This article is opinion and is open for discussion regarding the mechanics of nullsec. Suggestions posted in this article are my own and should be seen as nothing more than a rant on nullsec issues.
EVE Online is one of the more cut-throat politically driven MMOs on the market right now. The metagame itself is by far one of the most intriguing selling points of the game. I cannot remember the last real battle I was a part of. I spend most of my time utilizing the silver tongue to my advantage in most scenarios.
That being said, I enjoy the action of EVE. However EVE needs work on two fronts. The sovereignty grind and the engagements. Too many times alliances are dissuaded to invade based on the month long grind they look forward to. This discussion has recently cropped up due to the tension between the HBC and the CFC. Why would the HBC invade the North if it’s going to be nothing more than a 3 month long structure grind?
Perhaps this is the way CCP Games wants it. If you’re going to invade an established region, it should take you months like it would in the real world. The problem is this is not the real world, and for a piece of software that is supposed to bring it’s users enjoyment, it fails miserably. Ultimately the structure grind is what has lead to the massive coalitions you see today. Reason? Efficiency. The more meat sacks you have to throw at a wall at any given time results in the wall crumbling at a faster pace.
CCP has, by mistake (hopefully), created an environment where alliances who are looking to move to nullsec “must” join an established coalition or live in NPC nullsec.
How do you resolve this?
Make the structure grind not only tolerable but “fun”. As a novice game designer myself, my creativity goes off on tangents. I string together multiple possibilities while searching for the most desired outcome. With the sovereignty system and structure grind, you have to come to a happy medium. You can’t simply hand systems over, yet you can’t continue to make them week long endeavors for a single system. The following is my own personal suggestion on reducing the time it takes to flip sovereignty while creating a fun environment for fleets.
There are far too many factors that go into a TCU becoming vulnerable to attack. Strict conditions must be met. These conditions are meant to assist the defending alliance in keeping their sovereignty. The problem is that in the day of coalitions, if a coalition wants your sovereignty, they are going to take it because coalitions will only attack systems they know they will be able to obtain with the least amount of resistance possible. This is why we are not seeing a full invasion of the North by the HBC at this time.
Step One: Remove the strict conditions needed for a TCU to become vulnerable SBUs are a thing of the past. They are nothing more than an annoyance in todays EVE.
Step Two: Reduce the amount of reinforce timers a TCU goes through. Allow the defending alliance to designate the time when the TCU will come out of its first reinforce timer to allow the defense of the TCU be at a prime time for the defenders. If the TCU is not engaged within 3 hours of coming out of reinforce, defense systems will cycle and reinforce will once again be applied.
So far, my suggestions have cut down the time it would take to flip a system. But where is the fun?
Step Three: System/TCU defense upgrades. No, I’m not talking about modules. I’m talking about NPC ships. What if the defending alliance itself could haul 50 rifters to the TCU, unload them into the defense hanger and actually watch the rifters undock and orbit the TCU, engaging any “neutral” or “hostile” entity that ventured too close? A maximum of X ships can be stored in the defens hanger of the TCU. Ship classes up to battleship can be placed in the defensive hanger. Maximum number of ships will need to be implemented to keep the node itself from crashing. NPC ships can be autofitted or, hell, let’s make it fully customizable and allow fitted ships to be deposited for even more fun.
Step three allows a 150 man alliance to become a 200 man alliance (pending on X = 50 on the defensive hangar ships) and has a far better chance of defending the TCU against attackers. It also allows the defending alliance a bit of time to organize and mobilize against the attackers.
Again, this is merely a suggestion and may not have any value whatsoever. We can all agree that sovereignty grinding is a problem and needs to be resolved. This is an open discussion so if you have any input or upgrades to my suggestion, please post them. Perhaps the EN24 community can create a flawless suggestion that we could pitch to CCP for consideration.
-Exversion
TDLR version: Goons are afraid from HBC steam rolling their land… and started the normal "Cry To CCP Nerfs" solution
I would like to see a Goon post about this. Or maybe it's just you jumping to the conclusion.
If goons are afraid of HBC "steam rolling their land" why on earth would they want the sov grind to be made easier for HBC? Stop sniffing glue/eating paint chips/inhaling solvents.
While I dont totally agree with your statement, I have often though about npc sentries and other npc type defenses, without the need for starbases.
Still no chance for small aliances takimg sov. I thought thats the big problem. The Powerblocks.
The problem is that you will always see powerblocks. Numbers are always better, and should always be better. If we compare it to the real world. Sweden has a standing military of about 10.000. If we wanted to invade America we would lose badly, simply because we dont have the manpower. This is just how things are. If i have 500 guys shooting your 50, i know who will win.
So looking at this problem from the perspective of "how can we make it easier for smaller alliances" is probably the wrong view. The question should be "how can we make sov warfare more enjoyable for all". And i think you can do that by making sov actualy matter in some way, making more fights happen during the sov grind. Aswell as reducing the time it takes to shoot strucktures and wait for them to come out of reinforce.
making more fights between the sov grinds and timer is that what hes proposing by deleting the sov blockade units, which i also think are useless. reduce the timers, the first two step i agree, the last one is wishing which will never happen.
But anyway you cant forca anyone to fight thats the problem.
Yeah, but at the moment, if you are 50 against 500, not only can't you take sovs (I'm fine with that), but it's also impossible to disrupt what people are doing. No small targets to hit, intel + jumpbridges allowing locals to dodge you easily … That's the first problem. Engagements. For example if passive income was more spread around, and if you could kill some extraction modules to disrupt it for one day (maybe reduce the rate of extraction), it would allow big alliance to still rely on passive income (for me it's good, it allows them to focus on fighting) while having the possibility to be disrupted by smaller groups.
The other problem is that most alliances own way more space than they need. There is lots of empty chunks of space, even good ones: for example in the CFC, north deklein is barely farmed, fade + pureblind have only one decent constellation where people farm, etc… I'm pretty sure it's the same in other coalitions: they take a lot of space to act as a buffer, to bore people if they consider grinding the sovs, and to cover the moons. Sovs need to be something based on using the space, not on modules and hitting them. By doing so, big coalitions will cling together more, or create big holes between their sovs, and by doing so, will leave plenty of space for smaller structures.
Finally, the last problem is power projection. At the moment, the CFC can go from deklein to every part of the coalition's space extremely quickly because of how jump bridges and titan bridges work, allowing them to hold on a bigger chunk of space without difficulty.
Fixes:
Redistribute moon goo – make process for gathering active.
Bridging…. this needs to be looked into. IDK what the answer really is…
Reduce the outlay required for cyno-jammers and reduce their sov cost. Cost already doesn't matter for the big guys but it can be prohibitive for smaller alliances. increase # of jammers / system to 2.
I absolutely agree that sov should be dependent on activity. Sov bills could take the form of taxes that are directly deducted by the TCU in a system, If there are not enough kills in a system to fill the tally, then the sov is lost.
That will probably mean there will be systems where nobody bothers to claim SOV at all, and that is a good thing too.
CCP wants a theme, so let us build empires, small and big.
For big empires, add value to owning linked systems, constellations and regions.
Where fringe 'empire' systems are most vulnerable with highest risk/reward ratio's.
(eg. those could spawn the most anomalies and signatures, like the sleeper-spawn system where less used systems end up with lots of sites – these sites could work similar to factional warfare sovereignity and could help towards the sovereignity influence and possibly weaken structures, linked systems or even change sovereignity itself.)
Modular pos's for our corporate empires (while we're also showing off alliance empire assets).
Used for our basic housing and storage to various industrial and tactical usage, anything is possible.
(having a cpu/pg limit per moon (instead of tower) could be an option to allow structures of multiple corporations at one moon/celestial.)
Moon resource redistibution system based on the principles of planetary resources.
Moon minerals gathered by individual colonies at depletable hotspots (or entire depletable moons even, that respawn like minerals … somewhere) and where a modular pos could function like a poco at planets.
And finally (the most popular one) make space bigger again, reduce all jump-ranges on all capital ships significantly to promote more tactical use and placements of those ships within empires.
There could be more static roles to compensate immobilty, eg. solarsystem booster of some kind, or even boosting neigbouring systems in case of supercapitals, or any other option.
(a modular capital docking bay modules for the pos would be nice too, where (super)capitals can be attach to and left behind, guarded with a password or something to board again).
