3) It would need to be several demonstration videos as there are so many variables to a "typical event". The main two being - Defended or Undefended space. One active entosis link from a defender would show no progress for anyone, this status quo can be maintained for as long as they can keep at least one active entosis.

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.

Johny Tyler
Tempest Innovations
The Commonwealth.
#163 - 2015-05-10 03:20:09 UTC
I am a big fan of the design goals and what CCP devs are trying to achieve. I don't think these new sov changes will have the desired effect. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

I love the idea of forcing people to come out and defend space or suffer consequences. I really like the intent for spreading conflict over a constellation to decentralize the conflict. I like the elimination of structure grinding, and the lowering of the bar for entry to sov warfare. (I think the bar may be lowered a bit too low by the current plan. I would favor restricting both t1 and t2 modules to cruiser and up. I am being somewhat arbitrary I know but that is my opinion nonetheless.)

I think the net result of the current plan will be to essentially grief and troll any small sov holding alliances out of existence. I am not sure if there is a better way to do sov. It is obvious all the devs working on this are putting a lot of thought into trying to make the best system they can, but I don't think this one will work. A large part of the reason it won't work just has to do with human behavior, some of it has to do with how some behavior is rewarded in the game which goes deeper than just sov mechanics.

I think there are a lot of unintended-use cases which are not being considered in this design. I think there is a very large segment of the Eve population who are not being adequately considered; these are the folks who do not care even a little bit about sov but simply want to blow **** up. How they will use these new mechanics to provoke fights needs to be considered. In the short term I think you will see more activity, but in the long term I think you will see many of the people you are trying to encourage to get involved in nullsec either quit, move out of null, or form/join more massive coalitions.

I have a hard time imagining a small alliance being able to keep a IHUB, TCU, or Station. Very possibly the best bet for defending it could be to just be boring. If they actively defend then I think they will get more attention from people with guns. If they are boring and simply let the things explode then replace them after the people with guns leave, then eventually the people with guns may not make the trip again. If you form a fleet every time you are attacked then you will become the favorite for anyone with a fleet of equal or greater size. Forming a fleet to defend may work once or twice, but there is always a bigger fleet out there willing to make the trip for a bunch of kill mails.

Will we see roaming fleets with no interest in the sov show up in constellations with contested sov? I think so. How will they effect the outcome of a sov battle? I think this is more difficult to say at this point. The point of concern for me is how much influence over the whole sov system a fleet with no interest in the actual sov may have.

Another potential problem is restricting the possibility for roaming pvp fleets from sov holding alliances. What happens when you know there are small gangs either cloaked or waiting nearby ready to start SovWands as soon as you leave? How many people do you need to leave behind to make sure these small gangs can't cause damage? This does seem to play in the favor of sov alliances who only want to shoot NPCs and rocks during prime time. They can at least be nearby for quick mobilization if needed. Sending out a roaming pvp fleet during your own prime time may become an unnecessary hazard.

What will non-sov-holding roaming and blops/drop people do with this? They won't typically be starting fights where the odds are in question. They will look for small alliances to go poke until they fight and die or just quit trying. If the locals are able to put up a fight then the next roaming gang will simply be bigger.

The basic equation remains the same. In matters of force bigger is better. Small can either run, hide, or negotiate. I don't know if there is any way to change that. There needs to be some other legitimate and compelling reason for smaller organizations to exist, or things will simply continue going the direction they are already going.

If the conditions in Eve become worse through implementation of this content I don't really think the devs and CCP are much to blame. They are doing their best to present a good and interesting game. I just think over time Eve may become less of what it was intended to be and more of an experiment in human behavior. I wish there were a better solution for sov mechanics, but so far I haven't seen anything suggested that I think will really work.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#164 - 2015-05-10 06:15:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Should the US President have to visit Texas every day, or send personal scouts, just to make sure it hasn't been invaded or seceded from the union yet? There are plenty of assumable lines of communications from local governments and citizens out in Eve colonies, just like there are local governments in the US that might raise a fuss if their sov was being usurped.


