These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Author
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1101 - 2015-03-04 07:13:13 UTC
Anhenka wrote:


Primetime system that puts ALL the sov warfare obligations of a single alliance onto only one TZ is absolutely terrible. Why should I be excluded from participating because my alliance primetime is EU and I'm US? Is the solution to just "go find another alliance"?

Is forcing groups to ditch people outside of their primetime intended, since non primetime players are basically useless for anything except leeching and POS warfare.


This is an excellent point that I completely missed. Maybe you should consider making coalitions an official thing and and making anyone in that coalition on the same side either that or let the holding corp set the time so that you can have a variance within the Alliance. Or maybe allow an Alliance to select multiple vulnerability time blocks.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#1102 - 2015-03-04 07:19:39 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Please make this station alert sound a thing. Complete with flashing red lights in hangar and CQ. #allhandsondick


Rain honey, I was thinking the exact same thing Big smile

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1103 - 2015-03-04 07:22:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Callduron wrote:
The principle effect of this is to make null space more dangerous and promote more conflict. As written it seems certain to do that.

We've heard a lot from sov players but the people most buffed by this are the NPC null residents: MOA, Tec-nology etc who live to **** with the nearby sov holders. There will be constant harassment and small roaming gangs of frigates or dessies will provoke home defence fleets which can be dropped on or otherwise engaged.

I've always loved home defence fleets in null and I'm really looking forward to this aspect. Lots of small crises popping up are great for a minor FC like myself and many players enjoy the smaller fleets.

Regarding the issue of risk v reward nullsec is meant to be dangerous and by making it more dangerous the value of operating in nullsec successfully goes up for some activities. For instance arkonor is worth less than veldspar because very large amounts of it are mined in nullsec pushing the price down. If less people mine in nullsec because it has become more dangerous then the ore will be worth more.

Also reward isn't strictly necessary to create an exciting sov game. Why would hostiles tear down your ****? Because they can, that's all the reason needed.

Regarding the issue of the timer people will use watchlists, killboards and other information sources to analyse enemy activity and then target the weakest time. It would be horrible defending space that could easily be put into reinforcement or hubs destroyed at a time of the attacker's choosing. Alliance members outside the main vulnerability time remain useful for attacking other people's space, which is likely to generate non-aggression treaties and other deals.



I want to correct something here, off topic a bit. But the reason Mega and Zydrine is worth so little is because of a blunder CCP made years ago. Stockpiles are still being burned through which is really why the price of those ores with those minerals are so horrid. Add to that nobody hauls tritanium, which is a large part of what you get from Ark (FYI I rat for my isk not mine, these are just some facts I know).

And while the reward to the attacker may just be to screw with the larger alliances by hitting their sov in a 0.0 system, the defender needs a reason to want defend or inhabit that space. Most if not all attacking forces wouldn't want to actually live out of such systems that are so easily hit. Largest reason for this is a large percentage of null space is exactly that thanks to the current true sec mechanic.
Bill Lane
Strategic Insanity
FUBAR.
#1104 - 2015-03-04 07:22:30 UTC
Just thought I'd throw some thoughts out, think we need all the comments we can get on such a game-changing system.

First, absolutely 100% capital underlined NO on the Prime Time nonsense. This has to be one of the worst ideas that have come forth from CCP in the 5 years I've been around. Why in the world would you want to DISCOURAGE alliances from recruiting contributing members from other timezones, and on the flip side why would any corp want to join an alliance where they wouldn't feel like they make a contribution just because they aren't in the right timezone? This is just blowing my mind, it's a huge detriment to the single shard universe concept.

Second, I do agree that nullsec needs a large overhaul, but I have a few problems. What you have laid out sounds over-simplified, childish and halfassed for lack of a better word. After reading the ideas, I am starting to wonder if any of you actually play the game or you just throw out ideas that might work without knowing what you are talking about. That being said, if we knew what was coming in the future we may not feel that way and you should lay out your vision better (I know it's a work in progress).

This much of a change should honestly be released as a true expansion, along with new content and ALL of the supporting elements such as a capital rebalance (which will obviously be needed) and the POS changes. Releasing one without the other would be like giving your child 1/3 of a bike and promising to build the next 1/3 at some point in the future, then you'd focus on the last third. Ya it's great having that first 1/3 as the child and thinking it's awesome, but it's a broken piece of crap without the rest of the vision.

So please consider just doing like an end-of-year true expansion with these MAJOR changes and adding new content. It would make more sense, and would allow more time for refinement and community input to make it truly good. This is huge, and will have very serious consequences if it is a complete piece of garbage.
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#1105 - 2015-03-04 07:26:02 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:


Arrow Besides the name on the map why would anyone choose to move to nullsec? ( Incursions , level 5's already offer more isk per hour than nullsec. ).


Same reason people fly in FW- PVP. It's surprising that so many people here just want to grind imaginary space kredits in a spaceship PVP game.

The whole point of sov is just to facilitate fights, to be a huge free for all arena. Current system has failed horribly in that, and since people have been living with the disastrous system for so long, they've forgotten what the game was all about.


Lister Vindaloo
5 Tons of Flax
#1106 - 2015-03-04 07:26:41 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Lister Vindaloo wrote:
There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it


There are only two fixes to the TZ problem.

Turn sov into "turn-based" gameplay. That is basically what we have today. Timers go uncontested. Fleets are moved en-mass to overwhelmingly capture an objective. It's like playing civ.. you stack your units until you have overwhelming force to take a city, then move in at once and take it in an all-or-nothing move. Any competent defending player simply removes their units so as not to waste losses on an unwinnable defensive fight (defense fleet never shows up to defend timer). Or they amass sufficient defense that the attacker removes THEIR army and doesn't even bother on the attempt (attack fleet never shows up to finish timer). This is the state of things today.

Or, sov can be real-time gameplay, requiring actual interaction with other humans flying other spaceships. Real-time interactions result in escalating fleet situations that aren't all-or-nothing predetermined outcomes. Unfortunately, CCP cannot fix the reality that real-time interactions can only happen between people that are online at roughly the same times without inventing time-travel. As a result, sov interactions will be gated by TZ by the laws of reality. Accept and adapt.



Exactly, let the TZ of the players decide when they can and cannot contest a timer, not an artificial mechanic that decides when a timer can even exist, let the laws of reality gate the tz's, not a CCP enforced mechanic. From what you have said there is still no purpose to declaring a prime time....
Zip Slings
The Picket Line
#1107 - 2015-03-04 07:30:05 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:


Arrow Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy )

Arrow I feel like the 4 hour window is to short. (I would recommend 6)

Arrow Can a Entosis module be used by a ship in Triage , Siege or Bastion? ( I hope not. )

Arrow Will sov cost reduce or increase with Indices? ( If not you are missing the boat )

Arrow Besides the name on the map why would anyone choose to move to nullsec? ( Incursions , level 5's already offer more isk per hour than nullsec. )

Arrow How does all the Risk of Living in Nullsec compare to the rewards of other safer areas in Eve?

Arrow Supercapital Role ?


Now let me play game designer if I may. I would use this system along with the Phoebe jump changes. With a few changes and additions. Entosis cycle would be affected by TIDI and would not be able to be activated by a ship in Bastion , Triage or Siege. Sov cost would have a base median value and indices would gain negative values. Meaning @ 0 use they would slowly dip towards negative indices values. The lower the negative value of indices the more expensive the sov bill. The higher the value of positive indices the cheaper the sov bill. Furthermore sovereignty owned by an alliance not connected to the main body of sov would have a premium charge ( a fixed % increase over base sov cost ).

Next I would seek to create incentives for people to reside in nullsec. One of the biggest is the ability to be self sustaining via local resources. I would then give the orca , jump freighter , bowhead & rorqual the same fatigue as other ships. I would reduce the JF range of that to all other ships. Doing this would make nullsec so much healthier. A real sense of community when the welfare & supply of the alliance is shared by all. Instead of what we currently have " A few guys and some cynos whisking off to Jita to procure everything players need" When you do this you end up with more players in space doing things to supply the alliance and its members with all the goods and materials they need to function.

Furthermore this makes attrition style warfare real. It also adds to the dynamics of living in nullsec. It answers the question of what do "off prime time players do"? Raiding and interfering with groups logistical and production efforts now has real and meaningful ramifications. Defending against those who would seek to raid also has important value. No longer are PVP'rs the end all be all of alliance members. In a nullsec where the chord to easy supply ( Jita) is severed productionist , logisticians , miners now have a important role in nullsec which leads to a more inclusive dynamic atmosphere in alliance culture.

It's means empire bordering nullsec regions now have new and unique value that due to the Jump Freighter became unimportant years ago. Conversely deeper remote regions with great riches have unique value due to higher abundance of resources. This all adds to reasons for people in space doing things. Reasons for conquest reasons for defense.


The blog states that " Both the cycle time of the Entosis Link module and the actual capture process will be affected by time dilation."

As far as the "to triage or not to triage" question goes, the blog says: " 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)."

