These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Dev Blog: Next set of Sov and Capital Movement Iterations

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Falcon
#1 - 2015-09-11 19:51:12 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Hello Capsuleers!

Team Five-0 have been working tirelessly to iterate on the sov release since July 14th, and are ready to share more details about what's coming in the next couple of releases for Sovereignty in EVE Online.

Check out this Dev Blog from the team to see what changes are coming over the course of the next few months.

Feel free to post your comments and feedback in this thread!

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2 - 2015-09-11 19:52:19 UTC
Reserved for FAQ

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2015-09-11 19:52:29 UTC
All good, sensible changes - an excellent step in the right direction.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2015-09-11 19:53:10 UTC
I'm sad that the fitting restriction is to Interceptors only - it's too trite.

Much more sensible would be to restrict it to Destroyers, perhaps even Cruisers, and above - due to 'size' constraints.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-09-11 19:53:10 UTC
Very happy with these. Still would like to see several more but all of these are a good package.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-09-11 19:54:38 UTC
All sensible changes. I'm especially glad that you went with the light hand on fatigue.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2015-09-11 19:55:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Quote:
This change is designed to reduce the damage that a character can inflict by overjumping, reducing the maximum possible fatigue from 30 days to 5 days.


Just to clarify, its only the maximum possible jump fatigue ceiling that is being altered in this, and not the actual mechanics and formula by which fatigue is calculated, yes/no?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Atrum Veneficus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2015-09-11 19:57:53 UTC
These are all good changes. In general I think "ban x feature from y ship" is at best a band-aid, but it's a good first start.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#9 - 2015-09-11 19:59:02 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Quote:
This change is designed to reduce the damage that a character can inflict by overjumping, reducing the maximum possible fatigue from 30 days to 5 days.


Just to clarify, its only the maximum possible jump fatigue ceiling that is being altered in this, and not the actual mechanics and formula by which fatigue is calculated, yes/no?



For now, correct.

Everything caps out lower, but the numbers are otherwise the same.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2015-09-11 20:02:46 UTC
Also, can I ask why you've gone with an outright entosis ban for interceptors rather than adjusting the associated requirements/drawbacks/etc to make the choice suboptimal?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Zalmun
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2015-09-11 20:03:41 UTC
Finally some sensibility comes to jump fatigue timers. I still think 5 days is a bit too long, but I completely agree with targeting the weekend players as having the most benefit. Reason prevails.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-09-11 20:03:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
The entire reason Interceptors came to dominate the Entosis meta was their combination of survivability and expandability- otherwise, the Entosis Interceptor would never have enjoyed the level of popularity it achieved. If fitting and using Entosis links wasn't an unqualified de-buff in every respect, we'd probably see a lot more variety than we do now. Since the 4km/s cap has already been introduced, banning Interceptors from using them entirely doesn't seem particularly beneficial or necessary.
Sydious
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2015-09-11 20:04:18 UTC
These changes are a good step towards addressing null-sec's concerns. Good job team five-o.
Sporx Utensil
Colossus Enterprises
#14 - 2015-09-11 20:05:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Sporx Utensil
really, really good and sensible changes. the fatigue cap is GREAT.

good job listening. well done CCP. (Please keep making it better)

edit: I would eventually like to see the fatigue cap at 3 days max. That's all it needs (return jump not possible, et al)
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#15 - 2015-09-11 20:07:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Reppyk
We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself.

Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Straight

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#16 - 2015-09-11 20:08:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
foz braek gam
kil BL kil pizza
no rmt for babushka
fir foz
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#17 - 2015-09-11 20:11:29 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself.

Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Straight

Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#18 - 2015-09-11 20:14:29 UTC
Querns wrote:
Reppyk wrote:
We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself.

Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Straight

Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest?
Have you considered patrolling your own space ?

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-09-11 20:14:59 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
You guys realize that the entire reason Interceptors came to dominate the Entosis meta was their combination of survivability and expandability, right? They would never have enjoyed the level of popularity they achieved if fitting and using Entosis links wasn't an unqualified de-buff in every respect.


The reason Interceptors have dominated is because the ability to warp before a hostile lock is possible and simultaneously ignore bubbles is effctively granting yourself a no-PVP flag in what is supposedly a de-restricted PVP environment. That their ability to take sov is being written out is the removal of the cherry on the cake, but they're still dumb and broken.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2015-09-11 20:15:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Khan Wrenth
Atrum Veneficus wrote:
These are all good changes. In general I think "ban x feature from y ship" is at best a band-aid, but it's a good first start.


I have to agree with this. A number of different options could have had the same effect while having a much more broader positive change. Like, increased align time, mass increase, no prop mod activation, and reduced top speed (a little of each, not a lot of each) would have prevented the problems with interceptors trolling sov, as well as other slippery targets, while still letting interceptors be viable for capping sov for uncontested or grid-controlled areas.

Also I think the new jump fatigue cap is interesting...but perhaps too generous? From the blog...

Quote:
a player who is mostly active on the weekend will have fully recovered from one weekend by the next


Isn't that precisely what jump fatigue was supposed to prevent? A player who can jump around as much as he desires during his prime time, and it's all gone by the next time he plays, somewhat (not totally) defeats the purpose of the fatigue in the first place.

"We want to limit power projection, but gosh darn, it would be so un-swell to inconvenience someone like that"

How's about a slight adjustment to a full 7 day cap? One full week cap seems to be closer to what the fatigue was supposed to do in the first place without being too punishing. You're already bringing it down from 30 days, so 7 is still a big positive difference for cap owners.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
123Next pageLast page