These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#2521 - 2015-03-05 17:43:33 UTC
flakeys wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Leaving grid even if your ship gets killed does not restore the shield back to 100%. You can come back just a few minutes later and continue from relatively the same point unless the POS owner repped it up.


If I am shooting at a pos and I get blapped, if I do not return the pos will regenerate it's own shields over time.

I would expect nothing less from the successor mechanic. Only the timeframe is really changing.


So up to a few hours depending how long my link was active to represent how long I was shooting at a POS?

The real way to prevent most of the trolling isn't to make the timer reset but to make the trolling harder to do. The 250km range on the T2 module is absurd. Why didn't they just make the T2 version's range just double from T2 or hell quadruple if you really must? No instead they introduced a module with 10 time the effective range. No wonder people are theorycrafting an epic amount of trolling with SOV when you can do it from the very limit of any targetting systems and also potentially be fitted to the most mobile kind of ships and people wonder why we might end up playing space tag...



Would be fun if they introduced this to FW though , hangin at 250km of the beacon Lol


Those of us in FW would know how to eeasily counter this. 😏
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2522 - 2015-03-05 17:43:58 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?

it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov

we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend

easy peasy

Actually we can take turns on it as well. One month EU wrecks **** while US defends, the next month US wrecks **** while EU defends, that way everyone gets a periodic vacation.
Newbie nTraining
Fleet of Fail
#2523 - 2015-03-05 17:44:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Newbie nTraining
While I really don't care for any of these changes people will learn to adapt and get used to the play style. If these changes do go forward here are my thoughts:

*Prime Time - Worst idea I've heard of. What makes this game unique is that it's going 23/7 and you need to be prepared for anything at anytime. A suggestion would be to allow the structures to be initially attacked at any time but then allow defenders to adjust reinforced timers +/- a couple of hours. This would need to be done in a vulnerable state (i.e. hauler bringing strontium to change the timer should be vulnerable and not able to hide behind any shields; mechanic could work for POSes as well as sov structures) forcing attackers to actually keep better watch of their targets during reinforce.
Another great piece of this game is having alliance mates worldwide. Creating an alliance Prime Time will push people to joining alliances in their Prime Time.

*250km range of the tech 2 module - WAAAAYYYY too far out. As many people have stated this is going to turn into interceptor warfare or cloaky-nulli tactical cruisers. This will just turn into attackers way out of range and a defender coming in to the sov structure to defend, therefore no true PVP interaction and we are falling asleep in the grind. Bring this in to something that will provide a decent orbit yet still promote the potential for PVP, say 50km-75km max.



EDIT: I'm also seeing a lot of people suggesting that they don't understand the benefit of owning null sec. While I'm not going to even begin listing out all of the benefits for virtually no work for 90% of the alliance members (sorry to the logistic folks that make it all happen) I think it is important to point out that you should not expect a 1:1 correlation between risk and benefit. Null is not there so that you can outpace all other players 5:1 in income. It will give you a slight edge in many (if not all) functions. Let's be honest, if you didn't see the benefit in sov null sec you would not be in sov null sec. With that said I do have a couple of suggestions on improving null sec:

*Allow for bonuses to moon harvesting yield and planetary interaction yield.

*Allow the ability to increase/decrease (not eliminate) the frequency of WHs in your systems based on preference.

*Allow bonuses to invention success rate to aid alliances in being more self sufficient and reducing the Jita trips.
Marc Callan
Lucifer's Hammer
A Band Apart.
#2524 - 2015-03-05 17:47:05 UTC
Question from left field (I tried searching the thread but came up empty).

If a station goes into freeport mode under this new system, what will happen to repair services? One quirk I recall from my times in null is that station owners can set in-station repair costs, and often those are set to zero for people with docking permission. Will that be reset to standard rates, or locked in at the pre-freeport level?

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt

Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
The Bastion
#2525 - 2015-03-05 17:53:30 UTC
It seems that the majority of the problems related to the entosis link I'm reading here could be alleviated by making three changes to it.

A) structures being captured will have an 'uncapture' timer associated while an enemy entosis link is not active on it. In other words if an enemy captures a structure to say 50% but then is forced to leave. the structure will slowly undo what the attackers have done until it is back to full strength. (say 30min as just an example) this could then be sped up by the defender using an entosis link but it at least gives reason for the attacker to need to return if they do not want to lose the ground they gained and simply swapping around structures in a system would not have nearly the benefit it does in the current proposed idea.

B) make the entosis link unavailable to interceptors. frigates are still fine because warp bubbles will completely disrupt an attackers ability to literally troll an defender into submission. It is the warp bubble immunity and speed associated with them that is the main problem with the entosis link.

c) reduce the range of the t2 down to 100km. This would still give more than enough orbit range to keep ship (defense fleet) speed up while allowing defenders to actually be able to shoot them. 250km is just ridiculous as that pushes the total bubble of influence to 500 km in diameter! I'm all for bringing back a reason to have fast ships but that's a little absurd.

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus

Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2526 - 2015-03-05 17:57:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Elenahina
Lord TGR wrote:
Kah'Les wrote:
Elenahina wrote:

Or you could use 20 Rifters and save yourself a couple hundred million ISK.

Remember - they can't reinforce it, if you have it linked up too. You don't HAVE to kill the attacker. Just deny him sole control of the field.

That said, kill him anway, if you can, because you can.


Null is kind of supposed to be the end game, where dose people who have played this game for so long have to go to get away from the frigate game. SP should acually count for something, CCPs idea that newbro should be able to take sov is backwards. If you want to fly small gang pvp go do FW not null sec.

Don't you dare hate on the newbros in frigates. They're awesome.


Some people forget that we were all newbros in frigates once. Some newbro right now is the next DBRB or baltec1 - never forget that.

Also our entire corp is sort of built around nullsec PvP on the presupposiion that if you're in nullsec, you're prepared for PvP. If you're not, you'll probably wind up on our kill board at some point.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

VALL3R1A
Discharged Kinetics
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#2527 - 2015-03-05 17:58:42 UTC
I have a question


what going to happen when we need to get the military level up in a system and the true sec suck and you have to rat is ****
system.

will be a way to change the true sec of a system if we use it. If not what's the reason for ratting? and what are bored system no one will ever rat because of the high traffic. You know no one going to mining in a system next to possible enemy. is there any way that we can add pvp kill into the system. I talking about the reinforce time.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2528 - 2015-03-05 17:59:07 UTC
Sullen Decimus wrote:
It seems that the majority of the problems related to the entosis link I'm reading here could be alleviated by making three changes to it.

A) structures being captured will have an 'uncapture' timer associated while an enemy entosis link is not active on it. In other words if an enemy captures a structure to say 50% but then is forced to leave. the structure will slowly undo what the attackers have done until it is back to full strength. (say 30min as just an example) this could then be sped up by the defender using an entosis link but it at least gives reason for the attacker to need to return if they do not want to lose the ground they gained and simply swapping around structures in a system would not have nearly the benefit it does in the current proposed idea.
Agree, a slow tick down slightly forces a bit more commitment from the attackers.

Sullen Decimus wrote:
B) make the entosis link unavailable to interceptors. frigates are still fine because warp bubbles will completely disrupt an attackers ability to literally troll an defender into submission. It is the warp bubble immunity and speed associated with them that is the main problem with the entosis link.
Strongly disagree (in case you can't tell lol). This would enable gate camps and border control to keep empty systems protected behind an active defensive perimeter.

Sullen Decimus wrote:
c) reduce the range of the t2 down to 100km. This would still give more than enough orbit range to keep ship (defense fleet) speed up while allowing defenders to actually be able to shoot them. 250km is just ridiculous as that pushes the total bubble of influence to 500 km in diameter! I'm all for bringing back a reason to have fast ships but that's a little absurd.
I think this is really being overstated. Gimpfit inties with absolutely nothing else can just about be made to lock out this far - there's already a mechanical limitation on each hull by it's base stats and fitting choices.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
#2529 - 2015-03-05 17:59:34 UTC
Newbie nTraining wrote:

*250km range of the tech 2 module - WAAAAYYYY too far out. As many people have stated this is going to turn into interceptor warfare or cloaky-nulli tactical cruisers. This will just turn into attackers way out of range and a defender coming in to the sov structure to defend, therefore no true PVP interaction and we are falling asleep in the grind. Bring this in to something that will provide a decent orbit yet still promote the potential for PVP, say 50km-75km max.


250km is just the nominal range of the weapon system, you still need a target lock. If you fit a ceptor for maximum lock range it will have the resilience of an air balloon and the lock range will still be closer to 150km than 250km btw.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2530 - 2015-03-05 17:59:36 UTC
For the start, restrict the Entosis Link from being fit on frigates, destroyers, T3 cruisers, covert ops cloaking ships and capital ships. This allows everyone to monitor the progress and allow CCP to tweak it if it is not having the effect they want. Place restrictions on module combinations as well. For example no cloak and Entosis Link fit at the same time.

Let's see where the meta falls after that and then make adjustments as needed.
Josef Djugashvilis
#2531 - 2015-03-05 18:00:10 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Its actually better for us if the people who we want to greif time away from our chosen Prime, since the guys having to play "defender" wont be strung out also by going on the offense, instead you'll have our fresh other timezones with literally nothing better to do.


lulz

See everytime something someting changes in the game and null residents raise issues about it, "others" (mainly high sec types) rush in and proclaim how the 'tears are delicious'. What they NEVER seem to understand is that null residents are adapters, no matter what CCP throws at them, they fine a way to keep on truckin. What really happens though, is that in some way, the people who were celebrating 'tears' end up being the only people who end up suffering from whatever change is being discussed.

It's happening here (well, in general discussion anyways), people are proclaiming how this will be great for the game and the goons/N3/bi guys are gonna suffer and the coalations will collapse and the 'little guy' will have a chance. What they don't (and never) see coming is that the big groups will survive and find a way to profit, the little guys will still be sad and the high sec people celebrating will not be subject to BORED GOONS who don't have to be in null because their alliances prime time is in another Time Zones....which means even more ganking and tomfoolery Twisted

Tears aren't the things that are delicious. The thing that is delicious is IRONY.


Well played Jenn!

An entire thread about null-sec and you still manage to whinge about hi-sec.

That takes some mind set to do Shocked

This is not a signature.

Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#2532 - 2015-03-05 18:00:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:

Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.

I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.

What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2533 - 2015-03-05 18:12:12 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:

Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.

I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.

What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks.

Kinda works, kinda doesn't... now you're forcing them to bring something that can deal with a POS either in terms of tanking it for upto 40 minutes (without RR) or first killing the POS and then capping the point...which is back to n+1 capital warfare again.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#2534 - 2015-03-05 18:14:02 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
You are assuming that people don't know what the Goons are like, we do, which is why the first step is to plant a TCU next to a POS and troll you back, we know you don't want to hold that sov. And as the siphons proved you do get bored, and of course many people will be doing it to you, so many people from hisec could for example get into an interceptor and do this to get back at you, many won't but some might.

EDIT: And for good measure I don't ever expect to be able to put an IHUB in, but that is not the point is it...


Well, putting the ihub in is what's going to make your space reasonably profitable. You might also want a station at some point.

And see, you're looking at Goons. I wasn't. I'm looking at all of us. You think Pizza's going to not hit everyone they can with this? You think Black Legion won't? Or PL? You think Massadeth's gonna just mess with the CFC? Or that the Southeast won't be a wretched patchwork of N3 and the Russians trying to harass one another now that the supercapital blobs won't stop RUS?

We are not nice people. And honestly, we don't much care who we're not nice to.


The IHUB is what will be attacked and that is the weak spot in this change, I would advise CCP to make it so that the affects only get removed when it is destroyed. For things that rely on an IHUB I would have the Jump bridge require a IHUB in system for it to be anchored and onlined thats all. In terms of Super or Titan production the IHUB enables you to start a job, but if its removed once you started no issue. Then trolling becomes less of an issue, its the tweaks that really matter here.

I do of course recognise all the other entities that like having fun, you are not the only ones, but if you come to troll and only find a TCU next to a death star who is trolling who?




Am I seeing this right? Is this an actual complaint about nullsec PVP? People playing the game?

Quote:
And see, you're looking at Goons. I wasn't. I'm looking at all of us. You think Pizza's going to not hit everyone they can with this? You think Black Legion won't? Or PL? You think Massadeth's gonna just mess with the CFC? Or that the Southeast won't be a wretched patchwork of N3 and the Russians trying to harass one another now that the supercapital blobs won't stop RUS?



Is this what nullsec has become? I would expect such a complaint about highsec - yet the large nullsec blocks now make a sport of coming to highsec to gank freighters and mission boats, if not rake in the ISK with incursions.

Look at how entrenched, and fat on their dotage (like Smaug) over piles of moon goo and ISK from anoms they have become.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!

sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2535 - 2015-03-05 18:16:46 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:

Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.

I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.

What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks.


No to pos sov defense, too many guns for zero person showing up for defense. Give entosis same effects as cyno - it locks you down and puts a beacon on you. If system is occupied, someone will get a free kill, working as intended. If system is empty, you just soloed a sov system, working as intended.
Corey Lean
No Vacancies
Wardec Mechanics
#2536 - 2015-03-05 18:17:30 UTC
My only thoughts on the whole thing is: there should be a degree of risk and commitment on the side of the attackers as the defenders already took a risk by putting down there flag in space and spending isk on infrastructure, etc.
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2537 - 2015-03-05 18:19:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Here is some thoughts on addressing income.

1) make moongoo mineable by the players, and not a pos. reclassify the rorqual to a active moon mining ship. So the rorqual can moo mine and boost a fleet and miners can mine. Subsequently, price could drop on these.

basicaly make active hunting out of moon miners. Also gives people the option to do moon mining in total.

