EVE General Discussion

The concept of, regions of nul being specialized as far as say, Provi being specialized toward Amarr tech would simply turn Sov into an extension of Empire space. Empires within Empires .
There is also the issue of game balance, sure Provi could be rich in Amarr tech and everyone there fly Amarr ships BUT the group who hold Gallente tech (the current OP meta) and fly them exclusively are going to kick your butt every time.

Conflict over resources is the ultimate conflict and would bring things to life (or mass deaths as the case may be) but as long as we have giant coalitions controlling so much of the resources, real conflict is off the table.
The only entity that could attack a large coalition is another large coalition but as they have little to gain but everything to lose, it won't happen. Stagnation aside from the odd little grudge war or a coalition or two spending a couple of days driving out an upstart alliance who wants to challenge them is not "content" for the masses, rather it is a show of strength and a warning to others.

End game, for anyone wanting to move to nulsec - Local coalition says, Don't annoy us, we will simply crush you.

Fozzie sov may indeed allow some newcomers to nul to take some worthless systems and plant flags BUT only till the local coalition wants them out. Entosis links and defensive indexes make it so easy to control who your neighbours are. Just keep hitting any new comer before they can get indexes up, easy wins guaranteed.
Want to play with them? Just keep the local stations in Freeport mode, they may hold sov but the attackers own the systems.

As for BOB, your right, they didn't and the new rulers of nulsec learned the lesson well. So well, they have become virtually immovable objects.

The same people will fight, the same people will mooch around in the safest systems. You would be surprised what a few miners and blockade runners with a scout, POS and BPCs can accomplish.

What does that even mean? I can't even tell if that means you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, because it could easily be read either way.

Every sandbox has four walls.

The chaos is a deception, it's all held together by rules.

The move to smaller group play is also mirrored in other games. Smaller raids in WoW, and emphasis on five player groups for MOBAs.

It may seem like four big groups will forever hold EVE space in thrall.

But remember when we used to think that about Yahoo and MySpace?

Now it's Google and Facebook.

Even if CCP changed nothing eventually the power blocs in EVE would change.

This adjustment makes it more likely to happen, because more groups now exert more influence.

Yep those who don't want to fight for their sov will still lose it and those who do want to fight but are simply overwhelmed by opposing numbers will still lose. No change there.

Two or three minor changes to the way (the proposal states) Entosis links do their thing, would "change" the sov game, instead of just moving it slightly away from having to pay sov bills on unused space.

Put the proposal forward a few months in advance - then nothing (not even a curt, "we saw the feedback") - now a month till it is supposed to go live and ? ?

Wouldn't know if feedback has been taken on board or not, nothing has been said.

Certain groups may be privy to what feedback has or hasn't achieved but i'm not in one of those groups and only have 2 month old info to base my thoughts and feeling about the coming change on.

I wonder if not keeping players updated on what is gong on has anything to do with my seemingly contrary stance.
The ONLY facts at hand, are the ONLY relevant thing.

Less than 1 month from now the new sov game comes into play. At this rate we will get to see it what, a week, 2 if we're lucky before it goes live?
One of the most important changes to game play in years, that will hit the servers with little to no testing and no time (possibly deliberately) for player feedback to be relevant.

Posting completely off topic - Why not...
Sorry but I don't see anything there that has anything to do with entosis links or the looming sov changes. There is NO reference to them at all in the OP's post. As it is about icons on SISI, I wouldn't expect it to make reference to the Entosis link.
Maybe you linked the wrong thread??


As for the new icons, yeah, got on SISI, not impressed. Little grey circles and squares, with white highlights to tell them apart. 30 years ago when I could see well enough they may have been ok (not good, just ordinary and possibly practical) but now they are just really hard to tell apart.
Don't fix what ain't broke, is a great analogy here.

It is a reasonable ploy to distract attention from the important changes though. Keep players thinking about mundane unnecessary changes then just drop in the major game changers with little to no feedback.

Are we dead yet?

Except that isn't the thread that was originally linked.
It originally linked to the thread for the proposed new icons.

Hard to click the wrong link when there is only one link there.
Maybe you having edited the link, made the difference.

On topic response to your edited one - The changes are ok but still don't address the fundamental "troll" use of the module.
When one alliance has to battle the combined efforts of 8 or 9 attacking alliances as a single entity, numbers win.

If each group (alliance) with an active entosis was and individual attacker it would lower the ease with which a smaller alliance could simply be overwhelmed by large groups from various alliances working together.

Every entosis link activated on a given structure should be an individual attack that needs to be overcome by every other entosis link before any capture progress is made.
Simply - If the concept proposed in the original blog for undefended structures applied to defended structures as well, it would open up the playing field.

No, I never changed the link, nor posted off topic.

Maybe you had a different tab open or something, but the link was not edited. You even quoted it, so click the one in your quote.