EVE Information Portal

OK look, CCP, I like where you tried to go with this, but there are some major problems you need to fix.

1) The 4 hour vulnerability window is way too short; doing what one of the other commenters suggested and turning it around into an 8 to 12 hour "safe" window would be a much better idea.

2) Instead of having *all* an alliance's timers set for a single window, why not allow different timers to be set depending on the region? With the jump fatigue mechanic now in place and jump clone timers at a minimum of 19 hours, alliances still wouldn't be able to jump back and forth across their space very easily and this might be a good way to allow different time zones to still participate if you decide to keep the 4 hour vulnerable idea. Have different time zones defending different regions.

3) The T2 Entosis link range is insane and the fact that ships can move while using one is even more so. The T2 Entosis link range should be brought down to double the T1 and both of them should immobilize the ship using it like a triage, siege, or bastion module does. I don't particularly like that it's a highslot either.

4) I've played FW heavily on another account and so I know firsthand how PvP anomalies can generate PvP. So while I like the idea of command nodes, I hate the fact that they're scattered across an entire constellation. My corp owns a single system, and that's all we want. We don't want to have to fly around an entire constellation to protect our single system. The best FW combat is always based on contesting of a single system in PvP anoms in that system, and nullsec command nodes should follow the same model. You say the goal of these changes is to allow smaller entities a shot at sov, but what you're really doing is telling us is that we either need to be big enough to take an entire constellation or we should just go home.

5) These sov changes make it a lot easier to lose your Sov without giving any matching value to owning sov. Like one of the other commenters said, make Sov indexes give bonuses to mining yields and rat bounties or something, anything, that adds more value to owning a crappy nullsec system over highsec missioning.

6) Sov warfare is a huge part of what makes capital ships useful. I'm really glad that you're trying to produce a sov model where owning capital ships isn't required, but eliminating their use entirely is a slap in the face to those of us who spent half a year training into them and billions of ISK buying them. They need to have some function. I'm not saying they should be an "I Win" button as they currently are, but there should be some advantage to having them vs not having them

Yes. If the prime-time window could be set differently for each system or structure, rather than one time across the whole alliance then alliances with multiple TZs would naturally set primes-times, proportionally, according to the number of members they have in each TZ, not only to provide content for each TZ but to eliminate the need to protect ALL its space during one prime-time. Is this not a very obvious solution? I can't claim to be an authority on the current system but for the proposed changes this would seem to make sense. Am I missing something?

Its going to make Multi TZ alliance be useless since the timers will only come out at one time...

How far can an interceptor target anyway? I doubt there is any fit that gets it to 250 km.

great work CCP.
welcome to new MOBA EVE \o/