EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

Quote:

13. Spamming is prohibited.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to [insert other game name]GÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post, or the practice of GÇ£thread necromancyGÇ¥ which involved bumping of old threads for no justifiable reason.

Total Newbie wrote:

2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.

Total Newbie wrote:

This is why Devs should have adult supervision.

To recap:

1st phase we made it impossible to project force.

2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.

Gilbaron wrote:

The first thing going that jumps to my mind is that defensive bonuses should be based on long term data, so that nobody calls for a mining or ratting cta to make a system harder to capture.

Total Newbie wrote:

This is why Devs should have adult supervision.

To recap:

1st phase we made it impossible to project force.

2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.

Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:

If you think Reavers were bad... you just made it very hard for any casual alliance to hold sov in the face of a dedicated core of folks from one of the blocs dropping sov simply to grief.

Remember that larger alliances have the ability to organize and sustain action better than most smaller ones. One outcome of these changes may very well be large areas of wasteland that is regularly mowed of sov 'just cause'.

Karbowiak wrote:

Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? Shocked

Karbowiak wrote:

Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? Shocked

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

Karbowiak wrote:

Am i the only one wishing that we'd get the old pos warfare sov system back? Shocked

no, i liked that and it was significantly better in a lot of ways than this or dominion

it was completely broken by AOE doomsdays protecting cynojammers, but that's gotten fixed, and fuel blocks exist now

Total Newbie wrote:

2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon.

JohnMonty wrote:

"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"

Best line in the whole thing lol

Rowells wrote:

are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2?

Aryndel Vyst wrote:

JohnMonty wrote:

"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"

Best line in the whole thing lol

Except ~~~~~~jump fatigue~~~~~ aka ~~~~~emergent gameplay~~~~~

Aryndel Vyst wrote:

CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?

Thanks.

Yours in christ,

Aryndel Vyst
Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics
Goonswarm Federation

CCP Phantom wrote:

Rowells wrote:

are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2?

Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons.

CCP Phantom wrote:

Rowells wrote:

are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2?

Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons.

CCP Phantom wrote:

While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul.

We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including:
1) No more grinding through hitpoints
2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation
3) Space activity results in defensive bonus
4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable

Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two!

GOB the Magician wrote:

Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this.

Tiberian Deci wrote:

GOB the Magician wrote:

Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this.

I can think of several:

You enjoy living there
You enjoy living with the people there you live with
You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby

If that isn't the case for you maybe you're better of in highsec. Or renting.

CCP Phantom wrote:

Rowells wrote:

are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2?

Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons.

Angry Mustache wrote:

Allright guys, since they literally have an AFK cloaker in every one of our systems, we can't rat/min to build indicies.

directorbot: RATTING/MINING CTA @ 2100, Ishtars>tengus>ravens>skiffs

*** This was a broadcast from the_mittani to all-all at 2014-10-25 04:55:57.479999 EVE, replies are not monitored ****

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

i just checked, literally the only people praising this design are people in npc corps

Primary This Rifter wrote:

CCP Phantom wrote:

Rowells wrote:

are those numbers for entosis module right? 20km for T1 and 25okm for T2?

Yes, that are the numbers right now ... but as the blog says, everything is still in an early stage and we love to hear your feedback and reasons.

I cannot even give you proper feedback and reasons because I'm too angry to articulate my thoughts.

Greygal wrote:

3. DETEST the "prime time" concept. Will expand more after I cool off over reading that, but it's pretty much screwed any advantage of having Australian-time-zone strong corps in nullsec. This gives HUGE advantage to the existing blocs. It also takes away any chance of small groups that are active in opponent's low-activity time zones the possibility of attacking and taking over someone else's sov. It takes away any opportunity for two large groups that are not in the same time zone to ever fight on a meaningful level.

Angry Mustache wrote:

What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours?

Aryndel Vyst wrote:

Tiberian Deci wrote:

GOB the Magician wrote:

Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this.

You're not allowed to say these things unless you've actually taken sov on your own, or been able to defend sov from someone else.

Andrea Keuvo wrote:

Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now.

Two step wrote:

like for example is a reward rebalance even planned?

Tiberian Deci wrote:

We fought off PL for a month instead of negotiating a NIP with them, does that count?

Vigilanta wrote:

also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility?

Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:

Vigilanta wrote:

also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility?

Get some brick-tanked Hictors with those links on the command nodes backed up by some cruisers with good tracking.

Tiberian Deci wrote:

Andrea Keuvo wrote:

Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up.

Two step wrote:

It seems like this approach is reasonable, though the proposed timers seem really short to me.

I do wonder about doing things like this without also proving some incentive to actually hold sov at the same time (or before the sov mechanics changes). At the very least, CCP should be publishing a little more future roadmap details, like for example is a reward rebalance even planned?

Baneken wrote:

That flashing crap under the first paragraph was so incredibly annoying that I had kill it with ad-block; since human eye is hard-wired to attract on flashy moving things do you have any idea how incredibly annoying it was to even attempt to read that text with that thing constantly whirling and flashing on screen ?

Aiwha wrote:

Can we just bring back the POS grind? I miss the POS grind. Lets just go with POS grind and call it even.

iP0D wrote:

Also, it's absolutely ironic to see what spills over now and from where. Advocate stakeholders hurray.

Anhenka wrote:

As a US player in a alliance slanted towards EU for active players, I would just like to say:

"Thanks CCP for stripping me of opportunity to participate in defensive timers for my alliance, now I can instead just sit around and leech off my alliance without having any chance or obligation in participating in defense OTHER THAN RATTING IN DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS"

It's so refreshing to know that not only will I never be around to stop an enemy from fighting for the initial timer, but that 100% of the time, it will always come out in a period of time I won't be there for.

