These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2015-03-03 18:00:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Bonzair
Give us possibility to choose version before production changes :D You'll see that all your 'features' are a piece of s***
Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#342 - 2015-03-03 18:00:58 UTC
Professor Headmash wrote:
So if I'm part of an alliance that holds Sov, instead of doing different things every time I log in to keep me intrested and logging into the game.....I'm going to be constantly flying around chasing captor gangs griefing our sov?

Seems legit.

No offense, but if you can't quickly deal with a ceptor gang using a module on your sov structures, you shouldn't even bother holding sov. Blink
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#343 - 2015-03-03 18:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
This can be fixed by increasing the price of the Entosis link enough to make Entosis kill reports a prized goal of PvP-ers. Like 500M, so defending home would be a wanted PvP event instead of a chore no one wants.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Entosis Links restricted to BS hulls, and simply make this a fundamental part of the role for the struggling BS platforms. BS's are slow and hard to troll with, which would significantly reduce the roaming troll fleets that will be a reality of entosis link life. And expensive enough to not be purely throwaway. But BS's are still much more affordable than dreads and can be fielded in reasonable numbers as part of mixed-fleet compositions by small groups looking to take sov in backwater constellations.

IF this mechanic was extended to lowsec FW ihub flips, it would also potentially give a reason for BS hulls to exist in FW again.

Lastly, it would give a reason for dreads to continue to exist, since dropping a dread on an Entosis Link BS to blap it would still be a viable defensive tactic. In the current iteration, the ships fielding Entosis Links will be, for the most part, unhittable by caps. (EDIT: in particular, outside of troll fleets, I would expect serious use of Entosis Links to be almost entirely HACs/T3's, which SERIOUSLY don't need yet another reason to be even more popular).
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Stay Feral
#344 - 2015-03-03 18:01:08 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
also, did it not occur to you that sov war is now basically a giant frigate fleet, with little or no reason to use anything larger, due to guns playing no part in it, just mobility?

You have to sit around on the Command thingy for up to 40 minutes. Any cruiser fleet would shread a frigate fleet in 10-40 minutes. Thus it is not frigates online.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Princess Cherista
#345 - 2015-03-03 18:02:00 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
This is actually great. I'm contemplating possible "**** you"-fits right now. As I know from experience, there are a lot of empty systems all over sov.

And if I'm happen to find a completely empty system in an empty, unused and unloved constellation. Welp I guess I can teach them a lesson about defending their space against neutrals.

Looks like even a lone wolf like me can finally enter sov-warfare from the sidebenches! Pirate

Why would you take a tiny island in hostile territory you cant build the indices in and probably cant even pay the upkeep on. Thats the primary problem this whole system does not address. Why have sov? It turns the current system into a giant game of whack-a-mole and makes systems flip constantly for no benefit other than to grief and troll somebody.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#346 - 2015-03-03 18:02:04 UTC
Total Newbie wrote:
Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.
NPC null, interceptors, cyno jumps behind defensive walls, move ops outside of the Sov holders primetime when defences are weaker... that's just off the top of my head without any great experience in Nullsec logistics.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

International Speciality Machines
#347 - 2015-03-03 18:02:26 UTC  |  Edited by: xartin
this part of the plan to lock vulnerability timers to a certain timezone is fundamentally flawed.

This will only create more strife, discontent and fragment the nullsec playerbase as entire major regions of eve's active timezones will be excluded from participating in content.

Think from the perspective of an attacker wanting to capture alliance held space that is only vulnerable during EUtz.

UStz and AUtz will be completely excluded from any ability to be useful or participate. the same scenario would apply for defenders as well.

If this happened alliances recruiting standards could end up being locked into highly prejudicial preferences that could become heavily reliant on preferring certain active timezones. New players dont need any adfditional challenges to finding corporations that are a good ft for them .

Finding the right corp for you is already enough of a challenge.

Perhaps ccp should take a long hard look at implementing alliance wide recruiting tools as only corp level recruiting currently exists if they are in fact going to end up with prejudicial recruiting due to content exclusions from alliance or coalition wide vulnerability timers.

Additionally with the way that major coalitions blacklist players who allied with enemy coalitions (think CFC vs N3) entire timezones will be unable to find active content for they're active playtime due to being blacklisted for recruiting.

Noted a player generally doesn't get blacklisted unless they have done some really badstuff but this could make overcoming the allegiance factor much more of a challenge.

i'm all for change but excluding subscribers from content has far wider implications beyond just fragmenting the blue doughnut.
Proton Stars
Gallente Federation
#348 - 2015-03-03 18:02:44 UTC
claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.

20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#349 - 2015-03-03 18:02:54 UTC
Total Newbie wrote:
Since the proposed change is out, I would think that the meeting minutes of The current CSM and it's members who are supporting this be published as well. The NDA seems to be null and void now.

what makes you say that
Elona Solette
League of Extraordinary Ratters
#350 - 2015-03-03 18:03:19 UTC
Olya Tsarev wrote:
Mekenioc wrote:
Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time"

You can contract your stuff to Olya Tsarev, I look forward to what assets you seem to have deemed unusable as a result of this change that is still being worked out.

Thanks in advance sweetheart.

You're going to end up with a lot of poorly fit ventures.
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#351 - 2015-03-03 18:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Nomistrav
Amateur opinion (I haven't done null-sec since the Second Catch War)

I like the system for what it's worth as it breaks up a lot of the blob game-play which gets really annoying, but only to a certain extent.. I think it illustrates a lot more opportunity for 'Wing' fights instead of 'Fleet' fights what with the command node mechanics. A few things that do worry me however are the exploding I-HUB... TCU is just fluff at this point to show who's name owns the system (rental turf is going to be interesting) but the exploding I-HUB with a potential for such a light amount of effort looks like it could get costly in a hurry. Especially when you consider how much effort actually goes into just getting those things functional.

Another thing that sort of gets me is the dependence on new high-slot modules and how they take longer on Capital Ships. While this is good for lessening the constant necessity of capital ships for sovereignty, it's sort of a major kicker for ships with utility highs and lessens the overall functionality for ships that don't. As expensive as they are (20m/80m if I read that correctly) it effectively means that whatever you fit them onto better have enough brick tank to be worth the effort. I see it changing fleet composition for the worse in that we're now going to have a lot of pressure to field other things by mandatory within a fleet doctrine.

T1 Frigates/Destroyers/Cruisers are going to pop way too easy to use them and the Entosis Links are far too expensive to even want to fit on those ships anyway. These ships are primarily the 'heart' of a small roaming gang as they're inexpensive and there's not much inherent risk in losing them. I think that the dependence on mandatory use of the Entosis Links are going to make small roams with the intent on damaging sov have more risk as a result but even still they're not going to be doing any real damage without a support fleet as they can only really attack station services without triggering command node gameplay.

It seems that what this boils down to is one large fleet filled to the brim with some players being shoe-horned into using a mandatory Entosis fit and that large fleet winds up having to split off to attack command nodes at some point. The blob-warfare is still there, just now the only difference is they have to break apart at some point. This gameplay mechanic doesn't do much to encourage small gang activity, just the dispersion of larger fleets.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Anthar Thebess
#352 - 2015-03-03 18:04:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
4h window - ok.
But let alliance setup up to 15 days per month where there is no refout , because of the holidays.
So i and 90% of my members have holidays in period A - don't force us to login because some other group will use this time to harass our space , as their have different believes and for them is normal day.

( need to work also about abusing this system, by moving systems between alt alliances to have 15 days of quiet times , every 16 days)
Total Newbie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#353 - 2015-03-03 18:04:20 UTC
Elona Solette wrote:
Pie Napple wrote:
I see a problem with with the primetime thing as there is no actual way to make real coalitions in game.

For alliances with mixed timezones, like brave collective, there is no way of splitting up into timezones and splitting up the sovereignty. If the split would happen, nothing in the game ties the coalition together. It would not be one brave any more, it would be multiple. It would all have to be handled by standings. No common chat channels (has to be created and managed manually).

I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions.

This is explicitly designed to break up coalitions not encourage them.

But won't break them up at all.....

Now, we'll use GoonWaffe.....

GW becomes basically a centralized Bank/repository and station flipping force....

Current blues lock down whatever system they want to control.... still coalition friendly...
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#354 - 2015-03-03 18:04:34 UTC
Soldarius wrote:

In this new system, even if 1000 titans came to defend, not one of them will be able to rep up the renter alliance's structures. The options are to shoot the attackers or annex the sov structure. I'm intensely curious to see how landlord alliances change their rental schemes to adapt to this new system.

pay us or we'll take your sov
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#355 - 2015-03-03 18:04:52 UTC
Proton Stars wrote:
claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.

20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang

What's the locking range on one of those again? And what's to stop you just parking an atron at 0 and running a defensive link.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#356 - 2015-03-03 18:05:29 UTC
Maya Cinderfort wrote:
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Here's a twist: For the Attackers, some of the command nodes are duds. The defender knows which nodes are the effective ones.

then the attacker knows which ones by waiting a bit & seeing where defenders go

And the defenders get to false flag bad nodes. :)
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#357 - 2015-03-03 18:05:35 UTC
Generally - interesting gameplay to be had! Nice work CCP, now you just need to tweak this a bit...

* Small gangs can take sov and will harass bigger entities empty sov-space (there is a LOT of totally empty sov-systems today!). Excellent! Using WHs to harass enemy sov will be done a lot!
* Freeport station for 48h - awsome idéa!
* Constellation-wide conflict - awsome! Making tactical use of the "geography" of constellations will be a key in caoturing sov - nice!
* Non-scaling of entosis-modules - nice! A fleet of 1 or 1000 doesn't matter. Power to the solo/small-gangs!

* Small gangs will never be able to hold on to sov once they have taken it, but I guess that was never the thought with this anyway?!
* This was supposed to be simpler than the current sov-grind?! My eyes bleed after all this text! ;-)
* The "Primetime"-concept is a bit awkward - there is a big risk that certain Tz:s will never be part of any fun sov-harassment or serious sov-warfare. Also a "primetime" in a week-day is usually not the "primetime" in week-ends. Fights will always be within the Tz:s and that is a bit boring really. So rethink pls!

* Once a structure/station has a new owner; what will the default prime-time be set to? Will changing this default prime-time the first time always induce the 96h transition period where the structure has 2 vulnerability-periods during this transition? I think this might need a bit of rethinking too...
* What determins the owning corp of a captured structure? Will it default to the executor corp of the alliance no matter what, or will it be the corp that had the "killing-entosis-cycle" or how will that work?

And the final most important question:
* What the h*ll shall I use my Super Carrier for now?! Can't shoot POSes, no need to grind structures because "entosis", power-projection-nerfs effectively killed hotdropping capitals....Unsubbing is the best option, or does CCP plan to add some new "role" instead of the role of "main structure grinder"? DPS is not king anymore...(death to all supers - I know, I know! Just didn't expect CCP to kill them in this way!)

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]

Maya Cinderfort
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#358 - 2015-03-03 18:05:41 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Total Newbie wrote:
Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.
NPC null, interceptors, cyno jumps behind defensive walls, move ops outside of the Sov holders primetime when defences are weaker... that's just off the top of my head without any great experience in Nullsec logistics.

jep because you don't die jumping to a closed station or just into random points of space. try getting an IHUB into the interceptor.

i know high-null holes, but yeah those aren't reliable at all
Ortus Maleficus
Lambent Enterprises
#359 - 2015-03-03 18:05:59 UTC
At first I thought the 4 hour window thing was janky and a terrible idea.

But then I realized, as a former hardcore but now casual eve player, it really opens up the possibility of me getting more into 0.0 sov warfare, which I like.

handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#360 - 2015-03-03 18:06:35 UTC
Carriers lose one of their unique roles. "O well, at least we can repair structures with them, their other 'being good at role'.

CCP removes structure HP.

Also; LOL supers

So if I'm correct, CCP wants players to invest tons of money getting a market and industry off the ground in their home systems in nullsec. While they just made them wayyy easier to capture. All that is needed is for the other big entity to show up and mess with the timers while they're contested by some YOLO wh group. Not do they have to do that twice, just one slip-up is enough for Third Party Hellcamps to take place.


Baddest poster ever