Well as the title says this is going to be about game mechanics again around the damned Sovereignty system.

REMEMBER this is about mechanics forcing large numbers of people in the system, yes I think there is an undue burden on the attackers that is very debatable…but when the node dies no one can play at all.

Lets look at timers:

  • SBU ~ 3 Hours to come online
  • Reinforce the I-hub timer FIRST TIME: again set by defenders, +24 H and randomized +2/ date our avg is 1D 18 Hours
  • Reinforce the I-hub timer SECOND TIME: again set by defenders, +24 H and randomized +2/-2  so far our avg is 1D 14 Hours
  • Reinforce the Outpost FIRST TIME: 2D 23 Hours 59Minutes this is also set by defenders at + 48 Hours +2 /-2
  • Reinforce the outpost a SECOND TIME : 48Hours +2 /-2 + the time set by defenders
  • Destroy the TCU
  • Anchor a new TCU and wait 12 Hours later for it to come online

[table id=4 /]

Formula for the I-hub 24Hours + time set by defenders , +2/-2 randomization thrown in for each reinforcement ( total of 2)

Formula for the Outpost is similar except 48Hours + time set by defender +2/-2 randomization ( also a total of 2)

So even if I am 50% off on my time, 6 Days to take a system is idiotic.  The fact that you must also destroy the I-hub with about 1.5 Bazillion armor HP Before an enemy fleet drops 1/2 the SBU’s ( in 49-U6U that is 2) means that the onus is definitely on the attacker to flood the system with people.  The problem with this tactic?  The node goes down.

If my math is right …11 Days to take a system seems idiotic at best….Three times this long weekend the node in 49-U6U crashed.  Each time lengthening the amount of time that is needed to take the system.  If you count node crashes the total amount of downtime this weekend was an additional 10-12 hours.

Some thoughts:

  1. 2D 23H 59 Min for an outpost to enter the 1st reinforcement timer?  Idiotic.
  2. 10,000,000 HP at 25% resists for the SBU vs 112,500,000 HP for the I-hub 0% resists, means that you could kill roughly 9 SBU’s before you could kill 1 I-hub.
  3. Double reinforcement timers for BOTH the I-hub AND the outpost seems good.. but in reality is pathetic.
  4. 11+ days to take a system?  Who thought this through?

What do you folks think?  What would be the fix? Remember the vast numbers of people, the requirement that they stay there a while, and the three node crashes we have had over the weekend in 49-U6U

I would be interested in any thoughts.

~ by Manasiv5 on January 19, 2010.

25 Responses to “Craptastic”

  1. Nice write up although I can’t say I miss sniper fleet duty!

  2. It is amazing that the system can even allow 1000 pilots in a system at once! It does suck that the hardware or network limitations cap out at that level. I wonder if CCP will ever be able to code a distributed server model for running a node on multiple machines, super-computer style. Even if it introduced a second or two of lag, in a giant battle it would be workable… They also need to code for dynamic switching, so the node could be punted to the distributed model when it gets over a manageable level without a reset.

  3. Yikes. Its stuff like this keeps me the hell away from null-sec, which when I think about it, is a shame because the idea of these massive fleet battles actually sounds pretty fun to me sometimes. This is the one problem I've had with Dominion thus far, which is that instead of encouraging people like me to explore and try-out null-sec, its lag and node-death issues have pretty much assured those of us who haven't yet to avoid these types of massive fleets like the plague. The idea behind it really does sound like a blast, but unless these types of server-issues get a massive fix, I'm keeping my distance.


    • There are plenty of small-gang based PVP corps in 0.0. You might check out renters instead of big name alliances if you want to avoid blobs.

      • I like big massive fleet fights….they are a ton of fun and very employable, as long as it works for everyone involved.

    • Aiden just avoid system with more than 500 or so…and they area ton of fun which is why I want them to work.

