EVE Search - Sov mechanics, are you happy with it?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sov mechanics, are you happy with it?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Snel Ding	Posted - 2010.05.17 06:05:00 - [1] Edited by: Snel Ding on 17/05/2010 06:05:00 NC and the SC have been fighting for weeks now.. Huge numbers (about 65000) of ships (about 4500B isk) died. Even supercaps and a titan got killed. When I look at the map and compare the before and after nothing has changed. I got one question to the players and CCP: Are you happy with the sov mechanics?
Hecatonis	Posted - 2010.05.17 06:09:00 - [2] yes....no well other then reading through the whine threads i dont deal with sov. mech at all. sorry i could care less about 0.0 politics
Zartrader	Posted - 2010.05.17 06:18:00 - [3] The whole point of any Sov mechanics is to encourage players to fight. If it's done that it can't be bad. Saying few ships were blown up and no one is bothering to fight would be bad.
Rotopod	Posted - 2010.05.17 06:30:00 - [4] "We can't tell with all the lag"-post in 3... 2.. 1...
Seth Ruin Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.	Posted - 2010.05.17 06:42:00 - [5] Originally by: Snel Ding Edited by: Snel Ding on 17/05/2010 06:05:00 NC and the SC have been fighting for weeks now.. Huge numbers (about 65000) of ships (about 4500B isk) died. Even supercaps and a titan got killed. When I look at the map and compare the before and after nothing has changed. I got one question to the players and CCP: Are you happy with the sov mechanics? I don't get it. Are you saying sov mechanics are bad because people are losing ships?
Night Epoch Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive	Posted - 2010.05.17 06:54:00 - [6] Edited by: Night Epoch on 17/05/2010 06:56:29 Having been in the D-G fight(s) (including the infamous one), I was there when the (then) new Sov mechanics were really put to the test - I do honestly think they're an improvement. Way better than spamming POS's. There's a relatively reasonable argument that the new Sov mechanics slightly favor the attacking alliance, as they can effectively control the timers. (An alliance of Russians, for instance, can make life a living hell for an alliance of UK and US players with regards to reinforcement timers ). And it's worth noting that, after the fall of 9UY, the rest of Providence fell with almost no appreciable resistance at all. But the fights engendered by the new sov system - when they're actually playable amid the epic lag - is ultimately a good thing IMO.
Corbeau Lenoir ZER0. IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.17 07:21:00 - [7] Originally by: Night Epoch Edited by: Night Epoch on 17/05/2010 06:56:29 There's a relatively reasonable argument that the new Sov mechanics slightly favor the attacking alliance, as they can effectively control the timers. Are you ****ing serious? The new mechanics give so much advantage for the defending side, that your post could be considered only as a trolling attempt. Vote me for CSM5!
Hyveres Caldari	Posted - 2010.05.17 07:25:00 - [8] Edited by: Hyveres on 17/05/2010 07:26:40 Originally by: Corbeau Lenoir Originally by: Night Epoch Edited by: Night Epoch on 17/05/2010 06:56:29 There's a relatively reasonable argument that the new Sov mechanics slightly favor the attacking alliance, as they can effectively control the timers. Are you ****ing serious? The new mechanics give so much advantage for the defending side, that your post could be considered only as a trolling attempt. I assume what the former providence resident is indicating is that an alliance with an earlier timezone can fill up the system from DT then hold it untill the Ihub and station comes out of RF this way locking down the system. So for a system timed to 0200 evetime, which is late US euro players will have to run minimal sleep CTA 14-16 hour operations. I'll have to disagree if stuff are timed smart the defender has to win 1 out of 8 battles in order to defend the system. Meaning that 5-6 days work is negated in a single battle making eve even more static than it used to be. The only up side compared to the old system is that you dont have to run logistics for several hundred towers. "Subtlety is a thing for philosophy, not combat. If you're going to kill someone, you might as well kill them a whole lot." - Vulcan Raven, The Last Days Of Foxhound
Corbeau Lenoir ZER0. IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.17 07:35:00 - [9] Edited by: Corbeau Lenoir on 17/05/2010 07:37:45 Originally by: Hyveres I assume what the former providence resident is indicating is that an alliance with an earlier timezone can fill up the system from DT then hold it untill the Ihub and station comes out of RF this way locking down the system. So for a system timed to 0200 evetime, which is late US euro players will have to run minimal sleep CTA 14-16 hour operations. I'll have to disagree if stuff are timed smart the defender has to win 1 out of 8 battles in order to defend the system. Meaning that 5-6 days work is negated in a single battle making eve even more static than it used to be. The only up side compared to the old system is that you dont have to run logistics for several hundred towers. In this case, nothing changed. Even with old sov mechanics, the earlier TZ players could fill out the system beforehand. But now you can not kite ihubs and outposts. There is almost no place for human error. The attackers could win for the entire weak and then lose just one encounter and they are screwed. Everything begins anew. So, basicly, for the different TZ sides it is just neverending fight. Vote me for CSM5!
