These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3181 - 2015-03-06 18:44:37 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:


Edit: Hmmm ... flip all systems to, "Fozzie sucks" corporation, soon before leaving. Twisted


Ha ha ha. I can just imagine the Verite Map-over-time:, it gets to the month of the change, flashes up Fozzie Sucks in big letters across the map, before going black Lol. Your not an alt of one of us are you?
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#3182 - 2015-03-06 18:45:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Terra Chrall
Harvey James wrote:
i would suggest making entosis links fittings similar to command links thus limiting what ships could use them, stopping the frigate exploits, perhaps even making them class specific say Combat bc's and battleships.

Why not just make Entosis Links>> Command (Warfare) links? That limits them to enough ship types: T3 Cruisers, BC, Command Ships.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#3183 - 2015-03-06 18:50:54 UTC
A couple other ideas:

I. Make TCU more useful/valuable - Make it so that Station and iHub are immune while TCU is up for same alliance. This adds 2 things: 1) Makes the TCU a strategic target which it is not under the new system. 2) Slows attacks on a system having to reinforce or capture the TCU first.

II. Balance the T2 Entosis link better - 1) with much higher fittings and even additional skills. 2) Remove T2 and add a low or mid slot link amplifier such that several amps would be needed to reach the current proposed T2. By eating up more fitting slots to improve speed and range you limit what else the attacking link ship can do or be.
permion
No One In Local
#3184 - 2015-03-06 19:01:10 UTC
Even if this works like the developers think it's going to. The game mechanic is just changed to the winner being whoever is willing to waste the most time(or the full 4 hours) to force one side or the other to be there... Because links.
Dolores VonCartier
Doomheim
#3185 - 2015-03-06 19:01:48 UTC
Is there anything else we need to know ?
For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ?

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3186 - 2015-03-06 19:03:14 UTC
Dolores VonCartier wrote:
Is there anything else we need to know ?
For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ?
They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space...

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

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#3187 - 2015-03-06 19:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Eli Apol wrote:
Dolores VonCartier wrote:
Is there anything else we need to know ?
For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ?
They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space...


There is that impression, the same as making sure no ships that can fit an entosis link can actually get there to use it.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Dolores VonCartier
Doomheim
#3188 - 2015-03-06 19:11:08 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Dolores VonCartier wrote:
Is there anything else we need to know ?
For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ?
They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space...


May be, but isn't it a piece of information useful to make up our mind ?
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3189 - 2015-03-06 19:13:27 UTC
Dolores VonCartier wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Dolores VonCartier wrote:
Is there anything else we need to know ?
For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ?
They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space...


May be, but isn't it a piece of information useful to make up our mind ?

Is the intent of the changes to allow people to passively hold sov?

If you can answer that you can probably answer your own question.

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

Drogo Drogos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3190 - 2015-03-06 19:13:31 UTC
Duffyman wrote:
For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.

In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships.


Yup that was me who was hoping to find a niche for the forgotten command ships who are sexy but never used.
This will give these ships a reason to show their face on the field again.
And they arent cheap so the attacker needs to commit to their objective instead of sending in fast disposable ships to cause a fcton of work for the defenders and giving no fights.



FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3191 - 2015-03-06 19:15:33 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Dolores VonCartier wrote:
Is there anything else we need to know ?
For example any plan for a new deployable, let's say a turret near a tcu or a entosis inhibitor ?
They sound like things that would be used by players that don't want to actively use and defend their space...


There is that impression, the same as making sure no ships that can fit an entosis link can actually get there to use it.


What is stopping the BC from getting there to use it? It cannot take gates? Oh, you mean because someone will shoot it?!!! Isn't that the whole point - to encourage people to actually fight? Not just to endlessly circle jerk in uncatchable cheap ships?

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#3192 - 2015-03-06 19:17:57 UTC  |  Edited by: VolatileVoid
Because it was asked several times i will try to estimate a value of claimable systems.
My original intention was to prove why many systems are empty but that didn't work out.

Claimable systems are divided in security classes ranging from 0 to 7, as shown on dotlan.
In median the numbers are following (taken from SDE):

Class Count Security Range
0 1422 -0.01 -0.23
1 397 -0.23 -0.32
2 324 -0.32 -0.41
3 274 -0.41 -0.51
4 276 -0.51 -0.62
5 227 -0.62 -0.72
6 186 -0.72 -0.83
7 182 -0.83 -1.00
Sum
1-7 1866
All 3288

What i see at a glance is, that the systems with a rating of 0 have nearly the same count as all other systems.
Leads me to the conclusion that half the systems are kind of worthless by design.

