"Sorry, we could not find the item you were looking for."

Grammar police! Leave out a word there? "We HAVE two more"

How under these new mechanics will you transfer sov between alliances?

Will researched SBU BPO have any kind of transition or buyback based on their research time/level, or will they just be transitioned into TCU BPO after the phase-out?

Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet?

Speaking of the above, will the IHUB now be a global warpable celestial in space so we don't have to hunt down the IHUB in every system? At least now there will only be one, so that eliminates the problem of dead IHUBS, but it's still an annoyance having to hunt it down in every single system and bookmark them.

Not a fan of the TCU/IHUB being deployed as an NPC corp and then required to be Entosis Linked for 12-15 minutes to be captured for the alliance. This creates a window where the structure can be stolen if the opposing force can attack the single grid while it is being captured. Considering how much they cost, this seems like it would create a large incentive for this kind of "sniping". Would rather see the ability to anchor the TCU/IHUB with it owned by the alliance, have to Entosis Link it to online, and if an opposing group pushes you off the grid, they can Entosis Link it to destroy it, then deploy their own. If the defending Alliance has to and can hold grid briefly, they can unanchor the structure and scoop it to be used elsewhere.

would not the more appropriate step be rather than things magically exploding in space they get delivered to the owning corporations hq office deliveries. You are inherently forcing us to take time + adding risk into the equation for game mechanics changes.

It seems a bit punative.

additionally CCP are the ones changing the game mechanics why should we the players have to move our SBUS to empire in order to sell them back? This should be like the planteary command center changes where the amount was automatically deposited in our wallets.

Additionally the conversion is unequal 1 sbu is inherently more expensive material wise and isk wise than a tcu. Either do upconversion or forced buyback where the amount is the market cost of the materials which make up the product.

it seems...odd...to announce a nerf like this one to switchable ihubs (which largely deal with the fact that CCP provides no tools to turn strategic upgrades off) a mere seven days before it is to be implemented, with no notice or comments whatsoever

was the CSM looped into this change in a timely way?

Under this new system, only one of each Sovereignty structure can exist in the same system at the same time.

do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa?

Why is there no reimbursement of all the TCU/s and IHUBS? It seems simple enough to cause the script to deposit ISK or the TCUs and IHUBS into a station?

It wasn't an uncommon practice to have peace and wartime hubs afterall.

Can you please confirm the number of "points" required to capture a station under the freeport capture event? Elise says 20 but so far this has never ever been mentionned by CCP. So I'd assume 10 as per the other capture events?

Can you confirm Military and Industry Indexes do NOT reset if the Ihub changes hands, as opposed to the Strategic Index which resets on the Ihub as per the last sov devblog? If yes, are you okay with the fact that the old defender, now attacker of a recently lost system, has its own system activity turn against him in the event of him wanting to take back his system? With the ex-attacker now defender, having very good defense multiplier even though they did not grind the indexes themselves?

To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points.

your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at?

If you are unfamiliar with the mechanics, station eggs wont anchor unless the zero point is unoccupied, if a poco or ihub is on it (or TCU, and i think even a mobile depot). That planet is a no go for station deployment.