These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#121 - 2015-05-08 16:35:08 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:


For a neutral structure (ie a newly-deployed IHub/TCU, or a command node for an outpost in Freeport mode) every alliance is its own team. Once one alliance gets the score up to 100% in their name, they win the contest for that structure.


I don't think this point has been widely circulated.

My understanding after reading this is.

There is no longer "launch for corporation" on IHUB/TCU's.

You launch the structure and then entosis it? What is the time based on for new structures?

And this eliminates 8 hour guard ops and TCU spam?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#122 - 2015-05-08 17:26:27 UTC
Talia Soucu wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I am really in two minds on this, mainly because I see it from the small alliance like you do, however you have to look at it from the space not being worth much to say a bigger entity, so if you take it then you have to put effort in to secure it quickly.


Hmm. I might be misreading you, but I don't see what the problem is. Can you clarify?

Quote:
Also if you are a small entity which had you system taken by another small entity then you want the ability to try and take it back immediately and if the other entity is Russian and yours is US you cannot do it.


Right, but with these mechanics, if you're a USTZ alliance, a Russian entity can't take your system in the first place as long as you care about the space and keep the vulnerability window within your timezone.


What I was trying to get at that you still have to put effort in to secure the system, you win the system and then you have to be in space to get the timers down as soon as possible, my main issue with this is that if you give 4 hours at the start you give an advantage for them to just set it at the worst TZ from the people they took it from, so looking at it from a small alliance that wants to fight your suggestion makes it more difficult to resist.

A Russian TZ could do it if they started Friday night and continued over the weekend, they would not get much sleep but its doable.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Theon Borealis
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#123 - 2015-05-08 17:42:47 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Lets reverse the question, why should people have free intel of that degree? It makes space in Eve feel very small, which adds to the ease of force projection. Lets make people gather intel, I would also get rid of stuff like cyno's, NPC kills and people in system too it would make the game more interesting and develop specific intel gathering entities.

I know those things were in Eve at the start but the game has moved on with a lot more people and an issue of force projection that will still not go away with these changes.

A major part of warfare is gathering intel, and blocking that data being gathered, its just reduces gameplay to supply it on a plate like that.

You mean like the freely available lists of R32 and R64 moons in nullsec?

In principle I might buy your argument, yet the practicalities would mean only the huge nullsec entities would have the manpower to collect timely intel on the scale required. There are several thousand solar systems in nullsec, and the status of any sov structure may chance at almost any time. Small entities trying to venture out at the deep end would literally end up flying blindfolded.

To me Sov 5.0 would be completely pointless without this information being publicly available and easily batch processed via the API. It is the intel force equalizer for the smal independent alliances, which will end up causing headaches for the renter empires. Which I suspect The Powers That Be have realized, and is why they have effectively pulled the kill switch on the whole renter scheme, everywhere.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#124 - 2015-05-08 18:03:01 UTC
Theon Borealis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Lets reverse the question, why should people have free intel of that degree? It makes space in Eve feel very small, which adds to the ease of force projection. Lets make people gather intel, I would also get rid of stuff like cyno's, NPC kills and people in system too it would make the game more interesting and develop specific intel gathering entities.

I know those things were in Eve at the start but the game has moved on with a lot more people and an issue of force projection that will still not go away with these changes.

A major part of warfare is gathering intel, and blocking that data being gathered, its just reduces gameplay to supply it on a plate like that.

You mean like the freely available lists of R32 and R64 moons in nullsec?

In principle I might buy your argument, yet the practicalities would mean only the huge nullsec entities would have the manpower to collect timely intel on the scale required. There are several thousand solar systems in nullsec, and the status of any sov structure may chance at almost any time. Small entities trying to venture out at the deep end would literally end up flying blindfolded.

To me Sov 5.0 would be completely pointless without this information being publicly available and easily batch processed via the API. It is the intel force equalizer for the smal independent alliances, which will end up causing headaches for the renter empires. Which I suspect The Powers That Be have realized, and is why they have effectively pulled the kill switch on the whole renter scheme, everywhere.



R32 and R64 lists that were gathered by players, which had to be re-scouted when changes were made, one of my contacts in the CFC spent a couple of weeks doing his bit in gathering revised moon data. That was ingame activity and makes my point!

