These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1121 - 2015-03-04 08:01:46 UTC
Zip Slings wrote:
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.


Ah i missed that, such a long devblog :P, nice catch and good to know
Zip Slings
SCI Zenith
Flying Dangerous
#1122 - 2015-03-04 08:05:29 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
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


I feel like the use of the phrase "the capture progress will be paused" hints towards a sliding scale system where any "work done" by an attacker could be easily "undone" by a defender after pushing off the attacker. AKA the progress would be "saved" until the structure was either captured or reset to normal. I expect this to have a gradual decay that might start after a number of hours but thats speculation on my part.
Zip Slings
SCI Zenith
Flying Dangerous
#1123 - 2015-03-04 08:06:16 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
Zip Slings wrote:
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.


Ah i missed that, such a long devblog :P, nice catch and good to know

no worries :)
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1124 - 2015-03-04 08:09:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Since space will now be a chore to hang onto, and no real benefits of owning have been outlined, how about *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal. and allow supers to dock. Maybe add a special station service for player owned stations only.
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1125 - 2015-03-04 08:12:25 UTC
Edward Olmops wrote:
Vigilanta wrote:



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. ;-)

[quote=Vigilanta]
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?


There is alot more than just f1 to most fights, the f1 mentality only sets in when your in 10% tidi and 4+ fleets are on field, generally speaking. 50- to really 150 man fleets individual pilot decision and minor variances in fleet composition can have a dramatic impact on fight outcome. Also war at its base has a level of organization to it, with potentially 50+ objectives in a given constellation imposing any sort of organization seems unlikly at best. The main issue that gets me is that if you were to invade say the US, you cant really start at colorado and work your way out as you need supply lines ect, you would start at a border or coast and push your way in meaning that your number of targets is inherently limited to whats infront of you, as proposed that doesn't exist in this system. Maybe a way to rectify this is have your sov's borders play a role in conquest. Additionally I think more than likely the most fun would be if you had fleets of around 50 duking it our over the various command nodes, still a decent sized fight, but not so diffused in numbers that you spend more time warping around then fighting.

Stations - Once your in freeport mode, welcome to bubble bubble bubbles anyhting undocks undock yoru counter fleet to keep them stuck in, with only 1 48 timer as your protection from this, it is very difficult to evac assets, meaning that why would we take the risk of gettign stuck like this, just move to NPC and your assets are 100% safe. the 2 timers are fine the freeporting is meh.
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1126 - 2015-03-04 08:14:23 UTC
Zip Slings wrote:
Vigilanta wrote:
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


I feel like the use of the phrase "the capture progress will be paused" hints towards a sliding scale system where any "work done" by an attacker could be easily "undone" by a defender after pushing off the attacker. AKA the progress would be "saved" until the structure was either captured or reset to normal. I expect this to have a gradual decay that might start after a number of hours but thats speculation on my part.



Your probably correct, which would be the way to go, but that said, its not actually stated, seems like an important part of the mechanics to have fleshed out when proposing a system.
Zip Slings
SCI Zenith
Flying Dangerous
#1127 - 2015-03-04 08:16:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zip Slings
Vigilanta wrote:
Zip Slings wrote:
Vigilanta wrote:
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


I feel like the use of the phrase "the capture progress will be paused" hints towards a sliding scale system where any "work done" by an attacker could be easily "undone" by a defender after pushing off the attacker. AKA the progress would be "saved" until the structure was either captured or reset to normal. I expect this to have a gradual decay that might start after a number of hours but thats speculation on my part.



Your probably correct, which would be the way to go, but that said, its not actually stated, seems like an important part of the mechanics to have fleshed out when proposing a system.

You do see the metric **** ton of "OH MY GOD EVE IS DEAD" on this thread already right? CCP left parts out on purpose ;) These nerds will calm down and accept their fate just like with Phoebe and we will rejoice
Kiokiba Eriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1128 - 2015-03-04 08:19:49 UTC
I like these changes. As a member of a sov holding alliance I feel like this will make null a much more active place, with lots more fights and skirmishes. I welcome the idea of the station becoming "freeport" for a while to allow attacking parties to stage. Making it so wrecking ball fleets can't smash through entire regions in days and making the act of capturing a star system much more of a tug-of-war effort, spanning constellations, is a wonderful idea in my book. Can't wait to see all the chaos that erupts from these changes. :D
Le Mittani
Free Ritto
#1129 - 2015-03-04 08:20:49 UTC
Last time I saw this many crying goons in one thread was right before drone assist got nerfed. At least one thing never changes
Drechlas
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1130 - 2015-03-04 08:22:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Drechlas
Manfred Sideous wrote:

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


Why not make the vulnerability slot dependent on the size of the defending alliance? We want smaller parties to have a stake in null and doing their thing. To make the place more vibrant and bustling with activity. Smaller entities should have a smaller vulnerability slot than larger entities imo.

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.


I just read this as nerf incursions and rightly so, CCP is always aiming for risk vs reward as such any high sec activity may not yield as much as a reward as the low or null sec variant of said activity.

Manfred Sideous wrote:

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.

In order to pull this off, null sec will need a serious injection of industry minded people. Current high sec industrialists will need a good incentive to move to null and the main way to do it is by upholding the holy rule "Risk vs Reward" since producing and mining in high sec is relatively risk free, the yields should be lower than mining in low/null sec. I'm naming mining now but the same should apply over the complete industrial palette.

Manfred Sideous wrote:

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.

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.

You are correct that your approach would sever Jita ties, but the only thing it really would accomplish imo is that you'll see jita becoming a gathering place of marketeers stocking 'safe' border stations like Torrinos. Big alliances will just use neutral haulers to move the goods as close as they can to those places and make sure that their main staging point is in jump range from such stations (or max 2 jumps out).

I'm not in the loop whether the higher abundance of resources and great riches are really located in deeper/remote regions

Manfred Sideous wrote:

@CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. 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. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.

I couldn't agree more. We all know that CCP employs statisticians to run some numberporn for Eve Fanfest each year. So surely they must be aware that with statistics and graphs you can prove any point of view on the data. In the presented case the statistics were used to prove your own point instead of reality.
Circumstantial Evidence
#1131 - 2015-03-04 08:23:57 UTC
Zip Slings wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
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
Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging?
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1132 - 2015-03-04 08:30:26 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Zip Slings wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
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
Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging?


As a FC who leads fleet fights regularly I can promise you the Battleship is well under represented in null sec PVP. Shield BS even more so. My alliance are one of the few making a BS doctrine work and it's a razor tight line we walk to be able to use them.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Zip Slings
SCI Zenith
Flying Dangerous
#1133 - 2015-03-04 08:31:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Zip Slings
Drechlas wrote:

I couldn't agree more. We all know that CCP employs statisticians to run some numberporn for Eve Fanfest each year. So surely they must be aware that with statistics and graphs you can prove any point of view on the data. In the presented case the statistics were used to prove your own point instead of reality.


Look at CCP's chart http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png

Now look at a "fixed chart" where actual cruisers (i.e. HACs and T3s are stacked together) and you get something looking like this http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

Now imagine the Marauder and Black Ops parts stacked on top of the Battleship line if that makes you feel better. But when you do that, to be fair, you should stack HICs, Force Recons, Logi, and Combat recons on top of the already HUGE cruiser bar. Then you get an idea of why everyone laughed at CCP's graph. The cruiser class of ships is the only thing anyone uses in EVE, followed by frigates. Look at the graph. It's not an exaggeration.
Zip Slings
SCI Zenith
Flying Dangerous
#1134 - 2015-03-04 08:34:26 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Zip Slings wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
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
Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging?

It only demoted battleships to second because nobody bothered to show that even frigate hulls outdamage battleship hulls in terms of usage. Stack frigs, bombers, ceptors, and AFs too. Battleship hulls are a joke in EVE's meta right now.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#1135 - 2015-03-04 08:41:00 UTC
YanniMorePlz wrote:
Just a slight 'concern' that I felt might be worth pointing out. I will quote from the blog:

Quote:
The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement.


