These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Summer 2015 Nullsec and Sov Status Report

First post First post
Author
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#221 - 2015-05-29 11:04:09 UTC
davet517 wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Sorry but your wrong.
You can't sit in station and do anything with hostiles around.

Post June, you won't just be able to sit in station and manufacture things or buy anything off the market. See with Fozziesov, station services can be Turned OFF. Presuming of course "disabled" means what it says, once a station service has had an entosis link run on it, it no longer works until the owners run an entosis link on it. All manufacturing jobs would stop, all research jobs would pause, switching clones in station would not be allowed. Effectively, if you don't undock with hostiles outside - you can sit in your station for as long as you like and nothing will change, except you will lose your sov much faster.



That's not exactly how it's going to work. Station services can be disabled at any time the way things are. You just have to shoot them. Post fozziesov, you'll only have a window during the day when they'll be vulnerable. The rest of the day, they won't be, so, yes, outside that window, players will be able to dock up when hostiles appear and continue ginning up their index if indexes are tied to activities that you can do while invulnerable.

No sorry to say, your wrong..
Go read the blog.

Stations services can be disabled at anytime and are not subject to vulnerability windows.
Station services are not vulnerable to DPS, the ONLY way to disable them is with entosis links.

Papa - That is all well and good for the established groups who will continue to dominate post Fozziesov due to the ease with which current holdings can be defended. Where though does that leave someone new entering the sov game who does not have the benefit of years to build up indexes? The primary defensive index, Strategic, is a time based attribute, the other 2 require major dedicated activity to increase.
How does a new alliance that has 18 hour vulnerability manage to build indexes, while fighting to hold their new sov?
Or do you believe the existing groups are just going to sit back and watch as new alliances get established before attacking?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#222 - 2015-05-29 11:15:14 UTC
Out of curiosity, is there a time line for when the new sov will hit SISI?
As of now, SBU's are still required to take sov. Which sort of makes everything else redundant.

How will attackers know how long it is likely to take to disable anything.
I went and disable 3 station services that took around 12 mins each. 2 days later i went back to the same system and it took 24 mins to disable a partly disabled station service. It didn't go back to zero and start again, it continued on from where it was but took double the time than previously.

Hopefully June 2016 is the actual release date. Right now there is a lot of important information missing.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#223 - 2015-05-29 12:07:09 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Papa - That is all well and good for the established groups who will continue to dominate post Fozziesov due to the ease with which current holdings can be defended. Where though does that leave someone new entering the sov game who does not have the benefit of years to build up indexes? The primary defensive index, Strategic, is a time based attribute, the other 2 require major dedicated activity to increase.
How does a new alliance that has 18 hour vulnerability manage to build indexes, while fighting to hold their new sov?
Or do you believe the existing groups are just going to sit back and watch as new alliances get established before attacking?


The issue is not that current sovholders can defend easier, it is that new sovholder have to defend harder.

I have mailed all the CSM on that issue. They say that i was not the first to mail them about that issue, they will push that issue to CCP at the next CSM summit ... in september Sad

I think too that the current design miss the initial goal, the AU TZ fix is really bad, it creates more issue then it fixes.

Some others points are bad, the changes on PTW micronageable is bad, really really bad, it help too much big groups.

Well, we'll see ...
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#224 - 2015-05-30 02:21:01 UTC
Papa Django wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Papa - That is all well and good for the established groups who will continue to dominate post Fozziesov due to the ease with which current holdings can be defended. Where though does that leave someone new entering the sov game who does not have the benefit of years to build up indexes? The primary defensive index, Strategic, is a time based attribute, the other 2 require major dedicated activity to increase.
How does a new alliance that has 18 hour vulnerability manage to build indexes, while fighting to hold their new sov?
Or do you believe the existing groups are just going to sit back and watch as new alliances get established before attacking?


The issue is not that current sovholders can defend easier, it is that new sovholder have to defend harder.

I have mailed all the CSM on that issue. They say that i was not the first to mail them about that issue, they will push that issue to CCP at the next CSM summit ... in september Sad

I think too that the current design miss the initial goal, the AU TZ fix is really bad, it creates more issue then it fixes.

