These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Studio Ghibli
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1881 - 2015-03-04 23:20:47 UTC
Burn it to the ground, CCP. I'll happily rise up from the ashes. :)
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1882 - 2015-03-04 23:20:50 UTC
Devi Loches wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry.


Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around.

They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher.

There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one).


Seriously, who cares? There's not an interceptor with the lock range needed in existence that missiles can't trash. Yay, CCP fixed missiles.
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
The Bastion
#1883 - 2015-03-04 23:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Sullen Decimus
If this is the new sov mechanic there should be a 90% reduction to using jump bridges that your alliance owns. I can understand that using other alliances JB would give you a longer time but it would give alliances actually benefits to owning their space if they can respond to threats faster.

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus

Devi Loches
Academia Solutus
#1884 - 2015-03-04 23:22:26 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Devi Loches wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

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

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.


5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops.
Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure,
Sniper warps in to shoot them down,
Covop lights up and Blackops jump in,
Sniper dead.

Bring multiple snipers?
Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again.
Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors.

And the escalation begins. In a few iterations of counter vs counter, Titans will be on the field.


Large ships require time to move and get on field. This first timer is stationary but immediate response. The second timer are nodes scattered all over the place, it'll take forever for a cap ship to get in place at one. If you do, by that time, you'll capture the node and be going to the new one somewhere else.

tldr: No time for escalation.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1885 - 2015-03-04 23:22:43 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Devi Loches wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

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

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.


5 man fleet. 2 Interceptors, 1 Covop cyno, 2 Blackops.
Interceptors with E-Link start working on a structure,
Sniper warps in to shoot them down,
Covop lights up and Blackops jump in,
Sniper dead.

Bring multiple snipers?
Interceptors jump over a few systems and start again.
Catch Sniper ships as they try to move around to keep up with interceptors.

And the escalation begins. In a few iterations of counter vs counter, Titans will be on the field.

Sounds like content to me \o/

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

Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1886 - 2015-03-04 23:23:15 UTC
Studio Ghibli wrote:
Burn it to the ground, CCP. I'll happily rise up from the ashes. :)


Oh the irony, if only you knew what was about to happen
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#1887 - 2015-03-04 23:23:39 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

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

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.

the only thing that hits an interceptor at 100km+ is praying for a wrecking shot


That's odd, my Cerberus ***** on them.

Are yours broken?

i guess if they are standing still, sure

if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s

an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time

120 + 48 > 125
Severn VonKarr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1888 - 2015-03-04 23:24:18 UTC
Another major complaint people have about sov that has not been touched is the difficulty of getting involved. The biggest factor to that is that null is still logistically dependent on highsec due to the large volumes of products to export (moon goo) and cheap materials to import (trit). The deep null regions still need a way of moving things that doesn't involve the 8 billion isk price tag and indefensible nature of a jump freighter. Possible solutions: null-highsec wormholes, portal structure that is alliance use only, and that an alliance may only have one pair of that allows the connection of a null system to a lowsec system.
Devi Loches
Academia Solutus
#1889 - 2015-03-04 23:25:18 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Devi Loches wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry.


Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around.

They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher.

There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one).


Seriously, who cares? There's not an interceptor with the lock range needed in existence that missiles can't trash. Yay, CCP fixed missiles.


You have a sniping missile ship that can hit a frigate orbiting 110km away at 4km/s? Post it.
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
The Bastion
#1890 - 2015-03-04 23:25:20 UTC
Sullen Decimus wrote:
If this is the new sov mechanic there should be a 90% reduction to using jump bridges that your alliance owns. I can understand that using other alliances JB would give you a longer time but it would give alliances actually benefits to owning their space if they can respond to threats faster.


Furthermore under the new mechanic sprawling JB networks wouldn't be feasible because under the new mechanics long reaching ones would be easy to shut down while internal JB's in systems under constant use would be very difficult.

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1891 - 2015-03-04 23:25:30 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
On the entire interceptor thing: If it really does become a big issue, a simple change would be:

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

New idea added in caps. Its not as limiting as being stuck in place, but my guess is it's enough.

Sniper ship at zero running a defensive link = dead ceptor. Enough about the ceptors already.

the only thing that hits an interceptor at 100km+ is praying for a wrecking shot


That's odd, my Cerberus ***** on them.

Are yours broken?

i guess if they are standing still, sure

if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s

an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time

120 + 48 > 125


They cut corners, that only applies if they inty is straight lining away.

Alternatively, use an orth with 20+km/s light missiles.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1892 - 2015-03-04 23:25:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Promiscuous Female wrote:
afkalt wrote:
That's odd, my Cerberus ***** on them.

Are yours broken?

i guess if they are standing still, sure

if you rig for misl distance you are getting about 125km range on a cerb with a flight time of 12s

an interceptor orbiting at 120km covers 48 km in this time

120 + 48 > 125

Fine we'll go back to the easy way: Drop a kitsune at zero, jam out the ceptor. What you gonna do about it all that far out?

It's amazing how much fuss these ceptors are causing people.

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

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1893 - 2015-03-04 23:27:07 UTC
Devi Loches wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Devi Loches wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
It is incredible how many posts are devoted to interceptors while we have no idea about the fitting... imho one of the more elegant solutions (assuming its even an issue) would be making the entosis module thingy relatively cap hungry.


Even if it's super cap hungry, you will only be going through 1 cycle. So you turn everything off, start up the E-Link, and then go back to burning around.

They have stated that they are looking to have E-Link have low fitting requirements. Most people are assuming it'll be about the same as fitting a turret or a launcher.

There a lot of other issues with the new sov, interceptors are just the most obvious and easily picked at. There is still very little benefit to owning sov. The indecies are still very crude guides (especially the Industry one).


Seriously, who cares? There's not an interceptor with the lock range needed in existence that missiles can't trash. Yay, CCP fixed missiles.


You have a sniping missile ship that can hit a frigate orbiting 110km away at 4km/s? Post it.


With the time you have, a RAVEN will kill them
Agnahr
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#1894 - 2015-03-04 23:27:30 UTC
Interesting idea, but as a lot of people pointed out, the proposed mechanic makes it way too easy to grief populated area. You can come in outside the resident prime time and reinforce their structures in at most 40 minutes. It doesn't matter if you are actually coming back to conquer those structures, you can just smirk at the knowledge that you've just cause those people to have to spend 100 minutes conquering the 10 command nodes. Do this every day on their different stations, iHub and TCUs and the defenders will spend most of their prime time taking command nodes back. So this will become very boring very quickly.

So I approve the idea in principle, but please find a way to make the attacker commit to take the structures when the come out of reinforcement. Maybe if they don't show, after a certain amount of time the command nodes de-spawn and things are back to what they were before.

Similarly with the freeport mode. Come in when the alliance is asleep, spend 40 minutes reinforcing the station, then their station is your to enjoy for the the next 2 days. A bit too easy in my view. You could have an Australian alliance freely living in an European alliance space. Null sec has enough stations that when one come out of reinforcement, you can just move on to the next one few jumps away.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1895 - 2015-03-04 23:30:19 UTC
Finally caught up with the thread. :)

Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far. I spent most of the day at work today reading feedback (here, on twitter, on reddit, in slack and just about everywhere else), taking notes, and discussing the feedback with the CSM and with our team here in the office. Thanks to all the people that have posted constructive feedback so far, in any of those places.

I want to reassure people that we've announced these plans this early for a reason. We want to take advantage of the time this gives us to carefully look at feedback and respond without needing to rush anything. In the past we probably would have waited until Fanfest just to get the reveal moment, but at this point we've learned as a company how much more important substance is than spectacle.

I've noticed a fair bit of skepticism about my comments that this design is built to be flexible, since similar phrases were used back in 2009. I too remember the launch of Dominion sov from the perspective of a player (I'm on record that Dominion is my least favourite EVE expansion) and I can't blame people for being cautious. This is the kind of thing where actions always speak louder than words, so I'll just say that I hope that for many of you the actions you've seen from CCP recently have increased your trust that we will follow through. And for those of you that are still unconvinced, my goal is to change some of your minds with our upcoming actions in this area of Nullsec and Sov.

Since this thread is a bit hectic, we're currently planning to do approach some of the conversation surrounding these changes a little differently. We'll be reading all the feedback here and elsewhere, and then pulling specific issues into their own dev blogs and own threads for further targeted discussion with fewer distractions. It's a bit of an experiment but I think it has a lot of potential.