You gather the intel on target systems that meet your criteria in terms of wanting to take it, old data can be extrapolated easily if people use their grey matter. Small entities can scout just as well as big entities, it will need to be very focussed.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Alexis Nightwish
#125 - 2015-05-08 18:07:57 UTC
Theon Borealis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Lets reverse the question, why should people have free intel of that degree? It makes space in Eve feel very small, which adds to the ease of force projection. Lets make people gather intel, I would also get rid of stuff like cyno's, NPC kills and people in system too it would make the game more interesting and develop specific intel gathering entities.

I know those things were in Eve at the start but the game has moved on with a lot more people and an issue of force projection that will still not go away with these changes.

A major part of warfare is gathering intel, and blocking that data being gathered, its just reduces gameplay to supply it on a plate like that.

You mean like the freely available lists of R32 and R64 moons in nullsec?

In principle I might buy your argument, yet the practicalities would mean only the huge nullsec entities would have the manpower to collect timely intel on the scale required. There are several thousand solar systems in nullsec, and the status of any sov structure may chance at almost any time. Small entities trying to venture out at the deep end would literally end up flying blindfolded.

To me Sov 5.0 would be completely pointless without this information being publicly available and easily batch processed via the API. It is the intel force equalizer for the smal independent alliances, which will end up causing headaches for the renter empires. Which I suspect The Powers That Be have realized, and is why they have effectively pulled the kill switch on the whole renter scheme, everywhere.

If this intel was free it would benefit two groups: giant SOV holding alliances, and any groups that stage out of NPC null or LS. It would screw any small groups that attempt to take SOV because it's the same as having a giant glowing sign saying "Hey, bored 800lb gorillas! New guy trying to take SOV here! *arrow pointing to system* Come crush me between the hours of X and Y!"

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#126 - 2015-05-08 18:41:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Seems pretty solid change over most points. But defense multiplier still seems like it will only help if the size of contesting forces are fairly close in size.

If invaders have to scan down the locations of shifting control points, some of the ability of huge alliances to blitz system sovereignty of smaller alliances is defused. The hopelessness of smaller alliances trying to attack sovereignty control points owned by huge alliances is also somewhat abated if large alliances can't just AFK camp fixed location control points with alts on second accounts but must actively probe out control point locations to defend.

As is --

there is the perennial issue that large alliances or corps can blitzkrieg systems by simply engaging defenders with a fleet of say 150% to keep them occupied while blitz all the other control points.

Afterwards it will be almost impossible for smaller alliances to take back systems. First because large alliances are a lot more 24x7 and can simply shift vulnerability time 6-12 hours to a time when the former owning alliance is weak. Second larger alliance can keep a standing response fleet on standby to cover an entire constellation. This ties up a far lower percentage of members in sovereignty defense than a small alliance barely able to defend a system against other similarly sized small alliances.



So how about making it harder to camp control points by making them respawn every 30 minutes when there is no active contest for that particular control point? That is control points might need to be scanned down unless ships of other alliances are being killed on grid and competing Entosis Links in play. Maybe a certain value of dead ships per minute to keep the system from easily being faked without cost.

This would make the battlefield more flowing and dynamic and steal some of the resistances to sovereignty change that large alliances have simply by inertia of numbers and greater wealth.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#127 - 2015-05-08 18:52:57 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

If this intel was free it would benefit two groups: giant SOV holding alliances, and any groups that stage out of NPC null or LS. It would screw any small groups that attempt to take SOV because it's the same as having a giant glowing sign saying "Hey, bored 800lb gorillas! New guy trying to take SOV here! *arrow pointing to system* Come crush me between the hours of X and Y!"


It would be a little unrealistic and really pretty tedious if you go the other way don't you think?

Should the US President have to visit Texas every day, or send personal scouts, just to make sure it hasn't been invaded or seceded from the union yet? There are plenty of assumable lines of communications from local governments and citizens out in Eve colonies, just like there are local governments in the US that might raise a fuss if their sov was being usurped.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#128 - 2015-05-08 18:56:11 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

R32 and R64 lists that were gathered by players, which had to be re-scouted when changes were made, one of my contacts in the CFC spent a couple of weeks doing his bit in gathering revised moon data. That was ingame activity and makes my point!



