EVE Information Portal

Pfffft, that was a wall of txt, and a lot of comments, some replies... most things are worked out nicely this way.



Just wondering if Constellation wide would not be more logical, due to defense spawning.



So, maybe their should be a financial incentive in play, so Alliances would be discouraged for the use of the mechanic, but people coming to plant their flag could choose to get the ISK together before planting the flag.



Can't you poke scope to setup a demonstration video of a typical event as described in here?

I am a big fan of the design goals and what CCP devs are trying to achieve. I don't think these new sov changes will have the desired effect. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

I love the idea of forcing people to come out and defend space or suffer consequences. I really like the intent for spreading conflict over a constellation to decentralize the conflict. I like the elimination of structure grinding, and the lowering of the bar for entry to sov warfare. (I think the bar may be lowered a bit too low by the current plan. I would favor restricting both t1 and t2 modules to cruiser and up. I am being somewhat arbitrary I know but that is my opinion nonetheless.)

I think the net result of the current plan will be to essentially grief and troll any small sov holding alliances out of existence. I am not sure if there is a better way to do sov. It is obvious all the devs working on this are putting a lot of thought into trying to make the best system they can, but I don't think this one will work. A large part of the reason it won't work just has to do with human behavior, some of it has to do with how some behavior is rewarded in the game which goes deeper than just sov mechanics.

I think there are a lot of unintended-use cases which are not being considered in this design. I think there is a very large segment of the Eve population who are not being adequately considered; these are the folks who do not care even a little bit about sov but simply want to blow **** up. How they will use these new mechanics to provoke fights needs to be considered. In the short term I think you will see more activity, but in the long term I think you will see many of the people you are trying to encourage to get involved in nullsec either quit, move out of null, or form/join more massive coalitions.

I have a hard time imagining a small alliance being able to keep a IHUB, TCU, or Station. Very possibly the best bet for defending it could be to just be boring. If they actively defend then I think they will get more attention from people with guns. If they are boring and simply let the things explode then replace them after the people with guns leave, then eventually the people with guns may not make the trip again. If you form a fleet every time you are attacked then you will become the favorite for anyone with a fleet of equal or greater size. Forming a fleet to defend may work once or twice, but there is always a bigger fleet out there willing to make the trip for a bunch of kill mails.

Will we see roaming fleets with no interest in the sov show up in constellations with contested sov? I think so. How will they effect the outcome of a sov battle? I think this is more difficult to say at this point. The point of concern for me is how much influence over the whole sov system a fleet with no interest in the actual sov may have.

Another potential problem is restricting the possibility for roaming pvp fleets from sov holding alliances. What happens when you know there are small gangs either cloaked or waiting nearby ready to start SovWands as soon as you leave? How many people do you need to leave behind to make sure these small gangs can't cause damage? This does seem to play in the favor of sov alliances who only want to shoot NPCs and rocks during prime time. They can at least be nearby for quick mobilization if needed. Sending out a roaming pvp fleet during your own prime time may become an unnecessary hazard.

What will non-sov-holding roaming and blops/drop people do with this? They won't typically be starting fights where the odds are in question. They will look for small alliances to go poke until they fight and die or just quit trying. If the locals are able to put up a fight then the next roaming gang will simply be bigger.

The basic equation remains the same. In matters of force bigger is better. Small can either run, hide, or negotiate. I don't know if there is any way to change that. There needs to be some other legitimate and compelling reason for smaller organizations to exist, or things will simply continue going the direction they are already going.

If the conditions in Eve become worse through implementation of this content I don't really think the devs and CCP are much to blame. They are doing their best to present a good and interesting game. I just think over time Eve may become less of what it was intended to be and more of an experiment in human behavior. I wish there were a better solution for sov mechanics, but so far I haven't seen anything suggested that I think will really work.

I feel very much the same way, right from the start I realised that the fun part was to place the TCU next to a deathstar POS and not bother about an IHUB, that will only work until the new structures. With the full intel of sov being given on a plate via CREST / API it is certain that the bored who just want pixels blown up will be out in force trying to force a fight. What may happen is that the small alliance will take that Sov purely as a honey trap and will not seriously use it, and will get kills from this on who they can kill and ignore those they cannot, at least for a time that is. You have to step back and look at how that will develop over time, if those roaming gangs RF something and then come back when the nodes are there and win all the nodes without getting a fight and it happens again and again, who is trolling who.

My suggestion is that every small alliance buy a TCU BPO, research it, then get your PI toons to work for the materials, that you find a unused system and set up a TCU next to a deathstar POS and just let it die. There are many ways to condition people and Eve works through boring your opposition to death, well that is exactly what I am going to do and the more of us that do this the more you can influence the type of force a fight people into giving up, then see how it pans out.

Its gonna be a big big 'poking of the bee's nest'

Fozzie already explained this on page 6 ...

If I own a system, there's team "Me" and team "Not Me"... if team "Not Me" starts to capture my system. My allies can drive them off, but in order to stabilize the system, someone from team "Me" has to show up and cap it because my allies are still technically on team "Not Me"

When an I-Hub/TCU is first anchored, it is neutral (no more anchor for corp) and the owning alliance has to cap it. This is the same situation as a station in freeport mode. Every alliance has its own side, and to capture the structure, you must first de-cap all of your opponents' progress and then cap it yourself.

Actually Fozzies "explanation" explains nothing, he has the art of responding without saying anything pertinent down to a fine art.

This little headliner from the blog very much contradicts, defender vs everyone (and Fozzies reply)
Simple answer there by Fozzie logic.. Your allies can indeed protect your sov by simply running an entosis link on it.
Owners are afk, for whatever reason, sov comes under attack, ally comes runs entosis link to gain "effective military control" so enemies don't get to RF it.
Result - Nothing RF'd, no timer, no capture the node mess to deal with.


Better to have your structures "attacked" by friendly forces than enemies who may want to take it from you. (builtin safety for existing power bloks)

Stations are a pita. Can be attacked at anytime by anyone - Doesn't fit with the rest of the proposal.

You are wrong, nobody can defend your sov for you. To stop the RFing process there is only 2 ways :
- destroying all ships with active EL on your structure
- activating an EL with a pilot from the alliance owning the structure

If a blue activate an EL on your structure he will help the attacking forces.



There is no. You miss the point here.

So you obviously believe the giant coalitions are going to stop playing how they have for the last 4 or 5 years and just fly alliance fleets.. LOL

I don't get how people can't see how easily this mechanic is manipulated and biased toward existing power bloks.
For those who can't see it, I feel for you but if you have ever been in a coalition fleet, you should clearly see how to ensure the odds are always in your favour.

There are still many unanswered questions regarding how entosis links will work, I prefer to believe what CCP Masterplan wrote out, as it fits with the blog description.
An attacker must 1st remove any progress made by a previous attacker ( a defender is not an "attacker" so that can only mean 1 thing). That statement ONLY makes sense if only 1 entosis can make progress at a time, which according to the blog is how the mechanic works.

A mechanic like this, that is designed to favour large groups, will be used by large groups to ensure no-one becomes a threat.
Why else do you think none of the bloks are whining in the forums - You don't complain about something that gives you a major advantage over others. They know Fozzie-Sov is all in their favour.

The 6x multiplier needs more factors to be reflective of player activities. Market transactions, industry jobs, research, and refining need to be added AT A MINIMUM. These activities are already tracked, just need to be added to the matrix and given a multiplier. Why is this something that wasn't considered A LONG TIME AGO. As though mining and shooting red crosses are all that indicate active areas of eve...

When everyone is telling you you are wrong, and no-one is supporting your viewpoint, there is a more than slight chance that you are indeed wrong



This is the quote from Masterplan that you've got yourself caught on. Read it, and not just what you want to see, actually read the words.


That is where you have got yourself tangled. Masterplans explanation was only talking about the capture event, that being the second stage. The first part, the reinforcement event, is treated completely differently as everyone has been telling you.

"Everyone on a seperate team" is only the capture event, the reinforcement event is "owners vs everyone else". In the reinforcement event a blue would be assisting the attackers if they e-linked a structure, in the capture event they would be their own side, so although they could in truth delay an attackers capture, they are also delaying the former owners too (and note that - former owner. There is no longer a defender in the capture event, they too are treated in every way as an attacker too now, hence the terminology Masterplan used, which Fozzie straight up explained in This Post) - although there might be times this is advantageous (if the defender needs the capture event stringing out til they can bring their forces to bear), it is going to be situational rather than the default strategy, as they aren't exactly helping their ally if they manage to capture the system for themselves, resetting ther allies indexes.