Yes, this is the perfect example. Someone must inform him.

So no free intel, someone has to actually go to the system. Big smile


Oooh, you. Bear

Aquila Sagitta wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Aquila Sagitta wrote:
Can you jump through a wh with active entosis link?

Why would you activate the link while sitting on a wormhole?


Because it adds mass to your ship. If you can turn frigates into the size of an orca for 1 stront and some cap people will do it.


That is a fairly good point.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#165 - 2015-05-10 08:27:45 UTC
Johny Tyler wrote:
I am a big fan of the design goals and what CCP devs are trying to achieve. I don't think these new sov changes will have the desired effect. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

I love the idea of forcing people to come out and defend space or suffer consequences. I really like the intent for spreading conflict over a constellation to decentralize the conflict. I like the elimination of structure grinding, and the lowering of the bar for entry to sov warfare. (I think the bar may be lowered a bit too low by the current plan. I would favor restricting both t1 and t2 modules to cruiser and up. I am being somewhat arbitrary I know but that is my opinion nonetheless.)

I think the net result of the current plan will be to essentially grief and troll any small sov holding alliances out of existence. I am not sure if there is a better way to do sov. It is obvious all the devs working on this are putting a lot of thought into trying to make the best system they can, but I don't think this one will work. A large part of the reason it won't work just has to do with human behavior, some of it has to do with how some behavior is rewarded in the game which goes deeper than just sov mechanics.

I think there are a lot of unintended-use cases which are not being considered in this design. I think there is a very large segment of the Eve population who are not being adequately considered; these are the folks who do not care even a little bit about sov but simply want to blow **** up. How they will use these new mechanics to provoke fights needs to be considered. In the short term I think you will see more activity, but in the long term I think you will see many of the people you are trying to encourage to get involved in nullsec either quit, move out of null, or form/join more massive coalitions.

I have a hard time imagining a small alliance being able to keep a IHUB, TCU, or Station. Very possibly the best bet for defending it could be to just be boring. If they actively defend then I think they will get more attention from people with guns. If they are boring and simply let the things explode then replace them after the people with guns leave, then eventually the people with guns may not make the trip again. If you form a fleet every time you are attacked then you will become the favorite for anyone with a fleet of equal or greater size. Forming a fleet to defend may work once or twice, but there is always a bigger fleet out there willing to make the trip for a bunch of kill mails.

Will we see roaming fleets with no interest in the sov show up in constellations with contested sov? I think so. How will they effect the outcome of a sov battle? I think this is more difficult to say at this point. The point of concern for me is how much influence over the whole sov system a fleet with no interest in the actual sov may have.

Another potential problem is restricting the possibility for roaming pvp fleets from sov holding alliances. What happens when you know there are small gangs either cloaked or waiting nearby ready to start SovWands as soon as you leave? How many people do you need to leave behind to make sure these small gangs can't cause damage? This does seem to play in the favor of sov alliances who only want to shoot NPCs and rocks during prime time. They can at least be nearby for quick mobilization if needed. Sending out a roaming pvp fleet during your own prime time may become an unnecessary hazard.

What will non-sov-holding roaming and blops/drop people do with this? They won't typically be starting fights where the odds are in question. They will look for small alliances to go poke until they fight and die or just quit trying. If the locals are able to put up a fight then the next roaming gang will simply be bigger.

The basic equation remains the same. In matters of force bigger is better. Small can either run, hide, or negotiate. I don't know if there is any way to change that. There needs to be some other legitimate and compelling reason for smaller organizations to exist, or things will simply continue going the direction they are already going.

If the conditions in Eve become worse through implementation of this content I don't really think the devs and CCP are much to blame. They are doing their best to present a good and interesting game. I just think over time Eve may become less of what it was intended to be and more of an experiment in human behavior. I wish there were a better solution for sov mechanics, but so far I haven't seen anything suggested that I think will really work.