Moon goo contents has changed how many times since moon mining began? Once?

Compare that to the dynamic changes in sov from day to day and week to week, and you're even close to comparing the same thing.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#129 - 2015-05-08 20:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
War Kitten wrote:

It would be a little unrealistic and really pretty tedious if you go the other way don't you think?

Should the US President have to visit Texas every day, or send personal scouts, just to make sure it hasn't been invaded or seceded from the union yet? There are plenty of assumable lines of communications from local governments and citizens out in Eve colonies, just like there are local governments in the US that might raise a fuss if their sov was being usurped.


You're certainly right about the guy who owns the reinforced structure and the guys who reinforced it, but less so about every single other organisation in the galaxy too.

The problem with this level of free intel is it removes any hope of a stealth capture. Especially when dealing with stealing undefended sov, any organisation snatching control of a system will be praying it flies under the radar so every idiot and his entosis link doesn't instantly come rolling over to screw with them until they get control and the indexes up.

A big problem with the pre-Pheobe days, and the thing jump fatigue mostly crushed, was the "look, a small border fight, third party time!". As soon as an interesting border skirmish started up, the big boys would roll over and suffocate it with their big guns. By allowing everyone everywhere instant knowledge of every reinforcement and system flip, thats bringing back those bad old days, as all the nomadic pvp outfits will come slime their way over as soon as something interesting pings up on their radar.

I say muffle the free intel. Sure, keep vulnerability windows easily viewable (since it will suck to go somewhere and discover the vulnerability window is in a different timezone). But reinforcements, let that not be telegraphed quite so obviously, so that the guys who actually put in the legwork and reinforced the system can get some action before the vultures descend.
Alexis Nightwish
#130 - 2015-05-08 20:22:47 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

If this intel was free it would benefit two groups: giant SOV holding alliances, and any groups that stage out of NPC null or LS. It would screw any small groups that attempt to take SOV because it's the same as having a giant glowing sign saying "Hey, bored 800lb gorillas! New guy trying to take SOV here! *arrow pointing to system* Come crush me between the hours of X and Y!"


It would be a little unrealistic and really pretty tedious if you go the other way don't you think?

Should the US President have to visit Texas every day, or send personal scouts, just to make sure it hasn't been invaded or seceded from the union yet? There are plenty of assumable lines of communications from local governments and citizens out in Eve colonies, just like there are local governments in the US that might raise a fuss if their sov was being usurped.
I meant intel about out-of-alliance assets/systems of course. So the US Pres could at a glance see what's up with TX, but could not see what's up in France, Iraq, [place outside of the US] without reconnaissance.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Mad Crafter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2015-05-08 20:53:49 UTC
How is the link going to work in tidi? By controlling tidi the defender can get a massive bonus on the initial battle.

For example lets say I get 500 of my best buddies together to attacking some important goon system. It's important to goons so they have the 6x defense bonus. We are organized and have our fleet in system ready to go right at the start of the 3 hour window. When the window opens we begin our 62 min countdown. Goons are also organized and know we are going to attack them. But instead of fighting us they put 500 guys in T1 frigs and do nothing but jump through gates, dock and undock, and anything else they can to tidi the node to 10%. Our capture timer is now 10 hours and theirs nothing we can do to capture the node in the 3 hours window. Even if we send more people out to kill the goon frigs that will just cause even more lag, and they just undock more of them.

Lets say the links aren't affected by tidi, so it takes 62 min of real time regardless of how badly the node is tidi. This is better as it means goons have to fight us in order to win the timer. But they don't need to win the fight. This time they send 400 guys to fight us, and that will tidi the node to 10%. The remaining 100 they put in buffer tanked battleships with links fit. My fleet must now burn through 100 battleships + reships in under 2 hours in 10% tidi while being shot by a 400 man fleet. Once the time to capture the node is less then the time remaining the the vulnerabilities window they go home.

No matter how you handle tidi the defender will auto win once the node reaches 10%. Even if they are't trying to exploit almost any battle in heavy tidi will last longer then 3 hours handing the victor over to the defender regardless of who is winning the actual battle.
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#132 - 2015-05-08 21:13:13 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Should the US President have to visit Texas every day, or send personal scouts, just to make sure it hasn't been invaded or seceded from the union yet? There are plenty of assumable lines of communications from local governments and citizens out in Eve colonies, just like there are local governments in the US that might raise a fuss if their sov was being usurped.


Yes, this is the perfect example. Someone must inform him.

So no free intel, someone has to actually go to the system. Big smile
Talia Soucu
Monkeys Violating the Heavenly Temple
#133 - 2015-05-08 21:36:05 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


What I was trying to get at that you still have to put effort in to secure the system, you win the system and then you have to be in space to get the timers down as soon as possible, my main issue with this is that if you give 4 hours at the start you give an advantage for them to just set it at the worst TZ from the people they took it from, so looking at it from a small alliance that wants to fight your suggestion makes it more difficult to resist.


Ah, OK, I see what you mean. That really isn't a big problem IMO. If that situation happens, then in the system I suggested the conquering alliance would have taken sov from a defender in the same timezone, since the defender sets the vulnerability window, or the conqueror has alarmclocked. If the conqueror is in the same TZ, they're taking a big risk by setting a vulnerability window at an off-TZ time. If they alarmclocked to conquer the system, I think it's a good reward given the tradeoff - they alarmclocked and beat the defenders, they didn't just entosis an undefended system with frigates, which would happen if the defenders weren't logged on.

But more importantly, after a very short time it wouldn't be an issue. If the conquering alliance doesn't use the system, in a week or so the system would have an 18-hour vulnerability window again and the USTZ alliance could take it back. The system is easier to defend if it's actually occupied and used, just like the mechanics in the devblog describe. My suggestion just creates a short grace period at the start, it doesn't alter anything fundamental in the proposed changes.

Quote:
A Russian TZ could do it if they started Friday night and continued over the weekend, they would not get much sleep but its doable.


Under the system I suggested (having the vulnerability window start at ~4 hours), sure, a Russian alliance could do that if they alarmclocked and fought in USTZ prime. But the defenders have a vulnerability window that's smaller and under their control. In the system proposed in the devblog, they would be vulnerable for 18 hours, so they need to be prepared to defend all the time and the Russian alliance doesn't have to alarmclock.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#134 - 2015-05-08 22:13:39 UTC
Mad Crafter wrote:
How is the link going to work in tidi? By controlling tidi the defender can get a massive bonus on the initial battle.

For example lets say I get 500 of my best buddies together to attacking some important goon system. It's important to goons so they have the 6x defense bonus. We are organized and have our fleet in system ready to go right at the start of the 3 hour window. When the window opens we begin our 62 min countdown. Goons are also organized and know we are going to attack them. But instead of fighting us they put 500 guys in T1 frigs and do nothing but jump through gates, dock and undock, and anything else they can to tidi the node to 10%. Our capture timer is now 10 hours and theirs nothing we can do to capture the node in the 3 hours window. Even if we send more people out to kill the goon frigs that will just cause even more lag, and they just undock more of them.

Lets say the links aren't affected by tidi, so it takes 62 min of real time regardless of how badly the node is tidi. This is better as it means goons have to fight us in order to win the timer. But they don't need to win the fight. This time they send 400 guys to fight us, and that will tidi the node to 10%. The remaining 100 they put in buffer tanked battleships with links fit. My fleet must now burn through 100 battleships + reships in under 2 hours in 10% tidi while being shot by a 400 man fleet. Once the time to capture the node is less then the time remaining the the vulnerabilities window they go home.

No matter how you handle tidi the defender will auto win once the node reaches 10%. Even if they are't trying to exploit almost any battle in heavy tidi will last longer then 3 hours handing the victor over to the defender regardless of who is winning the actual battle.



At which point you report them for deliberately causing lag, which is against the eula?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#135 - 2015-05-08 23:13:37 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:


For a neutral structure (ie a newly-deployed IHub/TCU, or a command node for an outpost in Freeport mode) every alliance is its own team. Once one alliance gets the score up to 100% in their name, they win the contest for that structure.


I don't think this point has been widely circulated.

My understanding after reading this is.

There is no longer "launch for corporation" on IHUB/TCU's.

You launch the structure and then entosis it? What is the time based on for new structures?

And this eliminates 8 hour guard ops and TCU spam?


Let's say you are in a new alliance with no sov.

You are invading your first system with no station, you have destroyed the TCU and the iHub.

You launch your TCU and you launch your IHub. They are considered as neutral. So you have to activate an EL to take it according to CCP Masterplan :

Quote:

For a neutral structure (ie a newly-deployed IHub/TCU, or a command node for an outpost in Freeport mode) every alliance is its own team. Once one alliance gets the score up to 100% in their name, they win the contest for that structure.


I don't think this will trigger a node capture event (i hope it doesn't). Once duration is reached, you hold it.

For the duration, remember indices are now related to iHub.

No iHub = no indice.

So taking a newly deployed TCU or iHub is a 10 minutes job.

But now there is the major drawback with the new Vulnerabilty Windows scaled on the Active defense multiplier from 18h to 3h.

It put the new alliance sov holders into a very very bad position to hold their sov.

An alliance taking his first system with this will have to defend 18h along because no defense multiplier to help and cannot put a capital bonus until several days.

This is really bad and need a fix.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#136 - 2015-05-08 23:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Papa Django
About the new Vulnerabilty Windows scaled on the Active Defense Multiplier, tell me if i am good with this example :

An alliance have now to pick a 18h prime time windows. For exemple from 1h00 to 19h00 EVE TIME.

This alliance holds 2 systems, A & B. All the sov structures in theses 2 systems have the same prime time windows.
The system A have an ADM = 4
The system B have an ADM = 2

The prime time for sov structures in A is from 7h45 to 12h15 EVE TIME (18h / 4 = 4h30)
The prime time for sov structures in B is from 5h30 to 14h30 EVE TIME (18h / 2 = 9h00)
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
Great Blue Balls of Fire
#137 - 2015-05-08 23:41:48 UTC
Can you jump through a wh with active entosis link?
Zappity
Kurved Trading
#138 - 2015-05-08 23:52:26 UTC
Aquila Sagitta wrote:
Can you jump through a wh with active entosis link?

Why would you activate the link while sitting on a wormhole?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#139 - 2015-05-09 00:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Papa Django
I am reading again the first dev blog and it comes a big question related to the systems index.

Are they all related to the iHub or only the strategic index ?

It is not obvious from that :

Quote:

Just like in the current Sovereignty system, the Military Index is obtained by killing NPCs in the system and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system. The Strategic Index, which is currently tied to the lifetime of the TCU structure, will be tied to the lifetime of the IHub instead.


Military and Industrial indexes should also be tied to the iHub because indexes should reflect alliance based occupancy. Not "everyone" occupancy.

At best, the Military and Industrial indexes should be tied to the iHub and the Strategic to the TCU. TCU is currently the worthless sov structure.
Verite Rendition
F.R.E.E. Explorer
#140 - 2015-05-09 00:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Verite Rendition
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:

Free intel through CREST: IMHO there is to much free intel in the game, and this is too much. For a small entity to have an opportunity stealth is a must and this ruins it.
Make it so that you get sovereignity intel trough CREST, but it is only updated after a member of your alliance visits the system. And for bragging rights, make it optional for an alliance to make the information public.
Just a quick point of semi-clarification:

Wollari and I went to CCP and asked that the information in the sovereignty dashboard be made available via the API, as much as is realistically possible. CCP's policy on the map APIs has generally been that anything that's available via the in-game map (that is, anything you can see by pressing F10) should be available via the API as well. So ideally, all of the information in the public dashboard (Show Info), that you don't have to visit a system to collect, will be available.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67186/1/ShowInfo.png

And just to be clear, that's somewhat different from the alliance dashboard, which is only accessible to system owners.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67186/1/SovDashboard.png

Ultimately we need much of this information for the influence map and for DOTLAN, as ownership of the 3 sov structures has replaced de-jure sovereignty for control of a system. If someone has a station an IHub, for example, but never puts up a TCU, then they do not have proclaimed sovereignty, but they most certainly have control.

In any case, if CCP is exposing too much information via the map, then that may be a discussion that needs to be held. But in our case we only want the information that's public anyhow. And even then, what we're really after is the system indexes and information about who owns the sovereignty structures in each system. Anything beyond that (RF status, timers, etc) is not quite as important to us; I'm not even sure if we'd have a use for it (but I imagine other API users might).