Maintain less Sov.

largest alliance with the least amount of sov.....

your alliance size is meaningless and irrelevant if you are lazy and/or incompetent to protect your space.

Entosis feels very artificial as a game mechanic, but I realize there has been a lot of development and code and effort all around to bringing it into the game. I'd prefer it went away completely, but that's probably an unrealistic expectation.

If you are right, then there is no need for a fleet to defend every system. Put 10 guys per system on "entosis duty" and let the others do as they please. Tne OP will then have his entosis free days. Problem solved.

Does it need to be explained to you why a game designed to entertain players shouldn't have mechanics which make people stand on "on duty", or can you figure that one out on your own?

I know that this spells not fun. But wass the old system any better?

Will citadels be any better? Having an appointment with a reinforcement timer or watching your one man citadel at given times also holds very little entertainment value.

Big alliances have the advantage of spreading the unfun parts out across a huge number of players and still complain.

A glaring symptom of this new sov system seems to be the opposite of the HP grind system. By limiting attackers to 1, you've also reduced the response to near 1.

I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design.

Compare this to at least 50 duders required in the past, and entosis looks a lot like pure harassment.

Now. I think it's clear this thread was started out of frustration and there's no way to spin that. It does prove my point, however, that entosis is probably not the type of thing customers enjoy.

I think capture should look like a pool of 500 or 1000 entosis minutes, with a cap on simultaneous entosis modules based on ADM.

The logic behind it is to swap capitals needed in the past with subcapitals, each with an entosis link. This breaks up the capital requirement of HP grinds, and also solves the small gang harassment.

I am posting this as one of Asher's children who enjoyed 50-man Ishtar HP grinds in Querious and other parts of Sov space.

If it only takes a single ship to take sov is that sov defend?

but they also gave bonuses to the defender in the forum of vulnerability timers.

Again why should you not have to defend your space if it only takes 1 ship to attack then it only takes 1 ship to defend.

You have 3000+ people in your alliance so taking out alts at least more than 1000 people spread that over a tz you probably have at least 200 people on in all tzGÇÖs except au. So for 10 people attacking you and 10 responding that leaves 190 free to do whatever else. I donGÇÖt see how that eats up all your game time. If IGÇÖm wrong, please correct me on it but taking a small percentage of your numbers to defend doesnGÇÖt seem like an overburden to me.

I think having a window is part of the issue. the old system had no window so the window is actual a bouns to the defender then again i don;t live in sov.

Join Horde.

ItGÇÖs a buff for the defender because now they only have to worry about being attacked a few hours a day instead of every second of the day.

If a gang is attacking, you then itGÇÖs an attack and something you should have to defend against. A single ship attacking you isnGÇÖt an attack a passive regen will beat it out and you have to do nothing about it.

Just because you find the mechanic tedious and boring doesnGÇÖt mean it isnGÇÖt a fair design if someone takes your space you can do the same thing back to them as well.

As for a new system not using enosis that would be preferable but we work with what we got. Again if they reduced it to three to five days would you be ok with it being vulnerable all day those days? And what system with the current mechanics could you see them being able to commit heavily when the fights are spread out over a few systems and capitals and suppercaps have greatly reduced ability to entosis?

I am not saying that a better system isn't possible but with the current system it serves the goal of letting small players own and live in sov.

Kinda hard to defend when you have 4-6 different alliances constantly sov-lazoring it with no real intention of moving in....or entosis bombs like PH has been doing. Just proves there is little risk to the attacker when 20 mallers can spread out and hit 20 structures at the same time.

lol, the only reason they do that is because they can do that, as i've said, lazy and incompetent.

The window is a 2 edged sword. Whoever play out of that window is pretty much free to do whatever he wants while the people who's playtime is in-line with the windo currently gets to run around chasing no-commitment doctrine around. There is next to 0 benefit to committing for an attacker anyway because you gain next to no effectiveness in your attack. Every fleet I have been on to "save" timers, win or lose, the end comments from the player are the same depending on something completely different than if the objective was met.

If the enemy had nothing but no-commitement ship doing the attack, everyone is bored out of their mind because nothing happen, It's warp-warp-warp-warp-warp and stragglers from both side getting killed usually because of their own misstakes. If a fleet show up, people are happy even if we lost it because the timer was fought over.

With iteration to the game every ~6 weeks possible right now, trying for a single cycle to "force" a committed attack one way or another and then see how each side of the coin feel over it, we might actually get some steps done toward a better product. Roll back the change the next iteration if it's a disaster. I'm pretty sure people won't get completely butt mad if CCP shows they are trying to check what could work better for everyone. Hell maybe people don't want to commit more because they feel it's not worth more but CCP would probably benefit from learning that if it's the case.

Small gang fights are fun but not the only gameplay eve should offer the massive wars are what brings a lot of players to the game and a style of gameplay that should not suffer just to give small gang fights more of a chance. However, the mechanics are what they are and if a better system or a new system was introduced it wouldnGÇÖt take long for people to complain again anyway

I feel quite conflicted on this topic. On the one hand, I think that people who want to hold sov should be able to do so, and that it should be difficult for them to be kicked, or harassed, out of their space.

On the other hand, I think that enormous conglomerations such as the Imperium are fundamentally bad for the game and that sov mechanics which assist in these being broken up are healthy. At least for the moment.

I guess that leads to a further question - would the Imperium form under the current sov mechanics?

Except they don't want the space. They can attack space with no commitment because they don't actually want it, so if they catch it, great, they cost you, and if they don't, great, they still wasted your time.

So what you're saying is you don't like a mechanic because it allows for open ended gameplay. Sounds to me like you are adverse to the very things that make Eve different from all the other pixel generated fantasies.

Sov is a both a privilege and a liability. I wonder how long it will take to understand this, its not something that was a given right to every person. You don't have an unalienable right to own Sov in this game.

Claiming that several hundred pilots beat out the second largest alliance in a broken mechanic that favors defenders just shows entitlement.

However, empire building is also a valid gameplay goal. I doubt that few would argue that a complete blue donut would be bad for the game so it is a matter of defining the optimal level of consolidation.

Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it?

You are able to read English, correct?