EVE Information Portal

If the stations are each separated from the sovereignty, which still speaks against allowing multiple stations in a system ? Consequently, you should then allow building up multiple station in a 0.0 system..

Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station?

If you change the station services mechanics slightly you will reduce the ability of huge alliances to shuffle a single skirmish fleet around to protect 1+ constellations. Potentially bad if they are merely denying use and don't really use systems themselves much.

Specifically instead of defender being able to RESET 5 hour attack clock to ZERO with a mere few minutes of dominance over station service control...

how about setting back attack clock a much lesser amount?

Say 15 minutes plus however long defenders hold the advantage

(small bonus avoids strong defender intentionally pulsing effort several times so that they can leave for hours to some other duty before they need to return).


True this will also make it harder for small alliances to defend especially versus much larger alliances. But at least whoever has control will be an alliance with lots of people continuously in that system -- instead of only a roving and very briefly seen bigger hammer.

With the relative ease with which stations can be lost, Why would anyone but the biggest groups want more than 1 station? I wouldn't expect to see anyone other than the biggest coalitions building outposts.
The big groups are pretty much immune to loss with the new mini games as numbers will always win.

No individual alliance will build outposts. There is no value in them when they are so easily flipped and the whole aspect of attackers being able to live in the system/station with all the advantages of the sov holders only makes it less appealing to spend the isk building an outpost for anyone not aligned to one of the big coalitions.

As the coalitions settle on what sov they want to keep and what they can't be bothered with, we are likely to see a few outposts go up in desirable systems. Aside from that, unless the price of an outpost drops by about 80%, they won't get built.
Risk vs Reward - Build an outpost, you take all the risk for little reward.

TCU TCU

why buy the proposed Summer 2015 TCU?

What separates it from simple secured can or mobile depot message? Other than name on a map.




Would a simple audio alert message to owning members in system about hostiles or neutrals be worth something? Maybe for folk absorbed in some task or with too many open windows blocking chat or overview?


How about part of ISK value donated to charity?


Fitting scans of ship passing systems gates?
(Not terribly useful during mass invasion but versus small annoying roams?)

Rough cloaked ship location via vast array of system sensors and massive computer analysis of minute distortions?
(Slow scan version would put focus on AFK and fairly stationary spies & leave mostly unaffected all actively piloted, frequently moved ships. Well as long as they had enough safe points and didn't fall into fixed patterns. )

But then we'd farm it (like FW is farmed) and nullsec is already just BURSTING AT THE SEAMS WITH RICHES

Answering these based on the blog and Fozzie's interview on the EveDownUnder radio show.

1. The command nodes are anomalies and will be found on the probe window, overview, and sensor overlay. They are immediately warpable to, you don't need to scan them down with probes.

2. If you are not contested, you will win the timer with 10 nodes. If contested, then the amount of nodes will be more based on equations and calculations they have not released, and that it'll be some sort of hidden points system. You won't know the exact number you will need to capture, but your progress on capturing will be visible in the system (kind of like the incursion progress bar, but it'll be in a sovereignty window and on the system info you see in upper left corner in every system).

3. No.

4. I could be misunderstanding this some, but it is my understanding that if you break target lock with the entosis link, you will still have to wait out the cycle before you can warp, receive reps, etc. Capture progress stops when you break target lock.

5. I don't know if the individual nodes have a visible timer

I don't see any technical reason they cannot have two stations in the same system, and have two separate sets of capture nodes for each of them. Every item in the game has a unique ID, and the control nodes will almost certainly reference that ID, and be entirely unambiguous.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/64-bits-should-be-enough-for-everybody/

Whether there is good gameplay sense to it, or if there would need to be changes made to an upcoming interface we don't have details for yet in order to make it unambiguous for the players, I don't know.

There are several aspects in the proposal that could make taking and holding sov very interesting, which are currently geared to specifically suit "biggest group wins"

Enables large groups to easily overthrow a small group, where it should be; "Whether or not a structure has an owner, EACH ALLIANCE represents its own side." Owners Entosis links are 1 side, Each other Entosis link represents the alliance it belongs to
For each alliance with an active entosis link, it creates a new capture whether the structure has an owner or not..
Automatically removes the ability of coalitions to use allies to take sov for each other directly. Allies can form skirmish fleets to keep others away from capture points but not directly participate in the capture using Entosis Links.

The result is; he who can bring the most Entosis links and biggest blob exerts control.
Entosis links should be a minor but integral part of the capture process. If an Entosis link can be fit to anything, simply bringing more than your opponent can will win the day.
Entosis Links are to be the defining aspect of taking and holding sov, the ability to use them and fitting requirements should be equal to their importance. Not just a throw away module that can be fit to anything.
- - - -
Suggestion;
Fitting requirements the same as warfare links
The attributes from the Bastion module, with the exception of weapons systems which are disabled while Entosis is active. So you have good tanking ability but no offensive capability while entosis links are active.

T1 Entosis - T1 Battle cruiser (4 min cycle time) & Carrier (+100% cycle time)
T2 Entosis - Command Ship (2 min cycle time) & Super Carrier/Titan (+400% cycle time)


- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A small gang of griefers comes through outside an alliances prime time, RF's station services easily, when there is few members on to defend their sov because the alliance is geared to protect its assets during the specified prime time not 12 hours later. That alliance now has an uphill battle to restore station services AND protect sov structures during the next prime time.
Just plain silly. Removes the need to take sov, all you need do is force the sov holders out of the station.
It also turns "prime time" into a major joke. Why spend the extra time RFing minor structures like the ihub and TCU when simply RFing station services will serve the same purpose and is not tied to the rest of the mini game mechanic? It can be done at any time by anyone.
For your proposed mini game and prime time to be valid it needs to incorporate ALL of sov.
Stations are to become part of the sov structure yet are not governed by the same game mechanics as the rest of sov?


You want sov battles to be held at specified times each day but don't include a mechanic that makes fighting for sov viable for anyone other than the biggest groups. Then to top it off you make one of the most valuable aspects of holding sov (the station) vulnerable in a way contrary to everything else about holding and taking sov.

I'm convinced this is just a bunch of employees throwing out ideas between deciding who gets the next round in. Then someone put it all together and said - Hey this will work, lets do it.

There is an opportunity here to make the whole sovereignty system mean something, PLEASE don't waste it.

Infact we need destroyable stations.
If we don't want the freeport we need to destroy the own station by ourself.