These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MajorScrewup
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2015-03-03 17:04:36 UTC
I seriously thought there was going to be more after all this time...

Realistically there is now the possibility that I could never be involved in trying to take SOV as every other alliance could set a time when I cannot log into EvE and play. This artificial timer could mean that EvE null-sec only becomes an option to certain timezones.

I also thought that they would start to use degradation of Sovereignty in systems that were never being used for anything by a corporation / alliance (mining / ratting, jumps, etc); but these metrics are only used to make a system stronger or leave them stable, never weaker. I would have preferred them to add some sort of degradation where and inactive system would slowly fall out of captured status and either be easier to capture or gain non captured status.
Christopher AET
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2015-03-03 17:05:43 UTC
While the idea of a 4 hour primetime for exiting reinforce has merit, it's far too constrictive for roaming gangs to mess with. I think removing the primetime altogether for the initial attack and have it come out in the primetime, then from there it would act as stated. Could be 20 hours, could be 20 minutes. Don't have it signposted outside the alliance so that way gangs have to come and probe the space with entosis links to get a feel for the timers. I would also advocate extending the time to 6 hours, to add a little uncertainty.

The idea of occupancy and use buffing the defendability of a system is a good idea, though it's perhaps a little simplistic in its current form. I am sure that can be iterated on. The command node idea is excellent. Could really add some interesting flavour to fights.

I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Galdur Trudaihnel
Litla Sundlaugin
#203 - 2015-03-03 17:05:57 UTC
Much Love CCP

You have had me worried at times, and with star citizen and elite dangerous on the radar I was touching cloth and hoping you would pull something out of the bag......

But this is a game changer, a whole new level. YES YES YES YES YES. You have cracked it ! This will mix things up for all players in EVE. Null care bears and big alliances in general will hate it ..... everyone else should love it for the varied content it will bring to small, medium and large scale pvp. A few teaks here and there and bring on June :)


Love it or hate it much content will be had! No more blue balling small roaming gangs though :)

Cheers Will
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#204 - 2015-03-03 17:06:00 UTC
Saidin Thor wrote:
I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes.


So? Why should a smaller alliance be able to drop and maintain an iHub? The point of this system is to make it unnecessary to do so, yet still feel like some small piece of space is "yours". Smaller alliances are being encouraged to drop a TCU and some POS's to own/live in a quiet constellation, not drop station eggs and turn every bit of their space into a major alliance powerbloc.

Not every piece/benefit of the new sov system should be accessible to alliances of every size; that would be dumb. This new setup intentionally decouples this stuff for exactly this reason.
Tiberon Darkstar
Dark Praetorian Order
#205 - 2015-03-03 17:06:59 UTC
Personally, I think the system is brilliant. It's an interesting mix of current sov, occupancy sov, and FW mechanics.

I would like to see some combat role for supers so that they make themselves vulnerable, but I think they might just be able to take their originally intended role of squad/fleet support and be highly valued not for their DPS, but for their overall effect on your forces and your ability to facilitate sov combat by bringing reinforcements and supplies to the combat area. Sort of like a mobile mini-station. This also gives an incentive to hunt them down when you find them so that you can route your attackers.

The activity levels and strategic options that I can think of for this system is staggering, maybe too much so for those that are used to the static null we have had for years now.

I can't wait!
Worrff
Enterprise Holdings
#206 - 2015-03-03 17:07:07 UTC
My God

What a load of cr4p.


What the hell is WRONG with you people ?

CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it alone and break something else.
Total Newbie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#207 - 2015-03-03 17:07:22 UTC
Galdur Trudaihnel wrote:
Much Love CCP

You have had me worried at times, and with star citizen and elite dangerous on the radar I was touching cloth and hoping you would pull something out of the bag......

But this is a game changer, a whole new level. YES YES YES YES YES. You have cracked it ! This will mix things up for all players in EVE. Null care bears and big alliances in general will hate it ..... everyone else should love it for the varied content it will bring to small, medium and large scale pvp. A few teaks here and there and bring on June :)


Love it or hate it much content will be had! No more blue balling small roaming gangs though :)

Cheers Will



there is no longer a reason to hold sov if this is implemented.... sov would only be held in strategic locations that cover a whole bunch of r-64's and 32's. The little guy wont be able to afford his sov bill, he will run out of money because he cant control the moon income..... then he leaves 0.0.... we have come full circle
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#208 - 2015-03-03 17:07:29 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2015-03-03 17:08:32 UTC
Nami Kumamato wrote:
Also,
Why did you have to go and create a new gimmick when hacking was there already ? (just to tie it to the Drifter lore? )
Why not allow those things to be hacked as we do now in explo ? This way maybe more of us "vagrants" will find a home and reason in a corp.


+1 for hackable structures

Also, check the first link in my sig.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#210 - 2015-03-03 17:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
4 hour timer is a bad idea making virtual Berlin Walls between players. I'd go so far as to say it was encouraging nationalism and is borderline-racist.
Tia Aves
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#211 - 2015-03-03 17:09:39 UTC
Master S wrote:
If they proceed this update in the summer the game will die.


This thread is absolutely rammed full of golden comments like this already. If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

But seriously absolutely excellent work CCP. It is really going to make things much more fluid and give a chance to the little guy. Now the amount of systems that an alliance will own will be directly tied to how much they WANT their space and how much they are willing to defend it. Only thing i'm not sure on is the 4 hour window, but I have no suggestions on how I would change it at this moment in time.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#212 - 2015-03-03 17:10:05 UTC
Querns wrote:
Initial thought on this:

* Mining providing defensive bonuses is probably not going to be used in any significant capacity while nullsec mining is in such a hilariously bad place. I mean, check out this mining profitability chart: http://eve-industry.org/mining/ . No one in their right mind is going to call CTA RED PEN MINING OPS to buttress their sov.

Gonna need to let it sink in some more before I think of anything else, I think.

Blame the market

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
iP0D
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#213 - 2015-03-03 17:10:11 UTC
MajorScrewup wrote:
I seriously thought there was going to be more after all this time...



What did you expect. It shows the priorities in resource allocation thusfar, and resource allocation for iteration. Very very low.

the sargent
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2015-03-03 17:10:18 UTC
Cheyennes wrote:
the sargent wrote:
It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"

I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.

Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text.


Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history.


You're right I don't have any 0.0 employment history. Didn't feel like joining one of the big power blocs and small independent corps can't exist in 0.0 space. With some adjusting this system could actually allow smaller groups to effectively claim SOV somewhere and keep it. Is what CCP proposing perfect probably not.

However, for the first time I'm actually considering 0.0 space as a viable place i would want to go to and live in for an extended period of time, and isn't that the point of all this. To get more people to want to fly out to 0.0 space?
ORJI
Clan Shadow Wolf
Tactical Narcotics Team
#215 - 2015-03-03 17:10:49 UTC
TL'DR

EVE=Capture The Flag
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#216 - 2015-03-03 17:10:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
ok this is really important, Dreads just lost half of their purpose and im willing to geuss more than half of their usage. Please tell me there are plans to change that.

E: the same might be said for supercarriers
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#217 - 2015-03-03 17:11:40 UTC
Rowells wrote:
ok this is really important, Dreads just lost half of their purpose and im willing to geuss more than half of their usage. Please tell me there are plans to change that.

E: the same might be said for supercarriers

I am in the market for some cheap Naglfars.

Sell yours now!
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
#218 - 2015-03-03 17:11:55 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Saidin Thor wrote:
I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes.


So? Why should a smaller alliance be able to drop and maintain an iHub? The point of this system is to make it unnecessary to do so, yet still feel like some small piece of space is "yours". Smaller alliances are being encouraged to drop a TCU and some POS's to own/live in a quiet constellation, not drop station eggs and turn every bit of their space into a major alliance powerbloc.

Not every piece/benefit of the new sov system should be accessible to alliances of every size; that would be dumb. This new setup intentionally decouples this stuff for exactly this reason.


Sov is, in the most literal sense of the word, worthless without any IHub upgrades. No static anomalies (for ratting or pirating), no strategic upgrades (SCSAAs, jump bridges, cyno jammers). There's no difference between a null sec system without any IHub upgrades and NPC null--except at least in NPC null you can have NPC stations that you can always dock in.
Steijn
Quay Industries
#219 - 2015-03-03 17:12:22 UTC
Rowells wrote:
ok this is really important, Dreads just lost half of their purpose and im willing to geuss more than half of their usage. Please tell me there are plans to change that.

E: the same might be said for supercarriers


just allow them to fit strip miners, job done.
YanniMorePlz
Debitum Naturae
#220 - 2015-03-03 17:12:32 UTC
Just a slight 'concern' that I felt might be worth pointing out. I will quote from the blog:

Quote:
The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement.


Much like defensive SBUing, I feel there is potential for a defender to use an alt/spy to intentionally reinforce in order to freeze the index of a system in order to retain it's defensive bonuses. One might do this if let's say, renters have recently fled the area, and the defender does not want to lose their bonuses while being unable or unwilling to invest time to grind them back up.

A easy solution would be to have the index drop after the "lock" period from any inactivity that occurred during the lock.


Just something worth bringing up, it's small and I don't think it impacts anything in a major way. Overall great blog!