These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1041 - 2015-03-04 03:59:47 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Ncc 1709 wrote:
will be fleets of T3 destroyers orbiting at 180km doing 15km/s+ cap stable nuking station services etc

And all you need is one ship with your own link to stop them. Any additional ships will be for picking off the T3s

Shhh...

Don't ruin his narrative. Blink
Soleil Fournier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1042 - 2015-03-04 04:11:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
Following up on earlier suggestions, I think that the number of players it should take to activate timers should increase from 2 to 5.

Group gameplay is important to eve, and sov in particular should require groups of players to complete objective. By making it so someone with their alt can just go about completing objectives willy nilly lessens the need for grouping and increases cat and mouse greifing.

I think 5 is a reasonable number to require.

I would also consider making it to where the more entosis modules you put on an objective the faster it completes, but with a cap of lets say 10 so that more grouping is rewarded, but makes it to where bringing a bigger and bigger blob doesn't grant you any further reward beyond safety in numbers.
Kyonko Nola
Perkone
Caldari State
#1043 - 2015-03-04 04:14:26 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Kyonko Nola wrote:
I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time


In which case an atron (to halt the inty's progress) and a few HACs will have a shooting gallery. I sincerely encourage WAFFLES to try that 100 inties thing.


What I am concerned is that with other things happening around the grid, a gang of inties with the module running all the time orbiting 250 km will be hard for the defenders to actually do something about them. Best case, it would be annoying. There are a lot of factors involved and I think that it is extremely disadvantageous for the defenders.

But what do I know about SOV. And I do not speak for my corporation, just inputting my opinion for ccp to consider.

Also Waffles.

KitKatSimKatKo

S3ND3TH
Czerka.
What Could Possibly Go Wr0ng
#1044 - 2015-03-04 04:20:14 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Tykonderoga wrote:
The prime time idea is garbage. The module to reinforce structures will be abused by ceptor pilots with pirate implants or a bazzillion people in ceptors. Think CCP! I know that no one in the company actually plays the game anymore, but think!


Why is it that people think a fleet of ceptors is uncounterable?


i think it has more to do with mobility. you can't just blockade the gates with bubbles.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1045 - 2015-03-04 04:27:11 UTC
There's a lot here.. and I'm not sure how well this change will work out, but it's worth a try.

Now there are some things I'd like to suggest.

First is to bring activity into the picture. And I'd like to tie it in to the Primetime thing.
I both like and dislike the primetime feature. It makes sure that you can defend your sov when you are strongest, but you've just made it so having multi-tz alliances isn't gonna be much fun for at least half of them.

So, here's my idea. You have your 4hr Window. This window will apply to your MOST ACTIVE system. In terms of PvE. In terms of Mining. Industry. No matter what happens that system is only open in that timeframe.
Now you have your LEAST active system. That system has a *chance* of being vulnerable +/- 12hrs on either end. Lets say the chance is 25%?
Now the rest of the systems go on the bell curve, and their activity affects what the chance of it hitting is, and their 'rank' affects the chance of it being vulnerable in that extra time. So your middle or the range system could end up being +/-3hrs with a 12% chance of it being vulnerable in those additional 6 (3+3)hrs.

This means your core systems are the safest systems. They will virtually always be during your prime time. But those forgotten systems. Those systems you are rarely in, have a much greater chance of hitting outside your prime time, Or in turn, more squarely in the prime time of another Alliance.


Two.
Incursions. Have them attack SOV. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. They should go after SOV, POS's, etc. Unlike the Empires where the Sansha know they have no chance to Hold the ground, they should try in Null. If ignored when when the Incursion Withdraws, there should be No POS's left, and sov and stations should be transferred to the Sansha, along with local rats and anoms.. You'd need to retake it same way as any other alliance.


Three.
Give Outposts, iHubs, etc POS Guns. So they can blap that little frig that is going to turn off your services just for lol's. It's kinda silly that a large POS can have defaces but an Outpost can't?




