These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#761 - 2015-03-03 22:29:23 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
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.


More timely warnings based on sov index seems like a pretty decent benefit for owning sov. Tie it into the Strategic Index. Say a 2 minute reduction in time required per level? So at level 1, 8 minutes. At level 5, 0 minutes.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Myriad Blaze
Common Sense Ltd
Nulli Secunda
#762 - 2015-03-03 22:29:45 UTC
Quote:
and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system.

So considering the new importance of maxing defense bonuses from occupancy, how is mining for a high industrial index better than grinding structures? If I wanted to shoot rocks, I could have stayed in high-sec. At least tie the industrial index to industry maybe? Probably in the form of building/producing stuff? Maybe even consider planetary industry.

Quote:
In the new Sovereignty system, each alliance will designate a four hour window through a new option available in the Corporation Management window to certain members of the alliance executor corp. This period will represent the alliance’s declared prime time,

I assume the feedback so far makes it clear that (most) players think Prime Time is a bad idea. Please axe this. If you think about it for a moment, you might realize that locking out a significant portion of the playerbase from partaking in defensive ops for their alliances is a bad move, because you're denying them content. And forcing players into timezone based alliances would be silly, too.


Also I don't see how a smaller alliance could have a chance to stand against a larger alliance within the new system. It seems it would be possible to just hellcamp the defender with a fleet of mains, have a two or three groups in fast ships ready to deal with stragglers, while using cheap throwaway alts in (relatively) cheap ships to zip around and reinforce ALL sov structures of the defending alliance in one sweep.
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar
Goonswarm Federation
#763 - 2015-03-03 22:29:49 UTC
Lord Parallax wrote:
Just and Idea, since this is all about protecting a ship that is cycling some module and blowing up the ships that are counter cycling,

1. systems that are being actively contested should have a preventive measure on stations, If a entosis link is being used on the station, after the 3nd cycle is completed the station goes into lockdown, preventing anyone from docking or undocking from the station until the entosis link has been stopped or the capture is completed.



Meh easy to counter, just one dude use link and every one dock.

And not beeing able to undock -_-'' for real mate?
Dixie Mason
ZERO TAX MERCS
#764 - 2015-03-03 22:30:14 UTC
Have to admit I am very please to see changes and overall I really like those.
Here is my ideas to address most common issues with the current propositions.

It's obvious that main problem with the new SOV system is compulsory division of alliances into narrow TZ based entities. While I understand the need to make it easier sov warfare for "small guys" we have to look at big multinational alliances too.

Arrow So it would be logical to extend "Prime time" based on number of constellation where SOV is held. Base value remain same for 1 constellation but any additional system in other constellation would add 2 more hours of prime time. As an example: if alliance have systems with SOV over it in 2 constellation prime time will be 6 hours. If Brave have SOV in 14 constellations prime time will 24 hours. This will force alliances to more strategic placement of SOV system but if alliance feels strong enough to defend around the clock let them.

Arrow Proposed mediocre activity based model lacks both rewards for active SOV owners as well as negative impact in deserted systems for attacker.
If CCP is forcing to live everybody closer and share same space it would be logical to greatly expand PVE anomalies or introduce some new capital/supers targeted sites in upgraded systems. As a side result it will make living in 0.0 more risk/reward balanced.
From the other hand attacker don't get anything if he attacks literally deserted system with zero activity. This should be addressed by making SOV capture even more easier by removing second timer and sending no notification to defenders (if you dont know your system is reinforced mby you don't need it).
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#765 - 2015-03-03 22:31:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
"Prime Time" is just CCP's way of saying "**** you, Australia", right?

Here's a suggestion:

  • Ditch the "prime time" concept. It's just another feature you'll be scrapping six months down the track
  • Ditch the "Entosis" module since you'll just be replacing it with hacking or removing it completely down the track (the Entosis link just replaces structure bashing with titan bashing)
  • Structures are vulnerable all the time
  • Command nodes are always spawned randomly through the constellation once the structure is built (no reinforcement timer related mechanics, no fancy new hacking-but-not-hacking mechanism)
  • Balance spawn rate of command nodes so that attackers/defenders need to be active throughout the entire day
  • "winning" the command node competition is based on the current Incursion style influence bar, with influence for each structure of interest
  • Command nodes have multiple sizes, just like Incursion or FW sites
  • Command node sites can be anomalies, ore, relic, data or beacon sites
  • Command nodes replace all existing anomalies, ore, relic, data or beacon sites (or rather, all those existing sites function as command nodes)
  • Each type of command node contributes towards a different influence bar: one for industry, one for defence, one for offence, one for utility. Industry influence improves the quality of ores in sites (bumping up to the 5%/10% versions), defence influence improves (for example) EHP of allied ships in that territory or strength of NPCs in command nodes (which also improves bounties), offence influence improves (for example) tracking or missile velocity, utility influence reduces structure fuel consumption, etc
  • Harder-to-find or harder-to-beat command nodes are worth more influence
  • Sov owner can influence command node sizes through deployment of specific IHUB upgrades, only one of each allowed per constellation, which can nominate one system to be small/medium/large encounters, so an alliance that favours frigate combat can anchor a "Small Command Anchor" in their HQ system to ensure that the important fights end up being in frigates
  • PVP kills in that constellation count towards all influence bars


Note that you have no built-in time-out on the capture process using the funky link things. If I and my opponent can manage to keep links active on the structure, the contest will never end. Welcome to the world of fleet boosted maximum-EHP titans duking it out, with each side having 10 minutes to chew through a few million EHP. Whoever has N+1 replacement buffer titans wins.

This way a small Australian corp can still harass a large nullsec alliance that is strong in US or EU time zone, perhaps flying interceptor fleets and engaging any/all small command sites, or infiltrating a large number of covops frigates to engage all the data/relic command sites in unconventional warfare.

The defenders maintain their influence by simply killing the invaders (PVP adjusts all influence bars), or by running command node sites themselves.

Oh, and push ore sites back into the exploration system rather than the anomaly system.

Making it so that small groups in exploration ships can have a meaningful impact on sovereignty will encourage more people to head out to nullsec and provide content for the locals.
Random Interrupt
Nasty-Boyz
Templis CALSF
#766 - 2015-03-03 22:32:46 UTC
I read the post and read/skimmed over all 39 pages of this thread. I haven't seen anything to change my mind from my initial take on this.

Prime time needs adjusting for sure. Many corps and alliances are multi-time zone. I highly doubt many alliances, even small ones, exist in a single time zone.

Aside from that overall I'm excited about the changes. It's definitely a great start.
Aram Kachaturian
Aram Pleasure Hub Holding
#767 - 2015-03-03 22:33:03 UTC
Thanks for those changes CCP Fozzie.

Great features and I'm glad to see that this game is heading an honourable way.

By the way, I'm on the internet since 1997 and I've never seen such amount of tears.

That's beautiful and atrocious at the same time.

You redefined mordern art and the future of the web.

Thanks to everyone.

Servant of the Secret League, Wielder of the Monocle Clubhouse Flame.

Tyanshe
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#768 - 2015-03-03 22:33:18 UTC
Looks good to me. All the crying is by babies who want easy isk and no effort in null.

KelSaor
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#769 - 2015-03-03 22:33:19 UTC
KC Kamikaze wrote:
KelSaor wrote:
I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.

The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.

Bye bye supers, no point to them now.


...and we all move to NPC space.



Actually wormholes are the riskiest place to live. The 4 hour timer is fine. It's the reverse of no timer. It means you only get attacked at your peak time. Thats fantastic in my opinion. That way the aggressing force can't use your lack of activity in a particular timezone to their advantage.

In wspace we don't get that luxury. Somone attacks you and to maintain hole control you are in the game for 12 hours a day fighting to keep your **** after working for 8 hours. The 4 hour window will lower the divorce rate amongst eve players.


I'll concede on WH having more risk, but sorry still disagree about the timer and 0.0 being worth it.

When you are flying with an alliance that has 1000s of pilots, 1 TZ will be on constant guard for sov fights, the other 2 wont. As I suspect my alliance/allies will pick US tz I doubt I'll even see much sov action.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#770 - 2015-03-03 22:33:52 UTC
what is really unclear is if the Entosis link module cycle forces a target lock to hold regardless of anything.

For example, many modules have a cycle time that requires a lock to activate, and continues cycling even if that lock fails due to ewar / ecm or other factors like drifting out of lock range.

So we still don't really know if this module needs the lock to be retained throughout its cycle else it fails to apply its effect to the Structure? Or if the effects of the module on the ship using it retains even if the lock is broken? (ie can we warp off if the lock breaks but the cycle is still continuing?)

...as you can tell, many grey areas and requirements to clarify the module and its mechanics still.
Escuro
Russian Thunder Squad
WE FORM V0LTA
#771 - 2015-03-03 22:33:57 UTC
Myriad Blaze wrote:

Also I don't see how a smaller alliance could have a chance to stand against a larger alliance within the new system. It seems it would be possible to just hellcamp the defender with a fleet of mains, have a two or three groups in fast ships ready to deal with stragglers, while using cheap throwaway alts in (relatively) cheap ships to zip around and reinforce ALL sov structures of the defending alliance in one sweep.

it's a chance to zerg-rush a big bad alliance by smaller ones in different parts of space. you don't need a cap-blob to gain sov with this mechanic, so just get a roam going - no one is capable defending 3-5 consts at once.
BoomBoss
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#772 - 2015-03-03 22:34:29 UTC
Seems nice, i was dissapointed though there is no Sansha mom to be defeated to end the 'nulcursion'.
Phoenix Jones
The Markoni Dragons
#773 - 2015-03-03 22:34:51 UTC
KC Kamikaze wrote:
KelSaor wrote:
I am seeing very little reason why anyone would want to hold 0.0 sov except for the moon income. Your system makes 0.0 the riskiest place to live (which I agree it should be) but doesnt offer anything over just mission running in highsec and fighting in lowsec.

The 4 hour timer is always a bad mechanic, no in fact its terrible. Sorry guys, only one tz gets to play 0.0, the rest of you just go back to ratting or on a pointless roam.

Bye bye supers, no point to them now.


...and we all move to NPC space.



Actually wormholes are the riskiest place to live. The 4 hour timer is fine. It's the reverse of no timer. It means you only get attacked at your peak time. Thats fantastic in my opinion. That way the aggressing force can't use your lack of activity in a particular timezone to their advantage.

In wspace we don't get that luxury. Somone attacks you and to maintain hole control you are in the game for 12 hours a day fighting to keep your **** after working for 8 hours. The 4 hour window will lower the divorce rate amongst eve players.


Quoting for the truth about divorce rates.

Yaay!!!!

d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#774 - 2015-03-03 22:36:35 UTC  |  Edited by: d0cTeR9
#1 I hope this is a VERY basic idea going around, because it's extremely poorly thoughout.
#2 Why bother keeping space?
#3 Another slap to supercarriers... last thing to do was structure fighter bomber bashing or repping, gone!
#4 Here comes fleet of cov-ops going around trolling stations...

Well that was dissapointing...

Can my supers dock now? At least i can station-spin them... Maybe use their fitting service since station services are going to be near-perma disabled...

Been around since the beginning.

KelSaor
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#775 - 2015-03-03 22:38:41 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:
#1 I hope this is a VERY basic idea going around, because it's extremely poorly thoughout.
#2 Why bother keeping space?
#3 Another slap to supercarriers... last thing to do was structure fighter bomber bashing or repping, gone!
#4 Here comes fleet of cov-ops going around trolling stations...

Well that was dissapointing...

Can my supers dock now? At least i can station-spin them... Maybe use their fitting service since station services are going to be near-perma disabled...

#1 its ccp........
#2 moon income, thats it
#3 Pretty much
#4 yup
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#776 - 2015-03-03 22:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Also this is a nice copy+paste style point capture mechanic lifted from Planetside 2 and dumped into Eve, you do realise it works well in Planetside due to no cooldown or cost/limiting factor to choosing your defensive respawning location and re-engaging in fights over contested points right?

at least their devs see the advantage to creating a near even powerbase for both defensive and offensive forces so that neither side is actually boosted purely by mechanics.

