These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2015-03-13 17:05:12 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
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.

wouldn't work

sov indices don't take into account whom is doing the pve activity, just that it is being done

this system would simply encourage splitting your PvE alts into a holding corporation (or renting out your sov systems) to grind the indices while keeping your PvP pilots in the actual sov holding corporation to keep numbers down
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#42 - 2015-03-13 17:07:00 UTC
Duffyman wrote:
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

-I like the constellation based setting.
-4 hours would still be a good baseline. The idea, as I see it, is to encourage players vs players not players vs other players structures.
- I don't see many 5/5/5 systems, are there any right now? The baseline should be achievable. Something that equates to 2/2/3 in indices should get you to your 4 hours window. Then lower indices in system could expand the time window by 2 hours per point . So max would be 4 + (2 * 7) = 18 hour window. With the caveat that a newly captured system started with the base 4 hours for a reasonable amount of time, allowing the new owners time to build up the indices.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#43 - 2015-03-13 17:08:46 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
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.

wouldn't work

sov indices don't take into account whom is doing the pve activity, just that it is being done

That could be easily changed since they're revamping the system - only allow members of the local sov holding group affect the indices = prevents dummy alliances/holding alliances etc.

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

Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#44 - 2015-03-13 17:18:54 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
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.

This would also penalize a large group that plays in the same timezone.
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2015-03-13 17:19:27 UTC
Duffyman wrote:

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


0 indicies doesn't necessarily correspond to unused, though. It could just mean no ihub, either because it got destroyed or you haven't arranged the freighter trip to drop one yet.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2015-03-13 17:19:38 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
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.

wouldn't work

sov indices don't take into account whom is doing the pve activity, just that it is being done

That could be easily changed since they're revamping the system - only allow members of the local sov holding group affect the indices = prevents dummy alliances/holding alliances etc.

you'd think that but their recalcitrance to do ANYTHING to change the god-awful way you have to grind out industrial index gives me pause

i get the whole "manufacturing/research lets you spend your way into system security" thing (though i don't really agree) but not letting things like PI, hack/salvage sites, and pos reactors, all of which require you to risk the destruction of ships and/or assets to perform to affect industrial index seems like a mistake to me and perhaps speaks of a physical difficulty rather than one based on opinion
OJ Simpson
Doomheim
#47 - 2015-03-13 17:25:56 UTC  |  Edited by: OJ Simpson
"CCP Fozzie" wrote:

They prevent players from losing their stuff while they are unavoidably away from the game (work, sleep, etc). Nobody should feel the need to play the game 24/7 in order to compete.

They encourage players to show up at the same place at the same time, facilitating multiplayer gameplay. Playing with and outplaying other human beings is the core of EVE, and putting players in contact with each other is a big part of that. If people can fight over an asset without ever coming into contact with each other, we've lost something very valuable.

1. And it prevents alliances seeking to take sovereignty from doing so while unavoidably away from the game (work, sleep, etc). I agree, nobody should feel the need to play the game 24/7 in order to compete.

2. Good point, the current system definitely doesn't cause large fleet fights... right? Right? If you think about it, the current system actually provides more "around-the-clock" vulnerability for content creation, arguably "facilitating multiplayer gameplay" more so than the proposed changes could ever hope to.

Can you please post an actual reason you've decided these changes are worthwhile?
Hilti Enaka
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time
Solyaris Chtonium
#48 - 2015-03-13 17:29:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Hilti Enaka
Generally, my feeling on timers is that they are a penalty and force you to play the game at specific times.

If i had my way I would have no timers, this obviously is for taking systems and stations. I could not care less if during times of when you are asleep, at work or on vacation you lose a system or two. The point is you lost them because you couldn't or didn't or wouldn't defend them, some of the best memories i have of Eve was when people needed to defend their assets and subsequent battles happened. What happens with timers is a lot of blue balling and generally bat phoning adding to the stagnation of eve.

Now if I went to bed one night woke up next morning to see my system was conquered. I should be able to do something to retake the system that doesn't involve hours/days of grinding. Potentially why can't it be as simple as flipping a switch?Especially in systems that are not utilized or have been "lived in". If the system is lived in and there is some sort of index I would expect a dynamic game play that reflected how "lived in" the system was and difficulty in trying to conquer it. This doesn't necessary have to be reflected in a HP grind type game play or one that has a countdown timer but one that means the attacker has to have a stand out reason why they need to take that specific system.

If you want a null sec full of conflict and intense battles get rid of timers and the huge HP structure grinding and replace it with more team work based activities, i'm not saying that if you want to take a system you need a freighter in your fleet with your own flag I'd love to see small entities able to take systems because of some sort of "usability" status that denotes a system as conquerable.

For other things such as POS or POCO's, i think the mechanic works fine since these things tend to be owned more by individuals and not alliances.

Another thing, is there no way you can add a mechanic to offlined poses that makes them unachorable if they are offline and you are not in the owners corp. There are so many offlined poses that are lying around that this is another example of the "endless grinding against structures" that needs to change.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#49 - 2015-03-13 17:39:55 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
i get the whole "manufacturing/research lets you spend your way into system security" thing (though i don't really agree) but not letting things like PI, hack/salvage sites, and pos reactors, all of which require you to risk the destruction of ships and/or assets to perform to affect industrial index seems like a mistake to me and perhaps speaks of a physical difficulty rather than one based on opinion

I think PI and POS reactions, manufacture and research should be weighted very low as there's a low threat level whilst doing them - data/relic sites and mining should all have suitably high effects on the indices as you're actually undocked in space risking something. Also the actual scale of work required to increase the indices should be scaled down.

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

Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#50 - 2015-03-13 17:47:11 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
i get the whole "manufacturing/research lets you spend your way into system security" thing (though i don't really agree) but not letting things like PI, hack/salvage sites, and pos reactors, all of which require you to risk the destruction of ships and/or assets to perform to affect industrial index seems like a mistake to me and perhaps speaks of a physical difficulty rather than one based on opinion

I think PI and POS reactions, manufacture and research should be weighted very low as there's a low threat level whilst doing them - data/relic sites and mining should all have suitably high effects on the indices as you're actually undocked in space risking something. Also the actual scale of work required to increase the indices should be scaled down.

I would have to agree that tying indices to Sov defense warrants a look at the mechanic as a whole to make sure it is a reasonable metric for smaller but active alliances. And if that makes it easier for the larger alliances to improve their indices that is okay because it makes their space more valuable to them and able to support a larger number of players all at the same time.
Ryuuji Ibarazaki
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2015-03-13 17:49:41 UTC
I'm new to Null and Sov so won't presume to know what is best.

However, I do worry that the proposed 4 hour primetime window will turn groups of space-nerds less international and more timezone based; and I'd miss hanging out with my Euro and Aus bros.

Will the Sov changes cause that to happen? I'm not sure, but that's my feedback.

Noriko Mai
#52 - 2015-03-13 17:51:28 UTC
I'm looking forward to some kind of smallholding system for years now. This sov rework is the opportunity to make it happen.

Why is system ownership all-in? Why can't many corps/alliances hold/live in the same system. The smallholding idea was about making pockets or some other kind of "my own space". So a variable amount of corps/alliances can go in a system, claim thier part and deploy thier structures to have hangars, fitting services, production facilities, defense of some kind and/or even a mini-market.

I really don't get the idea behind "ownership". Why can't the system be inhabited by many organizations. Putting a flag somewhere means basically nothing. If Alliance X can drive everyone out of the system, the Sov map can show "System AB-123: Alliance X", if not, it shows "System AB-123: Alliance X, Alliance Y, Corp A, Corp B, etc.".

Imho the current and new system have the big flaw that they isolate people because everyone relys on the system owner. It only encurages to be in that system if it's timer time and someone is attacking. Nobody can really use it if the don't go through the old/new grinding mechanics. And the new mechanics feel really artificial.

Moving away from this owner centric design could lead to a vast amount of interesting gameplay. Corp A goes somewhere and put's thier little pocket beackon/whatever somewhere in space and starts to build thier "base". If the "owner" doesn't drive them out they can just move on and live there (contributing to the system index, generating content for the locals, etc..). If another corp does the same and they want to live peacefully together, they can.
This would be a much more flexible and liberating system, not relying on some overlord to be pleased all the time.