Just a few examples to fix some current problems into a main theme, And I'm sure you can think of more stuff that would fit in a theme called empires, we can use more ingame tools to show the social empires that are out there.
hmm npc defenced would be awesome as well as reduced timers down to shield then armour down to 25% first timer. second remaining armour then structure. but no more than 8hrs per timer. 2 i like the idea of np but lmit it to no more than 20 ships no bigger than battleships . 3. fix the pos,es . right noe poses are a quick set up for stging point with a buble for super safety. they need to be made into min starbases that can attach supers and dock capitals. Then perhaps let u avatar walk in them.
i don't disagree but at the same time i don't agree i think that you should have to sbu a system to take it and allowing coalitions to chose when the TCU comes out of reinforce is ludicrous could u imagine having lets go with what ur saying 50 Rifters around the TCU with a coalition fleet of lets say 2000 people on the TCU as well waiting for the aggressors it makes it to easy to defend the TCU for the defending force also without having to use SBU's u could imagine that people (goons mostly) would just go around reinforcing TCU's for no real reason
i agree however that the time and effort required to obtain a system should be lowered but it should be done by lowering structure HP or removing destroying the ihub as a requirement to conquer a system conquerable station and player outpost also need to be looked at because sitting a fleet on a them for an hour is not a great deal of fun ofc u can call in super and reduce it to 30 mins but still it's not good fun at all
I agree with what you're saying, but geez, next time pls use . and , in your sentences!
bring back pos spam !
those were fun times
Basically what needs to happen is reaction time needs to be brought down in order to limit force projection.
No SBUs. TCUs/iHUBs with hit points akin to a large tower. Hard limit on timers of say 6-18h. Once those 18h are up and you don't repair your shit it gradually implodes all by itself leading to a loss of SOV.
This would force defenders to:
1. Be present where they can be attacked at all times.
2. Be forced to react to timers instead of just waiting and doing nothing – and require you to have logistics people in place and ready to actually defend shit (read: triage carriers / logis).
3. Make it easier for fights happening on multiple fronts to have an effect at all (ie. either you lose one battle or you have to split up your forces).
The way it works now you don't have to be present at all, everyone knows its futile to attack because the timers are so long (it can take a week to take a system/station giving you ample time to move your entire force with all ships across Eden).
Also, the people whining about SOV grind now is an excuse for them to keep 0.0 blue, they all have enough supercaps to make taking SOV fairly easy – its everyone else that do not have a chance at getting SOV anytime soon.
There are a few things right and wrong with this. but as a member of 00 for many years ive watched them try many things. The timer system really hasnt ever worked but its better then the POS spam system that just made u want to cut ur wrist.
Alliances defending their space should ALWAYS have the home field advantage. It just make sense. But its the timer lengths that are what kill people. Why should a a I-HUB take 2+ days before it comes out of reinforced ? stations be 2-3 days ? It shouldnt, they should have 24ish hrs to get a defence of a system(s) that have been attacked. The timer should go to when they set it up to come out the next day, no less then 8 hrs no more then 36. Thats short enough to make a defensive plan and put it into effect. That said, maybe i just have the worst luck with timers and thats what people get on their i-hubs, not us. Stations should also be on the same timers with the i-hubs. Why should stations take 2-3 days longer depending on how the timers fall? theres no reason for it. Want to state tho, u still need to grind the station it shouldnt be a, u hit one both go into reinfoce.
As for the "NPC" defenses for ihub/TCUs/stations. People have asked for them for YEARS. we wanted to put up sentries in our sov like there is in low sec, u get 2-4 per gate but damaged based by on many non blues were on grid. If u brought like 500 people, they would hit like dreads, 30-70k damage before peoples resist would come into play. but would hit "normal sentry" damage with 100 or less on the field. The big thing about them is, u can incap them. give them something to match some HP based on what 00 has become, give the sentries like 5m shield/armor and 1m structure. The whole thing would be based off having a "auto defense" upgrade in ur ihub. After each DT they are fully repped and start their job all over again. This would only be something for a Sov 5 with atleast pirate 5 or indy upgrades to lvl4 system, because that shows u have "worked hard" to keep that space. If u lose ur lvl 4, then ur system shows that its not being worked and the sentries go offline. This would make it so that space ur not using is more defenseless.
But again, this is stuff that was on the forums for years and old vets like me, quit posting about it because there was no push to improve the sov warfare. The sentry idea, about the higher the lvls the longer it would take to take the system was also writen up by a old friend of mine. went to the effect of, "if u have indy or pirate to lvl 5 in the system, the system would get another day to its reinforced timer. Making systems being really used harder to take, were non used systms would fall much faster" and that was a great idea. We had a lot of drive behind it, but CCP said in a post on the thread "this is not possible at this time" more or less for about 2 years. So we just said fuck it and stopped posting about it.
Eve is a great game if u can get with the right people. Here its not the powerblocks, the 20k+ coalitions, in most cases its the 200-300 man alliances that have shown to me more heart then all the powerblocks have. With Ushra'Khan and a few of the 500 man or smaller alliances its been "shit someone is attacking us, lets get a fleet and defend our home" were my time in CFC/HBC and the old DRF. its was "let them hit it we will just defend it when the timer comes out" or "thats not our space, let them deal with it" But most time there is more heart in the smaller alliances. I hope to see Ushra'Khan and its allies grow into something again.
Unfortunatelly this would not work in practice.
Any large coalition can drop a number of AFK or mostly AFK campers in a system until it got down to nothing because in EVE nearly every one is risk adverse and no one with any brain power unless they are sitting on a wealth of T2 BPOs or moon goo which most are also controlled by all the large coalitions anyway will not risk being hot dropped PL style or by black ops or AWOXed to death until CCP gives us something to fight AFK cloaking no small to medium size alliance would be able to hold on to that kind of attack in multiple systems for any effective amount of time.
That's going to be part two of the series. Risk and how small yet manipulative mechanics can effect the broader experience by players.
bullshit, 50 rifters will not defend sov
…and it has to be the dumbest idea ever for the issue of TiDi, which is a complete bitch for most fleet fights nowadays.
The issue with TiDi is more than just 50 Frigate/Cruiser/Battleship class NPC's defending your TCU. TiDi would act the same if the defending force were 150 players instead of 100 players and 50 NPC Defenders. Ultimately, the idea of adding NPC's to your TCU Defense does not push the TiDi anymore than another fleet commiting to the fight. Only this way, smaller Alliances have a way to protect their TCU. They can't fly the Loki/Legions? They purchase them and place them in the Defensive hanger of their TCU if they have the ISK. Now they have Loki/Legions defending their TCU.
heh, one fleet burst of smartbombs… thats all I need… fireworks…
I salute your effort to try to come up with a solution and start a debate. If we have enough of those, maybe CCP will listen.
First of all i dont think the Defence hangar system will work. You can boost the number even up to 300 BS, they are still drones with drone AI.
The problem is the lengh of the timers. Cutting them will not let the bigger coalitions to get that many guys in fleets plus it makes it harder for them to defend their huge 0.0 space.
The amount of unused 0.0 space the collossal coalitions have atm is terribad.
Identify the sov warfaere problem nr. 1 Moongoo for shadoo and Methani, problem nr. 2 the moongoo, and the last problem for sov warefare its the moongoo and the greed of shadoo and methani and the blindness of ccp.
Agree. Fixing moon goo into active harvesting over passive will change the way coalitions are run. Alliances these days are after the golden carrot that is technetium.
Chances are coalitions will crumble into smaller alliances again because alliance SRP will no longer be viable. Fix the freakin tech ATM machine.
RMT .. its the RMT sweet technetium thats the problem of Sov Ware Fare right now WWWWAAAKY WAAAKE UP CCP o/
The Goons were running SRP before they had moons.
Eyeballing Dotlan, Deklein had 250k NPC kills yesterday. At 1m each, and 10% taxes, thats 25b income for the Goons.
Assuming Goon losses were half of the CFC losses in Welpfest 2013, thats … end of February …. before ratting taxes replaces all their losses.
Not saying you aren't correct about tax income making SRP more viable, but keep in mind that you do not ever get 1m per every single rat in the the region. Maybe 10% of those rats are battleships after you account for the number of smaller ships in Sanctums/Complexes/setting belts up for chaining.
Also, were war to truly break out, many of those guys would not be able to go ratting at all. They would be in fleet or docked up safe. The moons however will keep producing isk no matter how many people are in local as long as you can find a brief window of time to get the goo out of system.
Also, ratting taxes go to corporations. So the Alliances would have to be charging the corporations with handing the isk over to Alliance SRP.
Agreed! I so very much agree. And here are a few ways to fix that.
1. Make Moon goo eventually deplete in a similar way that planets do. Perhaps make it take longer to happen but deplete none the less.
2. Randomize what materials a moon might have show up on it but with several materials being the primary so that once you find a moon that produces tech it's more likely to produce tech again. This makes them still worth fighting over but not an absolute continuous source of one material.
3. Allow players to steal moon goo by letting them use special ships or special modules to mine goo directly off the moons of other players/corps/alliances. Perhaps a large moon mining drone based on Sentry drones. (Not my idea, saw that suggested in the forums and thought it was a good idea.) This would allow covert ops fleets to come in and steal moon goo in small quantities. Not enough to deplete the moon but done often enough it would certainly help it along. The amount you could steal of course would be based on the size of your pirate fleet but it could be enough for a small group to use for T2 production or at least offset some costs. (I.E. make it worth the risk)
4. Ring mining of goo is still a good idea but with the above it would not be quite as necessary to make it a constant in order to shake things up. So you could have Moon Goo show up randomly in Grav sites and require the same specialized mining drones to get at it. Of course this makes grav sites that much more valuable / dangerous.
5. When I POS goes into reinforce, make all of the non defensive modules vulnerable. Thus all of the stored moon material already collected could be stolen. But make it so that you have to perform some action such as Hacking to actually get into the containers to make off with it. This makes it still possible to defend the Silos by killing the hackers before they complete the Hack and of course kill the haulers who would then take advantage of a hacked Silo.
All of the above (I am guessing) could be done with reasonably little development time and help shake things up a bit.
I stopped reading after "reduce the amount of reinforce timers a TCU goes through"
TCU's don't go trough Reinforcement Timers, get go Vulnerable -> Dead. Before making design crap up, play the game.
As others have said – fix the moon-goo first and you'll be amazed what else can happen. Moongoo harvesting needs to be an active process that requires many, many participants to really be profitable.
Right now the fundamental problem is the guys who've been pocketing the moon-isk have so much cash that there is no way to reliably deprive them of enough moons to matter. EVER. All they have to do is stront their towers and they get 24+ hours to rally hundreds of guys to crush whatever you bring to break their tower.
EVEN IF YOU WIN…. they put up another tower the next day. It's not like you win some massive amount of isk for your achievement. What are you going to do? Put up your own tower? It'll be dead in whatever time your stront says it will be. Then… they'll go back to the ATM machine… err I mean that same moon and proceed to make massive profit. AGAIN.
Unless / Until HBC/CFC go at it this is how it will remain. Even if they do, whatever's left over will do the SAME THING because that's what is profitable to do.
Dock at sov structure. Play minigame with fleetmembers/opposition. Sov structure explodes.
Can't see it being viable using ships but I could see deploying defensive platforms that could hit very hard around key structures in system.
They would themselves require fuel and ammo like a POS but there would be no need for timers on them. The guns could be controlled by players and perhaps even a few fitted ships (that players could use) stored in them ready for defensive roles. You could even allow a Clone Vat Bay to be placed in them once fully upgraded.
However, once the shields are taken out you go right into the armor and structure. No Timer. In the mean time you take a beating from their weapons systems and any defenders that clone jump to them as early responders. This is the price of invasion.
Such structures could be available in different sizes and upgraded to pose a significant threat to the attacker forcing them to spend time taking them out prior to a full invasion. This would give time for the defender to organize their defense.
The key to these structures being really useful would be that they could be deployed anywhere in the system. Near a gate, next to a POS, around a Base or even perhaps at asteroid belts in system to protect local miners. The downside is it's yet another structure that requires fuel and ammo but gives no ISK reward back in return.
If you make them only available to deploy in 0.4 or lower I don't see why this could not be catalyst to lowering the timers on other structures which would then make High Sec towers a little more (but not totally) vulnerable.
And for a Cherry on top, at the highest level of upgrade, it disables the cloak on ships that are cloaked in system for more then say 45 minutes.
Those platforms should only go Online when TCU itself is reinforced though so that they don't cripple roaming and small gang pvp when there is no war.
Yeah or perhaps simply base their reactions upon a set of rules that can be programmed in or are situational. For example, if they or any other structures in the system are attacked the will online, send out a warning to a mailing list and start shooting reds but otherwise ignore other vessels that are simply passing by. Thus they are an early defense but not a method to totally lock down a system.
If used to defend a mining operation perhaps limit them to small structures that cannot be upgraded and only provide limited abilities. For example it could allow mining vessels that are somehow linked to it to be able to spot approaching ships on D-Scan even if they were cloaked but have only limited defenses. Enough to deter but not stop a small gang and only be a speed bump to a large one.
And you would want to put some kind of limit on them to keep people from spamming systems with them. Either limit the number of them that can be put in any one system, OR, and perhaps better, make them chew through Fuel at an astounding rate once they go online so that they can only operate for at most 1 hour without someone actively refueling them. Which becomes difficult if they are in the middle of a large battle.