JohnMonty wrote:
"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"

Best line in the whole thing lol


QFT
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#777 - 2015-03-03 22:43:46 UTC
I approve.

I will be pissing all over sov holders in every null exit I find down the chain.

Turning off stations? you bet!!
Phoenix Jones
The Markoni Dragons
#778 - 2015-03-03 22:44:35 UTC
Killah Bee wrote:
Classic eve community dev blog rage.

Still no way you can put these changes in like that.

Groups like reavers will literally take regions in intie gangs while having like 0 risk.

RIP AU TZ / RUS aswell.

So I wonder what its gonna look like when you reinforce the entire const instead of just one system aswell .. gonna be like 50 beacons to claim and groups like the CFC can still just steamroll all beacons at once .. dunno how thats gonna split them apart.

and so on ...

CCP pls fix these changes.

tyvm


So if the cfc rolls into the drone region and reinforces stuff.... Really so what. If you had that much to begin with with no way to defend it, then what the hell are you doing there with all that wasted space? Cfc claims it, doesn't defend it, you get it back.

The tug of war continues.

Basically, shrink your empire into something defendable by your core groups. Owning 200 systems, 3+ regions and defending them with jump drive supers, bridging Titans and gangs across the map is over. Fights are now regional, constellation based or even just a few systems. The need for 100 cap steamroll armada is over. Now will they be able to go about and steamroll anyway? Sure.

Will there be a viable point in doing that? That's where I think they got this proposal right. Throwing everybody into 1 system is pointless. Spread the people out, but not so thinly or so far away from home that you yourself cannot defend it. You can't defend renters now. The threats dead. Will people still rent, sure. Will moongoo still matter, yes. You may own the moon but you won't own the home.

I applaud both CCP and the CSM for taking these steps. There is still more to go.

Yaay!!!!

PorkCleaner
The Dysfunctionals
Goonswarm Federation
#779 - 2015-03-03 22:45:17 UTC  |  Edited by: PorkCleaner
A couple of points:

BAD
1) Been touched on a lot but needs to be re-iterated non-stop. Please give null-sec sov owners a better incentive to want null in the first place. The reduction in pos fuel is not even close to enough.
2) Too hard to get level 4/5 industry atm. Where as it is much easier to get level 5 military.
3) If you are not that worried about station services (any POS dweller has become used to that) then how does this motivate people to fight on any other time (beyond transfer one)?
4) clearly CCP wants to merry the benefits of PVE with benefits in PVP but in my opinion there are not enough. Why not give system more optional effects like in wh's with specific upgrade packages - the variety of fleet comps to suit system upgrades could make life very interesting?
5) Not sure how this deals with renting. If a renter now wants to revolt - only the distance from landlord determines that possibility? How will this effect a possible revolt? since he belongs to the alliance he can't. He has too quit first.
6) Giving the sov holder the ability to choose his TZ was meant to give an incentive and home advantage but doesn't it make it impossible as well for the attacker if it is in AUZ time zone for example?

NOT SURE
1) Did you intend to nerf Supers and Dreads? I don't see how they are used in sov change anymore and since they suck 'at pvp that is meant to be spread out'...This is a nail in the coffin for the Superclass. First they can't easily move, and now take away their purpose! Maybe that is the intent.
2) Is this not going to motivate the creation of super alliances? Since only members of the holding alliance can defend sov. Why does Mittens now not just order all his plebs to join the Goons? Is that the intent?

GOOD
1) The multiplier of levels to the sov transfer ease.
2) More can be a part of the process.
3) Removes the grind of structures.
4) Brings constellation back into game.
5) Allows for better planning by Alliance with new UI.
6) Love the freeport idea.
7) Love the fact you have the balls to actually tinker with this.

REQUEST
I would love to know how the CSM voted on this. in a democracy, knowing how people actually performed is more important then how often they smile or blog.

Porky
CR1MS0N M4RV3L
Perkone
Caldari State
#780 - 2015-03-03 22:45:56 UTC
"Prime Time" feature sucks! Get rid of this.Shocked