Much like defensive SBUing, I feel there is potential for a defender to use an alt/spy to intentionally reinforce in order to freeze the index of a system in order to retain it's defensive bonuses. One might do this if let's say, renters have recently fled the area, and the defender does not want to lose their bonuses while being unable or unwilling to invest time to grind them back up.

A easy solution would be to have the index drop after the "lock" period from any inactivity that occurred during the lock.


Just something worth bringing up, it's small and I don't think it impacts anything in a major way. Overall great blog!

Unlike defensive SBU'ing you cant flip the switch, however, if someone takes advantage of the vulnerability. Once the RF timer ends the command nodes exist also outside the 4h time window, so someone would come in some low activity timezone and would just flip them in less than hour while the defender is sleeping.

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

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1136 - 2015-03-04 08:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
Drechlas wrote:
Why not make the vulnerability slot dependent on the size of the defending alliance? We want smaller parties to have a stake in null and doing their thing. To make the place more vibrant and bustling with activity. Smaller entities should have a smaller vulnerability slot than larger entities imo.

That's exploitable. I can have the station etc held by an alliance with 10 people or less in it, which obviously isn't desirable.

Drechlas wrote:
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.


I just read this as nerf incursions and rightly so, CCP is always aiming for risk vs reward as such any high sec activity may not yield as much as a reward as the low or null sec variant of said activity.

This can be dealt with by buffing something else, then increasing taxes for building stuff etc, for example.

Drechlas wrote:
In order to pull this off, null sec will need a serious injection of industry minded people. Current high sec industrialists will need a good incentive to move to null and the main way to do it is by upholding the holy rule "Risk vs Reward" since producing and mining in high sec is relatively risk free, the yields should be lower than mining in low/null sec. I'm naming mining now but the same should apply over the complete industrial palette.

This is definitely something which is required, and hopefully this'll be a part of phase 3 of the nullsec revamp. I'm not sure how they'll do it and not make hisec a content desert, but they'll still have to tackle it soon, and well.

However, I'm cautiously optimistic they'll actually do that, as long as they don't do too much of the following:
Manfred Sideous wrote:

@CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. 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. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.

Agreed. I would be surprised if a lot of the "increased nullsec population" shown in the blogs wasn't also in part due to industrialists etc actually moving out to nullsec after phoebe made manufacturing not suck the fat one compared to hisec.

And the BS vs cruisers thing has been pointed out multiple times as a lie by statistics-massaging, where if you put up all the cruiser-sized hulls it would dwarf BS-sized hulls in usage (and I'm wondering how many of those hulls would be left if even hulls used while ratting were taken out of the equation).
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1137 - 2015-03-04 08:41:59 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
@CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. 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. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.

Same for sentry carriers.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1138 - 2015-03-04 08:47:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie's latest dev blogs are epic attempts to address the problem of stagnation in nullsec, what Crowfall calls "the Uncle Bob issue."

"[By year 10] Bob is now an unassailable tyrant and anyone who even tries to challenge him is crushed instantly. Nobody's having fun, not even Uncle Bob. A strategy game inherently has to have the chance to restart."

Is Null Sec at the stage of "unassailable tyrants?"

I think so. It's true that people coming into null sec are not always crushed instantly but that's because the big boys allow them to come in then farm them for pvp. Space is now 2 dominant factions: the CFC and N3/PL. There's also the Russians - traditionally left to do their own thing - and independent entities permitted to exist for farming. Gevlon went as far as to describe BRAVE as renters who pay rent in ship losses rather than isk.

Renters dominate nullsec. Even if we don't consider alternate arrangements which are renter-like - paying rent in ship losses or paplinks - a quick look at Dotlan shows the absolute dominance of renters in nullsec. The biggest sov holder is N3's renter alliance, next is xDeathx's renter alliance gifted to them by PL, then 2 real player alliances then 5th is PL's renter alliance and 6th is the Goons' renter alliance. Even analysed by population, renters make up 4 of the 7 biggest alliances in the game.

Renting is emergent gameplay a system where players manage a conflict driven high reward space by avoiding conflict, paying stronger people to do the conflict for them. This will become more or less impossible under the new Sov system. Sov structures will be continually tested by anyone who can reach them. The role of wormholes in accessing remote parts of null is not insignificant post-Phoebe either.

