These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sieonigh
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#701 - 2015-03-03 21:43:36 UTC
Agent Known wrote:
Evil BeeHatch wrote:
Prime time timer:
For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz.
We need to make this go away.

Entosis Link:
This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB
So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode.


Maybe so...but CCP could always make it require too much PG to be fittable on interceptors that try to also fit an oversized MWD. Same with the Svipul.


don't let the defenders know about the Maulus! shhhh
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#702 - 2015-03-03 21:43:39 UTC
Murkelost wrote:
This is a very bad idea since it forces alliances to focus to a single TZ. And the entosis link is OP, since like a ceptor can fly around ihub's at ludicrous per sec and take the ihub. Entosis should be forced into siege mode as it go active in it's task.


I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno.
Javani
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#703 - 2015-03-03 21:43:56 UTC
I'm not sure if i hate it or it will be okey. but a few thought's:


Freeport
Good idea, but to prevent ******* docking games, set an redock timer to 10 mintues or so. RP-> because the management in the station is totally in mess.

Prime Timezone
As mentitentioned before, multi time zone entities have realy problems to provide defensiv to smaller groups of other timezones. Also, attacking an AU TZ is really hard for an EU timezone entity, except you have jobless people or students.

Boni from active living
Yeah, this part i really like. But whats about to engage the timezone problem to make an not use system an huge vulnerable and for every avtivity in the last day/week the timer shrinks to the primetime?

Feelings about the new system
It's feels a little bit too gamey and not like war. I don't see any resonable connection between spawning points to capture in the constilation and saving the sov structure. but i think any good RP background could fix this. But it will be gamey... What?

The Link
- With small ships(frigs upto cruiser), you could orbit upto 200km away with enough sbo's but after 1 ecm hit your progess is gone? -> kitsune wars / damp wars
- With medium ships(bc to bs) you will warp to zero to the bacon and try to defend your position. don't forgett your scorpoins and damps for getting rid of enemy links that will orbit over 150+ | beaware of lock breaking bombs...

Capitals
hmmm carrier alt for resuppling small ships, but what will you do with dreads and larger ships?


Zaporozh
The Krab Shack
Worthless Krabs
#704 - 2015-03-03 21:44:15 UTC
Love most of these changes however this Prime Time Timer needs to go away. Its going to make Multi TZ alliance be useless since the timers will only come out at one time.
Entosis link needs to be a siege No reps, No moving, No ability to triage or siege. As well as make it very easy to see which ship is running the mod on the structure maybe even have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS.
Evelgrivion
Origin.
WE FORM V0LTA
#705 - 2015-03-03 21:46:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Vaju Enki wrote:
Nullbears are mad. Good.


I don't know about that; it looks like a lot of them are mad because these changes will change the approach to managing and contesting sovereignty, but do not necessarily solve the existing problems with the sovereignty system - especially these Time Zone shenanigans.
Bullock Atram
Code Name Spacer 7
Worthless Krabs
#706 - 2015-03-03 21:46:46 UTC
Prime Time Timer is a bad idea Its going to make diverse TZ alliances to be pointless
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#707 - 2015-03-03 21:48:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Can we PLEASE get a dev or someone to give out solid stats for the fitting costs of Entosis links? If it's too big to fit on a frigate that would be AMAZING since it would ensure that inties would be barred from using them, and that cruiser to battleship-sized ships would be the ones capping systems. While I'm reticent about growing the cruiser meta in the game any more than it is currently, you need to ensure that cheap throwaway sh*t frigs or inties don't become the bearers for such an important module as the Entosis link.

Personally, I'd like to see battlecruisers be the only ones that can field them. They're slow enough to be manageable by opposing frigate gangs, and they're ideally adaptable to the new tech with their ability to fit command links. This plus the fact that they're less likely to be nickel-and-dimed like frigates and cruisers would make them excellent vessels for this new meta.

