These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Eve Down Under Bombshell: No Sov overhaul until at least Winter 2014

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#581 - 2013-12-05 00:55:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

What point?



Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

The fact that you got ganked despite fitting a tank is neither here nor there


Bolded my point that you seem to have gotten despite stating otherwise.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

The tools are already in the sandbox, you just have to choose to use them.


Not disagreeing with you. The point of my post was to counter the argument that people were ganking barges for profit or that fitting a tank was going to prevent a gank. Basically it was merely trying to shut up stupid people bitching about others complaining about getting ganked.

Yes I got your point, it doesn't make it valid. Miners who fit a non lolworthy tank are most definitely in the minority when it comes to being the victims of suicide ganking. Miners who can't be bothered are the majority, and when they get ganked they scream and shout like small children, all the while wondering why people see them as tear faucets. Unfortunately the other miners who do bother to fit a tank get tarred with the same brush as the probably afk hordes who cry and whine.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#582 - 2013-12-05 01:06:35 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
My point stands regardless of the barge having a tank like mine or none at all. Ganking barges wasn't really ever about profit, its about tears. Pretty much always has been that way and always will be that.

My point was that the "tank or no tank" argument is entirely stupid and meaningless because people are still ganking barges today despite loosing money because of huge tanks.

So if people are still ganking tanks like mine today, then whats the point to fit a tank in the first place? This why is 90% of those fits are crap. It doesn't matter one iota what people fit.

people were and still do gank for profit. you're less likely to get ganked for profit in a barge now, but it can still happen if you're stupid enough. failing to fit a tank with your t2 strips before the buffs meant you almost definitely were gankable for profit. fitting a tank would always deter those after profit because it made you unprofitable. and fitting a tank still deters gankers in it for the laughs.

if you don't understand why, it's not worth explaining to you. your assertion that your loss to a dozen destroyers means that 'barge ehp is still a balance issue' points to you not comprehending that gankers do not have unlimited resources, that gankers cannot hit whatever they desire and indicates that you wouldn't be pleased unless barges were invincible
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#583 - 2013-12-05 01:16:54 UTC
Here is a simple fact for you all to think about:

If a group can fully deploy from one side of the game to the extreme opposite, help another group defend a system from invaders and return back to their home before anyone had a chance to take a system from them...

The sov system is doomed to fail.

Currently it takes days to invade and conquer a system. Moving a capital fleet from one side of the game to the other just takes minutes. These are cold hard facts. Even after the warp speed changes; capital ships are still the fastest traveling ships in the game.

No spin, no political agenda. Just the truth.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#584 - 2013-12-05 01:31:27 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Here is a simple fact for you all to think about:

If a group can fully deploy from one side of the game to the extreme opposite, help another group defend a system from invaders and return back to their home before anyone had a chance to take a system from them...

The sov system is doomed to fail.

Currently it takes days to invade and conquer a system. Moving a capital fleet from one side of the game to the other just takes minutes. These are cold hard facts. Even after the warp speed changes; capital ships are still the fastest traveling ships in the game.

No spin, no political agenda. Just the truth.

you must explain why travel affects the design success of the sovereignty system and how the sov design would fail

otherwise i have to chalk this up as you being angry about goons again
Valterra Craven
#585 - 2013-12-05 01:35:59 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

people were and still do gank for profit. you're less likely to get ganked for profit in a barge now, but it can still happen if you're stupid enough. failing to fit a tank with your t2 strips before the buffs meant you almost definitely were gankable for profit. fitting a tank would always deter those after profit because it made you unprofitable. and fitting a tank still deters gankers in it for the laughs.


No, ganking barges for profit was stupid before and after. its gonna take at least 2-3 ships worth of chars and mods to do it, and barges carry almost nothing of real value, especially if they aren't fitted for tank (aka no t2 invuls etc) You have a the chances are if you are in a crap fit ship you also aren't using expensive mining lasers either on ships like a procuror etc.

Benny Ohu wrote:

if you don't understand why, it's not worth explaining to you. your assertion that your loss to a dozen destroyers means that 'barge ehp is still a balance issue' points to you not comprehending that gankers do not have unlimited resources, that gankers cannot hit whatever they desire and indicates that you wouldn't be pleased unless barges were invincible


The balance issue is not an in game one. I miss spoke on that one. I should have said that the issue is of people thinking that fitting tanks on barges does anything.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#586 - 2013-12-05 01:43:23 UTC
you could gank an idiot in a hulk with a single t1 destroyer and profit off the drops. which were usually 3 t2 strip miners and cargo expanders, nothing else. you're underestimating just how easy hulk pilots made it for gankers.

fitting tanks on barges does do something because gankers do not care who they shoot and they have limited resources. there's always another stupid miner who didn't fit a tank.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#587 - 2013-12-05 08:54:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Man, I love when a 2nd hand summary of a quick comment becomes the new word from on high Lol
xttz made an excellent post so I'll use a response to it as my clarification:

xttz wrote:
Rainbow Dash wrote:
Everyone wants sov to be revamped, but no one has a good idea how.


Reiisha wrote:
Instead of complaining about it, why not offer solutions that could actually work? CCP is just a stumped about it as you guys and are looking for a proper way to do it.


We're kind of stuck in a catch-22 right now. We do have people making big, sweeping suggestions on what to do with sov and null-sec - some of these ideas are good, others aren't so much. However the troubling issue is that rather than bite the bullet and move forward with them, CCP are absolutely terrified of making any changes beyond little stat tweaks (more factory slots in outposts, woop woop).

I've tried to help break out of this cycle by proposing a package of changes in Digin's thread that instead focuses on one aspect of sovereignty. These changes address many common complaints about sov warfare (making it easier to understand, reducing structure grind) in a way that is small enough to be handled and tested within one expansion cycle. The idea is to modify existing game mechanics in a way that doesn't break everything else connected to it.

Once implemented, CCP are then free to come back and look at other aspects of null-sec in similarly manageable chunks. They can then follow up by overhauling other components, such as:

  • What factors cause sov levels to rise (such as player activity in local, producing items nearby, etc)
  • Income rebalance - how ratting, anomalies, mining, PI and other activities interact with sov.
  • Taxation - how alliances gather income from their territory
  • Upgradability - what improvements can be made by owners of territory to leave their mark on their space
  • Objectives - what reasons do people have to take sov?


There's no reason why sovereignty can't be broken down and focused on as one aspect at a time. We didn't have all ships rebalanced at once, V3 textures weren't all done in one expansion, and hell we didn't even get all Captains Quarters in the same patch.

What CCP need to be doing is to stop putting things off out of fear of change, bite off a chunk of the sov system, and chew on it until they're done. Then take the next bite.


Working on sov in chunks is exactly the plan. The close to exact words I used at Down Under were "Summer won't have everything you're hoping for". What I was trying to convey was exactly the fact that this is not a project we're going to be putting in one giant patch. That's been the plan for quite a while now, and was the plan we were working from when we released Odyssey (you may remember some slight changes to nullsec in that patch Lol). We will keep working in that same way, taking on 0.0 gameplay improvements in layers and iterations.

The chunk we are attacking in Summer 2014 is not the specific mechanics for taking systems. That comes a bit later in the plan. Part of our post-mortem from Dominion was the realization that CCP had looked at sov with too narrow of a focus, leading to a release that caused as many problems as it solved (another part of that post-mortem was "**** HP based objectives").

Summer 2014 will improve some targeted parts of nullsec mechanics (as well as other areas of space) and will get us ever closer to the patch that drops changes to the flashy conquering mechanics that are often mistakenly considered the only "sovereignty rework" that matters.



