Why not make the vulnerability slot dependent on the size of the defending alliance? We want smaller parties to have a stake in null and doing their thing. To make the place more vibrant and bustling with activity. Smaller entities should have a smaller vulnerability slot than larger entities imo.

I just read this as nerf incursions and rightly so, CCP is always aiming for risk vs reward as such any high sec activity may not yield as much as a reward as the low or null sec variant of said activity.

In order to pull this off, null sec will need a serious injection of industry minded people. Current high sec industrialists will need a good incentive to move to null and the main way to do it is by upholding the holy rule "Risk vs Reward" since producing and mining in high sec is relatively risk free, the yields should be lower than mining in low/null sec. I'm naming mining now but the same should apply over the complete industrial palette.

@CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.

This could work

Yes and no, an alliance of 10 can't defend more than 10 positions which means 5 systems. All the others can be attacked and as such it isn't a feasible exploit

True, in general most people tend to think in "nerf one" rather than "buff all other". Either way it needs to be dealt with.

It looks unbalanced to me. If I invest 12-42 minutes of my time I can send the defender on a goose chase taking them 10x12 minutes of player time. Lots of timers will be created especially in border regions. Many IHubs and TCUs will be destroyed because defenders will burn out, not necessarily because defenders lose fights.

If I get disrupted my capture will only be paused and I can come back later to finish (in reduced time). Capture progress should be reset at the end of the vulnerability window.

I don't see much need to have both IHubs and TCUs. With their roles degraded I think it would be better to consolidate them into a single structure. Having both just increases the grind.

you say that it would be more beneficial to the little guy taking sov ( i don't see this as system is undersieged its about the blob recent mechanics its not about the skill sets its about numbers)

the freeport idea is ok to a degree however a defending force with a lower player base(aka the little guy) vs a coalition such as n3 or cfc has no chance and can lose that system in a matter of hours - suggest having a draw back here to stop alliances moving the entire fleet in and hell camping the station. giving the attackers the advantage

stop alliances having the timer 2 hrs before dt and two hrs after dt - that way they have to be active and cannot take advantage of any extra down time.

I have a question. Can a gang apply several entosis links, one to each station service at same time?

The only point that I find disturbing is the concept of prime time. Why? Because you could have a coalition of a specific timezone ( you know very well what country I am talking about) become invulnerable by simply gathering all major forces that speak their own idiom/live in a certain timezone.

That is not easy to solv. But I hope someone might have a good idea on how to tackle that. Something as for example, the LONGER the constellation is stable (that means no one takes anythign from the owner there) the larger the prime time period becomes. SO if you have held stuff for 1 year with nothing contesting you. Your prime time window could be widened to 6 hours... Why ? Just a reaction to a clear state of near invulnerability, that opens up more chances.

Yup that might work as well. But I hope CCP stops and thinks a bit about it. Otherwise I predict a null sec fragmentation by idiom/timezone, because the most powerful tool of defense will be: simply have 50% + of the players on your timezone. And coalitions WILL PUSH FOR IT, as they have pushed for every gap on history of eve.

Is it only me that felt that groups like reavers also kind of broke SOV when they could take SOV or at least disturb SOV with only 10 people in one system. And now you say 1 guy with a Entosis Link can disturb sov for a whole alliance.

You know you could be onto something here. Another idea is to make "Your most active timezone" scale able to the amount of systems/constellations your alliance/corp holds. e.g. Alliance is across 10 systems, 2 constellations = 1.02 mulitplyer of additional active timezone. Make the amount of systems you hold directly related to the length of your vulnerability.

They will bring enough for the first timer. On the second timer they will dump 250 on your station and have some 50-100 ceptors capture the nodes. With the current version taking an entire constellation will be extremely easy.

Feel like a lazy way to get around it, and easy solution and the low skill point requierment is a minus in my eyes. I can't say this enought but null sec is not ment for everyon, people who have spent years in null build up a good amount of SP and ships you can't use in High Sec.

The idea that people can harass alliances to respond to one simple ship activating his Entosis Link on their structures is just to simple.

We already have have a modual that until recently was only used in null the Doomsday find a way to make it usefull in sov warfare instead of this Entosis Link. I'm cool if people have to risk titans to take systems fast, but risk a 100 mill ship is just to simple for null.

If you are able to camp them in, it does not matter if its 1 or 5 constellation. You dont need, dreads, supers or huge amount of dps to grind the structure. Just 20-50 ceptors to grap 10 points.

It's not about being old it's about attacking a system should mean comidment, risking 100 mill is not comidment. Low SP characters are still usefull in null just look at your own celestis fleet., it's just that the same person who can only fly one cruisers shouldn't have same power as a 50 mill SP character when it comes to flipping systems. Null is or was looked at as the end game, where people would go after familiraze with how the game works.

SO fare there is no CD on this, carriers have a 1 hour CD after every jumpe tank to Jumpe Fatugie while this Link can run next door and start over again, every min he can change system or have alt run the link on the other side of the constelation for 4 hours he can change system to try to capture it, The next 20 hours he can harrass other functions in the system. I don't think many people are intrested in playing Cat and Mouse everyday.

Most supers and titans are in null, they need to be made usefull. Making Doomsday into a kind of Link instead is a more comidtemnt to taking sov.

Yes! You will still have a defensive timer that anyone can show up too. 100 titans alone can't kill any sub cap. The game is not supposed to be fair, noobs are not supposed to be able to do the same as a long time veteran.

I don't see why thinking someone with 50 mill SP can do more than someone with 5 mill SP is a fals way of thinking. It's all there in the numbers

My ground argument is Doomsday should be able to to speed up structor grind., not a Link that can be used by a 2 mill SP character.

Linking a ship that takes 30 min to build and cost 100 mill to take sov is even a worse idea.

Ummm Yes.

No pritty sure im right.

Thanks for explaining what hardcore is? Taking time and effort to earn your space, not just activate a Entosis Link, but put efforts and guns into it.

Pretty sure that you missed the point, look at brave they are comidet to their sov they hold it at all cost. They are low sp but they put effort in and time = hardcore...

This is hilarious.

I have visions of 500 shitfit interceptors orbiting at stupidkm/s and a single defender linking the target and the inty FC foaming at the mouth over why it wont count down.

Also, all these hilarious fits - missile speed rigged golem/raven says hello. Even at a a mighty 10-20dps it'll wear them down.

-The wrong 'focus' (it's like it's trying to turn null sec , which is organized fleet space, into low sec, which is small gang space, CCP doesn't seem to understand that many null sec types are 'soldier' personalities that tent to like big fleets rather than the 'gladiator/pugilist' personalities that inhabit wormhole and low sec space and like small gangs and solo)

-Really bad assumptions about what people want (even in a video game, people, especially null people, don't want 'fun' and 'lots of fights' they want power)

-Not seeming to learn from the past (I'm being totally honest when i say the language used in this dev blog reminds me of Dominion)

If that sounds familiar, it should....

It's not about maintaining the status quo. It's about wanting to not be on the same Merry Go round for another 6 years.

Yes, I have. Every single post.

What "visceral brawls" have you ever had with or against Interceptors? Its tedious bug-hunting of cowards who do not want, and absolutely wont give you a fight. You form up, spend half an hour getting to them, and then they are gone in apuff of smoke. No fight, no kills, no point. It will be a miserable, soul-destroying existance.

This prove my point. Fun "for you" maybe. But for tohers (like me), that set time is useful. Mainly because "honey, do you need me to do anything? I got a fleet in an hour" lol. fun for me is being able to play without a ticked of female clinging to my back like the Banshee.

I never had that small gang, casual, quick fight mentality and never will. EVe already has multiple spaces for that (NPC null, low sec, wormhole space), trying to make null do that is a mistake.

i heard that all thetime in 2009. People were so tired of pos grinding that Dominion sounded like a good deal.

It's like Battlestar Galactica. "This has happened before, it will happen again" lol.

If you see a way in which it can, however, now'll be a good time to point out specifics.

The opposite will probably happen. Stuffing people into a system work and spawned mega-coalitions. Now you need to do that in multiple systems at once. The best way to do that is HAVE A SUPER-MEGA COALITION lol.

It's because of a facet of human nature. People mistakenly believe human nature is about fighting. It's not, it's about surviving and succeeding, fighting is just a tool, like cooperation and politics. If cooperation offers more benefits that conflict, people cooperate, which is why changes CCP thought would create more conflict created more PEACE instead.

It's basically a corollary of Malcanis' law, the more you try to break up the big groups, the more reason the big groups have to exist.

If the past is any kind of predictor, This will be the same (bookmark this post so we can talk about it in July).

I'm sorry to inform you - but everything is already set in stone. There will not be any re-thinking. All you can hope for - is tweaking the specifics like minutes of cycle and power grid requirements.
That's how agile development works. The sprints for conceptual designing has already run. The salaries were payed. Get your 3.0 version and enjoy it for the next 10 years.

People rent because they don't have a supercap fleet to grind down structures or defend themselves when they get welped. The current sov mechanics vastly favors alliances with large capital fleets who are able to grind structures very quickly.

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

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

Prime time is not good as it is, I agree - I've liked the suggestions for spreading out primetime over longer periods as an alliance grows - either on a system by system basis or on a base member count for the whole alliance maybe upto 16 or even a full 24 hours - whilst still keeping it small and manageable for a small alliance to guard their handful of systems.

Precisely, it's no surprise that they're being hyped up as gamebreaking by TMC and on this thread - it's because goons don't want them to threaten their sprawl and want to get rid of them now.