I feel very much the same way, right from the start I realised that the fun part was to place the TCU next to a deathstar POS and not bother about an IHUB, that will only work until the new structures. With the full intel of sov being given on a plate via CREST / API it is certain that the bored who just want pixels blown up will be out in force trying to force a fight. What may happen is that the small alliance will take that Sov purely as a honey trap and will not seriously use it, and will get kills from this on who they can kill and ignore those they cannot, at least for a time that is. You have to step back and look at how that will develop over time, if those roaming gangs RF something and then come back when the nodes are there and win all the nodes without getting a fight and it happens again and again, who is trolling who.

My suggestion is that every small alliance buy a TCU BPO, research it, then get your PI toons to work for the materials, that you find a unused system and set up a TCU next to a deathstar POS and just let it die. There are many ways to condition people and Eve works through boring your opposition to death, well that is exactly what I am going to do and the more of us that do this the more you can influence the type of force a fight people into giving up, then see how it pans out.

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

Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#166 - 2015-05-10 08:33:58 UTC
Mad Crafter wrote:
How is the link going to work in tidi? By controlling tidi the defender can get a massive bonus on the initial battle.

For example lets say I get 500 of my best buddies together to attacking some important goon system. It's important to goons so they have the 6x defense bonus. We are organized and have our fleet in system ready to go right at the start of the 3 hour window. When the window opens we begin our 62 min countdown. Goons are also organized and know we are going to attack them. But instead of fighting us they put 500 guys in T1 frigs and do nothing but jump through gates, dock and undock, and anything else they can to tidi the node to 10%. Our capture timer is now 10 hours and theirs nothing we can do to capture the node in the 3 hours window. Even if we send more people out to kill the goon frigs that will just cause even more lag, and they just undock more of them.

Lets say the links aren't affected by tidi, so it takes 62 min of real time regardless of how badly the node is tidi. This is better as it means goons have to fight us in order to win the timer. But they don't need to win the fight. This time they send 400 guys to fight us, and that will tidi the node to 10%. The remaining 100 they put in buffer tanked battleships with links fit. My fleet must now burn through 100 battleships + reships in under 2 hours in 10% tidi while being shot by a 400 man fleet. Once the time to capture the node is less then the time remaining the the vulnerabilities window they go home.

No matter how you handle tidi the defender will auto win once the node reaches 10%. Even if they are't trying to exploit almost any battle in heavy tidi will last longer then 3 hours handing the victor over to the defender regardless of who is winning the actual battle.


Ignoring the really bitter way you asked the question, you raise two issues:

- How does TiDi effect capture time/windows

- Would TiDi make long captures impossible in short windows.

I don't know the answer to the first, but following how everything else in the game runs, I would go with your assumption being correct, that capture time would slow under TiDi.

However, you've misunderstood how capturing works with the second part. In the original devblog (and I've seen nothing to suggest this has changed), it clearly said that partially captured structures would not go invulnerable at the end of the vulnerability window - if something is mid-capture (be in an active e-link running on it, or even if there is no link running cyurrently but the capture % is above 0), it stays capturable until a defender rocks along to reduce the capture % back to 0. So your hypothetical example isn't a problem; under TiDi, as long as capture had been started, a defender still needs to take control of the grid and nullify the capture, they can't just wait for the timezone window to lock the door (because it doesn't).
Pur3Bl00D
Grey Templars
Initiative Mercenaries
#167 - 2015-05-10 09:29:41 UTC
Its gonna be a big big 'poking of the bee's nest'
Sigras
Conglomo
#168 - 2015-05-10 20:13:01 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
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)

So who gets to drop the new structures?
How do individual attacker"s" claim the prize, it is only 1 system where the "prize" can only be claimed by one individual attacker.
Seems a little unbalanced if a coalition can go take sov, then just hand the system to whoever they choose.

The problem with splitting the attackers is that it allows for defensive "attacking"...

I get one of my dummy alliances to capture the I-hub to 99% so everyone attacking me has to capture 199% to actually win the fight.

This is the same nonsense that defensive SBUs provide.
Sigras
Conglomo
#169 - 2015-05-10 20:43:49 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Klyith wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Well maybe what CCP Masterplan quoted as to how it will work is wrong..
Quote:
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.
You might want to take that up with him.

Alliance A partially captures a structure then leaves, for whatever reason.
Alliance B (an ally of the sov holder) is seen by the server as an attacker, activates Entosis - reduces accumulated progress to zero - turns off Entosis.
Damn!! It would seem, under the right circumstances - An ally can remove capture progress.
CCP Masterplan's post, on page 5 of the thread

Capture work on neutral structures (apparently a freshly deployed TCU/Ihub), and command nodes for the second station timer. Reinforcement works on owned structures. They have different mechanics.

I'm really sorry but what makes you so sure what Fozzie says in the blog is correct and what Masterplan said is wrong?
Do you think the devs who wrote the code would no less about it than their spokesperson?
I believe CCP Masterplan took his information from having worked on the project whereas CCP Fozzie is writing out a blog based only on information he is handed, which he can interpret and type out however he likes.

Of course 1 defender vs 20 attackers sounds balanced - Doesn't it?
Why have persistent capture points - So the next guy can come along and complete the job? That too sounds awfully balanced.

One of the proposed ways it will work is open to abuse in very specific situations, the other is open to abuse by everyone all the time. I know which I think will create the most long term content.

And just to save you typing out a whole lot of stuff not relevant to what I posted. Partially captured doesn't start anything, it has nothing to do with whether the station or iHub is already RF'd. Partially capturing is simply that, group fly in run entosis for X mins and leaves, no capture, nothing RF'd so no end result or next stage.
Except; going by the blog, anyone who then enters the system can finish the capture process by completing the cycles remaining from the guys who started the capture. (that's not open to abuse or manipulation, is it)

Funny but I think CCP Masterplan wrote it out very well, where the blog is just blanket, basic information, with many gaps.
Attention Maybe, just maybe, in this case someone should officially put the issue to bed.
Does an attacker 1st have to remove capture progress made by someone else?
Is persistent capture progress available to subsequent attackers?
Does each attacker only gain from individual progress made, if so, where does that leave a defender?
Will the defender need 1 entosis link for active for each attacker or will 1 stall progress of all?

Fozzie already explained this on page 6 ...

If I own a system, there's team "Me" and team "Not Me"... if team "Not Me" starts to capture my system. My allies can drive them off, but in order to stabilize the system, someone from team "Me" has to show up and cap it because my allies are still technically on team "Not Me"

When an I-Hub/TCU is first anchored, it is neutral (no more anchor for corp) and the owning alliance has to cap it. This is the same situation as a station in freeport mode. Every alliance has its own side, and to capture the structure, you must first de-cap all of your opponents' progress and then cap it yourself.
Johny Tyler
Tempest Innovations
The Commonwealth.
#170 - 2015-05-10 23:32:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Johny Tyler
After some further thought about this whole system I think I came up with the beginnings of an idea for a way to address some of my earlier concerns.

This is just a rough idea so any specifics I mention are just for illustration, please don't get too hung up on them.

The basic idea is that an invasion force should be required to put some skin in the game (in terms of at least a little bit of isk and effort) to be allowed to fight others for sov.

A way to achieve this is with a sov invasion structure. My initial idea could be called the Sovereignty Affiliation Disruptor or SAD. (Again all details subject to change obviously...)

Build cost for a SAD could be somewhere between 100 - 500mil range.

The SAD would be deployable anywhere in space at least 50km away from any gates, stations, or towers. So an offensive tower could be put up by the invaders to help guard one, but would not be required.

Only Entosis links made by members of an alliance owning a SAD for more than 24 hours in system would be recognized for reinforcing a TCU, IHUB, or Station. A single alliance would be able to put up more than one SAD in any given system (perhaps limit to 5 to prevent excess spam). Multiple alliances can have a SAD active in any system.

