These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Anthar Thebess
#1781 - 2015-02-24 09:59:12 UTC
The problem is that (super)capital fleet is best response for every thing, and that it is un destroyable 99.995% of times because node cannot manage enough players to brake tank and EHP on (super)capitals.
Yes 1-2 sometimes die , but over 200 others will be safe when they finally reposition itself to proper formation.
(super)Capitals are the cancer or current eve , the bad part that more and more are showing up.

They are also one of the things that keeps eve industry running , as they require tons of materials to create , they are also some sink for high skilled pilots - not all people use holders, but simply don't subscribe super accounts when not needed.

What this game needs is total rework of the timer system - so not defending each timer should have big impact on the sov.

Simple example :
- Station system having ihub.
Time needed to grind by all timers ~ 1 week.
Cost to ignore all timers but last ~ 400mil ( ihub ) + ~140mil to move materials for new ihub, and build it on station

Cost to come to 1 timer (~15Ly) 200 man slowcat fleet :
~13k isotopes 1 way for a carrier , total fuel consumed : 5.2mil isotopes (both ways) ~ 3.6bil
~ time of minimal subcapital cover.

Simple calculation, there is no point in defending ANY but final timer, additionally you can extend this 1 week period by timing timers for the worst possible hours to aggressor.

Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#1782 - 2015-02-24 10:33:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Colette Kassia
Forgive the carebear with zero nulsec experience for butting in...

I've been reading through the thread and have noticed a recurring theme of the small guys finding it impossible to setup shop in nulsec without getting steamrolled by huge blobs of (super)capitals. There seems to be a desire for a mechanic that allows a small hardened group to defend their home against a much larger group of attackers.

In real-word warfare this done by the defenders setting up a situation in which the attackers must pass through one of more choke points. Attackers loose their numbers advantage when they have to come through single file. This was a major design objective of most ancient castles, walled cities, and other fortifications. It was (and still is) also common to use the natural terrain (the Battle of Thermopylae). It's an effective strategy, but one that only works as long as the defenders actively and vigorously defend the choke points. If the defenders are unable to do so then the barbarians quickly swarm in and ransack the castle.

For a while now I've been thinking of resurrecting the long-dead idea of Deadspace Bases, in a way that would create this exact situation. My idea is for the acceleration gate to be password protected but also hackable. The first hack, or "crack", would be an extremely difficult hacking puzzle. Failure would render the gate unhackable again for 6 hours. A successful hack would not unlock the gate; instead it would render it greatly weakened for the next 24 hours. Within that 24 hour period any ship that attempts to hack the gate will face only a moderate difficulty puzzle. Success will immediately trigger the gate, as if it was tricked it into thinking that it has been activated by someone with proper access privileges. Failure renders it unhackable again for 30 seconds. Interrupting the warp would require to be hacked it again. Only one person at a time may interact with the gate. The ultimate effect is that ships must pass thru gate in single file. This, in theory, will make it possible for a small, well supplied group to defend their home from an arbitrarily large group of attackers for as long as they are able to muster the will to keep fighting.

The defenders will have the advantage.They can surround the warp-in point and burn down the invaders as they appear. If they can keep up with the trickle of (undoubtedly uber-tanked) ships then they can successfully defend their base indefinitely. But if they cannot then they get overwhelmed. Everything is based on the time the each individual attacker takes to hack the gate. One cyclopean knuckledragger who can't figure out the puzzle can hold up the whole invasion, to the benefit of the defender and to the detriment of the guy already inside the pocket who's desperately waiting for logi reinforcements. On the other hand, a well prepared invasion force in which everyone is well practiced at hacking can quickly flood the pocket and overwhelm the defenders.

The uncertainty of timing keeps things interesting. And I think that it would be better if this uncertainty came from the human factor rather than from some random number generator. It matters to the defenders because it's their home that they are defending. It matters to the guy who's up-at-bat to hack the gate because his friends are getting pounded inside the pocket and his ability to assist them depends on quickly beating the puzzle without f***ing it up, and having to wait 30 seconds to try again. And it matters to the guys already in the melee that their reinforcements arrive quickly. And it matters to the anxiously waiting fleet that the guy ahead of them get through quickly and efficiently for all the same reasons.. This is what makes for good gameplay!

I'm constantly reading comments from PvPers who want less blob-warfare and more small-group battles. In most fleet battles there are really only a few shot callers, calling out primaries and secondaries, who are actually "playing" the game; and everyone else is just acting as voice controlled drones. It's boring. It's like Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington meeting at a specific time and place, on a big open field, to see who as the better blob. I suspect that what I've described above would be a lot more fun for the individual pilots.

My idea is for these pockets to be created by conquering NPC signatures which lead to deadspace. There would be a small chance of the Overseer (or other equivalent entity) dropping a "key" that could be brought to the gate at the entrance and be used to "claim" the pocket as your own. When this is done the pocket become persistent (does not disappear during server restart) and any structures within it become the property of the new owner. This would include any sentry guns that were not destroyed during your invasion. (And much of the development of this concept would relate to making all of what has always been only scenery into active, useful things.) Also, whatever ship restrictions that existed for the gate naturally would be carried over. This would mean that some pockets would be accessible to everything up to battleships and others only to frigate sized ships. Not all would be created equal. None would be able to handle capital ships. And the more claimed deadspace pockets in a system the lower the probability of the overseer dropping a gate key.

