These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#141 - 2015-05-09 03:15:28 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I still believe alliance C and alliance B should be counted as individual attackers. Alliance A is then the defender, of 2 individual attacks not 1 combined attack.
This could also create conflict between alliances B and C as both are competing for the same individual prize. It also makes blobs from various alliances working together less effective.


The "individual attackers" claim their prize by dropping new structures (IHUB/TCU)

So who gets to drop the new structures?
How do individual attacker"s" claim the prize, it is only 1 system where the "prize" can only be claimed by one individual attacker.
Seems a little unbalanced if a coalition can go take sov, then just hand the system to whoever they choose.


Quote:
CCP Masterplan
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.

Persistent progress turns B) into an open invitation for blue armies to protect sov for absentee allies by simply removing accumulated progress. Removing persistent progress, removes blue defense for absentee allies.


Entosis capture progress should only be kept by actively making progress, excluding disconnects due to daily DT or other server related outages. If a group has made progress that is interrupted by DT, that progress is maintained for a set period of time, eg; for 1 hour after the servers are back online. If your attempting to capture a system and there is a period of more than 1 cycle with no active link, any progress made toward the capture is lost.
Partially capturing a structure then leaving it for extended periods of time should not be rewarded.

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
#142 - 2015-05-09 03:39:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
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.

Not sure If I understand this.
"A neutral structure (ie a newly deployed iHub/Tcu......) every alliance is its own team."

My understanding is, an iHub or TCU is deployed on behalf of an alliance who is therefore the owner of the structure. Once they are anchored, they belong to the alliance who deployed them.

How do they become a neutral structure?

There seems to be something I am missing.. The only time a new TCU or iHub is "neutral" is a the time of launch and anchoring. How long does it take for an alliance deploying an iHub or TCU to get the 100 points?

This just seems to be another barrier for new groups wanting to be an independent alliance in sov, if the 100 points is going to take a lengthy time to obtain.

Why is it so much of the new proposal is geared toward protecting the existing power bases and adding barriers for new comers?

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.

Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#143 - 2015-05-09 08:41:34 UTC
Verite Rendition wrote:
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.


I am a fan of both of you, so don't take this as an attack to your work, that I have used frecuently. Thank you.

I agree with you that all information available in-game should be available via API. I realized that I forgot about in-game intel in that post and correct that some posts later.

Also, I think that most of the alliances that really appear in your maps will choose to have their sovereignty info public, so your influence map will continue to be completely relevant, with the interesting addition that some areas of space will appear blank (here be dragons and so Big smile)

What I am really afraid if this information is available is that in a few days we will have an app where you will be able to choose an area (like a the region where you live and the ones in contact with it) and receive an alert as soon as someone stablish a base there, so large alliances will have a very effective way of projecting force what will lead to great expanses of systems empty.

The need to visit the system to gather intelligence should be the same as occupancy to the indexes. If you want to control it, you have to explore it.
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#144 - 2015-05-09 08:53:23 UTC
Theon Borealis wrote:
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.


And why exactly does a small entity need to explore thousands of systems?

The new system is about you and your neighbours, not the whole cluster.

Initially you will have to explore your chosen area looking for a suitable system. For that you will have to visit tens or hundreds of systems, not thousands. As an explorer I visit tens of systems everyday, so for the smallest alliance that is going to be able to subsist in Null (100 members?) it will take a day to explore several regions.

Once they get established, they just need to visit the systems surrounding them, not the whole cluster.
Soleil Fournier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2015-05-09 09:21:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
I have some questions on the entosis links:


1) Is there a difference between having 1 entosis link on a structure and 5 entosis links on a structure?
2) Say I have 5 links on a structure and 4 get jammed out, the timer still continues correct? Regardless of which of those 5 had initiated their modules first?
3) If I have 5 entosis links on a structure, it only takes 1 hostile with their link to stop the capture? Or do they need 5 to stop capture?
4) Just to reiterate, the penalty on capital entosis links doesn't make them capture any slower, it just makes the duration of the module longer correct?



Other concerns to look into:

*The lack of investment / skin-in-the-game for attackers. Attackers should have to ante-up.

In the old systems you had to invest in either POS' or SBUs, which could mean an investment of 200m -1 billion or more in order to attack the system. This turned into a negative because we had to grind through those items, and I do not advocate a return to that. But attackers should still be required to make an investment rather than just hopping in a T1 frig and starting capture. That's a bit unfair to the defenders and will lead to a ton of trolling / blue balling by attackers who have no interest in actually capturing the structure.

My suggestion would be to create a licensing system. I purchase a license for my alliance for a particular system (cost would be based on system sec level + modified by activity level) . License is granted instantly so I can immediately start capturing. Lasts a week or so.


* Fallow space will still take too much time to capture

If a system is fallow, players should be able to move right in and own the system in a short amount of time. Even with freeport, overlords will let a small corp move in and grind through the first timer of an unused system before showing up at the last battle of 2nd reinforcement to face-stomp them and reclaim the structure.

Thus I would like to suggest having the reinforcement timers be also modified by activity. Timers start at maybe a few hours, and get increased significantly based on activity level of the system. This allows small corps the ability to claim empty systems much faster but active systems are still very much protected.
Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#146 - 2015-05-09 10:05:00 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Persistent progress turns B) into an open invitation for blue armies to protect sov for absentee allies by simply removing accumulated progress. Removing persistent progress, removes blue defense for absentee allies.

How are you not getting this? Allies _cannot_ remove progress in aid of defense because everyone outside the owning alliance is the "everyone else" side, and if the "everyone else" side wins the TCU/IHub blows up or station goes into neutral freeport mode. The only time an ally could remove progress in a fight against a common opponent is:
a) stations already in neutral freeport mode
b) freshly deployed TCU/Ihub

If the station is in freeport mode, the former owners already lost one reinforcement capture event. Newly deployed TCU's and IHubs are, if you have any brains, only put down when it's safe to do so and activate them with security. Deploying an ihub in the middle of a fight is pretty silly even if you have allies around.

Now, on the attacking side multiple alliances can gang up to push the entosis progress bar. But that's not gonna make renters or absentee landlords work in the new system.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Entosis capture progress should only be kept by actively making progress, excluding disconnects due to daily DT or other server related outages. If a group has made progress that is interrupted by DT, that progress is maintained for a set period of time, eg; for 1 hour after the servers are back online. If your attempting to capture a system and there is a period of more than 1 cycle with no active link, any progress made toward the capture is lost.
Partially capturing a structure then leaving it for extended periods of time should not be rewarded.

Partially capturing a structure is of no long term benefit, because new command nodes spawn over time. So trying to meta the system by reinforcing your own stuff and putting all the command nodes to 95% captured would be a continual waste of your own time.

God knows if there's some sort of maximum number of control nodes that can be spawned from a single structure timer. Even if there are you are talking about a massive waste of time and an impossible job to guard all those nodes 24/7.
Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#147 - 2015-05-09 10:37:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Klyith
Soleil Fournier wrote:
I have some questions on the entosis links:

1) Is there a difference between having 1 entosis link on a structure and 5 entosis links on a structure?
2) Say I have 5 links on a structure and 4 get jammed out, the timer still continues correct? Regardless of which of those 5 had initiated their modules first?
3) If I have 5 entosis links on a structure, it only takes 1 hostile with their link to stop the capture? Or do they need 5 to stop capture?
4) Just to reiterate, the penalty on capital entosis links doesn't make them capture any slower, it just makes the duration of the module longer correct?

No
Yes*
No Yes all links have to belong to one side
Yes


*Assuming they all had already completed their warmup cycle. If you had 4 links running, they get jammed and then the 5th ship turned it's link on, you are stalled for a cycle before progress continues. The ships that got jammed have to wait out their current cycle and do a new warmup cycle before they start contributing progress again. Don't get jammed.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#148 - 2015-05-09 10:42:05 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Persistent progress turns B) into an open invitation for blue armies to protect sov for absentee allies by simply removing accumulated progress. Removing persistent progress, removes blue defense for absentee allies.

How are you not getting this? Allies _cannot_ remove progress in aid of defense because everyone outside the owning alliance is the "everyone else" side, and if the "everyone else" side wins the TCU/IHub blows up or station goes into neutral freeport mode. The only time an ally could remove progress in a fight against a common opponent is:
a) stations already in neutral freeport mode
b) freshly deployed TCU/Ihub

If the station is in freeport mode, the former owners already lost one reinforcement capture event. Newly deployed TCU's and IHubs are, if you have any brains, only put down when it's safe to do so and activate them with security. Deploying an ihub in the middle of a fight is pretty silly even if you have allies around.

Now, on the attacking side multiple alliances can gang up to push the entosis progress bar. But that's not gonna make renters or absentee landlords work in the new system.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Entosis capture progress should only be kept by actively making progress, excluding disconnects due to daily DT or other server related outages. If a group has made progress that is interrupted by DT, that progress is maintained for a set period of time, eg; for 1 hour after the servers are back online. If your attempting to capture a system and there is a period of more than 1 cycle with no active link, any progress made toward the capture is lost.
Partially capturing a structure then leaving it for extended periods of time should not be rewarded.

Partially capturing a structure is of no long term benefit, because new command nodes spawn over time. So trying to meta the system by reinforcing your own stuff and putting all the command nodes to 95% captured would be a continual waste of your own time.

God knows if there's some sort of maximum number of control nodes that can be spawned from a single structure timer. Even if there are you are talking about a massive waste of time and an impossible job to guard all those nodes 24/7.

Well maybe what CCP Masterplan quoted as to how it will work is wrong..
Quote:
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.
You might want to take that up with him.

Alliance A partially captures a structure then leaves, for whatever reason.
Alliance B (an ally of the sov holder) is seen by the server as an attacker, activates Entosis - reduces accumulated progress to zero - turns off Entosis.
Damn!! It would seem, under the right circumstances - An ally can remove capture progress.
CCP Masterplan's post, on page 5 of the thread

Partially capturing a structure does not spawn command nodes at all, let alone new ones over time.

And just to be really clear, I never mentioned RFing your own structures, you thought that up all on your own BUT if what was posted by devs was accurate, getting an ally to partially RF your stuff (which will not spawn capture nodes) could in fact be useful as any genuine attacker would then need to capture a total of 190%. After first having to reduce present capture points.

Maybe I'm not getting it because i read what a dev posted and believed him.
Admittedly his post did muddy the waters a little regarding the capture process

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.

Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#149 - 2015-05-09 11:12:59 UTC
Klyith wrote:

No, they need 5 links to stalemate and a 6th to reverse progress


No, one entosis stops the progress. It doesn't start again until all the entosis belong only to one side.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#150 - 2015-05-09 11:54:06 UTC
Klyith wrote:
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.

Point taken on the time delay, it has been a long time waiting.

I hope you are right on the latter point,because a more free-form/simple 'sovless' system (build what you want, wherever you want) would IMO be far healthier for the game.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Klyith
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#151 - 2015-05-09 12:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Klyith
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Well maybe what CCP Masterplan quoted as to how it will work is wrong..
Quote:
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.
You might want to take that up with him.

Alliance A partially captures a structure then leaves, for whatever reason.
Alliance B (an ally of the sov holder) is seen by the server as an attacker, activates Entosis - reduces accumulated progress to zero - turns off Entosis.
Damn!! It would seem, under the right circumstances - An ally can remove capture progress.
CCP Masterplan's post, on page 5 of the thread

Capture work on neutral structures (apparently a freshly deployed TCU/Ihub), and command nodes for the second station timer. Reinforcement works on owned structures. They have different mechanics.

Here's examples involving three alliances: Sovowner, Ally, and Badguys. Sovowner owns the structures, Ally is an ally of Sovowner, and Badguys are the aggressor.

Badguys comes in and partly reinforces an operational TCU. If Ally uses entosis on the TCU, it gains *more* reinforcement progress. Only Sovowner can remove progress back to zero. I think if the TCU is fully reinforced the command nodes that spawn will have the same mechanic.

Sovowner gets their station reinforced and loses the capture event to save it. The station is now freeported and effectively neutral. The second capture event starts and Ally comes in to save their friends. Ally can use their entosis to remove Badguy's progress on capture nodes, but if they keep running them will build progress towards their own control. If Sovowner wants to regain control of the station they need to fully capture nodes themselves.

Similarly, if Sovowner needs to place a new Ihub and Badguys show up to try to steal it, Ally can reset their progress.

In summary, allied alliances can only directly contribute to saving your stuff when things have already gone wrong for you.
Quote:

Maybe I'm not getting it because i read what a dev posted and believed him.
Admittedly his post did muddy the waters a little regarding the capture process

It's very badly written compared to Fozzie, who has been pretty clear about the whole owner vs everyone else thing. Possibly "same alliance" in Masterplan's post is referring to the owning alliance? Anyways it's spelled out in the devblogs that for reinforcement enemies and allies are on the same team, only the owning alliance can reset progress.

Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:

No, one entosis stops the progress. It doesn't start again until all the entosis belong only to one side.

Thanks, fixed.
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
Great Blue Balls of Fire
#152 - 2015-05-09 12:50:19 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Aquila Sagitta wrote:
Can you jump through a wh with active entosis link?

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


Because it adds mass to your ship. If you can turn frigates into the size of an orca for 1 stront and some cap people will do it.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#153 - 2015-05-09 14:41:22 UTC
Papa Django wrote:
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.


The important thing about newly deployed structures is that this is a third stage of combat.

Initial Reinforcement Fight

Capture Event

Structure Deployment fight.

Even if someone loses the multi system, multi node capture event, they could still basically win by contesting the single grid the new structure is being deployed on.
Mad Crafter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#154 - 2015-05-09 21:26:01 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
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?

Their are too many legitimate ways to cause lag. I doubt ccp wants to be flooded with tickets every time a node enters tidi. This suggestion is like giving a cough drop to someone with lung cancer. You're trying to treat 1 minor symptom, while to root of the problem just makes things worse.
Soleil Fournier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2015-05-09 21:48:38 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Soleil Fournier wrote:
I have some questions on the entosis links:

1) Is there a difference between having 1 entosis link on a structure and 5 entosis links on a structure?
2) Say I have 5 links on a structure and 4 get jammed out, the timer still continues correct? Regardless of which of those 5 had initiated their modules first?
3) If I have 5 entosis links on a structure, it only takes 1 hostile with their link to stop the capture? Or do they need 5 to stop capture?
4) Just to reiterate, the penalty on capital entosis links doesn't make them capture any slower, it just makes the duration of the module longer correct?

No
Yes*
No Yes all links have to belong to one side
Yes


*Assuming they all had already completed their warmup cycle. If you had 4 links running, they get jammed and then the 5th ship turned it's link on, you are stalled for a cycle before progress continues. The ships that got jammed have to wait out their current cycle and do a new warmup cycle before they start contributing progress again. Don't get jammed.


Thank you :)
Alexis Nightwish
#156 - 2015-05-09 21:49:48 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
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?
Steve, I think his question was more interested in how the mechanics of TIDI interact with the Elink system. Can you please answer his question in that context?

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Alexis Nightwish
#157 - 2015-05-09 21:50:37 UTC
Soleil Fournier wrote:
I have some questions on the entosis links:

1) Is there a difference between having 1 entosis link on a structure and 5 entosis links on a structure?
2) Say I have 5 links on a structure and 4 get jammed out, the timer still continues correct? Regardless of which of those 5 had initiated their modules first?
3) If I have 5 entosis links on a structure, it only takes 1 hostile with their link to stop the capture? Or do they need 5 to stop capture?
4) Just to reiterate, the penalty on capital entosis links doesn't make them capture any slower, it just makes the duration of the module longer correct?

1) As far as capture speed? No.
2) I think so. I'd like to see an official answer to this one. :)
3) Just one to pause the capture.
4) Correct.

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#158 - 2015-05-09 21:50:55 UTC
Is structure deployment limited to the alliance prime time? Or can it be any point during the day?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#159 - 2015-05-09 22:47:58 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Well maybe what CCP Masterplan quoted as to how it will work is wrong..
Quote:
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.
You might want to take that up with him.

Alliance A partially captures a structure then leaves, for whatever reason.
Alliance B (an ally of the sov holder) is seen by the server as an attacker, activates Entosis - reduces accumulated progress to zero - turns off Entosis.
Damn!! It would seem, under the right circumstances - An ally can remove capture progress.
CCP Masterplan's post, on page 5 of the thread

Capture work on neutral structures (apparently a freshly deployed TCU/Ihub), and command nodes for the second station timer. Reinforcement works on owned structures. They have different mechanics.

Here's examples involving three alliances: Sovowner, Ally, and Badguys. Sovowner owns the structures, Ally is an ally of Sovowner, and Badguys are the aggressor.

Badguys comes in and partly reinforces an operational TCU. If Ally uses entosis on the TCU, it gains *more* reinforcement progress. Only Sovowner can remove progress back to zero. I think if the TCU is fully reinforced the command nodes that spawn will have the same mechanic.

Sovowner gets their station reinforced and loses the capture event to save it. The station is now freeported and effectively neutral. The second capture event starts and Ally comes in to save their friends. Ally can use their entosis to remove Badguy's progress on capture nodes, but if they keep running them will build progress towards their own control. If Sovowner wants to regain control of the station they need to fully capture nodes themselves.

Similarly, if Sovowner needs to place a new Ihub and Badguys show up to try to steal it, Ally can reset their progress.

In summary, allied alliances can only directly contribute to saving your stuff when things have already gone wrong for you.
Quote:

Maybe I'm not getting it because i read what a dev posted and believed him.
Admittedly his post did muddy the waters a little regarding the capture process

It's very badly written compared to Fozzie, who has been pretty clear about the whole owner vs everyone else thing. Possibly "same alliance" in Masterplan's post is referring to the owning alliance? Anyways it's spelled out in the devblogs that for reinforcement enemies and allies are on the same team, only the owning alliance can reset progress.

Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:

No, one entosis stops the progress. It doesn't start again until all the entosis belong only to one side.

Thanks, fixed.

I'm really sorry but what makes you so sure what Fozzie says in the blog is correct and what Masterplan said is wrong?
Do you think the devs who wrote the code would no less about it than their spokesperson?
I believe CCP Masterplan took his information from having worked on the project whereas CCP Fozzie is writing out a blog based only on information he is handed, which he can interpret and type out however he likes.

Of course 1 defender vs 20 attackers sounds balanced - Doesn't it?
Why have persistent capture points - So the next guy can come along and complete the job? That too sounds awfully balanced.

One of the proposed ways it will work is open to abuse in very specific situations, the other is open to abuse by everyone all the time. I know which I think will create the most long term content.

And just to save you typing out a whole lot of stuff not relevant to what I posted. Partially captured doesn't start anything, it has nothing to do with whether the station or iHub is already RF'd. Partially capturing is simply that, group fly in run entosis for X mins and leaves, no capture, nothing RF'd so no end result or next stage.
Except; going by the blog, anyone who then enters the system can finish the capture process by completing the cycles remaining from the guys who started the capture. (that's not open to abuse or manipulation, is it)

Funny but I think CCP Masterplan wrote it out very well, where the blog is just blanket, basic information, with many gaps.
Attention Maybe, just maybe, in this case someone should officially put the issue to bed.
Does an attacker 1st have to remove capture progress made by someone else?
Is persistent capture progress available to subsequent attackers?
Does each attacker only gain from individual progress made, if so, where does that leave a defender?
Will the defender need 1 entosis link for active for each attacker or will 1 stall progress of all?

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.

TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#160 - 2015-05-10 00:17:45 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:



I think the incentive for most Null-Sec'ers (me included) is that if I want PvP, I can do it, if I want PvE, I can do it, and for the most part, the people around me want to do it also. Moreover, we want to do those things in groups rather than solo.

The incentive is already there. People are living in Null Sec and making ISK and having fun and shooting stuff. I suppose New Fozzie-Sov will allow those things to continue to happen, and probably a little bit more on the PvP side.

ISK isn't the incentive... if it was no one would live in Null-sec or Low-sec and we'd all be friends in an incursion fleet Ugh



This new sov system will create a trend of everyone moving closer together in order to better defend, which is a good idea. It will definately increase the ~peeveepee~ aspect of the game. I have no problem with the sov changes.

However, when you start getting more and more people into closer quarters your income is going to drop. When the income decreases you lose ability to buy new ships. Lacking the ability to support your pvp hobbies means you stop fielding ships to fights. Yes, alot of people will still make isk from moongoo and production, but a majority make their income via simplistic routes such as ratting.

Making isk to enjoy the other aspects of the game is the incentive, my friend. You can't shoot stuff from a pod.


We won't know how Fozzie Sov will affect the distribution of people around space until it happens. Its premature at this time to assume everyone in an alliance will move to the capital system and be fighting over a few anoms and some DED's.

Its a feasible thought that once these changes hit players will identify an "optimal" alliance size and start spreading out on their own to accomplish a better space-to-player ratio, especially if it becomes possible for sov defense to be successful on uneven terms.

Also, I'd be willing to wager a few ISK that once a few months of people dealing with Fozzie Sov have passed CCP will have a better idea about how ISK is generated and moved around. Lets be patient and play it out.


So you think player alliances will not figure out distribution models (in player numbers), or reward systems that keep the space occupied (concentrated on constellations) as designated by the leadership?

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-