These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#3021 - 2015-03-06 11:47:57 UTC
Angry Mustache wrote:
You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.

What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?

All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.

What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.

Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.

So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting.


Make the Entosis Link a bastion/siege module. Immobile, but with defensive bonuses. Fitting requirements for battlecruiser and above.

Welcome hordes of triple plated triple repped abaddons... battleship combat ensues.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3022 - 2015-03-06 11:51:53 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.


"nobody will ever have the kind of resources and organization to just make Titans whenever they feel like it. We're safe leaving it broken under the assumption that no one will ever pull it off."

"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.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3023 - 2015-03-06 11:52:05 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Papa Digger wrote:
Entosis module mechanics definately need some changes.
Fitting - pg 200.
No cloak activation while module is active


Cloackign is already not allowed since you CANNOT LOCK ANYTHING WHILE CLOACKED!!!


Notably, you aren't supposed to be able to MWD while cloaked, yet clever use of activation times makes the Cloak-MWD trick a quite familiar and widely used tactic. There is certainly nothing wrong with highlighting where a potential carelessness in coding could create a hilariously stupid bug.



And that EXACT same behavior is what will prevent the abuse of the cloak. Because the active module effects do not END until the end of the cycle. Therefore the SHIP will NOT be able to stop the cycle by just pulsing a cloak.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3024 - 2015-03-06 11:52:48 UTC
Like this change, what I like a lot is that CCP is willing to change as we go. No doubt there will be loopholes and other issues that need balancing and need to be adressed.

One issue though: combine the jump fatigue with the prime time: make prime time related to a region. So if an alliance picks prime time for there sov in region A, they cannot pick the same time in region B. This means they'll have to move around to defend their big empire. And only when they have sov in their seventh region, they can have overlapping prime time.

This'll give larger alliance a way to split their realm into the different timezones they no doubt posses. And will prevent small roaming groups from holding down sov in multiple regions. Sure they might be able to capture it, but not hold it.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3025 - 2015-03-06 11:53:11 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.


"nobody will ever have the kind of resources and organization to just make Titans whenever they feel like it. We're safe leaving it broken under the assumption that no one will ever pull it off."



Focusing resources is MUCH MUCH easier than keeping 20 k people doign somethign incredbly boring 4 hours per day every day for months.

If you are able to make 20 K peopel WORK 4 hours per day without payment.. dude.. you would be the riuchest businnes man in THE WORLD!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3026 - 2015-03-06 11:54:10 UTC
Panther X wrote:
Angry Mustache wrote:
You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.

What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?

All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.

What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.

Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.

So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting.


Make the Entosis Link a bastion/siege module. Immobile, but with defensive bonuses. Fitting requirements for battlecruiser and above.

Welcome hordes of triple plated triple repped abaddons... battleship combat ensues.



its called MARAUDER with an entosis link :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Anthar Thebess
#3027 - 2015-03-06 11:57:21 UTC
Can not "contained" sansha incursion drop sov ?
If you did not care to stop the incursion ....

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3028 - 2015-03-06 11:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Burl en Daire wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.


I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina.


It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive.

And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game, and have invalidated all manner of gameplay. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.

EDIT - Really, my only big reservation to this whole system lies in the Interceptors role. If that gets solidly blocked, any objection I have goes away (and I am far from alone in that regard). Sure, there are other things that could do with tweaking (the primetime window thing mostly, and the role of supercaps in this new world), but absolutely every other problem can be tinkered on the fly. This subject is the only truly game-breaking problem that if released as-is, will utterly scorched-earth the entirety of nullsec. I like the suggestions of BC and above for the module, but really only because BC and BS need some love, really, that isn't needed at first-pass stage. But the Interceptor absolutely has to be hammered or its all fubar.
Lavayar
Haidamaky
UA Fleets
#3029 - 2015-03-06 11:59:41 UTC
Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V.
Anthar Thebess
#3030 - 2015-03-06 12:06:35 UTC
Lavayar wrote:
Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V.