arbiter reformed Minmatar The Waiting Room.	Posted - 2010.05.17 08:21:00 - [10] no no-one is. next!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.17 08:25:00 - [11] Originally by: Zartrader The whole point of any Sov mechanics is to encourage players to fight. If it's done that it can't be bad. Saying few ships were blown up and no one is bothering to fight would be bad. Originally by: Seth Ruin Are you saying sov mechanics are bad because people are losing ships? I think the focus of the OP is the 'nothing has changed' bit, i.e. you can do as much damage as you want, but sov is now basically static. - DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ
Batolemaeus Junior Free-Space-Ranger	Posted - 2010.05.17 08:26:00 - [12] It's much worse than that. The old system allowed for a continuous struggle for a system. Remember 49-? It went on for a long time, swinging back and forth. Yes it was a grind, but it also provided many, many opportunities for fights. The new system is not only hit and miss, it also encourages blobbing the system at only one point in time, because there is nothing to do in the meantime. There are no goals to achieve after reinforcing the station, while the old system at least provided goals in between with towers coming out. In direct comparison, the new system sucks horribadly. The upgrades suck hard, systems can't sustain even half as many players as promised, we're basically just renting systems from concord. Added to that is a sov system that worsened what was bad about pos warfare. Have you ever repaired an outpost? It's pure pain. Oh and by the way, we're not rid of pos warfare either. They're still vital, people still have a bazillion of them.
Ocih Amarr The Program Vanguard.	Posted - 2010.05.17 08:40:00 - [13] EvE Sov was fine before. EvE Sov is fine now. The game grows, it becomes bigger and bigger blobs. It will keep doing that. If they got the nodes to where they could handle 2000 people in a system we would put 4000. If the servers handled that we would go for 6000. Nothing they did changed the ability to blob. It doesnt matter if it changed the requirement to blob. We have the ability and we will use it. Locking systems to 400, 700, 1000 wont work. Thats been pointed out. Am I happy with Sov? No. Wasnt before, am not now. It isnt a practical goal in EvE any more. The dynamics of the game have changed. Suppose by some crazy notion I could actually recruit 10000 people to EvE and have them be in my alliance and hold systems. Can EvE handle me and my 10K Alliance blobbing space? No. We need a goal that EvE can deal with as a machine. As a Server.
Snel Ding	Posted - 2010.05.17 08:46:00 - [14] Well, it surprises me. Soo much ships and soo much isk lost and yet almost nothing has changed when looking at the map. I have read the sov mechanics and it seems the attacker needs to hold a system for a week while the defender only has to win one battle. Personaly I think any timer should go. Attacking a system should be more like a tug-of-war for like a week and after that week the winner is declared by concord.
Leaving Eve	Posted - 2010.05.17 08:55:00 - [15] Originally by: Snel Ding Are you happy with the sov mechanics? I won't be Leaving Eve over it.
Musical Fist Gallente The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.17 08:56:00 - [16] Originally by: Snel Ding Edited by: Snel Ding on 17/05/2010 06:05:00 NC and the SC have been fighting for weeks now.. Huge numbers (about 65000) of ships (about 4500B isk) died. Even supercaps and a titan got killed. When I look at the map and compare the before and after nothing has changed. I got one question to the players and CCP: Are you happy with the sov mechanics? General sov is the last thing on their agenda, its moons vs stations, sov is only really useful in enemy space for morale and 'ratting' :P Strategy > Sovereignty The downside to the sov mechancis is it is a ***** to get stations / outposts now Both sides claim victory, BOTH sides are completing their objectives and both sides resort to blobbing systems with noobs, chest beating and calling the other one bad because of [Insert random crap here] Although saying this SOLOWEFAILATEVERYTHING got purged AGAIN haha Take the invasion down south too, PL arent going after sov it is all about the moons and the PoSes that are there and I guess stations. This is so not my main
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe	Posted - 2010.05.17 09:42:00 - [17] Edited by: Camios on 17/05/2010 09:42:29 Cons to this system: - This system gives more (in my opinion too many) advantages to the defender than the POS based one. - This system encourages bringing all your pilots in a single solar system, the servers fail, and the game is unplayable. Thanks to the last CSM that in a meeting with CCP said that they didn't want smaller fights. The only thing that is good in my opinion is that the invasions can be faster. But they are so much difficult... The upgrade system is awesome in my opinion, but it has nothing to do with combat. CCP owes us a lag(or any of those server performance related problems)-less gameplay. Since they are not going to make 1500+ pilots fights lagless just with technical improvements, it's time they play PLAN B and change the gameplay mechanics.