But for Bob's sake...please make sure that inties are unable to use these. The bubble immunity alone would bar anything else from being used in this new mechanic.Shocked
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#708 - 2015-03-03 21:48:28 UTC
On the docking games in a Freeport. Honestly I would charge a docking fee but keep the fee in escrow. So people get billed for docking (100,000 for a frigate, up to 10 million for a freighter/dread/carrier). Whoever wins over the Freeport in total, gets that escrow cash.

A little bit of a bonus incentive to claiming and winning the station. I'd give 5% of that escrow to the person who locks it down as a individual capture bonus, the other 95% to that persons corporation to do as sees fit.

Basically a capture corp could make billions by sniping the station and taking it's escrow. Basically if you have a person doing undock games, they pay for it. And then everybody pays for it to whoever claims the station.

Yaay!!!!

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#709 - 2015-03-03 21:48:38 UTC
Bullock Atram wrote:
Prime Time Timer is a bad idea Its going to make diverse TZ alliances to be pointless


You make that sound like it's a bad thing.

The Tears Must Flow

Jarn Skjoldr
Steelforge Heavy Industries
#710 - 2015-03-03 21:48:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarn Skjoldr
OK look, CCP, I like where you tried to go with this, but there are some major problems you need to fix.

1) The 4 hour vulnerability window is way too short; doing what one of the other commenters suggested and turning it around into an 8 to 12 hour "safe" window would be a much better idea.

2) Instead of having *all* an alliance's timers set for a single window, why not allow different timers to be set depending on the region? With the jump fatigue mechanic now in place and jump clone timers at a minimum of 19 hours, alliances still wouldn't be able to jump back and forth across their space very easily and this might be a good way to allow different time zones to still participate if you decide to keep the 4 hour vulnerable idea. Have different time zones defending different regions.

3) The T2 Entosis link range is insane and the fact that ships can move while using one is even more so. The T2 Entosis link range should be brought down to double the T1 and both of them should immobilize the ship using it like a triage, siege, or bastion module does. I don't particularly like that it's a highslot either.

4) I've played FW heavily on another account and so I know firsthand how PvP anomalies can generate PvP. So while I like the idea of command nodes, I hate the fact that they're scattered across an entire constellation. My corp owns a single system, and that's all we want. We don't want to have to fly around an entire constellation to protect our single system. The best FW combat is always based on contesting of a single system in PvP anoms in that system, and nullsec command nodes should follow the same model. You say the goal of these changes is to allow smaller entities a shot at sov, but what you're really doing is telling us is that we either need to be big enough to take an entire constellation or we should just go home.

5) These sov changes make it a lot easier to lose your Sov without giving any matching value to owning sov. Like one of the other commenters said, make Sov indexes give bonuses to mining yields and rat bounties or something, anything, that adds more value to owning a crappy nullsec system over highsec missioning.

6) Sov warfare is a huge part of what makes capital ships useful. I'm really glad that you're trying to produce a sov model where owning capital ships isn't required, but eliminating their use entirely is a slap in the face to those of us who spent half a year training into them and billions of ISK buying them. They need to have some function. I'm not saying they should be an "I Win" button as they currently are, but there should be some advantage to having them vs not having them.

EDIT:

7) Also, please please please make iHubs and level 5 sov upgrades 300K m3, so that they can fit into a jump freighter. The little guys are the ones without titans to bridge their freighters around.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#711 - 2015-03-03 21:49:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Hugh Coloure wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Total Newbie wrote:
Uh huh. Pretty graphs say whatever they want to say. Doesn't make them true. I live in null, and I just disagree there are more players here..... If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.

Anecdotal evidence versus actual statistical evidence...nice


Also read the damn devblog, it explains why some areas of null have been quieter whilst there's been an overall increase across the whole game outside of your anecdotal situation.


Link

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.


Graph entitled "Eve Online AND DUST 514 Status Monitor".

And I don't suppose you realize that that huge downward motion just happens to coincide exactly with Fanfest 2014, when CCP basically announced that DUST was dead. What you are seeing in that graph is all the players that quit DUST.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Sieonigh
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#712 - 2015-03-03 21:49:11 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
MIss Sideways wrote:
wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!

all jokes aside...

make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...

Change it so that folks have to siege for this...


A 20 hour daily invulnerability window isn't hard enough?


only 4 hours vulnerable, even a filthy casual can maintain that
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#713 - 2015-03-03 21:49:48 UTC
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno.


But, based on what the devblog said, it doesn't force you to come to a stop, unlike a cyno, triage, or siege module.
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#714 - 2015-03-03 21:50:22 UTC
Quote:
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.

It’s very important that active and prepared alliances be provided with the tools they need to defend their homes. Providing benefits for robust in-space activity has been one of the key drivers of many of the economic changes to Nullsec over the past few years, and those changes have been quite successful in shifting the focus of Nullsec economic activity from static assets to bottom-up gameplay. It’s now time to begin linking this same bottom-up economic activity more strongly with the world of strategic Sovereignty warfare.

In the new Sovereignty, systems full of active occupants will be vastly easier to defend and control than abandoned ones, bustling empires with a variety of activities will be stronger than AFK ones, and disrupting your enemies everyday activities in their space will help you gain advantages both strategic and economic. More details on how we intend to begin achieving this goal will be discussed later in this blog.


This section of the blog does not actually exist. You may want to go back and, you know, make holding sov give you something.
Capt Tenguru79
Code Name Spacer 7
Worthless Krabs
#715 - 2015-03-03 21:52:10 UTC
Entosis link needs to be like a dread in siege and have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS so that it is obvious who is doing it in a fleet fight. IMO
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#716 - 2015-03-03 21:53:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Evil BeeHatch wrote:
Prime time timer:
For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz.
We need to make this go away.

How, while still having it fair to the defender?

Evil BeeHatch wrote:
Entosis Link:
This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB
So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode.

You can stop that interceptor efforts by hitting the IHUB with your own Entosis link.

Edit: We have yet to see what is being considered for the power grid, CPU and cap needs of the Entosis link. There could be adjusted to limit their use on smaller ships.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#717 - 2015-03-03 21:54:07 UTC
Zaporozh wrote:

Entosis link needs to be a siege No reps, No moving, No ability to triage or siege. As well as make it very easy to see which ship is running the mod on the structure maybe even have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS.


"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."

I agree, though they already covered most of it. I think it should make the user EWAR-immune and lock them in place like siege/triage. Maybe even give them a local rep bonus like a siege module too just to make it interesting.
Capt Tenguru79
Code Name Spacer 7
Worthless Krabs
#718 - 2015-03-03 21:54:59 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Bullock Atram wrote:
Prime Time Timer is a bad idea Its going to make diverse TZ alliances to be pointless


You make that sound like it's a bad thing.

Of course it is, what you are going to get is alliances with a massive single TZ in which it would then be impossible to fight and they will never loose sov.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#719 - 2015-03-03 21:55:14 UTC
Dev Blog wrote:

Providing benefits for robust in-space activity has been one of the key drivers of many of the economic changes to Nullsec over the past few years, and those changes have been quite successful in shifting the focus of Nullsec economic activity from static assets to bottom-up gameplay. It’s now time to begin linking this same bottom-up economic activity more strongly with the world of strategic Sovereignty warfare.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh, my sides, that hurt.

Wow. I mean, just wow. Oh god, I'm going to be giggling for days.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#720 - 2015-03-03 21:55:35 UTC
Also worth noting is that ceptor can't do anything for those 10 minutes so it's a matter or burning to it with your own ceptor where the offender either has to flee beyond the 250km limit or die, either way the defender wins.

However much easier is to just use lachesis to damp that sucker (lach has a native 170km range), however a rook works even better since it has a 187km range.

However your e-war range is only 75 +48 for ecm and 56 + 90 for damps even with boosts so you still might have to chase that ceptor a bit.
Then again it might be easier to just haul that sniper Rokh from the days of yore to pop that ceptor.