I'm in favour of seeing a sharp decline in renting. I think it tends to create boring space, where people mine or multibox in safety and seclusion rarely seeing a hostile. As an FC I consider most such space not really worth attacking because they'll just pos up and it's not like we can do anything to threaten the sov. Interceptor gangs targeting inattentive ratters are the only effective counter-measure and that's gnat bites in the overall scheme of things.

But what will happen to an Eve where most null sec residents have decided not to pvp, just to grind their next super in safe zones?

Well there will be some quite sharp economic effects.

We will see more ship destruction, a lot of destruction of sov structures, people spending time fighting instead of ratting and mining and people hiding in poses or stations when they could have been ratting or mining.

This means the economy will see less isk and less ore as well as a marginal reduction in ESS-related loyalty points. It probably won't effect nullsec exploration much as that's fairly safe. We may see less moon goo production and reaction as people feel less safe about erecting moon miner POSes. We may see less PI production as people are forced out of their space.

A big decline in the production of isk would lead to less money chasing the same goods, ie inflation. So all goods will be likely to become more expensive and particularly nullsec ores and their derivatives like Megacyte.

Loyalty point items, exploration loot and wormhole-exclusive materials will likely become cheaper, the latter being particularly true in view of the upcoming rebalance of T3 strategic cruisers (likely to be a nerf).

Will Eve be a better game? I think so. Conflicts abounding more reward for the people who manage nullsec successfully.

Will the Uncle Bob problem be solved? That seems less clear. If a big boy comes to a small sov holder and says "give us 20 billion or we'll wreck you" they will be likely to be able to extort money. So it will still be like renting except without the flagging. There is an out though - if someone becomes sufficiently bitter they can drop sov then spend all their time making their oppressors lives hell from NPC space.

What may solve the Uncle Bob problem and what shouldn't be forgotten is that there is still the prospect of a whole new type of space coming when the massive player-made stargates project is finished. So someone feeling oppressed by CFC and N3/PL would be able to move to what is pretty much a whole other game zone and forget them. That will be the real test of the sov revamp - whether the sov fixes keep players wanting to stay under the yoke of the blue doughnut when a viable alternative opens up.

So here's my prediction: the sov changes will make for exciting times in the short term but will ultimately fail to shake up nullsec and as soon as a new zone opens up on the other side of the player made gates all the farmable people will emigrate leaving a bitter bitter core of veterans sitting in their supers blaming CCP.

Is anyone remembering Trammel?

(originally posted on Stabbed Up http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/nullsec-must-burn.html)

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.

Lickem Lolly
ELUSH Rehab
#1139 - 2015-03-04 08:53:32 UTC
Welcome to Griefing Online!

I've read the blog a few times and tried very hard to find something positive, but I just don't see it. As someone who has lived in nullsec in small and large alliances, I can tell you this will be horrible.

Major problems:

1) Griefers in interceptors will be pinging our SOV for giggles 24/7
2) Cloaky campers will be perma-camping to keep indexes low
3) Capitals have no purpose anymore. With no more long-term goals, why will people bother playing eve?
4) Prime Time is a horrible idea. If you are not in US or EU prime, you will never be able to join any fun sov battles.
5) As mentioned a few hundred times already, there are no benefits to holding sov, so you will see most of nullsec empty.

This new concept was created by someone who either does not play eve at all or someone who hates large alliances and coalitions. Sorry, but I have news for you... Your salary is paid by large alliances and coalitions. This is the purpose of nullsec. You are shooting yourself in the face if you ruin this.

Also, you are completely missing the real problem with Eve - Highsec. I also run a highsec recruiting corp and can tell you from years of experience, highsec is broken. Attracting and keeping new players is the real problem in eve. 90% of our new members quit in the first month, due to highsec ganking and extremely boring content.

Congratulations. You should update your CV asap...
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#1140 - 2015-03-04 08:54:35 UTC
as a wormholer, 2 words :

'accidental sov'

* grabs a popcorn making machine *

@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet

TDSIN Director : Join 'TDSIN pub' for more info, Join today!

Glasgow EVE Meets Organiser