Thanks CCP!

Red Teufel wrote:

Anhenka wrote:

Good news for you is that I can assume it will be like poco bashing. This also only involves sov not PoS's. And hey even better news maybe you should break away from your blob and form your own group.

Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:

Tiberian Deci wrote:

Andrea Keuvo wrote:

Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up.

They said the ship can't receive remote assistance while it's active. I assume that'll be the same as triage, siege and bastion.

Godfrey Silvarna wrote:

I kinda like the sound of things, with condition it is actually well implemented in the end.

I also like the goon tears. Hearing a lot of excited murmur from smaller PvP entities.

After this, there might actually be something to shoot at when roaming in nullsec.

Dev Blog wrote:

In the new Sovereignty, systems full of active occupants will be vastly easier to defend and control than abandoned ones, bustling empires with a variety of activities will be stronger than AFK ones, and disrupting your enemies everyday activities in their space will help you gain advantages both strategic and economic. More details on how we intend to begin achieving this goal will be discussed later in this blog.

Quote:

Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.

Andrea Keuvo wrote:

Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:

Tiberian Deci wrote:

Andrea Keuvo wrote:

Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up.

They said the ship can't receive remote assistance while it's active. I assume that'll be the same as triage, siege and bastion.

I think the idea was that when the Entosis link is active you would become ewar immune similar to how you are in triage/siege/bastion.

Anhenka wrote:

RogueHunteer wrote:

Must say this new systems looks nice and new sov system will make lot of have fun pew pew! nice job ccp!
Few things I would like to maybe change on this idea is fact you place to much on IHUB and not lot of the TCU.

I was hoping the TCU would effect the strategic index levels. Since you place the 25% fuel saving with the TCU.
Let TCU control the strategic index levels for the STARBASES.
Let the IHUB control the upgrades for system.
Station is worth on it's own!

Gypsien Agittain wrote:

Almost forgot that:

/when/
Fatigue + constellation-wide sovops=1
Capitalshipsvalue=0

Just for you to know.

Airi Cho wrote:

Gypsien Agittain wrote:

Almost forgot that:

/when/
Fatigue + constellation-wide sovops=1
Capitalshipsvalue=0

Just for you to know.

Can use gates

ISD Rontea wrote:

Change SBU BPO to Ensotis link BPO. Is this possible?

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon.

Angry Mustache wrote:

Here's an idea, what if they were battleships only.

It would give battleships a reason to be flown, and not make sov into a giant game of "catch the ceptor"

MiliasColds wrote:

a note for out of timezone players (from declared prime time)

you still raise indices which makes things easier to defend.
you can still help with capture events that are ongoing past prime time.
you can be useful attacking other alliances whose prime time aligns with your TZ
you can assist allies
you can contribute to general logistics
you can attrack and reinforces POS and stations services

doesn't seem like nothing to me

Speedkermit Damo wrote:

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon.

Tell us exactly how it's any different now?

Cheyennes wrote:

MiliasColds wrote:

In other words, you are relegated to all the crap work, while the rest of eve enjoys PvP..... No thanks

Speedkermit Damo wrote:

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon.

Tell us exactly how it's any different now?

Proton Stars wrote:

well i've no reason to have my 0.0 characters anymore. I can sell my isk making toons and be a super rich frigate pilot and save -ú70 a month on accounts, so good on that respect.

Bad because there will be no narrative to the combat in 0.0, its become world of tanks in space with lots of not really connected instance fights that will be between frigates and ships not really worth hunting. Im glad that CCp kept with its tradition of not actually thinking about the value of gameplay and instead decided that a t1 frigate must be able to do everything

Primary This Rifter wrote:

iP0D wrote:

Also, it's absolutely ironic to see what spills over now and from where. Advocate stakeholders hurray.

At this point I feel like I should just tag every CSM and ex-CSM member with "shill".

MiliasColds wrote:

Cheyennes wrote:

MiliasColds wrote:

In other words, you are relegated to all the crap work, while the rest of eve enjoys PvP..... No thanks

none of those things are PVP immune......

Coelomate wrote:

Looks like an amazing start, although waiting for June killed a little bit of my joy.

My first major concern: The measurement of occupancy looks like it just takes the current system, which as far as I know means no credit for PVP or market activity - two things that actually happen in heavily occupied nullsec.

Baneken wrote:

Gypsien Agittain wrote:

Proton Stars wrote:

And frigate pilots will fly to Elite Dangerous and Scam Citizen, and when they want to attract people back to the game with capital ships, what bringed most of the player base to EVE, it'd be too late.

2Sonas1Cup wrote:

I trully love this change, I can tell how much dynamic and activity it ill bring to eve.

Obviously not everyone can understand it, especially old vets that are accostumed to an easier way of eve.

Primary This Rifter wrote:

"Incentives? What are those?"

2Sonas1Cup wrote:

I trully love this change, I can tell how much dynamic and activity it ill bring to eve.

Obviously not everyone can understand it, especially old vets that are accostumed to an easier way of eve.

Two step wrote:

Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:

1) Expand the window to 8 hours
2) If you pick a 4 hour window, you also get a 2 hour window 10 hours from the end of your chosen window. This would mean that a US TZ window would have an opposite time that would be RUS friendly and an EU window would have AUS friendly times.

Two step wrote:

Altrue wrote:

The bad stuff:
[list]

Yay! Brave Collective will pick an US timezone and thanks to your new system, ensure that EU and AU get no chances to defend their space EVER. At least, with the current system we had the opportunity to actively prevent the first attack... Ugh

Now all is left is the defense of station services, very exciting.

the sargent wrote:

It's funny, everyone tells CCP they want a occupancy based SOV system. When CCP comes up with a system that takes the basic concept of "occupancy" and uses it as a mechanic everyone start whining about how it will ruin everything. Seriously guys calm down if it doesn't work out guess what? it will be fixed in a couple of months because of the shorter release schedule. Give the system a chance first before going "IT'S THE END!"

I mean seriously every time CCP changes something to do will null sec its "the end of null sec as we know it," and yes that is true but just because it's the end of one system doesn't mean the new system is going to be complete trash.

Damn, sorry for the minor wall of text.

the sargent wrote:

Rowells wrote:

ok before anyone else freekin says it, point me to the damn ceptor that can target out to 250km.

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

we have to create a strategic mining division to protect important systems are you ******* kidding me

nullsec mining has been broken for ages, go look at the price of mega and zyd and then think about why on earth mining should play a role here

Ned Thomas wrote:

Rowells wrote:

ok before anyone else freekin says it, point me to the damn ceptor that can target out to 250km.

Most I can get on a Crow is 162km, and that Crow would die to a mildly equipped house fly.

Jack Haydn wrote:

So you fortified the need for even bigger coalition building. The one who can field the most players in fast, agile ships is the one who can lock down the most systems (for either attack or defense) and run the most concurrent RFs or Command Node takeovers.

If you're a small timer, you'll get crushed by the coalitions who will always have more people available to chase and cockblock you, all while running their own Entosii in the meantime.

Pretty chastening.

W Sherman Elric wrote:

[quote=Two step]Suggestions for addressing the timezone issues:

yuk oh boy lets make this eu only alliance alarm clock for an AU TZ, not all alliances have strong presence in all three TZ's

Anhenka wrote:

Is the solution to just "go find another alliance"?

Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:

Remember that larger alliances have the ability to organize and sustain action better than most smaller ones. One outcome of these changes may very well be large areas of wasteland that is regularly mowed of sov 'just cause'.

Proton Stars wrote:

why are sov bears not shooting everything in jita yet?

knobber Jobbler wrote:

So CCP, you've not really addressed the incentives for holding Sov, simply fighting for the sake of it isn't a proper conflict driver: see the rather dull area of EVE call nullsec.

It's a start I guess but:

Prime Time thing is a terrible idea, you'll see alliances start to lose their multinational flavour. If GSF sets prime time to US, what do all the EU guys do right? Must be a better option to scale this or opt out for other benefits, scale it base on alliance size.

This entosis thing, what happens if we get 5000 ceptors all with them on board? Wasn't this question asked at any point?

AFK cloaking - It's going to affect indices, for better or worse.

Total Newbie wrote:

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

To recap:

1st phase we made it impossible to project force.

2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.

Proton Stars wrote:

why are sov bears not shooting everything in jita yet?

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Proton Stars wrote:

why are sov bears not shooting everything in jita yet?

We're giving CCP time to repent.

Nami Kumamato wrote:

Why not just make it simple ?
Create- I dunno - a huge star-base that you can anchor a the frigging sun or whatever . If it gets destroyed it's no longer your system.
Occupancy will get you bonuses towards how hard it is to get destroyed etc. You can defend it with platform/batteries and active fleets patrolling.
The End.

Proton Stars wrote:

Why is no one else concerned that GM's are once again playing in and influencing sov warfare with hidden alts.

Cause that went so well before in BoB, didint it!

'Oi Fozzie im poor, spawn me an officer in this belt please'

'Oi Fozziee, Have a look on that ccp graph and tell me the best t3's to build over a 6 month period'

'Oi Fozzie, Develop me a sov system that breaks the current gameplay cause im too lazy to try to take sov and invest me time right now'

Capqu wrote:

also rip supers LOL

Saidin Thor wrote:

Galdur Trudaihnel wrote:

Much Love CCP

You have had me worried at times, and with star citizen and elite dangerous on the radar I was touching cloth and hoping you would pull something out of the bag......

But this is a game changer, a whole new level. YES YES YES YES YES. You have cracked it ! This will mix things up for all players in EVE. Null care bears and big alliances in general will hate it ..... everyone else should love it for the varied content it will bring to small, medium and large scale pvp. A few teaks here and there and bring on June :)

Love it or hate it much content will be had! No more blue balling small roaming gangs though :)

Cheers Will

Nami Kumamato wrote:

Also,
Why did you have to go and create a new gimmick when hacking was there already ? (just to tie it to the Drifter lore? )
Why not allow those things to be hacked as we do now in explo ? This way maybe more of us "vagrants" will find a home and reason in a corp.

Master S wrote:

If they proceed this update in the summer the game will die.

Querns wrote:

Initial thought on this:

* Mining providing defensive bonuses is probably not going to be used in any significant capacity while nullsec mining is in such a hilariously bad place. I mean, check out this mining profitability chart: http://eve-industry.org/mining/ . No one in their right mind is going to call CTA RED PEN MINING OPS to buttress their sov.

Gonna need to let it sink in some more before I think of anything else, I think.

MajorScrewup wrote:

I seriously thought there was going to be more after all this time...

Cheyennes wrote:

the sargent wrote:

Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history.

Rowells wrote:

ok this is really important, Dreads just lost half of their purpose and im willing to geuss more than half of their usage. Please tell me there are plans to change that.

