These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Next set of Sov and Capital Movement Iterations

First post First post
Author
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#181 - 2015-09-12 15:36:50 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."

1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).

2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.


corrected for accuracy.

Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#182 - 2015-09-12 15:42:06 UTC
Maybe they voluntarily paint everything in a particular light...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#183 - 2015-09-12 16:21:34 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
With the max. Fatigue reduced to 5 days, will the max. jump drive cooldown also be reduced to the equivalent time or stay at 3 days when you reach max. Fatigue?



max reactivation will be capped at 12 hours
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
#184 - 2015-09-12 18:44:57 UTC
It's a start with the prevention of trollceptors but perhaps I'm missing something because I still don't see how these changes rebalance the sov mechanic towards forcing the attacker to commit to a fight. Trollceptors were simply a tool used due to the flaw in the overall Sov system and Interceptors will simply be traded out for very fast Faction Frigs instead.

This goes to the heart of the problem with the new sov system. Under Dominion Sov, due to having to grind through Hit Points, an attacker would not commit to such an act unless they were serious about attempting to remove the defender from their space. That underlying commitment has been completely removed in this new system in favour of allowing the attacker to attack on a whim and it's the aspect of the new sov mechanic that needs to be changed. In short, make it so that attacking Sov is a serious undertaking that requires commitment to your cause and not something that's done purely to **** off the defender.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.

Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#185 - 2015-09-12 19:31:41 UTC
Quote:
It will no longer be possible to online Entosis Links on Interceptors

Well done !

Without listening to a(ny) of the goons and others, or that (in game) poser Mittens,

you will not nerf the Interceptors ship roles into the ground, e.g. bubble nullification Cool

Quote:
Ability to self-destruct sov structures

Voting for UAxDEATH seems to pay off, or at least his fellow russians in game rioting Cool

Quote:
The Parallax release will also contain a significant iteration to the Jump Fatigue mechanic.
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


Even after that less then stellar hosting of CCP/CSM Round Table: Jump Fatigue compared to previous CSM Townhalls,

you are still listen to constructive player based feedback, and implementing them asap, +1 CCP Fozzie & co Cool


Regards, a Freelancer

PS: CSM Little Things - Jayne's List

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#186 - 2015-09-12 19:31:57 UTC
+1 on proposed changes to trollceptors and jump fatigue.

However, eliminating only trollceptors will just result in another FOTM Entosis Link subcap troll ship. It would be more logical that Entosis Links should be *extremely large and power-hungry* devices which only can be mounted on supercaps - thus, forcing supercaps to always be risked and committed in every attempt to change sov. Mounting an Entosis Link should also severely compromise the offensive power of the supercap, ex. requiring sacrificing the DD on Titans and the fighters on SCs.

Yes, this is yet another suggestion to try to help defeat supercap proliferation.... :)

Side note: It never made any sense that sov could be theoretically achieved by a couple of small subcap ships, just because the Entosis Link would fit on a ceptor. At the very least, achieving sov should require using battleships.
Colman Dietmar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2015-09-12 19:41:13 UTC
You know, come to think of it, why not limit entosis link to battleships and larger?

It would solve two problems at the same time: trolling and general uncommitted behavior will cease, and battleships will gain a stable role in the new sov system. It may also serve as incentive to bring capitals, since capitals can be used against battleship fleets.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#188 - 2015-09-12 20:26:25 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:

  • 5 hour jump fatigue cap is good, and keeps the shock value without missing the point.
  • No Intytoaster is placating to a red herring (and almost says as much in the way it was presented)
  • The passive regen is too much, should be days not hours, and certainly not minutes
  • SOV dropping should also be hours not minutes, but definitely not days



5 Day cap.

Which means a 12 hour cooldown cap.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#189 - 2015-09-12 20:26:33 UTC
Colman Dietmar wrote:
You know, come to think of it, why not limit entosis link to battleships and larger?

It would solve two problems at the same time: trolling and general uncommitted behavior will cease, and battleships will gain a stable role in the new sov system. It may also serve as incentive to bring capitals, since capitals can be used against battleship fleets.


Because wormholes are a thing.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#190 - 2015-09-12 20:30:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Was there ever consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?

I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship?

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#191 - 2015-09-12 20:45:55 UTC
Akballah Kassan wrote:
Can a Dev just clarify something when an entosis capture event occurs -

Does one attacker capturing a node stop the defensive reset on all the nodes in the constellation or does every node now need an entosis ship attacking it to stop the rewind?

Each Command Node is independent of the others; They are captured independently and will regenerate independently. So it is answer (b) - if a ship is currently capturing one node, any other nodes that are being left alone will regenerate towards the defender.

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

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#192 - 2015-09-12 20:54:36 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Akballah Kassan wrote:
Can a Dev just clarify something when an entosis capture event occurs -

Does one attacker capturing a node stop the defensive reset on all the nodes in the constellation or does every node now need an entosis ship attacking it to stop the rewind?

Each Command Node is independent of the others; They are captured independently and will regenerate independently. So it is answer (b) - if a ship is currently capturing one node, any other nodes that are being left alone will regenerate towards the defender.

I think that is too strong. It is basically a couple of free defenders. I thought the point was to undo the damage caused by trolls, not to make it harder to take sov.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#193 - 2015-09-12 20:57:10 UTC
I am disappointed at the way this balance pass is handled. There are no doubts that all items in this announcement needed some tweakings, but CCP is swinging the pendulum way too far, when their processes are all designed to iterate with smaller touches.


Forbidding interceptors from Entosis is a significant step back from the original design goal. It also helps the established powers more than anybody else, so this is a one sided balance pass.

The reduction of maximum speed to 4k was a good step (even if stasis effects should have been based on current max speed and not theorical max speed). Why ban entosis on interceptors, where other cheap frigates can reach 4k and keep the entosis? because they do not have the nullification property. So this is clearly their nullification properties that set the interceptors apart from the other frigates, trigering this heavy handed removal.

The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose, as it is a great complement to the 10 jump clones they can already have per toon. This is the less visible power projection tool that the game still has, and it favors largely the bigger groups, veterans and power players groups.
By choosing an entosis ban for intys over a rework of their nullification capabilities, CCP has caved into delivering a tweak that is mostly benefiting current ñull sec sov holders. If interdiction nullification of interceptors had been nerfed, all play styles would have been affected in some ways, while achieving the goal needed (i.e. making it more difficult to bring entosis behind enemies defense lines).


The regeneration of uncontested assets was another needed tweak to the Aegis Sov. Some groups out there are skirmishers, with no intent of taking sov. Other groups are sov holders, and the tediousness of restoring sov via entosis after skirmishes has been highlighted previously and is an obvious issue.

A first pass to cut down the nodes in half as well as slightly reduce the time it takes to entosis nodes and station services has been done in Galatea. This second pass introduces the regeneration of assets in favor of the defender. This is fair and expected. But what is completely out of whack are the times introduced in that pass! The regeneration is too fast. In less than 6 hours after nodes spawning, a system can revert to normal after an attack!

This will kill the sirmisher play style, to the delight of current sov holders. Without skirmishers we are going to go back to the stagnation of the blue donut. The rapid regeneration of assets will make any effort to entosis as a skirmish tactic useless, as there will be no real need to intervene for the defender. Everything will go back to normal in a day or two, maybe three, without lifting a finger.

The timers should have been set to provide at least a few week long disturbances to the sov owner, with a much much slower regeneration to start with, and a clear benefit of being active to entosis assets back. Furthermore, by announcing such short times, CCP is shooting themselves in the foot and not taking advantage of their iterative capabilities. It is better to start with higher numbers that are slowly adjusted based on data and actual in game behavior analysis rather than going with low numbers, as increasing these numbers after announcing them is psychologically more damaging to the overall approach.
I understand CCP may have been burned by the voices out there that called for nerfing the ishtar faster, and it took a few months to get it right, but the "I told you so three months ago" are just vociferous individualities that should be ignored as extreme. Someone will always say the right thing X months before the others, but identifying the right balance for the majority among a very large number of forecasters can only be done by measured adjustments each time, followed up by data and in-game behaviors analysis over time.


I kept the reduction of max Jump Fatigue from 30 days to 5 days as the last bit of disappointing changes coming up. Again, the numbers are swinging too far in the low side. Nobody reasonable contests that the 30 days jump fatigue was a mistake. Economically, it also prompted accounts to be unsubbed for the duration of one month, probably leading to financial losses for CCP. But the concept of jūmp fatigue has been proven to benefit the game in general, at the expense of a minority of multi-alts veteran power players. There are no doubts capital piloting is the end-game, and getting a player off their capital ships for 30 days was overkill. But changing it to five days and letting players again spam capitals unbridled every week will be detrimental to the game, and kill the current fragile changes that have started to take places. Again, why not try reducing it to 14 or 15 days and see how it goes first?!


I do not know if this approach to balance is specific to a single team or reflects on CCP as a whole. I hope someone at CCP still has the power to make sure the balancing does not start to swing widly again. My impression is that these changes, if the numbers are kept as they are, will singlehandely remove all the skirmishes potential that is a valid play style for the 50mill to 100mill skill points players that do not want to simply be an income stream for some other older player.
Skirmishers are the only way in game that smaller entities can nip at larger ones to slowly weaken them. Kept as it is announced, this update will make skirmishing a waste of time and resources.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Patrick Yaa
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#194 - 2015-09-12 21:00:32 UTC
How about a "grace period" before nodes regenerate, maybe of 2x-5x the cycle time needed to start the capture.
This would provide time for an attacker which is aggressed by the defenders to fight them off and start recapping, without losing his progress.
At the same time this would help defenders keep the sov, if noone is actually attacking or they manage to fend off the attackers/keep them engaged and off capturing.

Regen speeds would need to be adjusted accordingly.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#195 - 2015-09-12 21:03:02 UTC
Patrick Yaa wrote:
How about a "grace period" before nodes regenerate, maybe of 2x-5x the cycle time needed to start the capture.
This would provide time for an attacker which is aggressed by the defenders to fight them off and start recapping, without losing his progress.
At the same time this would help defenders keep the sov, if noone is actually attacking or they manage to fend off the attackers/keep them engaged and off capturing.

Regen speeds would need to be adjusted accordingly.


This seems resonable
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#196 - 2015-09-12 21:08:21 UTC
Patrick Yaa wrote:
How about a "grace period" before nodes regenerate, maybe of 2x-5x the cycle time needed to start the capture.
This would provide time for an attacker which is aggressed by the defenders to fight them off and start recapping, without losing his progress.
At the same time this would help defenders keep the sov, if noone is actually attacking or they manage to fend off the attackers/keep them engaged and off capturing.

Regen speeds would need to be adjusted accordingly.

Yeah, I like this.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#197 - 2015-09-12 21:30:58 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
...
Side note: It never made any sense that sov could be theoretically achieved by a couple of small subcap ships, just because the Entosis Link would fit on a ceptor. At the very least, achieving sov should require using battleships.


there are multiple example in history where small group skirmishers brought down a seemingly unstoppable giant over time.

Tne minutemen of American independance wars are such an example. I am sure the british generals at the time were wondering why tney did not bring up any regular troops against them so that they could squash them more easily with their superior military might....

your real goal with such side note is to insert mechanics in the game that will prevent these skirmishers to grow up until they can become a full force threatening your interests in the first place.

What some see as skirmishing is easily labelled as trolling by others. This depends on your viewpoints and personal interests.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Akballah Kassan
Flames Of Chaos
Great Wildlands Conservation Society
#198 - 2015-09-12 23:25:43 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Akballah Kassan wrote:
Can a Dev just clarify something when an entosis capture event occurs -

Does one attacker capturing a node stop the defensive reset on all the nodes in the constellation or does every node now need an entosis ship attacking it to stop the rewind?

Each Command Node is independent of the others; They are captured independently and will regenerate independently. So it is answer (b) - if a ship is currently capturing one node, any other nodes that are being left alone will regenerate towards the defender.


I think that is a poor change.

Role back if nobody attacks fair enough, but as long as somebody is attacking a node there shouldn't be any role back on the other timers.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#199 - 2015-09-13 00:03:01 UTC
Querns wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."

1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).

2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.


corrected for accuracy.

Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light.


What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:

"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."

By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#200 - 2015-09-13 00:33:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Was there ever consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?

I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship?


Why, if its not going to be significant what's the point ?

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.