These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

SOV tearing down the old.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#221 - 2013-10-31 19:49:48 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
mynnna wrote:

Larger entities will have such tools too. Use them on someone else as a little lone wolf and you'd better be damn sure you can handle the retaliation.

This is what I mean when I say total small-entity lone wolfing will never be a reality. Sooner or later they'd try to take on someone bigger than them, or someone with friends, and get squashed because they have none.

It's trivial to come up with mechanics available to all that would hurt large entities far more than smaller entities. Example:

Sovereign Concord Constellation Corrupter Unit
If online in any system of a constellation at downtime, increase sov bills for all systems (regardless of owner) in the constellation to 1 billion isk/day.
Cost : 50,000 isk and 500 concord LP.

Now a small entity holding one or two systems could easily afford to be subjected to the above. A coalition with the largest JB network in the game that holds many hundreds of systems? Nope.

Trivially easy to come up with, horribly unbalanced, and a terrible idea. But it would hurt the larger entities far, far more than any emerging smaller entities. The point here was to demonstrate an idea/feature that a larger entity could not leverage successfully against a smaller entity.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#222 - 2013-10-31 21:15:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
mynnna wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
As mynna correctly pointed out, small lone wolf sov holders were never really a thing. If ccp wants to change that, then smaller entities need to be able to have ways to do non-negligible damage to larger entities. As long as smaller entities have no meaningful way of harming the larger entities, sov will remain the exclusive domain of the larger coalitions.



Larger entities will have such tools too. Use them on someone else as a little lone wolf and you'd better be damn sure you can handle the retaliation.

This is what I mean when I say diplomacy will never not be a thing, that total lone wolves would always run into problems. Sooner or later they'd try to take on someone bigger than them, or someone with friends, and get squashed because they have none. Or, we don't even have to talk about "overwhelming force." Perhaps they're proficient enough to hold their own, but their neighbor to the other side gets opportunistic and tag-teams them, or whatever. Diplomacy doesn't always mean blue lists, after all.


One of the issues is that currently a small entity even with friends cannot do anything tro hurt a larger entity, and if they do its like sticking a pin in a Rhino. At this moment its wham bang down goes the sov, what options do I have, return to high sec, there is no chance to even resist in terms of sov, now the siphon for all its issues is one way, using the personal structures as mobile bases is another, but the next stage should be to concentrate on the lower level systems that are not used. I thought CCP having focuused on making the better systems as combat drivers should also thing about differentiating the low truesec systems. I like what Yeep suggested on the Mittani.com forum, and I think you get it too.

The thing is to make more Walltreipers, people who will fight tooth and nail for their space, that has to be good for Eve, its not good for the game to have people do an IRC every time they are attacked... I gave up on IRC when half of my fleet were spies!!!

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
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#223 - 2013-10-31 21:18:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Jenn aSide wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.


+1

Nor should they. "SOV" holding is for groups, SOV null is group space. Solo and small group players have low sec, 2/3rds of wormhole space, NPC null and high sec to play in.

No one is arguing that small groups should be able to take Sov and keep it. Nor is anyone arguing that small groups should be able to beat large alliances.

The issue is the requirement for anyone who tries to kill a POS, or even a 100 million isk POCO to not only stop the attack at 25% but to come back 24 hours later to get face stomped.

The issue is also the automatic mails that get sent, which large alliances should not need, since they are large alliances. The emphasis should be on player gathered intelligence.

The issue is also that a small group, who does try to blow up a POS, or even a 100 million isk POCO can be facestomped by a fleet of caps and supercaps stationed the other side of the galaxy and those caps can be back at base by dinner time.

Change that and it makes it more dynamic, player created content. Don't change it and its easy mode for the alliances and completely impossible for everyone else.

And Sov null is not for large alliances only, its for everyone, sure we can't take Sov but taking Sov is not important, creating conflict is what EvE is about. I know you would love to be able to rat all day in safe null Jenn, but that's just not going to happen, you have highsec for that.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Ginger Barbarella
#224 - 2013-10-31 22:13:46 UTC
NERF AFK CLOAKERS!!!