Anyway.. just my ideas.
I honestly have no idea how this is going to play out.,. I can see it turning into another FW Farce of everyone flying frigs cause why not.. Or I can see this driving some real conflict.. I donno. It's a tossup.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1046 - 2015-03-04 04:28:59 UTC
1) Remove r64s from moons
2) put those in moving entities like incursions
3) provide more scaling benefits to owning sov
S3ND3TH
Czerka.
What Could Possibly Go Wr0ng
#1047 - 2015-03-04 04:29:51 UTC
i think we should go back to having to smash 20-100 pos's in an small area to take sov. i enjoyed the hours and hours of mind numbing structure bashing.

remember, it can always be worse. a lot of criticism on this thread, but not a lot of solutions offered. i think this change will actually be good. i know the community will find a way to twist it in a way the devs did not foresee or intend, but anything that makes smaller fights happen more often, bigger fights happen less, removes a lot of structure bashing, helps smaller groups get out to null without being overwhelmed, and makes fielding 2 carriers in a fight not turn into fielding 500 carriers in a fight, are all good things. the biggest things to remember are that there is no change that can't be undone and get on the test server to check these things out. your opinion actually matters there and you have the power to give good ideas on there.
OldWolf69
Militaris Industries
Northern Coalition.
#1048 - 2015-03-04 04:29:59 UTC  |  Edited by: OldWolf69
Add instalock ability to all the ships, restore dps, range and all the nerfed things. THEN it will be a great change, and we will have a really nice thing.
Errrr.... this would not work as intended. CCP, how about making the defenders weapons shoot backwards? At least there won't be any imbecile fails of the attackers and we all would see a lot of amazing videos of hordes of small cheap bullshit killing everyting and being pro. Would be a marketing hit also. "Doable by 2 month old chars" would smash every competition.
Joshua Blue
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1049 - 2015-03-04 04:30:07 UTC
N+1 is no worse under the changes than it is now. N+1 will always be possible, and in a sense I agree with it - the better organised and committed alliance should always win.

Dominion moved sov warfare substantially in favour of the defender. This is moving it back towards the attacker, which is sorely needed in order to free up space. It'll seem unfair and unbalanced, simply because of what we're used to currently. Remember that all it it takes to stop a sov attack is one Entosis link from one defending alliance member. With 250Km range, that's actually pretty damn easy.

For a well defended and occupied system you will have 40 mins to stop an attack. And to stop an attack all you need is ... Effectively any vulnerable period is reduced by 40 mins. You only have to intermittently stop the attack during a 40 min cycle and it resets.

The Prime Time zone sucks - it forces Alliances to be single TZ, and reduces vulnerability to 4 hours out of 24. It should change it so that your sov structures are vulnerable for three periods of between 3 and 6 hours, for a 12 hour total in any 24 hour period.

The capture mechanic of multiple command nodes in multiple systems in the constellation is awesome.

You should only be able to put up a POS if you have a TCU in system. That should be incentive to hold Sov - currently there appears to be none.

Rental empires are dead. It was bound to happen, and CCP have been flagging it for a while. RIP. Time to move on.

Supers are no longer required for sov bashing. This sucks for us, but is good for the game as a whole. Let's see what they come up with for supers in future before crying too much.

Shoot me. I like the changes.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1050 - 2015-03-04 04:30:13 UTC
Oh and one other thing since people are talking Interceptors and such with these things.

Make the module work like Bastion Mode.
Can't move, can't get reps, but get bonuses to your local tank.
1nverted
Perkone
Caldari State
#1051 - 2015-03-04 04:31:11 UTC
I love the bulk of these changes, especially the command node mechanic and the constellation focus.

As an autz player however I share the concerns of others regarding the autz being excluded from sov warfare to an even greater extent than under dominion sov.

Under dominion sov, autz could not participate in the structure fights timed for EU/us prime. However we could participate in the reinforcement of structures to generate those timers. Under this system we can't even do that.

Could you please consider tweaks to these mechanics to allow us to participate on the fringes as we did before?

One idea I have quickly thought of is requiring an alliance to pick two 'primetimes'. The four hour prime already included and then a secondary time of perhaps one to two hours. This secondary time couldn't be with, say, five hours of the prime time. A ustz alliance would therefore be forced to chose a secondary time in eutz or autz. Some ustz alliances with no eu tz could be forced to chose autz. The sov laser could be made to cycle longer in the secondary period as well.

This may be a bad idea but I think a number of players have recognized that the prime time mechanic is very exclusive as currently expressed. Could you please make it more flexible?

I accept that autz may gain additional value in devaluing sov indices as autz can be a popular time to rat for some alliances.

Good work so far!

