These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cleanse Serce
La Forge.
Toilet Paper.
#661 - 2015-03-03 21:10:54 UTC
Good changes overall.

Cheer CCP.
Taishi Combine
#662 - 2015-03-03 21:15:20 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I keep hearing how bad nullsec is, then a Nulli guys says its so bad he rents it out to people who pay them vast rent and presumbaly make ISK out of it, otherwise they would not be there. The contradictions are huge, why would they rent space if they could not make ISK out of it.

If you were interested in the truth, the answer would have been obvious to you: Because it makes more sense to rent it to some poor sucker with lower standards and use your own time to go do something either more fun (pvp) OR more lucrative pve things of which their are many.

No, its because they do multiple things with their space, for example we ice mined, we did anomalies, we were planning to build certain things that you need sov space for, some guys were mining anomalies that needed to be scanned down, alll the sorts of things you can do as a team, and we had fun in space that we called our own, blowing up people who thought we were uselss renters was the most fun and we fought incredible odds to keep it.

I can safely say that the time I was in Querious as Pirate nation renting 4 terrible systems was the best time I had in game and I left that space far richer then when I entered it.

That was Eve to me and this system really may give me what I want, a system where you can fight and hold, ISK per hour mania can go run screaming for all I care.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#663 - 2015-03-03 21:15:47 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
I love every one of those 7000+ words.

Ram it home.

and watch the CFC bite the pillow
Flo Skyler
#664 - 2015-03-03 21:16:38 UTC
I am all for changing sov mechanics, but im not sure if this is a good way of doing it.

Sov holders will have to defend their space from any pvp entity looking for a "gud fight", even if said entity have no interest whatsoever in actually holding sov. This is great for ppl who wants to pvp, they can go out and pick a fight and after they have seen what is arrayed against them, decide whether or not to engage and even pick the fights in their favor to some degree since their main objective is the fight, not getting sov. This could become a real strain on sov holders, constantly having to defend their territory against pilots with no real interest in holding sov. I fail to see what advantages there are to holding sov that can make up for having to form up every day for defensive timers or to prevent said timers from happening in the first place.

CCP want more players in null sec. I fail to see how these sov changes will improve that. In fact i think it will have quite the opposite effect. When you make it easier to take sov you also make it harder for sov holders to create the kind of stable environment needed for carebears to live in. Yes it will be easier for smaller entities to get a foothold in null, but it will be just as easy for them to loose that again and tbh i dont think the reward for holding sov is big enough for ppl to invest their time and assets into holding sov when they can loose it again on a whim.

My guess is, that the big coalitions will not be able to hold on to as much sov as they currently do. I think they will focus on some core regions and maybe we will see a more segregated sov map where alliances are more focused in a single region rather than multiple like we see today. I fear that the best sov will be held by the coalitions and the rest will become a barren wasteland where sov changes hands on a daily basis or not at all and chaos rules.

To sum up. Changes are great for pvp (or at least the offensive side). Not so great for the ppl that actually holds sov and try to make a living there.
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Reckless Contingency.
#665 - 2015-03-03 21:18:26 UTC
that primetimer is crap it forces alliances to focus on one TZ.... and whatabout ceptors orbiting with the E-link, YEAH RIGHT..
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#666 - 2015-03-03 21:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Schluffi Schluffelsen
After a few hours of reading, talking and thinking about it I'm still amazed after months of work this is what you came up with.

1. this system won't shake up the current coalition cluster, it'll only lead to mergers to keep the number of entities lower
2. you go from million HP sov structures to 1x frig being able to reinforce a system with a 20m mod
3. a global game across all TZs gets enslaved by the TZ setting of the defender
4. 250km range on the entosis mod, srsly
5. supercapitals are worthless now
6. Risk vs. reward - why should people commit to 0.0
7. freeport mode - happy station games and constant bubbles

Let's talk a bit about the positive things a bit.

1. no sbus anymore - good riddance
2. nodes to split up fleets, good idea - but tweak the numbers down, 10x per each node is too much
3. focus on constellations
4. defensive boni (but give it to all RF modes, not just the first cycle)

Now let's try to fix this mess. First of all, you can't be serious about the Entosis mod. Nobody should be able to reinforce a system on his own and especially not in a frig with a 20m mod. Cut down the range of the mod to 20km/25km for t1/t2. This keeps people on the sov structure, make it only useable on large+ hulls. The supercapital / capital issue is still unsolved and I'm not sure how you can make supers viable with this system. But you could tweak fatigue - maybe change fatigue this way - you don't get any fatigue within the same region, only if you jump into another region. That makes carriers and dreads more useful in a regional conflict. ADD NPC SPACE to EACH region. Make every region vulnerable, you do all that fancy lore stuff but nothing about this has a meaningful effect. Let incursions take over stations that aren't used, create NPC space where people don't use it, give pilots the ability to get close to the heart of the enemy. Create decent staging options, put stress on large entities so that regional powers can grow, not superpowers.