Some others points are bad, the changes on PTW micronageable is bad, really really bad, it help too much big groups.

Well, we'll see ...

Devs are well aware of the issues facing new groups who want to try the sov game. (they designed it that way)
The whole concept is biased against them and if Devs need the CSM to point that out to them, there really is something wrong at CCP and come September, if CCP haven't already made the needed changes, it will likely be too late to bother.

Those groups naive enough to believe the story told by Fozzie in his blog about the opportunities for new groups, will go and try to take sov, get stomped a few times then pack up and leave. Devs can then make as many "fixes" as they like, many of those groups will not try again.

There is no AU-TZ fix, it is a pointless compromise.
So far,6 of 8 stated goals are not achievable with the current proposal.

I have to disagree with you in part. The fact existing sov holders can easily defend is a huge issue - That is what will stop new groups taking sov in the first place. An unused system that has been held for years will have defensive indexes high enough to allow the sov holders to turn up enmasse to defend it (whether they want to keep it or not is not relevant). Combine that with a 48 hr timer followed by constellation wide, whack a mole with lasers and you have a recipe for disaster for the new comer.

Unclaimed sov will be relatively easy to flip - Yes it will and if there was any it may help small groups a little. The fact you need to dislodge an existing entity from unused sov before you can flip it = existing entity gets killmails, new group gets stomped.

Like i said a few pages back - If the existing groups in Sov thought for a second FozzieSov was a threat to them, they would be screaming it all over the forums. The fact they have stayed quiet should have been enough for Devs to see, these changes are not going to achieve stated goals. The existing groups see Fozziesov as a way to pad killboards for a few months with those new groups silly enough to try and take sov.

Players have waited years for something positive to be done about sov and to be fed this load of rubbish now, makes me wonder, is it worth waiting longer? Devs had the opportunity to bring about valid changes and instead designed mechanics to suit existing groups.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2015-05-31 02:33:50 UTC
By definition, if you are in a conquerable station, and if you are doing industry (volume and quantity heavy) you have items at risk, and since it is no small feat getting all that is necessary to do those activities even decently, you actually have more at risk than any grrr PvP nimrod zipping around in his 733tship. Stop being so single minded in terms of types of activity and your overly restricted view of "content". A conquerable station and all assets in it are at risk (and if I were to be a semantics lawyer, I would even say they are in space).

With the new structures this will be emphasized even more. This is a complex game, that needs to emphasize all activity that those at risk by attempting to forge a lively hood in null MUST do to supply and feed their population in the region they are attempting to call home. That is what will drive occupancy metrics and give reason and purpose towards localizing activity, and diversifying the playing field.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#226 - 2015-05-31 14:34:51 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Unclaimed sov will be relatively easy to flip - Yes it will and if there was any it may help small groups a little. The fact you need to dislodge an existing entity from unused sov before you can flip it = existing entity gets killmails, new group gets stomped.


Did you think that wasn't the point? Yes, new groups will get stomped. Old groups will stroke each other about all the tears they created by stomping said groups. That is what's going to happen, because that's what keeps the most people logging in. The vast majority log in to participate in the mutual stroking. They want to feel powerful, not victimized.

There isn't anything CCP can do about that. There isn't anything that CCP wants to do about that.

Fozziesov has already reshaped the map before it even launched. Renter empires have disappeared, because the power blocs that controlled them don't want the morale suck that would have ensued from trying to defend them from constant harassment. Significant changes to fozziesov have already been made because of the level of whining coming from the major power blocs about its potential to make their members feel victimized. It's been watered down for that reason. When people feel victimized, instead of powerful, they stop playing.

Quote:
Players have waited years for something positive to be done about sov and to be fed this load of rubbish now, makes me wonder, is it worth waiting longer? Devs had the opportunity to bring about valid changes and instead designed mechanics to suit existing groups.


Which players? The vast majority of null players belong to enormous power blocs because they want to be the man, not the underdog trying to stick it to the man. They want to play the alliance flunky in the funny hat, or the imperial storm trooper, not Malcolm Reynolds, or Han Solo. They're followers. Joiners. Get it? CCP is in business to make money. CCP is going to give them what they want.

As long as they join up in the thousands to get the ego stroke that comes with being the man, CCP is going to cater to that. The change that you want is a change in player mentality, not game mechanics.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#227 - 2015-06-01 08:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Papa Django
davet517 wrote:

Did you think that wasn't the point? Yes, new groups will get stomped. Old groups will stroke each other about all the tears they created by stomping said groups. That is what's going to happen, because that's what keeps the most people logging in. The vast majority log in to participate in the mutual stroking. They want to feel powerful, not victimized.

There isn't anything CCP can do about that. There isn't anything that CCP wants to do about that.


They can stop help big groups and help the new one, ore maybe the small one, or maybe simply put enough big groups limitations to make big group existence harder mecanically.

CCP can do a lot on this.

davet517 wrote:

Significant changes to fozziesov have already been made because of the level of whining coming from the major power blocs about its potential to make their members feel victimized. It's been watered down for that reason. When people feel victimized, instead of powerful, they stop playing.


That is the problem. CPP have removed the best changes that would made the big blocks live harder.

The ability to put custom prime time on each structure is pure heresy in regards to the FozzieSov spirit. The only way to defeat a big empire is to attack with small forces on multiples points. This is nearly impossible now.

They are making the same mistake they have made with force projection early. If they want Eve to be vast again, they absolutly have to burn down to the ground the big coalition with game mecanics.

davet517 wrote:

Which players? The vast majority of null players belong to enormous power blocs because they want to be the man, not the underdog trying to stick it to the man. They want to play the alliance flunky in the funny hat, or the imperial storm trooper, not Malcolm Reynolds, or Han Solo. They're followers. Joiners. Get it? CCP is in business to make money. CCP is going to give them what they want.

As long as they join up in the thousands to get the ego stroke that comes with being the man, CCP is going to cater to that. The change that you want is a change in player mentality, not game mechanics.


The most important players are the officers and the CEO. Not the mass. The former create the content for the masses. If you have a vast Eve with a lot of opportunities you will have more players. if the step is too high for nullsec sov access, this is less opportunities and so less players.

Your logic is broken from the begining to the end of your post bro ...
davet517
Raata Invicti
#228 - 2015-06-01 12:17:27 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Papa Django wrote:
[

They can stop help big groups and help the new one, ore maybe the small one, or maybe simply put enough big groups limitations to make big group existence harder mechanically.

CCP can do a lot on this.


Why would they want to? Most of their null-sec player base belongs to those big groups. Those big groups would not, and could not exist if people did not join them, and preferred forming smaller groups of their own instead. Why would CCP want to try to force the bulk of their player base not to do what they want to do?

Quote:
That is the problem. CPP have removed the best changes that would made the big blocks live harder.

The ability to put custom prime time on each structure is pure heresy in regards to the FozzieSov spirit. The only way to defeat a big empire is to attack with small forces on multiples points. This is nearly impossible now.


Yes. Yes they did. Look at it from CCP's perspective. They're kind of between a rock and a hard place now. They've tried a couple of times to create another game that is a commercial success, other than Eve, and failed. Now, they're kind of beholden as a company to the handful of people who lead the bulk of their player base. They're going to place a lot of weight on what those people want.

Quote:
They are making the same mistake they have made with force projection early. If they want Eve to be vast again, they absolutly have to burn down to the ground the big coalition with game mecanics.


That would be an existential risk for them to take, as a company. If they get it wrong, they go out of business. All they have to go by is player behavior. Players seem to want to join big power blocs, which could not exist if players preferred, instead, to form smaller "screw the man" groups, rather than huge "we're the man!" groups. Making it too hard to do what their players seem to want to do is a huge risk for them to take.

Quote:
The most important players are the officers and the CEO. Not the mass. The former create the content for the masses. If you have a vast Eve with a lot of opportunities you will have more players. if the step is too high for nullsec sov access, this is less opportunities and so less players.


Those CEOs would like you to think so, but that's really not true. You can get together a small group of your friends and run around low-sec or NPC null getting content every night of the week, and content that's usually more fun than sitting in some TIDI cluser-f. Players join huge groups because they want the ego-stroke that comes with belonging to one of the most powerful groups. The huge groups could not and would not exist if this were not the case. As long as that's what the bulk of 0.0 players demonstrate that they want, CCP is going to keep giving them what they want.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#229 - 2015-06-01 12:47:17 UTC
Same as your previous post, you have a failed logic.

Players apply to big groups because they have to in order to survive en nullsec.

Theses groups have led to the most static period in the Eve history. So sub have started to schrink.

The initial goal for CCP is to expand the universe size. Not by adding new systems, but to make the existing used and logistic harder.

The goal is to balkanize nullsec and to relocalize most of the nullsec needs in nullsec itself.

But they forgot that the universe have a defined size, and if they want a true balkanization, it is mandatory to avoid coalitions and big alliances.

With good groups sizes, the bigger should not be able to control more then a region. It is purely a game mechanic issue.

It is the best way to bring new players to the game. Creating opportunities.

If they are too kind with big groups, they will fail in nullsec balkanization, and after the new feature effect on fozziesov they will start loosing sub again.

Allowing newcommers in nullsec to colonize territory is mandatory for the game health and regeneration.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#230 - 2015-06-01 14:32:40 UTC
Papa Django wrote:


Players apply to big groups because they have to in order to survive en nullsec.

Theses groups have led to the most static period in the Eve history. So sub have started to schrink..


What evidence do you have that necessity alone drives people to join these groups? Do you really think that the only thing holding "The Imperium" as an example, together is necessity? I think you're completely discounting identity politics, and player mentality. If most Eve players were "anti-establishment" on principle, these groups could not attract thousands, or in the case of Imperium, tens of thousands of members. Most eve players are not, though. They want to feel powerful, and being associated with one of the big blocs gives them that. That, and safety.

That's what they want. They want to be able to log on and feel powerful because they have the weight of a big bloc's numbers and wealth behind them. CCP will screw with that at their own peril, and they know it.

When the game was young, nobody was that powerful. Everyone fought tooth and nail for the little they could build, and going broke if you over-reached and failed, and finding yourself back in high-sec grinding missions again was expected. The game isn't young like that anymore. A more or less permanent upper-class has evolved that attracts numbers to it. Short of a server wipe that puts everyone back on a level playing field, or, mechanics that make it a lot easier to destroy accumulated wealth, it's going to stay that way. A change radical enough to disrupt that is more risk than CCP is willing to take on board, most likely. While it could re-energize the game and attract more subscriptions, it could also lose them more subscriptions than they can afford to lose.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#231 - 2015-06-01 15:23:33 UTC
davet517 wrote:

What evidence do you have that necessity alone drives people to join these groups? Do you really think that the only thing holding "The Imperium" as an example, together is necessity? I think you're completely discounting identity politics, and player mentality. If most Eve players were "anti-establishment" on principle, these groups could not attract thousands, or in the case of Imperium, tens of thousands of members. Most eve players are not, though. They want to feel powerful, and being associated with one of the big blocs gives them that. That, and safety.

That's what they want. They want to be able to log on and feel powerful because they have the weight of a big bloc's numbers and wealth behind them. CCP will screw with that at their own peril, and they know it.


What evidence do ou have that people go to big groups for ego ?

I have discussed with a lot of new players (or old), when they go to a big group it is for security not for the power feeling.

It is even more a fact with corporations. They go to an existing bloc for security not for the glory.

davet517 wrote:

When the game was young, nobody was that powerful. Everyone fought tooth and nail for the little they could build, and going broke if you over-reached and failed, and finding yourself back in high-sec grinding missions again was expected. The game isn't young like that anymore. A more or less permanent upper-class has evolved that attracts numbers to it. Short of a server wipe that puts everyone back on a level playing field, or, mechanics that make it a lot easier to destroy accumulated wealth, it's going to stay that way. A change radical enough to disrupt that is more risk than CCP is willing to take on board, most likely. While it could re-energize the game and attract more subscriptions, it could also lose them more subscriptions than they can afford to lose.


I don't say we need to wipe out the CFC assets. I say we need smaller entities.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#232 - 2015-06-01 16:39:48 UTC
Papa Django wrote:


What evidence do ou have that people go to big groups for ego ? I have discussed with a lot of new players (or old), when they go to a big group it is for security not for the power feeling.




My evidence is the fact that they, as individuals, can progress in the game just as effectively, and have just as much if not more fun, doing other things. They don't. They join big groups for identity.

There are players, right now, who get just as many kills, have more fun, and make more isk, than the vast majority of Goon or PL players. They have no problem with security at all, and they are the masters of their own destiny. What they don't have is the ego stroke and identity that comes with being in the "top-tier" of alliances/coalitions/mega-blocs, or the feeling of power that comes with having the weight of one of those groups behind them. For the masses, those things are important. Don't under-estimate that.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#233 - 2015-06-01 18:47:52 UTC
davet517 wrote:
My evidence is the fact that they, as individuals, can progress in the game just as effectively, and have just as much if not more fun, doing other things. They don't. They join big groups for identity.


I'm pretty sure that a new Goon has access to much more support and guidance, much better tutorials, and many more third-party tools (along with support for same) than J. Random Newbie going it alone in Duripant.

If J. Random Newbie is highly self-directed he'll be fine. If not, well, maybe not so much. The new Goon doesn't have to be. Direction is readily available.

Same basic idea with BRAVE and E-UNI.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#234 - 2015-06-03 14:37:54 UTC
Out of curiosity: If I rat as a neutral in a system of another alliance, I obviously have an influence on the indexes of the system. Does my ratting help the holder of the sov or does it diminish their grasp on the system?
And is the completion of data/relic sites influencing the indexes just like ratting/indu is from the start? I don't quite remember the stance on that.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#235 - 2015-06-09 12:47:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Out of curiosity: If I rat as a neutral in a system of another alliance, I obviously have an influence on the indexes of the system. Does my ratting help the holder of the sov or does it diminish their grasp on the system?
And is the completion of data/relic sites influencing the indexes just like ratting/indu is from the start? I don't quite remember the stance on that.

I don't think data/relic sites impact the index. Last I checked its just volume of ore mined.

And for neutral ratting, I would assume it helps. I guess that would be a boon for providence. If it works like mining, it doesn't care about the who, but rather the value generated in total.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#236 - 2015-06-10 12:53:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
davet517 wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Unclaimed sov will be relatively easy to flip - Yes it will and if there was any it may help small groups a little. The fact you need to dislodge an existing entity from unused sov before you can flip it = existing entity gets killmails, new group gets stomped.


Did you think that wasn't the point? Yes, new groups will get stomped. Old groups will stroke each other about all the tears they created by stomping said groups. That is what's going to happen, because that's what keeps the most people logging in. The vast majority log in to participate in the mutual stroking. They want to feel powerful, not victimized.

There isn't anything CCP can do about that. There isn't anything that CCP wants to do about that.

Fozziesov has already reshaped the map before it even launched. Renter empires have disappeared, because the power blocs that controlled them don't want the morale suck that would have ensued from trying to defend them from constant harassment. Significant changes to fozziesov have already been made because of the level of whining coming from the major power blocs about its potential to make their members feel victimized. It's been watered down for that reason. When people feel victimized, instead of powerful, they stop playing.

Quote:
Players have waited years for something positive to be done about sov and to be fed this load of rubbish now, makes me wonder, is it worth waiting longer? Devs had the opportunity to bring about valid changes and instead designed mechanics to suit existing groups.


Which players? The vast majority of null players belong to enormous power blocs because they want to be the man, not the underdog trying to stick it to the man. They want to play the alliance flunky in the funny hat, or the imperial storm trooper, not Malcolm Reynolds, or Han Solo. They're followers. Joiners. Get it? CCP is in business to make money. CCP is going to give them what they want.

As long as they join up in the thousands to get the ego stroke that comes with being the man, CCP is going to cater to that. The change that you want is a change in player mentality, not game mechanics.

Thing is though - They aren't, many of the large group membership is off playing other games, while keeping 1 or 2 chars subbed to be called on "if" needed. With FozzieSov, they won't be needed so many have no reason to return.
While they have active subs and don't log in is good for CCP, it is not good for the game.

The ego stroking is true but it doesn't get people logging in. What will get people logging in is if their empire is under threat, Fozziesov enables the large groups to play AFK eve by not threatening them.

