These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#2181 - 2015-03-05 10:34:10 UTC
AngeDeMort wrote:
Nat Silverguard wrote:
AngeDeMort wrote:
AttentionAttentionAttention

Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? P But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit..

Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist.

These changes look fantastic!

Thanks for your time..

Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. Cool

xx

AttentionAttentionAttentionPirate


trollceptors will never be a thing



So you(?) say... But what do you know, for sure? Why not just make sure..?


because you don't need to chase them. defenders just need to sit next to the node and cap it with their own entosis thingy and the "capture event" will stop. i'm also sure that with that fit that interceptor is harmless...

Just Add Water

Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#2182 - 2015-03-05 10:35:07 UTC
I have thought a bit about the lonely Interceptor or Trolletto Fleet problem.
Dev Blog says with a link running you cannot warp away. That means if you manage to bring a Sniper to the grid, you might get a few shots before he burns off grid.

So if it was just like :
1. uncloak Panther
2. fire
3. 100M ISK killmail

then the thing would not be THAT much of an issue. We have to see how it plays out.

If it IS a problem then I suggest the following rule

You are committed:
If the Entosis Link is broken because the pilot moves out of range oor tries to warp off - BAM! Backfire instantly brain fries the pilot, podkilling him but leaving the ship hull intact on the field (assuming it does not explode because of skill effects).

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#2183 - 2015-03-05 10:35:22 UTC
You're missing the troll of the trollceptor. The troll isn't the ceptor, it's the article. Look at what it did to this thread.
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#2184 - 2015-03-05 10:36:58 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
You're missing the troll of the trollceptor. The troll isn't the ceptor, it's the article. Look at what it did to this thread.


fck. Shocked

Just Add Water

Gypsien Agittain
Gypsy Queens
#2185 - 2015-03-05 10:37:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Kagura Nikon wrote:
People whined so much about force projection, but they always failed to study proper strategy and notice that the problem is force CONCENTRATION! Force projection is just a mean to achieve force concentration! The lack of a limit or diminishing return in force CONCENTRATION is the root of all evil in 0.0

It makes the war in eve closer to strategic level of real world wars and with more depth. It does not amtter if you had the whole damm red army or just a regiment of 1k soldiers. Takes exactly the same time to take a village of grape farmers in south of France with either force! Because you cannot make such massive force concentration!


With all due respect, you don't understand that people living in null don't think the way you think and don't like the warfare you like. That's why you're on a, really good, mercenary corporation and they're in nullsec.
CCP neither understand this changes are made to comply with people like you, who don't live in nullsec, while against people who actually live there. Therefore, theres no need to be wise in order to realize the incoming massive failure of this concept.


Fixed quoting. ISD Ezwal.
AngeDeMort
CyberMachine
#2186 - 2015-03-05 10:37:41 UTC
Black Ambulance wrote:
AngeDeMort wrote:
Black Ambulance wrote:
AngeDeMort wrote:
AttentionAttentionAttention

Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? P But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit..

Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist.

These changes look fantastic!

Thanks for your time..

Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. Cool

xx

AttentionAttentionAttentionPirate



NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari !

Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too.



Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay...
Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases...
With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! Smile You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... Oops
So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.."


The ibis was a joke , but you can counter the ceptors etc with anything with the link fitted too.


Apologies.
Anything can be countered but it means everyone online, in system, must have access to the counter otherwise, it's unstoppable with "normal" combat ships - we are still talking about accessible content, right?
Also, the reaction time must be really quick with the proposed timers, moreso made by the capabilities of the bubble immune speedsters... It's just leaving the door open for griefers when it should be closed, where possible..
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#2187 - 2015-03-05 10:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
It is facinating to read how this thread has developed.
I am fortunate in a way to only have had a limited time in the past living in null, as it does give one the opportunity to see things in a somewhat neutral way.

It is a little comical, but understandable, as in the phoebe changes to see so many proposals in here, which are solely designed to remove or limit the changes being implemented by CCP.

The interceptor hysteria for example. Naturally it will make unoccupied systems vunerable, and naturally they will be largely immune to gatecamps, but largely ignorable other than swatting like a fly in active and occupied reigons.

So naturally they must go as they will not allow large areas of space to be either unoccupied or rental empiresRoll
(Gentle Sarcasm in case that was unclear)

The overall proposal by CCP is actually quite impressive, and also quite brave. Whilst some will no doubt (and have) dismiss it as faction warfare on steroids, it is a lot better thought out than that.

I would only like to add one small proposal, as I can see that small groups holding one constellation might suffer a little from having their sov reset and having to win it back repeatedly. And that is a bonus to occupying a constellation by automatically increasing it's true nullsec when the complete constillation is held.

Other than that, I look forward to seeing how this progresses, and with CCP responding swiftly now, with post rollout balancing of features, it bodes well for it's success.

I would like to add that it will be far more valuable to discuss how features can be iterated on or additions to help CCP reach their goals, than trying to turn the clock back or neuter their plans. That ship has already sailed, and will only lead to frustration ad disappointment, rather than feeling one has been part of the process.

Good luck to everyone, and I hope all our homes, become more fun and engaging to live in.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2188 - 2015-03-05 10:43:23 UTC
How about giving all regions or constellations a randomly set 4 hour vulnerability window that never changes, talk about interesting landscape ^^
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2189 - 2015-03-05 10:43:38 UTC
AngeDeMort wrote:
Black Ambulance wrote:
AngeDeMort wrote:
AttentionAttentionAttention

Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? P But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit..

Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist.

These changes look fantastic!

Thanks for your time..

Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. Cool

xx

AttentionAttentionAttentionPirate



NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari !

Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too.



Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay...
Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases...
With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! Smile You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... Oops
So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.."



At a 100m a pop, trollfits are going to get old fast. Lose 20, that's a carrier hull right there.

I repeat, the only people with anything to fear here are people who do not live in their own space in their OWN prime time. It's not like you're going to get ninja hit whilst you're all sleeping for goodness sakes.
lilol' me
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#2190 - 2015-03-05 10:43:50 UTC
trollceptor just make the module active at 50 km double the TV. problem solved
I think ccp have realised the range is too much
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2191 - 2015-03-05 10:44:01 UTC
Dark Spite wrote:
Given EVE players abilities to use the mechanics differently than ccp envisioned there can be no foolproof system. But more risktaking without huge consequences and burning out alliance doers is a huge step in the right direction. It is also quite different to hold a small area, like a constellation, in comparison to holding multiple regions. This alone would reduce the stress levels of alliance leadership and burnout factor for us groups that dont have multiple redundancies in alliance leadership.


See, the reason we - and by 'we', I don't just mean Goons, I mean the majority of folks from the blocs - are focusing on the griefer angle is: we know what we'll do with this kind of tool available to us. Just in the CFC, we've got a SIG already devoted to doing this sort of thing, and this will just make it easier to go and make sure that smaller, less organized alliances don't hold sov. We won't actually take the systems - that would involve dropping a TCU and IHUB ourselves, after all... but how many of these less-organized alliances are going to put up with the freighter (not jump freighter) hauling needed if we're consistently burning down ihubs as fast as they drop them?

Because, you know, we'll do that kind of thing. We're jerks like that. Will we do it to every small alliance every day? Doubtful. But at the same time, if the intention for this system is to make things fun, and actually invigorate nullsec into more conflict between smaller blocs, then doesn't it behoove the devs to actually have an idea of how the blocs operate?

Because they don't. They don't have any idea of the levels of organization present in even HERO, and HERO organizes everything openly, on reddit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the CFC has more metrics and data collection going on about New Eden than CCP itself does. I don't think for a moment that we intend to have that kind of level of OCD going on, but you know, that's just how dysfunctional a lot of us are.

And we've been generally proven right on things like this. Sentry drone assist, jump fatigue for haulers, the continuing need for nerfs to the Ishtar, etc, etc.

See, we legitimately want a more interesting, more vibrant, more fun nullsec. We live here, and let's face it, ratting is about as exciting as watching a test pattern. If it's more fun, then we're having more fun. We like fun. It's fun. So when we see CCP saying 'we want to make null more interesting and fluid, with more small actors', we like the idea... but we're wary of the execution. Especially when it comes in a form that people all around null are looking at and saying 'this is really only going to come to griefing. This won't generate fights like you think it will'.

We know what we'll do with this. And we're bastards enough to know that even if we think that what we'll do with it shouldn't be allowed... we'll do it anyway, because if we don't, someone else will do it to us. They'll probably do it to us either way, really.

So think about this: Most of the people telling you what horrible things we'll do? They're regular line members of the various blocs. The really dangerous, evil, sadistic bastards who come up with our true skullduggeries are likely plotting things far, far worse. If we're focusing on the griefer aspect of this a bit more than you think we should? It's not because we like being the boogeyman. It's because we want a good game to play, but we also know that if CCP hands us a pack of smokes and a lighter, we might smoke some of them... but we're also likely to melt the filters into a fiberglass shiv, aimed for your kidneys.

Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2192 - 2015-03-05 10:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

I would like to add that it will be far more valuable to discuss how features can be iterated on or additions to help CCP reach their goals, than trying to turn the clock back or neuter their plans. That ship has already sailed, and will only lead to frustration ad disappointment, rather than feeling one has been part of the process.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

The entire reason these are being released so early, as the CCP dev specifically said, is so that they can take player feedback to hammer out the dents in this admitted rough draft. That includes the fitting of the Entosis mods.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2193 - 2015-03-05 10:46:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
One of the ideas I had back in the kugu days was to add some sort of border system. This system would make it so you can't really just run around and roll every system under someone's control, but you can take on their edge systems and reinforce them.

This would be both a good thing and a bad thing. It'd be good because this means that the defenders know where they'll be attacked and can focus their defense there, rather than across their entire space, and even if the E-link is fittable to interceptors, they can't derp around in every system you have and you have to run around after them and play whack-an-interceptor, and wars' progress will be measurable in where the line is. It's also bad because it actually encourages players banding together in a large alliance due to the inherent protection of that system.

So I realize that this, in the form I came up with on kugu, will probably make the situation even worse, it'll definitely make grinding down the space of someone who's left/gone inactive more of a grind than the goal we're setting ourselves when we're trying to make a new system, but I figure I'd just toss it out there anyways to see if it'll make someone else's creative juices go splort splorf. Maybe limit it to a per-constellation limit in some fashion, or something. I dunno.
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#2194 - 2015-03-05 10:50:04 UTC
Angry Mustache wrote:
Allright guys, since they literally have an AFK cloaker in every one of our systems, we can't rat/min to build indices


So one AFK cloaker prevents you from doing anything in a system?

Seriously?

Another prime example of why sov needs an overhaul.

RE: lots of comments about the "prime time" being a bad idea...maybe you are missing the point.

Trying to organize one massive alliance (let's say, for the sake of argument, GSF) choose one "prime time" for all their possessions seems really dumb. Many commenters seem clear on that.

So the sensible response is the break into lots of smaller alliances that can hold smaller chunks of space and organize around optimal prime times for them.

Maybe that's the whole point. Maybe that would mean a lot more proper diplomacy in the metagame would be required to keep a really large group together.

Personally, after reading the dev blog, I am looking forward to seeing how it shakes out. If it results in turmoil across the mostly empty sov null space with lots of smaller groups trying to pick off systems all over the place...awesome, mission accomplished.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#2195 - 2015-03-05 10:50:51 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

I would like to add that it will be far more valuable to discuss how features can be iterated on or additions to help CCP reach their goals, than trying to turn the clock back or neuter their plans. That ship has already sailed, and will only lead to frustration ad disappointment, rather than feeling one has been part of the process.


Of course someone like you is trying to dishonestly squelch the feedback of others.

The entire reason these are being released so early, as the CCP dev specifically said, is so that they can take player feedback to hammer out the dents in this admitted rough draft. That includes the fitting of the Entosis mods.


Of course player feedback is an incredibly valuable resource, they are increasing the size of their collective brainpool immensely.
But when a little area of the brain is making suggestions that say " we want things to be unchanged, and if you prevent x we will get the same with a new name" then once one knows the reason for that comment, one can treat it accordingly.

However if the brainpool strives for the same goal, to make the new null as active, alive and engaging as possible, then each contributor can feel they have been part of that process. They can feel proud, and enjoy the results.

Tl;dr work to achieve great things, not to stop them.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2196 - 2015-03-05 10:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

Of course player feedback is an incredibly valuable resource,


Except that isn't what you said.

What you said was to deride anyone who has a suggestion. What you said was "that ship has sailed", when the whole point of this thread existing, according to a literal dev, is to demonstrate that it has not.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#2197 - 2015-03-05 10:55:43 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
[
If a whole constellation comes out of rf in the same day and you want to win a majority of the timers this is exactly what will happen, and it unironically wont be very fun because fighting wont be the obejctive capturing as many nodes as fast as possible will be, then you may fight over the last few, but by that time 2 hours have passed and half of each fleet is ready to log. I mean im all for small gang but i want sov warfare to actualyly be warfare between medium sized fleets, not warfare between 10 man gangs all rushing ot caputre nodes.

So what we end up with here is sov warfare like old days - He with the most pos's takes sov, except the pos's have become nodes.
Talk about recycling bad ideas.

- - - - - - - - -
Constellation based sov warfare is a terribly bad idea no matter what objectives are put in place.
If these changes are meant to open up opportunities for smaller groups to take and hold sov, making it constellation based rules out most smaller groups from taking or holding sov.

- - - - - - - - -
Quote:
Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days.
Is only realistic as long as there isn't a large group within range to hammer the small group into giving up on trying to take sov.
Day 1, 25 mins, went well, got scouted but no attackers.
Day 2, 8 mins in 100 man fleet arrives
Day 3, start again, no or little opposition
Day 4, large fleet arrives
Day 5, screw it not wasting more time on a lose lose position

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Lurifax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2198 - 2015-03-05 10:56:39 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Dark Spite wrote:
Given EVE players abilities to use the mechanics differently than ccp envisioned there can be no foolproof system. But more risktaking without huge consequences and burning out alliance doers is a huge step in the right direction. It is also quite different to hold a small area, like a constellation, in comparison to holding multiple regions. This alone would reduce the stress levels of alliance leadership and burnout factor for us groups that dont have multiple redundancies in alliance leadership.


See, the reason we - and by 'we', I don't just mean Goons, I mean the majority of folks from the blocs - are focusing on the griefer angle is: we know what we'll do with this kind of tool available to us. Just in the CFC, we've got a SIG already devoted to doing this sort of thing, and this will just make it easier to go and make sure that smaller, less organized alliances don't hold sov. We won't actually take the systems - that would involve dropping a TCU and IHUB ourselves, after all... but how many of these less-organized alliances are going to put up with the freighter (not jump freighter) hauling needed if we're consistently burning down ihubs as fast as they drop them?

Because, you know, we'll do that kind of thing. We're jerks like that. Will we do it to every small alliance every day? Doubtful. But at the same time, if the intention for this system is to make things fun, and actually invigorate nullsec into more conflict between smaller blocs, then doesn't it behoove the devs to actually have an idea of how the blocs operate?

Because they don't. They don't have any idea of the levels of organization present in even HERO, and HERO organizes everything openly, on reddit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the CFC has more metrics and data collection going on about New Eden than CCP itself does. I don't think for a moment that we intend to have that kind of level of OCD going on, but you know, that's just how dysfunctional a lot of us are.

And we've been generally proven right on things like this. Sentry drone assist, jump fatigue for haulers, the continuing need for nerfs to the Ishtar, etc, etc.

See, we legitimately want a more interesting, more vibrant, more fun nullsec. We live here, and let's face it, ratting is about as exciting as watching a test pattern. If it's more fun, then we're having more fun. We like fun. It's fun. So when we see CCP saying 'we want to make null more interesting and fluid, with more small actors', we like the idea... but we're wary of the execution. Especially when it comes in a form that people all around null are looking at and saying 'this is really only going to come to griefing. This won't generate fights like you think it will'.

We know what we'll do with this. And we're bastards enough to know that even if we think that what we'll do with it shouldn't be allowed... we'll do it anyway, because if we don't, someone else will do it to us. They'll probably do it to us either way, really.

So think about this: Most of the people telling you what horrible things we'll do? They're regular line members of the various blocs. The really dangerous, evil, sadistic bastards who come up with our true skullduggeries are likely plotting things far, far worse. If we're focusing on the griefer aspect of this a bit more than you think we should? It's not because we like being the boogeyman. It's because we want a good game to play, but we also know that if CCP hands us a pack of smokes and a lighter, we might smoke some of them... but we're also likely to melt the filters into a fiberglass shiv, aimed for your kidneys.

Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses?



This is really well written and funny as hell :)

Thank you
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#2199 - 2015-03-05 10:56:55 UTC
Arrendis wrote:

stuff


we'll cross the bridge when we get there...

Just Add Water

Black Ambulance
#2200 - 2015-03-05 10:57:52 UTC
AngeDeMort wrote:
Black Ambulance wrote:
AngeDeMort wrote:
Black Ambulance wrote:
AngeDeMort wrote:
AttentionAttentionAttention

Please consider a minimum ship-size for this new module.. Maybe cruiser or battle-cruiser and upwards..? Maybe only HACs and upwards? Maybe a new cruiser and upwards? P But please keep low-fitting requirements, so as not to gimp a pvp fit..

Please do not allow these trollceptors to exist.

These changes look fantastic!

Thanks for your time..

Eve IS the best game. Always was, always will be. Cool

xx

AttentionAttentionAttentionPirate



NO WAY , Ceptors are fine , if you can't counter them , move back to jita or new caldari !

Adopt or die , I want to fit that mod to my ibis too.



Your ability to counter a troll fit with a troll fit of your own, in numbers, is not what is being sought here.. It is content and gameplay...
Time-wasting, while it may float some peoples boats, is not really, I don't believe, something CCP wants, necessarily. By having a minumum ship-size fitting requirement the probability of actually engaging in combat/content increases...
With trollceptors, the concept is NOT to engage in combat but rather in griefing-type activities! Smile You wanting to fit one to your ibis says a lot... Oops
So, hopefully, it is not necessarily "no way.."


The ibis was a joke , but you can counter the ceptors etc with anything with the link fitted too.


Apologies.
Anything can be countered but it means everyone online, in system, must have access to the counter otherwise, it's unstoppable with "normal" combat ships - we are still talking about accessible content, right?
Also, the reaction time must be really quick with the proposed timers, moreso made by the capabilities of the bubble immune speedsters... It's just leaving the door open for griefers when it should be closed, where possible..

Even if CCP restrict the link to for example command ships , there will be always way how to grief the system , but then it will limit the smaller group because command ship require lot of skills. nice scenario : bring cloaky prober to a not busy system with station , find a WH then bring a cloaky command ship then next day straight after DT reinforce the station / ihub . Repeat after 48h :)