On that note, I think you might find your supercap role. This is just a gut feeling however, as I have never even sat in a cap. I find myself leaning back and forth on this as I read more comments.

As for the perks of living in null (indicies, rewards, sov costs) I really really hope this is next on CCP's list. I am very much for these changes but in order to make SOV null a meaningful experience there needs to be something other than "identity" at stake.

Those changes to the value of nullsec then make the planned full-nerf to JFs etc. viable and reasonable.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#1108 - 2015-03-04 07:33:14 UTC
These are not the changes you were looking for.

These changes favor massive numbers, and coalitions. Exactly the thing that you were trying to discourage. "Constellation geography" doesn't matter when you have enough numbers to hell-death-camp every system in that constellation, and more than enough isk to throw as many linky-thingies at it as it takes.

Your "sov holder vs. everyone" mechanic is pointless too. A coalition that can death-blob any attacker or defender trumps your mechanic.

Occupancy based sov should be occupancy based sov. If you live in the space, and control what happens there, you should gain an increasing claim to it over time. For someone to take it from you, they should have to want it more than you do, and likewise exercise day-to-day control, and/or keep you from doing so. That's the only way you give the advantage to the entity that actually wants the space. You don't need a contrived mini-game.

When you release this, there will be a rush of people reinforcing stuff, and then the numbers will roll in, and the pointlessness of it for any purpose other than griefing will become apparent.

One last thing. These mechanics make the role of capitals and super-capitals extremely limited. The risk of fielding them would in no way be justified. You've taken away most of their logistical reason for being. If you are going to make them far less relevant in sov warfare too, what do you expect their role to be, other than a material sink?
iP0D
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1109 - 2015-03-04 07:39:37 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Hello CCP,


lotsa good stuff .


+1

But .. dear Manfred :-)

Once upon a time long ago someone explained to you the difference between CCP's prioritisation planning and resulting approaches for resource allocation. While your points are valid, you're missing something.

This second decade isn't about continuing on the same basis as the first. There's a distinct focus on making EVE The Product manageable, low maintenance and sustainably extensible for marketable content. Hence shorter release cycles, hence an increased approach of mechanical design, no more grand experiments, and no more feature sets high on iteration requirements. Just modular additions based on what fits with marketing research.

The Sov revamp is - among many other things and drama - the result of directives for the devs to pick suitable ideas and work them out within the constraints of the venture development roadmap.

To make a long story short: you are asking to approach matters on a basis of studying behaviour on a group level, while CCP is focused on mechanical design solutions. Everything else is marketing, from the Dominion style blurb of "it's extensible and plug & play peeps so we'll iterate till it's awesome) to the CSM channeling and timing of blog release - and so forth.

They've gotten smarter, and rightly so. But this does mean that you can't look at it from the perspective of players as currently, you'll have to approach it from CCP's product perspective first and foremost. What mechanical design feature will buffer retention for which category of player types and which mechanical design feature sets are uniquely qualified as marketable material for sales.

CCP on a dev level asks good questions, they do good research, but while they model individual behavioural options they do so based on data acquisition and analysis. There's no shrink checking things, and the emergent gameplay elements have proven themselves to be too risky to allow any room for loopholes. So, mechanical design it is, dumb it down, make it easy to swallow - and wait long enough until people are ready to embrace just about anything as long as it is different than what they've got now.

Think of it as Sov as DTF/ETF (Dominate The Flag / Extort The Flag) along the lines of a hybrid Incursion / Faction Warfare variant for nullsec. There will be further phases, but there the same approach is required and applies.

I'm not saying it's a bad design or approach. That depends entirely on CCP's commercial and venture goals, the resources they allocate for *that* roadmap and how that translates into guidelines and resources for the actual dev work - where there's little to no clue about the venture development any more.

But it does mean you need to approach it and feedback on it differently. Tiny bites that sell and which are low enough on resource allocation requirements that they can be swallowed. Everything else is part of CCP's roadmap, and nobody has any influence on that anymore.
Circumstantial Evidence
#1110 - 2015-03-04 07:40:29 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:

Arrow Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy )

There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment.
These two points seem clear, from the dev blogs:

1. TiDI = yes
"Both the cycle time of the Entosis Link module and the actual capture process will be affected by time dilation."

2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1111 - 2015-03-04 07:43:46 UTC
Why not allow the first attack to occur any time but the reinforce end during the prime time?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Zip Slings
The Picket Line
#1112 - 2015-03-04 07:46:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Zip Slings
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:

Arrow Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy )

There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment.
These two points seem clear, from the dev blogs:

1. TiDI = yes
"Both the cycle time of the Entosis Link module and the actual capture process will be affected by time dilation."

