These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
bigbillthaboss3
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#61 - 2015-05-07 21:11:58 UTC
Sigras wrote:

Well, that is exactly the point isnt it? Everyone wants to be in the same system for protection yet they have to kinda spread out to make money...

Its a fantastic balance of risk vs isk.
.


No, no one really cares about protection. They do, however, care about getting a haven/hub all to themselves. This only happens in owned sov. You can only spread out 100s of alliance members so far although.

Fixes -
1.) make true sec adjustable
2.) spawn more anoms
3.) increase the number of spawn waves an anom currently has

More spawns mean more people have something to do however.


Also - kill jump bridge fatigue.
Suede
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#62 - 2015-05-07 21:20:21 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
The revamp of the sovereignty game mechanics is proceeding well with lots of constructive feedback from the community.

Following the initial dev blog a while ago we now have an iteration with changed system defensive multipliers, scaling vulnerability windows and more. We also now have a staged deployment plan to publish the first half of the changes on June 2 and the other half of the changes on July 7.

Check out CCP Fozzie's latest dev blog Summer 2015 Nullsec and Sov Status Report for all the information!


Why add a new a feature when it will only be abused by so and so eve players is just asking for trouble,
i just see it been removed before long down to someone will only abuse it


If the bonus on this feature is too high there would be danger of alliance intentionally splitting just to get more capital systems, but we currently think that a +2 to the multiplier in a single system isn't so strong that it will push people too hard in that direction. We're of course interested feedback from the community on this feature. If people start abusing this feature by splitting alliances to gain large numbers of capital systems, we will not hesitate to reduce or even remove the bonus.
Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2015-05-07 21:35:58 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Still not keen; was hoping for the free-form 'sovless' system to be given more consideration - this one still seems contrived and immersion breaking.

It was a blue-sky concept that would take a lot of work (time) to create. Sov needs something now, not a year and a half from now.

If it helps, the long range devblog on structures makes it seem like there will be a lot more changes to the overall sov game upcoming. Think of FozzieSov as a mechanics patch on Dominion sov structures & indexes. FutureSov will hopefully be news iterations of the entosis mechanic with custom structures that interact with owned space in new ways.


Vincent Athena wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:

From my understanding of the system (which is not all-inclusive) you only need 5/2 (T1/T2) minutes + 5 minutes to capture the sov beacon... and I think that all 5 of the beacons spawn at the same time (right?). Wouldn't that mean a max of 7 minutes of time across 5 characters to end the capture game.

Am I right on this?

In think you need to capture more beacons than that. But it is still relatively fast.


10 nodes to finish an event, with only 5 spawned at the beginning. "This means that it will be possible for a defender with no opposition and at least five active pilots to complete the event and secure their structure in less than 30 minutes of capturing."

Still kinda a pain but I guess the implication is that you shouldn't let people start the capture in the first place. I could see a case for capping the first 5 with zero opposition ending it early, otherwise first to ten.
Verite Rendition
F.R.E.E. Explorer
#64 - 2015-05-07 21:44:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bobby Artrald wrote:
Sov Dashboard

I saw this graphic and could only think "dear god, I hope this information is available through CREST".


I have good news for you! Other than the exact real time status of the fights for each structure (which will only be available in-client), we plan to make everything available via a combination of CREST and the XML API. You'll be able to look up the exit timers of every reinforced sov structure in the game (yours and everyone elses) via CREST whenever you want.
Fantastic!

Thank you Fozzie and FoxFour for getting that sorted out. That will make it a lot easier to keep the influence map mechanics up to date with the game mechanics. And hey, I get to bring back the capital system icon.Big smile
Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2015-05-07 21:48:41 UTC
Suede wrote:

Why add a new a feature when it will only be abused by so and so eve players is just asking for trouble,
i just see it been removed before long down to someone will only abuse it


If the bonus on this feature is too high there would be danger of alliance intentionally splitting just to get more capital systems, but we currently think that a +2 to the multiplier in a single system isn't so strong that it will push people too hard in that direction. We're of course interested feedback from the community on this feature. If people start abusing this feature by splitting alliances to gain large numbers of capital systems, we will not hesitate to reduce or even remove the bonus.

Splitting an alliance just to get more capitals is super dumb -- other alliances are of limited help when using the entosis links in defense so matter how blue you set them.

It's enough of a bonus that a loose network of small, allied alliances in a region might stay independent instead of being pressured to fold into each other to push numbers. But nobody smart is going to spin off alt alliances just for capitals or anything dumb like that for a +2. Not when getting to above x5 multiplier is super easy and the cap is x6.
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
#66 - 2015-05-07 23:14:36 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Still not keen; was hoping for the free-form 'sovless' system to be given more consideration - this one still seems contrived and immersion breaking.

Pretty much this.