E: the same might be said for supercarriers

Lena Lazair wrote:

Saidin Thor wrote:

So? Why should a smaller alliance be able to drop and maintain an iHub? The point of this system is to make it unnecessary to do so, yet still feel like some small piece of space is "yours". Smaller alliances are being encouraged to drop a TCU and some POS's to own/live in a quiet constellation, not drop station eggs and turn every bit of their space into a major alliance powerbloc.

Not every piece/benefit of the new sov system should be accessible to alliances of every size; that would be dumb. This new setup intentionally decouples this stuff for exactly this reason.

Rowells wrote:

Quote:

The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement.

Total Newbie wrote:

there is no longer a reason to hold sov if this is implemented.... sov would only be held in strategic locations that cover a whole bunch of r-64's and 32's. The little guy wont be able to afford his sov bill, he will run out of money because he cant control the moon income..... then he leaves 0.0.... we have come full circle

the sargent wrote:

Cheyennes wrote:

the sargent wrote:

Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history.

You're right I don't have any 0.0 employment history. Didn't feel like joining one of the big power blocs and small independent corps can't exist in 0.0 space. With some adjusting this system could actually allow smaller groups to effectively claim SOV somewhere and keep it. Is what CCP proposing perfect probably not.

However, for the first time I'm actually considering 0.0 space as a viable place i would want to go to and live in for an extended period of time, and isn't that the point of all this. To get more people to want to fly out to 0.0 space?

Tiberian Deci wrote:

Will notifications go out like they do now? Will the entire alliance get a mail that something of theirs is under attack so they can dispatch a fleet to go defend it? Or will it get RF'd and then we get notifications about RF status and the like?

Tia Aves wrote:

Only thing i'm not sure on is the 4 hour window, but I have no suggestions on how I would change it at this moment in time.

Xenuria wrote:

I support this.

YanniMorePlz wrote:

Just a slight 'concern' that I felt might be worth pointing out. I will quote from the blog:

Quote:

The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement.

Much like defensive SBUing, I feel there is potential for a defender to use an alt/spy to intentionally reinforce in order to freeze the index of a system in order to retain it's defensive bonuses. One might do this if let's say, renters have recently fled the area, and the defender does not want to lose their bonuses while being unable or unwilling to invest time to grind them back up.

A easy solution would be to have the index drop after the "lock" period from any inactivity that occurred during the lock.

Just something worth bringing up, it's small and I don't think it impacts anything in a major way. Overall great blog!

Tiberian Deci wrote:

GOB the Magician wrote:

Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this.

I can think of several:

You enjoy living there
You enjoy living with the people there you live with
You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby

.

Princess Cherista wrote:

LOL @ groups who just spent years and trillions of isk to build a supercap fleet, that job will be done by interceptors now Smile

Godfrey Silvarna wrote:

Tia Aves wrote:

Only thing i'm not sure on is the 4 hour window, but I have no suggestions on how I would change it at this moment in time.

Agreed. It sounds fair, since timezones are an ever-present complicating factor in international multiplayer games, but on the other hand... Not being allowed to interact with the structures of other players for 20 hours any given day is more than a little awkward.

As an upside, you can check the map for areas where the locals are likely to be ready to defend their territory at your scheduled roaming hour.

Literally Space Moses wrote:

You made sov harder to hold (good) but didn't give any additional incentive to actually hold it (very bad),

Seriously, you keep giving nullsec the stick, when is the carrot going to come?

Total Newbie wrote:

the sargent wrote:

Cheyennes wrote:

the sargent wrote:

Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history.

How can you comment about it if you haven't experienced it? If you do not understand it in its current form, then quite frankly you have no clue about the ramifications that will even more, negatively affect the little guy

Aryndel Vyst wrote:

HEY LETS MAKE SOV EASIER TO TAKE FROM LARGE ENTITIES BUT GIVE NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER TO THE RESIDENTS.

Do you want everyone to do high sec incursions or something?

~content creation~

W Sherman Elric wrote:

interesting the more I think on it the more curious I am, how is this going to mess with the rental empires? should break them up nicely. But that just leaves empty space need more low sec connections to null regions. Such as branch and period basis for example.

SilentAsTheGrave wrote:

Tiberian Deci wrote:

This is a good question. If notifications continue to go out the moment someone invades/attacks another groups sov it will undermine this new system.

Gorski Car wrote:

Xenuria wrote:

I support this.

I agree...

X Gallentius wrote:

Tiberian Deci wrote:

GOB the Magician wrote:

Still little reason to actually live in the sov. Perhaps update #37 will address this.

I can think of several:

You enjoy living there
You enjoy living with the people there you live with
You enjoy fighting your neighbors nearby

.

And the most important one of all - epeen.

Mo'Chuisle wrote:

How the ******* **** can anyone think up a new sovereignty concept that relies on a four hour prime time window per day for the only interaction between players and not stop and scrap the whole system at that point?

Maya Cinderfort wrote:

CCP pls pls don't make me cry.

ok enough QQ

i think the idea of having an event to capture something is good in it self, but BUT the mindnuming bordom we had while we grided down our first few systems was & still is needed. you allways knew when someone attacked your TCU for lols he couldn'T do that much alone. or any structure for that matter, now a single person can come in and troll the living **** out of you.

we have some ppl roaming our systems who would fit into that role quite well. but i don't want to check on **** every 10 minutes just to avoid a stupid dragged out node capturing event.

can't we just all agree that null is together with incursions w-space one of the most profitable areas to be around. now getting new players there without much effort isn't gonna help anyone except those looking for easy kills. maybe make lowsec more entertaining for pve purposes, flood some ppl out & leave null for those who want to play longer than 4 hours a day.

if you go through with this then i hope it brings the goldenfleet times back, but probably unlikely since powerplayers can still drop a few caps on each node there is to capture.

Here's my Idea: Use those capture events for something more fun, more engaging, not life threatening, maybe make it somekind of pvp anomaly spawning in a constellation similar to incrusions giving defenders a bonus (small one). when someone wins the event:

Defender wins = no upkeep until next event spawns
Attacker wins = upkeep is doubled & the doubled part payed to the Winner

when no one engages in this at all (talking far out systems) upkeep stays normal. (by not at all i mean no hostile actions taken after reinforcement ends)

BUT (again i know):

if you want to use the node event for sov:

make lets say 1 cap & below node 2 BS and below node 1 BC or cruiser and below (no T3) & 1 destroyer frigat only node.
that way alot more ships get used & even expierenced frigat FWers can find a place in an alliance, that is not tackle.

SilentAsTheGrave wrote:

Tiberian Deci wrote:

This is a good question. If notifications continue to go out the moment someone invades/attacks another groups sov it will undermine this new system.

Touchie Mc TwiddleHands wrote:

First off: great stuff, finally at least SOME way for small gangs to provoke a response.

However, there are some issues:

With these changes it is about time to implement a proper "Coalition" system.
A lot of players are complaining about the prime time issue, preventing them from taking part at huge sov battles of their alliances due to timezone restrictions. This is a valid point of course, but there is also a very easy solution (that has been mentioned here multiple times already) - splitting current alliances into timezone branches. You can still be a member of Goonswarm, Brave Collective or whatever - your alliance name simply changes to "Goonswarm EU" etc.
Of course this is still effort and does not have the greatest looks, but people are going to have to, and WILL adapt as usual, just like after Phoebe.
However, CCP should support this transition as much as possible, by adding a proper Coalition system. Alliances should be able to create and join Coalitions (Hey, you could even name your coalition Brave Collective etc so you can still 100% identify with your buddies in other timezones!). They would be visible in-game just like alliances, and provide basic management features such as a Coalition chat, an overview state ("pilot is in my coallition"), standings and, maybe, shared access to the new sovereignity overview.
This would allow the current big alliances to keep their names and identities aswell as provide sov combat to members of all timezones.

Another issue I see are Entosis links, particularly the T2 version on Frigate and (T3) Destroyer hulls.
10km/s Interceptors with lockrange mods are bad enough, but a 20+ km/s Svipul with T2 Entosis would be close to invulnerable. Therefore these links (or, at the very least, the long range T2 version) should be limited to Cruiser hulls and above - smaller ships would still play a big role in the new sov fights by scouting Command Nodes and intercepting hostile ships with Entosis links.

MiliasColds wrote:

everyone keeps saying 10 minutes, ITS ONLY 10 MINUTES IF YOU HAVE 0 INDICES. so yes they can take the systems you have but don't use, if you use them no it's more like 30-40 minutes. which you should be able to kill him in.

MiliasColds wrote:

Trii Seo wrote:

I would like to correct the statement that it's a CTF. It is, in fact, a totally different gamemode - Domination.

Sooo uh, to provide some actual criticism instead of just saying how bad Domination was, I'll ask a few questions:

- How does the following system create an incentive to go and take sov?
- How does the following system in any way benefit "the small guy" who is "trying to carve out his own system?"

The effort to distribute one system being captured over a constellation to take advantage of its layout is a good idea, in fact - it might be the only good idea out of it. As it stands, unless I'm misinterpreting it, the entire system would reward evading a fight rather than encouraging it.

the sargent wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

the sargent wrote:

Cheyennes wrote:

the sargent wrote:

Says the guy with no 0.0 history in his employment history.

Please explain how it will negatively affect the little guy. I'm being genuinely curious here not a smart a$$. like I said it could use some adjusting but as a basis to start from it seems easier for new people to get into the game of SOV since it doesn't require several capital ships plus full support fleet to take down one system.
Again i don't think its perfect but from the outside looking in it looks like it actually has some potential after some tweaking.

Mostlyharmlesss wrote:

Aryndel Vyst wrote:

HEY LETS MAKE SOV EASIER TO TAKE FROM LARGE ENTITIES BUT GIVE NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER TO THE RESIDENTS.

Do you want everyone to do high sec incursions or something?

~content creation~

Not emptying quoting.

Maya Cinderfort wrote:

MiliasColds wrote:

points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty

Tiberian Deci wrote:

Mostlyharmlesss wrote:

Aryndel Vyst wrote:

HEY LETS MAKE SOV EASIER TO TAKE FROM LARGE ENTITIES BUT GIVE NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER TO THE RESIDENTS.

Do you want everyone to do high sec incursions or something?

~content creation~

Not emptying quoting.

I'm convinced that every sov holder that cries about lack of benefits doesn't want to actually fight anyone, they just want it to be easy to sit on what they have and continue making money and not fighting people. This isn't to say that there is no merit to the 'lack of benefits' claim, but no one complaining about it has presented one yet.

Tia Aves wrote:

If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Tia Aves wrote:

If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

/r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.

Saidin Thor wrote:

I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes.

If you want to stick with the "but sov logistics should be hard" mantra, then at least resizing them for jump freighters would be better than nothing. Ideally, making IHubs and their upgrades Blockade Runner size would open up a lot of options for the little guy.

Another change related to IHubs I would suggest is allowing IHubs to be placed on moons (so you can place them next to POSes). This gives an alliance the OPTION to have a VERY LOW barrier to messing with system upgrades. A POS isn't particularly difficult to defang even with a small group, but gives an IHub some level of protection against marauders that are just trying to salt the fields.

Also the premise that defenders will regularly use jump bridges during capture events has to be a joke, right? Have the CCP employees that live in null sec ever tried chaining jump bridges since the fatigue changes went through? Let us know how that worked out for them for the subsequent two weeks.

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Tia Aves wrote:

If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

/r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.

Touchie Mc TwiddleHands wrote:

However, CCP should support this transition as much as possible, by adding a proper Coalition system. Alliances should be able to create and join Coalitions (Hey, you could even name your coalition Brave Collective etc so you can still 100% identify with your buddies in other timezones!). They would be visible in-game just like alliances, and provide basic management features such as a Coalition chat, an overview state ("pilot is in my coallition"), standings and, maybe, shared access to the new sovereignity overview.
This would allow the current big alliances to keep their names and identities aswell as provide sov combat to members of all timezones.

Nyan Lafisques wrote:

Maya Cinderfort wrote:

MiliasColds wrote:

points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty

So basically you don't want to have to protect your space?

knobber Jobbler wrote:

Tiberian Deci wrote:

Mostlyharmlesss wrote:

Aryndel Vyst wrote:

HEY LETS MAKE SOV EASIER TO TAKE FROM LARGE ENTITIES BUT GIVE NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER TO THE RESIDENTS.

Do you want everyone to do high sec incursions or something?

~content creation~

Not emptying quoting.

No, it's a conflict driver. Find me a war in history that was had "because it was fun". If you de-incentive the reasons to hold space, null will become pretty boring after a while. Simply having your flag in space is not enough.

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Tia Aves wrote:

If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

/r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.

when it comes to this, its not so much an anti-cfc circlejerk as a bunch of people who no longer hold sov

people who hold sov but hate us realize how bad this is

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Tia Aves wrote:

If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

/r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.

Maya Cinderfort wrote:

Nyan Lafisques wrote:

Maya Cinderfort wrote:

MiliasColds wrote:

points is i still don'T want to check after one red doing his thing. like realy no ty

So basically you don't want to have to protect your space?

ofc but a single guy should just not be able to do anything in the first place it's a system not worlds collide lvl 4

& again i like the idea of fighting over nodes, maybe in class limited nodes to make it "different"

BUT getting a system should allways be boring, because the reward you get is better.

out of eve example here.

grinding eggs for a netherwing drake in WoW for maybe 30 hours straight sure wasn't fun but the reward was awesome.

same goes for systems.

Proton Stars wrote:

To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?

Nyan Lafisques wrote:

Primary This Rifter wrote:

Tia Aves wrote:

If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit.

/r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite.

Grrr goons. People there enjoy the changes not because of goons, but because they believe these changes are good.

Proton Stars wrote:

To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?

MiliasColds wrote:

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

Chal0ner wrote:

More guerilla warfare is good on the other hand. (As long as they stay the **** out of Delve

)

Akrasjel Lanate wrote:

Proton Stars wrote:

To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?

They know about this

Eli Apol wrote:

Sounds awesome +1

If you hold too much space you'll be spending your whole primetime fighting off little bands all over the place annoying you with a quick Entosis link to test out your localised defences.

If you 're actually using the space then you should have a defensive fleet within range to quickly react. If not then you've now got a timer to react to.

Not sure if 4hrs is long enough for the primetime, 6-8hrs should still be coverable by most alliances and allows multi TZ cooperation more easily.

M1k3y Koontz wrote:

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

I'm sure your AFK-tars will be able to kill enough rats to make up for your lack of miners.

Xenuria wrote:

I support this.

Total Newbie wrote:

Eli Apol wrote:

Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.

Proton Stars wrote:

Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?

Proton Stars wrote:

Akrasjel Lanate wrote:

Proton Stars wrote:

To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?

They know about this

Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

Proton Stars wrote:

Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?

they certainly aren't posting in here supporting it which says something

Makari Aeron wrote:

Meh. Not what I had hoped. I had hoped for my activity based and less pointless modules and minigames. Also, 4 hour window gives major bonuses to large coalitions which can span all timezones and makes it nigh impossible for people with lives and work schedules.

Shilalasar wrote:

Also this system favors alliances over both corps and coalitions. While now a defensivefleet consisting of 5 different alliances is viable after these changes you could just target the one sovholding alliance and then they can-¦t use capture anything. It will probably kill coalitions but not because they split into smaller groups but because f.e. the entire CFC could just join GSF. Just for safety and sharing of the defensive workload.

Proton Stars wrote:

Akrasjel Lanate wrote:

Proton Stars wrote:

To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?

They know about this

Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?

Nyan Lafisques wrote:

That single guy won't do **** if you have any defensive bonus. He won't show up for the timer, and if you can't kill a single guy out of your thousand+ alliance in your prime time than I don't know what to say...

Godfrey Silvarna wrote:

As an upside, you can check the map for areas where the locals are likely to be ready to defend their territory at your scheduled roaming hour.

Milla Goodpussy wrote:

A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets

this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay

JohnMonty wrote:

"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"

Best line in the whole thing lol

Pie Napple wrote:

I see a problem with with the primetime thing as there is no actual way to make real coalitions in game.

For alliances with mixed timezones, like brave collective, there is no way of splitting up into timezones and splitting up the sovereignty. If the split would happen, nothing in the game ties the coalition together. It would not be one brave any more, it would be multiple. It would all have to be handled by standings. No common chat channels (has to be created and managed manually).

I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions.

Milla Goodpussy wrote:

CCP in all their might.. still never even mentions on how they will deal with AFK CLOAKY CAMPING in null sec

as I previously mentioned "we'll all end up AFK CLOAKING left and right"

therefore with this plan.

A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets

this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay

thanks for the direction to another game and company ill spend with them instead of you ccp..

congrats on losing money

knobber Jobbler wrote:

Prime Time thing is a terrible idea, you'll see alliances start to lose their multinational flavour. If GSF sets prime time to US, what do all the EU guys do right?

Mekenioc wrote:

Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time"

Mekenioc wrote:

Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time"

Gevlon Goblin wrote:

The system is surprisingly good overall, but I see one critical problem: the price of Entosis links are low enough to allow trolling. I mean you park a throwaway ship next to the structure or command node and go AFK. If no one responds, you forced the owners into a command node whack-a-mole or took their home. If someone shows up, you lost a worthless ship.

Pie Napple wrote:

I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions.

Owen Levanth wrote:

Gevlon Goblin wrote:

This is actually great. I'm contemplating possible "**** you"-fits right now. As I know from experience, there are a lot of empty systems all over sov.

And if I'm happen to find a completely empty system in an empty, unused and unloved constellation. Welp I guess I can teach them a lesson about defending their space against neutrals.

Looks like even a lone wolf like me can finally enter sov-warfare from the sidebenches! Pirate

KIller Wabbit wrote:

Here's a twist: For the Attackers, some of the command nodes are duds. The defender knows which nodes are the effective ones.

Lena Lazair wrote:

Shilalasar wrote:

The idea that people with disparate identities, goals, and histories will smash together their alliances at the level that current blue coalitions exist today is invalid. It's why shifting the focus back to alliance level control is key to curbing bloc creep. People happily and willingly blue up to any and all coalitions on a moment's notice because there is really no disadvantage. You don't give up your identity, your command/control structure, or put your alliance in ANY kind of risk. And yet you get huge advantages because the existing mechanics fundamentally reward large blue coalition structure grinding fleets (EDIT: or more accurately, rewards supercap blob deterrents to large structure grinding fleets).

By refocusing this mechanic to alliance level control ONLY and removing the benefit of belonging to a blue coalition, suddenly there is much less benefit to hitching your wagon to a large blue group. More importantly, the idea that the disparate alliances of, say, CFC, would all suddenly join GSF alliance to consolidate is insane. There are many and varied reasons why those alliances aren't part of GSF already, and forcing them to actually put on the GSF tag if they want to benefit GSF sov is going to be a HUGE negative pressure on growing bloc sizes. A lot of people in blue coalitions don't actually like each other very much and only the overwhelming advantages to structure grinding (or deterrent to such) are sufficient to get them to willingly identify with a coalition; force them to adopt an actual alliance mantle while removing the scale of the benefit and rivalries will flare up.

Mekenioc wrote:

Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time"

Professor Headmash wrote:

So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?

Seems legit.

Professor Headmash wrote:

Gevlon Goblin wrote:

This can be fixed by increasing the price of the Entosis link enough to make Entosis kill reports a prized goal of PvP-ers. Like 500M, so defending home would be a wanted PvP event instead of a chore no one wants.

Vigilanta wrote:

also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility?

Owen Levanth wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.

Total Newbie wrote:

Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now.

Olya Tsarev wrote:

Mekenioc wrote:

Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time"

You can contract your stuff to Olya Tsarev, I look forward to what assets you seem to have deemed unusable as a result of this change that is still being worked out.

Thanks in advance sweetheart.

Elona Solette wrote:

Pie Napple wrote:

This is explicitly designed to break up coalitions not encourage them.

Soldarius wrote:

Pie Napple wrote:

I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions.

Adorable Brave Newbie, Eve already is corp-based. That is why every alliance (with a brain) has a holding corp that manages all the bills, sov structures, and standings.

Looking at what was posted in the devblog, I'm pretty sure this is all contingent upon alliances becoming actual entities within the eve universe, not the current pseudo-status that they currently enjoy. The word "corporation" was not mentioned even once that I recall.

So here's a doozy of a question: What is going to happen to holding corps and sov transfers? And those renter corps that won't leave their own system unless the entire region is burning down around them? Does anyone think they will willingly defend their sov?

In this new system, even if 1000 titans came to defend, not one of them will be able to rep up the renter alliance's structures. The options are to shoot the attackers or annex the sov structure. I'm intensely curious to see how landlord alliances change their rental schemes to adapt to this new system.

Proton Stars wrote:

claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.

20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang

Maya Cinderfort wrote:

KIller Wabbit wrote:

Here's a twist: For the Attackers, some of the command nodes are duds. The defender knows which nodes are the effective ones.

then the attacker knows which ones by waiting a bit & seeing where defenders go

Eli Apol wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.

NPC null, interceptors, cyno jumps behind defensive walls, move ops outside of the Sov holders primetime when defences are weaker... that's just off the top of my head without any great experience in Nullsec logistics.

Quote:

Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.

Hendrink Collie wrote:

Professor Headmash wrote:

No offense, but if you can't quickly deal with a ceptor gang using a module on your sov structures, you shouldn't even bother holding sov. Blink

Proton Stars wrote:

claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.

20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang

Aryndel Vyst wrote:

Speedkermit Damo wrote:

EvilweaselFinance wrote:

In other words, welcome to the EVE Cold War: if you're not part of the CFC bloc or the N3 block, you will be sent back to Jita in an afternoon.

Tell us exactly how it's any different now?

Provibloc still exists now.

Hendrink Collie wrote:

Professor Headmash wrote:

No offense, but if you can't quickly deal with a ceptor gang using a module on your sov structures, you shouldn't even bother holding sov. Blink

Amyclas Amatin wrote:

This primetime ****. The **** are the Australians going to do?

Eli Apol wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.

outside of the Sov holders primetime

Total Newbie wrote:

Elona Solette wrote:

Pie Napple wrote:

This is explicitly designed to break up coalitions not encourage them.

But won't break them up at all.....

Now, we'll use GoonWaffe.....

GW becomes basically a centralized Bank/repository and station flipping force....

Current blues lock down whatever system they want to control.... still coalition friendly...

Aiwha wrote:

One sov structure per system

xartin wrote:

gment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.

Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.

UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.

X Gallentius wrote:

xartin wrote:

How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly.

Proton Stars wrote:

claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.

20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang

Masao Kurata wrote:

Sooooooo the only reason not to use the vastly superior T2 entosis link is price. I think you need to make it more expensive than 80M, that's still cheap for what it does, especially considering the benefits of the range.

X Gallentius wrote:

xartin wrote:

How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly.

Heptameron wrote:

and now you effectively taken away offensive deployment away from my 'home'....

Rowells wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now.

what makes you say that

imtokenitnow wrote:

About the primetime zone, why don't scale it on member count AND/OR number of TCU, IHUB, stations ?
And make the ability to split the timer in two primetime (who can be close together) if > 6h (for exemple) ?

It should not be too hard to find a function doing that.

Like :
3H Small number of alliance & systems : Phoebe Freeport Republic
5H Medium-Large number of alliance & systems : Curatores Veritatis Alliance or Northern Coalition.
2*4H Huge number of alliance & systems : Northern Associate or Goonswarm Federation.

It resolve some of the problems of the unique primetime & also the bigger you are, the harder it is to protect your space.

What do you think about that ?

Aiwha wrote:

Aight, here's a more serious post. I like the "command node" system. Spreading the actual fighting to the constelation vs several grids in the same system spreads out lag, adds a little more strategy, gives jump bridges and titans a little more use for defenders, its okay. "One sov structure per system", again, good idea. Cuts down on station spam, makes pve riskier, less structures, good idea. "Freeport mode" also a good idea, gives people a reasonable timeframe to organize actual move ops vs. installing a JC and waiting a month.

Now here's the bad ****. Timed "vulnerability". Bullshit. Everything should be vulnerable to people ******* with it all the time. Any TZ should be able to roam around reinforcing **** whenever they want. Now the actual reinforcement timers themselves should obviously stay, the defender gets to pick when they want to start the fight, but not when somebody wants to be a **** and turn off all your station stuff and/or reo a region.

Next up, the whole entosis module ****. This is just going to promote putting as many warm bodies into stabbed interceptors as possible and blitzing command nodes. Thats no fun. The entosis module needs to promote actual fleet fighting rather than 9k/s games of tag. A good compromise might be rendering an entosis ship completely immobile like a siege/triage which would promote taking and holding grid BEFORE you start flipping a command node.

Thirdly, Why should we attack/defend anything? Currently, the major reason to hold nullsec space is to rent it out. Because to be perfectly honest, when compared to other areas of EVE, null income is pretty goddamn ****. With our massive renter empire, N3 is able to squeeze out actual income for our pvp pilots and alliance operations, but without the scale of a rental empire, there's just no point in holding any sov at all. Most of the people who actually do "sov null" would just stop caring about sov at all, we're gonna end up staking out areas of NPC space to live in and pretty much making our own sov system. Hell, a good chunk of null already has alt in highsec farming incursions for our personal incomes. So whats the solution? BUFF NULL PVE. Give me a reason to want to carebear in nullsec. Because otherwise, farming incursions in highsec and running roams out of NPC null is a better way to live than earning shittastic nullbear income and playing interceptor tag ever day.

M1k3y Koontz wrote:

Vigilanta wrote:

also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility?

You have to sit around on the Command thingy for up to 40 minutes. Any cruiser fleet would shread a frigate fleet in 10-40 minutes. Thus it is not frigates online.

Tiberian Deci wrote:

X Gallentius wrote:

xartin wrote:

How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly.

BECAUSE OMG IT'S DIFFERENT AND HARD AND CCP ARE KILLING MY PLAYSTYLE AND MAKING SOV WORTHLESS!!!!!

Heptameron wrote:

So you took away hot drops
You took away fast moving cap warfare
You took away large supercap fights
You gave me space aids

and now you effectively taken away offensive deployment away from my 'home'....

Oh but you have given the griefer in a kestrel a great tool to get their s**ts and giggles....

Nice CCP nice..... *slow clap*

Tiberian Deci wrote:

Quote:

How is this different than properly stronting a timer, or a POCO timer? Defender picks his advantageous time, and everybody adjusts accordingly.

BECAUSE OMG IT'S DIFFERENT AND HARD AND CCP ARE KILLING MY PLAYSTYLE AND MAKING SOV WORTHLESS!!!!!

Total Newbie wrote:

Rowells wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now.

what makes you say that

Transparency mate. Non-disclosure agreement should be null and void on the proposed changes, because CCP posted them here. CSM minutes as to who supported this should be published for all to see.