These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
M1k3y Koontz
Gallente Federation
#401 - 2015-03-03 18:24:11 UTC
virm pasuul wrote:
Lots of tears in this thread. You should consider buying a crying permit before James sets his sights on 0.0.

The insults to the devs are a bit off. Try being more constructive and using more reasoning.

A level headed post?! Not in my EVE Online!

Seriously though, this thread is General Discussion bad.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#402 - 2015-03-03 18:26:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Cassandra Masami wrote:
I can foresee more I-Hubs and TCUs getting destroyed from these changes. Will some of the larger sov structures that require T1 freighters (like I-Hubs) to move around be reduced in size or even expense?

Why make it cheaper or easier to move expensive conflict drivers? Large alliances should still have the ability to do things small alliances cannot. In particular, things like the IHUB should allow large alliances to increase the player density their systems can support by virtue of the fact that placing and defending IHUBs in a station system will certainly take far more people and effort than dropping a TCU in a backwater constellation. It should remain a difficult and risky thing to do because an alliance willing and able to do this SHOULD get some benefit from doing so.

The point is that small alliances can hold sov without requiring an ihub. You can just drop a TCU and some POS's and have your little corner of space. The purpose is NOT to homogenize sov to the point that small alliance sov is just as powerful or meaningful as large alliance sov.
Proton Stars
Gallente Federation
#403 - 2015-03-03 18:26:05 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
virm pasuul wrote:
Lots of tears in this thread. You should consider buying a crying permit before James sets his sights on 0.0.

The insults to the devs are a bit off. Try being more constructive and using more reasoning.

A level headed post?! Not in my EVE Online!

Seriously though, this thread is General Discussion bad.

and the major em pires are yet to get involved!

When PL and goons decide which side of the line they sit on, thats when eve goes full retardo
Tyr Dolorem
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#404 - 2015-03-03 18:27:03 UTC
RIP any timezone that isn't US.... who thought that was a good idea, I wan't them to explain it to me.
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#405 - 2015-03-03 18:28:30 UTC
Gypsien Agittain wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Aight, here's a more serious post. I like the "command node" system. Spreading the actual fighting to the constelation vs several grids in the same system spreads out lag, adds a little more strategy, gives jump bridges and titans a little more use for defenders, its okay. "One sov structure per system", again, good idea. Cuts down on station spam, makes pve riskier, less structures, good idea. "Freeport mode" also a good idea, gives people a reasonable timeframe to organize actual move ops vs. installing a JC and waiting a month.

Now here's the bad ****. Timed "vulnerability". Bullshit. Everything should be vulnerable to people ******* with it all the time. Any TZ should be able to roam around reinforcing **** whenever they want. Now the actual reinforcement timers themselves should obviously stay, the defender gets to pick when they want to start the fight, but not when somebody wants to be a **** and turn off all your station stuff and/or reo a region.

Next up, the whole entosis module ****. This is just going to promote putting as many warm bodies into stabbed interceptors as possible and blitzing command nodes. Thats no fun. The entosis module needs to promote actual fleet fighting rather than 9k/s games of tag. A good compromise might be rendering an entosis ship completely immobile like a siege/triage which would promote taking and holding grid BEFORE you start flipping a command node.

Thirdly, Why should we attack/defend anything? Currently, the major reason to hold nullsec space is to rent it out. Because to be perfectly honest, when compared to other areas of EVE, null income is pretty goddamn ****. With our massive renter empire, N3 is able to squeeze out actual income for our pvp pilots and alliance operations, but without the scale of a rental empire, there's just no point in holding any sov at all. Most of the people who actually do "sov null" would just stop caring about sov at all, we're gonna end up staking out areas of NPC space to live in and pretty much making our own sov system. Hell, a good chunk of null already has alt in highsec farming incursions for our personal incomes. So whats the solution? BUFF NULL PVE. Give me a reason to want to carebear in nullsec. Because otherwise, farming incursions in highsec and running roams out of NPC null is a better way to live than earning shittastic nullbear income and playing interceptor tag ever day.

Whats your opinion about Supercapitals use due to this changes?

Well, Titans are getting a use, as I mentioned, because mobile jump bridge? Hell yes. I'd say give them a bit more of a reduction on jump fatigue for bridged pilots but that's a number balancing thing. Supercarriers? They're in a sort of semi-****** space right now. As it stands, in the new system, supers get used to kill capitals and other supers. Now in the grand scheme of things, that could be more than enough, but dreads/carriers are also in this semi-****** space with supers in that they don't have a real use outside of a POS timer.

I see two options, either we have another massive rebuild of supers (remember when they were motherships?) to fill an entirely new role, or CCP needs to give capital warfare a BIG shot in the arm. Personally, I'm for buffing and expanding capital roles.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Northern Coalition.
#406 - 2015-03-03 18:30:57 UTC
If we are going to have the military and industry indexes matter for the "occupancy" bonus I would like to see the way they are measured overhauled.

The Industry Index needs to include PI, Industry jobs run, and maybe even moon mining/reactions done in those systems to truly reflect usage.

The Military Index on that same note should include some kind of pilots in space metric, maybe Isk value of PVP ship kills or something along those lines.

In their current state the occupancy bonuses will just encourage compulsory PVE ops to increase defense levels.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#407 - 2015-03-03 18:31:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
Data and relic sites should contribute to the industry index if they are run by a member of the alliance that owns the system. This allows explorers to contribute to the system and gives a reason to fight over said sites if you are trying to bring down or raise the defensive bonus provided by the index.
Goonswarm Federation
#408 - 2015-03-03 18:31:23 UTC
Proton Stars wrote:
claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.

20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang

I would like to see this fit, especially one that is A) cap stable and 2) can lock that far.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Iski Zuki DaSen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#409 - 2015-03-03 18:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Iski Zuki DaSen
wtb iHubs 10m3 wtb upgrades 1m3 wtb tcu 5m3 at the price of 1 mil each
also wtb upgrades that actually upgrade a crappy pve wise system to a system that actully can be used

also bb AU TZ peeps was nice playing with you

and gl taking sov from the Russians
Grath Telkin
Goonswarm Federation
#410 - 2015-03-03 18:32:27 UTC
I love every one of those 7000+ words.

Ram it home.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#411 - 2015-03-03 18:32:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Olmops
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
The system is surprisingly good overall, but I see one critical problem: the price of Entosis links are low enough to allow trolling. I mean you park a throwaway ship next to the structure or command node and go AFK. If no one responds, you forced the owners into a command node whack-a-mole or took their home. If someone shows up, you lost a worthless ship.

We know that jump beacon gankers can kill capitals in the enemy staging system with 200+ in local, because everyone minds his own business. The VFK beacon was infamous for it. The same thing will happen here: a single attacker can take the IHUB from 200+ "defenders" as no one will interrupt his gameplay for a 30M kill report. So an FC must sit 4 hours every day on defense duty, grabbing players into the extremely boring job of "do N jumps because the station there is pinged, just to pop a single T1 cruiser. Now do N jump back, because the IHUB is on fire".

The problem is the extreme difference of risk on the sides: if the "attack" succeeds, the defender loses his home. If the "attack" fails, the attacker loses a T1 cruiser.

Since it comes up so often, I will address it.
Yes, the change from grinding fleets to single "hacking" ships is HUGE.
Yes, it has a great potential for trolling.
But call it rather "knocking on the door and asking for a fight".

Many people have complained about the fixed 4-hour-window.
I believe this fixed window (and please no larger than 4 hours) is a CRUCIAL and MANDATORY part of the whole plan.

CCP basically removes the "fleet size floor" for sov holders.
To avoid the "500 Interceptors conquering nullsec in 1 day" scenario, you need some other limitation.
This will be the small time window.

If your alliance wants to hold sov, you must be able to keep your space clean of enemies for 4 hours per day.
Completely clean. If you fail to remove one ship or to respond to a small gang, you get timers.
Those 4 hours are long for the defender and it's absolutely fair that the defender gets to choose them.

It's also ok if they are fixed, because I know the similar POCO mechanism quite well. If you need to defend a lot of POCOs and basically you are not willing, you will set the timers randomly to wear down the enemy without fighting yourself. The new system wants to prevent this, which is good.

However, I do see the problem.
On the one hand, a small defending group (which should be viable in nullsec by design) cannot defend anything but a small time window in their own prime time. Period.
No small window selectable by defender -> no small groups holding sov.

But it also works the other way round. If I am in a small group with only one prime time zone, I can hardly attack anything in a different timezone. This IS an issue.

FORCE alliances to choose one DIFFERENT time window for each constellation where they hold sov.
-I am a small group, 1 timezone: I can hold sov in one constellation, people will have to fight in my prime time.
-I want to be bigger and hold multiple constellations: I need to be able to defend multiple 4-hour-windows in different
-if I want to attack CFC or N3 with a small group, I will always find a constellation where they are vulnerable in my timezone. The other way round does not work. They have to fight me where I am strongest.
-if 2 large entities battle each other, there will be all sorts of shenanigans. They will have to carefully choose which constellations get vulnerable in which timezone, but generally they will be vulnerable somewhere 24/7.
-basically, the more territory you have, the longer your vulnerability time gets
-maybe even narrow the vulnerability window down to 3 hours and create 8 non-overlapping fixed timeslots. Own up to one constellation: you must be ready to fight for 3 hours each day. 2 constellations: 6 hours... and so on. If you have 8 or more constellations, at least one constellation will always be vulnerable.
-in very large alliances, people from all timezones will have "their" constellations they can/have to defend
-if an entity wants to attack a small sov holder, place AND time are in favour of the defender
-if attacking a large entity, the attacker has the choice of EITHER choosing a strategically important constellation OR attack something less valuable in a maybe slightly better timezone (assuming the vulnerability windows would be visible on the starmap or the like and assuming the defender did his homework and assigned the most important constellations to his best timezones)

I really like the new approach. Sounds promising.
I see many people in this thread though who fail to see the implications, because they are thinking in the old ways.
Gallente Federation
#412 - 2015-03-03 18:33:23 UTC

'Unknown Corporation A' all start playing the game, learn how to fly ships together etc, recruit people from the same timezone that they play in (07:00 to 11:00 EvE Time) and generally all get along and become the best PvP's in the game.

Their corporation slowly builds to around 50 and decide that while fighting wars and PvPing in lo-sec is nice. They would like to expand and add some sov in nul-sec so that they can experience all the things that EvE offers.

They look around at all the regions nearest to them and see that the sov owners all play at a different time and have set their prime time for a time that none of them could log in for. They look further afield and then across the entire map and realize that they can never experience an attempt to gain sov as no-one has set a prime-time when this group of players can log in.

EvE Online: Experience Everything (except those currently in timezones that will never get to play or own sov)
Navy Veteran Club
#413 - 2015-03-03 18:33:40 UTC
This sounds and should actually be much better than structure grinds... but how it actually would turn out needs can only be judged after patch deployment.

I also think making Entosis module initially only for BS is a good start... the battleships need some love, and this is the perfect chance to reduce trolling the system with throwaway ships.
KC Kamikaze
Great Blue Balls of Fire
#414 - 2015-03-03 18:34:04 UTC
I love these changes. I think this will entice smaller high and low sec corps to move to null and bear it up so we have more targets to kill.

Also makes me interested in maybe putting an alt in an alliance doing sov warfare.

Prime time defense is as it should be. If you are the attacker and you are in a different time zone then it's on you to gather your forces when they are vulnerable. The defensive team should always have strategic advantages.

+1 CCP
Goonswarm Federation
#415 - 2015-03-03 18:34:16 UTC
Tiberian Deci wrote:

TEST can stand on it's own without aid from 15,000 other people too,

i suppose that just because it's never happened before is no guarantee it can never happen in the future
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#416 - 2015-03-03 18:35:28 UTC
Nullbear tears. Good.

The Tears Must Flow

Drone Plague
#417 - 2015-03-03 18:36:18 UTC

  1. So if your not active in your alliance's prime time you can say goodbye to having anything to do.

  2. Don't plan on having any station services available out of your prime-time also because they can be turned off at any time by any group that comes around.

  3. Industrial Indices has no link to any industrial activity except mining. So an enemy just needs to place a cloaked ships in your system and that's goodbye to your industrial indices bonus as no mining will occur. So pretty much the same as it is now. Nullsec mining is a joke due to the ore anomalies being instantly warpable and only having 1 or 2 per system.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#418 - 2015-03-03 18:36:24 UTC
Shouldn't Starbase deployments, or at least their active industry related arrays, impact the Industrial index? That's a huge component of production presence, probably far exceeding even mining.
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#419 - 2015-03-03 18:36:51 UTC
After thinking about this some more, especially in regards to the timezone component, I would make the following suggestion.

-Completely remove alliances from the game.
-Move all sov structures to the corporate level.
-To make up for alliances, give corporations the ability to join other corporations just like an individual pilot (some technical limitations on the number of cascaded corporations)
-Sov structures are always tied to the corp though, but the name displayed will always "go up the tree" to the highest level parent coropration.
-Overview would replace "In my alliance" with "In an affiliated corporation"

Players are now free to define their own organizational structures. We currently have corporations, alliances, coalitions, and affiliated coalitions. We will now have corporations, a parent corp, a grandfather corp, etc. A corp could then leave its parent corp and takes it sov with them as their own entity. If they chose to join another corporation, they take their sov untouched with them.

Yes its crazy, but it might allow for smaller groups to form within an alliance to spread out ownership of space. It gives people the ability to still associate with a larger parent, grand-parent, great grand-parent, etc corporation (Brave, Goons, CFC, N3, NCdot, Nulli, Provi-bloc, or whatever players want) as an identity, but the keeps the logistical/organization tools available at the corp level open to form viable subgroups.


Vardaugas Family
#420 - 2015-03-03 18:37:00 UTC
Looks like your system is getting flayed alive. Good going, CCP, you definitely know how to do it!