EVE Information Portal

because you don't need to chase them. defenders just need to sit next to the node and cap it with their own entosis thingy and the "capture event" will stop. i'm also sure that with that fit that interceptor is harmless...

You're missing the troll of the trollceptor. The troll isn't the ceptor, it's the article. Look at what it did to this thread.

With all due respect, you don't understand that people living in null don't think the way you think and don't like the warfare you like. That's why you're on a, really good, mercenary corporation and they're in nullsec.
CCP neither understand this changes are made to comply with people like you, who don't live in nullsec, while against people who actually live there. Therefore, theres no need to be wise in order to realize the incoming massive failure of this concept.


Fixed quoting. ISD Ezwal.

It is facinating to read how this thread has developed.
I am fortunate in a way to only have had a limited time in the past living in null, as it does give one the opportunity to see things in a somewhat neutral way.

It is a little comical, but understandable, as in the phoebe changes to see so many proposals in here, which are solely designed to remove or limit the changes being implemented by CCP.

The interceptor hysteria for example. Naturally it will make unoccupied systems vunerable, and naturally they will be largely immune to gatecamps, but largely ignorable other than swatting like a fly in active and occupied reigons.

So naturally they must go as they will not allow large areas of space to be either unoccupied or rental empires
(Gentle Sarcasm in case that was unclear)

The overall proposal by CCP is actually quite impressive, and also quite brave. Whilst some will no doubt (and have) dismiss it as faction warfare on steroids, it is a lot better thought out than that.

I would only like to add one small proposal, as I can see that small groups holding one constellation might suffer a little from having their sov reset and having to win it back repeatedly. And that is a bonus to occupying a constellation by automatically increasing it's true nullsec when the complete constillation is held.

Other than that, I look forward to seeing how this progresses, and with CCP responding swiftly now, with post rollout balancing of features, it bodes well for it's success.

I would like to add that it will be far more valuable to discuss how features can be iterated on or additions to help CCP reach their goals, than trying to turn the clock back or neuter their plans. That ship has already sailed, and will only lead to frustration ad disappointment, rather than feeling one has been part of the process.

Good luck to everyone, and I hope all our homes, become more fun and engaging to live in.

At a 100m a pop, trollfits are going to get old fast. Lose 20, that's a carrier hull right there.

I repeat, the only people with anything to fear here are people who do not live in their own space in their OWN prime time. It's not like you're going to get ninja hit whilst you're all sleeping for goodness sakes.

See, the reason we - and by 'we', I don't just mean Goons, I mean the majority of folks from the blocs - are focusing on the griefer angle is: we know what we'll do with this kind of tool available to us. Just in the CFC, we've got a SIG already devoted to doing this sort of thing, and this will just make it easier to go and make sure that smaller, less organized alliances don't hold sov. We won't actually take the systems - that would involve dropping a TCU and IHUB ourselves, after all... but how many of these less-organized alliances are going to put up with the freighter (not jump freighter) hauling needed if we're consistently burning down ihubs as fast as they drop them?

Because, you know, we'll do that kind of thing. We're jerks like that. Will we do it to every small alliance every day? Doubtful. But at the same time, if the intention for this system is to make things fun, and actually invigorate nullsec into more conflict between smaller blocs, then doesn't it behoove the devs to actually have an idea of how the blocs operate?

Because they don't. They don't have any idea of the levels of organization present in even HERO, and HERO organizes everything openly, on reddit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the CFC has more metrics and data collection going on about New Eden than CCP itself does. I don't think for a moment that we intend to have that kind of level of OCD going on, but you know, that's just how dysfunctional a lot of us are.

And we've been generally proven right on things like this. Sentry drone assist, jump fatigue for haulers, the continuing need for nerfs to the Ishtar, etc, etc.

See, we legitimately want a more interesting, more vibrant, more fun nullsec. We live here, and let's face it, ratting is about as exciting as watching a test pattern. If it's more fun, then we're having more fun. We like fun. It's fun. So when we see CCP saying 'we want to make null more interesting and fluid, with more small actors', we like the idea... but we're wary of the execution. Especially when it comes in a form that people all around null are looking at and saying 'this is really only going to come to griefing. This won't generate fights like you think it will'.

We know what we'll do with this. And we're bastards enough to know that even if we think that what we'll do with it shouldn't be allowed... we'll do it anyway, because if we don't, someone else will do it to us. They'll probably do it to us either way, really.

So think about this: Most of the people telling you what horrible things we'll do? They're regular line members of the various blocs. The really dangerous, evil, sadistic bastards who come up with our true skullduggeries are likely plotting things far, far worse. If we're focusing on the griefer aspect of this a bit more than you think we should? It's not because we like being the boogeyman. It's because we want a good game to play, but we also know that if CCP hands us a pack of smokes and a lighter, we might smoke some of them... but we're also likely to melt the filters into a fiberglass shiv, aimed for your kidneys.

Don't let us. Don't give us the tools to be worse than we already are. Because we will. And we'll enjoy it, for as long as CCP lets us ride that mechanic into the ground. And for every voice saying 'you'll get bored of being jackasses and start behaving rationally', I can only ask: After all these years, when exactly are we, the assembled bastards and griefers throughout nullsec, supposed to get bored of being jackasses?

One of the ideas I had back in the kugu days was to add some sort of border system. This system would make it so you can't really just run around and roll every system under someone's control, but you can take on their edge systems and reinforce them.

This would be both a good thing and a bad thing. It'd be good because this means that the defenders know where they'll be attacked and can focus their defense there, rather than across their entire space, and even if the E-link is fittable to interceptors, they can't derp around in every system you have and you have to run around after them and play whack-an-interceptor, and wars' progress will be measurable in where the line is. It's also bad because it actually encourages players banding together in a large alliance due to the inherent protection of that system.

So I realize that this, in the form I came up with on kugu, will probably make the situation even worse, it'll definitely make grinding down the space of someone who's left/gone inactive more of a grind than the goal we're setting ourselves when we're trying to make a new system, but I figure I'd just toss it out there anyways to see if it'll make someone else's creative juices go splort splorf. Maybe limit it to a per-constellation limit in some fashion, or something. I dunno.

Of course player feedback is an incredibly valuable resource, they are increasing the size of their collective brainpool immensely.
But when a little area of the brain is making suggestions that say " we want things to be unchanged, and if you prevent x we will get the same with a new name" then once one knows the reason for that comment, one can treat it accordingly.

However if the brainpool strives for the same goal, to make the new null as active, alive and engaging as possible, then each contributor can feel they have been part of that process. They can feel proud, and enjoy the results.

Tl;dr work to achieve great things, not to stop them.

So what we end up with here is sov warfare like old days - He with the most pos's takes sov, except the pos's have become nodes.
Talk about recycling bad ideas.

- - - - - - - - -
Constellation based sov warfare is a terribly bad idea no matter what objectives are put in place.
If these changes are meant to open up opportunities for smaller groups to take and hold sov, making it constellation based rules out most smaller groups from taking or holding sov.

- - - - - - - - -
Is only realistic as long as there isn't a large group within range to hammer the small group into giving up on trying to take sov.
Day 1, 25 mins, went well, got scouted but no attackers.
Day 2, 8 mins in 100 man fleet arrives
Day 3, start again, no or little opposition
Day 4, large fleet arrives
Day 5, screw it not wasting more time on a lose lose position

we'll cross the bridge when we get there...