Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Everything that has come for our space has been fitted for avoiding fights, everything we use is made to avoid fights, everyone is using this tactic as CCP has grudgingly accepted when they looked at the data and saw it was mostly interceptors doing the entosising.

We don't need to fight for sov anymore, just use ceptors endlessly for a month and just have the defenders give up in frustration as they can't do anything to stop us.

Seems pretty reasonable actually. Taking Sov has a near zero mechanical barrier, so the burden of Sov defence is borne entirely by the defenders.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/politics-by-other-means/

Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.

...Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system...

...On the other hand, evicting an alliance that actively uses and defends their space should be a very difficult task indeed...

Working. As. Intended.

So you take "very small group of players" to mean "individuals"? It's an alliance level mechanic... Why do you people seem so intent on driving EVE to be a game played primarily by solo players?

Keep up with the game mate, solar system you don't use is 6 times less yours than the one somebody lives in.


Aside from the fact that nobody set your "alliance level" tear-filled prayer in stone, the very specific word "uncontested" means it's up for grabs, and if somebody who grabbed it happens to be an individual or a small group, that does not mean the game became any more individual than it was - it just means one very numerous coalition is surprisingly incapable in terms of adapting to the rules announced well in advance. Considering reading comprehensions problems and grotesque rigid thought patterns its line and higher members demonstrate, I think I can name the culprit of that incapability.

Can't you have an alliance with one character? Or let's say two

Yeah yeah yeah...
I'm done with you. Come back when you have a valid opinion form an educated point of view rather than constant trolling and claims that anything said by an Imperium member is automatically tears. The level of "grr goons" in you is far too high to be taken seriously.

After having read the goals again and again, I've come to the conclusion that if you take each stated goal and give it the opposite meaning - CCP goals for sov have for the most part been met.

Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved.
>It isn't - Sorry try again. It is boring tedious and primarily based on conflict avoidance.
Interceptor based avoidance strategies, have all but replaced sov warfare - and is for the most part pretty bad design.

Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
> Done - Solo Ceptors troll sov. Once in a while there is a bit of what some might call PVP around sov. Generally it is less than 20 players, who don't plan on engaging in pvp (or even actually capturing the system). Many in fact go to great lengths to ensue they aren't engaging with other players.

Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
> Debatable- You bring enough to drive off trolls or you bring more to try and kill them (I'd rather get splatted by a blob than continue spending hours chasing ceptors around)

Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
> Yeah, the next patch will go somewhat towards achieving this goal.
As long as 2 or 3 ratters can keep indexes up with a few hours effort per day, this will never be balanced. When there are systems that have no more than 10 players (often 2 or 3 players + alts) in system over several days but have ADM of 4.1, there is something not quite right in sov mechanic balance.

Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
> I think the whole "living in your space" needs to be further defined for this - See Goal 4.

Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New Eden’s varied geography and to better manage server load.
> This has been pretty much achieved - There are no real sov "battles" (big or small) so server load should be very manageable.
Pos bashing on the other hand is still to a large extent dominated by super fleets, this is unlikely to affect server load though as they are for the most part very one sided.

Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.
> For this one to be achieved Devs 1st need to update sov to suit current Eve. Future Eve becomes less relevant if current Eve is not achieving stated goals.

NB; Agreeing with Goons is not something I set out to do but sov needs to mean more than who flies a ceptor the best.
The cheap costs and trolling nature associated with Ceptor warfare reduces the value of every sov holding alliances efforts. It all but removes "warfare" from Sov.

Adjust Entosis use so that it is harder to just troll sov.
Tripple stront consumption (3) for the warm up + 2 stront per cycle. Give those ships designed to fit and use command links a bonus to Entosis link use - 50% reduction in Strontium use.
All ships that can currently fit and use an entosis link still can but ships with smaller cargo hold would need a support ship to keep them fueled, which would in turn need pvp'rs to guard the fuel truck, which in turn gives defenders targets. Which with a bit of love from BOB, could encourage PVP around capturing and defending sov.


-- - -- - -- - --
To encourage group/fleet sov activity (pvp), capture times could be tied to system activity in a real way - If there is only 1 ship in system, it increases cycle time. Multiple Entosis links from the same group speeds up capture process; This would need to be capped so as to not make it so 100 entosis links instantly capture a system but undefended/unoccupied systems could be captured quickly.
For this stacking penalties could come into play;
EG; 1 entosis link would take 20 minutes to capture, 2 reduces it to 18 minutes, 3 reduces to 17 mins and so on to a maximum of 10, reducing capture time to 5 minutes. Add system indexes into the equation and even an unoccupied system with reasonable indexes is going to fall quickly but it would require the attacker to commit more than a couple of interceptors.
Defenders/Owners of systems would actually need to reside in their systems - Or risk losing them.

Orca, where is it you say your mains alliance holds sov?
I only ask because I would be interested to see if your attitude to "Troll Ceptors" changes when they are used against you.
While hiding behind your NPC alt doesn't completely invalidate your "argument", it does limit it to seem you are posting what you "think" rather than experience.

PS; My little alliance is not blue to Goons.

Ah yes, we're at this level of discourse now.