I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno.

Ummm Yes.

if you can take space and keep space u can have space it shouldnt take CCP giving it to you. provi is a great example of this they took the space they wanted and they defend it at all cost.

so instead it should be because i have X amount of ishtars?

I hope the module uses like 5k PG so only BC and above could use it.

and after all these post we finally agree

ACR+RCU Harbinger, because ACR+RCU maller reaches 4.4k PG.

Well do as corbexx did for wormhole space, independently quantify the actual figures based on facts rather than assumptions, and have your CSM representative present these FACTS to CCP for evaluation.

If your contention is true, and a good argument is made beyond "I want more money! " then you may meet with success.

The question is, did the data justify increasing income, If as you say he did this, then the conclusion would be that it did not. There are countless ways to make minor adjustments.

One does wonder why it is not possible to provide such generous SRP and fly supercarriers on the alliance payroll, in other areas of space. The income comes from somewhere.

You can shoot other players without CONCORD destroying you?

I find it hard to believe that 0.0 income is too low considering there's currently people who are willing to pay somebody else for the right to use 0.0 systems.

So, I have another idea.

You know how CBCs and Command Ships can fit links but never do? Perhaps only CBCs should be able to fit an Entosis Link. Would give them a purpose in life since they have had no purpose since 2013. They can also fit MMJDs. So bombers? What bombers? I just jumped away. Jumping does not break locks unless you jump out of locking range. vOv

edit: added CS

Meh. Large scale stability and stable logistic chains, along with the ability to swamp small enemies with the people they don't need for immediate self defense means that big coalitions are going to come out of this even better than the little guys.

When the bar is lowered to near 0 for taking system, the more force you can apply, the more space you can steamroll in a smaller amount of time.

LMAO so i looked you up. Your corp has 16 members. Hope... PRAY... we don't f'king run into you cause i'll SRP our entire fleet out of my own pocket if necessary to make you cry like the little renter ***** you are.

I just want to point out some basic killboard stats:

Buttecorp INC: Destroyed 2.19b
Lost: 3.26b


Blue-Fire: Destroyed 2.05t
Lost 690b


By the looks of it if we brought the fight you would get your s_hit pushed in as i would expect of any typical nullbear corp hiding behind a big alliance ticker.

https://zkillboard.com/corporation/911536135/
https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98122843/

Your are a small fish in a big pond with ***** envy.

And thus it begins.

As a (Hisec) merc, most, if not all, Nulsec entities always shrugged and sported dismissive comments on how mercs were not affecting them, only killing the Hisec bads/random nul ratters, depending where the mercs were operating from.

With the Entosis Ceptor, being cheap ships and with minimal risks, even scrub Hisec mercs can go down in nul and 'affect', read **** them off no end (the dream of any merc's client), said entities by trolling their Sov timers, yes.

While they can do squat to us, in our Hisec safety.

Thank you CCP, THANK YOU.

None of which matters when your roster of capable FCs amounts to around half a dozen dudes- maybe a dozen if you stretch it out to incorporate pubbie shitlords.

Can we all stop the phallic measurements and address the actual issues at hand?

You feel lucky punk? Well do you?

That's the spirit!

I don't care either way though - my point was that being forced to actually move out of a station and defend your structures in what might initially be a small scale fight - could well escalate and be fun for all ships and all sizes by the end :)

er mm have you checked the sov map lately? like northern associates?

Most people i know tried to use and like ESS but it was just too annoying to deal with so they quit using it and accepted being taxed 5% by CCP for living in the most dangerous space

Are you happy about the state of capital ships after the change?

First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).

Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.

that is not what an nda does

The problem with the Entosis trolling isn't that it cannot be countered. It can. The famous "trollceptor" can all be countered by a Rifter with a T1 Entosis link orbiting the structure at 5 km, freezing the timer.

The problem is that countering Entosis trolling is so boring gameplay that you'll wish you'd still be grinding stations in Drakes. Either a mobile group needs to run up and down in the region whacking moles, or every system needs to have guards who just do nothing (or mine/rat at the keyboard) for 4 hours and respond to the ping. If they fail, everyone yell at them because 2 days later 10 nodes needs to be captured. If they win every time, they spent 4 hours of their lives at the keyboard with a handful of trivial killmails.

Again: 4 hours of focused gameplay and practically no result. At least you could watch TV between reloads with the Drake.

The attacker should commit something worth killing, so the defenders - if did their job well - go home with a nice killboard.

One thing you didn't think about: Entosis trolling against a prepared defence is the same amount of boredom as defending against it; therefore they won't troll a prepared defence unless their objective is to break morale.

Why bother orbitting the same defended point for 4 hours when there's more than likely going to be some undefended ones elsewhere in null?

Why don't you escalate the fight?

It's only boring for the defender if the attacker wants them to be bored (and is willing to take the same boredom themself).

No wonder you like Gevlon for this proposal.

Oddly, as the TCU, IHUB and station are now all separate, you do not need to claim Sol to hold a system. Keep everyone else out with ships, just like if there was no Sov. Many have asked "Why claim Sov?" If you don't think there is a valid reason, then don't do it! Just occupy the system.

CFC has always overstated the effectiveness of Siege Fleets and the result on enemy (ie my bro's) morale. Ive never met anyone who was frustrated at siege fleet. We just thought it was lame.

Do you know what is annoying though? Having proposed a much better (yet similar) sov mechanic that would solve/ abate so much of this splurgethread and having not a single person in CCP acknowledge its existence :(

OK. Shows what I know about fitting. But remember, you cannot warp with a running Etonsis link. You have to wait for it to end its cycle. That makes the 2 second align a little less useful.

If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours.

On a single sov sure, but you cant be everywhere.

Exactly, why not, just for lols...then you realise that it's not very much lols orbitting something with a laser for 40 minutes and running away as soon as a defensive fleet shows up and stop doing it. Thanks for confirming.

What about the other 51 of the year?

And you were talking about doing this across the whole of the south, that's 40 minutes for every structure in the south of the map...

It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled.

And being a small alliance with a small area of operations, they're all still perfectly within range to come and deter him again...

Picture a wasp in a tiny one bedroom flat.

Now picture it in the Louvre.


That's the difference.

You've been trying to burn null for years.

and now picture a racoon in a yellow dress trying to sick a fish in the beehive

(no idea why, but i wonder how many ppl invisioned it)

From what im reading, the defenders actually have the advantage on uncontested nodes.

This thread is literally FULL of people **** scared of logging in and living in THEIR space.

It would be funny if it was not such a damning and tragic indictment of the state of sov null.

Yup, systems should support more people, that's fine.


There's a disgusting amount of pressure from certain areas to push this away as fast and as hard as possible. That alone tells me this is going in the right direction. The outrage that people might have to DEFEND what they OWN for a mere 4 hours per day at a time of THEIR choosing is disgusting.

The large sprawling entities have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - stay on the path, CCP.

I support these changes +1.

Change is good...

You'd end up with an Australia that nobody touches.

For those who are claiming they will take over half the galaxy in 40 minutes with their swarms of interceptors; what are your plans for protecting your space while you are away? Do you honestly think no one will do the same thing to you?

I have faith your pilots will learn how to use more than just the F1 key.

The same tears were spilled over the jump fatigue mechanic and that change has proven to be very healthy for the game as a whole, despite the vocal minority who relied so heavily on teleporation to do even the most basic things in the game.

the 30 day fatigue timer still sucks balls for those who dont pay attention, it really needs to be capped at a week max

And again for all the Interceptors doomsayers. If you live in system, you just undock a SINGLE MARAUDER or carrier and putyour own entosis link to counter it. A bunch of interceptors will NOT kill you, and if then the fight escalates... that is exaclty what this system is supposed to create.

