I like this man.

And you seem to assume no one will be attacking all the empty space you leave behind. The more you take the wider spread you get, the easier it is to just take what ever you eventually decide is not worth defending.

I get how strong CFC is, and in the short term how much chaos can be inflicted. But sooner or later you will start acting rationally.

Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on.

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.

I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho.

Cap escalation will still be a thing - if you end up pitting two subcap fleets against each other, eventually triage becomes a valid tactic which then means you might want dreads on grid which then means you might want supers on.

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.

I'm sure CCP can tie some lore into the command points as required. It's better to have good mechanics and then write a story around those then have crap mechanics because the original lore didn't fit imho.

i just read the whole thing again, and i have to say it sounds and looks very very complicated. I thought CCP was trying to get away from complicated. Looks like its been thought about a little too much and made way over complicated.

Also why do we never hear from CCP Seagull on anything?

This seat isn't cheap, it costs $15 per month. You know how many starving children that could have fed?

I had the same response as Rena: the Command Node thing is very gamey, it has no logic to support it. Give us something we can begin to believe in.

This discourages me from having a lot of assets and market inventory in null. I can only imagine what major industrialists and cap/supercap owners are feeling.

The range of the entosis link needs to be short to ensure fights. We don't want kitey uncatchable entosisers as well as cloaky afk campers do we?

Well lets hope so... but they would need to do it en masse, rather one by one because what will happen is the coalition will lhotdrop kick them out and then put someone back in, and tell them to behave or else. You know the usual stuff, if you don't do as we tell you we will destroy you trick, which usually works for the weak. The threat is usually enough to keep people on side.

Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.

Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.

At least we agree on "prime time".
As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day.

If only CCP would invest the time it took to write this blog, never mind come up with all the sov changes, into updating missions they would get a lot more toons playing....... This is the newest gift to nullbears, among a long list of gifts over the years, to only get a, BWWWAAAAAA that is not what we wanted thread.

In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced."

It doesnt work like this. Let me explain.
Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B".
Weaponized boredom, as thay called it.

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.

Personally i think the whole prime time idea is ridiculous. The system should be vulnerable anytime of the day. It just gives more of an advantage to the defenders especially large alliances to out blob anyone who tries to do anything in their prime time. I hate this idea.

It doesnt work like this. Let me explain.
Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B".
Weaponized boredom, as thay called it.

But then you have the counterpart to "weaponized boredom," which is forcing someone to log in and fleet up at 3am their time.

Another note.

This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.

Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.