Just a question. Is current CCP view to mantain only super flarge fleets relevant to achieve tactical warfare objectives? Or does CCP acknowledge that some objectives, or warfare mechanisms that do not need 200 people to achieve are interestign and benefical to gameplay?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#588 - 2013-12-05 08:58:34 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Here is a simple fact for you all to think about:

If a group can fully deploy from one side of the game to the extreme opposite, help another group defend a system from invaders and return back to their home before anyone had a chance to take a system from them...

The sov system is doomed to fail.

Currently it takes days to invade and conquer a system. Moving a capital fleet from one side of the game to the other just takes minutes. These are cold hard facts. Even after the warp speed changes; capital ships are still the fastest traveling ships in the game.

No spin, no political agenda. Just the truth.

you must explain why travel affects the design success of the sovereignty system and how the sov design would fail

otherwise i have to chalk this up as you being angry about goons again



Its pretty obvious up to the point he does not need to expalin.

THe fact that traveling with all your forces do not let you anywhere open to be struck in your backyard just emphasizes the NEED of huge powerblocs. There is never a reason to not help your "allies". There is no real risk on that approach.

If was possible to cripple infrastructure ( dont need to be able to take a system) in a single day attacking a regionthat was left undefended, alliances would have to keep their engagement range much smaller. Or they would have to leave a sizeable ammount of their forces on defense.

He is right, the extremely long time needed to do ANY damage to anything relevant , coupled with the immense size of the fleet needed, makes extremely inconsequential a deployment on other side of map.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#589 - 2013-12-05 09:12:30 UTC
ITT highseccers, in falling over each other to defend the indefensible, shore up the status quo at all costs, and post wild conspiracy theories about the Grand Nullsec Eve-Ruiner Cabals, demonstrate just why CCP doesn't pay attention to the forums when making balance decisions.

Some point in the future it will be highsec's turn for a ham-fisted overnerf, and NPC-corp miners and missioners will flock to the forums with cries of "why won't you listen to us before you make decisions this is terrible".

And we will smile, and post links to this thread.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#590 - 2013-12-05 10:08:33 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Here is a simple fact for you all to think about:

If a group can fully deploy from one side of the game to the extreme opposite, help another group defend a system from invaders and return back to their home before anyone had a chance to take a system from them...

The sov system is doomed to fail.

Currently it takes days to invade and conquer a system. Moving a capital fleet from one side of the game to the other just takes minutes. These are cold hard facts. Even after the warp speed changes; capital ships are still the fastest traveling ships in the game.

No spin, no political agenda. Just the truth.

you must explain why travel affects the design success of the sovereignty system and how the sov design would fail

otherwise i have to chalk this up as you being angry about goons again



Its pretty obvious up to the point he does not need to expalin.

THe fact that traveling with all your forces do not let you anywhere open to be struck in your backyard just emphasizes the NEED of huge powerblocs. There is never a reason to not help your "allies". There is no real risk on that approach.

If was possible to cripple infrastructure ( dont need to be able to take a system) in a single day attacking a regionthat was left undefended, alliances would have to keep their engagement range much smaller. Or they would have to leave a sizeable ammount of their forces on defense.

He is right, the extremely long time needed to do ANY damage to anything relevant , coupled with the immense size of the fleet needed, makes extremely inconsequential a deployment on other side of map.

yeah we couldhave burned down all the n3 renter space already if this was the case

instead a long and annoying war in which they use supers on sbus and get caught by dreadnaughts

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
#591 - 2013-12-05 10:10:34 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
ITT highseccers, in falling over each other to defend the indefensible, shore up the status quo at all costs, and post wild conspiracy theories about the Grand Nullsec Eve-Ruiner Cabals, demonstrate just why CCP doesn't pay attention to the forums when making balance decisions.

Some point in the future it will be highsec's turn for a ham-fisted overnerf, and NPC-corp miners and missioners will flock to the forums with cries of "why won't you listen to us before you make decisions this is terrible".

And we will smile, and post links to this thread.

no you won't, it'll be forgotten like all the other threads like it

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 ?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#592 - 2013-12-05 11:22:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Scatim Helicon wrote:
ITT highseccers, in falling over each other to defend the indefensible, shore up the status quo at all costs, and post wild conspiracy theories about the Grand Nullsec Eve-Ruiner Cabals, demonstrate just why CCP doesn't pay attention to the forums when making balance decisions.

Some point in the future it will be highsec's turn for a ham-fisted overnerf, and NPC-corp miners and missioners will flock to the forums with cries of "why won't you listen to us before you make decisions this is terrible".

And we will smile, and post links to this thread.


You are winning Eve, get over it RollShockedBig smile

Are you by any chance a Grrrr hisec?

And a very valid point:

Marlona Sky wrote:
Here is a simple fact for you all to think about:

If a group can fully deploy from one side of the game to the extreme opposite, help another group defend a system from invaders and return back to their home before anyone had a chance to take a system from them...

The sov system is doomed to fail.

Currently it takes days to invade and conquer a system. Moving a capital fleet from one side of the game to the other just takes minutes. These are cold hard facts. Even after the warp speed changes; capital ships are still the fastest traveling ships in the game.

No spin, no political agenda. Just the truth.

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
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#593 - 2013-12-05 12:21:09 UTC
Borachon wrote:
My personal favorite suggestion that I've heard of would be to remove jump bridges (but not titan or blops bridges at first), and make a mobile deployable that stabilized wormholes, preventing their collapse due to mass or time limit being reached. (The size limit imposed by the remaining mass when stabilized would still exist.) Maybe make it anchorable only in 0.0 k-space at minimize its disruptiveness to current w-space play, depending on the thoughts of the w-space crowd. Make the BPC drop in ghost sites.

You'll be blown up by w-space crowd for mentioning stabilizers again, but perhaps increasing amount of k-space to k-space wormholes and actually introducing those stabs but so that you can stabilize only aforementioned k-to-k's could solve the problem.

Jenn aSide wrote:
The problem with messing around with "force projection" is that none of the epic newsworthy super-battles that are the literal jewels in EVE's/CCP's crown could have happened without it.

Easy force/logistical projection has some serious bad aspects, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, remember the good aspects of being able to move about New Eden quickly.

Perhaps it's time for EVE to get news-worthy stuff that can't be summed up like "N thousands lagged in 10% TiDi for 3 hours then node crashed".

I do understand how hard stuff like mining/freighter ops sucked for null people who aren't there to stare at almost static screen/warp effects doing mostly nothing, but sometimes I wonder if sov elements that encourage XVIII-century-style conflict resolution through general battles (with a twist that you generally have more combat assets than pilots with the latter not getting lost so that becomes series of "general" battles) really work that well for ship/tactics balance CCP talks so much about recently.

Also, I think I'm starting to figure out one of the rules of GD which most people have figured out quite a bit of time ago it seems: whatever you are discussing, the thread is going to turn into miner ganking thread given enough pages.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#594 - 2013-12-05 13:22:02 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:


Balls? RnK did them (if i'm not mistaken) in 0.0 ... or in the worst case in LS.... so, yes... balls?


So, in a game that touts risk vs reward and has always had a scheme of "the more dangerous the space, the better the rewards", you agree that the only reason to risk an expensive ship (like for example my ratting Machariel) is "balls". That proves the point, an imbalance exists.



Balls and ISK. You don't have the balls to risk your Mach for more ISK in LS/0.0 so, you prefer doing it in HS complaining at the same time Shocked
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#595 - 2013-12-05 13:30:02 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The last data we had is that suicide ganking is far below it's peak.

I think you will find that was when mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag, so everyone was doing it, I am pretty sure if you checked now a lot more bling fitted mission and incursion ships are getting ganked.

