Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The vast majority of PvE content in Null currently is completeable by a solo ship and it's my understanding that this is the way the majority of null players do it because it maximizes their ISK income. Additional PvE content would be great, but seems outside the scope of the sov rework.

Just because it's possible for players to clump up around a single agent doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, and if it does then their occupancy metrics in other systems will suffer and their space will be easier to take.

Also your original concern is somewhat moot since if you're fully utilizing a system's site spawns then you shouldn't have a problem hitting your occupancy metrics. There's no requirement that just the people using a system defend it so there's no requirement that a ton of people be packed into every system, and if we ever hit the point where every system in Player Controlled Null is being fully utilized I'll send the Game Design team a cake in congratulations on doing the impossible.

Right now it takes a decent sized fleet far less than 30-40 minutes to burn through the first timer on a structure, and if you don't respond to the first timer then you have a time-stamped fight coming up in a few days that you can prepare for if, for whatever reason, you can't respond to someone going around reinforcing your stuff.

I don't think it's reasonable to force high-sec levels of occupancy on Null, nor is it realistic for a single player grinding a few hours a day to be able to maintain occupancy level 5 metrics on a system. Also the current problem of a few alliances controlling huge chunks of un-used space has nothing to do with alliances needing 1000 systems for their members. If you look at the daily activity levels even in Goon space they're not all at 5s. Alliances control vast swaths of space because it's easy to do so and provides a defensive buffer of boredom against attackers.

If people recruit agents from only the most valuable LP stores then you can expect that to push the value of those LP down as a result of increased supply, especially if that manages to become the primary source of income for Null, which seems unlikely given the value of Null sites and anomalies compared to even a Null Sec mission reward and rat bounties.

Plus if done randomly then people would just gravitate to whichever agents give the best rewards or 're-roll' their agents until they got a good one worth keeping.

Blobbing will always be a winning tactic. Nerfing ship agility will only favor blobbing even more. The entosis link already had pretty bad down sides - no remote assistance - making kitting the only tank option. This change kills that option and does nothing for small fights. It make blobbing the only tanking option.

Except if you defeat your enemies on the field of battle with frigates apparently. The other changes would have been fine with out the elevated fitting needs of the T2 module.

If an alliance can't blap an inti they have other problems.

Maybe a better change would be to just remove/decrease MWD bloom bonus's while the module is active. Although with the locking range of frigates I don't think "trollceptors" were ever going to have a huge impact except to those who blanketly dock up whenever there's a neutral in system.

The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle.
They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.

"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!"
"Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"

i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise.

There's absolutely nothing stopping you from keeping the module offline or even in your cargo bay until you have control of the grid, at which point you drop a Mobile Depot or just refit off a carrier and go about capturing.

Thus the flow of battle to reinforce a structure ends up going along the lines of:

1. Initial attack by the aggressors. Link is activated and after initial cycle defending alliance is informed their structure is under attack.
2. Defenders respond and either drop their own links or move to destroy those of the enemy. Depending on ships linking either side may target the other's links or assume them to be bait-tanked and ignore them in favor of more dangerous targets. Either way capture progress stalls while the enemy fleet is on grid.
3. One side or the other is driven off the grid, the winner resumes ticking down their timer.
4. 2 and 3 repeat until either the vulnerability period ends or the attacks by the aggressor cease.

The flow around a node would be similar except that there will be little to no initial capture progress as both sides show up expecting a fight to happen.

Of course this is hardly a comprehensive tactical overview and I'm sure others will come up with more and different strategies, but it's not really fair to say that the Entosis system is actually encouraging blobbing more than present systems are. At the very least splitting the fighting over multiple grids forces a fleet to split up, no matter how big of a blob they have.



Hence the massive downsides to the Entosis link. If you have decently high occupancy metrics that griefer roam is never going to even reinforce anything, but if they try you'll have a small gang to chase around your space and PvP with, one that has at least one member carrying a 1 million kg paper weight, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only 4 hours ever day anyways, where as right now there's nothing stopping people from flitting around in sniper fits shooting POSes or structures to achieve roughly the same effect.

you mena.. Exaclty like eve should be?

because otherwise things will develop into suicide triage drops to take the entosis effect on. You cannot realistically take out a surprise triage carrier that just cynoed in with an entosis before it gets a large effect.

How much it needs to be slower is something to e discussed, but that some differences must exist, I think there is no doubt abou t that.

Thats why I am hoping for small to xl e-links and small to xl capture annoms that are tied to occupied indexes. That way if you want to caputre a system that is not being used you can do it with frigs... but if you want to capture the capital system of a large alliance you will have to bring the big guns and thus put them up for potential loss... which hopefully will be the spark for large scale fights like b-r (one of the great things about b-r was it took place over several systems this if done well could be a great template for not only PR but future fights for sov in general)