These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#541 - 2015-03-03 19:55:04 UTC
Hugh Coloure wrote:

People logging in is in a strong downward trend. The graphs you are pointing at lack a y-axis, they are impossible to interpret the scale of those changes without it.

Your original statement was about the Jumpnerf changes announced in September 2014 causing decreased player counts...

Please go do a handstand, I might get more sense from your other end.

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

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#542 - 2015-03-03 19:55:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
So in tweetfleet #slack Aaeriele brought up the question of how will this 4 hour window affect Alliances with multiple time zone pilots:

One answer proposed:

"Hmmm.... here's a thought - why not just attach the prefered time not to the Executor Corp window - but to each individual structure - TCU's come out in 1 4hr window, iHubs in another, and Stations in yet another --- this will give every multi-TZ member of an alliance a role to help protect sov structures etc."

While not perfect - it does do the following:

Dilutes player concentration /per Sov Structure

Spreads content across multiple time zones, rather than the 'assumed' single dominant time zone (many alliances have balanced or dual dominate time zones)

And other pro's that I"m to lazy to think of :P

Cause I think the concern is legitimate - right now content is spread because not all timers are in the same window -- with the timer set via the executor corp instead of the structure (or structure type), it prevents participation in content for everyone outside that window of time.

Maybe by allowing the 'type of Sov structure' across the entire constellation to be set at different 4 hr windows - that the content can be spread more evenly?

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Jenn aSide
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#543 - 2015-03-03 19:55:50 UTC
I haven't read any other responses. Phase two sounds pretty slick.

The problem is that it doesn't address one of the underlying problems of null. WHY? What are we fighting for, what is the value of what we are fighting for.

Why fight for it when as a grunt who relies on pve for income I can just do faction warfare missions or wormhole stuff or lvls and incursions in high sec. Nothing you (CCP) does will have an effect to you address the why that in the past was nerf and created the 'renter's desert' that null became.

That didn't cause the desert (Dominion did) but it accelerated it. There needs to be a fundamental change in how null sec isk making/income/wealth generation works before anything else. While null generates a lot of isk and a good amount of wealth in the form of deadspace modules and implants, there are WAY better ways in EVE to make individual isk.

Until that's addressed and while the average null system can't accommodate more than a handful of people at one time, no amount of "Entosis based gameplay's going to matter. Null will continue to be the "Game of Thrones who gets to be LANDLORD" rather than something people do just for the fun of it.

Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#544 - 2015-03-03 19:55:53 UTC
Tiberian Deci wrote:
On a serious note, anyone care to speculate on how PL is going to get fights now?

Pretty much the same way we do at the moment. By reinforcing stuff and forcing people to undock and defend it.

WTB : An image in my signature

Bras-Tek Industries
Nefatari Union
#545 - 2015-03-03 19:56:08 UTC
ok dident read all the pages here so i dont know if this have been asked and answered so here i go. with these new changes and removal of the stargate blockade units. it looks like stargates ahve nothing to do with sov anymore. so my question is. can we capture wormholes with these changes?
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#546 - 2015-03-03 19:56:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
I'm not qualified to address the sov topic, but I'll throw my 0.02 ISK in anyways as everyone else is.

I'll echo others in that I see no incentive to hold sov.

Vulnerability selection time is a bad idea.

Absentee sov should be easy to capture, but resident shouldn't. I personally don't consider 40 minutes much of an incentive.

Which leads me to the indices. If you want to promote industry, the bonuses have to reflect that. Also mining in nullsec is broken. One need look no further than the Rorqual:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Rorqual on the other hand... We are very aware of how dire need of help it is. We're at the moment in the Summer release gonna be taking... well its gonna keep its compression feature, but that's now gonna be shared with a starbase structure, so that's no more unique to it.

Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.

Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields.

So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger.

So more details of what we're thinking of for that will be coming in the future. We're still kind of at an earlier stage with that. That's not gonna be coming out in the Summer [2014] release, but it's one of the things we are thinking very heavily about, and plan on getting to basically next.