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.05.17 10:20:00 - [18] I think it is a resounding no, no one is happy with the new sov mechanics. Basically they changed shooting tons of POSs to shooting 2 gigantic POSs with 4 timers that cannot be kited. Alliances still control vast regions of space and you still need server breaking blobs to accomplish anything. If anyone has forgotten, this is what Dominion promised us: Originally by: Dev blog We get (hopefully!): * A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system * A better conquest experience * More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat * Less territorial sprawl by major alliances * A more diverse and interesting political landscape * More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec * More awesome emergent gameplay With it being about 6 months since Dominion I will safely say we are 0 for 7 on what Dominion was supposed to accomplish. Oh well look over here guys, you can drop dots and lines on PLANETS!!!!1111 - It's not "Play through a pre-set story, become stronger, do endgame". Gameplay is open ended, and you make your own story. Unless you're too afraid of 'pvp grief' to do anything relevant
Hyveres Caldari	Posted - 2010.05.17 11:03:00 - [19] Edited by: Hyveres on 17/05/2010 11:03:54 Edited by: Hyveres on 17/05/2010 11:03:28 Originally by: Camios CCP owes us a lag(or any of those server performance related problems)-less gameplay. Since they are not going to make 1500+ pilots fights lagless just with technical improvements, it's time they play PLAN B and change the gameplay mechanics. You know the really funny part. Just before dominion you had a few 1k+ battles in fountain and they had better gun cycling and less gridload lag than most 500+ fights you see today even in reinforced systems. :( With the kind of server performance you saw there the new system could have worked. But with the current , park a couple hundred players at the gates and wipe out the hostiles while they got blackscreen(aka turkeyshoot). "Subtlety is a thing for philosophy, not combat. If you're going to kill someone, you might as well kill them a whole lot." - Vulcan Raven, The Last Days Of Foxhound
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2010.05.17 12:02:00 - [20] Originally by: Hecatonis sorry i could care less about 0.0 politics So you do care a bit, but you'd rather care less? I'm sick of this error on these forums. Like the bane of turrents that haunted us. You mean you couldn't care less meaning you don't care at all. PI POS fuel process flow chart v1.0
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.05.17 12:17:00 - [21] Edited by: Malcanis on 17/05/2010 12:22:57 The new sov mechanics are nothing to do with "blobbing". Blobs happened before and they happened now. I dont think that there is any likely mechanic that will stop them as long as there is no particular disadvantage to adding another ship to the fleet. The current Sov mechanics very strongly favour the defender. Unless the attacker can completely dominate a station system across all timezones for about 10 days, it is virtually impossible to take an actively defended station system. As said above, the defender only has to win 1 fight out of 5, 4 of which will be at a time of their choosing, to completely reset the attackers efforts back to zero. Multiply that out by the dozens of stations held by the larger power blocs, and you can see that old style territorial warfare is impractical. The way to take space now is to infiltrate a director in to an alliance holding corp (or to move in to undefended space after the current residents decide they didn't want it any more.) Given the very large number of stations in 0.0 now, I would suggest that taking a single one should not be such a huge undertaking. At the very least, the defender should not be able to remote set timers whenever it suits them. They should have to be in system, and there should be a window of opportunity for Kiting the timer like you can with POS. Even with the ability to kite the timers, this still means holding the system for the time the SBUs take to online, plus the kiting time.
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe	Posted - 2010.05.17 14:10:00 - [22] Edited by: Camios on 17/05/2010 14:14:00 The new sov mechanics has very much to do with blobbing, because as the precedent one it encourages focus fire. Big fights cannot be avoided, but they can be divided, as they are in RL (RL wars happen on long frontlines, or multiple dots, not on a single dot). Until CCP and players realize this, there will always be laggy fights in EVE.
Hecatonis	Posted - 2010.05.17 14:22:00 - [23] Originally by: Celeste Coeval Originally by: Hecatonis sorry i could care less about 0.0 politics So you do care a bit, but you'd rather care less? I'm sick of this error on these forums. Like the bane of turrents that haunted us. You mean you couldn't care less meaning you don't care at all. stop trying to create arguments, your attempt it weak. and i could in fact care less, my words were true, but you where able to glean that i do care a bit because i "love" (that sarcasm btw, just so you know) reading whine threads about lag. i would add a sentence or two about if you have nothing of value to contribute, but this is general discussion 90% of what is said here has very little value. and chill bro, if THAT is what bugs you then you need to let go life is too short. hug?
Gavjack Bunk	Posted - 2010.05.17 14:26:00 - [24] I'll let any of you borrow some 1's and 0's on my PC at home for only $10 a month.
Deva Blackfire Shut Up And Play WE FORM VOLTRON	Posted - 2010.05.17 15:04:00 - [25] Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 17/05/2010 12:22:57 The new sov mechanics are nothing to do with "blobbing". Blobs happened before and they happened now. I dont think that there is any likely mechanic that will stop them as long as there is no particular disadvantage to adding another ship to the fleet. The current Sov mechanics very strongly favour the defender. Unless the attacker can completely dominate a station system across all timezones for about 10 days, it is virtually impossible to take an actively defended station system. As said above, the defender only has to win 1 fight out of 5, 4 of which will be at a time of their choosing, to completely reset the attackers efforts back to zero. Multiply that out by the dozens of stations held by the larger power blocs, and you can see that old style territorial warfare is impractical. The way to take space now is to infiltrate a director in to an alliance holding corp (or to move in to undefended space after the current residents decide they didn't want it any more.) Given the very large number of stations in 0.0 now, I would suggest that taking a single one should not be such a huge undertaking. At the very least, the defender should not be able to remote set timers whenever it suits them. They should have to be in system, and there should be a window of opportunity for Kiting the timer like you can with POS. Even with the ability to kite the timers, this still means holding the system for the time the SBUs take to online, plus the kiting time. What he said. Its slower than before, favours defender even more and 1OP screwup and you start from point 1. Before with POS spam if you missed 1-2 pos timers you could engage them again but you wouldnt lose most/all progress in the process. With new system you screw up 1 op and its quite possible you will lose everything you gained till that point. Result? IMO it is even more boring than before.
MasterEnt	Posted - 2010.05.17 15:25:00 - [26] Edited by: MasterEnt on 17/05/2010 15:28:27 Meh - good idea, but 1/2 baked - so no - im not satisfied. Needs tweeking big time. It really needs a good study and strategic plan. We have had and will always have big battles - we just have less to show for it now.
Cailais Amarr British Armoured Division The G0dfathers	Posted - 2010.05.17 15:30:00 - [27] I think we should wait to see what the impact of shifting sov structure manufacture across to a PI resource base is. In theory hampering and disrupting that supply chain of 'planet goo' could starve an Alliance of sov structures / POS's. It's a little to early to say if that will happen, as most if not all Alliances will stock pile a reserve of materials but it is at least plausible outcome. C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.05.17 15:51:00 - [28] Originally by: Cailais I think we should wait to see what the impact of shifting sov structure manufacture across to a PI resource base is. In theory hampering and disrupting that supply chain of 'planet goo' could starve an Alliance of sov structures / POS's. It's a little to early to say if that will happen, as most if not all Alliances will stock pile a reserve of materials but it is at least plausible outcome. C. If anything, PI will further entrench resident alliances, especially large one. The bigger the area of space, the less practical it will be to interdict every planet within it.
Kronos Hopeslayer Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.05.17 16:03:00 - [29] Currently right now the new Sov mechanics really favor the defender if that defender is equal too or close too the size/ability of the attacker. Even if an attacker puts up SBU's and sieges multiple systems the defender can adjust the ihub timers to land in a favorable time slot, put out a CTA days in advance and unless disaster (or a node crash) strikes they'll repel the attack, and reset back everything the attackers have done. The reason you aren't seeing a lot of Sov changes in the current conflict is because IT + friends are not going after Sov directly, at least for now. The additional costs of maintaining sov when you have no reason too is too much of a detriment now for invaders. It's much easier to gain military superiority over a region, and claim sov once the enemy has evac'd to empire. So what we have now is a lot of fighting over moons, and jump bridge systems none of which really give much of a visible indication of who's winning or losing. I will say that if IT/SC had been successful in their siege of h-w you would have seen some changes on the Map. The changes to Sov has removed Sov 4 immunity, and completely removed the need for invaders to chew through countless towers to whittle down Sov 4 in order to take out a major station system. Instead now an invader can go right for the heart of an alliance from day 1, and if successfully get a headshot a war could be over in a week or less when before Sov 4 meant it could drag on for months. What I personally have found to be the worst problem for major fleet fights is the nasty lag we got from the Domion expansion. It's not a secret that the only tactic that is viable now is to bring in enough warm bodies into a system, get it lagged to nearly unplayable levels and then go about your objective (be it attacking or defending).
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.05.17 18:09:00 - [30] Originally by: Kronos Hopeslayer ... What I personally have found to be the worst problem for major fleet fights is the nasty lag we got from the Domion expansion. It's not a secret that the only tactic that is viable now is to bring in enough warm bodies into a system, get it lagged to nearly unplayable levels and then go about your objective (be it attacking or defending). ^ QFT. And in one super blob movement, a node can be crushed into submission, negating the vulnerability of I-Hub and Station reinforcement timers, alike. I do not blame a defender one bit for putting as many of their personnel into a critical system in order to secure Sov. I do blame CCP quite a bit for implementing a game mechanic that causes their hardware and software to fail in supporting the resulting numbers of connected clients. Time for CCP to HTFU their overall architecture in order to support the numbers of players online and wanting to interact. Or simply GTFO of the business of marketing a MMO.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.