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein

Hilti Enaka
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time
Solyaris Chtonium
#53 - 2015-03-13 18:03:55 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
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.

wouldn't work

sov indices don't take into account whom is doing the pve activity, just that it is being done

this system would simply encourage splitting your PvE alts into a holding corporation (or renting out your sov systems) to grind the indices while keeping your PvP pilots in the actual sov holding corporation to keep numbers down


Or you take it the other way and scale the "protection time" to the amount of systems you own.

e.g. 23.5 hours protection with no system ownership, and -30 minutes for every system owned after that. if i own 4 systems that equals 120 minutes of vulnerability but each system Vulnerability timer can be affected by how "live in" the system is.
Ypsilas Suonen
Doomheim
#54 - 2015-03-13 18:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ypsilas Suonen
As someone who has never experienced sovereignty, but finds the proposed changes an encouragement to explore the possibility of life in null, I would like to echo my answer to the final question in the survey.

Please reevaluate opportunity cost as part of the Sov update. There is nothing to entice newer, smaller alliances to try to capture systems (which appears to be one of your goals) if the income is abysmal relative to highsec missions, etc. Payout can scale with activity indeces, but you need to provide more carrot to make the risk palatable to smaller outfits.
The Newface
Doomheim
#55 - 2015-03-13 18:30:05 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
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.


No er dont, EVE is not supposed to be easy.
What we need to do is to make sure logistics work again (remove jump fatigue)

If we do that organized alliances/corps can hold more sov then the un-organized. Creating/maintaining a meta game.

If eveything can be done by 1 person in 5 minutes structures will be useless and we can all go play battlefield instead
Sven Viko VIkolander
Allemannsrett
#56 - 2015-03-13 18:51:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
xttz wrote:
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.


I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size, and also with the caveat that alliances should be able to pick their "preferred index" so that PVP-focsed groups are not forced into doing more industry, and so on, to the effect that groups are giving bonuses for the activities they choose to focus on.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#57 - 2015-03-13 19:03:56 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
xttz wrote:
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.


I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size.

What if an alliance could set their prime time window as big as they wanted, just with a minimum of 4 hours? Larger alliances that want action or want to cover multiple time zones could set it to 8 or 12 or 23 if they wanted.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#58 - 2015-03-13 19:08:31 UTC
Terra Chrall wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
xttz wrote:
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.


I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size.

What if an alliance could set their prime time window as big as they wanted, just with a minimum of 4 hours? Larger alliances that want action or want to cover multiple time zones could set it to 8 or 12 or 23 if they wanted.

I like this in theory but there has to be a tangible benefit to making yourself open like that

Local only during primetime .oO

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

Kossaw
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#59 - 2015-03-13 19:27:45 UTC

The problem wiht the current sov mechanics is the "structure grind". You need supercapitals to grind massive numbers of hitpoints to reinforce structures. If you're "lucky" enough ( heh ) to be in an alliance with large numbers of supers then you get to sit in your space coffin for 20 mins shooting at a station while nothing interesting happens. If you dont have supercaps, you're going to be sitting there a hell of a lot longer. This isnt good gameplay - BUT - the existing timer system isnt that bad. Fights do occur in a window specified by the defender. If the defender is active and shows up you get a fight. Great. Otherwise, you sit in your space coffin and shoot the next cycle for another 20 minutes a couple of days later. Anybody can start a fight at any time.

The Entosis link fixes the "structure grind" problem ... No more space coffins. Obviously, thats quite disappointing for those of us stuck in a space coffin, but its better gameplay overall. However, it breaks the current Timer system. And the entosis link is potentially too powerfull when fitted to a single kitey interceptor.


  • The attacker should be able to start the first reinforcement timer at any time or in a much bigger window. This could also be done by allowing the attacker to shoot a structure into shield timer at any time the same way its done now
  • The defender still gets to set the reinforcement window for the capture events.
  • It should be harder to start the first reinforecment timer. You should need more than a single troll ceptor sitting in grid for a few minutes. If the Entosis link is intended to measure who "controls the grid" then a single BS sitting unopposed beside the structure is exerting control - a kiting interceptor 200km away is not.

WTB : An image in my signature

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2015-03-13 19:35:06 UTC
Terra Chrall wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
xttz wrote:
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.


I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size.

What if an alliance could set their prime time window as big as they wanted, just with a minimum of 4 hours? Larger alliances that want action or want to cover multiple time zones could set it to 8 or 12 or 23 if they wanted.

this is a pretty good idea as long as the expectation that setting it above the minimum is being willfully insane and that all balance should pivot around the fulcrum of a 4h window (and have that be the default)

i don't think it necessarily needs a carrot, and since ccp is incapable of viewing any activity in nullsec other than ratting as "making money" then i suspect they will be recalcitrant to increase the carrot in the form of a multiplier on bounties or some such