Given EVE players abilities to use the mechanics differently than ccp envisioned there can be no foolproof system. But more risktaking without huge consequences and burning out alliance doers is a huge step in the right direction. It is also quite different to hold a small area, like a constellation, in comparison to holding multiple regions. This alone would reduce the stress levels of alliance leadership and burnout factor for us groups that dont have multiple redundancies in alliance leadership.

Tl;dr work to achieve great things, not to stop them.

You are assuming that people don't know what the Goons are like, we do, which is why the first step is to plant a TCU next to a POS and troll you back, we know you don't want to hold that sov. And as the siphons proved you do get bored, and of course many people will be doing it to you, so many people from hisec could for example get into an interceptor and do this to get back at you, many won't but some might.

EDIT: And for good measure I don't ever expect to be able to put an IHUB in, but that is not the point is it...

There is truth in what you say, but you may have noticed, a subtle change is occuring. CCP have moved away from promoting the "antisocial" behaviour, into a new path of giving us the tools to build our own universe and interactions, and seeing what we build.

Whilst short term the results may look the same, in reality, there is a change starting to ripple across, and I believe that the more extreme will begin to be shunned and isolated, by US, not by CCP and withering away to background noise.

Without the spotlight, and reviled by most, they lose the "oxygen" of attention and like spoilt toddlers, grow up. And become part of the community.

Capturing claim require doing something. :)
People ready to alarmclock for important things. People don't like to alarmclocking for grief.

Still not said anywhere that an interceptor can fit an Entosis module

see


Nothing is set in stone and no, the world is not ending.

And the thing stopping you from grinding literally everything with stealth bombers right here and now is?

Then why I see a half of galaxy not owned by CFC? :) Easy to hit, hard to hold.

I agree, but it think its more discourteous than disingenuous. He doesn't outright say it but i think it's clear that's what hes hinting at. He should have just put the fears to bed now instead of waiting. A simple "links wont fit on inties" would have been better.

What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :)

Defence is perfectly feasable if you live in system, however if you wish to hold large areas of space, and intend to defend it by helicoptering in support from elsewhere, far from the attack, within your closed borders?

Well then, I guess you are pretty much screwed.

Make Sov bonuses only apply during your primetime period = US tz players won't be able to use EU tz alliances sov effectively.

I amended that afterwards :)

'unless they extend the primetime period to cover both groups playtime'




edit: I kinda like the risk/reward of that actually: Adjusting your primetime length affects your income potential but also makes you more vulnerable for longer periods and requires more defence. Depends on what the sov bonuses are changed to though.

I'll just hazard a guess that those R64 POS are complete deathstars set to shoot on sight absolutely everyone and only 2 people ever have the password... if it's not like that then you're probably doing something wrong...

amirite?

I don't get any of it.

The one responsible for the sorry state of hisec speaks up.
I hope you never get elected again.

I've set a POS to kill anything on grid that's not inside it before - just thought you'd do that because of siphon units tbh - could easily be disabled in the case that you need to rep it.

Well, Mike is hardly responsible for the development timetable. Possibly after CCP have spent their time on Nullsec, and hopefully you have a vibrant alive space, where you have control of your own destiny and future, they can move onto hisec.

Hopefully they can achieve that there too once the development time is free to do that.

And As Mike has a reputation as a reasonable and thoughtful man, he will be able to apply his talents.
I wish him success with CSM voting, and hope he is available for that job, and it is a Job, unpaid, and his efforts and work are appreciated by some, hopefully many.

Honest question... when was the last time an R64 moon was a conflict driver? You have the OTECH and other agreements by the big 3. AFAIK there have not been any major battles over moon goo in YEARS

Hell not that along ago i was syphoning from a goon r64 that had no guns on it.

CCP must make that scale of fat entities unmanageable by nerfing jump fatigue for logistic again (forcing localized industry and localized market) and reducing the alliance size on the map with exponential sov fee.

Outposts must be destroyable.

Cancer?

The perpetual motion law.