There should obviously be some way for defenders of the system to destroy the SAD. This could either be done through simple destruction (perhaps make the EHP something a single dread could get through in a single siege cycle). And/or the SAD could require an Entosis link from another alliance which could either deactivate it after enough time or possibly cause it to reinforce and spawn a constellation-wide event similar to the proposed events for capture/destruction of a Station/TCU/IHUB.

A SAD would not be required in systems with no sov structures/claims.

A SAD would not be required to offline station services. I would propose adding more things an Entosis link could damage which would take time or cost isk to repair but would not threaten the sov structure itself, and would not require a SAD. One idea would be to temporarily degrade ihub stats/bonuses.

To clean up a few details a bit...
If multiple alliances are able to keep a SAD up in a system, and the sov structures do end up being reinforced by an Entosis link, then any alliance which manages to activate an Entosis module on each specific structure for the required duration would be added as a party to the constellation-wide event. However, each aggressor would function as their own individual team. One of the aggression alliances would need to achieve a winning score for the destruction/disruption of the structure to be successful. A member of an alliance which has not been added to the list of aggressors (by having activated an Entosis link for the required amount of time on a structure while having an active SAD in system) will not be counted towards the victory of either aggressors or defenders but may interrupt the progress of an Entosis link capture process.

I hope that was reasonably clear. Again this is just a rough sketch of an idea. Any or all of the details would, of course, be subject to change.

I was raised to try to offer plausible solutions to problems I point out. This may not be the perfect solution, but it is my best shot at addressing some of the concerns I raised earlier. My best wishes to the dev team; I know they are working hard on this whole thing.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#171 - 2015-05-11 02:01:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Sigras wrote:

Fozzie already explained this on page 6 ...

If I own a system, there's team "Me" and team "Not Me"... if team "Not Me" starts to capture my system. My allies can drive them off, but in order to stabilize the system, someone from team "Me" has to show up and cap it because my allies are still technically on team "Not Me"

When an I-Hub/TCU is first anchored, it is neutral (no more anchor for corp) and the owning alliance has to cap it. This is the same situation as a station in freeport mode. Every alliance has its own side, and to capture the structure, you must first de-cap all of your opponents' progress and then cap it yourself.
Actually Fozzies "explanation" explains nothing, he has the art of responding without saying anything pertinent down to a fine art.

This little headliner from the blog very much contradicts, defender vs everyone (and Fozzies reply)
Quote:
As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.

Simple answer there by Fozzie logic.. Your allies can indeed protect your sov by simply running an entosis link on it.
Owners are afk, for whatever reason, sov comes under attack, ally comes runs entosis link to gain "effective military control" so enemies don't get to RF it.
Result - Nothing RF'd, no timer, no capture the node mess to deal with.


Better to have your structures "attacked" by friendly forces than enemies who may want to take it from you. (builtin safety for existing power bloks)

Stations are a pita. Can be attacked at anytime by anyone - Doesn't fit with the rest of the proposal.

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.

thowlimer
Roprocor Ltd
#172 - 2015-05-11 08:35:07 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sigras wrote:

Fozzie already explained this on page 6 ...

If I own a system, there's team "Me" and team "Not Me"... if team "Not Me" starts to capture my system. My allies can drive them off, but in order to stabilize the system, someone from team "Me" has to show up and cap it because my allies are still technically on team "Not Me"

When an I-Hub/TCU is first anchored, it is neutral (no more anchor for corp) and the owning alliance has to cap it. This is the same situation as a station in freeport mode. Every alliance has its own side, and to capture the structure, you must first de-cap all of your opponents' progress and then cap it yourself.
Actually Fozzies "explanation" explains nothing, he has the art of responding without saying anything pertinent down to a fine art.

This little headliner from the blog very much contradicts, defender vs everyone (and Fozzies reply)
Quote:
As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.

