EVE Information Portal

im just going to fawking laugh hard when fozzie and ccp rise.. (yeah you rise don't think we forgot about you) when they try to show pretty charts and pies avoiding the incredible amount of drop subs due to stations blowing up and folks losing their things.

you have not once provided any information on why one should even keep sov.. after these changes go in..

you're making it to where blobs upon blobs will blow up stations just for the hell of it..


cant wait to see that Pie Chart of cancelations.. lets see if your faction ships and fuzzy-sov keeps subs up.

good luck with that bruh...

Abandoned ones will be easier to destroy, since we're switching from DPS requirement to a flat time requirement.



"Captain, I've run out of jars for all the tears, what do I do now?!"

"Drink them straight from the source, Scotty"

Interesting question. Connected wormholes?

Then, the fleet taking the node in another wh could be cut off, by accident or on purpouse.

You don't do silly Sov things.

You RF it.

You nuke it.

It sounds like to me that you want to grant the ability to a small corp to go take an hold SOV in null sec.
Yes it takes a large Alliance to take and Hold SOV in null sec and it takes a lot of recourse to build the current Player Owned Station (this is why there is not a station in every system in null sec).

Making these limited to one per region will not do anything but make them worthless. It will not solve the Big guy versus the little guy Issue that it seams you really have.

I rather like the concept of being able to hire Interbus to move large volumes of materials out of a threatened structure. Of course, ideally you would start this process when you learn your structure is likely to be under attack instead of already under attack or after it has fallen and "asset safety" kicks in.

In fact, it's well past time that the Interbus service was finally fleshed out in the EVE universe, and done in a way that makes it valuable to both the defender and the attacker... as well as those that just need a hand in a tight situation.

Defender: You can (for a fee) have Interbus move your bulky assets, while actual players would be the wise choice for moving the truly high value cargo. When I say "move" I mean actually put it in ships and move it, not have it magically appear in the new location. These vessels should be destructible, defend-able, select-able (you have the choice of fewer large vessels of many smaller and more evasive vessels), and either take a number of random routes or follow a route you specify.

Attacker: You should be able to hunt these Interbus vessels down and destroy them. This should be challenging but possible (depending on the options chosen by the person that hires them) as they could be either very evasive or very well defended (by either players or by AI controlled escorts). PVE meets PVP indeed, possibly even an alternative to Burner missions in a way.

Generic use: While it should not be the best method for a solo industrialist to procure materials or move merchandise, it should eventually be made to be possible. Yes, unless you are smart your profit margins should be razor thin, but imagine the level of activity (and the impression of a vibrantly busy universe) that would be generated. Player run freight corps should still be the better option in most cases... or if necessary consider the concept of allowing those players run freight corps to act as agents of Interbus if they wish and give them ways to optimize / improve how the mechanic works beyond what the AI would do.

Either way, options should be considered for hiring the use of this service before, during, and after a siege... as well as in the course of normal everyday operations.

Interbus has always been one of those potentially brilliant concepts in the game that has never been fleshed out. It might just be the answer needed to make "Asset Protection" work in a sensible way, that still includes an element of risk... and would require some skill on either side to see if your "Asset Protection" was effective or not.

I never suggested, or even implied, the first half of your post so it wont be responded to. Also, limiting them to one per region contradicts what you just said, herrr.

Making these limited to one per region will make them regulated, yet, even then the price can be adjusted as has been displayed many times in the past. Yes, it should be for all player use and not just for the exclusive use of current sov holders.

If structures have 250km range...

Yep, with 250km distance from from celestials/structures, Null will have gate drag bubbles into range of Citadel guns. "Yay, I can sit in my Citadel and blap passers-by with absolutely no risk!"

Meanwhile HS, Jita and all the trade hubs, professional war dec'ers will rush to put Citadels up near major gates and undocks...

Others will surround gates with their medium structures to show off their ePeen...

To me, the last one is the worst. TBH, what initially inspired me to subscribe to this game was when I first started roaming around. I could not help but be in awe of the beauty of the backgrounds, sparse vastness of space (solitude), and the grim determination that such a sense of solitude created. I knew I would be on my own, but felt like I had the chance to explore something no one else had (over a decade ago). I still remember that moment, vividly.
[*] Please do not allow them to destroy the beautiful feeling of space's vastness by allowing people to anchor medium sized structures within view of gates, NPC stations, and belts... At least in High Sec...

Which makes the Citadel essentially an immobile space ship. I would want to see more details on how the vulnerability windows will work for the structures, but essentially this detail does become problematic for the more solo oriented player.

The other problem is the association of these structures to Lordism. Since these structures will essentially be freely deployable anywhere, there is no lordism involved in using them apart from a place to do things and keep things. The only time they will be lordism would be if they are tied to a limited resource: such as system control or moon mining.

But the idea behind any form of automated defense is not that it is foolproof but that it is capable of defending against a fool. A single pilot is going to have a hard time taking down an existing POS, but the defenses can be soloed and eliminated and the POS itself destroyed. Likewise, all I and others are asking for from the Devs is that there is a minimal defense mechanism to prevent the random fool from sitting on the place running a link whereas a well prepared fool could.

It is am important distinction. I am not asking that the defenses work at their optimal when no one is present, just that they work with enough effect to harass the random entosis wielding fool. As I mentioned previously: it makes sense the weapons would not perform as effectively when a capsuleer is not manning them but they should work - any programmer/designer (in game not the Devs) would be a fool to not include such basic functionality.