These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2801 - 2015-03-06 02:19:32 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
because it's easy for him as wh guy to be happy about it and these changes - he won't have to live with it.

Nah I just think that saying 'Cuz we can **** around with it because we have enough members to easily cover a 4hr period once a day and still be dicks'

is just an encouragement to say: OK then, deal with 8, 16, 24hrs of it if you can cope with a meagre 4 so easily.

If you can't cope, then break down into smaller components where you can manage smaller spaces with fewer members.

Rather than caving into the dickishness...


If you have to implement different rules for different people then you have lost the argument.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2802 - 2015-03-06 02:21:23 UTC
Burl en Daire wrote:

Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.


It's already 4 hours, per structure every day.

All it takes is a few cov ops frigates cloaked in their systems. When I have a few minutes, I reinforce their TCUs and they have to spend 4 hours there the following day on the off chance I show up and ninja their stuff. Per structure.

I can do this with station services too, with basically no recourse for the defender. They can. not. stop. me. from reinforcing their stuff while they sleep, unless they just don't sleep.

And you would rather it was 12 hours, per structure, every day.

"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.
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#2803 - 2015-03-06 02:21:38 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:


What would be your fix for the trollcepter?



Don't allow it.


If CCP wants to encourage actual fights, then allowing an interceptor or nullified ship to be able to flip things will only cause frustration and not lead to many kills. Sure, they might trigger some timers, but it is highly unlikely that the aggressing group would show up to actually flip it.



I understand the problem with interceptors and why they don't encourage fights. How far should we go with it? Should covert ops, T3 cruisers and black ops be restricted as well? They can be just as dangerous or even more so than an interceptor because they can actually put up a fight if the defender happens to show up in force.

I do like the idea of the E-link being a BC and up module but I also like the options that fitting it to any ship offers. I am to the point where it should be a deployable that can be scooped up, that way at least there is a higher chance of it being destroyed or lost if the defenders show up.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2804 - 2015-03-06 02:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Schluffi Schluffelsen
Eli Apol wrote:
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
because it's easy for him as wh guy to be happy about it and these changes - he won't have to live with it.

Nah I just think that saying 'Cuz we can **** around with it because we have enough members to easily cover a 4hr period once a day and still be dicks'

is just an encouragement to say: OK then, deal with 8, 16, 24hrs of it if you can cope with a meagre 4 so easily.

If you can't cope, then break down into smaller components where you can manage smaller spaces with fewer members.


Yes, fewer numbers to cover more nodes and timers is definetely the answer :-) and n3 and cfc are no alliances, they are coalitions - moving alts out of the sov holding alliance won't be hard to circumvene number related restrictions - they'll just be blue. Corp related TZ sound good on paper but alliance leaders will strictly order uniform tz settings to streamline ops and ctas.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2805 - 2015-03-06 02:22:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
because it's easy for him as wh guy to be happy about it and these changes - he won't have to live with it.

Nah I just think that saying 'Cuz we can **** around with it because we have enough members to easily cover a 4hr period once a day and still be dicks'

is just an encouragement to say: OK then, deal with 8, 16, 24hrs of it if you can cope with a meagre 4 so easily.

If you can't cope, then break down into smaller components where you can manage smaller spaces with fewer members.

Rather than caving into the dickishness...


If you have to implement different rules for different people then you have lost the argument.

I think not answering questions is also a sign of struggling for answers that don't make you look worried.

More sov = longer primetimes. Simple rule which just needs a few minor tweaks to prevent you gaming around it. Larger alliances can and should be vulnerable over longer periods than 100 people that all come from the same country wanting to stake a claim in a couple of systems.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2806 - 2015-03-06 02:23:04 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Humour me, imagine it is (and I've already stated ideas that would make it possible earlier in the thread)

Now your victims of dickery 24/7 versus being able to inflict it on others only during their 4hr time periods unless you downscale your alliance or number of systems.

So now what's the problem with ceptors?


The very nature of interceptors in general do not generate conflict. A roaming gang of interceptors is not looking to fight anything that shoots back. They are designed to pick off people not paying attention or being utilized as fast tackle. Enabling such a ship to be able to flip sov is just asking for entire regions to be burned down without fights.

