These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#681 - 2015-03-03 21:29:00 UTC
This is a very bad idea since it forces alliances to focus to a single TZ. And the entosis link is OP, since like a ceptor can fly around ihub's at ludicrous per sec and take the ihub. Entosis should be forced into siege mode as it go active in it's task.
Michael Ignis Archangel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#682 - 2015-03-03 21:29:28 UTC
Possible addition to the TZ vulnerability window: base this also off of the indices.

A newly captured sovereign system would have a window of say, 8 hours. A 5/5/5 indexed system would be vulnerable only 3 hours/day. If the system sits unused for some period of time, allow the vulnerability window to degrade expansively out from the alliance-selected prime time until it's 23.5/7.

All numbers are suggestions, there was no particular logic behind the initial 8, or the optimal 3.

This would increase the defender's advantage and their incentive to use the space. It would also allow a simpler steamroll of truly unused space.
Mira Lemuria
Incursion Inc..
#683 - 2015-03-03 21:29:29 UTC

mkae it like a siege high-sec item... it should not be easy to do it w an inty...
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
#684 - 2015-03-03 21:30:01 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Agent Known wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:

Entosis Link should trigger alert IMMEDIATELY - not after a 10 Minute delay when the damage is already done!!!!

*(Please like this post so Dev's will clearly see this)

If you're actively using the system they're contesting then intel channels would tell you well before they got to the structures anyway.

Intel channels don't tell you someone's fit or cargo.

No where in all of EVE's mechanics does an attacker of a POS or POCO or ANY player owned structure get a free 10 minute head start in contesting anything in this game....

@#$@ THAT! That's **** game design right there --- I'm all for what's proposed EXCEPT that!

You haven't read the part with the E-link thoroughly enough, it explicitly states:

Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.


Once the first cycle of the Entosis Link completes and the capture progress begins the Alliance who owns the structure will be notified of the attack and will need to respond in order to prevent the attackers from reinforcing the structure.

Therefore, your point is moot, you immediately get a warning, once a capture-attempt is starting to count down.
#685 - 2015-03-03 21:30:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Escuro
Regarding the not-so awesome prime time limitation.

How bout using some Stronth and auto-reinforcing it for a MAXIMUM of, for example, 16 hours per eve-day. Alliances can select a smaller reinforce time to save ISK and abandoned systems with no stronth will be availiable 23/7. Also, you can use none if you're greedy as hell.

EDIT: Also, there can be a constellation blockade mechanic invented in this. After the SOV update most alliances in eve will shrink anyway.
Evil BeeHatch
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#686 - 2015-03-03 21:31:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Evil BeeHatch
Prime time timer:
For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz.
We need to make this go away.

Entosis Link:
This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB
So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode.
Des Jardin
Aperture Harmonics
#687 - 2015-03-03 21:32:35 UTC
I am not in favor of the "prime time" as it would tend to decrease available content.


Introduce a mechanic where the attacking fleet can alter the prime time window.

"Good against remotes is one thing.  Good against the living ... that's something else."

Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#688 - 2015-03-03 21:32:43 UTC

Re: 96 Hour Timer

So when this is launched and no one has a Preferred Timer window set - will it still take 96 Hours to set before anything can start happening?

Or will everyone get a default Preferred Time at launch, until it is changed manually and then +96hrs?

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

Freyr Padac
Code Name Spacer 7
Worthless Krabs
#689 - 2015-03-03 21:33:44 UTC
Prime time timer, WTF that is only going to cause an alliance to focus on a single TZ

Entosis Link, If it is to exist it needs to be like a siege module and be unable to move as well or this is going to be crazy with ceptors
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#690 - 2015-03-03 21:33:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Sarel Hendar wrote:

1.) Arrow I'd recommend restrictions on entosis module so that it can't be fitted into frigate- or destroyer-class hulls. Otherwise we'll have troll-fitted T3 Destroyers or Interceptors that'll be MWD-orbitting at 200 kilometers and nearly impossible to stop or hit.

2.) Arrow Idea: In a twist to command nodes, you could have in addition to normal ones "variant" command nodes that have to be probed out and capturing which is worth slightly more than "regular" command nodes (eg. something like 1.1-1.3 "regular" ones). Nothing overwhelming, just some edge to the side willing/able to have a combat prober in fleet...

3.) Arrow Timezone segmentation could be problematic. Needs thinking about.

4.) Arrow ECM interactions with entosis will need thinking about. 200-Falcon troll fleets aren't fun for anyone.

5.) Arrow Capital- and Supercapital roles will need thinking about.

1.) An interceptor doesn't have the lock range to "lock" a station while orbiting at 200 km's. As a matter of fact, most "long range" kiting concepts can be countered by damps. The Arazu / Lachesis easily have lock ranges out to 200 km's, and when properly rigged, their damps will occasionally hit a target at that range. Break their lock, and they can't entosis anymore.

2.) I like this idea.

3.) I concur. I think some TZ segmentation is necessary, but I find the window a bit on the small side. 6 hours seems more reasonable than 4 hours. I can't decide if this will hurt or help AU TZ groups.

4.) ECM Troll fleets are easy to beat. They do poor dps and have hard counters.

5.) I'm not worried about supercapitals, as applying an entosis is akin to sieging, which is a fairly dangerous thing for them to do.
MIss Sideways
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#691 - 2015-03-03 21:34:34 UTC
wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!

all jokes aside...

make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...

Change it so that folks have to siege for this...
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#692 - 2015-03-03 21:36:21 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

Please keep it constructive and on topic people!

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Nof Nof
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#693 - 2015-03-03 21:37:44 UTC
Flo Skyler wrote:
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.

You are forgetting about the covert ops camping thst exists nowaday. Only difference is you only have a 4 hour window to worry about. Team up with some pvp people or focus on defense fleets etc. Cause yes there will be people griefing and there will be people wanting good fights and you know what? Pvp players have had to sit there while indy null bears go and hide in their stations anytime 1 neut is in local and talk smack from station. Explain to me why there is anything wrong with holding your own destiny you shouldn't have human concord to hold your hand.

Agent Known
State War Academy
Caldari State
#694 - 2015-03-03 21:37:58 UTC
Evil BeeHatch wrote:
Prime time timer:
For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz.
We need to make this go away.

Entosis Link:
This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB
So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode.

Maybe so...but CCP could always make it require too much PG to be fittable on interceptors that try to also fit an oversized MWD. Same with the Svipul.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#695 - 2015-03-03 21:39:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the module’s cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Only one may be fitted per ship.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Capital Ships would have restrictions for using these modules, most likely in the form of a role bonus that increases the cycle time by 400% (this means a 10 minute cycle time for a T2 Entosis Link on a capital ship).
Various players wrote:
Don't allow Entosis Link on interceptors, covert ops, ....

I think that these sorts of specific limitations on modules rarely make much sense, and only serve to limit player creativity when fitting ships.

Why not just create multiple sizes of the Entosis Link, incl. a capital-sized version, and set the module stats accordingly, to limit what players can do with one? There can also be mass penalties, speed penalties, sig radius penalties, etc. to make it somewhat unattractive to fit to every ship in the fleet, or to fit multiple links on a single ship.

For example, to make remote assist still possible, but much less viable, the Entosis Link could have a significant armor/shield resist penalty. And, for capital ships, the fitting requirement and/or cap usage could be very large, making it problematical to also fit a tank or any significant DPS.

BTW - warping, docking, and jumping should just break the cycle. Running away should always be an option in the game.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#696 - 2015-03-03 21:40:13 UTC
MIss Sideways wrote:
wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!

all jokes aside...

make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...

Change it so that folks have to siege for this...

A 20 hour daily invulnerability window isn't hard enough?
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#697 - 2015-03-03 21:40:26 UTC
Nullbears are mad. Good.

The Tears Must Flow

Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#698 - 2015-03-03 21:40:37 UTC
"Prime time" thingy is a very bad game design. I hoped you would get rid of timezone warfare - instead, you only reinforced it.

And we see yet another shift in meta towards lighter ships. Capitals could be reprocessed altogether, and even battleships are worthless.
Nalha Saldana
Gallente Federation
#699 - 2015-03-03 21:41:48 UTC
After reading and discussing a lot there are 2 things that needs to be addressed:

1. Prime time needs to be chosen on a constellation or system level so that alliances can mix what time zones they have and designate them to live in different areas but still be able to help each other.

2. For these changes to really have a proper effect we need a economic overhaul, this isn't something that can be fixed overnight but don't expect too much serious business fighting to go on before that.

Oh and while your fixing economy, fix sec status, 80% of systems are useless for pve/mining.
Gallente Federation
#700 - 2015-03-03 21:42:10 UTC
If CCP really want to get more smaller alliances into null sec then they need to make a better system than this one, but if this is what we are going to get then:

The best idea so far to combat 'prime time setting' in this thread is the idea to have core systems that are used a lot have the small 4 hour window where they can be attacked, with this degrading to a 24 hour window of attack in systems that are not used.

Occupancy could be increased via npc kills, pilots in system, ores mined, manufacturing jobs in system, moon mining, ships killed, etc.

This will force the defenders to use all the systems they own, or lose some to smaller alliances looking to make a foothold into null sec. Systems with good occupancy would keep this attribute for a certain amount of time before degrading.
Of course a carrot would be needed for people to leave the better systems to use these poorer systems, in the form of better bounties from npcs, better mining yield, etc.

Eventually defenders that have to much space will have to yield systems that they cannot keep occupancy up in, or recruit more people into their alliances to help. Hopefully this will cause more PvP, as there are actual people to fight in regions rather than the emptiness that there is now; as you will have enemies close by to fight and other entities will move into the region looking for easy targets as the area is now full.

Systems with lots of activity having a 4 hour window, moving down to 24hours for a never used system.
A system never used for any activities should probably degrade to unclaimed after 3 weeks.

Entosis module at 250km is easily countered by many other ways to bring the attacker in closer, so I have no problem with that.

Supercaps are back to what they should be used for, killing other capitals. The underlying problem of supercaps has never been what they can do.

Still hoping there is more to be revealed as this still feels very limited for the wait.