These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Next set of Sov and Capital Movement Iterations

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#221 - 2015-09-13 12:33:25 UTC
Patrick Yaa wrote:
Saisin wrote:

Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do.
For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.




There are already several parts to a commitment. Ressources, be it pilots, time or ISK are just one part of it.
Sov was never meant to be cheap, and shouldn't be. 130M is not a small sum, yes, but it is also not unexpendable and doctrine ships are double that price for logis and BS doctrines. ( if not more).
So saying "Oh, look, I bought sov wand, where's my system" is not the right way to argue imo.

I think you missed the point..


Sov is cheap - For the large well established groups living off passive income.
Until CCP do something to balance moon income - sov will never be worth much.
Being able to hold moons in nulsec without holding sov makes the effort of holding sov pointless. Why bother taking sov when all you need is super or capital superiority to safeguard (and increase) your passive income?

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.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#222 - 2015-09-13 13:10:29 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Querns wrote:
...
These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.


Yes they would.
You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?)

The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action.

Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do.
For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.


It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#223 - 2015-09-13 13:14:29 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Querns wrote:
159Pinky wrote:
So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled

Do they not have cynos or wormholes where you live?

Not every one has access to hundreds of titans and or wants to spend hours probing out wormholes that may or may not be there when the timers you want to create are vulnerable.

CCP again didn't look for balance and instead took the easy road of a straight nerf.
Why not "balance" entosis ceptors with a fuel adjustment ? Simply increase the amount of stront required per cycle to 3 for the warmup and 2 per cycle. Someone who is actually wanting to attack sov is only going to have enough fuel for 1 or 2 attempts, unless they have friends with them to supply more stront.

Or making it so an active entosis ship can receive remote reps but the ship is immobile for the duration of the cycle. A solo ceptor is not going to last long if defenders turn up but a group who wants content (aside from trolling) can bring logi with them.




Blackops BS can bridge ships with a much smaller investment, at superlative range. Strategic cruisers can take this bridge, and strategic cruisers are the backbone of contemporary warfare.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#224 - 2015-09-13 13:15:16 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Patrick Yaa wrote:
Saisin wrote:

Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do.
For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.




There are already several parts to a commitment. Ressources, be it pilots, time or ISK are just one part of it.
Sov was never meant to be cheap, and shouldn't be. 130M is not a small sum, yes, but it is also not unexpendable and doctrine ships are double that price for logis and BS doctrines. ( if not more).
So saying "Oh, look, I bought sov wand, where's my system" is not the right way to argue imo.

I think you missed the point..


Sov is cheap - For the large well established groups living off passive income.
Until CCP do something to balance moon income - sov will never be worth much.
Being able to hold moons in nulsec without holding sov makes the effort of holding sov pointless. Why bother taking sov when all you need is super or capital superiority to safeguard (and increase) your passive income?

Moongoo comprises a small portion of our alliance income.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#225 - 2015-09-13 13:28:14 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Querns wrote:
Reppyk wrote:
We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself.

Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Straight

Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest?

Why?
What does it have to offer?


If you are unwilling to meaningfully contest sov, you have no business doing it.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#226 - 2015-09-13 13:50:16 UTC
Querns wrote:
Saisin wrote:
Querns wrote:
...
These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.


Yes they would.
You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?)

The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action.

Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do.
For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.


It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.


There are no ships in this game that cannot be caught.

If you cannot kill a ceptor, then you have no business holding sov. Alternatively, cry to CCP until the play the game for you.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#227 - 2015-09-13 14:08:19 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Querns wrote:
Saisin wrote:
Querns wrote:
...
These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.


Yes they would.
You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?)

The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action.

Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do.
For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.


It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.


There are no ships in this game that cannot be caught.

If you cannot kill a ceptor, then you have no business holding sov. Alternatively, cry to CCP until the play the game for you.

Outside of pilot error in piloting or fitting, interceptors cannot be caught.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Patrick Yaa
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#228 - 2015-09-13 15:21:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Patrick Yaa
Querns wrote:
[quotetree...]
Outside of pilot error in piloting or fitting, interceptors cannot be caught.


I thought this at first as well, but: smartbombs

also, b2t
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#229 - 2015-09-13 15:35:02 UTC
Patrick Yaa wrote:
Querns wrote:
[quotetree...]
Outside of pilot error in piloting or fitting, interceptors cannot be caught.


I thought this at first as well, but: smartbombs

also, b2t

That is true -- you can counter interceptors by parking five or more titans, packing officer smartbombs, on a stargate.

I rescind my earlier complaint; this is clearly the intended counter and reasonable for sov holders of all shapes and sizes.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2015-09-13 16:09:12 UTC
Querns wrote:
Saisin wrote:
The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose

This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game.


I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#231 - 2015-09-13 16:28:53 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Sov is cheap - For the large well established groups living off passive income.
Until CCP do something to balance moon income - sov will never be worth much.
Being able to hold moons in nulsec without holding sov makes the effort of holding sov pointless. Why bother taking sov when all you need is super or capital superiority to safeguard (and increase) your passive income?

Absolutely!
I'd like to see moon income linked to controling a TCU so that both flag and major top down income source can be contested at the same time (and I mostly push that forward because siphons have been made mostly useless because of the API ratting them out)

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#232 - 2015-09-13 16:37:35 UTC
Querns wrote:

It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.