Simple answer there by Fozzie logic.. Your allies can indeed protect your sov by simply running an entosis link on it.
Owners are afk, for whatever reason, sov comes under attack, ally comes runs entosis link to gain "effective military control" so enemies don't get to RF it.
Result - Nothing RF'd, no timer, no capture the node mess to deal with.


Better to have your structures "attacked" by friendly forces than enemies who may want to take it from you. (builtin safety for existing power bloks)

Stations are a pita. Can be attacked at anytime by anyone - Doesn't fit with the rest of the proposal.


It doesn't really matter whether a structure is attacked by actual enemies or your friends, the result is the same once it
reaches 100% from entosis(and your friends use count towards that 100% just as do your enemies, they are all
one team for this part) it will start the capture node event, Now during the capture node event your friends might
conceivably help you out by trying to partially capture nodes since thats the part where everyone is a team
for themselves. But at the initial structure event having friends putting an entosis link up would just help the attacker.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#173 - 2015-05-11 09:04:33 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Simple answer there by Fozzie logic.. Your allies can indeed protect your sov by simply running an entosis link on it.
Owners are afk, for whatever reason, sov comes under attack, ally comes runs entosis link to gain "effective military control" so enemies don't get to RF it.
Result - Nothing RF'd, no timer, no capture the node mess to deal with.


You are wrong, nobody can defend your sov for you. To stop the RFing process there is only 2 ways :
- destroying all ships with active EL on your structure
- activating an EL with a pilot from the alliance owning the structure

If a blue activate an EL on your structure he will help the attacking forces.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Better to have your structures "attacked" by friendly forces than enemies who may want to take it from you. (builtin safety for existing power bloks)


There is no. You miss the point here.
Alexis Nightwish
#174 - 2015-05-11 19:40:47 UTC
Okay so a lot of people just don't seem to get it.

The only ones that can capture something for your alliance, are characters in your alliance.

If an object is neutral, every alliance is on their own team. So your alliance is its own team. Blues are not on your team.

If the object is owned by your alliance, your alliance is its own team, and everyone else is on Team Not You. Team Not You includes blues, so if they EL your node, they are working against you and working for everyone else.

If an object is owned by another alliance (even a blue one), using your EL on one of their nodes begins removing their control. Should control be lost it goes into RF, disabled, etc.


So given the above, the only way for blues to help you in regards to capture mechanics is to:

  • Shoot people EL'ing your stuff.

  • Shoot people EL'ing a neutral object you want to capture. Optionally EL the object for the purposes of pausing capture progress of a common enemy.

  • Shoot people of, and/or EL the stuff of, a common enemy, as long as the target object is still owned by the common enemy.

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#175 - 2015-05-11 22:33:47 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Okay so a lot of people just don't seem to get it.

The only ones that can capture something for your alliance, are characters in your alliance.

If an object is neutral, every alliance is on their own team. So your alliance is its own team. Blues are not on your team.

If the object is owned by your alliance, your alliance is its own team, and everyone else is on Team Not You. Team Not You includes blues, so if they EL your node, they are working against you and working for everyone else.

If an object is owned by another alliance (even a blue one), using your EL on one of their nodes begins removing their control. Should control be lost it goes into RF, disabled, etc.


So given the above, the only way for blues to help you in regards to capture mechanics is to:

  • Shoot people EL'ing your stuff.

  • Shoot people EL'ing a neutral object you want to capture. Optionally EL the object for the purposes of pausing capture progress of a common enemy.

  • Shoot people of, and/or EL the stuff of, a common enemy, as long as the target object is still owned by the common enemy.

So you obviously believe the giant coalitions are going to stop playing how they have for the last 4 or 5 years and just fly alliance fleets.. LOL

I don't get how people can't see how easily this mechanic is manipulated and biased toward existing power bloks.
For those who can't see it, I feel for you but if you have ever been in a coalition fleet, you should clearly see how to ensure the odds are always in your favour.

