These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2581 - 2015-03-05 19:40:06 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

It's very limited annoyance for the defender if he's locally based in the first place.


No one can base locally. That's the part everyone seems to be forgetting.

You're also severely underestimating just how much trouble one dedicated camper can cause.

The Tl;DR of a bunch of the earlier replies to me:

"But Kaarous, the defender has forty minutes under perfectly ideal conditions to un reinforce it!"

Yeah, I know. How many systems in the game actually merit maxed out indices? How many don't? The last number is a damn sight bigger than the first number. (nevermind that this is a huge underestimation of just how much trouble one guy with half a dozen cloaked alts will be able to cause)

Unless this is accompanied by a full, and I mean full restructuring of personal level income in nullsec, it will be problematic. Without said full restructuring, it is unreasonable to expect people, plural, to live in and defend a single system when that system has worse income than slowboating highsec missions. (let alone the disgusting income of Incursions)

Completely agree. Null incomes need to be changed. Instead of moons giving isk to the alliance execs to pad their wallets from the top down the isk should be made available to line members and distributed from the bottom up.

If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :)

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

Alli Ginthur
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2582 - 2015-03-05 19:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Alli Ginthur
Eli Apol wrote:
Alli Ginthur wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Gypsien Agittain wrote:
As long as you think a group of 1k people against 40k can do anything you'll be obliterated as the talis. You're not more than a terrorist group against the big motherf USA of New Eden. Keep on deliring while you stick to npc null, or try to get sov and get obliterated on your way.

As long as you think that there's any conceivable reason for the 40k people to go out of their way and spend their time actually harassing that 1k in a futile task that will be instantly reversible almost as soon as they turn their backs - when instead they could be actually dealing with their primary competitors instead - then their fear propoganda is working on you.

Because a) if they're trying to or taking sov, aren't they at that point competitors? and b) "because screw you" isnt a valid eve reason for anything? Roll

Sure they'll troll... but considering that their 'trolling' consists of orbitting a structure for 40 minutes then returning 2 days later and having to do it another 10 times - with or without hostiles in system with them.

...and then two days later you flip it straight back because they don't live locally and have no intention of holding it and so didn't grind up the indices or have anyone show up to your velator.

How many days are they gonna keep up this epic trollolololol for whilst also defending their own space during primetime (which I've already suggested should be a much longer period for large alliances).

And how many times are you going to retake it after they trololol through your sov again and again? Who gets tired first? I would be willing to bet its not the larger entity.
And I do agree it should be a longer vulnerability window for bigger alliances, based on either amount of sov owned or size of alliance, but again, that would be able to be manipulated. They need to give people a reason to risk getting trolled by the big blocs before changing how you get trolled by them. Give null a carrot before the stick, or at least at the same time
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2583 - 2015-03-05 19:41:24 UTC
Devi Loches wrote:
Since TCU won't have a cost attached to it, this seriously can happen. They can go around, blow up all the iHubs, plant TCUs everywhere, and force all stations into freeport mode. The fact that you think Goons aren't a threat and this is a joke shows you don't realize why small alliances don't like these changes. It supports slash and burn tactics.


You are vastly oversimplifying how quick this will be. In order to do any of these things, another fleet needs to come back for the second timer and actually win the constellation control node contest for EVERY STRUCTURE they reinforced in the first round. Only then will IHUBs explode, stations freeport, and new TCU's be planted.

So not only was no one home to defensive E-link the initial fleet, no one was home to win the control node contest during the second timer. Both of which take place in the defender's prime time using mechanics that are so advantaged to the defender that it's pretty much "if they show up they'll probably win" (at least, assuming we're still talking about the troll attacker fleets that couldn't hold grid against a few carebears in T1 cruisers). If all this happens to be true, then YES, absolutely, that space shouldn't belong to anyone and praise be the troll fleet that burns it to the ground.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2584 - 2015-03-05 19:41:36 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :)

I believe it was, a few pages ago.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#2585 - 2015-03-05 19:41:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

It's very limited annoyance for the defender if he's locally based in the first place.
No one can base locally. That's the part everyone seems to be forgetting.
You're not maximizing income and therefore you CAN'T base locally? Really?



Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#2586 - 2015-03-05 19:43:02 UTC
I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2587 - 2015-03-05 19:45:08 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :)

I believe it was, a few pages ago.

I hazarded a guess at 7 trillion/month for just R64s across the whole of nullsec based on data a few years old... completely passively going into alliance pools without any industry indices or ships required in space (aside from a quick blockade runner)

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

Alli Ginthur
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2588 - 2015-03-05 19:46:35 UTC
Lady Zarrina wrote:
I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?


Maybe I need to check my reading comprehension, but wasnt one of the goals of this sov retool to allow smaller groups a chance to get a foothold?
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2589 - 2015-03-05 19:49:57 UTC
Alli Ginthur wrote:
And how many times are you going to retake it after they trololol through your sov again and again? Who gets tired first? I would be willing to bet its not the larger entity.
And I do agree it should be a longer vulnerability window for bigger alliances, based on either amount of sov owned or size of alliance, but again, that would be able to be manipulated. They need to give people a reason to risk getting trolled by the big blocs before changing how you get trolled by them. Give null a carrot before the stick, or at least at the same time

Well allegedly this trolololol fleet is going to carry on indefinitely across every single contestable system even though there's no reward for doing so except briefly lighting the map up with an extra flag for two days. So yeah your guess is as good as mine.

And yes the carrots definitely need to be tasty enough for small groups to persevere :)

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

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2590 - 2015-03-05 19:50:12 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:


One other important point. WTF is the CSM? I haven't seem a single post from a current CSM member in this thread with an opinion on these proposals. Neither have I seem any of the candidates for CSM sharing their opinions (except for Xenuria and he doesn't count). I want to know what the nullsec candidates in particular think about all this.

Manny, Endie, Corebloodbrothers - where are you?


I am doing my damndest to catch up with this thread. But you lot keep writing faster than I can read. When I am full caught up I will start actual comments and answers but like ISD Ezwal, I am reading it all.

Every damn post.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#2591 - 2015-03-05 19:51:21 UTC
Lady Zarrina wrote:
I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?



The difference is Goons will probably let some scrub alliances take a bit of their space then , like a cat playing with a dying mouse, the fun will begin.



The main problem I have with convuluted ideas like this new sov system and Dominion is that it doesn't take into account the kinds of things people actually do. They seemed to be designed for a 'perfectly reasonable person' (no such person has ever existed) instread of huiman beings.

Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. Big coaltions might hire mercs to patrol their space during prime time so they themselves can go do actual fun things like attack somone else's prime time in force.

I'll be that every single renter alliance is about to have their prime time set to AUTZ or whenver the North American, Euros and Russians aren't around lol.

And if i were a tonfoil hat man, i'd say CCP was doing this because they know this is gonna generate a lot of revenue in the form of new entosis using home defense frig alts lol. Well for a while at least, till everyone figures out that this "FW in null" sov stuff just isn't fun.

And that's the big thing. Sov is about bigger ships (cruisers and up) having bigger fights. I don't know why this kind of low sec small gang crap is desirable in null.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#2592 - 2015-03-05 19:57:15 UTC
Alli Ginthur wrote:
Lady Zarrina wrote:
I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?


Maybe I need to check my reading comprehension, but wasnt one of the goals of this sov retool to allow smaller groups a chance to get a foothold?


It is, and it will work. Just not right away. This change, if not watered down all to hell, will make keeping a sprawling empire so onerous, and being an insurgent within one so much fun, that eventually the big empires will collapse. Maintaining one will just be completely un-fun compared to living in NPC null next door and wrecking one.

Systems with high end moons will be under constant assault. Likewise systems occupied by renters with little or no will to fight. Starve the body of revenue and the head will fall.

Collapsing the big empires that exist today will have to happen first. Then, and only then, will the little guys stand a chance, and then, only the little guys who can and will fight.

It's an optimistic scenario that, frankly, has little chance. These changes will be watered down substantially to ensure the big empire's survival. The truth is that CCP has become pretty dependent on those big empires and the following that they bring to the game. They aren't going to do anything that will disrupt them in a major way.
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#2593 - 2015-03-05 19:59:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lady Zarrina wrote:
I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?



The difference is Goons will probably let some scrub alliances take a bit of their space then , like a cat playing with a dying mouse, the fun will begin.