After discussing the early feedback with the team here, we've decided to begin this feedback and iteration process with a focus on the time zone mechanics. We're seeing a ton of discussion and quite a bit of displeasure over the time zone mechanics as they are laid out in the blog.
So you're going to see us asking a lot of questions in a number of different areas to the players who have opinions on the way we handle time zones in Sov. The goal is to get to the core of the concerns people are expressing about these mechanics, figure out what player needs we are missing in this draft, and see if we can't design a system that meets more of those needs more effectively. I don't expect we're going to make everybody happy, as time zone mechanics are one of the stickiest design issues in a worldwide single shard MMO. However we do think it's likely that your feedback can help get us to a better design than what we have right now.

I'll also probably be quickly spinning off a discussion of the module balance surrounding the Entosis Link, since that's an area where I expect we can calm some fears relatively easily. The short version is that we have all the tools of EVE's module design at our disposal to ensure that no specific tactics get out of hand. So if problems show up in discussion and playtesting we're happy to let players try to find a counter and then relatively easily step in if that counter doesn't materialize.

There's a lot of other areas where we're seeing your concern, and we're not forgetting about any of them. Keep posting your feedback calmly and constructively, keep talking to each other, keep theorycrafting and blogging and podcasting. As people spend more time discussing and thinking about the implications of these changes, we know that the collective EVE hive mind will have a lot to offer, as it has in the past.

I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? Big smile

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1896 - 2015-03-04 23:30:39 UTC
Violent Morgana wrote:
So I have gang of 20 ceptors, fit for extreme speed (20km/s for example and 150km locking range) and t2 Entosis Link. Who/What can stop my gang from reinforcing the whole region? The module needs to either disable any prop mods or make the ship stationary like siege does. That will give you the fights you are trying to force.

Also whats up with this prime time? Should we only have USTZ alliance, EUTZ alliance etc in huge blocks focused on very specific 4hour window in time?

20 (or fewer) Kitsunes.

So thats 2bil in intys countered by 400mil in ewar frigs.

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

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1897 - 2015-03-04 23:33:32 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Violent Morgana wrote:
So I have gang of 20 ceptors, fit for extreme speed (20km/s for example and 150km locking range) and t2 Entosis Link. Who/What can stop my gang from reinforcing the whole region? The module needs to either disable any prop mods or make the ship stationary like siege does. That will give you the fights you are trying to force.

Also whats up with this prime time? Should we only have USTZ alliance, EUTZ alliance etc in huge blocks focused on very specific 4hour window in time?

20 (or fewer) Kitsunes.

So thats 2bil in intys countered by 400mil in ewar frigs.



Or a maulus.

Cheaper again.
Gevlin
Planned Obsolescence.
No Visual.
#1898 - 2015-03-04 23:34:26 UTC
Might have an NPC Defense force installed in the system.

Spending isk into the system to have Alliance owned NPC to defend the system vs small skirmishes.

Then it would be fun to simply Rat in enemy space and collect their wrecks they have paid for.

I am sure there are Maltia off of planet that would love the opportunity to defend their homes.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships

Devi Loches
Academia Solutus
#1899 - 2015-03-04 23:36:01 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Violent Morgana wrote:
So I have gang of 20 ceptors, fit for extreme speed (20km/s for example and 150km locking range) and t2 Entosis Link. Who/What can stop my gang from reinforcing the whole region? The module needs to either disable any prop mods or make the ship stationary like siege does. That will give you the fights you are trying to force.

Also whats up with this prime time? Should we only have USTZ alliance, EUTZ alliance etc in huge blocks focused on very specific 4hour window in time?

20 (or fewer) Kitsunes.

So thats 2bil in intys countered by 400mil in ewar frigs.


So far this seems like the only reasonable counter to the trollceptors I've seen. It keeps the risks of defense roughly equal to that of the attackers. (Not the insanely expensive interceptors mentioned above, just the basic interceptors that would be common. Interceptor fleets vs ewar fleets.)
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1900 - 2015-03-04 23:37:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Finally caught up with the thread. :)


Good stuff, thanks.