Jita Park Speakers Corner

Soooo reduce the amount of reinforce timers to the one on the tcu only?

To be honest, it'd be a steamroll today too if a bigger alliance wants the space, it'll just be more of a cockstab to do it. If the system moved over to, say, a planet-based variant of the POS system, then at least undefended systems should fall fairly quickly, while giving the defender at least some time to get there.

Yes that was the theory, but the practice is completely the opposite. As Zim says, if a big alliance really wants the small alliance's space, then no mechanic is going to stop them taking it, and all multiple long timers can do is delay the inevitable a few days. But what the long timers do accomplish is to make it virtually impossible for the small alliance to take any of it back.

If you have very short timers, then what gets space will be persistence. The alliance that's prepared to keep plugging away will be the one that gets the space. If the big alliance really did want that space for themselves, then they're going to keep it. If they just wanted to kick the small alliance out and install worthless renters, then that small alliance can force the big alliance to come down and defend the space every day, instead of once every 10 days.

The current system means that effectively a group like the CFC, easily able to project megafleets across the map, can hold as much space as it can be bothered to fight for, and there's very little any smaller group can do about it. The only reason they don't hold all of sov 0.0 right now is that they they're not interested in acquiring any more. And because all the groups in EVE with the competence and capability of taking Sov are perfectly well aware of the futility of making the attempt, they don't even bother trying.

That's not good for anyone - not even for the CFC, who are getting so bored that their leadership has been forced to launch a campaign vs empire to provide an enemy to define themselves against.

As said above, the timers were a good example of Malcanis' Law: a mechanism which was intended to help the little guy actually has a greater benefit to the rich powerful guy, because it scales superlinearly with assets and power projection ability.

Dumb law or not, it happens to be correct.

Just run for CSM already goddamn

Say pretty please baby with a cherry on top

Large megablobs exist because of the ridiculously high EHP of sov structures, towers and the megablobs you generally fight in the process of shooting those high EHP structures, hth

This basically. Sov does indeed need to be based on activity and the military index seems to make the most sense. People keep trying to suggest pvp to somehow be the factor of "activity" and unfortunately any such system's mechanics can't ever be agreed upon by the player base.

It's just simpler to use the military index due to a no-nonsense scoring system already existing. Of course the I-HUB will still need a little tuning as it allows the defender to easily outperform the attacker due to being able to turn it off and back on in an hour. The ability to temporarily turn off the I-HUB should be a relevant tactic for the defender. However, when a defender temporarily turns off the I-HUB to prevent the enemy from using the systems anoms to build up their side of the index it should cost the defender considerably. Perhaps a 12 or 24 hour cooldown timer could be sufficient to cause pause on the part of the defender as to whether or not they should use such a tactic to defend their system. After turning off the I-HUB the point of contention would be the asteroid belts since that's where the rats would be. These points of contention open up the possibility of pvp in the belts.

Such mechanics would make subcaps considerably more important to sovereignty than capitals and supercaps.

Also, separating the I-HUB and station/outpost from sov mechanics will allow sov to change hands more rapidly. I personally think if the attacker wins the sov battle then they should receive the I-HUB currently connected to sovereignty. Stations/outposts you should still have to grind through individually if you want to attain ownership of them.

On stations/outposts I think that by owning a station you should be able to claim all items it contains. The owner should be able to say who is authorized to store items in his/her station and who is not. Along with the power to claim ownership over everything inside the station should come the capability to dismantle upgrades to the station as well as the station itself. This allows for the "destruction" of stations without them actually having to blow up all at once. If you don't want that station... clean everything out and dismantle it. I find this a little more reasonable and interesting than simply having destructible stations.

It is good to see some players coming to similar conclusions about such things. It kind of restores a little faith in humanity. Too bad it took a year for this to happen.

It's not a responsibility of CCP to give people back anything they lost as a result of going inactive. CCP isn't going to give you back your high sec research POS that someone blew up due to you going inactive and not fueling it and defending it. This is a live game and requires some time investment to get things done in this game that's how it goes. You could have single-handedly fended off an alien invasion of Earth (which doesn't make logical sense) and CCP owes you nothing when you come back to the game.



There are NPC stations one can store their valuables in to avoid loss. I have already lost access to things I left out in various nullsec stations (nothing big, but it all adds up). It is a fact of the game that you lose things and no one has a right not to. There may be fairly interesting effects upon all those items hitting the markets and hey that's what makes this game interesting. There may be a lot out there, but eventually the effects will die off as it inevitably does.

Now remember, the CSM has been pushing for destructible stations... they go BOOM and you get nothing. I saw that as both wasteful and time consuming to the art department due to having to make a new and rather large art asset. I thought it would be more interesting to let the owner take FULL control of their station and control the assets within it as well as to be able to deconstruct the station if it is not needed (or maybe the owner wants to replace it with a different one).

As I see it, either way (CSM or mine) you are going to lose your stuff if it's in a station in player controlled nullsec. I just think my way is the better of the two. Why you might ask? The first reason why is that no new art assets have to be created for my concept. The second reason why is that it gives more control to the owner of the station. The third reason why is that it creates a farms and fields situation in which alliances can potentially profit from taking each other's main storage stations.

Even with today's system you really shouldn't be keeping anything too valuable in nullsec stations. Why? Because it's nullsec and nothing is truly safe there. Sure you might be able to gain access in the future to a station, but you can't depend on that as a certainty. If a station has been taken over and you have assets left in the station you must either try to get the most valuable things out in one shot or sell everything off to the enemy (most likely discounted). Even I have a lot of stuff in stations I can no longer access, but none of it is really all that valuable because all of the good stuff I got out before things went south.

Nullsec is a high risk area simple as that. My station ownership/deconstruction concept will allow nullsec to become a little less bloated than it currently is. This combined with the incoming tech nerf (R32 alchemy plus all the other moon tiers *tip of the hat to CCP Soundwave*), possibly changing the sov system over to an activity based system, and the modular POS concept with the capability of supplying nullsec with the needed industrial capacity to fight their big wars will all allow for a much more vibrant and efficient nullsec environment.

Of course at first there will be the mad rush (probably starting one month before patch date) to remove or sell all high value/volume assets so as to avoid losses. There will also be the rush to claim major warehousing stations to profit from the coming change. I think it would be best to have the tech nerf and the sov changes applied a few months before the station change so as to allow the nullsec political situation to dissolve/settle down. The tech nerf will take the focus off simply having centralized control of a few high value resources and the sov system change will allow for more alliances to take space in nullsec while separating station grinding from it to allow for more rapid sov changes.

Nullsec should never be truly safe for anyone or anything.