EVE Information Portal

You don't think CCP isn't taking this opportunity to nerf income?

---

Signature locked

I actually think this is a very novel approach, and aside from the bad mechanic of pressing a module and waiting, I like the overall architecture (yeah the 4 hour window may use some tweaking, but is a good starting number).

Bad Mechanic = Push button wait x amount of time (10 minutes to 40 minutes after the initial cycle of 2 to 5 minutes).

I see this as an incredible opportunity to introduce something really interesting and innovative. The Entosis Link module can eventually be used as the bridge interface into a Dust 514 capture environment.

Since we are in pods flying and interfacing with our ships virtually, the Entosis Link can be a way to project ourselves into a capture defense environment created by the structure. In here we will essentially load onto a Dust 514 Grid into an avatar of ourselves. We would then play the first person shooter by having to capture an objective from NPC defenses and hold it for the duration (the first cycle can be calibration time where we setup lodouts and whatnot).

Still keep the limitation of 1 link and the other link simply boots out all Dust 514 interfaces OR creates a 1v1 dualing opportunity where you can boot the other out for some amount of time, but for simplicity, just have it lock all out.

This would also create an interesting dynamic where you need to reposition your better Dust players around the constellation during the big event, as other players might suck and fail repeatedly.

This will give the poor schlub having to click the module something REAL and SKILLFULL to do, where he/she will play a critical role in the capture process, while still potentially getting blown up in his ship, while being defended in normal Eve-O by friendly ships. This also uses already built eve mechanics and lore (well I guess the PC Dust version wasn't/isn't finished, but I did say eventually)

This will also mitigate against useless alts that are only there to click the module and further moves away from pointless multiboxing mechanics (if something isn't engaging enough to do that requires your attention it is a bad mechanic and needs to be moved away from, as this is where alts start springing up, to push the thing and wait for the thing to do the thing etc etc etc, meanwhile the human is doing this N+1 number of times across multiple cients).

Having a mini-game could work as a placeholder, but those aren't really so much skill based as they are random luck in clicking the buttons, in a bad version of minesweeper (I would rather have a freakin eve themed angry birds to play instead).

The big takeaway is the pilot activating the module should have something immersive, compelling, and engaging to do that requires skill while the capture clock is running, and if not done will result in failure.

These changes look (almost) awesome!

I include the (almost) for a single reason, which breaks the entire design. The "4 hour vulnerability window" is a horribly flawed concept. Anyone who has fought over POCOs will tell you that you always set the RF timer to the time when your enemy has the least people on. For the majority of groups in EVE, this mean setting your timer from 09:30 - 13:30. Not only do you avoid most major groups but you limit your threats to Aussie players who are interrupted by downtime. I fear that this same tactic would be employed for Sov defense, making it impossible for the majority of EVE to take part. With downtime occurring at 11:00 and an active system requiring a 40-minute capture time time, the ability to capture is slim.

Let's assume that I know the system I want is active (40-minute capture time) and they used the classic 09:30 - 13:30 timeframe. I have a 50-minute window before downtime to active my Entosis link. Let's assume an average downtime of 30 minutes (this can of course be slightly shorter or slightly longer). I have a 120-minute window post downtime. You've now take my 240-minute window and turned it into a 170-minute window.

In another scenario, assume I'm smart enough to review the EVE Offline activity graphics ( http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility ) and determine that the lowest point of activity is between 07:00 and 08:00 each day. I use this number to set my timer for 08:00 to 12:00. I remove 40 minutes before DT + DT, that's 70 minutes gone, again taking myself to the 170-minute window but I've now ensured that the largest active chunk of time (08:00 - 10:20) sees the lowest activity with ~17K active players.

At this point, I've greatly increased the difficulty in taking the system.

Instead, why not use the true activity level of the pilots to indicate the true prime time. Allow a corporation to indicate their prime time when they first take a system. However, adjust the prime time automatically on a rolling 7-day average, similar to how corporation and alliance standings are calculated. If 95% of NPCs are killed and 80% of Ore is mined between 20:00 and 21:00, that should become the middle of the 4-hour vulnerability window. This prevents the window from being used as a defensive mechanic to limit the threat.