Either that or make them so that Dust Bunnies could board them, take them over and turn them against you. Double edged sword.
this is my wish list for nullsec
1# New POS that allow them to scale from 1man 1 researchslot 1 manufacturing slot to big deathstar (Starwars like) filled
2# replace all stations in game with the new POS system
3# in nullsec allow them to adda TCU unit to the pos thus giving them the option of holding the system from there stations.
4# stardrives to pos, that allowes them to move around. after a huge spoolup
a typical "attack on a system then would be"
1# place a beacon in the system hold the beacon for say 2h
2# jump your POS in to the system
3# active the TCU unit and turn every POS in the system vulnerable (due to overlapping TCU:s)
4# now you have to beat down the enemies POS witch in some cases is harder and in other alot better. 1 reinforcement timer / POS.
now if you give the pos modules like docking bay , forcefield, emergency power, dooms day weapons etc. a supercap fleet would be in danger when attacking a real fortified pos. and the value of the pos would give them a "Real" target.
then allowing Dust merc to Assult a POS and steal it would make it even more fun and gives dust players something to do in nullsec.
—now you can dream about how fun
an bonus to this is Sov handover is piece of cake.
Alliance A holds space
Alliance B jumps a POS in
Alliance A jumps there POS out
voila.
Eve needs a major revemp on many fronts. Power projection, insta-intel, sov mechanics, passive moon mining, endless blue listings, AFK cloackies, low-sec…all need to be re-worked. The thing is however, there will never be a perfect "automatic" system with no "exploitable" grey areas. What the game also needs is a team of CCP "referees" that would sanction those that do not play how the game should be "intended" to be played. You cant just rely on the "programming".
That'll be worse. Programming doesn't care who you are and treats everyone the same no matter what. Inserting any level of human judgement will be full of bias, inconsistencies, and rash decisions.
You have a point…it all depends on the judgement of the person(s). Human decisions can always be critisized (and trolled like hell).
If CCP would be better with their "programming", I would not have suggested this believe me.
I hope you agree with me though that the game needs major fixes in many areas of the game.
I do agree the game needs fixes, but I am mos def on the more tolerant side of things. EvE is really unlike any game and it's really hard to foresee consequences of changes for several years out. For example, when the current sov system was put in place there wasn't anyone who expressed anything but pure joy and proclaimed that "Fighting for sov is fun again!"
It took a couple years before the flaws in the design became apparent.
I think getting rid of the TCU restrictions is a good start.
I think the main problem with SOV grind ins't even so much the grind itself, but grinding everything well after the opposing side has given up. You're left with a month of ops with no battles or just annoying harassments. A better system may be that if losing one system has an impact on the timers/hp of SOV structures in adjacent systems. That way, if your enemy has gone two weeks without defending anything you can just steamroll whatever else he has.
Of course, the system would have to be setup in such a way that losing one system wouldn't automatically equal a total collapse.
how about turning the tcu's into carrier like structures… with like … 50 fighters/bombers
there is nothing wrong with the sov system. people are just lazy and are using it as an excuse not to fight. PL is grinding sov in Geminate and other regions.
I chalk a lot of people's complaining about how "grinding dead alliances takes months" up to poor alliance organization in that regard. Nulli cleared all of Romanian Legion's sov–about 1/2 of PB–in under a week with no fuss (and unfortunately only one real fight). They did so by using supers and capitals, periodic reforms of the accompanying subcap fleet so people could leave and new people join, and by reinforcing systems en-masse. Granted, PB is a small region. But should it not be easier for a massive coalition like the CFC or HBC to put on a big effort for 1-3 week–perhaps with multiple reinforcing fleets running–and just finish things off quick?
That being said, I agree sov grinding could be improved. My idea: combine the IHub and TCU into a single structure so we only have to shoot one instead of two things. Timers should also be limited to under 48hrs.
Stopped reading after "tcu reinforce timer". I agree null needs a check up, but learn mechanics b4 u comment.
issue is: 2 10k alliances, who are one and the same.
Since they reached this position and there is nobody anymore, who can stop them, they can pick, what they want to do. Of course they prefer not to do SOV war anymore. They have already everything they need.
HBC/CFC won Eve. Either like it or move on.
make 0.0 like FW space to flip sov you have to use/rat/mine the space,
a small alliance could do anoms in system for a day and the sov would flip over to them, a huge alliance could do it in a few hours.
it would make it easy for small alliances to gain sov and stop huge alliances from having so much un-used space!!
i think it would also make small fleet fights more common
Move TCU to a MODULAR POS MODULE.