I could not do the maths about moongoo (lack of data) but what i know is that a better system index has a better chance for moons that actually earn something.
In addition we can't take R64 moons into account because they are not connected in any way to sov except for some fuel blocks and are never owned by the inhabitants and i doubt that this will change in future but i hope so.

Now to mining. If you compare the payout between PvE and Mining (same for highsec) you notice that you need multi accounts to earn isk that comes anywhere near PvE.
Because of the latest jump nerf and the announced capital nerf the industrials/miner tend to only supply their region regarding nullsec.
They just ship some nullsec only and therefore more expansive minerals to highsec. The jump and capital nerf made that ice mining is rarely needed anymore.
Just 1 iceminer in a corp of 30 ppl. is enough. This effect will lower the industrial index and with that the capture time for all systems.
Open the map and compare industrial index with military index (PvE/Mining) you will see that only some systems have industrial index greater than 3.

Now i got only the military index left to predict the value of a system and the reason for living there.
I will do that with the drone region as example.
With the lack of numbers but flying through the systems i found out that even the lowest systems have some kind of worth though personally i would never go live there.

Estimating your system has military upgrade 5 the system can operate following simultaneous PvE ships:
A class 0 system is just good for 7 T1 cruiser, a T1 BS and marauder like or carrier. My guess for the cruiser is that 2 of them are flown by 1 person.
A class 7 system is good for 9 marauder like or carrier and about 2 BS/T3. Noone there is flying smaller ships other than to prepare for bigger ships.

So we got active PvE ships ranging from 5 to 11 member.
Now we have to add the miner but my best guess is that these are just alt's and therefore don't count to members.
We need logistic, booster and administrative things as well which sums up to let's say 4 member.
Because the member are not doing all the things at the same time this sums up only like 8 to 15 online member.
These member may be online the prime time for 4h everyday but i don't think this will happen every day.

The earned isk ranges from pour to pretty well scaling with the system class.
Still would never go into a system lower than 4 which is just 24% of all null systems left but that's personnel.

I see that ppl. really (but rarely) live in these 50% low isk systems and i know that noone will live or stay there if their ihub with the upgrades explodes once a month because this exceeds by far the renting fee and cant be calculated.
You need to be a hardcoreplayer for living in these low value systems and i think these 1422 systems will stay empty.

Now i will go deeper into the empty low value null systems. As some other stated that most of these systems are to rent at 500m per month which is in fact true.

Minimum requirements to be able to live in a null system:

TCU 85m with upkeep cost 180m per month.
IHUB 390m

Staging pos 600m equip and 350m fuel per month.
Pos for PvP ships and spare Arrays and IHUB 600m equip and 350m per month.

Only to buy in highsec!
Ore Prospecting Array 1 50m 5000m³
Ore Prospecting Array 2 75m 10000m³
Ore Prospecting Array 3 100m 100000m³
Pirate Detection Array 1 50m 5000m³
Pirate Detection Array 2 100m 10000m³
Pirate Detection Array 3 150m 100000m³
Pirate Detection Array 4 200m 250000m³
Pirate Detection Array 5 250m 500000m³

Note that Array 3 and 4 can only be brought to you with a jumpfreighter.
Pirate Detection Array 5 can only be transported with a standard freighter and therefore needs one of these rare big highsec wormhole connetions, you may catch one in 2 weeks if you have luck.

Initial cost sum for the first month: 3390m including a spare IHUB and the highest upgrades without the additional costs.
Note that you have to farm your system to be able to install these upgrades which takes time. Development index=0; isk=0;

If you have luck and only your IHUB goes boom, you have replacement costs of 750m without the additional costs.
Add your regularly lost PvP ships to that (imagine a number)m.

As i am still looking at the low value null systems that are nearly all empty and i suspect that the income from a class 0 system is lower than lvl4 missions. Besides there are many reasons why better systems are empty aswell.
Noone will take the burden of that investment with an unpredictable risk of loosing all investment for having an income lower than highsec.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3193 - 2015-03-06 19:18:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Drogo Drogos wrote:
Duffyman wrote:
For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.

In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships.


Yup that was me who was hoping to find a niche for the forgotten command ships who are sexy but never used.
This will give these ships a reason to show their face on the field again.
And they arent cheap so the attacker needs to commit to their objective instead of sending in fast disposable ships to cause a fcton of work for the defenders and giving no fights.





Except then it has a requirement of training for all warfare link before you can train the right ship to use a link...

EDIT :
FT Diomedes wrote:


What is stopping the BC from getting there to use it? It cannot take gates? Oh, you mean because someone will shoot it?!!! Isn't that the whole point - to encourage people to actually fight? Not just to endlessly circle jerk in uncatchable cheap ships?


Yeah I'm stupid and forgot normal BC can fit link. Thanks for reminding me.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#3194 - 2015-03-06 19:18:35 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Drogo Drogos wrote:
Duffyman wrote:
For me, Sov should be easier than it is, but it should also be for those that are committed to it. If 100 ceptors can reff a region in a few hours, every sov holder (big and small) will burn out really soon, even if the prime time settings are changed periodically.

In my view, the current design is not so bad, but at least make the sov laser have some heavier requirements. I read someone suggesting Command Ships and think this is a good idea. Maybe T1 Sov lasers in battlecruisers and T2 Sov lasers for Command Ships... that would also give some purpose to a forgotten class of ships.


Yup that was me who was hoping to find a niche for the forgotten command ships who are sexy but never used.
This will give these ships a reason to show their face on the field again.
And they arent cheap so the attacker needs to commit to their objective instead of sending in fast disposable ships to cause a fcton of work for the defenders and giving no fights.





Well a new use to expand their value would of course be good, and command ships on the field, during the capture phase, might be a good benefit, that is an idea that they might have a cycle time reduction, but for the initial phase, it certainly would not be ideal for an uncontested system, but could have value in a true furball scenario.
But if no one is defending the system, no one deserves to keep it, anything should be able to start reinforcement if no one can be bothered to undock.

This new world being offered by CCP is one where if you are involved, and active the stars are yours.
If you wait for someone else to tell you what to do, not so much.

New ad by CCP.... "Do you want to hold the stars in the palm of your hand, and the future of Empires, decided by your efforts?"
CCP 2015 ™

Everyone should be asking themselves, does this make you excited? ^^^^^^^^^^ Isnt this deep down, the hope of why we came into this game?

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Commander Spurty
#3195 - 2015-03-06 19:19:04 UTC
This is beautiful.

Many of these 'this is bad because' threads are just 'I do not want anything to change' whines.

Yes, that 50k blue donut you're part of means you no longer have any fun ever again while you remain part of it.

You're going to have to do something about that.

The best part is I bet you really can't work out what that could possibly be (hint: time to remove the training wheels).

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3196 - 2015-03-06 19:45:13 UTC
https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.

He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark

'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"

Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.

Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3197 - 2015-03-06 19:48:41 UTC
We still have the issue of the blobs being able to rotate primetimes, and single-timezone entities being subject to greater degrees of burnout.

Blobs get blobbier. Malcanis law strikes again.

Now you know why Goons hijacked Brave Newbies.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Ereilian
Doomheim
#3198 - 2015-03-06 19:48:54 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.

He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark

'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"

Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.

Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.

m


Oh sure, lets make it even harder by taking the ONE interation the defender controls and allow the famous "codemonkeys" decide when it is. That is like allowing the Mafia to decide who gets prosecuted by the IRS.

Other than that, CCP is in FULL turtle mode, fingers in ears chanting "Greed is Good."
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#3199 - 2015-03-06 20:00:39 UTC
People keep asking for an incentive for sov. With the new sov system require action taken throughout the constellation, I believe this will play into the coming player made stargates. I believe sov of an entire constellation will be required to anchor a stargate. Most likely to allow for structuring new connectivity between the constellation systems themselves, as well as aa way to estaablish a new connection with another constellation if you own sov there too.

Imagine being able to reshape the connections within your owned constellation. reduce reliance on jump bridges. Enabling your alliance to immediately respond to any threat in your constellation from any system in your constellation without having to make 3 or 4 jumps.

example: 8 system constellation. your alliance anchors stargates in every system so that each system connects to each system in the constellation. Allowing your defensive fleets to not so easily be blockaded by attackers. Huge advantage for your alliance. Shiny infrustructure for others to want to claim for themselves.

I believe player made stargates will be the major incentive for owning sovereignty of a constellation.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#3200 - 2015-03-06 20:01:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Milla Goodpussy
Mike Azariah wrote:
https://soundcloud.com/eve-down-under/eve-down-under-episode-97-060315 is the link of Fozzie being interviewed on Eve Down Under. You may want to skip the first 5 min of introductions.

He addresses interceptors @ 11 minute mark

'If gameplay devolves into people orbiting at 250 km . . . then we would make sure that that doesn't happen"

Prime Time window will be the first 'breakout thread.

Look, go listen for yourself . . . or wait for the next thread. Greygal voiced a good idea of linking prime window to the indices of the alliance. One that is not active would see their window widen, making them more vulnerable.

m




he'll ignore it just like he's ignored cloaky camping which also has an impact on system indexes.. he's just trying to keep heat off his behind.. he's lying his behind off..

gameplay has became cloaky afk camping and nothing has been done about it. he pretends there isn't an issue, but if there's hundreds of threads about it.. why not someone from ccp deal with it..

oh that's right .. AFK CLOAKY CAMPING is active gameplay....psssssssssssssssht