No.
Look for a WH and then make freighter transport ops.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3031 - 2015-03-06 12:07:11 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.


I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina.


It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive.

And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.



But if you try to keep that commitment for too long in a spread and non focused way you LOOSE that cohesion.

That is not MY prediction, that is known for centuries from generals experience on keeping an army cohesion for long engagements. That have been later re discovered by managers at most companies around the world. Its human nature. If you keep the decentralized into non focused tasks for too long you LOSE the capability of focusing when you need it.

So if CFC TRIES to do that .. in haklf a year they will lose a LOT of their power. But your leadership is nto dumb enough to do that.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Dark Spite
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#3032 - 2015-03-06 12:09:57 UTC
Lavayar wrote:
Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V.


Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3033 - 2015-03-06 12:11:55 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.


I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina.


It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive.

And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.



But if you try to keep that commitment for too long in a spread and non focused way you LOOSE that cohesion.

That is not MY prediction, that is known for centuries from generals experience on keeping an army cohesion for long engagements. That have been later re discovered by managers at most companies around the world. Its human nature. If you keep the decentralized into non focused tasks for too long you LOSE the capability of focusing when you need it.

So if CFC TRIES to do that .. in haklf a year they will lose a LOT of their power. But your leadership is nto dumb enough to do that.


It wouldn't take half a year. It would talk a single six week patch cycle for it to be made clear how hilariously broken things are.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#3034 - 2015-03-06 12:13:14 UTC
Besides the complaint that the new system will be open to trolls (which may or may not be adressed) the question still remains where the place of capitals or supers will be in the new meta.

So how about this:

Create a new structure, the Super-Hub. Only one can be set up per constellation.

- increases the effect of indices of selected iHubs in the constellation (owner could chose which to link)
- this might or might not include the entosys link multiplier effect for those iHubs
- can only be affected by entosys links of CAPITAL ships


ONLY if you want that to be even more of a conflict driver:
- also allow to select iHubs to decrease the effect for



P.S.
Also, the idea someone brought up of randomly distributing prime time windows over constellation was largely ignored. IMO that's a brilliant idea, since it (randomly) determines the value of a constellation for a lot of alliances - especially generating a different value for people from different timezones.
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#3035 - 2015-03-06 12:14:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Burl en Daire
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.


I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina.


It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive.

And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.


I have no doubt in what you have said but realistically it probably won't happen because herding over a thousand players for more than a month just to troll a system pushes the boundary, yeah a few hundred here and there and maybe a week or two at a time but I seriously doubt that even GSF has the pull to keep its numbers high and the attrition low for more that a month of boring, tedious play, especially if they are having to do it on multiple alts, lets face the facts, there aren't as many GSF individual players are there are members. How many play in BRAVE just to have more fun/hour?

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Dark Spite
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#3036 - 2015-03-06 12:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dark Spite
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Besides the complaint that the new system will be open to trolls (which may or may not be adressed) the question still remains where the place of capitals or supers will be in the new meta.

So how about this:

Create a new structure, the Super-Hub. Only one can be set up per constellation.

- increases the effect of indices of selected iHubs in the constellation (owner could chose which to link)
- this might or might not include the entosys link multiplier effect for those iHubs
- can only be affected by entosys links of CAPITAL ships


ONLY if you want that to be even more of a conflict driver:
- also allow to select iHubs to decrease the effect for



P.S.
Also, the idea someone brought up of randomly distributing prime time windows over constellation was largely ignored. IMO that's a brilliant idea, since it (randomly) determines the value of a constellation for a lot of alliances - especially generating a different value for people from different timezones.


Why on earth do you actually WANT to shoot structures in anything. Trust me, after the first time in a super shooting structures, its really as boring as shooting structures in anything.