So, what would you do with these and how would it relate to SOV mechanics? The main use would be as a base to needle and antagonize the big SOV owners. They'd have to come down off their warhorses and fight you on the ground (in sub-caps, mostly T1s). Without moon mining, industry would be limited, but still worthwhile.
[And I'm out of characters, so I'll have to leave the rest to your imagination...]
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#1783 - 2015-02-24 10:51:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Colette Kassia
Short summary of what I would have written had the character limit not put an end to my rambling:

- Would allow for the construction of small or medium POSes, Alternately, there is that idea for a tower-like generator without a forcefield that can be placed anywhere and be used to drive POS modules.
- May or may not allow capital construction arrays. I haven't decided.
- Would NOT allow cynos or jump bridges, or course.
- Be destroyed by a "Deadspace Disrupter Device" deployable that would run for 24 hours and then destroy the pocket and everything in it and fry the gate (which would be removed during the next restart).
- Generally serve to antagonize the SOV owner.
- May or may not be tied into the actual SOV mechanics in a way that I haven't thought of yet.
Anthar Thebess
#1784 - 2015-02-25 12:01:27 UTC
Can we get sov / null changes update in upcoming o7 ?
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1785 - 2015-02-25 12:44:09 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Can we get sov / null changes update in upcoming o7 ?

You gotta wait for the keynotes at fanfest.
Manfred Sideous
#1786 - 2015-02-25 18:52:05 UTC
Just wanted to say thanks for all the great support on the CSMX stuff so far. I have been following the discussion here pretty close.


Capt Sephiroth
#1787 - 2015-02-26 02:33:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Capt Sephiroth
I haven't really read the whole thread cause well 90 pages of it and probably somewhere in there is the answer to my questions, also I am well aware that my questions have probably been answered in numerous posts before but I now ask the ones that don't mind answering me with something different as "aw no not this again, look it up", I agree that I sound and probably am lazy for not doing my own research however if some people find it in their hearts to answer with arguments I would be forever thankful.

Having said that my inquiries are these:

1) By removing local from null and low sec would there be more or less fights?
2) Would the same removal of local in mentioned areas make people less likely to leave the safety of their stations and go back to HS where there would still be local?
3) Would people that go out roaming to find people to kill find it more of a hassle to jump from planet to planet or around system in general and spam d-scan in order to find targets than to come in the system and have them see the number of pilots in the system that may or may not be watching local and thus knowing if there is anyone in the system and you are not wasting time warping around to see if there is or isn't anyone in it?
4) How would this affect larger scale battles as in you would not see if someone would open a covert op cyno or see a local spike in pilots to inform you that the enemy or third party is about to join in the battle?

Having asked all that I find it only appropriate to answer my own questions so that people could see my point on the subject.

1) My opinion is that null would see more fights, catching people off guard would be much easier, however I can also see people teaming up, setting up eyes on gates or scanning down all signatures to see if there are any wormholes and potential risk from that side too, and knowing if any new sig should appear to move to safety till it has been checked out. I can see people teaming up much more to do stuff together to reduce the risks of themselves getting caught off guard. If someone thinks that the risks are solely on the side of the "victims" well I can see people setting up baits and catching the same attackers easier cause they cant see the local spiking which would give them less time to react and bug out before the ambush is already in motion. Lots of new tactics to be developed, used and perfected, making null and low sec more dynamic and riskier.

2) I guess some would and some wouldn't but also I think that with that change some entities would go to null or low from HS or WH even.

3) I personally don't find it a hassle to jump around the system d-scanning for potential targets and don't consider it a waste of time.

4) For this question I lack the knowledge and experience of how larger scale combat works and tactics revolving around it so I don't find myself in position to give any type of answer regarding this.

Thank you all in advance and looking forward to reading and having constructive discussions on this matter and leaving a smarter person.

Best regards

Capt Seph
#1788 - 2015-02-26 03:10:54 UTC
The best way to kill supers in blobs would be to make the doomsday effect negate or severely reduce the effect of remote reps for a period of time. That would enable even numerically inferior fleets to burn them down.
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1789 - 2015-02-26 04:42:37 UTC

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit:

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Manfred Sideous
#1790 - 2015-03-02 23:43:24 UTC


Exdios Jar'go
#1791 - 2015-03-03 00:13:42 UTC
Am waiting with baited breath.......
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1792 - 2015-03-03 00:20:50 UTC
24 what
Exdios Jar'go
#1793 - 2015-03-03 00:35:28 UTC
Rowells wrote:
24 what

hours till the blog is released on the Sov changes apparently.
Ariel Rin
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#1794 - 2015-03-03 11:27:53 UTC

Step 2: Go To Step 1

Ariel Rin

Creator and Manager of EVE Meet, for notification and sharing of out of game meets.

Twitter - Ariel Rin - EVE Meet

Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1795 - 2015-03-03 11:47:46 UTC
The suspense......

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Vector Symian
0 Fear
#1796 - 2015-04-03 03:35:18 UTC
im just planning to burn it down and give as many opportunities for little guys to get in there and break it up

I like many of the deliberately localising nature of systems daily mining ops ect ect as it would counter the elitist pvp attitude that some pilots are developing

good luck and well said

plus 1 from me