  4. Ah, I see now that you’re more upset about node crashing then any imbalance combat wise. Sorry about my mistake, I may be getting a little defensive there lately.

    Blobbing is of course a problem in EVE, has been for years, and Goonswarm is certainly not innocent of it. It’s also a very difficult problem to solve. The ideal solution would be a server capable of handling larger fleet battles, but as was pointed out the last time they fixed combat lag and crashing, if you make it so the server can handle 2x as many people before crashing alliances will just bring 2x as many people.

    Another solution would be to try to limit combat size. Capping the number of players in a system is a bad idea, since whoever can max that number out first will get an uncontested win (and though many alliances prefer a good fight to a combatless victory, eventually one side will get frustrated and just start pre-filling the system). It might be possible to effectively “instance” fleet fights, say letting the defender and attacker each bring a full fleet (255) to fight over an objective that no one else can reach, but this would be contrary to the sandbox concept that CCP loves so much.

    The least affective solution, but the one with the least drawbacks, is to try to encourage players to split into smaller groups, and this is what CCP has been trying to do. The problem with this is that, no matter how much advantage there is to spreading your strength, everyone wants to bring “just a few more” ships than their enemy because losing is so painful in EVE. If AAA or IT, or both, tried attacking multiple systems at once, GS would simply use all their force against half of their enemies forces and defeat them in detail, even if it meant losing be default elsewhere.

    • I probably getting defensive too bro no worries mate. Good points all around. I like your comments and appreciate your time.

  5. Before you think it's too hard for the attacker, look at how easy Atlas is rolling over station systems in Geminate. The difficulty is in the quality of the defense vs the quality of the offense. If this isn't well balanced, then nothing is IMO.

    • When 1500ppl cannot play ( due to the node crashing) THAT is what is untenable. I am GLAD they have not rolled over and played dead….THAT is not what i want…what i want is the node not crashing every night for three nights running….that si what is 'craptastic'

  6. Does this give the defender more of an advantage than he had before? Is this more tedious than tower spamming? Also, in this particular case we're talking about a frontal assault on one of the key strategic chokepoints of the biggest alliance in the game. Is this supposed to be easy?

    I think we're closer to fun sov warfare than we were pre-Dominion, although clearly not there yet. The server instability is more of a screaming problem than the sov rules right now though.

    • There is no difference between this system and the next one over…they all behave the same. No, i don't want easy, no I don't want em to run away, stability so we can all fight was and is the point of this, yet the MECHANICS DEMAND that more people be in system.

      • The mechanics don't demand blobs, your alliance's tactic of bunching up and attacking one system is what causes blobs. All the Goons go to 49-U because there's nowhere else to go. If you attacked several locations or if the Goons counter-attacked, then the fight sizes would be more manageable.

        You're the attacker*, you decide where and how the fights happen. Don't blame Goons or even CCP when all the fighting is in one system.

        * – I'm referring to your alliances, not you specifically.

  7. I realize I have a biased viewpoint here(I'm a goon as well), but I don't think 11 days is too long to take a system that's actively defended in strength equal to your own. If Goonswarm weren't able to defend at all, like PL and SoT in Fountain, the system would fall in 2-3 days, which is actually quicker then it was pre-dominion (7 days).

    Of course, you can argue that having to fight in the defender's time zone is too large an advantage for the defender, and if you want to we can have a debate about that, but it's a separate issue. My point is simply that the defender's advantages you mention in the article require the defender to actively defend his system with a force comparable to the attackers, which to me would seem to justify the defender holding onto the system indefinitely. We're not dead yet.

    • You are quite right your not dead…yet. Bravo for good fighting etc…but the mechanics are crap when the node doesn't support 1500 ppl and the mechanics demand several fleets in several areas

  8. Your maths is slightly wrong, mate. Assuming that you reinforce the station and infrastructure hub at the same time so the only timer that really matters is the station one so it takes 6-8 days to take the system because the station timer is the longest. That's a while but the amount of time taken isn't so much the issue for me as the ungodly hours we have to be on for the actual fights.