The main problem I have with convuluted ideas like this new sov system and Dominion is that it doesn't take into account the kinds of things people actually do. They seemed to be designed for a 'perfectly reasonable person' (no such person has ever existed) instread of huiman beings.

Big alliances are going to enlist their renters to defend space, offering them reduced rent for successful defense of systems. Big coaltions might hire mercs to patrol their space during prime time so they themselves can go do actual fun things like attack somone else's prime time in force.

I'll be that every single renter alliance is about to have their prime time set to AUTZ or whenver the North American, Euros and Russians aren't around lol.

And if i were a tonfoil hat man, i'd say CCP was doing this because they know this is gonna generate a lot of revenue in the form of new entosis using home defense frig alts lol. Well for a while at least, till everyone figures out that this "FW in null" sov stuff just isn't fun.

And that's the big thing. Sov is about bigger ships (cruisers and up) having bigger fights. I don't know why this kind of low sec small gang crap is desirable in null.


As I thought. Nothing to do what is being said.

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2594 - 2015-03-05 20:03:08 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :)

I believe it was, a few pages ago.

I hazarded a guess at 7 trillion/month for just R64s across the whole of nullsec based on data a few years old... completely passively going into alliance pools without any industry indices or ships required in space (aside from a quick blockade runner)

And someone responded with "slightly" newer numbers shortly thereafter.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#2595 - 2015-03-05 20:03:40 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
The main problem I have with convuluted ideas like this new sov system and Dominion is that it doesn't take into account the kinds of things people actually do. They seemed to be designed for a 'perfectly reasonable person' (no such person has ever existed) instread of huiman beings.


And the main problem with leaping to this conclusion is that we haven't seen either a capital rebalance or a PVE rebalance yet. Hell, we don't know where POSes are going either. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be skeptical, only that we only have some of the information.

Personally, the first thing I thought of was the PIZZA guy with something like 20 cloaky alts. And while I tip my hat to your Typhoon fit, which on top of everything else is cheap enough to not look like an attractive target in the first place, it fails the condition imposed by your above-quoted argument: 'perfectly reasonable people' would have adapted in that way, but that isn't who we're dealing with. And anyway, anomalies themselves are about three or four kinds of broken. As you know.

For those looking for CSM feedback: besides Mike and Steve, mynnna is posting in this thread on an alt (hi mynnna! don't be shy!) and Xander Phoena has posted a lengthy reaction on Crossing Zebras.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#2596 - 2015-03-05 20:04:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


The difference is Goons will probably let some scrub alliances take a bit of their space then , like a cat playing with a dying mouse, the fun will begin.


Because the big coalitions and the big alliances are too fat.

Maintenance fee for alliance existence and structures should be exponential.

The more you have stations, TCU, ihub, the more you should pay. And at some point it should be unsustainable.

CCP need to burn these coalitions to the ground by alliance and sov fee mechanics.

They will respond by dividing in smaller groups but we will see new leaders in these groups and if they have some balls they will want the independence.

Big coalitions must be burned to the ground with new fee mechanics, like large empire in civilization game for example.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2597 - 2015-03-05 20:05:13 UTC
Trii Seo wrote:
El'Grimm wrote:
[quote=Lena Lazair]
You cheapen the tools of war, you cheapen the experience. If you think the same group of thousands of people are going to want to engage in the sov game when the new mechanics scream "lol sov why" you are the one who is mistaken. If these players so wanted skirmish and lol fights they wouldn't be bothered about sov warfare anyway and we'd all be flying in FW, the reason we aren't, because we dont want cheap meaningless pvp that has no practical use, nothing really happens and changes every few days.


This.

Even if the system were to work well, it really will not magically cause more fights. Beyond the fact that there's no reason to launch a sov war, the new system rewards hunkering down in your region and not launching a war because the moment you invade someone, someone else can slip in and create a pile of timers.


Hunkering down is not gonna stop your barely-blue neighbors from slipping in and creating a pile of timers in YOUR space. Daily sov harassment will be a defacto thing after this. No blue diplo arrangement is going to prevent it when it is this trivially easy for line members to do.

As far as not provoking fights? Well, only if the people you are fighting don't want their stations/ihubs/tcu's. Otherwise, it's the very definition of provoking fights because they MUST mobilize to counter your fleet. Skirmish roams don't work now because the defender has no reason to undock. You play some station games, whee.... the attacker can't do anything except force a couple of mission runners to dock up.

But NOW if the defenders don't undock, that same roaming cruiser fleet can burn every IHUB, station, and TCU they can find. It's funny that people are focused on the troll fleets, which are trivially countered by brick-tanked E-link defenders flat out ignoring them. Actual fleets of T3's/HACs roaming your space and flipping sov will be what you need to fear, since they can take and hold a grid long enough to do it and then come back and win the control node contests too, and the only defense will be to actually fight them.

The idea that your line members WON'T take out 30 HACs on a whim and start actually reinforcing all your blue neighbors is hilarious. Of COURSE they will, just as soon as they get bored of burning all the dead sov with their trollceptor fleets first (which will quickly become pointless once they start hitting space with people actively living there).

Basically, it's gonna be WH life for null. If you DON'T undock and provide a fight when someone roams your space, the next step is eviction. Defenders no longer have the luxury of turtling up to avoid roaming skirmish fleets, because those fleets can BURN YOUR SOV TO THE GROUND. So you'd better undock and provide a fight.

Sure, there are some people for which this mechanic won't provoke fights. Those people will be gone from null in a week, and all the sov that remains will be held by people willing to undock and fight those roaming subcap fleets.
Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#2598 - 2015-03-05 20:07:22 UTC
davet517 wrote:
Alli Ginthur wrote:
Lady Zarrina wrote:
I keep reading that smaller entities are in more trouble with this system. Please give me a real example of this mythical small entity that can successfully fend off the goons now, but will not be able to in the future?


Maybe I need to check my reading comprehension, but wasnt one of the goals of this sov retool to allow smaller groups a chance to get a foothold?


It is, and it will work. Just not right away. This change, if not watered down all to hell, will make keeping a sprawling empire so onerous, and being an insurgent within one so much fun, that eventually the big empires will collapse. Maintaining one will just be completely un-fun compared to living in NPC null next door and wrecking one.

Systems with high end moons will be under constant assault. Likewise systems occupied by renters with little or no will to fight. Starve the body of revenue and the head will fall.

Collapsing the big empires that exist today will have to happen first. Then, and only then, will the little guys stand a chance, and then, only the little guys who can and will fight.

It's an optimistic scenario that, frankly, has little chance. These changes will be watered down substantially to ensure the big empire's survival. The truth is that CCP has become pretty dependent on those big empires and the following that they bring to the game. They aren't going to do anything that will disrupt them in a major way.


What do moons have to do with any of this? Nothing is stopping anyone from going after moons now and that little Sov Laser won't do anything to it in the future. Kill the hub, kill the TCU and that POS you aren't willing to attack today is just as defended as it was before these changes.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#2599 - 2015-03-05 20:08:23 UTC
Papa Django wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


The difference is Goons will probably let some scrub alliances take a bit of their space then , like a cat playing with a dying mouse, the fun will begin.


Because the big coalitions and the big alliances are too fat.

Maintenance fee for alliance existence and structures should be exponential.

The more you have stations, TCU, ihub, the more you should pay. And at some point it should be unsustainable.

CCP need to burn these coalitions to the ground by alliance and sov fee mechanics.

They will respond by dividing in smaller groups but we will see new leaders in these groups and if they have some balls they will want the independence.

Big coalitions must be burned to the ground with new fee mechanics, like large empire in civilization game for example.

wouldn't work

we'd find the breakpoints and splinter our holdings enough to reduce the costs appropriately

we wouldn't install actual people as the heads of these organizations either, that would just be silly

any suggestion involving punishment for larger numbers is going to be trivially exploitable by anyone with even trace amounts of gray matter sloshing about in their heads
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
The Bastion
#2600 - 2015-03-05 20:08:57 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:


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.


Isn't that the point? :) If defenders are actively gate camping SHOULDN'T that be sufficient to lock a system down? also I have yet to see a gate camp that is truly locked down 23/7 plus there is almost always more than one way into a system. As CCP stated they wanted to make it so constellation layout play a factor into it's defend-ability.

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus