These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 of Sov - Transition and Deployment

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
utec asmo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#41 - 2015-07-07 19:19:39 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
utec asmo wrote:

Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.

We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation.



Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.
Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2015-07-07 19:25:21 UTC
twit brent wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
twit brent wrote:
"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"

Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me.


1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm.
2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either.
2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple.



Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it.


Or.. you know, you could send something out there to kill him since he can't warp to begin with. Roll
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-07-07 19:31:52 UTC
utec asmo wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
utec asmo wrote:

Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.

We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation.



Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.

This is a romantic sentiment, but what is overwhelmingly more likely is that CCP had no idea that multiple ihubs in a system had a military use at all, and did not take it into account when making the decision.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-07-07 19:38:15 UTC
utec asmo wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
utec asmo wrote:

Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.

We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation.



Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.


Or they never got around to coding the ability to remove upgrades at all without destroying the hub. Which is why we are in the position we are in right now.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2015-07-07 19:44:12 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselSA
Another issue: you say you're going to put up buys for SBU BPOs, but that won't work - once a bpo has been used for anything (manufacturing, copying, or research) it can never be repackaged and sold to buy orders.

So, uh, anyone with an SBU BPO is basically stuck with a (worse, because it costs less and the markets is now glutted to hell and back) TCU BPO if they ever used it instead of buying it by mistake and leaving it in the hangar.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2015-07-07 19:45:34 UTC
utec asmo wrote:

Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.


we couldn't even destroy an upgrade in an ihub without destroying ALL the upgrades in the ihub
it was purely that the system was incompletely coded and people trying to back in justifications are obviously wrong
twit brent
Never Not AFK
#47 - 2015-07-07 19:49:26 UTC
Hendrink Collie wrote:
twit brent wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
twit brent wrote:
"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"

Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me.


1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm.
2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either.
2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple.



Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it.


Or.. you know, you could send something out there to kill him since he can't warp to begin with. Roll


He can just fly away.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#48 - 2015-07-07 19:54:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Can you please confirm the number of "points" required to capture a station under the freeport capture event? Elise says 20 but so far this has never ever been mentionned by CCP. So I'd assume 10 as per the other capture events?

20 is correct for an uncontested freeport station. Each node is worth 5% of the structure control. In an attack/defense event both sides start off with 50%, in a freeport mode the NPC corp starts off with 100% and all player alliances start at 0.

Altrue wrote:
Can you confirm Military and Industry Indexes do NOT reset if the Ihub changes hands, as opposed to the Strategic Index which resets on the Ihub as per the last sov devblog? If yes, are you okay with the fact that the old defender, now attacker of a recently lost system, has its own system activity turn against him in the event of him wanting to take back his system? With the ex-attacker now defender, having very good defense multiplier even though they did not grind the indexes themselves?

Yes, index levels are completely independent of structures in the new system. As well, you can actually begin raising your indexes before deploying any sov structures if you're especially worried about being attacked early on.
The new owner gaining the benefits of the activity indexes is intended. If you can manage to take a system with strong defensive multipliers, the reward is the temporary advantage provided by those indexes once you hold the system. However to keep holding it the new owners will need to make sure that someone stays active in the system long-term.


Thanks for all these answers!

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Aneu Angellus
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#49 - 2015-07-07 20:32:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Aneu Angellus
Fozzie,

How much impact do you expect these changes to have? Personally speaking I feel there is too much to lose for those few individuals whos interests are at the core of keeping things as they are. Those individuals, as you more than likely know, have huge influence over what goes on within Eve, I simply don't see how these changes will do much of anything.

We need mechanics that will make renter alliances more likely to strike out on their own rather than be dominated by some "overlord". We need to ensure moon mining isnt as passive as it is currently. There needs to be inclusion within the entosis timer that takes into consideration the size and space currently occupied by the owner alliance so that larger alliances (in both senses) have a harder time which reinforces the concept behind your changes which are to make alliances use up less space and smaller alliances the ability to compete in some way.

I hope I am wrong but I don't think I will be. There is hype for FozzieSov for sure but sadly I don't think it will last that long unless there are follow-up releases which expand on what is being implemented now.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-07-07 20:37:22 UTC
twit brent wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
twit brent wrote:
"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"

Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me.


1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm.
2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either.
2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple.



Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it.


By making you undock, the Phantasm pilot has "won"? You considering being able to stay docked "winning"? My mind boggles.

Regardless, the Phantasm certainly does have to fight if he wants to survive. He's effectively pointed for the duration of his Entosis activation. If he does not fight, he dies. That is, if you can find the undock button.
Opner Dresden
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#51 - 2015-07-07 20:37:47 UTC
Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored?
SpaceSaft
Almost Dangerous
Wolves Amongst Strangers
#52 - 2015-07-07 20:39:23 UTC
Quote:
The setting can be found on Tranquility right now within the Corporation window, Alliances tab, and Home subtab. Characters with director roles in the Alliance executor corporation can edit the vulnerability timer by clicking on the cogwheel on the right. The image below displays where this setting can be accessed.


So I'm a line member. How do I know when Structures will be vulnerable? Will it be on the map? Will there be a noitifaction I can turn on? Will Bob give me a sign?

Or will I have to do this over Crest because of (map/notification) legacy code?
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#53 - 2015-07-07 20:50:12 UTC
Opner Dresden wrote:
Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored?



Asked and answered page 1 post #7

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5870299#post5870299

I even made a link cause if you couldn't bother reading 3 pages, you prolly don't have the brain power to find page 1
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#54 - 2015-07-07 20:50:57 UTC
SpaceSaft wrote:
Quote:
The setting can be found on Tranquility right now within the Corporation window, Alliances tab, and Home subtab. Characters with director roles in the Alliance executor corporation can edit the vulnerability timer by clicking on the cogwheel on the right. The image below displays where this setting can be accessed.


So I'm a line member. How do I know when Structures will be vulnerable? Will it be on the map? Will there be a noitifaction I can turn on? Will Bob give me a sign?

Or will I have to do this over Crest because of (map/notification) legacy code?


Open corp neocom, soveriegnty tab

Read
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2015-07-07 20:52:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Stan
Opner Dresden wrote:
Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored?


From post #7 of this thread:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
For this release you'll have to capture it normally. We are investigating some options for formal sov transfer mechanics in the future.


edit - i'm slow :)
Aneu Angellus
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#56 - 2015-07-07 20:59:27 UTC
So huge amounts of isk are involved in renting at the moment, and without a doubt a lot of it is being used for "interesting" needs, why make it easier to rent out space? Surely if CCP wants to see more conflict they will not support "renting" as an option and make players have to do it by their own means?
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-07-07 21:04:36 UTC
When do we get citadels with guns to stop troll-ceptors that come every day to entosis troll...

And now t2 cruiser troll with entosis at 250+km range...

Been around since the beginning.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#58 - 2015-07-07 21:05:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Ransu Asanari wrote:
Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet?

This was chosen to keep the deployment day as simple and smooth as possible, avoiding potential issues that could come from moving the TCUs. Due to the ability to use entosis links at very long range, and the fact that TCUs are much less important than IHubs mechanically, we decided that allowing grandfathered TCU locations would not be too overpowered.


you can very easily shoot to 250km with any kind of deathstar pos

a tcu on a moon is far

far
far

far


far

FAR

easier to defend than one anywhere else

the only reason it's not currently complained about is TCUs are not very important in sov warfare and are usually cleaned up as an afterthought. in the new system a frigate can easily entosis a TCU on a planet, but a TCU on a moon is unassailable by anything that can't tank the tower

when claiming contested sov, tcus on deathstars are already very common and very very strong and thus is an absurd advantage for alliances who already hold sov with tcus at moons [my alliance included]

as an example optimal range on a SMALL beam bettery is 187km WITHOUT the 50% amarr tower bonus to optimal

how can you possibly consider the range on the entosis link as a reason that deathstars on TCUs arent overpowered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Aneu Angellus
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#59 - 2015-07-07 21:07:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Aneu Angellus
d0cTeR9 wrote:
When do we get citadels with guns to stop troll-ceptors that come every day to entosis troll...

And now t2 cruiser troll with entosis at 250+km range...


Quote:
This module requires a full warm-up cycle before beginning to influence targeted structures.
Once activated, this module cannot be deactivated until it completes its current cycle.
While an Entosis Link is active, the fitted ship cannot cloak, warp, jump, dock or receive any form of remote assistance.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#60 - 2015-07-07 21:17:26 UTC
Capqu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Ransu Asanari wrote:
Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet?

This was chosen to keep the deployment day as simple and smooth as possible, avoiding potential issues that could come from moving the TCUs. Due to the ability to use entosis links at very long range, and the fact that TCUs are much less important than IHubs mechanically, we decided that allowing grandfathered TCU locations would not be too overpowered.


you can very easily shoot to 250km with any kind of deathstar pos

why do you insist you know better than players who actually do these things

a tcu on a moon is far

far
far

far


far

FAR

easier to defend than one anywhere else

the only reason it's not currently complained about is TCUs are not very important in sov warfare and are usually cleaned up as an afterthought. in the new system a frigate can easily entosis a TCU on a planet, but a TCU on a moon is unassailable by anything that can't tank the tower

when claiming contested sov, tcus on deathstars are already very common and very very strong and thus is an absurd advantage for alliances who already hold sov with tcus at moons [my alliance included]

as an example optimal range on a SMALL beam bettery is 187km WITHOUT the 50% amarr tower bonus to optimal

how can you possibly consider the range on the entosis link as a reason that deathstars on TCUs arent overpowered


like a tcu on a pos literally just invalidates the entosis module for that purpose as you have to reinforce the pos first (probably with caps) and then show up to the timer and win

aka exactly the same as the old system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg