EVE Information Portal

Logging in you super is not safe too.
You have proved my point. Renters will always find reasons to pay rent.

Off TZ members can still attack/defend POS/POCOs, and they can harass farmers - maybe to the point where holding a station no longer has value.

Well lets hope so... but they would need to do it en masse, rather one by one because what will happen is the coalition will lhotdrop kick them out and then put someone back in, and tell them to behave or else. You know the usual stuff, if you don't do as we tell you we will destroy you trick, which usually works for the weak. The threat is usually enough to keep people on side.

I love the fact that this change will force this. That no longer is it like you said 1 or 2 FC's commanding a wing. Now squad leaders really will be a "thing" that has to happen.

It is a huge step to actual fleets, not just a blob pushing F1, now people will have to think and act as a team.

Two things...

First, CSM..I am yet to actually see a swath of stories this time around on how the CSM wasn't consulted or ignored on the proposed changes. In leiu of that we must assume then the bulk of the CSM gave nodding approval to these changes, and their silence now is approval after the fact (or pansied waiting to see which way popular vote blows first...).

Second, CCP obviously isn't trying to ruin the game. They are perhaps just trying to ruin your game.

To quote you

"• In-space activity should be encouraged and rewarded"

I really don't see much reward to holding SOV space. Especially in drone regions that had their rewards completely removed. The place is a waste land because of it.

This seems like all it would do is make nullsec space SOV much more volatile for a season until people realized that the rewards for holding SOV no longer worth the risk of trying to keep it. If people believe there is a high chance that they will lose their assists due to SOV changes etc... and they are only grinding a small % better return on their time over high or lowsec, than they aren't going to see nullsec as appealing. The rewards need match the risk.

I see highsec population increasing do to this.

I've sat down and read the sov. changes and a good portion of the post plus hearing people complain over coms.
I do agree that sov. needs a change but this way has some advantages over the current and former two that had been used.
First off as the Angry Mustache the Entosis Link should only be on a Battleship or capital that gives them a meaningful role in this new change and keeps ships such as a Trolletto or the like from being completely OP and the only thing that is risked by the aggressor's force.

The changes in the Prime Time is completely BullSh*t how are the off the prime tz people suppose to make a meaningful contribution to there alliances if they can't be log to even run or help defend there space. I know this is a complaint for this portion but a 4 hour window when your whole sov. becomes vulnerable that bloody insane idea.

Instead of prime time there should be a use for SBU or rename them Sovereignty block protectors or something of the like that have to be taken over/knocked offline for the system to become vulnerable.

Then you can lay siege to Station/TCU/IHUB also further note to this part your suggested time are way to short on them even with the system being completely maxed out. the SBP should only take 10 minutes at the min 40 at the max to go offline per each SBP that in that system.

Station/TCU/IHUB time should be 30 minutes at 0% index and 1.5 hours at max index then reinforced to come out at the defender prime time where they have the best chance of getting the highest numbers to defend there space be it exactly 48 hours from now to a bit less that up the when the defenders put the exit to reinforcement.

The Entosis Link them selves the tech1 version is fine at 25km the tech2 at 250km is way to long should be reduced down to 100km that way a battleship could still use it mjd to try and get away from something that attacking it while it using the Entosis Link.

Oh that reminds me that your trying to make nodes spread out across a constellation that in itself is a very interesting idea as it prompts smaller groups fighting over the area but I believe you have this wrong.
After the reinforcements the nodes should stay in the same system to capture that system not be spread out across the constellation.

There should be something for constellation control after all system have been switched but I don't have the slightest idea how to put that into words to make it work.

This is some suggestion to how to make this new system work although I'm more then likely forgetting something or missing other aspects to this new way your trying to put reset nullsec.

Further note Nullsec as a whole is mostly worthless or completely worthless. before you start doing the sov changes you need to make all nullsec worth it to own. Not just the moons but the system itself. Currently I live in a -.7 space and on the average day even running 3 accounts running high end anoms if there no one else running them in system I have barely enough to keep my 3 accounts from having to change from high anoms to something lower. My point is a -.7 system has trouble keeping up with my ratting habits then what about the lower sec system? This should be addressed and fixed before the sov changes. Yes I know I'm not including belt ratting and mining but I personally don't use that to make my isk.

Quick propitiation on this is to make the 0.0 space either equal to a -1.0 as a whole in terms of spawning and triple the all the anoms spawns with every system starting with rally points to Sanctum.
In doing it this way all nullsec is worth while to live and own.

As for npc nullsec I truly have no idea what to do with that area of space but it needs to be changed also.

Read a fair bit of the feedback thread as well as the Dev Blog and my opinion is this.



1. Multiple content nodes spread across a constellation will introduce strategic geography, which is currently lacking in Eve. Particularly in coalition sized warfare, this could mean multiple respawns of command nodes (10, 15, 20 nodes all online within a single constellation requiring delegated command to sub-FCs for a SINGLE TCU. Imagine a major offensive with multiple systems attacked at once= 40-50 command nodes to be defended)

2. Removal of n+1 mechanics on sov structures (no more super grind ops for example)

3. Disentanglement of capture processes: attacking a tcu effects the tcu. Attacking the station effects the station etc.

4. Acknowledgement of, and attempting (poorly but ill get into that) to introduce meaningful content for time-poor players (10-30min Ops can now have a tangible effect on Sov)

5. Free-port idea is a great idea. So much potential for mayhem.

6. Encouraging the idea of asymmetric warfare doctrines (hit and run from smaller entities against sprawling empires)


1. 4hr windows of offensive Ops are far too small a window to effectively conduct 'coalition level' warfare. This will need to be streched out to 6hrs minimum. If it isnt, coalitions will dissolve into TZ centric playerbases and everyone will just set against their own tz. A strong AUtz alliance would be a perfect example of this. No one could fight us but neither could we effect their sov, so it would just mean regulating non prime time Ops to damaging POS networks etc. BOOOORING.

2. Station timers being the only thing non 'primetimers' can probably effect as non-primetime.

3. Still maintaining this generic "sov mining lazor" ****. Worst part about FW plexing was the boring mechanic of orbiting a generic point on the same type of grid. In the Sov version you just orbit while you Sov mine.

4. Still no tactical geography. By breaking up the blobs into these little "command node" missions, CCP lost a good opportunity for fights to be varied by adding elemental or environmental effects that would only effect a particular grid. For example, a command node that spawned in a dense asteroid field that needs to be navigated, or a grid that has bonuses to shield tanks or some ****. Varied tactical environments providing varied game play and necessitating specific gang types while punishing generic "one fleet fits all mentality". If interested in this idea, check out the posts in my sig

5. Still no real reason to hold sov, though this will probably be addressed in phase 3 I would imagine.

6. Supers now nerfed into the ground and. quoting many leadership types "will be used primarily as suitcases".



1. Fitting requirements for the Sov Mining Lazor I and II variant. This is a big deal as this will really define the way this Sov mechanic pans out.

2. Whether or not the Command Nodes will continue to spawn/ carry over the "prime time" limits. This is where shoulder TZs could come into their fore. A running battle for Sov could potentially last into another TZ so having a strong AUtz to "carry the day" as it were might become a critical capability of transnational coalitions, especially US based ones. Another example would be EU to East Coast US alliances.

3. Why bother holding sov beyond the ability to carebear in greater density

4. No talk whatsoever about POS mechanic changes

Overall, good start and good attempt at challenging the status quo of nullsec mentalities. "Useful duders" and middle tier FCs are going to become critical assets to alliances far more than rank and file members will be.

This should provide a very fluid battle front but the restrictions in "prime timers" and the lack of imagination for tactical environment means that the fights will still end up being very generic and boring and also not really incorporate the need to diversify a corps roster. Pvpers and line members are still going to be the focal point of alliances rather than recruiting from all aspects of Eve life.

TL:DR= Good start but needs more dog. Also, be brave and actually make some imaginative changes rather than relying on genericism. No one wants to orbit cans mining sov any more than they want to bash it with a Super.

I am concerned about the roles iHubs play in the new system. I would hope that their size/build costs are looked at to make deploying them less of a burden that either requires Access to Titans and a Jump Bridge network, or a large escort fleet.

We actually reach out to CSM members to get input on why these changes suck so much if the CSM was counselled on them first. The response was "we told them, they didn't listen".

If you think this will ruin our game, you're in for a harsh reality check.

We have worked around every single change that CCP has made since our inception. Much to public dismay, we aren't looking to destroy Eve Online the Spaceship Game, as most of us are addicted to it and rely on its success. Our suggestions and input through the CSM aren't "This is what is best for CONDI"; they are "This is what is best for Eve". No matter what change happens, we'll be one of the first to adapt and succeed after the changes, as we have always done.