These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Summer 2015 Nullsec and Sov Status Report

First post First post
Author
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#181 - 2015-05-12 12:45:57 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

There are still many unanswered questions regarding how entosis links will work, I prefer to believe what CCP Masterplan wrote out, as it fits with the blog description.
An attacker must 1st remove any progress made by a previous attacker ( a defender is not an "attacker" so that can only mean 1 thing). That statement ONLY makes sense if only 1 entosis can make progress at a time, which according to the blog is how the mechanic works.

When everyone is telling you you are wrong, and no-one is supporting your viewpoint, there is a more than slight chance that you are indeed wrong

CCP Masterplan wrote:

Any progress accumulated by an entosis link that has completed its warmup cycle will stay on the structure indefinitely (including across downtime) when that link shuts down, until
A) A link from the same alliance starts capturing, at which point that alliance continues building score on top of the previously-accumulated progress
B) A link from outside that alliance starts capturing, at which point the accumulated progress must first be reduced down to 0 before the new capturer can start building up his progress.

This is quite similar to the King-of-the-hill mechanic used on other games. Only one team (alliance) can have any score at a time, and another team must grind that score down first before they can start building up their own.

You can imagine score as a progress bar that goes from -100 points to 0 to +100 points. Your alliance is always at the +100 end, and everyone else is at the -100 end. Your capturing moves the bar to the right, and anyone except you moves it to the left. The speed at which the bar moves (points/second) depends on the occupancy bonuses.


This is the quote from Masterplan that you've got yourself caught on. Read it, and not just what you want to see, actually read the words.

CCP Masterplan wrote:

a link from the same alliance starts capturing

That is where you have got yourself tangled. Masterplans explanation was only talking about the capture event, that being the second stage. The first part, the reinforcement event, is treated completely differently as everyone has been telling you.

"Everyone on a seperate team" is only the capture event, the reinforcement event is "owners vs everyone else". In the reinforcement event a blue would be assisting the attackers if they e-linked a structure, in the capture event they would be their own side, so although they could in truth delay an attackers capture, they are also delaying the former owners too (and note that - former owner. There is no longer a defender in the capture event, they too are treated in every way as an attacker too now, hence the terminology Masterplan used, which Fozzie straight up explained in This Post) - although there might be times this is advantageous (if the defender needs the capture event stringing out til they can bring their forces to bear), it is going to be situational rather than the default strategy, as they aren't exactly helping their ally if they manage to capture the system for themselves, resetting ther allies indexes.


That is a shame.. because the whole concept favours the well established dominating groups. Blobs have ruled sov for years and will continue to do so.
So, nothing changes except it will be easier for large groups to stomp anyone they decide they don't want around.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#182 - 2015-05-12 14:23:43 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
That is a shame.. because the whole concept favours the well established dominating groups. Blobs have ruled sov for years and will continue to do so.
So, nothing changes except it will be easier for large groups to stomp anyone they decide they don't want around.


The crucial point is, are the industrial and millitary indices related to the iHub ? So if the iHub is destroyed theses indices go back to zero.

If it is the case, a new alliance taking a new sov will start with a 18h vulnerability windows. It is a lot too much and give a big edge for the established alliances.

If a dev can confirm that it would be nice.

My POV is, the 3 indices should be related to the iHub. So when an iHub is destroyed, the new holding alliance should rebuild everything.

But, a mecanism is missing to help the newcomers to start their territory war. 18h prime time window when starting is insane if the goal is to bring new alliances in nullsec.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#183 - 2015-05-12 15:46:20 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
The 6x multiplier needs more factors to be reflective of player activities. Market transactions, industry jobs, research, and refining need to be added AT A MINIMUM. These activities are already tracked, just need to be added to the matrix and given a multiplier. Why is this something that wasn't considered A LONG TIME AGO. As though mining and shooting red crosses are all that indicate active areas of eve...


The other crucial factor is WE NEED MORE INDICES. Sooner rather than later, and while they are in design mode and not "oh crap what did we do" mode. They kick these down the road and it will either be forgotten or designed away from, either way, we will be forced to do stupid things to maintain numbers in areas that SHOULD track more logical activities in various systems.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#184 - 2015-05-12 17:46:40 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Okay so a lot of people just don't seem to get it.

The only ones that can capture something for your alliance, are characters in your alliance.

If an object is neutral, every alliance is on their own team. So your alliance is its own team. Blues are not on your team.

If the object is owned by your alliance, your alliance is its own team, and everyone else is on Team Not You. Team Not You includes blues, so if they EL your node, they are working against you and working for everyone else.

If an object is owned by another alliance (even a blue one), using your EL on one of their nodes begins removing their control. Should control be lost it goes into RF, disabled, etc.


So given the above, the only way for blues to help you in regards to capture mechanics is to:

  • Shoot people EL'ing your stuff.

  • Shoot people EL'ing a neutral object you want to capture. Optionally EL the object for the purposes of pausing capture progress of a common enemy.

  • Shoot people of, and/or EL the stuff of, a common enemy, as long as the target object is still owned by the common enemy.


Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
"Everyone on a seperate team" is only the capture event, the reinforcement event is "owners vs everyone else". In the reinforcement event a blue would be assisting the attackers if they e-linked a structure, in the capture event they would be their own side, so although they could in truth delay an attackers capture, they are also delaying the former owners too (and note that - former owner. There is no longer a defender in the capture event, they too are treated in every way as an attacker too now, hence the terminology Masterplan used, which Fozzie straight up explained in This Post) - although there might be times this is advantageous (if the defender needs the capture event stringing out til they can bring their forces to bear), it is going to be situational rather than the default strategy, as they aren't exactly helping their ally if they manage to capture the system for themselves, resetting ther allies indexes.

These two posts are correct.


To expand on this some more. Hopefully this makes it clearer for everyone, instead of confusing you further!..


How to determine who is on what team:
Is the target already owned by an alliance?

  • Yes: Members of the owning alliance are one capture team. Everyone else in EVE is together in another capture team.
  • No: Each alliance's members comprise their own unique capture team, representing their alliance.



The target tracks three bits of information that are used for the contest:

  • The current score (0-100%).
  • Which team owns the current score? Always exactly one team if the score is non-zero.
  • Which team (if any) has Entosis Control? Either zero or one teams.



Which team has Entosis Control right now?

  • If exactly one team has any warmed-up links on a target: That team has Entosis Control
  • If two or more different teams have any warmed-up links on a target: No team has Entosis Control (because they block each other)
  • If no teams have any warmed-up links on a target: No team has Entosis Control



What score does a target start with?
Some targets will start off with a score of 100%, where the score will be initially owned by the structure owner (An alliance-owned outpost/IHub/TCU entering its daily vulnerability window, or station services on a new outpost, for example). Other targets might start off with a score of 0% (Command Nodes during a constellation-wide event, or a newly-launched IHub/TCU)


How does the score change over time?

  • If no team has Entosis Control, the score will stay unchanged (including across downtime)
  • If the team that has Entosis Control is also the team that owns the current score, then the score will increase over time. Once the score reaches a maximum of 100%, it will not increase any further, and that team is considered to 'win' the target*.
  • If the team that has Entosis Control is different to the team that owns the current score, then the score will decrease over time. Once the score reaches zero, then one of two things will happen:
  • [1] Targets that begin with an initial score of 100% are considered 'won' by the attacker and 'lost' by the defender/owner.
  • [2] Targets that begin with an initial score of 0% will now have their score owned by the team with Entosis Control, and that score will then increase over time.



What happens when target is won/lost?

  • An unowned (new-launched) IHub/TCU will become owned by the winner. This is why you should not deploy such a structure until you are confident you can maintain control of the grid long enough to own it.
  • A station service won by the owner will be re-enabled (if it has previously been disabled)
  • A station service won by the attackers (or lost by the owner, if you want to see it that way) will be disabled
  • A vulnerable outpost/IHub/TCU won by the owner will not change anything if the outpost is still within its vulnerable window. Otherwise it will return to invulnerable until the next day's period
  • A vulnerable outpost/IHub/TCU won by the attackers (or lost by the owner, if you want to see it that way) will become reinforced and trigger a future constellation-wide event.
  • A command node in a constellation-wide event will advance the winner's progress in that event.



Edit: This post is almost turning in to a FAQ!

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#185 - 2015-05-12 20:13:34 UTC
Papa Django wrote:
But, a mecanism is missing to help the newcomers to start their territory war. 18h prime time window when starting is insane if the goal is to bring new alliances in nullsec.

The capital designation +2 handles that pretty well, if you can hold it for a couple days to take effect. Also index 1/1 is really easy to get, even if you're being pressured. If you can get those two you're down to 4 hours which is very reasonable.

