These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3281 - 2015-03-07 02:18:39 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Trolling people with this won't require interceptors. T3s are enough - and we'll use them.

Well at least the broken record piping out of the propoganda machine has skipped onto a new track.

So we're now onto trolled up T3s....let me guess...you'll threaten to do this with absolutely anything that can't be bubbled to try and change the mechanic which makes all your desolate backyards vulnerable before we get a chance to see it?

Not transparent at all.


Oh, I certainly think that if they let us, we'll use interceptors. And I also think that if they don't, that'll go a long way to resolving the problem. But yes, we'll troll with whatever they let us troll with: interceptors, T3s, covops bringing in blops gangs... we're going to be the same trollish jackasses we are now. The Entosis Link itself will let us do that. Giving us fast-moving ships that can burn off-grid rather than actually giving you a fight will only make it easier.
Nou Mene
Krypted Gaming
K R Y P T E D
#3282 - 2015-03-07 02:30:58 UTC
I overall like the proposed changes. Mostly i like the no-grinding policy.
A couple of opinions:

-About 4hr timer.

In mi opinion any kind of protection should go away, 4-8hr protection is acceptable maybe.
I'll try to explain. Many ppl argue that taking sov would be too easy and that could make alliances lose FULLY upgraded systems, when i think, FULL UPGRADES shouldn't be the norm, they should be rare (and more valuable than now).
Defending against a fleet of inties is easy in the system you live in, shouldn't in the systems you don't. You can keep BS with smartbombs on chokes; inties are easily killed by other inties (and many other ships), etc. In general i just can't see the problem in having a really unstable sov system (but sov has to be valuable).
With no protection, "frontier" systems would be mostly freeports.

- SOV value.

SOV value must be dramatically increased in an scenario where SOV is rapidly changing hands.
a)SOV holder ratters should have some bounty increase (CONCORD LP or something), system sec-status (neg sec) should change reflecting activity and reward more activity (maybe in spawn frequency/quality) but not directly trough resource value.
b) or, system quality should directly increase bounty on said system, making it more valuable for inhabitants, and more tempting to other entities to raid or just "ninja" kill.
POSes (moon mining) needs to go away when SOV is lost.

- Supercaps.
I dont like supercaps, but they exist. They need new roles.
I propose a strong long range (smaller than grid) warp disruption field wich cannot be avoided

Greetings.

Not completely unrelated, link boosters off grid needs to go...
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3283 - 2015-03-07 02:35:03 UTC
Nou Mene wrote:
- Supercaps.
I dont like supercaps, but they exist. They need new roles.

If they simply have no relevant roles, then it's as if they don't exist...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3284 - 2015-03-07 02:37:06 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Miner Hottie wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
SNIP

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


That would be dear leaders job to motivate us. And that's 13,145 characters to cover all of offense. And we can be motivated to do perform at that level, we did after all ground down Fountain in bombers for example. Those he ignore history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.


Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can.


Who said anything about capturing and holding systems? I don't want some toilet hovel -0.01 system at the arse end of Omist. If I can ruin someone's day by reinforcing it and spawning whackamole nodes... I will. Maybe I will come back and capture it, maybe I won't. Point being: are you having fun restoring your system to full control?

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3285 - 2015-03-07 02:47:56 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Trolling people with this won't require interceptors. T3s are enough - and we'll use them.

Well at least the broken record piping out of the propoganda machine has skipped onto a new track.

So we're now onto trolled up T3s....let me guess...you'll threaten to do this with absolutely anything that can't be bubbled to try and change the mechanic which makes all your desolate backyards vulnerable before we get a chance to see it?

Not transparent at all.

edit:

Fozzie wrote:
If anything gets out of control it's very easy for us to adjust it and we want to make sure that we're adjusting that to make good gameplay. The core goal is that to win an object with the Entosis link, the victory should go, as much as possible, to whoever has reasonable dominance of that location, whoever has military control, in real terms over the area around that spot and if the gameplay devolves into people orbitting at 250km then that would break that goal and we would make sure that doesn't happen.

There's a lot of things we can do with that; we can do anything from giving penalties or bonuses to any type of ship, we can give anything like a speed limit on the module itself, (so that) you can't go over a certain speed whilst it's running, we could put fitting requirements on, cap requirements on, mass increases. We have all of those options and the goal is to use as light of a touch as possible but to use as strong of a touch as we need, to go with the minimum amount of interference on what people can fit and fly.

If you can win the grid with a whole bunch of interceptors by actually fighting the guy with your interceptors then you should be able to win the site, but if you can't, then as much as possible it should go to the guy that wins.


You keep beating the drum Eli, but you ignore two realities: first Malcannis law "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of ‘new players’, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players." If it helps new bros, sweet we have hordes of them, older players can still use it, we have hordes of them and their alts.

Secondly, any MMO mechanic can be 'min/maxed' and we will find that optimum point and abuse this to death.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3286 - 2015-03-07 03:02:07 UTC
A few side thoughts

The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them?

A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now.

A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization.

I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized

Quote:
Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons.
Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets.
Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage.
Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control.
In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.


I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3287 - 2015-03-07 03:19:26 UTC
I love the whole "but the CFC will break it".

The CFC can currently break it if they want to. Nothing's currently stopping them.

PL, BL, N3... If they seriously wanted or cared to break people, they can.

The effort isn't worth it, because troll as they may, the fight will be elsewhere and they cannot maintain control of whatever they reinforce.

Let's say day 1, CFC reinforces everything in null. What happens day 2? As much as people like to say "we will camp you in and break you", nobody really enjoys it.

I wouldn't worry. Shrink and defend your space. Send people to more forward systems to act like a firewall (CFC tried to do that with Brave Newbies).

Yaay!!!!

MajorScrewup
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3288 - 2015-03-07 03:20:03 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
A few side thoughts

The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them?

A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now.

A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization.

I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized

Quote:
Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons.
Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets.
Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage.
Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control.
In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.


I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate?

m


I've lived in null space for the majority of my EvE playing time. I don't know if any of those statements are true or not, as they don't interest me that much. Their simply activities that can be done there, but aren't done enough for my liking as the risk vs reward / time vs enjoyment doesn't seem to be worth it.

I live in null space for the potential of PvP, whether its small fights or large fights. Flying through empty regions is soul destroying. There is a lot more activity in systems in hi-sec and I'd like that in null sec too, so that there are more opportunities for the fun part of EvE (to me) and the point of the wild frontiers of null sec space. Fighting others players.

Seeing he didn't add PvP on that list worries me....
Kumar WhiteCastle
Specter Syndicate
#3289 - 2015-03-07 03:39:15 UTC
Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread.
Mellianah
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#3290 - 2015-03-07 03:44:33 UTC
Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:
Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread.

He's known for no such thing... Where on earth did you get that idea...?
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3291 - 2015-03-07 03:46:34 UTC
Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:
Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread.


So far as I've seen, the CSM is supportive of the proposed system. I haven't seen a member speak ill of it.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#3292 - 2015-03-07 04:15:57 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
A few side thoughts

The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them?

A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now.

A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization.

I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized

Quote:
Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons.
Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets.
Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage.
Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control.
In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.


I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate?

m

High Class worm holes

- Are a better ISK faucet.
- Will have more stability
- Will be less hassle.

NPC Null will be less hassle as a base and then capture around there.

The positives of SOV Null will still be there but the negatives of this new system will out weigh them by a long shot with other options around.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#3293 - 2015-03-07 04:38:34 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can.


Who's planning to capture anything? Seriously, we're a bunch of retardly masochistic idiots who'll beat our heads against a wall for months on the promise of 'eventually, it'll feel good when we stop!' and 'this hurts everyone else more'. We're not going to do this to take space. We're going to do this to screw other people.

We probably won't even give much of a damn if it leaves all of Null a smoking crater. Before this actually goes live, all of our personal assets will be in safe lowsec or NPC null stations just like S2N's pastebin shows them planning. Our moon operations will still take just as much effort for people to hurt - and we'll still be able to respond w/fleets just like we do now - all with the added benefit of doing all our ratting in other peoples' space while we take it away from them just to watch it burn.

Really, what's the downside to this for us? We don't have sov bills?

This isn't going to do what CCP wants. It's not going to drive fights, it's going to produce a whole lot of griefing. And it's not going to stop until we get tired of it - and if you think we'll get tired of it any time soon, MiniLuv's been active how many years? Goons have been scamming people for how many years?

As the scorpion said to the frog: it's our nature.

Don't let us do this.
For emphasis.
Making SOV more accessible to smaller groups makes it way better for large ones to grief.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#3294 - 2015-03-07 04:41:16 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:
Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread.


So far as I've seen, the CSM is supportive of the proposed system. I haven't seen a member speak ill of it.

http://evenews24.com/2015/03/06/submission-corebloodbrothers-visualises-his-ideal-nullsec-concept/

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3295 - 2015-03-07 04:53:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Anyway it's fine. You're immine to sovtrolling or whatever the term is if you don't plan on having any. Like massadeath of moa.

Well with fatigue "sov is on the table for moa" but I think with sovlasers it will not be worthwhile anyway. Prepare to see nullsec owned by "Unclaimed"

(Not Unclaimed. the alliance)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Kah'Les
hirr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3296 - 2015-03-07 05:24:21 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
A few side thoughts

The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them?

A few years ago when FW came out people called it a warmup for getting into null, null lite. Looks like they were wrong and null was FW lite and just warming up to now.

A friend in the game sent me an answer to my question of why do people do sov in null. He is a director in a fair sized null organization.

I will not name him or her since I failed to ask permission but this is what I got, summarized

Quote:
Resources: Null has the best ore access, slightly better ice ratting loot, officer and faction modules. and moons.
Isk: Null has the most efficient ratting opportunities, and player localized player markets.
Safety: stations secure assets, allow for unlimited storage.
Power: SOV lets you put your name on the map to show your strength by how many systems you control.
In conclusion, pilots want SOV to have a home, plant a flag, and gather resources/wealth.


I think that did a decent job of summing it up. Do you have anything to add/debate?

m


That's a renter? Sound more like a renter than a person from a powerfull bloc.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3297 - 2015-03-07 05:31:48 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
A few side thoughts

The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them?


Yes, I do. That's why I'm saying that there need to be limits to how bad we can be, beyond the ones we ourselves won't set.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#3298 - 2015-03-07 05:38:20 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
Kinis Deren wrote:


Sorry Mike, but no to Greygal's idea, if I'm reading her suggestion correctly for your post.

The core idea behind Sov 3.0 is that if a system is unused and/or undefended it should be easy for anyone to take - there should be no "remote" defence or reduction of vulnerability for systems that don't enjoy a degree of occupation.


look large alliances are getting around this by renting every system, therefore occupancy is always there. This is the problem.

That is an attitude problem, not game mechanics one. Or well - currently it's partly game mechanics one as well because of the HP wall and needing supercapital blob to manhandle sov structures in effective way. But if the new system is implemented as presented that mechanics problem will go away as far as hp wall goes.

Other aspects of renting remain and in my opinion there not much point of trying particularly hard to address it with game mechanics changes. Because in a sense everyone in null is a "renter" with only difference being in what currency are you paying. Some pay in blood others in isk.

If you live for example, in Esoteria or even worse in deep dronelands it would take significantly more effort to be intependent than to be a blue with the logistics chain leading to empire. Especially now after the jump changes. So some people just cough up the isk for getting it "easy". From top of my head I cant think of any game mechanics changes that would address that issue without dumbing down EVE and even then you would find someone willing to pay. Just because the other guy "looks scary, man". Attitude problem.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#3299 - 2015-03-07 05:46:59 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Suggestion: If you decide not to allow a vulnerability timezone on a per constellation basis, I'd like to suggest the possibility of letting alliances pick a vulnerability timezone of more than four hours.

Why? The larger their vulnerability window, the better a new multiplier would be. This multiplier would [b]multiply the occupation defensive bonuses
.

Example:
4h vulnerability per day = x1 multiplier
8h = x2
16h = x4

With any number of hours possible, and a multiplier proportionally changing.

The multiplier does not multiply the time it takes for a capture in itself, it multiplies to occupancy bonus. Meaning that if you're not using your space, you're not getting much additional time.

That's effectively a tradeoff of invulnerability time against added reaction time. It leaves small alliances the possibility to only be vulnerable for 4 hours, they have to react quickly to agressions, but again, they own a small space.

Larger alliances have more time to formup and defend their space, while at the same time exposing themselves way way more.

That is pretty good idea actually in my opinion.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3300 - 2015-03-07 05:53:57 UTC
Kumar WhiteCastle wrote:
Why is the one and only CSM discussing nullsec and sovereignty in the forums a hisec CSM known to dislike nullsec and all those that live there? Azariah is almost certainly trolling the thread.


I don't hate null, I just am not cut out to take orders from other people for fun. I also do poorly at yoga.

I am the one, here, engaging you. I am taking notes and asking the devs questions based on what you ask, here. Did that last night on Eve Down Under. But if you would rather I stepped aside to make room for other CSM to talk to you.

/me steps to one side

oh, look









yeah



I represent players of the game. ALL the game and anybody who thinks the upcoming sov changes will only have an effect on null is a class A fool. So I am here, not trolling, not joking around, doing what I said I would do for one more week.

If I wasn't the person you voted for it does not matter. I am still here.

and as I said before . . . I am already talking with NPSI folks about roams once this goes live. I don't like to LIVE in null. Doesn't mean I don't drop in for a visit now and again.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)