Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Aren't all the complaints about the new sov system based on systems with a 0/0/3 index?

Every whine about Sov I hear is that either:
A) An interceptor has an easy time entosising systems which have nobody in them.
B) If you do shoo away the interceptor, it's boring because you don't get a KM out of it.

If your system has a 5/5/5 index right now that puts the entosis time at an hour. And If you're maintaining a 5/5/5 rating there shouldn't be anybody farther away than 30 seconds from that Trollceptor anyway. How is making the vulnerability window 0 going to change anything?

OK so people said roaming pvp was dead, supers were to op, and sov was to hard to take. so CCP came up with jump changes, new sov, and with the combination of these the hope to encourage more small gang pvp.

the problem here is when you neuter ships that take years to master and cost insane amount of time investment to procure you make people mad. add that with sov changes and now these ships have little if any place on the field so why should they keep them subbed? why should a player new to the game aspire to fly a command ship? people keep playing this game because of progression they want to see the hours they have invested pay out for them but with jump changes that is not possible so all you loyal paying customers thanks for the cheese but get bent!

Sov oooo sov how it is a hot mess. it does not encourage fights, its broken from the word go. a comment on here said that the system was tested and that "WE" had a chance to call foul however with all the man hours and effort CCP has placed in just writing code and glitch fixing do you think they would listen when people say hey this sucks. if you do then you must be unemployed because that's not how you run a business. Null sec alliance said this sov is bad they pointed out issues and it all fell of deaf ears, they had the business model and they bought the cow.

how to fix it.

in my humble opinion why not go back to POS warfare but instead of moons why not use planets (you know so it would be something close to how holding sov would be IRL) take these rather cool new structures and make them necessary to own a planet if you control 60% of the planet in a system you own the system. use entosis links to disable SBU or something similar thus opening up the system for immediate attack and use them to offline defenses or impend the purpose of the structure (thinking manufacturing or jump bridges). well what about renter alliances well why not make the number of systems you own directly effect how much it cost to place a new structure in a new system or how much sov bills are if you own more than a average amount of systems say in a region as a alliance then the price jumps astronomically.

jump changes are really kinda easy. Half all jump fatigue and cool downs and make a max jump 8.5 light years so if someone wants to jump the full 8.5 the reactivation time is 2mins and 30 some odd second ( you know so you can kill the dread killing your stuff) and cap the fatigue at 3 days. take fighters away from carriers and reduce the drone bay and focus it to be more of a logistics (triage) ship. super carriers get 2 drone bays one for fighters and fighterbombers and a smaller dronebay for light drones, half the raw armor/shield hit points give them T2 resistance and call them attack carriers this would also mean removing the bonus or at least dinging the bonus to remote reps and transfers forcing them to bring carriers. titans well thats lost on me i have no idea but im sure you can figure something out.

Nerf bomber damage to bring back battleship doctrines and call it a day.

I think the problem is not the window, or the trollceptor, or the sov system or any of the new changes. I think the problem is: who wants to take a system? I don't have Dotlan or the eve map in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that almost every 0.0 Sov system in the game has some kind of claim to it already.

I'm probably a little insulated living in Providence, but I don't hear ANYTHING about this small group or that medium sized alliance actually fighting some other small group or medium sized alliance to take their space. I'm thinking most people would rather NAP or blue-list or some other out-of-game, meta-game or whatever-you-call-it themselves into a 0.0 system.

Either there is too much 0.0 with enough to go around, or there is not enough players to start fighting over it, or both. In that case, the only reason to attack an alliance's sov is to grief them, which is boring and lame.

So then we're left with the occasional small group/solo roam trying to create some pew-pew and thinking "If I entosis something, they'll come out to fight," and the other guy saying "If we don't give them a fight, they'll leave and we can entosis our station service."

I vote for a shake-up. blow up every single stargate in all of null-sec, introduce the player built stargates and let the land rush begin!

Hell, I do.

I think your question is more: Who thinks they can take, and keep, a system from an established power. (Hint: I cannot)

During the roundtable discussion last week, somebody from BL was whining that they couldn't both get content and stage centrally enough to keep all their low index systems. The reply was essentially "Maybe you're going to have to pick between keeping those vanity systems, or having gudfights."

But it points out the mindset: They might have a burning need for fights and content, but keeping a depopulated, near zero index, do nothing system under their flag is even more important. And that's going to be hard for upstarts to overcome.

I wouldn't say it's a solution to some burning problem, but if I were to make a suggestion about Sov it would be this: If your system is at a 0/0/X index, you lose Sov automatically. Use it, or lose it.