Edit: Punctuation and grammar.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#3037 - 2015-03-06 12:16:43 UTC
Whew, managed to read through this thread-naught at last. There is a lot of talk about trollceptors, however, in my opinion they are not an real issue for anyone actually living in their space.

Trollceptor countering
(1) Sov structures are static, you know exactly where they are. You live in the system after all. DO TACTICAL BOOKMARKS. About 12 or so should be sufficient per structure.
(2) When trollceptor comes go to your ship stash (POS, station, whatever) and take a sinping dessy. Cormorant, for example.
(3) Warp to the structure under attack, observe the trollceptor orbiting it at "250 km, going at 5+ km/s". It can not warp while the troll-sov-laser is active.
(4) Warp to a suitably placed bookmark (they are visible in space so you can just click it and warp to it). Blap that 100 mil trollceptor which just found itself well within your optimal range going at angle offering smaller angular velocity than it anticipated. If it locks at 150+ km and goes at 5+ km/s about 1-2 volleys should do the trick.

If the sov-laser drops loot it and buy 5 more of these dessies that eat trollceptors.

* Replace dessy with whatever seems fitting and effective.

And if goons want to do 200 man trollceptor roams let them. I'm sure there is quite a number of people out there who would gladly trade a 15 mil Cormorant for a 100 mil interceptor over and over again grinning like mad all the way through it. I know I would. Interceptor being stuck for at least 2 minutes when I have bookmarks prepared for the area it's in would be quite a dead interceptor.

I personally would probably prefer to use some different ship for trolling sov. Probably something that could take blops portals, but in the end it will depend on how the meta goes and what are the exact details of the system. Depends also on the distance I would need to walk.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#3038 - 2015-03-06 12:18:30 UTC
Dark Spite wrote:
Lavayar wrote:
Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V.


Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock.


Obviously it would also have to be cheaper.

Alternatively, the entosys link could only disable an iHub and you'd still have to shoot it, to destroy it. Would obviously mean there has to be an activity mode besides 'online' for iHubs, for this to work, mutually exclusive between all anchored and online iHubs in a system.
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns
#3039 - 2015-03-06 12:21:09 UTC
Panther X wrote:
Angry Mustache wrote:
You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.

What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?

All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.

What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.

Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.

So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting.


Make the Entosis Link a bastion/siege module. Immobile, but with defensive bonuses. Fitting requirements for battlecruiser and above.

Welcome hordes of triple plated triple repped abaddons... battleship combat ensues.


It doesn't matter even if it was x-type fitted Golem with 100% tank or a 100% tank fitted chimera in triage, it will die quite easily, if it is immobile. or heck, even a max tanked leviathan/avatar. It will die in the timewindow, if the attacker has a fleet.

PvP marauders can be hilarious with the entosis link activated in renter scrublord space. Just sit on the undock and pwn. :)
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#3040 - 2015-03-06 12:21:16 UTC
Dark Spite wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Besides the complaint that the new system will be open to trolls (which may or may not be adressed) the question still remains where the place of capitals or supers will be in the new meta.

So how about this:

Create a new structure, the Super-Hub. Only one can be set up per constellation.

- increases the effect of indices of selected iHubs in the constellation (owner could chose which to link)
- this might or might not include the entosys link multiplier effect for those iHubs
- can only be affected by entosys links of CAPITAL ships


ONLY if you want that to be even more of a conflict driver:
- also allow to select iHubs to decrease the effect for



P.S.
Also, the idea someone brought up of randomly distributing prime time windows over constellation was largely ignored. IMO that's a brilliant idea, since it (randomly) determines the value of a constellation for a lot of alliances - especially generating a different value for people from different timezones.


Why on earth do you actually WANT to shoot structures in anything. Trust me, after the first time in a super shooting structures, its really as boring as shooting structures in anything.

Edit: Punctuation and grammar.


Why shooting? Entosys link from capital ship required, not shooting structures. People would probably shoot the capital, though ;)