    • well once the station leave reinforcement the SBU become vulnerable again and there is no way to beat down the station ( much less the i-hub) while the SBU’s are once again vulnerable. Both the IHUB and the Outpost have to be taken for the TCU to become vulnerable, so while the 11D is a little bit off and maybe it is more like 6 D it is Still an untenable situation.

      • Yeah, it's a major hit to the attackers that they have to defend 2-3 gates (2 gates in a 2 or 3 gate system, 3 gates in a 4 or 5 gate system) while still besieging the station/hub.

  9. The idea they had is great they just need to expand it, they need to give the offense more ways to lock down their SBU's and give them a fighting chance, it seems from an outsiders view beyond the length of the siege 6 days, to fully take a system, its just too easy for the defenders to send the offenders back to 0.

    That and i think if they can curtail the crashing of nodes, then they also will have reduced the headache of capturing…

    i hard a few people talk about population caps the fact is that wont help as it will just make AFK filling a node the way to "secure it" which wud suck….

    They need to figure out the cause of the problem and solve it, or at least make it so that instead of crashing something else happens, allow for lag, or something but crashing is just not a good thing at all.

    • 1500 people were in 49-U6U saturday night…so the idea about the number of people is right on…thanks for you thoughts. Oh and it is 11D…only 6D if my math is wrong.

      • See, but a fair amount of that 11 days overlaps – you can have both the iHub and the outpost in RF simultaneously, and they’ll come up on different days. It’s not like you spend 4 days on the iHub and only then get to hit the Outpost for another 4, it’s 4-5 days total if you do them in parallel, but that means 4-5 days straight of fighting for each system.

        The real problem with this timing is that we (GoonSwarm overall) own like 100+ systems. It would literally take you guys a year to throw GoonSwarm out of Delve if you had to fight system-by-system, even if you won every battle and we never counterattacked (and we’re not that incompetent). And that’s a year of fighting five nights a week. And then it’d take you like 3 months to re-fortify it and re-build it. If the intention was to increase 0.0 volatility, CCP screwed up.

        You also haven’t mentioned the largest defender advantage – defender gets to set the fights for their prime-time. GoonSwarm is stronger during US Prime, and some of your alliances are better during EU Prime. So after the first fight, all the battles in 49-U6U occur during our prime-time, forcing your European allies to stay up until like 3 am. And when we counter-attack*, you can set the defense for the EU primetime, when half our fleet is at work or school or whatever.

        * – I’m so n00b I don’t even have Teamspeak working, so I have no idea as to Goonswarm strategies. I’m just assuming we’ll eventually counter-attack (if we win) or attempt to reclaim (if we lose).

        • Yes your quite correct, as is Wensley that the timers do overlap a bit…but all have to be removed, as for being noob…bahh so what, everyone is new sometime. The defender does indeed get to pick the TZ for the fight…good call!

  10. Disclaimer – I'm in ARSED, so I'm on the other side of this. I'm also a newbie, so this is my first campaign.

    Even beyond the attacker-defender balance issue, it seems really dumb to me that the system forces concentration of forces. CCP needs to create a sovereignty incentive to spread out to 2-4 systems for these battles.

    Imagine if you guys had to both attack 49-U6U while defending some other system – like the attacker has to have a staging area or something in a nearby system, and the defender has to blunt the attack or destroy the staging area. Then you rebalance the attacker objectives. Suddenly, the fighting is split in half, or at least a third or so are pulled out of 49-U6U.

    Or if you got a bonus for attacking another system simultaneously. Like re-balance it so that non-reinforced outposts or POSes in adjacent systems are what provide the iHub with that level of HP or that long of a timer. That way, both sides have an incentive to fight in the neighboring system – throw something next door into reinforced, and you cut some time off your timers or the hub/outpost HP drops.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: