Originally by: Kelsin

---

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

---

I'm against any form of "capture the flag in space". This is Eve not Counterstrike. While I welcome the discussion of any ideas regarding improvements to 0.0 they should be creative and within reason. Nobody is going to want to play capture the flag on 1000 gates every single day. If you want to play capture the flag join factional warfare. While there aren't many in 0.0 completely happy with the status quo I don't see anyone racing to play capture the flag in FW either and abandoning their space.

I'll read the proposal again and give it significantly more thought, but here's a counterthought for you in the meantime. 0.0 is hard. Building a corp that is capable of holding it is hard. It's supposed to be that way. It's not going to be everybody's bag and MANY of you are going to fail at it or be incapable. It's a reward not a birthright. There's nothing about Eve that entitles you to 0.0. Perhaps I could offer some more suggestions regarding gate control which are more reasonable once I've digested it a bit.

---

I don't disagree. But I think there's an important difference between "win this mini-game and you own this space" and "exert control over important locations to reap a benefit from them". I also think the counterstrike-in-space or capture-the-flag analogies are weak in general and certainly don't apply here.

The principal concept at work with the Stargate Capture portion of the proposal is that one of the building blocks of sovereignty is exerting control over borders and routes of travel within your space. In the absence of that control, the assertion of sovereignty is harder to make. In game terms what it really comes down to is - if you have enemy gangs infiltrating your territory undisputed, can that territory really be said to be yours?

To specifically address the "1000 stargates a day" question: Keep in mind that recapturing is only necessary when a gate has been contested. So the amount of recapturing a defender would have to do would be directly related to the number of enemy gangs they allow to roam through their space.

In addition, the specific times involved can be adjusted to tweak how long it takes to disrupt a defender's control - maybe Stargates need to have a 48 hour Contested period instead of 24 hours, to give Defenders more time to respond, etc.

I do think the strength of the overall proposal is that sovereignty becomes a more modular affair that includes POS warfare as well as establishing military infrastructure outside of POSes and general patrols and gate control, so it more realistically models all the things a territorial power needs to do to hold on to their space rather than making it about just one thing.

---

Originally by: Aprudena Gist

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25

Originally by: HCIChicken

---

Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts?

---

CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda.

End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not.

So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further.

I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing.

---

How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Originally by: Aprudena Gist

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25

Originally by: HCIChicken

---

Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts?

---

CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda.

End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not.

So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further.

I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing.

---

How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare.

---

How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op?

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Course by that logic only people talking about nano ship nerfs should be those that fly nano ships or know how to fight them right ?

---