This new system might have the hoped-for effect on nullsec stagnancy, we will see about that.
But when it comes to plausibility, lore, general design approach, etc... Roll meh ... not very impressing.
The whole system just seems too artificial.
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
#67 - 2015-05-07 23:18:08 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Firstly, it will be possible for alliances to set custom vulnerability timers per structure.
You've gone from no granularity to too much granularity. The problem with allowing every structure to have a different window is you make it a massive chore for attackers to strike. Now instead of "Alliance X is vulnerable from 12:00-16:00" you have "Alliance X, System ABC-D: TCU is vulnerable from 12:00-16:00, Station vulnerable from 16:00-20:00, IHUB is vulnerable from 20:00-0:00, System WXY-Z: TCU is vulnerable from 0:00-04:00, Station vulnerable from 04:00-08:00, IHUB is vulnerable from 08:00-12:00, System OMG-Y (on the other side of the constallation): TCU vulnerable from 12:00-16:00, Station vulnerable from 16:00-20:00, IHUB is vulnerable from 20:00-0:00, etc., etc., etc.!

Keep in mind tho, you might have the same issue within a system with the original plans, too. It would just be different alliances (e.g. of a coalition) holding TCU, Station and IHUB.
Kyros Hakaari
Brothers of Tyr
#68 - 2015-05-07 23:22:47 UTC
Vyle Feelings wrote:
Is there any intention of buffing systems that do not contain the resources necessary to increase indices? My alliance currently owns a system with 0 astroid belts, making it difficult to raise the military and industry indexes. We kill gate rats and run any anomalies that spawn, but it's slow going. Under the new mechanics, solar systems like this will be at a severe disadvantage and difficult to maintain defensive indexes for.


Could they not make the indexes scale with the system? You would want the amount of work for a system with lots of belts to be much higher than one with zero belts.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#69 - 2015-05-07 23:31:07 UTC
Current Habit wrote:
Quote:
As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.


After one side can't or won't fight (anymore), they might resort to harassment to delay the attackers from actually using the Entosis Link on the target node/structure. To which extend do you think the capturing should be susceptible by harassment ?

For example an alliance fielding a short-mid range doctrine might drive off all hostiles other than single hostiles at max range using falcons or damps trying to use their E-war on the ships with the Entosis Links. Another example are interceptors fitted for very short align times (<2 sec) and with an ECM-Burst can warp in to the capturing ships, use their bursts and warping out again. In both examples the hostiles could try to break the lock on the capturing ships delaying the conquest without challenging the grid control of the other alliance.

It's understandable that harassment like this is acceptable to some degree and can be negated or eliminated by having more people bring Entosis Links on their ships. Then again, if half the fleet is bringing Entosis Links just to combat harassment the fleet is likely to perform worse than one in which everyone uses all their slots for combat.



If you control the grid as an attacker, you can prevent anyone from activating an EL2 for 4 consecutive minutes.

The contrapositive is true too - if you can't prevent someone remaining on grid with an active EL2 for 4 consecutive minutes, you do not control the grid.

An attacker with grid control might need 10 or more ships actively trying to use ELs to get results - that's fine, they can drop a Mobile Depot and refit combat ships, because they control the grid.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

M1k3y Koontz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2015-05-08 00:35:05 UTC
Huh, I thought this would be more of a threadnought. Good changes, I like the capital idea and making the max defensive multiplier less diversified. There just arent enough miners to get Industry indexes up high enough in more than a few systems

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2015-05-08 01:49:47 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Huh, I thought this would be more of a threadnought. Good changes, I like the capital idea and making the max defensive multiplier less diversified. There just arent enough miners to get Industry indexes up high enough in more than a few systems


I thought so as well. Almost surprised at the low level response, so far.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#72 - 2015-05-08 02:37:57 UTC
I will chime in and say that the fidelity of timer usage might need to be scaled to system-wide. Otherwise the possibility of having a system 3 different windows might be a PITA.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2015-05-08 03:10:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Aryndel Vyst wrote:
Good job using GoonSwarm Federation member XTTZ's design for vulnerability windows and crediting a non-goon with it.


I credited it to the first person to suggest it to me, and also mentioned that it has come up other times in the feedback. Good ideas often have a tendency to pop up independently from smart people in the community. XTTZ is definitely one of those very smart people in the community and his feedback is always valued.

Shhhh. You are ruining their narrative. Totally and completely impossible for good ideas to come from anyone outside of goons. Only bad ideas!

Right?? Blink
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2015-05-08 03:11:09 UTC
The changes look exciting and I can't wait for them to arrive. Twisted
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#75 - 2015-05-08 03:31:46 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Huh, I thought this would be more of a threadnought. Good changes, I like the capital idea and making the max defensive multiplier less diversified. There just arent enough miners to get Industry indexes up high enough in more than a few systems


I thought so as well. Almost surprised at the low level response, so far.

m

Possibly because this new iteration confirms the whole sov system favors existing groups maintaining control. With little to no incentive for newcomers to join the fray.

When looking at how defensive indexes are gained and lost. Then add in vulnerability windows based on same. Any new comer wanting to try and make a home is at a huge disadvantage.
Plant a flag, then everyone needs to be online and active 24/7 for the few days to, fight off attackers while at the same time attempting to build up indexes to reduce the vulnerability window.

Any new group planning on trying to take sov needs to be prepared to fight to keep it around the clock for as long as it takes to at least claim it as a capital system. This is a real disincentive when included in there is the fact, every griefing group in the game can see, each time the API updates, exactly where the new comers have planted their 18 hour vulnerable flag.


Quote:
Under this system, each alliance will be able to designate one system as their “capital”. The system they choose must already have an active Territorial Control Unit belonging to their alliance and when changing capitals, the bonuses in the new capital will not take effect for several days.
How about as an incentive and small safety net for newcomers, if the TCU you planted is your only one, when designating it as your capital system the +2 defensive bonus becomes effective immediately.

There will be large tracts of claimable sov, much of it with far less than "true sec", so giving those willing to try and establish a place for themselves in nulsec small incentives (+2 defensive index with 18 hours vulnerability is not a huge advantage) would go a long way toward longer term conflict and content for all.

Overall the proposal is starting to take shape but needs something to entice newcomers, aside from 18 hour vulnerability windows and the "easily achieved" 100 days for strategic 5.


My 2 cents - probably only worth a halfpenny.

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.

Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
#76 - 2015-05-08 03:56:25 UTC
Perhaps I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the role bonus for capitals, but is the reasoning for that something other than "they have lots of HP so we'll give them a role bonus to make cycle time longer" ? Because as is, all that role bonus seems to do is make capital fleets pretty worthless for attackers (which seems like it gives a relative buff to defender capital fleets, further entrenching the already entrenched defenders).

I'm sure there was an actual logic to the specific choice of a 5x additional cycle time role bonus, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been shared. Is it possible to share that reasoning?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#77 - 2015-05-08 04:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This also means that we don't want to be using the Entosis Links to intentionally manipulate ship use. We've seen some people suggesting that we restrict Entosis Links to battleships, command ships or capital ships in order to buff those classes. Using the Entosis Link mechanics to artificially skew the metagame in that way is not something we are interested in doing.

This goal is why we intend to use the lightest touch possible when working towards the first two goals. It would be easy to overreact to potentially unwanted uses of the Entosis Link by placing extremely harsh restrictions on the module, but we believe that by looking at the situation in a calm and measured manner we can find a good balance.


Excellent.

This is the EvE way. Cool

Vyle Feelings wrote:
Is there any intention of buffing systems that do not contain the resources necessary to increase indices? My alliance currently owns a system with 0 astroid belts, making it difficult to raise the military and industry indexes. We kill gate rats and run any anomalies that spawn, but it's slow going.


Holy ****. Lol

Quote:
Under the new mechanics, solar systems like this will be at a severe disadvantage and difficult to maintain defensive indexes for.


Tough luck sister, but then again,

NICE SYSTEM, WE WON'T TAKE IT. Lol
Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2015-05-08 05:37:23 UTC
Saidin Thor wrote:
Perhaps I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the role bonus for capitals, but is the reasoning for that something other than "they have lots of HP so we'll give them a role bonus to make cycle time longer" ? Because as is, all that role bonus seems to do is make capital fleets pretty worthless for attackers (which seems like it gives a relative buff to defender capital fleets, further entrenching the already entrenched defenders).

I'm sure there was an actual logic to the specific choice of a 5x additional cycle time role bonus, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been shared. Is it possible to share that reasoning?

It makes capital ships less useful / more dangerous for both sides. I'm not sure why you think defender caps are much better off for defenders.

#1 - HP. Caps and especially supers have lots of HP. In the direction CCP is pushing nullsec, which is smaller scale fights and more local action, fights aren't going to be like BR5B or Asakai where caps got volleyed off the field. In future entosis fights it's very conceivable that heavily tanked carriers or supers could survive a 2 minute cycle and get reps, allowing them to push control without loss. A long cycle means they're definitely at risk if used incautiously.

#2 - Ewar resistance. Since the link requires a lock to work, ewar will probably be important in node contests. Supers are ewar immune, caps can use siege or triage. That's a big advantage, they need a disadvantage to balance it out. OTOH a triaged carrier is an easy way to avoid someone trying to troll you with ecm burst interceptors like Current Habit was worried about. So you have a much longer warmup but after that you're gonna capture as long as you own the grid and keep the carrier alive.

#3 - F--- caps. The cap/supercap meta has been stagnancy and slow death for nullsec. Carrier & supercarrier spidertanking blobs are OP, dreads are mostly pointless meat for supers, titans are an impossible balance problem. Why not mostly keep them off the board while we find the balance the new system?
Lavayar
ANGELGARD.
Red Alliance
#79 - 2015-05-08 06:41:02 UTC
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
Also - kill jump bridge fatigue.

Just NO
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#80 - 2015-05-08 06:59:24 UTC
Upboats to da left

A+++ devblob would read again.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny