EVE Information Portal

A level headed post?! Not in my EVE Online!

Seriously though, this thread is General Discussion bad.

and the major em pires are yet to get involved!


When PL and goons decide which side of the line they sit on, thats when eve goes full retardo

Well, Titans are getting a use, as I mentioned, because mobile jump bridge? Hell yes. I'd say give them a bit more of a reduction on jump fatigue for bridged pilots but that's a number balancing thing. Supercarriers? They're in a sort of semi-****** space right now. As it stands, in the new system, supers get used to kill capitals and other supers. Now in the grand scheme of things, that could be more than enough, but dreads/carriers are also in this semi-****** space with supers in that they don't have a real use outside of a POS timer.


I see two options, either we have another massive rebuild of supers (remember when they were motherships?) to fill an entirely new role, or CCP needs to give capital warfare a BIG shot in the arm. Personally, I'm for buffing and expanding capital roles.

Data and relic sites should contribute to the industry index if they are run by a member of the alliance that owns the system. This allows explorers to contribute to the system and gives a reason to fight over said sites if you are trying to bring down or raise the defensive bonus provided by the index.

wtb iHubs 10m3 wtb upgrades 1m3 wtb tcu 5m3 at the price of 1 mil each
also wtb upgrades that actually upgrade a crappy pve wise system to a system that actully can be used

also bb AU TZ peeps was nice playing with you

and gl taking sov from the Russians

Since it comes up so often, I will address it.
Yes, the change from grinding fleets to single "hacking" ships is HUGE.
Yes, it has a great potential for trolling.
But call it rather "knocking on the door and asking for a fight".

Many people have complained about the fixed 4-hour-window.
I believe this fixed window (and please no larger than 4 hours) is a CRUCIAL and MANDATORY part of the whole plan.

CCP basically removes the "fleet size floor" for sov holders.
To avoid the "500 Interceptors conquering nullsec in 1 day" scenario, you need some other limitation.
This will be the small time window.

If your alliance wants to hold sov, you must be able to keep your space clean of enemies for 4 hours per day.
Completely clean. If you fail to remove one ship or to respond to a small gang, you get timers.
Those 4 hours are long for the defender and it's absolutely fair that the defender gets to choose them.

It's also ok if they are fixed, because I know the similar POCO mechanism quite well. If you need to defend a lot of POCOs and basically you are not willing, you will set the timers randomly to wear down the enemy without fighting yourself. The new system wants to prevent this, which is good.

However, I do see the problem.
On the one hand, a small defending group (which should be viable in nullsec by design) cannot defend anything but a small time window in their own prime time. Period.
No small window selectable by defender -> no small groups holding sov.

But it also works the other way round. If I am in a small group with only one prime time zone, I can hardly attack anything in a different timezone. This IS an issue.

Suggestion:
FORCE alliances to choose one DIFFERENT time window for each constellation where they hold sov.
Implications:
-I am a small group, 1 timezone: I can hold sov in one constellation, people will have to fight in my prime time.
-I want to be bigger and hold multiple constellations: I need to be able to defend multiple 4-hour-windows in different
timezones
-if I want to attack CFC or N3 with a small group, I will always find a constellation where they are vulnerable in my timezone. The other way round does not work. They have to fight me where I am strongest.
-if 2 large entities battle each other, there will be all sorts of shenanigans. They will have to carefully choose which constellations get vulnerable in which timezone, but generally they will be vulnerable somewhere 24/7.
-basically, the more territory you have, the longer your vulnerability time gets
-maybe even narrow the vulnerability window down to 3 hours and create 8 non-overlapping fixed timeslots. Own up to one constellation: you must be ready to fight for 3 hours each day. 2 constellations: 6 hours... and so on. If you have 8 or more constellations, at least one constellation will always be vulnerable.
-in very large alliances, people from all timezones will have "their" constellations they can/have to defend
-if an entity wants to attack a small sov holder, place AND time are in favour of the defender
-if attacking a large entity, the attacker has the choice of EITHER choosing a strategically important constellation OR attack something less valuable in a maybe slightly better timezone (assuming the vulnerability windows would be visible on the starmap or the like and assuming the defender did his homework and assigned the most important constellations to his best timezones)

---

I really like the new approach. Sounds promising.
I see many people in this thread though who fail to see the implications, because they are thinking in the old ways.

This sounds and should actually be much better than structure grinds... but how it actually would turn out needs can only be judged after patch deployment.

I also think making Entosis module initially only for BS is a good start... the battleships need some love, and this is the perfect chance to reduce trolling the system with throwaway ships.

i suppose that just because it's never happened before is no guarantee it can never happen in the future

After thinking about this some more, especially in regards to the timezone component, I would make the following suggestion.

-Completely remove alliances from the game.
-Move all sov structures to the corporate level.
-To make up for alliances, give corporations the ability to join other corporations just like an individual pilot (some technical limitations on the number of cascaded corporations)
-Sov structures are always tied to the corp though, but the name displayed will always "go up the tree" to the highest level parent coropration.
-Overview would replace "In my alliance" with "In an affiliated corporation"

Players are now free to define their own organizational structures. We currently have corporations, alliances, coalitions, and affiliated coalitions. We will now have corporations, a parent corp, a grandfather corp, etc. A corp could then leave its parent corp and takes it sov with them as their own entity. If they chose to join another corporation, they take their sov untouched with them.

Yes its crazy, but it might allow for smaller groups to form within an alliance to spread out ownership of space. It gives people the ability to still associate with a larger parent, grand-parent, great grand-parent, etc corporation (Brave, Goons, CFC, N3, NCdot, Nulli, Provi-bloc, or whatever players want) as an identity, but the keeps the logistical/organization tools available at the corp level open to form viable subgroups.