Player Features and Ideas Discussion

people who are unable to own sov sure seem to have strong opinions on what other people should have to do to hold sov while demanding the absolute minimum effort on their part

Quoted and liked but only for the underlined part. The trollceptor fear is largely misplaced imo. But nothing wrong with requiring a large bulky ship to run these things. Things that conceptually might need a large powerplant and series of human brains for processing power.

Please do revive Command Ships and tech I BSs. The command ship and tech III command subsystem rebalance did not do enough to elevate Command ships. Tech III boosters are still the norm. Of course getting rid of off-grid boosting would be the best solution. And if you could add some command mode (or bonuses allowing the fitting of command mods) to tech III destroyers that might satisfy those that think somehow the fast small gang v blob needs off-grid boosting.

As for tech I BSs, please temper the mobility nerfs. The BS and BC warp and align speeds are agonizing and unfun. That change alone might be enough to bring them back into use (if you are not going to do anything with bombs). Of course a smidge more hp might help as well.

I find my newbies through conscription...

Then fear and cake keeps them in line.

Something tells me the fitting requirements are one of the key things that are in flux until after the community throws out every whacky fit it can dream up.

In the same vein, though, it'd be nice to know what the capacitor requirements are for the thing.

Personally, I'm hoping it's something like 20pg/50cpu for the T1, 30pg/60cpu for T2, and both consume something around 100 cap per cycle.

because choke points require significantly less man hours, for a start.

This may actually be the issue, right here. As a defender, I can maintain control of the grid by keeping a fleet there. But that is not practical. Players come to eve to play, not sit on a node.
Thus, most all structures will have no one on grid, until an attacker shows up. At that point, a single attacker in a frig is "controlling the grid", and requires a response to take that control back. Result: Attackers in a few evasion ships, or just cheap ships can troll the defenders endlessly. Maybe they use interceptors so they can burn off until they can warp, maybe they use cheap ships and just cycle through them as they get exploded.
Recommendation: The attacker should have to make at least a "small roaming gang" level of commitment.

I like the distributed fights aspect and unlinking of the capturing sov objectives to EHP, which lowers the barrier to contesting sov.
However, there are broken aspects to the current iteration of fozziesov.



I'll give you a hint on how sov warfare is conducted. It is won not through battles or by winning the game system, but by griefing the opposing side into not wanting to play the game anymore. The fozziesov mechanic is perfect for that.

If you just want to grief the defender into quitting the game then taking their sov when their willpower is gone and the body has stopped twitching.

1.You send your forces to just reinforce their stuff for 3 weeks in a row. (a 150 man inteceptor roam every 48 hours)
2. Don't bother contesting the 48 hour reinforce capture nodes.
3. The defender has to do 10x as much work as you do attacking, just to keep their space. then when they are burnt out and suicidal. You take it all/ get them to pay rent to you/ leave



Fozzie sov has all the advantages for the attacker and is inherently disadvantaged for the defender since they are forced to do 10 the amount of work as the attacker just to keep parity. i.e. not lose their home.

The attacker does not have to fight the defender at all to grief them out of their space. A 150 man interceptor fleet can emerge out of a wormhole, and be reinforcing the region as soon as they leave.

Now, if entosis links can be fit on interceptors it's even more in favor of the attacker, since they have to risk nothing at all.
Interceptors have no risk in combat, they are the most disengagable doctrine you can bring, where they can run every single time and you cannot catch them.



The gameplay provided by roaming interceptor gangs is terrible, terrible content for the defender. An insta align interceptor cannot be caught in preplanned traps with bubbles and instalockers (the hard counter). If they warp from gate to gate they literally cannot be caught. Right now, the extent of their power is ganking ratters with impunity.
You are proposing that a no risk interceptor gang can now attack sov.

You are allowing the attacker to risk nothing, a completely disposable interceptor that will very likely never be caught. Whilst the defender risks their entire home and are forced to come out and fight and do 10x the amount of work if they aren't quick enough.

That is pushing it far too much in the favor of the attacker.



I ask you to make it so that the attackers must risk something if they want to attack sov, be it a cruiser or battlecruiser or above. At least they can be caught.
I understand your worry of 'artifically shifting the meta towards larger ships', but if you if you allow interceptors or frigate sized ships to capture sov then you will artifically shifted the meta towards frigate killing/max mobility, since they will be the most optimal choice to attack.


I say this, as the CFC, we will be fine, we by and large live in and use our space. I understand you are trying to break up the mega coalitons like the CFCand N3.
Unfortunately, that means anyone who isn't an well organised or resourced at the mega coalitions is gonna suffer far worse than them. And with this sov system in it's current form, they are going to live purely at the mercy of the larger blocs. It will be even worse than now.

And you think that N3, and 18,000 strong Brave, can't do that to you, and your renters too? Who exactly do you think you're going to be griefing like this who can't do it back? We're not talking about suiciding miners and haulers in high-sec here where the hapless have no recourse. I think you're imagining griefing a small sov holder who does not exist, and won't exist, unless and until the power blocs break up.

The unaligned aren't going to sit still for you to grief them. They're going to hit you from NPC space and laugh until you get tired of being hit.

It would require a small fleet to disrupt sov which in itself would be seen as a threat and therefore require a response which would lead to more content. But what's to stop the defender from undocking 150 angry dudes? Doesn't this just lead to escalation which is what the proposed change is meant to remove? That said, is there anything wrong with escalation initially? It would make sov disruption multi-layered. Brute force for stage one, mobility for stage two? It might be more interesting this way.

Remind me how this isn't worse for an alliance that holds even more systems and might have THOUSANDS of timers per day to deal with if they don't defend the initial RF effectively? Not to mention the organisational effort in making sure they're all dealt with in a timely manner.

Sounds like a cause for faster burnout to me but what would I know, I'm just a salvager