Zhalon
Forging Industries
Silent Infinity
#1052 - 2015-03-04 04:34:20 UTC
1) I'm worried it is to easy for sov holders to be harassed by frigates with an entosis link and just disable structures/services with no plan to come back and actually fight for them....no fights would be generated just trolling.
2) I like the prime time setting...the aggressor should have to deal with time zone issues...defender should have this advantage
3) I like the freeport concept.
4) I worry about the role of capitals now with no structure grind...I'm sure you have something for POSes that will make capitals necessary....
5) I see how this would divide up fights, but I don't see how this stops someone from bringing the numbers.
6) Holding sov space and grinding the indices isn't valuable enough and in some ways just makes you a target to cloaky campers. I think you should looking at the rewards for holding sov....not sure how you address cloaky campers.

Idea: Command nodes should have gates. Only defending and attacking alliances can take the gate. Attacking alliance can only have one more ship inside than defending alliance. A defender/attackers allies can secure the gate so that enemy reinforcements are blocked.

This maintains fights for all and makes sure that attackers can't overwhelm defenders with 100 pilots. I think the idea could be flushed out more and you could incorporate capitals but only with cynos on the command node....capitals couldn't take gate.
Alexandre Bellenger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1053 - 2015-03-04 04:36:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexandre Bellenger
The biggest problem these changes fail to address is the actual need for owning sovereignty, as others have stated. With lower income rates than most other areas in the game (see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5547866#post5547866), the only reason to own sov in the current state of the game is A) to build supercaps and B) to plant your flag in space for E-PEEN factor. Content creation is stagnant (which these changes do somewhat address), but without incentive no one in this game will want to create said content.

Aside from a needed buff to nullsec and reasons to live in it, there must also be less of a reason to own so much space. For nullsec players, the #1 staple source of income and incentive to live in null is nullsec anomalies. Missions, incursions, tower reactions, etc can all be done elsewhere, but the level of anomalies present in null can be found nowhere else.

The larger your sov nullsec alliance, the more members you have wanting this level of income. So the more members you have, the more anomalies you need to keep everyone happy and staying in your alliance. Anomalies are capped at a certain amount per system, so you can only have so many members utilizing a single system. This is the sole reason why major power blocs own entire region(s). An alliance like Goonswarm Federation can and would gladly live in 10-20 systems if the system simply allowed for it. A larger population density in individual systems would allow for greater content, less mass ownership of systems by powerblocs, and therefore greater opportunity for smaller groups to take sovereignty without being contested by said powerblocs.

How to do so? The answer has been thrown at you for months now, by anyone from random pubbies like myself to well known bloggers. Allowing mission agents in nullsec stations allows for infinite population density in a single small area. Agents implemented in the form of rented teams forces the top of the alliance to put money into providing for the members, something that must happen in more diverse ways than just SRP. But nontheless, mission agents in nullsec would solve the population density problem and allow for alliances to live in much smaller areas, with the same numbers.

If implemented, alliances would naturally find themselves drawn to central hubs, where standing fleets and safety in numbers provide a greater benefit than simply spreading out to the far corners of the region. As alliances coalesce, some constellations will find their occupancy indices tick down, and suddenly a nearby NPC null or Lowsec dwelling alliance may find themselves being able to contest these systems and, after enough harassment, able to take them. In the current eve, were most systems in CFC space are being used, the taking of such systems simply wouldn't be allowed to happen.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1054 - 2015-03-04 04:39:30 UTC
so to further the idea may i present you the tech II rokh

Role: Flag ship

Caldari Battleship bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range
4% bonus to all shield resistances

Flag ship bonus:
10% reduction in signature radius per level
10% reduction in reload time for shield repair systems


role bonus:
can fit Entosis Link


tech II abbadon:

Amarr Battleship bonuses (per skill level):
5% bonus to Large Energy Turret damage
4% bonus to all armor resistances

Flag ship bonus:
10% reduction in signature radius per level
10% reduction in reload time for Armor repair systems

role bonus:
can fit Entosis Link


tech II hyperion:
Gallente Battleship bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer amount

Flag ship bonus:
10% reduction in signature radius per level
10% reduction in reload time for Armor repair systems

role bonus:
can fit Entosis Link


tech II mael:
Minmatar Battleship bonuses (per skill level):
5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire
7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount

Flag ship bonus:
10% reduction in signature radius per level
10% reduction in reload time for shield repair systems


role bonus:
can fit Entosis Link


the idea is only flag ships can use the Entosis Link. the Entosis Link makes it so you cant warp or get remote repair so having a ship like the old tier 3 battleships which all get a native tank bonus will help them survive attacks. To add to thier ability to survive they get a signature radius reduction which will help against incoming dps. also the roload time bonus is meant for auxiliary repair units to keep up ability to tank incoming dps.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

S3ND3TH
Czerka.
What Could Possibly Go Wr0ng
#1055 - 2015-03-04 04:40:50 UTC
Kyonko Nola wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Kyonko Nola wrote:
I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time


In which case an atron (to halt the inty's progress) and a few HACs will have a shooting gallery. I sincerely encourage WAFFLES to try that 100 inties thing.


What I am concerned is that with other things happening around the grid, a gang of inties with the module running all the time orbiting 250 km will be hard for the defenders to actually do something about them. Best case, it would be annoying. There are a lot of factors involved and I think that it is extremely disadvantageous for the defenders.

But what do I know about SOV. And I do not speak for my corporation, just inputting my opinion for ccp to consider.

Also Waffles.


an interceptor could probably only target out to maybe 150km with mwd, sebos, and maybe even signal amps and rigs just maxing it out on distance. but a couple things that would need to be known are what happens when the ship gets out of range or loses lock? what if it mwds or gets knocked 260km? and what happens when they are jammed? could a hostile target, start the hack, then when defenders warp ongrid get jammed by an ally and then be able to warp off? likely the successful activation of the module will start a timer to inhibit warp. if this is the case then being in an interceptor and unable to warp is not so good. just need a faster ship to run him down. i hope it doesn't completely inhibit movement. if so, then something like a blackbird or a scorpion would be a good choice because it will probably be like a cyno and mids will still work.

if the module is made to fit larger ships mostly then you know what else this means.......new ships with bonuses to taking sov. maybe a set of heavy destroyers that can get a bonus to capture.
OldWolf69
Militaris Industries
Northern Coalition.
#1056 - 2015-03-04 04:41:04 UTC
...just restore firepower, range and add instalock to all subcaps. Let's make this the bloodbath we all deserve. Evil
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#1057 - 2015-03-04 04:44:48 UTC
Proton Stars wrote:
I have now actively posted in this thread for just under 3 prime times, yet I work a rolling shift pattern so I'll only be effective on my alliances prime time one week in 4. Guess I'll play elite or one of the x series on the other three weeks....


Corner cases are a *****.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#1058 - 2015-03-04 04:48:55 UTC
Zhalon wrote:
1) ....not sure how you address cloaky campers.


No local, no afk cloaker. The answer is to just delay local and actually make nullsec challenging to live in. Guard your gates, scout the routes to your home. There should be consequences for being lazy nullbears.
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Monopoly
Flying Dangerous
#1059 - 2015-03-04 04:49:57 UTC
Kyonko Nola wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Kyonko Nola wrote:
I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time


In which case an atron (to halt the inty's progress) and a few HACs will have a shooting gallery. I sincerely encourage WAFFLES to try that 100 inties thing.


What I am concerned is that with other things happening around the grid, a gang of inties with the module running all the time orbiting 250 km will be hard for the defenders to actually do something about them. Best case, it would be annoying. There are a lot of factors involved and I think that it is extremely disadvantageous for the defenders.

But what do I know about SOV. And I do not speak for my corporation, just inputting my opinion for ccp to consider.

Also Waffles.


Show me the inty fit that locks at 250. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and tank a sniper Muninn. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and outrun a speed fit PVP inty/pirate frig.
Kerrat Braban
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1060 - 2015-03-04 04:50:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Kerrat Braban
How it could be done (my opinion only)


Only living in a system increases the SOV index for the Alliance

Living gives SOV points. Living meaning NPC kills, PvP Kills (and losses?), mining, PI, exploring, industrial activities, maybe even hours presence x number of pilots and other activities I sure forgot.

Structures (incl. POS and POCOS) increase the rate at which the index is going up (only increases rate, don't gives points by itself). Competing structures? Maybe?

Several competing alliance indexes are possible, the alliance with highest index (by a margin) has SOV, if difference is too small it's "Shared" (or "Contested" depending on # PvP kills), if no one reaches the minimum margin the system is unoccupied.


No more bashing, no more structure turning (which still is no fun ... 40 minutes orbiting with a link on?), though that could be still incorporated once a system changed SOV. And NO PRIME TIME.


BTW you forgot the POCOs in your draft? They still have to be bashed, right?