A few items to add regarding this

The rorqual cannot be in a pos and moon mine.

The rorqual cannot mine on a moon that has a pos present (so pos dumping is a strategy to stop miners). Yes you can grief with it, but you'd have to bring a hauler just to dump one.

Allow players to hack dead sticks to unanchor them (avoids dead sticking).

The rorqual industrial core should provide bonuses to moon mining and resistances to survive a assault on the rorqual (think of it as mega tank mode). The industrial mode should also protect the rorqual from ewar (same as siege or triage). This gives a lowsec rorqual some protection from being tackled by a subcap, and in some respects makes people require a hictor. The other option is to give the rorqual a flat out ewar immunity that supers have. I would also add dscan immunity to the rorqual also for less "I just found you by dscan move".

What this does is put industrial and miners on the same level of the entire pvp player base. You need them to mine, they need you for protection.

This does a few things. Pos fuel for mining pos is no more. Players have to actively mine. Defense fleets matter. Your location matters even more because you must have people to actively mine moons and pay attention to do it.

This does murder corporation and alliance funds for large and enormous groups. This also gives individual players a way to supplement their income by doing a mining process.

Obviously speed up how much a rorqual mines moons.

I would supplement what the rorqual does with what the orca could do. Basically allow the orca to compress minerals and ore and ice without the need for the mining pos item. Obviously you can still have it and use it if you want. Also I would allow moongoo to be stored in a orca's ore bay for transport.

siphons for moongoo is basically broken and could be removed if this change was considered.

The only reason I bring this is up is because people keep talking about anomaly ratting as the only income. I think the ultimate income should also just be put directly into the players hands. As this is a Sov revamp, the fight for the most valuable part of it also needs a revamp.

Yaay!!!!

Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#2538 - 2015-03-05 18:21:52 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Just a thought to reduce the small-gang and individual griefing aspect this form of sov mechanic will induce:

Attacks on TCU's are able to be countered by anchoring them near a POS. Enough guns will ward off the single or small gang. It should also be worth considering allowing Ihubs to be anchored near a POS as well.

I'm not really worried about this proposed sov mechanic with regard to organized groups who have a real intent to lay siege and take sov. But this mechanic, as proposed, will likely result in a massive uptick in annoyance as defenders respond to phantoms just running around and ringing doorbells. Maybe some fights or ganks or whatever you want to call PVP will result, but without a doubt it will also lead to abuses of the mechanic simply to cause the annoyance of forcing a defender to respond to false alarms. We already experience that with POS's. There is no need to expand it to sovereignty-related structures.

What may sound good on paper as a means of conducting legitimate sovwar will result in far more instances of players who just want to be dicks. Therefore, allow POS's to be used as a means to counter these kinds of fake attacks.

Kinda works, kinda doesn't... now you're forcing them to bring something that can deal with a POS either in terms of tanking it for upto 40 minutes (without RR) or first killing the POS and then capping the point...which is back to n+1 capital warfare again.


Well if the goal is to allow any single pilot to ring the doorbell or even reinforce a structure in 40 minutes, then I guess there is no way around the fact that it will get abused on a grand scale. Sovereignty warfare is not, nor should it be, the domain of any individual pilot to accomplish. If you can't get past a POS then you probably shouldn't be trying to get into the sovwar game. That's just my opinion of course, and I will await to see the abuse that results from thinking that it should be. Because if any single pilot has the capability of doing so, then thousands will organize just to show just how broken that mechanic truly is.
Basil Pupkin
Strategic Incompetence
#2539 - 2015-03-05 18:22:10 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:


100's near thousands of post about afk cloaky camping, and ccp refuses to acknowledge that its a problem
That's because it's not a problem except for the weak, lazy and un-creative.

What I tell afk cloakers:

[Typhoon, F YOU AFKguy]
Internal Force Field Array I
'Repose' Core Compensation
'Repose' Core Compensation
'Repose' Core Compensation
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Drone Damage Amplifier II

Large Micro Jump Drive
Target Spectrum Breaker
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
'Copasetic' Particle Field Acceleration
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster

Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Auto-Targeting Cruise Missile I
Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II
Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I

Curator II x4
Hornet EC-300 x5


So you prefer to give up expensive ships? Which system are you in?

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Cleanse Serce
La Forge.
Toilet Paper.
#2540 - 2015-03-05 18:23:55 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
125 pages, 2 CSM posts. This shows how little your vote matters. If it had to be any more obvious.


125 pages, 2 CCP posts. This shows how little CCP is concerned. Roll

Logic is overestimated.