Player Features and Ideas Discussion

And you are assuming that changes in the mechanics should not reflect changes in tactics andoperations of the players. And things do not work like that.

The only real problem you rised that is valid are the systems with only too small holes to pass large enough ships.

Anyway, I doubt you will then be able to move a citatel to inside a system that you cannot move a BC into ... solikely thisproblem will not really exist.

Which is why I am a growing fan of an entosis link simply turning off the MWD/AB.

Remains the question: Once the player actives it in order to allow traveling, in particular of bigger ships (like burning back to gates in a camp or cover distances from a random stop/drag bubble) or always, ie. just by fitting it as it currently caps the speed.

While active not all the time.

i think you don't understand what the grid control is.
i suggest you look up the difference between controlling the grid, and controlling the space/borders

while you can certainly control the grid in both inty and BC, bringing BC is totally different story.

which is precisely why all the goonies are crying, cause they can't hide behind the stacks of bubbles.

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.

Gewns complaining about people avoiding fights, and using weaponized boredom...just sayin'

Once again, not so much these:
https://zkillboard.com/region/10000047/reset/group/831/losses/
...for variety cross reference against solo kills for even more fun
https://zkillboard.com/region/10000047/solo/

so much as it is this:
http://rischwa.net/coalitions/

The Imperium (38.05%) - 41237
Drone Region Federation (12.01%) - 13020

Provi-Bloc (9.72%) - 10530

I would say, with the numbers above, you will hold grid just about wherever you prefer in whatever you want to bring, why should it be drawn out...

...unless the invading force is moving in, taking the systems back will be just as easy, especially if they are empty.

...also, remember the new structures (citadels) will be able to fire back, hopefully they can carry that over to the sov structures eventually as well, but either way, the ship carrying the thing matters not when half of null takes on less than a 10th of it.

Reminder of what new structures will be designed to:
"We have established Citadels need to be able to take care of themselves in a fight.

As such they should:

• Repel trolling attempts from a single player trying to capture them with an Entosis module
• Act as force multipliers to deal with attacking fleets and promote asymmetric warfare (less defenders are required than attackers)
• Have engagement inertia, meaning they require time to acquire and switch targets
• Require support from defending fleets to successfully fend off attacks"

Reminders about where we are in the overall revamp, for those that want to go back, don't get it, or tinker with a transition piece that will be part of a bigger picture:

• Phase One contains the long-distance travel changes... <- Stick #1
• Phase Two...medium-term changes to...capture and hold Nullsec space and infrastructure...loosely...described as “occupancy-based” systems and more “freeform” systems...decentralize... <- Stick 2 (Where we are)
• Phase Three is the stage that CCP Seagull discussed in the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year. This stage is intended to build upon the changes that we are planning for starbases/structures and corps/alliances in 2015, changes that will open up new possibilities for more dynamic warfare and more granular control of territory. This phase is also intended to lead quite deliberately into the future through our vision for player-built stargates. <- Carrot

...this isn't about grrr anyone, but rather acknowledging where we are in the process, and highlighting the futility of scream crying about a system that is only two thirds implemented, where the last third gives the all important Why Bother

Phase 2 is fine as is (with tweaks only necessary after the effects of phase 3 are implemented, such as iHub cost and use) and allows ebb and flow for uncontested or un-lived in sov, with tweaks in defensive capability better addressed in Phase 3, where system infrastructure, defenses and enhancements/customization would, in theory, allow a smaller localized force the ability to better fortify and secure their system or constellation (NOTE - those that think in terms of region still don't get it).

This does require an actual change in thinking if you are offering design tips, whereas the vast majority in this thread are railing against the sticks given in phase 1 and 2 in order to lessen the impact which creeps us back to region sized thinking, instead of focusing on ideas that would allow for condensing and making holdings more efficient and defensible.

The game is broke, but purposely so due to a major transition, bellyaching about going back is a non-starter, focusing on phases designed to be punitive misses the point, and providing feedback and suggestions for the all important "Why Bother" phase 3 is about the only sensible thing to actually do.

The provi invasion demonstrates only how a horde can overrun even well indexed systems without any benefit whatsoever of whatever may come in Phase 3 for the defender, and illustrates no actual incentive to do said overrunning beyond basic boredom, which could also be attributed to lack of Phase 3 implementation.

Rather than focus on what ship can carry the phase 2 thing that does the thing, it would be better served to focus on feedback for the phase 3 things that can be designed to limit the effectiveness of that thing from phase 2.

Harry believes CCP is on the right track, we should disregard "Interceptors online" because player built stargates and Citadels is going to fix everything.

it's exactly what CCP meant for the cases where defender doesn't turn up.

agree about pretending etc. don't do it.