As for being watered down - No it wasn't, it was re-written to be biased against new groups.
The main driving force behind the movements in sov recently is; yes renter empires were going to be too difficult to maintain with so large and AFK membership AND more importantly, many realize, once FozzieSov is introduced, taking sov will be far harder than it is now and defending existing sov is all but a given.

Eve should not be about keeping certain groups happy at the expense of everyone else and the fact CCP is doing just that will see a lot more players leave, than the few upset ego strokers leaving would amount to. Many of the AFK, SPonline players would return if their empires came under threat, the coming changes give no reason for them to return.

With a little "balance" FozzieSov could create ongoing content in sov nul. If some of the members from large groups (many of whom play batfone online) get butt hurt because they actually have to fight to keep their sov and quit, so be it. Many more would log in to protect their part of the empire, which is much better for the game.

A few minor changes, could make all the difference.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5797661#post5797661

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Rude Lee
Rude Lee and The Vexor Underground
#237 - 2015-06-17 14:05:44 UTC
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
I'm not seeing the part describing why we want to keep nullsec and how nullsec ~income~ / sov advantage is going to get buffed a little?

Nerfing jump bridge fatigue a bit would be a good start. Also if you are wanting more people to move into smaller space the anom amounts must be increased.

The nullsec incentives should be released before you want everyone to begin putting in ~effort~ with the new sov system.


I disagree.

I think they should first make sure the mechanics work and only then provide incentives. They did the opposite with faction war and trillions of isk was made on broken mechanics. Hopefully people will want to fight for sov because it is fun not just to make isk.

If I were a cynic I would say that ccp will give huge isk rewards for null sec. That way when lots of people start playing in null sec they will claim their changes are a huge success. That seemed to be the pattern with faction war and incursions. Hopefully they will let the sov changes stand or fall based on how fun it is to play and not just how much isk you can make.

marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
The Bastion
#238 - 2015-06-18 17:02:04 UTC
I would say that Alliances are less or little concerned by the actual content of the 'FozzieSov' changes and more worried about the inactivity it has created in it's member base.

The current trend to have multiple fleets of 'CareBears' roaring from system to system topping up the index figures covered as they need to be by PvP fleets is provoking marked resistance to even logging on for some members so as predicted that got Old but even quicker than even I expected, still no additional content generated chasing hostile players out of systems most preferring to dock up as usual and ignore them, if they hang around to long players are simply logging off and coming back another day so no gain there.

This slow death by griefers charter has not had the effect in it's initial stages CCP spun off on the forums that it would, seems they forgot that it's the players that need to engage with this process, not just the CCP Dev's.

I would say that currently there are large swathes of Null Sec though occupied, which are in fact ripe for the taking and I doubt anyone would object if you did as it would not be long before players doing so would feel the same way about it, Not really worth the effort, no incentive, lack of interest, what ever the base cause there is simple no fun in chasing your tail all day as any dog will testify too.

So Fozzie gets his way, a marked change in the demographic of players in favour of the credit card waving hordes, welcome to pay to win land.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.

Chen Chillin
Stella Novus Invictus
#239 - 2015-06-27 00:46:40 UTC
ok, so whatever ends up happening to the use of the entosis link and timers... a major factor in the new equation is going to be the indexes.

What does is take to move each index 1 point? so far the only partial explanation was to the new "capital system" for strategic... what about the others?? do i have to kill 1 milliion pirates per system per day? totally mine out a large ore anom?

I do not seem to be able to find this information in any of the SOV discussions.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#240 - 2015-06-27 01:34:02 UTC
Chen Chillin wrote:
ok, so whatever ends up happening to the use of the entosis link and timers... a major factor in the new equation is going to be the indexes.

What does is take to move each index 1 point? so far the only partial explanation was to the new "capital system" for strategic... what about the others?? do i have to kill 1 milliion pirates per system per day? totally mine out a large ore anom?

I do not seem to be able to find this information in any of the SOV discussions.


Short answer would seem to be - Yes

Quote:
For the first release of this new Sovereignty system, we will be working towards these goals by tying the existing system indices to a new occupancy defensive bonus

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.