Now a more general comment - how is this system supposed to break up the status quo of eve? CFC and N3 are still going to reign over most regions, probably cutting down a bit on the edges to keep the pressure down, but it's not going to be that bad. Probably worse for PL and N3, now that their entire supercapital and capital fleet are rendered useless. Why haven't you tried to create a system that encourages to field medium sized alliances that can fight regional conflicts? The risk vs. rewards of 0.0 are even worse now, we're going to see more cloaky campers, stations with assets are even more vulnerable with the freeport mode, now that the enemy can just jump in a JF with dictors. Well done. You had the approval of most players to change something big about 0.0, shake things up. CHANGE STUFF BIG TIME. All you came up with is a mod like a TP that claims sov. Way to go. A space that has been designed to build and support large fleets of capital and supercapital ships, now in the hands of ceptors with a spray can. How could you not see the limitations and weaknesses of this system?
Current Habit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#667 - 2015-03-03 21:20:15 UTC
Are there any changes to non-hostile sov transfers (ether between corps in the same alliance or between two alliances via a transfer corp)?

Is it still gonna be possible?
Lquid Drisseg
Goonswarm Federation
#668 - 2015-03-03 21:20:24 UTC
I am optimistic about the future of SOV and happy that CCP had the brains to release this with enough time to actually incorporate player feedback time + design review time + extra development time.

  • Does it need tweaks? Yes
  • Is this the end of the SOV roadmap? No
  • Can we deal with these changes+feedback for now so CCP can get some good data and improve it further? Yes

Please take your time and get this right CCP, I don't want a whole new cluster to explore next year that's based on a crap SOV system. Take your time and do it right. This one is worth your time.
Czan Olmzi
Caldari State
#669 - 2015-03-03 21:20:54 UTC
Helios Panala wrote:
Alliances need to be able to set 'prime-time' on a per structure basis so that groups spread across multiple timezones can be given content, at the very least you can have your different TZs defending different borders.

Other than that looks good to me.

Yes. If the prime-time window could be set differently for each system or structure, rather than one time across the whole alliance then alliances with multiple TZs would naturally set primes-times, proportionally, according to the number of members they have in each TZ, not only to provide content for each TZ but to eliminate the need to protect ALL its space during one prime-time. Is this not a very obvious solution? I can't claim to be an authority on the current system but for the proposed changes this would seem to make sense. Am I missing something?
jita Pirkibo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#670 - 2015-03-03 21:21:46 UTC
Guess i'll have to stay in jita now this **** is going to happen,... Bye Bye mixed-TZ allainces of any relevance in 0.0 (sov-nullsec)
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#671 - 2015-03-03 21:22:25 UTC
Nb4 Record Breaking posts - RIP Phoebe Thread

Oh and - just say no to giving Entosis Link (attackers) free headstarts!

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Agent Known
State War Academy
Caldari State
#672 - 2015-03-03 21:23:34 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Nb4 Record Breaking posts - RIP Phoebe Thread

Oh and - just say no to giving Entosis Link (attackers) free headstarts!

This thread has already passed all the other stickies in reply count and it's only been a couple hours. This should be a fun ride.
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
#673 - 2015-03-03 21:23:51 UTC
I'm still amazed after months of work this is what you came up with.

This sums it up pretty good, i think.

*slow claps*
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#674 - 2015-03-03 21:24:05 UTC  |  Edited by: omgdutch2005
WTF is this? Guess next up is shiney cartoon graphics and we call it WoW - Space online?

I'd rather shoot structures then to have this kind of atrocity....

if you implement it... make it harder... dont let the attacker be able tomove.. make it like the ESS, web & warpscramble it... it should not be fluffy and shiney.. it should be dark and grinn
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#675 - 2015-03-03 21:24:18 UTC
Querns wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy?

TCUs and IHUBs are blown to smithereens once an attacker successfully contests their sov game. This is especially important for IHUBs, which are freighter sized.

oh man think of all the fraighter kills, i cant wait :D
Dawn Harbinger
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#676 - 2015-03-03 21:24:37 UTC
Cheers CCP, way to be bold and shake things up! I'm interested to see how these mechanics play out in practice.

Sure a few things will probably need tweaking... the 4-hour window seems to be one. I like having a small reinforcement window because it gives smaller alliances a chance to defend, but you may want to consider expanding the window for larger alliances.

Perhaps consider tying the reinforcement window to alliance-size, occupancy indices, or perhaps even making each system (or structure) have a separate reinforcement windows (maybe with minimum requirements causing them to be spaced out) instead of making it alliance-wide.
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
#677 - 2015-03-03 21:24:50 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Also regarding Command Node(s) and capture:

Re: Adding the need to scan down Command nodes:

Which equals diversity in game play.

If we're removing grinding then something has to be hard... right now it's attacker advantage the way populated Sov is currently used... i.e. BLOB warps in suddenly to system and griefs station by reinforcing everything services wise

Defender is at disadvantage because it's suprise attack, and the time to organize a defense ---

When it comes to actual Sov capture there isn't a decisive advantage for defender over attacker, which is fine, but once the command nodes start popping it's just a race to see who can come across the anomoly first

It would be nicer if some sill was involved of actually having to scan the things down instead of attacker just pre posiition in "spotters" in every constellation system and then via comms
deploy the fleet


I mean I much rather have my Alliance leadership promoting scanner pilots as the saviours of our Empire, rather than the BLOB F1 monkey that only trained PVP skills

Envisioning FC's waiting for scanner results via scanner pilots, as well as scouts racing around updating on enemy activity (sharp uptick in local? or sudden cyno out ... where'd they cyno too)... having to manage the Meta, as opposed to how to get the BLOB to the next Command Node that's on everyone's overview

I think exploration/scanning has come of age and needs additional content - and this is a perfect content driver that would give that genre the next opportunity to make headway in the EVE online ingame culture.

*(And for the record I myself am not a scanner pilot - all skills are only at Lvl 2 for this character)

As an ex-wormhole prober, I find this idea great- racing to the new static was a thrill. However, the sig should actually be hard to scan.

This. +1

Force both sides, to field more diverse fleets. Having to include scanning ships would be a good step. Maybe even have different command nodes, that can only be Entosis-linked by certain ship sizes. If every capture event spawns at least one node for every ship size, than people would have an incentive to field very diverse fleets...?
You could even make it so, that the defender gets to choose the type of command node for half of the initial spawn... tilting the chances in favor of his favorite fleet composition. Smaller Entities might opt for a couple of frigate only nodes, while the big guys could opt for a couple of supercap-only nodes, therefore strongly taunting the attacker to escalate.

Make command nodes scannable sigs for attackers and anomalies for defenders. Make scanning difficulty dependent on defense boni. This would enable some pretty nice defense ambush tactics with cloaky ships and D-scan immune recons...
Brother Mercury
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#678 - 2015-03-03 21:24:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Brother Mercury

To encourage the use of supercaps and dreads in this change that would otherwise substantially limit the point of ever logging one in (beyond cancer POS bashing), I suggest that one of the three sov structures be flippable/destructible with a standard 1x reinforcement timer and NOT be taken by the command node system.

This helps alleviate the potential under-usage of supercaps but also does not severely undermine the new sov mechanics because, as we know, each structure is independent.

For example, let's say that TCUs and Stations keep the proposed sov mechanics -- that is, they are won by the command node system after being succesfully "entosed" (aka using entosis link on them). However, I-HUBs are destructible based on 1x reinforcement timer of 12-48 hrs (whatever works). When the reinforcement ends and the I-HUB is vulnerable, it can be attacked and destroyed, or flipped. The KEY here is that there is NO command node system specifically ONLY for the I-HUB. The decision to destroy or flip the I-HUB would be left to the force that won the grid for that reinforcement fight.

Thus, we have created 2 sov type battles: 1) keeps the command node mechanics (i.e. CCPs attempt to give the small guy a chance) for two of the three sov structures -- including the most important one (stations), and 2) a sov structure/reason to log in your super or dread for a massive battle for the I-HUB timer.

There's also no valid reason why it should be a problem that in one system the small/smart/agile alliance isn't strong enough to hold all three structures (TCU, I-HUB, and station), if they can't bring the forces to take the I-HUB that the big/slow/disorganized alliance can.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#679 - 2015-03-03 21:25:23 UTC
Entosis Link animation should use Circadian Seeker/ Drifter scanning animation since they are related -

and the effect looks cool and is easy to see at most any range.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

Irya Boone
The Scope
#680 - 2015-03-03 21:27:29 UTC
LOVE IT and all the tears that come with it :)

now CCp you have to work on the reward of having a SoV and the POSes please

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB