Jita Park Speakers Corner

Null is risky. vOv


Except if you'd been better prepared, with a cyno and someone else on a titan or a dread or two, then his carrier would be toast.


There's nothing stopping us from killing that fleet, if he hadn't been paying attention/taking the necessary precautions. This is a balancing act, and I'm inclined to say it's working just fine as it is.

Being guarranteed a kill every time you take a roam out is almost as bad as being guarranteed that if you undock, you will get killed, almost no matter how well you prepare. If you're not prepared at all, by all means get killed, but cutting the response window down to 4 seconds (from 15-30) is a drastic change.


Nothing's stopping anyone from doing exactly that. It does require that the people going there aren't bad at eve, though.

Small alliances can carve out a small chunk of space if they're ferocious. Or, they would've been able to if the sov system hadn't been today's multimillion HP grindfest with a week's response time and several days between each attempt.

On the flipside, if the large alliance really wants someone gone, chances are they'll get gone, but while they're busy chewing up that small alliance's space (which could take a few days, depending on how good the alliance was at defending), someone else could be attacking the big guy from a different direction. Using today's system, they could wait up to almost a whole week before going back to defend.


Hence the need for a way to mitigate risk to a certain degree. Local mitigates it to a certain degree, it does not remove it alltogether, you still have to keep vigil while you're undocked. And if you're playing for, say, 8 hours straight, those 15-30 seconds can become quite the tight margin because your attention starts waning and it takes 10-15 seconds to notice the new red/neutral in local, and you can start initiating warp. Cut that to 4 seconds, and it'll be pretty much impossible to stay safe over an extended period of time.


Single module:
I'm thinking this could be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If you can defend a space through military might, you can own it. If you can't, then this module won't stay there very long anyways. Not that I really see a reason to fret if it is removed since, again, I think it should be more descriptive than prescriptive.

Multiple planet-anchorable modules:
This would have the added benefit of enabling SOV warfare to regain its old tug of war mechanic, where you fight over a system for a period of time and both sides can win some and lose some, as opposed to today's system where you either win all fights over a properly upgraded system, or the defender wins ONE fight and all the progress the attacker made is reset.

If my theory is correct, then the latter could possibly enable fights in multiple systems at the same time, as opposed to today's system where you more or less go all in in one system, duke it out, then move on to duking it out in the next system if you won all 6 timers. And hopefully, it'd also make wars last longer, because the last few wars I've been in have always ended after a few weeks, even if the forces on each side were somewhat equal.

As for "capitals and forts", the old POS-based system had that where you got enough constellations up to SOV4, all POSes in the SOV4 constellation went invulnerable, until you broke down enough SOV3 constellations. I guess this could be called "capitals and forts". vOv

Hard to say. They have been designed with a lot of skills to make them properly useful, so removing jumpdrives from combat ships would probably not go down very well, and reducing the range so they had to sometimes even take the long way round to get from one region to another is probably also not a very popular option.

However, if that was done, then the problem of power projection would go down a fair bit (as opposed to when jumpbridges was chopped, which made ****-all difference), and I think that in the long run it'd be good for the game, but I would not hope for a good/positive reception for that idea, at all.

There's a whole bunch of suggested options for jump drive limitations, from the mass limitation idea, to different cyno module size categories, to spool-up timers, to sig bloom and remote rep immunity on actively cyno-ing hulls, to jump drives needing a larger percentage of capacitor to activate. Take your pick.

Its not directly a 'nullsec' issue in itself though.

The thought of using POCOs has occurred to me, but the problem I have with them is that there's no manual timing mechanism, so it's still just a matter of setting a timer and it's +-3 hours from that time. But apart from the fact I like the idea of being able to outwit the other guy if I'm good at timing or reading the other guy's bluff etc, then yes, POCOs could definitely have been used.

The problem with POCO based sovereignty is that it'd create a massive disparity between systems - the number of planets in claimable nullsec systems ranges from only one to 16.

It'd still be better than POS sovereignty where some systems have literally one moon and one has 120, vOv

I can just imagine fuelling that system during war. :v:

The biggest bonus I can see on POCO sov would be exactly the disparity causing people to claw for the better systems with the most moons. It would also mix it up a bit people probably wouldn't want a one planet system but inevitably it would get taken by someone. Who then has to defend at the one point and loose it. While the attackers who hit that planets poco might be just using it for bait. So when the POCO is due to come out of reinforce they attack some where completely different.

I really think it would make the sov system alot more fun.

Edit: I left out that in a system with multiple POCO's the attacker could attack multiple at the same time in the same or different systems leaving the defender with the choice of using one big force and hoping to get to all the POCO's in time or wheather to split the force, making alot of smaller battles.

On the tech moons, I know they will nerf them but frankly why bother. Goonswarm will just come up with another way to make money (while cancelling hulkagedon as the profit will be gone) and then in a few months people will be asking for something else to be nerfed, Just because the Goonswarm management knows how to make money. Also lets face it these ideas are not miracles someone or multiple people are researching and reading, it seems a bit of a rip off to nerf all their hard work every time.

A change to the utility of the R64 moons due to changes in demand for T2 Components resulted in the emergence of Tech moons as being so valuable.

CCP has stated a desire to shift TechTwo Industry to null-sec. Redistributing the R8 & R32 moons to have similar distributions as R16 & R64 moons makes this more feasible. At present, even the mighty Goonswarm is unable to domestically produce Nanotransistors end-to-end, they have to import Mercury.

What is the vision for 0.0? Should players be able to develop their space to the point where their imports consist of the newest blueprints and fresh blood and they export excess rare materials back to high-sec?

Changing gears - 0.0 PI, open it up to anyone. This makes planets (& local blues) potentially more valuable to the holding alliance.

We'll probably be in good financial shape by virtue of having 1-2k active members and holding numerous moons of various types, but we won't be anywhere near the state we are now. There is no post-nerf scenario where we'd be pulling more income than we are now.