Isn't catching or preventing the entosis the same thing, or do you absolutely have to get to kill the entosis ship?
Seems to me you are after easy kills more than true game balance. No skirmishers will engage if they are 100% sure of losing their ship (or like cynos, it will be done with the smallest possible cost to them)

Skirmishers by nature are hard to catch but it can still be done, or they can be driven away easily.
You simply do not want to have to deal with skirmishers in "your" game.

I do agree that there is still some tweaks needed for entosis ships.
- One of the suggestion I like is a cloaking cooldown of 10mn or so after the entosis becomes inactive.
- Another is applying web effects to current maximum speed instead of the ship's top speed.
- and of course, reducing the effect of nullification for intys to only not be dragged by bubbles, but still have to burn out of a bubble to initiate warp.
These tweaks would be better than a heavy handed ban of entosis on interceptors.

. But overall, an entosis ship can be caught. There are plenty of ships that can go above 4000m/sec and can warp while the entosis ship is restricted in its options. There are long range ECM that can do the trick without even catching up with the ship.

There are solutions that have already been easier to put into effect since Galatea.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#233 - 2015-09-13 16:41:08 UTC
Querns wrote:

If you are unwilling to meaningfully contest sov, you have no business doing it.


you mean
"if you can't fight my way, where I will squash you with my superior forces, you have no business in my sov"
This is a very one sided view of game balance, and does not recognize skirmishers as a valid play style.

Why should we recognize your play style then, if you don't recognize ours?

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#234 - 2015-09-13 17:01:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Saisin
Querns wrote:

Moongoo comprises a small portion of our alliance income.


Of course!
It is a top down income, so it is not passed to the alliance, but kept by the toons of the players that directkly benefit from it, while alliances endoctrinated lemmings are there to provide the meat sheid and means to protect this personal income, in exchange for paying rent or taxes.

Moon goo is to high level alliance leaderships like gold mines, or international help funds, or diamonds, are for nepotistics dictators in the real world.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#235 - 2015-09-13 17:09:08 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Querns wrote:

It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.


Isn't catching or preventing the entosis the same thing, or do you absolutely have to get to kill the entosis ship?
Seems to me you are after easy kills more than true game balance. No skirmishers will engage if they are 100% sure of losing their ship (or like cynos, it will be done with the smallest possible cost to them)

Skirmishers by nature are hard to catch but it can still be done, or they can be driven away easily.
You simply do not want to have to deal with skirmishers in "your" game.


At what point did I say that the ship had to die? I said interceptors are uncatchable.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#236 - 2015-09-13 17:10:23 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Querns wrote:

If you are unwilling to meaningfully contest sov, you have no business doing it.


you mean
"if you can't fight my way, where I will squash you with my superior forces, you have no business in my sov"
This is a very one sided view of game balance, and does not recognize skirmishers as a valid play style.

Why should we recognize your play style then, if you don't recognize ours?


Sending one man in an uncatchable ship to generate timers which no one intends to actually contest is not skirmishing.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#237 - 2015-09-13 17:12:50 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Querns wrote:

Moongoo comprises a small portion of our alliance income.


Of course!
It is a top down income, so it is not passed to the alliance, but kept by the toons of the players that directkly benefit from it, while alliances endoctrinated lemmings are there to provide the meat sheid and means to protect this personal income, in exchange for paying rent or taxes.

Moon goo is to high level alliance leaderships like gold mines, or international help funds, or diamonds, are for nepotists dictators in the real world.

This is incorrect. Between SRP that pays 150-200% of the cost of the fit ship directly to whomever lost it, the trillions of ISK we've invested into our outposts and infrastructure hubs to allow meaningful nullsec PVE in the forms of ratting, mining, and industry, and the simple act of paying the sovereignty bills due every month, we ensure that the ISK the alliance makes, overwhelmingly, makes it back into the pockets of our line members.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
aussieftw
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2015-09-13 17:31:17 UTC
Great changes, thank you CCP.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#239 - 2015-09-13 18:36:09 UTC
Querns wrote:

Sending one man in an uncatchable ship to generate timers which no one intends to actually contest is not skirmishing.


one interceptor using entosis on a structure has its speed locked to 4k for the duration of the cycle, and has a high slot fit with entosis. A single combat interceptor could take care of it...
We do agree that reducing the capabilities of interceptors to reach their target without being caught (barring smartbombing Titams interdictions on gates) is the real,problem.

Some groups may publicly take the stance that they do not want to take sov, unti they do when the conditions are right by their standards, and not by yours.
Another possibility is that a third party decides to step in an area where the inhabitants have been already softened by skirmishers, and multiple timers can be contested. This is part of valid tactics, propaganda and interactions, and not a reason to prevent these tactics in the game.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#240 - 2015-09-13 19:21:57 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:

  • 5 hour jump fatigue cap is good, and keeps the shock value without missing the point.
  • No Intytoaster is placating to a red herring (and almost says as much in the way it was presented)
  • The passive regen is too much, should be days not hours, and certainly not minutes
  • SOV dropping should also be hours not minutes, but definitely not days



5 Day cap.

Which means a 12 hour cooldown cap.

Doh, yeah, misstyped on that 5 days is good I meant.