EVE Information Portal

That's not relevant. The attacker doesn't have to be on grid for that, by all indications. The attacker only has to pop out for 2 minutes, then cloak up in a safe. If they come back and "rep" it, he does it again. If they don't, they have to waste four hours the next day, and the process starts over.

That's just an inordinate amount of babysitting.

Or you get your own kiting curiser, and since its YOUR system which you are living in, you should be able to catch that pesky attacker and kill him. That sounds like conflict to me.



If you're asleep, obviously it isn't your prime time. If it isn't your prime time, why would your 4 hour window be set up during that time? Think logically here.

If an attacker is hitting a system you live in, in your prime time which you should have people being awake in, why can't you defend your space?

Pretty much, as currently proposed were are talking about an endeavor in ritual sucide not an endeavor of living or not living in your sov. Aside from the fact that systems should be potentially vulnerable during all timezone, not just a window, as i have said earlier i think some form of the SBU mechanic to induce vulnerability is appropriate. Reinforcing a system should require a fleet, it shouldn't be a task that is capable of being performed by 1 man or even 5 dudes. To own sov you shouldn't need to babysit your assets 24 hours a day, or even 4 hours a day, there needs to be effort expended by the attacker, organized effort at that. 1 dude in an small hull be it bc or frigate shouldn't be capable of reinforcing a system. If the goal is to encourage pvp the current mechanics proposed do not do that, they do however encourage heavy harassment until no one can be arsed to defend sov.

I think the entosis module and time duration rather than hitpoints is good. I think id get rid of the no remote reps bit, and instead require you use 10-20 of them in order to reinforce. The smallest alliance can muster this man power, any sov holding entity or sov aspiring entity should be able to manage these range of numbers. This creates a relatively low barrier to entry, undefended sov will still fall quickly, but it requires an actual fleet and should limit the more asinine forms of useless harassment. Couple this with some sort of low hitpoint fast time vulnerability mechanic reminiscent of the SBU and I think we are well on our way to a better version of the proposed system. Taking sov shouldnt be easy mode nor should defending. Dominion favored the defender a bit to much, this favors the attacker to much. There is a happy middle in there.

A periphery is there should really be a roll for Dreads/supers and carriers in this system as at current there really isnt any other than to plop them on a command node to ensure you control at least one while your subs go to others.

You ought to know by now that most people will take the low road.

That being, to park a tanky ship with a cyno in the highslots on the button contesting it.





Did you even read what I wrote? It's vulnerable to reinforce at all times, not just prime time. But once it is reinforced, you are committed to 4 hours time tax the next day, per structure, because there is zero recourse against something that takes only two minutes without being on each and every structure 24/7.

But here' the thing none of you are getting...1 man isn't going to reinforce any sov...unless it's unoccupied. This only works if these systems are unoccupied in which case, yeah 1 guy should RF them easy. But if people actually OCCUPY the system, it's reasonable to assume there's at least 2 or 3 guys in that staion willing to undock and kill the 1 attacker. So the attacker will have to escalate...to larger fleet, which will make the defender form a larger fleet.

So this idea that lone ceptors are going to go around destroying everything in 0.0 is complete non sense void of any forethought, logic or reasoning.

Well after reading all of this I just want to stick a hot poker in my eye.

But seriously, I will say that I it as nothing more than a numbers game as with every other mechanic in EVE. The larger the numbers that you can bring to the game the better your odds, seems simple enough. So for those of you that are not in the big blocks and do not have the numbers to control the grid around all of your sov structures you might start thinking about how many ihubs you can afford to replace and plan accordingly. The new content on the block will be from cloaky's dropping out of wormholes and looking for sov targets of opportunity as a means to force pvp.

As for what I suspect is a large slice of the population, "prime time" if you are fortunate enough to have 4 hours a day to play will be spent sitting in a standing fleet waiting to defend your small slice of sov. Mind you not from anyone that actually wants to take it from you, but is just using the mechanic to force pvp.

Finally I have to agree with the contributors that maintain that removing fighter assist is a bad decision clearly designed to cater ta a select few. There are many null bears that for one reason or another that have to play off hours and earn enjoyment and isk solo running sites in durable medium fast ships assisted by fighters from a carrier parked outside of a POS somewhere. Using the carrier for nothing else except the occasional relocation of ships and assets. These players invested the same amout of time in training skills as every other carrier pilot yet their presence and contribution is trivialized.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Yes, Yes I know this is a rehash but my brain was fried from reading these threads but hey it feels good anyway..

Press on..

Yeah, they can, because it takes a mere 2 minutes and people have to sleep and eat and use the bathroom. If someone lives in a system, it is not "unoccupied" just because they have to sleep.

Why do you think that owning sov should be a job, instead of a videogame?

as currently proposed he is right, there is far to much babysitting required because the vulnerability mechanics of systems are absolutely terrible. Yes his specific example is pretty meh, but the general gist of the proposal as written suggests that for 4 hours each day as a sov holder you really have to focus all your attention on defense, that is nto a good system because while many in nullsec like to focus on pvp, they do also want and need to make money, the risk versus reward equation is way out of whack and you wouldn't have goons and n3 agreeing with each other on this aspect unless it was quite bad which it is.

The argument I have seen the most of so far is that the 4 hour vulnrability is the "occupancy" factor of the system. Its really not, if alliance could survive on only owning 1 or 2 constellations of sov trust me we would, but the cold hard fact is that 90% of systems are 100% useless in most regions. In order for a system to be worth using in a PVE capacity it needs to be off pipe/or far away from your borders, have -5 or better truesec, and preferably be a deadend of some sort. This is the requisite amount of safety required to be on par with other isk making methods see highsec, missions in general, incursions ect. If you make space worth owning that alone will create a large amount of PVP content. I.E. see just about every moon rebalance and how fast it has ignited wars. Tech led to the fall of the NC, then the fall of raiden. WN and the tribute war. The r64 rebalance created the fountain and delve wars.

Nothing in this game creates conflict better than money making incentives. Wars have been over moons and renters more than any other reason in the game. Money talks, this system does not speak to that equation so you are missing the inherent conflict driver. The only driver that exists as written is the pain in the butt factor.

Whats even more hilarious is if all the people in this thread who are not part of incumbent nullsec and keep saying ya the empires and coalitions will finally fall had banded together under the old system of sov dominion or pos warfare they would likely own a region or more of space ALREADY. The key to nullsec is in fact not fleet numbers, supercapital count or even the amount of money in your warchest. It is and always has been organization. The other 3 factors help and yes there is at least some fleet numbers required but by in large it is organization that controls sov ownership. Under the new sov system this doesn't change, organized powers will always beat unorganized powers and control more or better space. The only thing the new system controls is how many people will want to bother with sov at all.

What many of you may fail to realize just because you were not involved or not at a level to know is that most sov wars are lost by the organization, not disparities in fleet numbers or capitals. Fountain war is a key example, as is the halloween war. Test didn't lose because of numbers it lost because its leadership fell to pieces under the organization stress of fighting the war. The halloween war very very similar, the russian leadership of the coalition fell to internal strife. Its likely that the war could have gone 6 months or more in immensea under russian ownership had this leadership strife not occured. The likely reason you are nto seeing a war between the coalitions now is because we know there are sov changes coming, we have known since july and as such no one wanted to commit to stress of sov war until we knew whether or not we even had a reason to fight. No sense in starting a war over space if you dont even know if the new system will allow you to keep what you took.

You. Can. Reinforce. The. Structure. At. Any. Time.