The 18h window on a freshly taken system is long, but vulnerability isn't the same as loss. First, the time that the structure exits reinforced is random within the window. So if you're fighting against an opponent in a different time zone who zaps your new stuff while you're offline, there's just as much chance for the main timer to be in your prime as theirs.

Second, even if your opponent takes it back from you, they get the same 18h window you just dealt with. So take it back! The action of a fozziesov war is likely to be much more dynamic, with the contested systems flipping back and forth a few times until one side cries uncle. Attack > defense opens doors, it doesn't close them.


Fozziesov is knocking down the barriers to nullsec. You don't need capships and supers, you don't need 1000 guys, you don't even need anchoring 5 for POS spam. All you need is entosis links and perseverance. If overwhelming force was the key to dominion sov, endurance is the key to fozziesov.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#186 - 2015-05-12 21:18:56 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Papa Django wrote:
But, a mecanism is missing to help the newcomers to start their territory war. 18h prime time window when starting is insane if the goal is to bring new alliances in nullsec.

The capital designation +2 handles that pretty well, if you can hold it for a couple days to take effect. Also index 1/1 is really easy to get, even if you're being pressured. If you can get those two you're down to 4 hours which is very reasonable.

The 18h window on a freshly taken system is long, but vulnerability isn't the same as loss. First, the time that the structure exits reinforced is random within the window. So if you're fighting against an opponent in a different time zone who zaps your new stuff while you're offline, there's just as much chance for the main timer to be in your prime as theirs.


No. It has been said that the capital bonus need a few days to apply to avoid spamming it at each RF attempt.

Klyith wrote:

Second, even if your opponent takes it back from you, they get the same 18h window you just dealt with. So take it back! The action of a fozziesov war is likely to be much more dynamic, with the contested systems flipping back and forth a few times until one side cries uncle. Attack > defense opens doors, it doesn't close them.

Fozziesov is knocking down the barriers to nullsec. You don't need capships and supers, you don't need 1000 guys, you don't even need anchoring 5 for POS spam. All you need is entosis links and perseverance. If overwhelming force was the key to dominion sov, endurance is the key to fozziesov.


Yes you are right but you miss the purpose of the whole thing : Getting newcommers in nullsec.

This prime time window design help too much the current sov holders.

Scaling the prime time window with occupancy is a good idea but it should be also scaled with the alliance size. The bigger you are the harder to defend your vast territories it should be.

It is exactly the same strategic concept for force projection. Allowing force projection from a galaxy corner to the opposite is dumb. It has been nerfed. The same thing should happens to empire size.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#187 - 2015-05-12 21:46:42 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
The 6x multiplier needs more factors to be reflective of player activities. Market transactions, industry jobs, research, and refining need to be added AT A MINIMUM. These activities are already tracked, just need to be added to the matrix and given a multiplier. Why is this something that wasn't considered A LONG TIME AGO. As though mining and shooting red crosses are all that indicate active areas of eve...

The problem is how to get it to reflect actual activity rather than make a system where you can just make pseudo-orders and build jobs to bump the index. I think it should definitely include it, but it needs to be done properly.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#188 - 2015-05-13 00:05:34 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Papa Django wrote:
But, a mecanism is missing to help the newcomers to start their territory war. 18h prime time window when starting is insane if the goal is to bring new alliances in nullsec.

The capital designation +2 handles that pretty well, if you can hold it for a couple days to take effect. Also index 1/1 is really easy to get, even if you're being pressured. If you can get those two you're down to 4 hours which is very reasonable.

The 18h window on a freshly taken system is long, but vulnerability isn't the same as loss. First, the time that the structure exits reinforced is random within the window. So if you're fighting against an opponent in a different time zone who zaps your new stuff while you're offline, there's just as much chance for the main timer to be in your prime as theirs.

Second, even if your opponent takes it back from you, they get the same 18h window you just dealt with. So take it back! The action of a fozziesov war is likely to be much more dynamic, with the contested systems flipping back and forth a few times until one side cries uncle. Attack > defense opens doors, it doesn't close them.


Fozziesov is knocking down the barriers to nullsec. You don't need capships and supers, you don't need 1000 guys, you don't even need anchoring 5 for POS spam. All you need is entosis links and perseverance. If overwhelming force was the key to dominion sov, endurance is the key to fozziesov.

Fozzie sov is about large groups growing ever increasingly larger.

Blob wins now. Blob wins with Fozzies sov. (only real difference is the blob doesn't need to spend hours shooting a structure, freeing them to pad killboards with those naive enough to try and fight them)

LOL "endurance is the key" - because all small groups will like being punching bags for the blobs.


So far, there is NOTHING in proposal 1 or 2 that would encourage new groups to enter the sov game.

The combined barriers, individually may possibly be overcome (with persistence and endurance), add them together so they all need to be tackled at once, as the proposal suggests - sov entry requirements are too high.
No smaller group would be able to defend a system for 18 hrs AND build up defensive indexes at the same time. It is unrealistic to expect any smaller group of players to be online for 18 hours a day.
Random timers anywhere in an 18 hour window = Forcing players to alarm clock, defend sov OR go to work or school, spend time with family etc. (and here I was thinking that was something CCP was trying to get away from, at least that is what the stated goals say)

Sorry boss, I'm taking a few days off to defend my space pixels in a game that is forcing me to choose between, playing the game or having a life.
We already have maternity and paternity leave, why not sov defense leave.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#189 - 2015-05-13 00:29:46 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
The 6x multiplier needs more factors to be reflective of player activities. Market transactions, industry jobs, research, and refining need to be added AT A MINIMUM. These activities are already tracked, just need to be added to the matrix and given a multiplier. Why is this something that wasn't considered A LONG TIME AGO. As though mining and shooting red crosses are all that indicate active areas of eve...

The problem is how to get it to reflect actual activity rather than make a system where you can just make pseudo-orders and build jobs to bump the index. I think it should definitely include it, but it needs to be done properly.

Placing market orders to increase sov index could be set so the index is only adjusted if those orders are filled. Completed market transactions add to the industry index.
Starting massive amounts of production jobs could indeed count toward the industry index - It has an end result of, more products available locally so no reason it shouldn't count.

Both could be manipulated by just throwing isk at a system but if the index scaling was based on all system activity, like numbers in system, size of the owners alliance compared to numbers in system, pve and pvp activity.
It could actually help a new alliance trying to establish sov.

You move to a system, plant your flag, kill would be attackers, start production jobs, stock the local market, continue to kill would be attackers and your defensive index slowly begins to rise.

The first few days is crucial to survival it is also when you are most vulnerable to attack (18 hrs p/d) so allowing less time to undertake normal avenues to raise defensive indexes.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#190 - 2015-05-13 00:53:20 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

The combined barriers, individually may possibly be overcome (with persistence and endurance), add them together so they all need to be tackled at once, as the proposal suggests - sov entry requirements are too high.
No smaller group would be able to defend a system for 18 hrs AND build up defensive indexes at the same time. It is unrealistic to expect any smaller group of players to be online for 18 hours a day.
Random timers anywhere in an 18 hour window = Forcing players to alarm clock, defend sov OR go to work or school, spend time with family etc. (and here I was thinking that was something CCP was trying to get away from, at least that is what the stated goals say)

Sorry boss, I'm taking a few days off to defend my space pixels in a game that is forcing me to choose between, playing the game or having a life.
We already have maternity and paternity leave, why not sov defense leave.


Yes.

Indexes impact on prime time windows have 2 effects :
1- giving advantage to allready entrenched sov holders
2- forcing sovholders to effectively use their spaces

The 2- point is mandatory.

The 1- should be balanced. The best way is to scale the prime time window on the alliance size regarding to the current number of sov owned.

For example :
Prime time window hours = 18 / ( Activity Defense Multiplier - ( insert here a formula with alliance pilot number and sov structure number to reduce the ADM if there is too many sov structure and a boost to ADM with a few structures ) ).

This could help a lot to get more space for newcommers and to compensate the 1-.

Tahna Rouspel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#191 - 2015-05-13 02:29:08 UTC
I had a question regarding vulnerabilities of Citadels in wormholes.

Since wormholes don't have soveignty, will it be possible to improve the defensive bonus of a wormhole and reduce the vulnerability time?

This might create difficult situation for small wormholes corp if they have to defend their towers through a 13 hours vulnerability time every day.
Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#192 - 2015-05-13 03:56:37 UTC
Papa Django wrote:

Yes you are right but you miss the purpose of the whole thing : Getting newcommers in nullsec.

Sez who?


The purpose of the whole thing is not "to get newcommers". The purpose is to design a sov system around these principles / goals:
* to make sov systems accessible to the widest range of players possible
* to move away from large HP grinds as the mechanic to contest sov
* to make sov strength reflect active use of space as proposed in the original "occupancy"

The idea is to design a system that's a fair & open sandbox, not one that's pushing some desired end-state for the game. Designing for a specific result is terrible because you can't predict all the implications and unintended consequences -- that's how we got dominion. Fozziesov removes barriers based on SP and ship use (you don't require caps to grind structures) and lowers the incentive to hold empty or rental space (which were the forces that pushed smaller players out of null under dominion).

The intelligent prediction is that a fair & open system designed around the above 3 points will allow more players in sov null and especially smaller entities than the current blocs. That doesn't mean that newcommers get some sort of charity space. Everyone that wants a piece has to find space that they can attack, take, and hold.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#193 - 2015-05-13 08:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Papa Django
Klyith wrote:

Sez who?

The purpose of the whole thing is not "to get newcommers". The purpose is to design a sov system around these principles / goals:
* to make sov systems accessible to the widest range of players possible
* to move away from large HP grinds as the mechanic to contest sov
* to make sov strength reflect active use of space as proposed in the original "occupancy"


Don't be a ****.

Every update is focused on the goal to hold the current customer base and grab new.

The purpose of the whole thing is to downgrade requirements to hold sov, and on a large purpose, downgrade the current blocs sizes and influence over the map.

You can add to that breaking the dependency link between HS and NS.

The whole thing started last summer, Crius was designed with the current sov changes in mind.

Klyith wrote:

The idea is to design a system that's a fair & open sandbox, not one that's pushing some desired end-state for the game. Designing for a specific result is terrible because you can't predict all the implications and unintended consequences -- that's how we got dominion. Fozziesov removes barriers based on SP and ship use (you don't require caps to grind structures) and lowers the incentive to hold empty or rental space (which were the forces that pushed smaller players out of null under dominion).


Agree 100% with that.

Klyith wrote:

The intelligent prediction is that a fair & open system designed around the above 3 points will allow more players in sov null and especially smaller entities than the current blocs. That doesn't mean that newcommers get some sort of charity space. Everyone that wants a piece has to find space that they can attack, take, and hold.


Giving people assets protection when they are at work, with their family or sleeping is not charity. You are 100% wrong on this. There is no reason well established alliances get an unfair advantage against newcommers on this.
Everyone need to rest and to have a life outside the game.

The prime time mecanism is designed for that.

It should only penalize people who don't care about their space.

Currently the designe is bad because it penalize also newcommers with no reason at all.

CCP a fix on this is mandatory.
Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#194 - 2015-05-13 15:10:34 UTC
Papa Django wrote:

Giving people assets protection when they are at work, with their family or sleeping is not charity. You are 100% wrong on this. There is no reason well established alliances get an unfair advantage against newcommers on this.
Everyone need to rest and to have a life outside the game.

The prime time mecanism is designed for that.

It should only penalize people who don't care about their space.

And what determines who "cares" about their space? If Pandemic Legion comes to Brave's new space in Fountain and takes it with overwhelming force despite them having all 5s indexes, can PL check a box for yes we care about this space and get a 1 week immunity timer?

The mechanic for caring about space is indexes. Plenty of alliances in nullsec right now will have terrible defensive windows on the day fozziesov begins, they'll be in just as bad a situation as guys who just moved in. Here's how you should be thinking about it: sov is going be a fuzzy system where getting your name on the map or control of a station is just the beginning.


And an alliance that is one of your newcommers shouldn't have assets to lose until they have secure control of a system, ie reasonable indexes to keep your vulnerability window to your primetime. Your replacement combat ships should be in the nearest NPC station or a POS SMA. Freighters full of stuff should not be arriving on day 1 that you own a station.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#195 - 2015-05-13 15:35:59 UTC
Klyith wrote:

And what determines who "cares" about their space? If Pandemic Legion comes to Brave's new space in Fountain and takes it with overwhelming force despite them having all 5s indexes, can PL check a box for yes we care about this space and get a 1 week immunity timer?

The mechanic for caring about space is indexes. Plenty of alliances in nullsec right now will have terrible defensive windows on the day fozziesov begins, they'll be in just as bad a situation as guys who just moved in.


Yes and it is good, they don't use their space, they don't deserve to hold it anymore.

Klyith wrote:

Here's how you should be thinking about it: sov is going be a fuzzy system where getting your name on the map or control of a station is just the beginning.

And an alliance that is one of your newcommers shouldn't have assets to lose until they have secure control of a system, ie reasonable indexes to keep your vulnerability window to your primetime. Your replacement combat ships should be in the nearest NPC station or a POS SMA. Freighters full of stuff should not be arriving on day 1 that you own a station.


I still don't see why newcommers should takes holidays or risk divorce to plant a flag in nullsec and the old sovholders should not.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#196 - 2015-05-13 19:12:13 UTC
Tahna Rouspel wrote:
I had a question regarding vulnerabilities of Citadels in wormholes.

Since wormholes don't have soveignty, will it be possible to improve the defensive bonus of a wormhole and reduce the vulnerability time?

This might create difficult situation for small wormholes corp if they have to defend their towers through a 13 hours vulnerability time every day.


No.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#197 - 2015-05-13 23:08:59 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Papa Django wrote:

Yes you are right but you miss the purpose of the whole thing : Getting newcommers in nullsec.

Sez who?


The purpose of the whole thing is not "to get newcommers". The purpose is to design a sov system around these principles / goals:
* to make sov systems accessible to the widest range of players possible
* to move away from large HP grinds as the mechanic to contest sov
* to make sov strength reflect active use of space as proposed in the original "occupancy"

* Failed - The widest range of players is restricted by the dominating established groups.
* Success sort of - Hp grinds replaced with multiple grinds with a new module
* Fail - Biased toward existing dominating groups. Who can maintain control over, "the widest range of players" with minimal risk to own assets.

PS; Newcomers = Widest range of players. No point making change to suit the current range of players in nul so new players are needed.

FozzieSov favours existing groups maintaining dominance, so no real "change" can occur.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#198 - 2015-05-13 23:17:47 UTC
Papa Django wrote:


I still don't see why newcommers should takes holidays or risk divorce to plant a flag in nullsec and the old sovholders should not.

FozzieSov is about trying to create content for existing powers without threatening them. The proposal, so far is a resounding success (in that it doesn't pose a threat to entrenched groups) but all depends on how many and for how long new groups are prepared to risk being stomped by the existing powers as to whether any lasting content is created.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Talia Soucu
Monkeys Violating the Heavenly Temple
#199 - 2015-05-14 23:52:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Talia Soucu
Klyith wrote:
Papa Django wrote:

Yes you are right but you miss the purpose of the whole thing : Getting newcommers in nullsec.

Sez who?


The purpose of the whole thing is not "to get newcommers".


According to Fozzie, it is one of the purposes. He said it on a couple of occasions; a specific one is the EN24 podcast at the 61:20 mark, if you want to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

I think the system is fine overall but I agree some extra protection for newcomers is necessary. Here's the link to my suggestion earlier in the thread for those who missed it.
Cebrith Tivianne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2015-05-15 03:34:00 UTC
I think the new Sov mechanics could be an interesting addition to the game. However, they also seem to be a poor Band-Aid for a larger design problem:

For all practical purposes, the universe is flat and featureless in every meaningful way except resource allocation. This is a shocking oversight for a game that has such a robust economic platform and diverse player base.

  • For example, the fighters in Afghanistan have been able to fight back much larger, more well-equipped forces throughout history for reasons that were anything but economic. They thrive in an environment that is hostile to invading forces in a vast number of ways. While there is little danger of those fighters taking over other countries, it is extremely difficult to push them out or break their spirit -- for reasons that are much more closely tied to geography than economics.
  • The designers of Eve appear never to have considered this.
  • The Eve "sandbox" is a completely flat collection of scattered resources, devoid of mountains, rivers, oceans, diseases, technological disparities or any of the other numerous obstacles that have changed the tide of war throughout human history.
  • The Sov changes do nothing to change this massive lack of imagination.


To make matters worse, the potential destruction of a player's home station in 0.0 comes with a risk to personal assets that has not been effectively addressed, and the importance of which can hardly be overstated. Certainly, players can try to spread their property around to reduce the likelihood of one-shot financial ruin, but to what extent and for what purpose?

Yes, I know -- space is dangerous. Players need to work together to survive. Whatever.

Without any "Hot Gates," Himalayas, Challenger Deeps, or otherwise naturally fortified territory, or even a non-destructible station to store one's belongings in, 0.0 is a wasteland. With moons. And mega-alliances. Yay.

Roll