Again, an empire of APPROPRIATE SIZE will give zero craps about this.

Funny that.

Endlessly... for four hours in the actual space you're actively using anyways.


Oh look here's one of them, surprisingly you don't like the idea of them either and try to disparage my remarks rather than dealing with the fact that the obvious counter is pretty much ANYTHING in the game sitting at zero and running a defensive link. You could probably do it with a rorqual whilst boosting your mining fleet if you really want to bait them into an actual fight

So much cap so little understanding on how it will be done. If I can bring 1k ppl and you can bring 300. You are ****** from the start. 300 on the undock and another 700 ppl dicking around capping nodes.

Would be a good option, if we happend to be the same 4 hour time window. But lets just say we were, then it would be a godd option.

So what we end up with here is sov warfare like old days - He with the most pos's takes sov, except the pos's have become nodes.
Talk about recycling bad ideas.

- - - - - - - - -
Constellation based sov warfare is a terribly bad idea no matter what objectives are put in place.
If these changes are meant to open up opportunities for smaller groups to take and hold sov, making it constellation based rules out most smaller groups from taking or holding sov.

- - - - - - - - -
Is only realistic as long as there isn't a large group within range to hammer the small group into giving up on trying to take sov.
Day 1, 25 mins, went well, got scouted but no attackers.
Day 2, 8 mins in 100 man fleet arrives
Day 3, start again, no or little opposition
Day 4, large fleet arrives
Day 5, screw it not wasting more time on a lose lose position

I completely agree with you.. I just hope CCP can see the problem too.
Small groups will only ever take and hold sov at the behest of the controlling large coalitions.

I do of course recognise all the other entities that like having fun, you are not the only ones, but if you come to troll and only find a TCU next to a death star who is trolling who?

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

Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will.

Considering you made a point about banning them on your treaty with PL means that they were indeed up to level of creating that conflict.

Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage.

Yes but the point I'm making is this is the ENTIRE reason behind the division of "sides" in the links. To FORCE the OWNERS to take action, to be unable to rely on "blues" for the whole thing.

It also opens interesting tactical possibilities insofar as the attackers can primary a single alliance to try and get a timer to extend by breaking the links.

You mean like how defenders still need to take action against an RF item, even if it is uncontested?

They are. That's why the attacker is dead.

I have still not seen a reason why you think the attacker's influence should remain even after they totally failed a reinforce attempts.




That's actually exactly what you're asking them to do. Either defend the TCU 24/7, or come back for four hours per structure every day forever.

Null is kind of supposed to be the end game, where dose people who have played this game for so long have to go to get away from the frigate game. SP should acually count for something, CCPs idea that newbro should be able to take sov is backwards. If you want to fly small gang pvp go do FW not null sec.

it does not require the whole of goonswarm federation to contest someone else's sov

we send EUTZ to go wreck nerds and leave USTZ home to defend

easy peasy

All this threat of goons being able to troll the whole of nullsec is them simply showing their fear that they won't be able to drop their whole blob across every single one of their systems in defence and will have to split up into multiple locally based groups to protect their key areas from spawning 10n command points every couple of days.

Awwww, poor you and your 40,000+ goonie friends can't defend your "investment" in your prime time from me and my lil' old 'ceptor. If you are not prepared to defend your broad swathes of unoccupied sov then maybe you shouldn't be in null sec and should consider a much larger tactical withdrawal?

This whole comments thread really has brought out the nullbears and their self entitlement philosophy. I'm hoping CCP stay the course with these changes, and go even further, as you are all in need of the HTFU medicine.

If anyone is willing to actually post an uptodate value on those R32s and R64s by the way, just so we know how much income is never seen by the line members of those 40k strong alliances in this poor nullsec that we keep hearing about I'd love to hear it :)

I hazarded a guess at 7 trillion/month for just R64s across the whole of nullsec based on data a few years old... completely passively going into alliance pools without any industry indices or ships required in space (aside from a quick blockade runner)

Ye, he said 5b/month for dyspro but then said the others were worthless but then said all the money was in R64's and cadmium....

So absolutely no clue what the final answer was (dyspro is an R64 yet he kinda sounded like he thought it wasn't, cadmium's a lowly R16 and there's a shedload of them)

Thanks for the help though, you've been incredibly useful

That's a LOT of iskies in moon goo that most line members never get to touch.

Or that people fight on ESSes, or even... the sun

You think the new sov mechanics look fun?
I fear for the future of Eve.

- - - - - - - - -
Mini games have NO place in sov wars.

You're quoting the person that I was quoting as me.

In any case, I wasn't around back then. I don't actually know much about how pre-Dominion sov worked. I started playing just a few weeks before Incarna, and only got involved in sov warfare just before Inferno.

It was a way to drive the logistical ppl crazy.

But the system scaled.

From Super pilots to burned out nullsec players getting fed up with constand defence fleets day in day out.