These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#2301 - 2015-03-05 12:36:32 UTC
Too often read here about unoccupied space.

To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.

If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.

A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.
Papa Digger
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2302 - 2015-03-05 12:36:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Papa Digger wrote:
Arrendis wrote:

Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...

What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :)


We freeport it, destroy their ratting and mining and just make life hell for them.

I know what it mean for PL renters etc. But how it helps for fighting against small alliances who don't build ihubs, and just wait for your leaving and take this space back? :)
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#2303 - 2015-03-05 12:37:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

I think that speed buff for T2 was linked to marauders in Bastion mode.

I think you should have to stay in the ships locking range, or on grid so flying out of range should halt the module and enable you to warp. But I don't care either way, though it would placate people a bit if they could not warp.

My main question is if the attacks end does the 10 minutes start again? I hope that is the case.


As was mentioned, you need to maintain target lock.

So hopefully just pulling range while aligned doesn't break the warp disrupting effect instantly. Because that would be pretty broken.

As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.


I came to the same conclusion about target lock.

I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.

I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.

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

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2304 - 2015-03-05 12:38:21 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will.

Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as.

Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that.

Considering you made a point about banning them on your treaty with PL means that they were indeed up to level of creating that conflict.

Oh, I'm sure that was put into the agreement more to keep us from doing that to them, than vice versa. But that agreement's no longer in place, and how much is it used to "generate conflict" now, a year(?) after that agreement was voided?
Dark Spite
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#2305 - 2015-03-05 12:38:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Papa Digger wrote:
Arrendis wrote:

Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...

What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :)


We freeport it.


Nulldeal did ask for more npc space. If ccp wont oblige why not have players provide the service. No missions but then again running missions is the slow death of small red crosses.

Also CCP, with this account started in 2009 how can you limit how often I can post. Sad
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#2306 - 2015-03-05 12:40:25 UTC  |  Edited by: War Kitten
Javajunky wrote:
I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up.


Not that it particularly matters after looking at your meager post history involving a whinge about mining nerfs and the ISBoxer nerf, but I notice you never did come back to comment after your dramatic "first" post.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#2307 - 2015-03-05 12:41:41 UTC
Just some idle thoughts from a bored and idle mind..

Maybe there is way to limit the ability of large bloks to simply roll over whom ever they choose.
Everything to do with sov, taking, losing, reinforcing, or anything else to do with sov all comes down to fleet composition. Simply make it so that the largest single entity is the one who gains benefit from any single engagement.

The bloks work by utilizing allies to cover areas they can't, defend space when they can't (or don't want to). So remove that ability to an extent by adding penalties.

If alliance A wants to take sov they need to do the work to take it, nodes will be on timers. The timers are increased for every member of the offensive fleet who is not a member of the alliance seeking to take the system or constellation. The 1st alliance to shoot the node becomes the dominant alliance (they are vying for sov) for every fleet member who is not in that alliance 10 mins is added to the timers for the capture or reinforce or whatever.
You come with a mixed 100 man fleet from different alliances (a coalition), you can still take sov, it is just going to take you a hell of a lot longer to do it

Remove selective sov -
Alliance B can't go out and do most of the work then let alliance A finish it to claim sov. If a new group comes to attack nodes or Ihub or whatever once they have been reinforced, the timers reset as if they were the 1st to attack it.
Remove "sov transfers" - You want sov, you fight for it ,not pay the landlord to let you put an ihub up

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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2308 - 2015-03-05 12:45:11 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

I came to the same conclusion about target lock.

I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.

I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.


The worst of the three options, in my opinion, is that the timer does not change, and the defender has to grind it back down himself. This prevents the defender from simply killing the aggressors and going about their business, which is sub optimal in my opinion and just adds more chores.

I strongly suspect that it will reset entirely, since from the flowchart they offered us it seems as though reinforcement and such is contingent on completing cycles of the Entosis links.

The only hazy point is where it states that success activates the structure, but I believe that to be referring to active denial, such as someone turning a TCU on, for instance.

"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.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2309 - 2015-03-05 12:47:06 UTC
Terence Bogard wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.


+1

The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics.

Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links.


This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#2310 - 2015-03-05 12:47:43 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Javajunky wrote:
I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up.


Not that it particularly matters after looking at your meager post history involving a whinge about mining nerfs and the ISBoxer nerf, but I notice you never did come back to comment after your dramatic "first" post.

Whether this is intentional or not it's funny either way.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2311 - 2015-03-05 12:48:02 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.


+1

The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics.

Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links.


This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.


Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it.

Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone.

"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.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2312 - 2015-03-05 12:49:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.


+1

The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics.

Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links.


This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.


Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it.

Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone.


Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#2313 - 2015-03-05 12:49:58 UTC
The warp disruption needs to stay on regardless of whether you lose targeting, should stop cloaking and should not be able to be deactivated by overheating. It would be tragic if null was inflicted with anything like FW stabbed and cloaky farmers.

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

Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2314 - 2015-03-05 12:50:57 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.


+1

The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics.

Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links.


This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.


True enough i didn't think of 3rd party in that situation. But it would obviously still be much more effective to apply your own links. Also i made a second edit to that post that moderately alleviates that concern.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2315 - 2015-03-05 12:51:22 UTC
afkalt wrote:

Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage.


In two minutes? I doubt that very much.

"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.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2316 - 2015-03-05 12:51:45 UTC
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#2317 - 2015-03-05 12:51:55 UTC
Zappity wrote:
The warp disruption needs to stay on regardless of whether you lose targeting, should stop cloaking and should not be able to be deactivated by overheating. It would be tragic if null was inflicted with anything like FW stabbed and cloaky farmers.

No it wouldn't. FW would finally get their ships with bonuses to core stabs
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2318 - 2015-03-05 12:53:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
afkalt wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Terence Bogard wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.


+1

The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics.

Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links.


This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.


Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it.

Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone.


Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage.

Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't have been defended.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#2319 - 2015-03-05 12:55:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

I came to the same conclusion about target lock.

I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.

I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.


The worst of the three options, in my opinion, is that the timer does not change, and the defender has to grind it back down himself. This prevents the defender from simply killing the aggressors and going about their business, which is sub optimal in my opinion and just adds more chores.

I strongly suspect that it will reset entirely, since from the flowchart they offered us it seems as though reinforcement and such is contingent on completing cycles of the Entosis links.

The only hazy point is where it states that success activates the structure, but I believe that to be referring to active denial, such as someone turning a TCU on, for instance.


I agree the timer not changing would be the worst option, I would prefer a full re-set but the tick back works too. It would be a pain to make them grind it back to zero as a chore, but in a way that would be a good thing as the defender has to be vulnerable too, though not within a POS shield I hope.

I noticed one box in the flow chart stating that the capture progress is paused if no Entosis links are active, so my base assumption is leaning towards having to use an Entosis link to set it back to 0 so that would mean the defender setting it back to 0 by doing a win cycle.

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

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2320 - 2015-03-05 12:57:05 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

I noticed one box in the flow chart stating that the capture progress is paused if no Entosis links are active, so my base assumption is leaning towards having to use an Entosis link to set it back to 0 so taht would mean the defender setting it back to 0 by doing a win cycle.



I am almost positive that is to un-reinforce a structure.

"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.