Pre buff it was entirely possible to make sure that 90% of the barges and exhumers were unprofitable to gank, the problem was with the 90% of their owners that couldn't be bothered to do so. The same problem exists today, people would much rather fit for yield than tank. The wet paper bag tank of the mining ships was, and still is entirely down to the people flying them.


The clever ones mined in a Rokh.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#596 - 2013-12-05 13:30:04 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:


Balls? RnK did them (if i'm not mistaken) in 0.0 ... or in the worst case in LS.... so, yes... balls?


So, in a game that touts risk vs reward and has always had a scheme of "the more dangerous the space, the better the rewards", you agree that the only reason to risk an expensive ship (like for example my ratting Machariel) is "balls". That proves the point, an imbalance exists.



Balls and ISK. You don't have the balls to risk your Mach for more ISK in LS/0.0 so, you prefer doing it in HS complaining at the same time Shocked


So you are so dishonest that you can't read English? Read my post again.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#597 - 2013-12-05 13:51:52 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The tools are already in the sandbox, you just have to choose to use them.


Soo, in HS, you have to fly away when reds come in the system?
Isn't this the same argument nullbears used 10 pages ago as a reason for loosing money and making 0.0 less profitable than HS?

Damn. Twisted
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#598 - 2013-12-05 15:27:33 UTC
Haha! Some people actually can't understand force projection and game mechanics forcing everyone to join the biggest side or get wiped out. Big smileBig smileBig smile

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#599 - 2013-12-05 16:50:57 UTC
[
Jenn aSide wrote:
Kinis Deren wrote:


See, this is a common fallacy that risk follows NS=WS>>LS>>HS when a simple analysis (check out the two graphs under the table) suggests the risk order is more like LS>>NS=WS>HS.

By your "risk versus reward" mantra, LS residents should be recieving the lion's share of any rewards. After all, it is you that is saying the more dangerous the space, the better the rewards. Security status is, at best, an extremely poor indicator of how dangerous a particular system is and certainly shouldn't be used as the determining factor in reward calculation.


Wow, what an insane display of putting the cart before the horse. Does that analysis really use number of jumps in it's risk ratio calculation (jumps vs ship kills)? That's crazy for a number of reasons, there is no way to determine original jumps (is it 1000 people jumping once or one guy jumping into a system 1000 times) and so on. Lots of people transit though low sec without actually interacting with low sec.


You seem to have something forming in your eyes.

Did you leave your marbles in the playground? It is irrelevant if it is one person making 1000 jumps or a 1000 man fleet making one jump. One could argue that the single player is adding more content to the game since they'd have to be logged in for far longer to accomplish the same activity as a 1000 man fleet making that one jump. The gate jumps is a measure of in-space activity only. How or who, carries of that activity is irrelevant in the global statical view.

Quote:
Sorry, null is still the more dangerous space, the only potential npc help you get in null is if the rats your shooting switch targets while you're getting ganked lol.


No need to apologize for making unsubstantiated claims - they are very transparent. How about trying to bring some facts to the discussion or maybe attempt an analysis of your own, hmmmm?

Quote:

You do know that faction warfare button orbitting (for an example) where no npcs are killed won't show up in your stats right? You have such utterly incomplete info (if that is your graphs that you made or is it someone else's) that it isn't even funny.


Oh you silly! - you tried to suggest I'd plagiarise another's work. Well, I'll just point you to here and leave you to feel foolish in the corner. I take your point about button orbiting, but that also applies to any PVE activity that doesn't involve continuous spawns of NPCs. For example, how often have you seen NPCs disrupt moon goo operations, hmmm? Again, as you will read in the blog post, the faction kills is used as a global measure of PVE activity only.

My only advice to you would be to try and think what is in the best interests for an engaging game, rather than your short sighted (CFC) self interest.
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#600 - 2013-12-05 16:58:06 UTC
Just turn everything into NPC nullsec. This would then force nullsec alliances to actually USE the space they live in.
and Yes i am being serious

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit