These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Feedback Wanted] Time Zone Mechanics Survey

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-03-13 15:30:06 UTC
Are you looking for hard voting #s or just ideas?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#22 - 2015-03-13 15:32:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
I find it humorous that POS warfare offered the best system when dealing with timezones.

You could risk a reinforcement during your off-peak times for a good timer (closer to your own TZ) while setting timers depending upon which enemy you thought might hit your towers. It offered some protections against those hitting your towers in your off-TZ but still that opportunity to gamble for a win/loss.

It also required the risking of actual assets but you could still RI a tower with a dozen peeps.

Maybe the trick to SOV is improving the POS system, how you set them up and how they are maintained...there have been so many good ideas posted since Dominion.
Marseillefrog
Blueprint Mania
#23 - 2015-03-13 16:03:57 UTC
Bobmon wrote:
FIRST


DUMB
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2015-03-13 16:07:12 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
BURN Stront. Something that is heavy , and hard to move.
All my words NO. Stront is a painful mechanic as it exists today with POS. The burden on logistics groups to manage structures will be even worse if this mechanic is introduced to sov gameplay.

We need a simplified mechanic that requires less individual structure micro-management, that can be done REMOTELY. Having to fly to every individual structure to set a timer, and babysit it is not good gameplay.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#25 - 2015-03-13 16:08:19 UTC
Also echoing a few others - write out your answers in a word processor. The survey just ate my answers because I had been typing for more than 90 minutes.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#26 - 2015-03-13 16:15:30 UTC
Hey guys. Sorry about the timeouts. We've talked to the questionpro people and it turns out that the survey will timeout if it is left for more than 90 minutes on one page. We're trying to see if we can get that extended, but in the meantime we split the long-form answers into three pages which should hopefully help.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2015-03-13 16:22:16 UTC
Coelomate wrote:
Thanks for the survey!

cross-posting thoughts from reddit -

I really like the prime time mechanic - I think it's a shot of necessary pain that will push the nullsec equilibrium in a good direction. CCP cannot bend space time - outside of edge-case timers and the particularly caffeine-addled, players in Australia will never be able to directly fight players in America. If there were no timer mechanic, sov would become impossible to hold except by large global coalitions.

And the primary change is really only to how the initial assault comes - I don't buy the argument that ATUZ derives significant joy from dropping SBUs mostly uncontested while the actual fight timers tick away for EU/US TZ. After the initial reinforcement, the old and new sov systems allow the defender to choose their strongest time relative to the attacker.

The new timer mechanics strongly incentivize grouping with - and attacking - players that are online at the same time you're online. Which will make coalitions less optimal - but not kill them outright. It will make it more realistic for groups to silo off without facing immediate destruction, increasing the ability for the equilibrium to shift towards balkanization and away from mega coalition (especially alongside occupancy bonuses and jump drive nerfs). That will be painful to the existing order, but great for the health of the game.


The problem with the primetime mechanic is what happens when it gets abused. Say an alliance like CONDI which has a strong AUTZ sets their primetime to AUTZ, where no one can compete with them. During USTZ all their players can go poke and prod and troll other alliances sov and not have to worry about their own.
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2015-03-13 16:24:11 UTC
Fozzie, what do you think about scaling vulnerability windows linked to how the space is used? Barely used territory would be very easy to take, actively used systems would be harder.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#29 - 2015-03-13 16:27:21 UTC
Will there be a version in russian?
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#30 - 2015-03-13 16:32:20 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
In all honesty its not in either the defenders or the aggressors prime time that the most rewarding fights occur, its typically in the areas between where neither are truly confident about their forces but equally they feel they may have the upper hand due to the time of the day or the reports of the lower numbers of the opposition.

so in that regard:

imagine a systems where by each sov structure has a variable count down timer of up to 1day 18 hours where if its reinforced initially it starts that timer, something that can be kited much like todays POS's.

but instead of having just 1 reinforcement it has 2, both of the same length of time. you cannot time both to come out on your prime time, but you can set the timer so if the structure is hit out of your prime time the 1st comes out in your prime time. so if you save it jobs good, however if you fail to save it, the second timer comes out far outside your prime.

Hostiles can kite the timer to near your prime time in order to force the 1st timer out past your prime but the 2nd timer would come out nearer the start of your prime.

Mixing this dual timer POS style reinforcement with a multi-location king of the hill system i personally think would be awesome.


You can dress it up how you like in a lore way, but it shouldn't require fuel.

For example: the structure has its own power source and 2 capacitance backups, when its reinforced the 1st capacitance backup burns energy to make it invulnerable for x amount of hours/minutes, whilst the power source charges up the secondary capacitance backups, when its reinforced again the power source goes offline and the structure burns energy in the secondary capacitance backups until it runs out,
When it runs out the Sov structure is vulnerable to being hacked and have the ownership changed or self destruct activated.
Pyrope
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2015-03-13 16:33:43 UTC
I like the time zone mechanic. Folks already do something similar to try to time when things come out from RF. Might need some tweaking after release, but what doesn't?
Duffyman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2015-03-13 16:39:44 UTC
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
Thanks for the survey.

Here would be my tweaks on the system:

- switch from an alliance-wide timer to a constellation based timer
- up the 4h window to 6h
- tie the prime time to indices - 5/5/5 gives the lowest timer of 6h, less "occupied" systems have a larger window (let's say up to 12h, for example - just a number though)

This way you could hit more alliances and unloved space is ripe for taking by different TZ alliances, strongholds have defensive boni and a tighter window.


What this guy said but if a system has 0 indices, give it a full 23h vulnerability. If it's not used, let someone has get a better shot at using it
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#33 - 2015-03-13 16:40:50 UTC
I still think the entire sov system needs to be revised. Focussing now on this timezone issue is drawing attention away from the fact sov and null could be so much better than it is now. With the current suggested changes I fear that null and sov will stay very similar to how it is now for a long time to come.
Savant Alabel
Phoenix Tag.
GF Company
#34 - 2015-03-13 16:44:37 UTC
I think that fixed 4-hour prime-time window isn't good idea.

I propose prime time window length to be related to systems/constellation indexes.

for rough example:
* all 5 systems/constellations have 2-4-/any good number/ hour prime time. If players active in constellation then there must be a problem to enemy to throw them from their systems.
*all 0 systems/constellations have 12 hour prime-time window to simplify conquering that system/constellation to players from other time zone
* freshly conquered system/constellation will have 4 hour prime-time window to prevent reinforce spam and that window go wider or reduce in depends of ihub controlling alliance player's activity
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2015-03-13 16:53:44 UTC
In the original proposal, I dont like that the game of sov can only be initiated for 17% of the time the server is up. (4/23)*100 = 17%

Attackers need to be able to harass a system on the sov level whenever they want. Note that I said harass, not take a system.

Attackers need to be able to influence timers but need to be punished for doing so. They need to be punished in a way that greatly benefits the defenders. This benefit needs to be so great that the attackers need to take pause and question whether messing with the timer is actually worth it.

otherwise:
option 2 is best. The attacker can harass, and initiate sov level combat, whenever they want. But, the actual fight is on the defenders time frame.
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#36 - 2015-03-13 16:55:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkar Omaristos
Tbh I don't think the fime zone thing is an issue. Previously you had no control over timers, even if they came out at 3am.

It's entosis modules on frigs and cruisers. Really, this survey to me addresses sort if the least worrying part of the new sov mechanics. There are bigger fish to fry in terms of making the new sov mechanics viable than the time zone bit.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#37 - 2015-03-13 16:56:43 UTC
Greygal wrote:


…best currently is the system with the pocos. I set the reinforcement timer to come out at a time that is when we are most active (which happens to be Australian time zone). While the poco can be attacked at any time, the attackers (who 99% of the time are NOT Aussie TZ) have to alarm-clock it to complete attacking it when it comes out of reinforcement, which happens to be when we are able to field the best numbers to defend it. I also like that I can attack anyone's structures whenever I want to - which happens to be during the time zone most opponents are weakest at :) Sure, I'd likely have to alarm clock for when the structure exits reinforced mode to complete the attack, but at least I can attack when it is convenient for us.

This is a pretty good mechanic, but the only real change in the new system would be the attacker would have to alarm clock twice to attack a system.
Quote:

The proposed new system GREATLY limits my offensive choices. As an Australian time zone player, right now, I can initiate an attack when I want to. With the new system, I can only initiate an attack when opponents are strongest. As the majority of null sec systems will have timers in the US/EU time zone window, this means that the possibility of my attacking other's sov structures is going to be extremely limited, as very few alliances will have their prime time windows set open during AU TZ. This means I will hardly ever have the opportunity to initiate an attack. Furthermore, it means that the entire AU TZ community will be limited to fighting over very few systems for ourselves, greatly reducing the possibility of owning sov space ourselves.
In essence, the AU TZ will be essentially locked out of any meaningful sov battles, relegated to clean-up duty chasing after nodes left behind by the prior time zones, have virtually no possibility of initiating attacks and/or starting major battles, and have little to no strategic benefit to larger alliances like we do now.

This assumes that alliances keep things the way they are after the new Sov. Wouldn’t it make sense for major alliances with good AU forces to splinter their AU corps into a coalition alliance, assigning them strategic and buffer systems to own so that they are immune during EU/US prime time? This would then become a whole new area for AU on AU conflict that would directly affect access to their coalition’s Sov.
I agree that a preferred mechanic might be to change the single time zone, but making it system by system could be gamed maybe if it were done at the constellation level since that is going to be more directly involved in Sov any way. Or build a meaningful coalition system to go along with the new Sov.
Quote:

The one thing that is nice about the new system is someone can only attack us four hours a day. Of course, that is also a downside... that means less content for us, assuming we actually manage to get sov in a system.

For all those that play together in alliance, ie have similar time zone they will be protected while not logged in. And this means that the minority time zoners in the same alliance will not have to defend Sov while most of their alliance is offline. So for the off hour minority that are interested in defending sov, yes there is “less” content for them.
Quote:

The prime time mechanic is a major hindrance to our ability to take sov in a system during the AU TZ, as hardly any systems at all will be available to us to attack. The few systems that likely will be available for us to attack will likely be **** systems.

The upside is for just 2 alarm clocks you can contest anything you want, if you can bring the superior force. Then the tide turns in your favor since anyone wanting to contest you now has to do it during your prime time.
Quote:

The hard limit of a four hour prime time that applies to ALL systems owned by an alliance, a window that does not vary with actual usage of a system, and cannot be changed on a system or constellation-wide basis. With this prime time mechanic, the entirety of any sov-holding alliance's space can only be attacked four hours a day, even the systems they are not using. The spread-out holdings of the big alliances right now will, eventually, contract in on themselves some with these changes, but not much, and not for a while, because they don't have to worry about being attacked except for four hours a day. Any small alliance attacking them during those four hours a day will be easily dealt with, and any big alliance attacking them will be good fights, good fun, or just simply won't happen because the other big alliances will be busy swatting down and picking on the little alliances that dared to mess with their systems.

I agree a constellation wide prime time seems more balanced for large and diverse alliances. For smaller alliances that already play at the same time it won’t matter so may as well make it better for all. I support constellation prime time.
I don’t have your same bleak outlook on this new mechanic not changing the sov map in Null. I am more optimistic that the under used, vacant, and renter systems will slowly fall away from the major alliances control and new alliances will either spring up or move in to these areas.

Keep in mind EvE is about players. This new system is designed to have players engaged with other players not engaged with sov structures. By being forced to go against your enemies prime time you must show that you have the right to take it from them with superiority. Being able to attack undefended structures anytime you want should not be reason to move away from a design that will encourage player engagements during their normal play times.
Razesdarked
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-03-13 16:57:01 UTC
I think the Idea about fixed time window for taking sov is a good Idea. From the perspective of one that don't have excessive amount of gametime. It can make it much easier for me to allocate game time.

How would this system play out if the indices of the system(military, strategic, industry) decided how long the window was? If the system is 5/5/5, not only would you spend one hour + to take sov, but the window was 4 hours. If indicies are mid ish, its double that. And at 0/0/0 it could be somewhere from 12 to 24 hours.

To everyone that sais that you can't do **** if you're out of timezone with this system;
Camping and kliling inhabitants of a system will reduce the activity of a system. Which means your alliance will have to spend less time when they roll around their entosis link. If no one can rat or mine without being dropped, then that shortens entosis link timer yea?
So even if you're not playing during prime time, your contribution surely helps.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#39 - 2015-03-13 17:01:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Sorry about the timeouts. We've talked to the questionpro people and it turns out that the survey will timeout if it is left for more than 90 minutes on one page. We're trying to see if we can get that extended, but in the meantime we split the long-form answers into three pages which should hopefully help.



thank you for that Fozzie, its much appreciated :)
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#40 - 2015-03-13 17:01:11 UTC
Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is:

  • Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes

  • Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.

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