It would also then be possible to add a mechanic that says a system with no activity over the 7-day average loses it's window and is always vulnerable, making it even easier to take inactive systems.

At first read through, the thoughts that come to mind is:


* It encourages ratting and mining so you have a maxed out index.
-- This should make all the "carebears" happy in "I'm supporting my alliance by padding my corporation's and own wallet."

* Having a strict 4 hour time window that can only be changed every 96 hours is not a good game design
-- it limits variety over multiple systems that may be used by different corps within an alliance IN DIFFERENT Time Zones
-- it discourages diversity of people working together for a common goal because it creates segaration of the population via timezones.

* Lacking a true catalyst for conflict -where is the risk vs rewards
-- I can see that smaller entities may still try and stake a foothold but it doesn't address the larger sov holding coalitions today from still not being able to get to a system in time for their "vunerable 4 hour window"
-- It encourages members to stay in their home systems and relatively speaking not seek out conflict . . . thus still being in the same situation today of stagnation. Or, the Oh's it XX:XX time to fend off the daily roam.


Something to consider related to the Entosis Link module, will this promote corp hopping so that a small goup of people can quickly be in the "right" alliance for who wants to hold the sov within a coaltion defending a system then continue to depend on the allies for the pvp ship defenses?

At last, I am all caught up with this threadnaught and the devblog behind i and I really like what I have read about the upcoming planned changes. Making pieces of sov easier to take is part of my CSM X platform.
I like how the control nodes will spread the fight around.

There are a few things that I believe need more work:

The Prime time issue:
Make prime time strictly for the reinforcement exit. One great idea previosuly posted is to extend the prime time range for attacks based on current occupancy activity, so an inactive system could be attacked anytime, or a system with its indexes all at 5 could only be attacked during the set prime time.
Another one would to also set an invulnerability time of 8 hours where the local structures can't be attacked.
I would also favor to set the prime time at the corp owning the structure level, rather than at the alliance level.

The Entosis link mechanic:
Great mechanic overall, but I would suggest that entosis link should work anywhere within the grid on a structure without needing to lock it, to get rid of the current relation with the ship's locking range. The T2 difference would only be about the cycle time, and not the range anymore.
Only cruiser* size of larger ships could fit en entosis link.
To affect station services or command nodes, a cruiser* size hull or above would be required.
To affect iHub, you would nee a battleship hull, the link from smaller ships would not work.
To affect a station, you would need a capital hull, the link from smaller ships would not work.
Entosis link would be invulnerable to any e-war, and the ship applying it would lose its mobility and not be bumpable out of range either. It would have to be destroyed to terminate the link.
Last but not least, the link could not be applied too close to the target structure, especialy on stations or services where the ship would have to stay at least 150km away for the link to work. I do not think station games would be good, and the defenders (and attackers in freeport state) would have to commit to the fight out of docking range.

Sov Benefits

I concur with those that suggest that more activities are included in the indexes increase, including PvP, PI, industry... and I do agree that some kind of extra benefit from these indexes in term of income should be incorporated, much like the ESS brings some extra income for its presence.

*Update: after more thoughts, I believe the smaller possible hull type for a Link Entosis should be a battlecruisuer, instead of a cruiser.

shhh shhh im right behind you .... point!

owned you in pos sov
owned you in dominion sov
will own you in occupancy sov

still havent felt the touch of a woman

No structure shooting. Ammo futures just took a dump

I was thinking the same thing but it's no different then POS mechanics today as you can kind of control when your tower comes out of reinforce with the level of strontium you place in there. So in a way it's net net.

I do love all of the tears from the null bears though... Your cheese has been moved deal with it!

I would go so far as saying any system upgraded past level 1 (so 2 and above) should give that warning, but only those, so basically if your alliance makes even a passing try at using the space you get that benefit, otherwise, your clueless about who's doing what in that wooded 10 acre lot behind your house.