There are still many unanswered questions regarding how entosis links will work, I prefer to believe what CCP Masterplan wrote out, as it fits with the blog description.
An attacker must 1st remove any progress made by a previous attacker ( a defender is not an "attacker" so that can only mean 1 thing). That statement ONLY makes sense if only 1 entosis can make progress at a time, which according to the blog is how the mechanic works.

A mechanic like this, that is designed to favour large groups, will be used by large groups to ensure no-one becomes a threat.
Why else do you think none of the bloks are whining in the forums - You don't complain about something that gives you a major advantage over others. They know Fozzie-Sov is all in their favour.

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.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#176 - 2015-05-11 23:16:57 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Okay so a lot of people just don't seem to get it.

The only ones that can capture something for your alliance, are characters in your alliance.

If an object is neutral, every alliance is on their own team. So your alliance is its own team. Blues are not on your team.

If the object is owned by your alliance, your alliance is its own team, and everyone else is on Team Not You. Team Not You includes blues, so if they EL your node, they are working against you and working for everyone else.

If an object is owned by another alliance (even a blue one), using your EL on one of their nodes begins removing their control. Should control be lost it goes into RF, disabled, etc.


So given the above, the only way for blues to help you in regards to capture mechanics is to:

  • Shoot people EL'ing your stuff.

  • Shoot people EL'ing a neutral object you want to capture. Optionally EL the object for the purposes of pausing capture progress of a common enemy.

  • Shoot people of, and/or EL the stuff of, a common enemy, as long as the target object is still owned by the common enemy.

So you obviously believe the giant coalitions are going to stop playing how they have for the last 4 or 5 years and just fly alliance fleets.. LOL

I don't get how people can't see how easily this mechanic is manipulated and biased toward existing power bloks.
For those who can't see it, I feel for you but if you have ever been in a coalition fleet, you should clearly see how to ensure the odds are always in your favour.

There are still many unanswered questions regarding how entosis links will work, I prefer to believe what CCP Masterplan wrote out, as it fits with the blog description.
An attacker must 1st remove any progress made by a previous attacker ( a defender is not an "attacker" so that can only mean 1 thing). That statement ONLY makes sense if only 1 entosis can make progress at a time, which according to the blog is how the mechanic works.

A mechanic like this, that is designed to favour large groups, will be used by large groups to ensure no-one becomes a threat.
Why else do you think none of the bloks are whining in the forums - You don't complain about something that gives you a major advantage over others. They know Fozzie-Sov is all in their favour.

There are only two forms of timers. A reinforce timer/destruction timer and capture nodes.

When attacking a structure that has an existing owner, it follows the mechanics of '1 v all'. If it is not some thing owned by someone (capture nodes, fresh structures) then it is every team for itself (FFA). So there are two definitive situations.

If there is no owner, then there is no 'defender'. Essentially a fresh structure is considered to be under attack by the person trying to online it.

And yes, if two 'attackers' are linked to node, then the progress halts, until only one team has a link on it. Once this exact same situation switches to an owned structure, then the teams are switched to the defender (owner) vs the attackers (everyone else).

Is the structure owned? Yes = defending team vs attacking team (standings have no play in how server recognizes teams)
No = every alliance is it's own team.

Again, server doesn't care who you are blue or red to. If you aren't in the same alliance, you are a potential attacker.

And this entire scheme has no new mechanics that favor blobbing any more than the previous design. You're going to find it difficult to figure a system that is both sandbox in nature and discourages working with others.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#177 - 2015-05-12 05:15:28 UTC
The 6x multiplier needs more factors to be reflective of player activities. Market transactions, industry jobs, research, and refining need to be added AT A MINIMUM. These activities are already tracked, just need to be added to the matrix and given a multiplier. Why is this something that wasn't considered A LONG TIME AGO. As though mining and shooting red crosses are all that indicate active areas of eve...
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#178 - 2015-05-12 09:02:35 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

There are still many unanswered questions regarding how entosis links will work, I prefer to believe what CCP Masterplan wrote out, as it fits with the blog description.