2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.


Manny is referring to this "fixed" chart http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

The graph released by CCP seperates HACs, Cruisers, and T3s. I think that's pretty clearly erroneous
Zip Slings
The Picket Line
#1113 - 2015-03-04 07:47:51 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Why not allow the first attack to occur any time but the reinforce end during the prime time?


This could work
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
#1114 - 2015-03-04 07:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Vigilanta
okay so after some thought, cool down and think time I have some questions which I think would be good to know the answer to and are pertinent to the sov system at play.

So for each structure TCU, IHUB, Station, the entosis module initially reinforce it after x time as is my understanding. After ~48 hours structure comes out of reinforced and command nodes spawn across the constellation. You must take 10 command nodes in order to secure your claim or destroy the structure ./ control the station/ freeport the station. Command nodes are taken by using the entosis module for x amount of time.

1. if 2 systems are in reinforced and come out of reinforced within say 2 hours of each other its entirely possible that the command node fight form the first will still be going on when the command nodes for the second spawn. How will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the different systems ihubs/stations? Also since you are de-linking station control from ihub control how will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the station and those for the ihub in a given system if they are spread out across the constellation?

You may ask why is this important, well, as an FC, i may decide that the station is my priority target to save because it is my staging system or tactically important, or vice versa i may decide the ihub is more important because of the upgrades installed, it would seem i need to differentiate between these objectives, else we could be tug of warring on the same system or different systems accidentally. Basically i want you to enable fc's and skymarshals to be able to make intelligent decisions about deciding which objectives are important.

2. Constellations are typically composed of 6-9 systems, it had become pretty standard in sov warfare to renforce multiple systems at once, and under the new system this would be easier than ever before, if all systems are renforced int eh same day, they would presumably all exit on the same day in the same 4 hour period, each spawning 10 objectives to take or defend, in the same constellation. so we are potentially talking about 60-90 command nodes in the same constellation, this seems EXTREMLY chaotic, to the point of there being a tactical disadvantage of an organized fleet(s). It also means that defense or offense can turn into an extremely long evening, with fights between even 2 alliances being required to go 6+ hours just to capture all the nodes. Is this really what you want reflected in the new system?

Main concerns here is that while i think midsized fights are the best part of eve mid beign 50-250 per side, this could very easily devolve sov warfare into 10 man skirmishes, which I think takes something away from the game, alot of us in nullsec enjoy a good fight with a midsized fleet, and while small gang plays a role an is important this system could easily overemphasize it. Also main concern is time duration of defense/offense, if you consider 2-3 constellations could be in contention at once then holy jesus there is jsut no way to organize this. I dont see a good way to rectify this other than to create a hard cap on the number of structures in one constellation hat can be in ref and hard caps are bad in a sandbox.

3. Strategic index ihub size, upgrades. With a single timer system deciding the fate of ihubs the time you must hold space to gain the ability to use strategic upgrade seems far to long, a rebalanace on how long it take to get beacons, Jb,s, and cyno jamming would seem to be a necessity with this system. Additionally since ihubs may need to be replaced mroe often the 1 hour anchor and 1 hor online also seem to long, maybe 15 minutes -30 minutes a piece would be more balanced, als what prevents the lsoer of a command node battle form using ihub spam to get there ihub down before the attacker? before it was the long TCU online timer ./ SBU presence in system. ninja dropping ihubs seems like it could be a potential path to victory as the system is currently proposed.

4. Timers, 1 timer of 48 hours seems suboptimal, 2 timers of 24 hours would be better in some respects, allow us to make strategic choices in which systems we defend, with a full constellation in renforced which would seem like the way to go, this could shorten wars to weeks instead of months, long wars are good short wars are bad. Addtitionally with the current proposed station freeport mode for second timer you are removing any and all incentive for alliance to stage in conquerable nullsec, msot will likely choose to use adjacent NPC as it is just to risky to keep your alliance military cache in a station essentially conquered in one timer.

5. Entosis timer creation, 1 player bieng able to renforce a structure in a system seems to low, i would say 10 would be a better number. I.E. 10 entosis links activated for the requisite amount of timer on 1 structure.

Thats all I have for now, hopefulyl worthy of some feedback.
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1115 - 2015-03-04 07:53:06 UTC
Domination through aggressive flashing of lights? Well, at least it's something new and not just another structure grind.

That said, this idea seems to need some additional work for the reasons said earlier in the thread such as the reinforcement timers.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.

ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1116 - 2015-03-04 07:54:28 UTC
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now.

CCP made it fairly clear that the idea is that you should have military control over the grid before you activate the module. So according to their plan in the situation that you put forth here they feel that you should not be using the entosis module anyway.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli

Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
#1117 - 2015-03-04 07:56:12 UTC
ergherhdfgh wrote:
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now.

CCP made it fairly clear that the idea is that you should have military control over the grid before you activate the module. So according to their plan in the situation that you put forth here they feel that you should not be using the entosis module anyway.


1 bobm run later or sniping t3, you ahe to start all over and you have to do it x10 to win, seems pretty meh
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#1118 - 2015-03-04 07:58:00 UTC
Intriguing changes.

I will be looking forward into how this will turn out. From one side the proposed system seems to favor "harassment" capability of low-sec-pirate like entities like, for example, Mordus Angels from the other hand, the defenders ability to point a 4h "vulnerability" window and predictability of the reinforcement system plus inability to remote rep link guy allows still a numerical advantage of one side to be meaningful.

I mean, obviously if, for example, Goons do not respond to MOA timer creation MOA could in theory easily flip a number of systems around its pocket, however, actually holding of these systems would be entirely different thing as once the system is flipped nothing prevents Goons from applying the same kind of "lol lets create a timer".

Probably after a little while the traditional null sec entities would get also individually competent at small scale pvp (unlike currently where most of them are only good at pressing F1 in 100+ group) and it would be a bit more risky to go generating timers as there would be actually people willing to engage you instead of sitting on their thumb for 2h waiting for a FC to come online.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Zip Slings
The Picket Line
#1119 - 2015-03-04 08:00:04 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:

1. if 2 systems are in reinforced and come out of reinforced within say 2 hours of each other its entirely possible that the command node fight form the first will still be going on when the command nodes for the second spawn. How will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the different systems ihubs/stations? Also since you are de-linking station control from ihub control how will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the station and those for the ihub in a given system if they are spread out across the constellation?


" These Nodes have an equal chance to appear in any system in the constellation, regardless of who owns the Sovereignty in the other systems.

These Command Nodes will be visible through the anomaly scanner, sensor overlay and overview, and will be clearly named after the structure that they apply to."

TLDR it will be very easy to determine what nodes apply to what structures.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#1120 - 2015-03-04 08:01:12 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:

1. if 2 systems are in reinforced and come out of reinforced within say 2 hours of each other its entirely possible that the command node fight form the first will still be going on when the command nodes for the second spawn. How will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the different systems ihubs/stations? Also since you are de-linking station control from ihub control how will we be able to differentiate between the command nodes for the station and those for the ihub in a given system if they are spread out across the constellation?


Dev Blog says by name. I imaginge they will be called HED-GP iHub Defense Node or something like that. So you can prioritize certain objectives.
=> more tactical options.

Vigilanta wrote:

so we are potentially talking about 60-90 command nodes in the same constellation, this seems EXTREMLY chaotic, to the point of there being a tactical disadvantage of an organized fleet(s). It also means that defense or offense can turn into an extremely long evening, with fights between even 2 alliances being required to go 6+ hours just to capture all the nodes. Is this really what you want reflected in the new system?

Main concerns here is that while i think midsized fights are the best part of eve mid beign 50-250 per side, this could very easily devolve sov warfare into 10 man skirmishes, which I think takes something away from the game, alot of us in nullsec enjoy a good fight with a midsized fleet, and while small gang plays a role an is important this system could easily overemphasize it. Also main concern is time duration of defense/offense, if you consider 2-3 constellations could be in contention at once then holy jesus there is jsut no way to organize this. I dont see a good way to rectify this other than to create a hard cap on the number of structures in one constellation hat can be in ref and hard caps are bad in a sandbox.


The new system MAY mean that all alliances have to shift a bit of their tactical intelligence from their few FCs to their hundreds of F1 drones.
I personally think that this might not be a bad thing. ;-)

Vigilanta wrote:

4. Timers, 1 timer of 48 hours seems suboptimal, 2 timers of 24 hours would be better in some respects, allow us to make strategic choices in which systems we defend, with a full constellation in renforced which would seem like the way to go, this could shorten wars to weeks instead of months, long wars are good short wars are bad. Addtitionally with the current proposed station freeport mode for second timer you are removing any and all incentive for alliance to stage in conquerable nullsec, msot will likely choose to use adjacent NPC as it is just to risky to keep your alliance military cache in a station essentially conquered in one timer.


Why, the station still has 2 timers?