These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Total Newbie
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#301 - 2015-03-03 17:43:03 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Sounds awesome +1

If you hold too much space you'll be spending your whole primetime fighting off little bands all over the place annoying you with a quick Entosis link to test out your localised defences.

If you 're actually using the space then you should have a defensive fleet within range to quickly react. If not then you've now got a timer to react to.

Not sure if 4hrs is long enough for the primetime, 6-8hrs should still be coverable by most alliances and allows multi TZ cooperation more easily.


Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#302 - 2015-03-03 17:43:25 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
we have to create a strategic mining division to protect important systems are you ******* kidding me

nullsec mining has been broken for ages, go look at the price of mega and zyd and then think about why on earth mining should play a role here


I'm sure your AFK-tars will be able to kill enough rats to make up for your lack of miners.

that's not possible under this system which is why its bad

once mildex is 5 no amount of anything you do that is "occupying" your space besides mining will help
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#303 - 2015-03-03 17:43:39 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
I support this.




you want to be on csm cause you felt hats are more important

I don't support you or this sov change.

Tung Yoggi
University of Caille
#304 - 2015-03-03 17:44:50 UTC
Good stuff, now make sov holding actually fun and useful to have through the use of new and interesting mechanics.
MiliasColds
Strategic Incompetence
Blue Sun Interstellar Technologies
#305 - 2015-03-03 17:45:08 UTC
Total Newbie wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Sounds awesome +1

If you hold too much space you'll be spending your whole primetime fighting off little bands all over the place annoying you with a quick Entosis link to test out your localised defences.

If you 're actually using the space then you should have a defensive fleet within range to quickly react. If not then you've now got a timer to react to.

Not sure if 4hrs is long enough for the primetime, 6-8hrs should still be coverable by most alliances and allows multi TZ cooperation more easily.


Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.


wormholes ?
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#306 - 2015-03-03 17:45:12 UTC
Proton Stars wrote:

Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?

they certainly aren't posting in here supporting it which says something
iP0D
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#307 - 2015-03-03 17:45:21 UTC
Proton Stars wrote:
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Proton Stars wrote:
To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?

They know about this


Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?


The only real functions of the CSM these days are to buffer community responses so there's no more summers of rage, to streamline feedback on what devs pick up up from player ideas and to endorse what comes out of CCP in exchange for some minor tidbits of niche concepts which CCP would have done anyway.

Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#308 - 2015-03-03 17:47:55 UTC
As as member of a mid-sized sov holding alliance that actually use their space, I'm generally ok with the changes. Entities that dont use space shouldn't be able to hold it, and the space should be easier to take. So yeah, this is good news. Also loving the usability of small roaming gangs to disrupt enemy functions, and if they are lazy, threaten their sov holdings.

Only gripe from me is that there should be at least some more benefit in strongly holding a system. But overall, not bad. Could be a lot worse.
Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#309 - 2015-03-03 17:48:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Makari Aeron
Meh. Not what I had hoped. I had hoped for my activity based and less pointless modules and minigames. Also, 4 hour window gives major bonuses to large coalitions which can span all timezones and makes it nigh impossible for people with lives and work schedules.

However, I am pretty stokked about the activity in a system making it harder to take......except that yall gave essentially infinitely more power to AFK campers. Not the ones which actually attack people and things, but the ones who login a DT and dont' log off until the server kicks them off the next day. The entire time the character does nothing.

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP

Olya Tsarev
Olya Tsarev Corporation
#310 - 2015-03-03 17:49:57 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Proton Stars wrote:

Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?

they certainly aren't posting in here supporting it which says something


Or, and this may be a more sensible thing based in reality and not overwrought hyperbole, they have other things happening in their life that prevent them from posting on a forum about a change in an internet spaceship game that isn't really as important as their TPS report.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#311 - 2015-03-03 17:50:19 UTC
Two questions:
1) I did not see how the tug-of-war actually works. You gave one example of what happens if only one side shows up (10 captures and you win). What is required to win when there are two sides fighting? When there are several sides fighting? Just what is the tug-of war mechanic?

2) "Anyone is free to deploy a TCU". OK, if 5 alliances all drop a TCU right at the moment the old one explodes, who gets the system? The fastest fingers? The alliance with the best internet connection to the servers?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

MiliasColds
Strategic Incompetence
Blue Sun Interstellar Technologies
#312 - 2015-03-03 17:50:22 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:
Meh. Not what I had hoped. I had hoped for my activity based and less pointless modules and minigames. Also, 4 hour window gives major bonuses to large coalitions which can span all timezones and makes it nigh impossible for people with lives and work schedules.


did you miss that non alliance members can't actually defend, other than killing attacker ?
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#313 - 2015-03-03 17:50:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Shilalasar wrote:
Also this system favors alliances over both corps and coalitions. While now a defensivefleet consisting of 5 different alliances is viable after these changes you could just target the one sovholding alliance and then they canĀ“t use capture anything. It will probably kill coalitions but not because they split into smaller groups but because f.e. the entire CFC could just join GSF. Just for safety and sharing of the defensive workload.


The idea that people with disparate identities, goals, and histories will smash together their alliances at the level that current blue coalitions exist today is invalid. It's why shifting the focus back to alliance level control is key to curbing bloc creep. People happily and willingly blue up to any and all coalitions on a moment's notice because there is really no disadvantage. You don't give up your identity, your command/control structure, or put your alliance in ANY kind of risk. And yet you get huge advantages because the existing mechanics fundamentally reward large blue coalition structure grinding fleets (EDIT: or more accurately, rewards supercap blob deterrents to large structure grinding fleets).

By refocusing this mechanic to alliance level control ONLY and removing the benefit of belonging to a blue coalition, suddenly there is much less benefit to hitching your wagon to a large blue group. More importantly, the idea that the disparate alliances of, say, CFC, would all suddenly join GSF alliance to consolidate is insane. There are many and varied reasons why those alliances aren't part of GSF already, and forcing them to actually put on the GSF tag if they want to benefit GSF sov is going to be a HUGE negative pressure on growing bloc sizes. A lot of people in blue coalitions don't actually like each other very much and only the overwhelming advantages to structure grinding (or deterrent to such) are sufficient to get them to willingly identify with a coalition; force them to adopt an actual alliance mantle while removing the scale of the benefit and rivalries will flare up.
Masumi Vega
Perkone
Caldari State
#314 - 2015-03-03 17:50:27 UTC
why do they keep breaking this game, catering to the instant gratification crowd.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#315 - 2015-03-03 17:50:57 UTC
CCP in all their might.. still never even mentions on how they will deal with AFK CLOAKY CAMPING in null sec

as I previously mentioned "we'll all end up AFK CLOAKING left and right"


therefore with this plan.

A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets

this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay


thanks for the direction to another game and company ill spend with them instead of you ccp..

congrats on losing money

Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#316 - 2015-03-03 17:51:22 UTC
Proton Stars wrote:
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Proton Stars wrote:
To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?

They know about this


Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?


Probably the first option, because even though this has some concerning parts (i.e. primetime), it's way the **** better than the system we have now.
suicide
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#317 - 2015-03-03 17:51:23 UTC
I like the idea of primetime in concept as it allows a group of pilots who play during a certain time a window where they can manage their time and play maybe 7-11pm. It will keep people engaged.

I love the fact that things are changing, and the changes seem interesting. If CCP commits to continuous review and balance and changes going forward then I think it is a good start. There are some parts which may prove to alienate certain TZs inside of alliances but the only way to see is to play out the changes.

Now can we start distributing some carrots that make 0.0 more liveable, AKA player stations, alliance income, higher player density, DUST / legion / Valkerie kickbacks, mining, industry, multiple stations per system, etc?

Never stop releasing.
Maya Cinderfort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2015-03-03 17:51:39 UTC
Nyan Lafisques wrote:


That single guy won't do **** if you have any defensive bonus. He won't show up for the timer, and if you can't kill a single guy out of your thousand+ alliance in your prime time than I don't know what to say...



if i haven't read it wrong the node event still spawns end needs to be done in order to secure you space, ok they'll only take 20-30 mins to do so, what if you ahve to do 30-40 of them.

& yeah he will show up for the timer as he roams our systems for 6-8 hours a day. & yes we are a small alliance/coalition & we live surrounded by reds so they also have a place to dock.

Tia Aves
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#319 - 2015-03-03 17:51:44 UTC
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:


As an upside, you can check the map for areas where the locals are likely to be ready to defend their territory at your scheduled roaming hour.



Essentially what I thought. Unless sov was monopolised by a certain TZ (unlikely to be possible with the new system) there should always be targets in your TZ.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#320 - 2015-03-03 17:52:40 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets

this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay


Which will lead to sov being grabbed by people who are NOT terrified of being in space while AFK cloaky campers sit in local. Evolution will fix this problem for us.