There is no cure for cancer, no one has ever successfully invaded Russia during winter, and perpetual motion is physically impossible.

And if you don't pay a monthly fee...lets call it RENT even if we know it's actually 'extortion'...

The stations are only Freeport for a 48 hour period. Unless you expect the new owners to set it as a Freeport and also assume that the established alliances will let it remain as such.

The entosis mod should only be able to be fitted to command ships or at a minimum battle cruisers. They have the command and control suites as well so it makes sense from a role-play perspective as well.

This makes the attacker commit to at least having a semi-serious fleet(s) while keeping the costs of mounting an attack fairly reasonable.

The idea of interceptor fleets running around griefing all day every day seems a bit ridiculous.

They already said they were going to make it take longer on caps, I think 400% as long was the number floated. But why would you have it capture faster in a dread and capture slower in a carrier/super/titan?

Fountain had an endgame, a light at the end of the tunnel. That will no longer be the case, you'll have to constantly beat down people who contest your ownership of the whole of nullsec, assuming you actually manage to capture as much space as your alliance seems to think it can.

If it really gets that bad, just obscene fitting reqs on the T2 version = trollceptors now have to orbit within web scram range and can't warp off for 5 minute cycles = lots and lots more dead interceptors

Well at least the broken record piping out of the propoganda machine has skipped onto a new track.

So we're now onto trolled up T3s....let me guess...you'll threaten to do this with absolutely anything that can't be bubbled to try and change the mechanic which makes all your desolate backyards vulnerable before we get a chance to see it?

Not transparent at all.

A few side thoughts

The scorpion and the frog parable is nice . . . but do you recall the fate of both of them?

One more change, if you please. Add moon miners to the list of POS structures that you need sov to operate in non-npc 0.0. Then, you're golden.

I thought it was obvious. More reasons to fight = good. As it stands now, you need a super-cap fleet to threaten an R-64, and the coalitions can always bring a bigger one. Make moon mining (in sov space) dependent on an iHub upgrade, and make the yield dependent on the index. It will make the systems that they are in a constant target.

Anything that will force fights is a good thing.

Passive moon mining is probably the biggest single mistake that the designers of Eve made. It probably should go away entirely in favor of active mining of T2 resources, but this would at least put these at risk. They aren't under any significant risk now.

Guys? Is this Tamirr fellow posting sarcastically or did the Goons let him loose on the forums too early?

New use for the rorqual?

And yet, look at the map. Stasis through mutually assured destruction. The changes that you are talking about did not change the status quo, and aren't likely to do so.

My bias is against stasis. In the world, order and stability is good. In a game, it's death. Eve has been around a long time now, especially for an MMO that is PvP based. Games like that usually succumb to "mudflation" eventually. Right now, you could fit the people who actually control the direction of 0.0 in a minivan, and half of those seldom if ever actually play the game. They just own the game.

From CCPs perspective, they have to look at hard data. Participation which grew for years, is falling now, post "blue donut". They need to do something, and that something needs to be radical enough that it causes the big power blocs to bleed numbers to smaller, more nimble entities who engage in meaningful fights more often.

I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it.

Quite an interesting point when you look at it. Why bother taking a small bit of sov in the big boys sandpit when you can lock yourself away in wspace and get 99% of the same end result.

I guess it's not mindless enough for the drones nor ego-pumping enough for the dictators.

True I apologise for my snark - but when I first moved into wspace with my first corp it was our way of 'owning' a small part of eve and far more feasible than trying to do the same in null without having to rent / swear allegiance to a larger group.

So I guess my snarkless point is: What's in it for a small group to move to null instead of a little C-hole?

That's what Cyvok thought. Maybe before your time. What threatens strength in numbers is losing the numbers. Strength in numbers feeds on itself. It's not hard to envision changes that would threaten numbers. They would be changes that make it more fun to attack a big coalition than it is to be in one. These changes certainly move in that direction.

So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?

Does this plan address the goals properly?

m

It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through.

I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok?