While I strongly feel that interceptors are way too powerful for this role, I wanted to point out another thing.
This IS direct ccp's fault that nullsec is not worth living in.
People are there to build empires. What tools do we have for that, if even jump bridges are useless and capships are not wanted? Like seriously. I know the alliance that gives away motherships to their members. And players are like - nah, I dont have spare characters for that coffin.

Nullsec is pretty much completely devoid of content, no one is going to invade anyone because who wants to play Sov mining, and less and less alliances are even bothering to defend space when some randomer decides to toss it, because again sov just isn't worth the ballache of this mechanic.

Diagnosis: OP.
Treatment: on top of suggested MWD-jamming feature of enthosis, maybe reducing its cargo and increasing strontium consumption on enthosis would do a trick. Tackling interceptor - yes, shuttle - yes, cyno-shuttle - no, sov-shuttle - no.

More than there is or will be now yeah.

No ones saying nullsec wasn't stale, but if you think this is the solution to reinvigorate it then you're a bit of an idiot.

What's sad is that no one actually really read and tried to understand what Reagalan wrote in this two posts. It is really easy to fallback to the good old grr gons mentality instead of trying to think for yourselves. Basically you are F1 monkeys but in terms of thinking, congratulations to achieving sheep like cognitive heights.
.

Oh hello uninformed PL poster. I was just talking about you!

Would you like to explain to the uninformed masses why PL doesn't have or want sov and how this relates to you defending the new sov system?

Fozzie is that a joke?
Where the real changes?
The creation of alliance cost 1 billion
One system cost 1 ceptor (about 50 millions)
Where is logic?

Although there is a problem in that T3 cruisers can still fit the module and those can go past bubbles at least a T3 cruiser is a juicy killmail unlike an Interceptor, still another simpler alternative could be:

And clearly if that's what was being hoped for, it's failed, since the user count is still continuing to drop sharply.

Why someone mst create an alliance?
Someone need to get to the alliance! Hi-sec alliace and nothing more!
That char can be an alt of anyone with 1 mil SP
That sound like: " I'm 8 years old I know very much about everything, and now I want to be a president of a small country! Give me please the ability to be! "

That sov is the benining of the end.

It's not a sharp drop, but it's certainly been peetering out over the past 6 months compared to previous years.

http://puu.sh/jGWlo/5fe24d1b4d.png

That said it's still been an issue that's dated back to 2014.

... Wut? Are you sure you're looking at the right stats? Take a look at EVE-offline YTD 2015. Even the peaks in July and August are at best on par with the average for the year so far.

Remembers, these impacts will first be seen when they announce the changes, not when they release them.

So you believe it was around may the drop was bigger than usual? I wonder what dev blog was released in may. We've know the changes are coming for a long time and people have been gradually dropping off since then. Announcements of the mechanics then implementation are more than likely driving the decline.

It's still CCP's fault, yes. It lies on them to incentivize conflict. If nullsec personal income weren't so lousy, people might find it worth fighting over more than Sort Dragon's wife, or other such personal dickery and flag waving.

You do realize people, like Tappits, have been saying the same thing for months/years right? You need something to fight over rather than your name on a map because that's just superficial thing. Having resources in Null worth taking is what drove conflict and some sandbox related things like OTEC. As it stands there's little incentive to take systems from your neighbors or push your way into Null as the income levels are lower than other areas of the game.

You're better off doing WH gas harvesting in a C1 than taking a Null system in terms of ISK income.

Actually, "fags", which you added at the end of "dominion", isn't "finding homophobia where it doesn't exist" since it's quite literally used as a pejorative towards homosexuals. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that and are assuming me pointing out that it breaks the forum posting rules is somehow trying to censor your inane "Grr Goon" posts rife with grammatical errors.

It's boring now, with the new mechanics. That tells me that the new mechanics are what are killing the game, not that we are blue.

The issue isn't all of FozzieSov, a majority of us like the concept. It needs work, however.

Zipping around at 4 km/s, in an interceptor, and clicking a button should not in any way give you ownership in null sec sovereignty. Sovereignty should be fought over and influence a push of assets by group A versus current sov citizens group B. If an entity wants to take space, they need to dedicate themselves to it, not send a lone interceptor with the belief "If you don't get it now, just go back and try again in a little bit. They will eventually get tired of responding."
.

How long would you tolerate a kid playing ding dong ditch at your door?

You can't unplug the door bell (they will just knock instead) but if you decide to ignore them, they get to own a room in your house.

Then why not make it so entosis modules can only go on a a BC or above? If the defenders don't show up, then ship type is irrelevant. The only reason people want to use interceptors is so they can run away when defenders do show up. Tell me I'm wrong.

Sov didn't do much, but news articles of epic battles with $300,000 in damages did and those battles occurred because of committed assets in null. Those types of battles will no longer occur under the current system since people no longer need to commit assets to take sov.

Is this a subliminal "Hire PL today!" pitch I see?

That was a pretty funny yet accurate analogy by Frosty though hah. For arguments sake, imagine this kid lives in government owned orphanage housing and only goes out with his Harry Potter invisibility cloak and Nimbus 2000. So when you go to respond he either A. disappears from sight or B. zips away at blazing speeds so nothing can really be done about it. You also can't really do anything about his current living situation because it's government property.

Troll status confirmed. The only reason to being an evasion fit interceptor is to evade. All of this horseshit about it being against defenders who don't show up is ridiculous.

The point is that undefended sov should be easy to take. When a defender shows up though then conflict should be driven. Interceptors mean that players can assault sov with no intention of fighting and no intention of taking sov. It's dumb.

Name one that could single handed contest sov. Ia have no problem with interceptors existing, I have a problem with their ability to contest sov. Contesting sov should take commitment, it's an alliance level activity after all.

TBH, both case are extremely stupid and a proof that game mechanics are bad...

question from an idiot: "if you want more challenging fights, why don't you pointlessly and needlessly cripple yourself instead of waiting for ccp to fix the game?"

obvious answer: there is a reason i pay money, and ccp earns money: it's their job to fix the game and it's my job to win it

Uh yes you did. You still do. People complain about stealth bombers all the time and did moreso during fountain.

It astounds me that people are still bitter about siegefleet.

You are missing what we are saying here, we like the new fozzie sov system. It just needs tweaks and details ironed out i.e. an interceptor being able to solo a whole constellation, regardless if anyone is defending or not.

The fact that you considered it "risk free" is where the bitterness originates. Or, to be more specific, that it was used in proxy for the dreadnoughts typically considered for the role, denying anyone in drop range a bunch of free dread kills.

Siegefleet was a marvelous way to reduce risk -- it was not, by any means, risk free. If siegefleet was risk free, then all tactics involving dropping bombers would also carry forth this connotation, and few people bemoan the bomber drop as a risk-free ganking experience.

It also required a fair amount of effort. Those fleets were 40+ people, instead of 1 guy in a trollceptor. Instead of 5 guys in dreads, it was a swarm of guys in something cheaper, grinding the sov more slowly.

It's about the effort of the attacker. The goons put forth effort (20man/hours per structure or so) to take out a structure.

The implication here that we don't need nor could utilize our current holdings is laughable. Check the ADMs across Imperium space; besides the areas currently undergoing sov transfer in "western" (dotlan projection) Pure Blind, everything is well-utilized.

We actually don't have much problem with them at all -- the only group that actually tries to RF our stuff uses 500mn omens instead.

We're allowed to be proactive with this sort of thing. This is usually the first step in helping the game, and failing the acceptance of our eternal beatitude, abusing the mechanic so hard that change is forced.

It's more that the current system lacks a way to adequately punish an attacker for their insolence.
.

Wanting to affect negative reinforcement in your aggressors is in no way "taking ownership for granted."

You're still approaching this conversation with an Imperium-focused bent. Why?

Again, why an inty?
If noone shows up, ship type is irrelevant. The ONLY reason to suggest an inty should do it is so that if people DO show up they can run away.

I note you've avoided this multiple times now, as well as the whole sigefleet things once I made it clear that I'd be fine if entosising a node required 50 inties instead of 1. The reason for that is you don't have a leg to stand on because your arguments are flawed.

So why should they also be able to contest active sov in any ship they like, risk free? Since that's what's generally occuring. They use an inty so they can run away when defenders show up. How about CCP make it so the entosis link explodes if you move away from the target while it's active, so you cost yourself the entosis link and a trip back to station each time you run away. There you go, no free killmail.

You realise that these nodes aren't in anoms, right? Nobody is spending their playtime sitting idly watching a node, so whatever the case, you have to "show up" to defend it. Interceptors are used because trolls are attacking active sov, waiting for someone to respond then running away as fast as they can. #It's got nothing to do with them wanting to attack undefended sov, that's why there are systems with no owner right now, because they don;t want to sov, they want the response. They want to waste people's time getting them to chase round their uncatchable ships.

And I suggested a method of preventing trollceptors without a killmail. That said, why when you opt to contest sov should you need to put NOTHING on the line? You're single handedly attacking an entire solar system, asking you to put your ship down as collateral is not really that much.

What makes you think you should be able to attack sov with effectively zero risk?

And you don't see that as a problem? The #1 goal of fozziesov was "ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved", and yet you're effectively agreeing here that it's such a chore for defender that alliances will have to actually pay their members to do it. How can it be described as anything but a failure if that's the case? An enjoyable mechanic players would choose to interact with.

Noone is suggesting that a lone ceptor can take a system.

Then you need to work on your comprehension. It's been stated multiple times, not just by us:

But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship. Now matter how much border control is put in place, a nullified stabbed ship can just plough on through. It's not healthy for an attacker to have that much power and I'm pretty sure the reason for that will be demonstrated soon.
.

I think you are missing the overall point many are making against Fozziesov. It is not that a well organized coalition is going to fall to one dude in an interceptor, but that Sov Trolling is on par with AFK cloaking as a form of game play. Over all it sucks and is not fun.

Hopefully AFK cloaking will go the way of the dodo with the observatory array and local will too (as the default to be clawed back with the observatory array which is vulnerable....to the entosis link no less) and in upcoming iterations so will Sov Trolling.

Because d-scan doesn't exist

Harassment yes, boredom no. One of the problems Fozzie stated the old mechanic had is that people could use it as a weapon to create boredom for their opponents. Letting the new mechanic work so easily for the same goal is bad.

Indeed there are and I'm sure it would, but it won't render trollcetors useless. They'll still be the cheap and easy way to fly straight though any border controls and force a respond in any given system.

Then you haven't really used it much. When you have to constantly fly to a node to chase away a frigate, both sides have showed up and it's still boring. Like with FW, it's non-content and it's bad.

Is there a link that doesn't just load a black page?

When was the plan ever to steamroll with interceptors? WTF have you guys been smoking? We've been stating over and over that interceptors demand a response yet can't take sov solo. The problem is that the vast majority of "attacks" in null are now just one guy in an interceptor running away. That doesn't mean that when we actually attack region with the intention of actually finishing the timers that we are going to do so in interceptors, lol.

The biggest thing provi have going for them is their high ADM meaning some of the windows are pretty small and the initial assault takes a bit of time. 38% of the regions timers in one night though isn't bad going.

You don't want to see that numbers are going to ruin every single mechanic CCP puts out in the wild, do you?

Interceptors can easily blast through gatecamps and bubbles, able to have their own bubbles deployed on grid to cause defenders who aren't in interceptors problems. BCs cannot.

For the bilionth time, if entosis is to represent peopel controling the grid, allow it only on ships that peopel woudl only get to that place if they really control the grid, like battlecruisers and battleships taht are stoo slow to evade all type of conflict and just go troll someone without any control of any grid.

Because if you control the grid, it wil be no problem for you to bring a BC.
.

No one controls the grid in an interceptor. At best you are the running back for an NFL team running circles around some fat kid with unlimited stamina.

Controlling the grid for a few minutes is NOT what CCP means when they say control the grid, and YOU KNOW IT.

Pretending you are dumber than you are is not a good way to convey your agenda.

Pointing out a system that is supposed to be producing more fights is producing fewer than the system it replaced is called feedback.

And once again, the ONLY reason to use an interceptor is for when defenders DO show up. You don;t need an evasion fit ship if you have noone to evade.

So you weren't around during the fountain war then? There's were considerably more fights with considerably higher losses on both sides. The fights in Provi right now are barely larger than your average roam. When deployed to war the old system generated a lot more content and for a much longer time. It was just a case of motivating people to go to war, which neither system has a good method of accomplishing.

We want more fights, more roaming gangs, more content..