I don't think this point has been widely circulated.

My understanding after reading this is.

There is no longer "launch for corporation" on IHUB/TCU's.

You launch the structure and then entosis it? What is the time based on for new structures?

And this eliminates 8 hour guard ops and TCU spam?

For a neutral structure (ie a newly-deployed IHub/TCU, or a command node for an outpost in Freeport mode) every alliance is its own team. Once one alliance gets the score up to 100% in their name, they win the contest for that structure.

Just like in the current Sovereignty system, the Military Index is obtained by killing NPCs in the system and the Industrial Index is obtained by mining in the system. The Strategic Index, which is currently tied to the lifetime of the TCU structure, will be tied to the lifetime of the IHub instead.

Simple answer there by Fozzie logic.. Your allies can indeed protect your sov by simply running an entosis link on it.
Owners are afk, for whatever reason, sov comes under attack, ally comes runs entosis link to gain "effective military control" so enemies don't get to RF it.
Result - Nothing RF'd, no timer, no capture the node mess to deal with.

Better to have your structures "attacked" by friendly forces than enemies who may want to take it from you. (builtin safety for existing power bloks)

There are still many unanswered questions regarding how entosis links will work, I prefer to believe what CCP Masterplan wrote out, as it fits with the blog description.

An attacker must 1st remove any progress made by a previous attacker ( a defender is not an "attacker" so that can only mean 1 thing). That statement ONLY makes sense if only 1 entosis can make progress at a time, which according to the blog is how the mechanic works.

A mechanic like this, that is designed to favour large groups, will be used by large groups to ensure no-one becomes a threat.
Why else do you think none of the bloks are whining in the forums - You don't complain about something that gives you a major advantage over others. They know Fozzie-Sov is all in their favour.

That is a shame.. because the whole concept favours the well established dominating groups. Blobs have ruled sov for years and will continue to do so.
So, nothing changes except it will be easier for large groups to stomp anyone they decide they don't want around.

The capital designation +2 handles that pretty well, if you can hold it for a couple days to take effect. Also index 1/1 is really easy to get, even if you're being pressured. If you can get those two you're down to 4 hours which is very reasonable.

The 18h window on a freshly taken system is long, but vulnerability isn't the same as loss. First, the time that the structure exits reinforced is random within the window. So if you're fighting against an opponent in a different time zone who zaps your new stuff while you're offline, there's just as much chance for the main timer to be in your prime as theirs.

Second, even if your opponent takes it back from you, they get the same 18h window you just dealt with. So take it back! The action of a fozziesov war is likely to be much more dynamic, with the contested systems flipping back and forth a few times until one side cries uncle. Attack > defense opens doors, it doesn't close them.

Fozziesov is knocking down the barriers to nullsec. You don't need capships and supers, you don't need 1000 guys, you don't even need anchoring 5 for POS spam. All you need is entosis links and perseverance. If overwhelming force was the key to dominion sov, endurance is the key to fozziesov.

The combined barriers, individually may possibly be overcome (with persistence and endurance), add them together so they all need to be tackled at once, as the proposal suggests - sov entry requirements are too high.
No smaller group would be able to defend a system for 18 hrs AND build up defensive indexes at the same time. It is unrealistic to expect any smaller group of players to be online for 18 hours a day.
Random timers anywhere in an 18 hour window = Forcing players to alarm clock, defend sov OR go to work or school, spend time with family etc. (and here I was thinking that was something CCP was trying to get away from, at least that is what the stated goals say)

Sorry boss, I'm taking a few days off to defend my space pixels in a game that is forcing me to choose between, playing the game or having a life.
We already have maternity and paternity leave, why not sov defense leave.

Sez who?

The purpose of the whole thing is not "to get newcommers". The purpose is to design a sov system around these principles / goals:
* to make sov systems accessible to the widest range of players possible
* to move away from large HP grinds as the mechanic to contest sov
* to make sov strength reflect active use of space as proposed in the original "occupancy"

The idea is to design a system that's a fair & open sandbox, not one that's pushing some desired end-state for the game. Designing for a specific result is terrible because you can't predict all the implications and unintended consequences -- that's how we got dominion. Fozziesov removes barriers based on SP and ship use (you don't require caps to grind structures) and lowers the incentive to hold empty or rental space (which were the forces that pushed smaller players out of null under dominion).

The intelligent prediction is that a fair & open system designed around the above 3 points will allow more players in sov null and especially smaller entities than the current blocs. That doesn't mean that newcommers get some sort of charity space. Everyone that wants a piece has to find space that they can attack, take, and hold.

And what determines who "cares" about their space? If Pandemic Legion comes to Brave's new space in Fountain and takes it with overwhelming force despite them having all 5s indexes, can PL check a box for yes we care about this space and get a 1 week immunity timer?

The mechanic for caring about space is indexes. Plenty of alliances in nullsec right now will have terrible defensive windows on the day fozziesov begins, they'll be in just as bad a situation as guys who just moved in.

Here's how you should be thinking about it: sov is going be a fuzzy system where getting your name on the map or control of a station is just the beginning.

And an alliance that is one of your newcommers shouldn't have assets to lose until they have secure control of a system, ie reasonable indexes to keep your vulnerability window to your primetime. Your replacement combat ships should be in the nearest NPC station or a POS SMA. Freighters full of stuff should not be arriving on day 1 that you own a station.

Papa - That is all well and good for the established groups who will continue to dominate post Fozziesov due to the ease with which current holdings can be defended. Where though does that leave someone new entering the sov game who does not have the benefit of years to build up indexes? The primary defensive index, Strategic, is a time based attribute, the other 2 require major dedicated activity to increase.
How does a new alliance that has 18 hour vulnerability manage to build indexes, while fighting to hold their new sov?
Or do you believe the existing groups are just going to sit back and watch as new alliances get established before attacking?

Did you think that wasn't the point? Yes, new groups will get stomped. Old groups will stroke each other about all the tears they created by stomping said groups. That is what's going to happen, because that's what keeps the most people logging in. The vast majority log in to participate in the mutual stroking. They want to feel powerful, not victimized.

There isn't anything CCP can do about that. There isn't anything that CCP wants to do about that.

Significant changes to fozziesov have already been made because of the level of whining coming from the major power blocs about its potential to make their members feel victimized. It's been watered down for that reason. When people feel victimized, instead of powerful, they stop playing.

Which players? The vast majority of null players belong to enormous power blocs because they want to be the man, not the underdog trying to stick it to the man. They want to play the alliance flunky in the funny hat, or the imperial storm trooper, not Malcolm Reynolds, or Han Solo. They're followers. Joiners. Get it? CCP is in business to make money. CCP is going to give them what they want.

As long as they join up in the thousands to get the ego stroke that comes with being the man, CCP is going to cater to that. The change that you want is a change in player mentality, not game mechanics.

What evidence do you have that necessity alone drives people to join these groups? Do you really think that the only thing holding "The Imperium" as an example, together is necessity? I think you're completely discounting identity politics, and player mentality. If most Eve players were "anti-establishment" on principle, these groups could not attract thousands, or in the case of Imperium, tens of thousands of members. Most eve players are not, though. They want to feel powerful, and being associated with one of the big blocs gives them that. That, and safety.

That's what they want. They want to be able to log on and feel powerful because they have the weight of a big bloc's numbers and wealth behind them. CCP will screw with that at their own peril, and they know it.

When the game was young, nobody was that powerful. Everyone fought tooth and nail for the little they could build, and going broke if you over-reached and failed, and finding yourself back in high-sec grinding missions again was expected. The game isn't young like that anymore. A more or less permanent upper-class has evolved that attracts numbers to it. Short of a server wipe that puts everyone back on a level playing field, or, mechanics that make it a lot easier to destroy accumulated wealth, it's going to stay that way. A change radical enough to disrupt that is more risk than CCP is willing to take on board, most likely. While it could re-energize the game and attract more subscriptions, it could also lose them more subscriptions than they can afford to lose.