"... basically next" = how many days / months / years?
Nof Nof
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#547 - 2015-03-03 19:57:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Nof Nof
Lots of gsf tears on this thread. Can certainly understand why high level players would be upset as they have put in a lot of work and meta gaming to get where they are. My personal views on this change:

What's the incentive?

The incentive is for players to actually think for themselves and increase content. I dunno perhaps maybe control an r64 of their own? Perhaps get actual fights instead of blobbing with a safety net of supers?

I was a member of an alliance and you guys literally spent 8 weeks camping us so you could possibly get 1 super kill. Doesn't sound like there is much content for your membership under the blue doughnut regime. The current mechanics provides no incentive for anyone to move in to null sec.Do you call chasing timers and fighting for OTHER People's moons and isk content? Maybe for peons who want eve spoon fed to them sure. Not to mention the vast blue balling and arrogant nature of care bears who pay for a protection racket and sit in station and wait for their masters to come save them. Sure there is plenty of incentive for players to try null sec.

The incentive for living in null sec (under the proposed changes) iis a better game experience plain and simple.

The argument of: increasing system value to support more player.

the whole point of these changes are to spread people out and make.your blobs less viable. You wanna control so much space? Kudos to you but now you gotta spread your members out to do it. I know you would love to create impenetrable systems to sit and grind in your supers all day with no risk... but ya CCP and the player base already saw that coming.

for what it'd worth your leaders won the game, everyone recognizes it but in doing so it also destroyed the attraction and viability to garner new players and keep active players engaged. You will still be powerful and rich and who knows it may even make you better since your f1 monkeys will have to learn.

I agree that simultaneously with the changes that their should be 1 incentive to move to null sec. That incentive would be to greatly reduce income potential in hi sec.
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#548 - 2015-03-03 19:59:47 UTC
Total Newbie wrote:
If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.

I think that's caused less by the number of players present, and more by the number of players you have blue. Having 15,000 blues in the regions surrounding Cloud Ring (a region at the far edges of nullsec) is what's forcing you to travel so far.
Princess Cherista
#549 - 2015-03-03 20:00:32 UTC
Nof Nof wrote:
The incentive for living in null sec is a better game experience plain and simple.

Is this real life??
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#550 - 2015-03-03 20:01:25 UTC  |  Edited by: JustSharkbait
Overall, I am excited by this proposal. I think it is a step in the right direction. However, the immediate point of concern i see is the prime time feature. I like it for what it is, but am concerned on how that will effect the many alliances that have multiple timezones. It seems like only one TZ will get to have all the fun defensively.

The only overall concern i have is just to actually make having the SOV worth it as right now even taking away structure grinding does not add any great desire to have space. Alliance level money still comes from moons and renters so how will this help change that?

Hoo Ha Ha!!

Infinite Improbable Industry Inc
Pandemic Horde
#551 - 2015-03-03 20:01:52 UTC
I dont normally reply to things going on in eve, but I know feel that I must CCP get your prioritys right you first need to sort out the mess you call high sec new players pay to play then have to pay a ganking alliance or corp to rat mission run mine whatever , before looking at Nul sec sort the basics out and maybe new player wont leave faster than they are joining . Has to capital ships players have trained for months if not years to fly them and then you come along and nerf the hell out of them and the only compensation you give those players are further nerfing , if you want to nerf something look at the new strategic destroyers ur bringing in so over powered its unbelievable.
No more fixing things that dont need fixing look at the basics that do high sec and over powered ships and players in high sec not having to pay twice to play this game.
Goonswarm Federation
#552 - 2015-03-03 20:02:06 UTC
Regarding the entosis links, I feel like 250km range for T2 is a little too powerful to fit on frigates and destroyers. Perhaps the T1 version should have frigate-level fitting requirements, but the T2 version require cruiser-or-above grid to fit? This would allay a lot of the concerns regarding 250km hyenas / 150km crows.

And unlike Mr. "10MN 250KM CLAW" here, I have fits for this: <-- the hyena <-- the crow

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Scatim Helicon
Goonswarm Federation
#553 - 2015-03-03 20:03:35 UTC
I see we're completely skipping the 'make Sov worthwhile to hold and fight over' part of the revamp.

brb, drafting an unironic 'bring back POS warfare' post

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

M1k3y Koontz
Gallente Federation
#554 - 2015-03-03 20:04:06 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model.

Except they won't be because a noobship can stop them from being effective.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#555 - 2015-03-03 20:05:25 UTC
Total Newbie wrote:
Apparently he didn't understand eve had this thing called alts... that can be used to sit in things.

Yeah... because they are called alt coffins out of love, right? Just because people do a thing out of necessity doesn't mean we enjoy having our "never login use only in case of emergency stuck in a super alt". I would happily live in an EVE where supers are mostly irrelevant to sov/null PvP and become the domain of people wanting to PvE in the absolute height of self-grandiosity. Nullbears are fine with AFK ratting carriers and ishtars, it's kinda funny to pretend the fate of supers should (or even could) be anything different.
Princess Cherista
#556 - 2015-03-03 20:05:37 UTC
Querns wrote:
And unlike Mr. "10MN 250KM CLAW" here, I have fits for this: <-- the hyena <-- the crow

Slowcats of the future right here
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#557 - 2015-03-03 20:05:53 UTC
Re: Problem: Command Node - and a Successful Defense

It seems inherently unfair that if a Defender successfully defends their sov and captures the requisite command nodes - that they get ZERO break, and that the vulnerability is not delayed for the defender.

Their litterally forced to be under CTA conditions at all times every day - particularly every day a Main Event might get triggered - let alone the main event itself....

I thought the idea was to spread out Sov warfare...

Perhaps, if a defender is successfull in their defense they can be rewarded for the defense by getting an invlunerability bonus for a fixed period of time --- same of course for a successful attack.

That any counter attack is delayed - and a potential attacker/invader will have to reconsider their startegy or go after another constellation.

Why? Because Sov Trolls will totally become a thing, and a small group faking a sov take over every day day after day is beyond annoying...

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#558 - 2015-03-03 20:08:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Hairpins Blueprint
I LOVE THIS, It's superb and eaven more hardcore that i have expected. Twisted

Great work! Blink

Just few things

1. Etosis link should be banned on interceptors and any ship that can use covet-ops cloaks.

To ensure to no abuse of this new module.

Beside that, i love all of it; and I am sure it will shape null sec a lot! Making Providence an one Imposible to conquer Fort Pirate

And KIlling all afk epires and bringing real, Skilled, completly out of hand, hard core pvp that every one allways wanted!!

Again great work :D I was claping at the screan like a rearded child while reading this dev blog. Lol
Lord Battlestar
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
#559 - 2015-03-03 20:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Battlestar
I think this will be the sov system to kill nullsec once and for all Shocked

I mean structure grinding is boring but when the only idea is to turn it into a mixture of FW sites and capture the flag you know the goose is cooked.

Considering pretty much the only 3 good sources of income in nullsec are anoms/plexs (Mostly just the escalations and DED plexs), PI, and moon mining; There isn't much point to hold space when anyone can come along and take it using a band of interceptors like mentioned before. At this rate you might as well set all Sov nullsec to npc space and outposts to npc stations, cause that is where it is headed.

I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.

Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#560 - 2015-03-03 20:10:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberian Deci
Kaliba Mort wrote:
KC Kamikaze wrote:
If i held sov and someone brought in a carrier i'd be undocking dreads and hics.... forcing them to escalate further.

Why? You can hold a carrier with a noob ship and a point. You can kill it with 20 interceptors.

Maybe CCP should just scrap this and go back to POS warfare. At least those required *effort* to both attack and defend and there were strategies involved, like kitting RF timers. You know, it was actually fun.

Not sure if serious or just stupid...