Yes we need more answer from the dev but you are completly wrong on that thing.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

An attacker must 1st remove any progress made by a previous attacker ( a defender is not an "attacker" so that can only mean 1 thing). That statement ONLY makes sense if only 1 entosis can make progress at a time, which according to the blog is how the mechanic works.


No. No. No.

This is only the case when the structure is already in RF, in the event named "maint event" in the first devblog or a fresh deployed structure or a freeport battle. In thase case it is a free for all.
So an alliance can build a buffer for another.

But in the RFing process you cannot because there is only 2 sides, the defending alliance and the rest of New Eden alliances.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

A mechanic like this, that is designed to favour large groups, will be used by large groups to ensure no-one becomes a threat.
Why else do you think none of the bloks are whining in the forums - You don't complain about something that gives you a major advantage over others. They know Fozzie-Sov is all in their favour.


Did you seriously miss the trollceptor CFC & N3 move in the first devblog comments ?

Come on ...
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#179 - 2015-05-12 10:47:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Sgt Ocker wrote:

There are still many unanswered questions regarding how entosis links will work, I prefer to believe what CCP Masterplan wrote out, as it fits with the blog description.
An attacker must 1st remove any progress made by a previous attacker ( a defender is not an "attacker" so that can only mean 1 thing). That statement ONLY makes sense if only 1 entosis can make progress at a time, which according to the blog is how the mechanic works.

When everyone is telling you you are wrong, and no-one is supporting your viewpoint, there is a more than slight chance that you are indeed wrong

CCP Masterplan wrote:

Any progress accumulated by an entosis link that has completed its warmup cycle will stay on the structure indefinitely (including across downtime) when that link shuts down, until
A) A link from the same alliance starts capturing, at which point that alliance continues building score on top of the previously-accumulated progress
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 is quite similar to the King-of-the-hill mechanic used on other games. Only one team (alliance) can have any score at a time, and another team must grind that score down first before they can start building up their own.

You can imagine score as a progress bar that goes from -100 points to 0 to +100 points. Your alliance is always at the +100 end, and everyone else is at the -100 end. Your capturing moves the bar to the right, and anyone except you moves it to the left. The speed at which the bar moves (points/second) depends on the occupancy bonuses.


This is the quote from Masterplan that you've got yourself caught on. Read it, and not just what you want to see, actually read the words.

CCP Masterplan wrote:

a link from the same alliance starts capturing

That is where you have got yourself tangled. Masterplans explanation was only talking about the capture event, that being the second stage. The first part, the reinforcement event, is treated completely differently as everyone has been telling you.

"Everyone on a seperate team" is only the capture event, the reinforcement event is "owners vs everyone else". In the reinforcement event a blue would be assisting the attackers if they e-linked a structure, in the capture event they would be their own side, so although they could in truth delay an attackers capture, they are also delaying the former owners too (and note that - former owner. There is no longer a defender in the capture event, they too are treated in every way as an attacker too now, hence the terminology Masterplan used, which Fozzie straight up explained in This Post) - although there might be times this is advantageous (if the defender needs the capture event stringing out til they can bring their forces to bear), it is going to be situational rather than the default strategy, as they aren't exactly helping their ally if they manage to capture the system for themselves, resetting ther allies indexes.
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#180 - 2015-05-12 11:57:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Philip Ogtaulmolfi
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:
What I am really afraid if this information is available is that in a few days we will have an app where you will be able to choose an area (like a the region where you live and the ones in contact with it) and receive an alert as soon as someone stablish a base there, so large alliances will have a very effective way of projecting force what will lead to great expanses of systems empty.


Quoting myself to desist because at last O7 show, Fozzie insists that they wanted this info to be available to everybody via API, so what I say is probably what they want to happen.

It is not an unintended consecuence. A pitty.