There is no place that you can force an interceptor to fight because they are immune to bubbles. They are already largely fit to be unlockable due to server tick times. Therefore, the only way to actually fight interceptors is if they want to fight you- which happens basically never.

I am all for more destruction of everything in Eve. However, allowing interceptors (and even nullified t3s) to be able to flip sov like this is just asking for us to burn down most of sov space.

Don't take this incorrectly either- if it stayed as-is, we would utilize interceptors to their maximum potential to burn everything down. Deklein has some of the highest density of any space in the game- aside from random roaming gangs coming through our space (mostly in interceptors or stealth bombers), there wouldn't be a way for someone to successfully disrupt our space, aside from starting the initial timers.
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#2807 - 2015-03-06 02:24:26 UTC
Cancel Align NOW wrote:


Where is the incentive to make players want to do that job? I agree that 4 hours is too narrow and one flat time frame does not scale, but the core of Eve is social dynamic between individuals and attempting to break that core up with no carrots will not help Eve Online.



That will probably come with phase three, there needs to be something because everything else will be taken care of if the changes are worked out and implemented.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2808 - 2015-03-06 02:25:41 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Humour me, imagine it is (and I've already stated ideas that would make it possible earlier in the thread)

Now your victims of dickery 24/7 versus being able to inflict it on others only during their 4hr time periods unless you downscale your alliance or number of systems.

So now what's the problem with ceptors?


The very nature of interceptors in general do not generate conflict. A roaming gang of interceptors is not looking to fight anything that shoots back. They are designed to pick off people not paying attention or being utilized as fast tackle. Enabling such a ship to be able to flip sov is just asking for entire regions to be burned down without fights.

There is no place that you can force an interceptor to fight because they are immune to bubbles. They are already largely fit to be unlockable due to server tick times. Therefore, the only way to actually fight interceptors is if they want to fight you- which happens basically never.

I am all for more destruction of everything in Eve. However, allowing interceptors (and even nullified t3s) to be able to flip sov like this is just asking for us to burn down most of sov space.

Don't take this incorrectly either- if it stayed as-is, we would utilize interceptors to their maximum potential to burn everything down. Deklein has some of the highest density of any space in the game- aside from random roaming gangs coming through our space (mostly in interceptors or stealth bombers), there wouldn't be a way for someone to successfully disrupt our space, aside from starting the initial timers.
They force defenders to undock = they can engage or run away to another system. There's a chance for the attackers to engage in a fight whenever they feel like it just by putting a link on a structure. Sure *some* people are gonna troll and never actually fight because it's the same as blueing all their neighbours, but people that actually want to fight are gonna use this everyday to drag people from their stations and away from the undock radius.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2809 - 2015-03-06 02:25:58 UTC
Also something to remember- if interceptors are starting these timers, then we'd have 27.5 minutes to react to them. There is no way an interceptor gang would stay on grid for 27 minutes to defend the initial countdown to even get to the siege timer.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2810 - 2015-03-06 02:26:13 UTC
Burl en Daire wrote:

I understand the problem with interceptors and why they don't encourage fights. How far should we go with it?


Fitting it should be sufficiently hard as to keep it out of the reach of every ship in the frigate size class.

"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.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2811 - 2015-03-06 02:27:56 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Also something to remember- if interceptors are starting these timers, then we'd have 27.5 minutes to react to them. There is no way an interceptor gang would stay on grid for 27 minutes to defend the initial countdown to even get to the siege timer.

Exactly...wait a minute...a goon finally understands? P

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2812 - 2015-03-06 02:28:44 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
[They force defenders to undock = they can engage or run away to another system. There's a chance for the attackers to engage in a fight whenever they feel like it just by putting a link on a structure. Sure *some* people are gonna troll and never actually fight because it's the same as blueing all their neighbours, but people that actually want to fight are gonna use this everyday to drag people from their stations and away from the undock radius.


I'd like to go on record saying I'd be all for allowing interceptors to use these if NPC null stations can also have their services disabled. Otherwise, what is the point of basing out of any sov null station rather than a nearby npc station?

If you're trying to argue that interceptors lead to more fights, then it should work both ways- both to people in sov null AND to people in npc null. If not, you're just trying to argue for a targetted nerf to one group of players.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2813 - 2015-03-06 02:29:29 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
There's a chance for the attackers to engage in a fight whenever they feel like it just by putting a link on a structure.


That's true whether interceptors and cov ops frigates are allowed to use it or not. It's not magically true about frigates and untrue about cruisers and battleships.

The only difference is whether the attacker risks anything, ever. Because if it can be fitted on frigates, the attacker has a cheap, easy solution that risks basically nothing.

Go ahead and let us know right now if you think that should be the case.

"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.
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#2814 - 2015-03-06 02:29:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Burl en Daire
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:

Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.


It's already 4 hours, per structure every day.

All it takes is a few cov ops frigates cloaked in their systems. When I have a few minutes, I reinforce their TCUs and they have to spend 4 hours there the following day on the off chance I show up and ninja their stuff. Per structure.

I can do this with station services too, with basically no recourse for the defender. They can. not. stop. me. from reinforcing their stuff while they sleep, unless they just don't sleep.

And you would rather it was 12 hours, per structure, every day.



baltec1 wrote:
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.



If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2815 - 2015-03-06 02:30:30 UTC
Like I've always said- I'm always in favor of more destruction of everything, even if it's other CFC players.

Destruction drives demand in eve, which benefits everyone.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2816 - 2015-03-06 02:32:30 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Eli Apol wrote:

I think not answering questions is also a sign of struggling for answers that don't make you look worried.

More sov = longer primetimes. Simple rule which just needs a few minor tweaks to prevent you gaming around it. Larger alliances can and should be vulnerable over longer periods than 100 people that all come from the same country wanting to stake a claim in a couple of systems.


I did answer, you just dont like what I said.

Your plan *) does nothing good for the game. We want more conflict and trollcepters will provide no conflict at all. We are trying to stop CCP from giving us bad tools we can abuse yet here you are, trying to keep these tools that we have already stated we would abuse heavily.

*) = *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2817 - 2015-03-06 02:33:09 UTC
Burl en Daire wrote:

If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.


That, or it means that they've succeeded in the objective of the rebalance, take only as much sov as you can reasonably defend.

The goal here isn't "make it unviable to have large groups", you realize.

"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.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#2818 - 2015-03-06 02:35:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
baltec1 wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

I think not answering questions is also a sign of struggling for answers that don't make you look worried.

More sov = longer primetimes. Simple rule which just needs a few minor tweaks to prevent you gaming around it. Larger alliances can and should be vulnerable over longer periods than 100 people that all come from the same country wanting to stake a claim in a couple of systems.


I did answer, you just dont like what I said.

Your plan *) does nothing good for the game. We want more conflict and trollcepters will provide no conflict at all. We are trying to stop CCP from giving us bad tools we can abuse yet here you are, trying to keep these tools that we have already stated we would abuse heavily.

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


Trollceptors - when used as you intend - force no conflict.

Anyone else chucking a link on a CFC structure in any of your systems (during your nice long, bloated primetime period) who actually wants a fight WILL force a response. Just because you're so risk averse doesn't mean the rest of the players are.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2819 - 2015-03-06 02:36:21 UTC
Burl en Daire wrote:


If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.


That only means we can mess with even more people for longer. We are one of the few organisations that can effectively defend round the clock.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2820 - 2015-03-06 02:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Eli Apol wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

I think not answering questions is also a sign of struggling for answers that don't make you look worried.

More sov = longer primetimes. Simple rule which just needs a few minor tweaks to prevent you gaming around it. Larger alliances can and should be vulnerable over longer periods than 100 people that all come from the same country wanting to stake a claim in a couple of systems.


I did answer, you just dont like what I said.

Your plan *) does nothing good for the game. We want more conflict and trollcepters will provide no conflict at all. We are trying to stop CCP from giving us bad tools we can abuse yet here you are, trying to keep these tools that we have already stated we would abuse heavily.

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


Trollceptors - when used as you intend - force no conflict.

Anyone else chucking a link on a CFC structure in any of your systems (during your nice long, bloated primetime period) who actually wants a fight WILL force a response. Just because you're so risk averse doesn't mean the rest of the players are.


The risk adverse mantra doesn't work on me.