Oh, wait, wut?

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
SpaceSaft
Almost Dangerous
Wolves Amongst Strangers
#225 - 2013-10-31 22:46:04 UTC  |  Edited by: SpaceSaft
I don't have a lot of experience in SOV and the surrounding mechanics so please do correct me if I got them wrong. Here's how it looks like to me:

EvE just downright lacks a proper method for players, corps or alliances to project force in an area. This might seem wrong at first sight. There is SOV, there are jump bridges and if necessary alliances can show up anywhere in their territory to defend it, right? But the issues I read about in this thread all point to it, like the timer vs. timezone thing and the jump bridge cost idea.

When fights happen, they are very very local, they are around a POS, at a major site like a gate or at the location of an ambush. When you fight for or against anything in EvE, it doesn't make sense to spread out in the system (besides some safe spotted combat scanners or setting up a new ambush at another concentrated location). All that would do is reduce your effectiveness of your main fleet. Neither does it make sense to spread out across multiple systems for the same reason. That's why having a home system makes sense. It's also why all attempts to make a makro location based strategy fail.

That's not a problem with SOV though, it's a problem how fights with more than a couple of people involved are done in EvE. They are a big part of what's special in EvE so they probably shouldn't be discouraged.

I see the new deployable structures as a step to start avoiding this dilemma: they introduce things that are of interest to both factions but aren't crucial or expensive enough to justify large scale deployments to attack or defend them. If they aren't hackable sometime in the future that would be a major missed opportunity btw. So maybe that would be an idea? Incentivise small scale activities in systems you own or that you want to keep or conquer. Maybe not as a requirement to hold them but as some kind of boni for the owner? Not sure on this one.

What also needs to be talked about are the tools EvE provides to corps and players right now. Getting a notification that your stuff is being hit is necessary it wouldn't make sense any other way. Not being able to jam that traffic however doesn't. Same goes for Local chat. There should be a way to detect obvious presences in the system, but do they have to be instantaneous and unavoidable? It does make sense that your ships sensors can detect jumps or other high energy activities but does the information really have to be as exact as Local chat or D-scan provide right now? Wouldn't a low information notice form the system scanner be way more fun than seeing a local spike with intel about who, probably what and how many is coming for you? The amount or accuracy of intel could be buffed by deployable scanner structures.

Also as a side note I think both sides of the POS attack timer have a point. So I have no idea how to resolve the core problem.

These would be my thoughts on the topic. Thanks for reading.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#226 - 2013-10-31 23:14:21 UTC
We spend so much time arguing over how to get there and no one really asks themselves, "What exactly is there?"

Obviously this will vary from person to person, but I am really interested in what 'there' means to each of you.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#227 - 2013-11-01 00:46:34 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
We spend so much time arguing over how to get there and no one really asks themselves, "What exactly is there?"

Obviously this will vary from person to person, but I am really interested in what 'there' means to each of you.


Yeep wrote:

People should want to live in the space they own but shouldn't be forced to
The default level of defense for sovereignty should be low (much lower than it is now)
Alliances should be able to increase the defenses of their systems if they want but at an ISK and human cost
Alliances should be free to decide how important a system is to them
Where timers are necessary (and they are necessary) there should be room for human error in setting them
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#228 - 2013-11-01 00:57:34 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Where timers are necessary (and they are necessary) there should be room for human error in setting them

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but I was wondering if you would go more in depth on why timers and maybe other things should be subject to human error? The pros and cons as you see it.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#229 - 2013-11-01 00:58:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.


If you want to fight, but you don't want to shoot dominion structures, you can rent on a border.

Given most rentals are in fact on borders, that is not a problem at all. Even a dedicated bear like me reships and drops combat ships on neuts, and there are 3 pipes in Vale I could patrol if i was trying to make 1v1s or 2v2s vs 'matar hull skirmishers and other fast ships - it would probably take me 30 minutes on average in my lowpop TZ to get a fight without actually leaving Vale if I was actively seeking it.

I'm actually very happy with the rental system, as that is a player-driven solution that CCP could probably not improve on. Its even quite responsive to player market forces, as the addition of better quality CFC rental space caused drone rentals to fall to as low as 500m/mo.

---

The real problem is that most null space is low-band true sec, and low-band truesec scales negatively to local population increases. ie I would like to recruit a 20 man "in my timezone" corp for the purposes of developing a blackops gang, but if I concentrate players into a TZ, then nobody gets any sigs, and the tolerable anomolies run out, so that I would have 15 players on less than mission income, who still have to reship or dock when neuts and reds show up. ie I'd have to recruit people that can't count, or I'd have to recruit people spread over TZs who can't play together.

The prisoners dilemma is in fact that 1100 or so nullsec systems are actually single occupant dwellings, and they don't offer an occupant any material advantage for adding more occupants. As I said in another thread, I'd lose 1.6b/mo by adding 1 extra person to my corp (I can show you the maths for that if you want to understand it).
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#230 - 2013-11-01 01:18:51 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.


If you want to fight, but you don't want to shoot dominion structures, you can rent on a border.

Given most rentals are in fact on borders, that is not a problem at all. Even a dedicated bear like me reships and drops combat ships on neuts, and there are 3 pipes in Vale I could patrol if i was trying to make 1v1s or 2v2s vs 'matar hull skirmishers and other fast ships - it would probably take me 30 minutes on average in my lowpop TZ to get a fight without actually leaving Vale if I was actively seeking it.

I'm actually very happy with the rental system, as that is a player-driven solution that CCP could probably not improve on. Its even quite responsive to player market forces, as the addition of better quality CFC rental space caused drone rentals to fall to as low as 500m/mo.

---

The real problem is that most null space is low-band true sec, and low-band truesec scales negatively to local population increases. ie I would like to recruit a 20 man "in my timezone" corp for the purposes of developing a blackops gang, but if I concentrate players into a TZ, then nobody gets any sigs, and the tolerable anomolies run out, so that I would have 15 players on less than mission income, who still have to reship or dock when neuts and reds show up. ie I'd have to recruit people that can't count, or I'd have to recruit people spread over TZs who can't play together.

The prisoners dilemma is in fact that 1100 or so nullsec systems are actually single occupant dwellings, and they don't offer an occupant any material advantage for adding more occupants. As I said in another thread, I'd lose 1.6b/mo by adding 1 extra person to my corp (I can show you the maths for that if you want to understand it).

I prefer to think of it as a mechanic created problem...

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#231 - 2013-11-01 01:21:20 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Yeep wrote:
The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.


This is key. The mechanics could one day enable small guys to hold space, but they won't be long for the world if they're entirely friendless. Short of taking a huge steaming dump in the sandbox, there's little CCP can do to remove "diplomacy" as a requirement for success in holding sov null. Doesn't mean having a huge perma-blue list, of course - a bunch of small alliances on "frenemies" status, where they shoot each other (without attacking sov) but cooperate to repel outside invaders could work, for example.


If you want to fight, but you don't want to shoot dominion structures, you can rent on a border.

Given most rentals are in fact on borders, that is not a problem at all. Even a dedicated bear like me reships and drops combat ships on neuts, and there are 3 pipes in Vale I could patrol if i was trying to make 1v1s or 2v2s vs 'matar hull skirmishers and other fast ships - it would probably take me 30 minutes on average in my lowpop TZ to get a fight without actually leaving Vale if I was actively seeking it.

Wait a sec, are you from that rental corp that killed enemy capitals?

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 ?
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#232 - 2013-11-01 02:46:56 UTC
Nah, I'm a 3 man corp, me, my alt and my alt, though I was amused at the rorq kill went it got linked.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#233 - 2013-11-01 02:58:46 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I prefer to think of it as a mechanic created problem...


Yes, and the causation mechanic you refer to is spelled ...

Loyalty Points.
Seras VictoriaX
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2013-11-01 03:03:33 UTC
I actually agree to removing timers.

1) there are clearly enough people in alliances to cover 24/7

2) For anyone who is saying they want to come home from work and play, no timers actually makes this easier for you. Think of it from the attacking perspective. You come home from work, you and your friends jump online, form a small gang, and go roaming wrecking peoples stuff.


All the "forced to do this" "Forced to do that" arguments are weak. No matter what the rules in eve your "forced/ not forced" Every mechanic in eve "forces/non-choice" in the same way. "Im forced to wait 10 seconds to redock" "Im forced to not warp off when im scramed" "Im forced to wake up at 3am for a timer"etc etc.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#235 - 2013-11-01 03:11:22 UTC
Yes the entire time I'd play after work would be anchoring structures to spam safety hitpoints to last overnight, and any day I didn't get my **** shot down, I'd be doubling up the **** to make it twice as hard for the attackers tomorrow. Be just like "great war" pos spam all over again.

its been done, it sucked.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#236 - 2013-11-01 04:16:05 UTC
Yeah, grind a whole region overnight. Sounds great.

Well until there's just no sov left because it's not worth the effort, but hey success right, no blue donut

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#237 - 2013-11-01 04:17:23 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Yes the entire time I'd play after work would be anchoring structures to spam safety hitpoints to last overnight, and any day I didn't get my **** shot down, I'd be doubling up the **** to make it twice as hard for the attackers tomorrow. Be just like "great war" pos spam all over again.

its been done, it sucked.

It won't though? Like structures can be killed pretty damn fast nowadays. Just a few minutes to destroy and ihub / tcu and then sov gets reset.

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 ?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#238 - 2013-11-01 04:21:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Tauranon wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I prefer to think of it as a mechanic created problem...


Yes, and the causation mechanic you refer to is spelled ...

Loyalty Points.

Where I live we spell it differently. I think anyone who's directly benefiting from those problem mechanics would have to be a little biased, that would be you btw.


Alavaria Fera wrote:
Tauranon wrote:
Yes the entire time I'd play after work would be anchoring structures to spam safety hitpoints to last overnight, and any day I didn't get my **** shot down, I'd be doubling up the **** to make it twice as hard for the attackers tomorrow. Be just like "great war" pos spam all over again.

its been done, it sucked.

It won't though? Like structures can be killed pretty damn fast nowadays. Just a few minutes to destroy and ihub / tcu and then sov gets reset.

Gosh I wonder why that's happening... could it be.... caps, jump bridges, trivial force projection...

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2013-11-01 04:42:22 UTC
Seras VictoriaX wrote:
I actually agree to removing timers.

1) there are clearly enough people in alliances to cover 24/7

2) For anyone who is saying they want to come home from work and play, no timers actually makes this easier for you. Think of it from the attacking perspective. You come home from work, you and your friends jump online, form a small gang, and go roaming wrecking peoples stuff.


All the "forced to do this" "Forced to do that" arguments are weak. No matter what the rules in eve your "forced/ not forced" Every mechanic in eve "forces/non-choice" in the same way. "Im forced to wait 10 seconds to redock" "Im forced to not warp off when im scramed" "Im forced to wake up at 3am for a timer"etc etc.


So what stops 35000 raging clusterfuckians from going on a tear? Remember that everyone's stuff is in the stations. PL/N3 ground 200 systems in 24 hours under the current mechanics.......

Remove the timers and everyone would be fighting over NPC space or just moving to empire.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#240 - 2013-11-01 04:43:33 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Gosh I wonder why that's happening... could it be.... caps, jump bridges, trivial force projection...

So the solution is to make it take 6hrs for a small gang of people to kill that same structure....

You need to think about this for a minute. If you want to help smaller entities, you need to develop a change/mechanic that fcks over large entities without significantly screwing over the little guy. Nerfing jump drives hurts EVERYONE, and it hurts the little guy way more than the big guy.