New Sov System - Eon Article

[Endie]

Thanks to Papa Digger

TERRITORY LIES AT EVE'S HEART, BUT THE PROBLEMS OF EMPIRE BUILDING ARE BECOMING OBVIOUS. IS THERE A SOLUTION?
TEXT: ZIPMAN


Nothing in all of gaming is as thrilling or as captivating as EVE's wide-open empire building and large-scale warmongering. The sheer scope of mobilising
thousands of pilots, the politics and the hot-drops, the day long running battles: it's singular and spectacular. The investment that we make in player-owned space, the infrastructure we build, and the personal histories we write: it all adds up to the kind of gaming experience that is not offered
anywhere else. In terms of making a mark on a game world, you can do no
better than carve out a place on the territorial maps of EVE.

And yet this incredible system seems to be slowing down, the spark fizzling. The battle for regional control is far less dynamic than it was just a few years ago, and current trends of entrenchment mean that only the weak, the very lazy, or the unlucky, lose a well-defended region, even to overwhelming odds. The winners, meanwhile, have often endured weeks of shooting starbases to take that space, in a game that is slow, and often laborious. Sovereignty, it seems, is not providing our game with the kind of risks and rewards that we demand of this, the most brutal of PvP MMOs. But why? And how can CCP fix it? Let's delve into the murky depths of our territorial future - to be known as Sovereignty 2.0 - to find out.

RAIDING PARTIES

To discover a little of what the player base thinks of the current sovereignty system we need look no further than the members of the Council of Stellar Management, past and present. Morsus Mihi's leader, Vuk Lau, is succinct about the problem: "The main problem of the sovereignty mechanic is that it's attached to moon structures." He sees there being no other problem than the fact that all battles take place at moons. Lau explains that he sees capital ship battles as the most exciting events in EVE - or indeed any game - but he sees the problems of sovereignty as a need to expand outward to other celestials, and to change the theatres of war. "The least painful change should be moving 'sov' from moons to planets," says Lau. "The system would stay the same, but with less pain in terms of POS warfare. After that, the next logical step should be making sov a dynamic formula."

Eva 'Ankhesentapemkah' Jobse goes a little further: "I think sov holders lack a way to really leave their mark on their space," she says. "EVE is supposed to be a player-driven universe, but there are awfully few things players can build and influence in the 0.0 endgame. I think there should be much more in the way of constructables which allow space-holders to truly develop and make use of their space, and most importantly, things to build for individual players (their citizens) as well."

Yes, life could be a little more dynamic in the territory game, and also offer more for the individual player. "I personally think static moon minerals are a boring game mechanic," says Jobse, "I would love to see more dynamic resources in 0.0, which can, of course, once again be uncovered and extracted by building stuff at individual, corporation and alliance levels." She continues, expressing her boredom with the POS warfare idea, and her annoyance with the projection of power that large alliances exert over their regions: "I think alliances hold way too much space they aren't even using - they should be forced to use it and have their players actually live there, or have it become vulnerable to raiding parties and eventually lose it. Small gang warfare will thus be a viable tactic -there will always be targets in enemy space, and if not, then there should at least be some vulnerable infrastructure around to raze!"

Such thoughts are echoed throughout EVE. My own corp generally cries 'not another POS bash!' when I drag it into moon conflicts. While we MMO gamers are creatures of extreme patience and incredible commitment, even the hardiest souls tend to baulk at the idea of another achingly-long operation where POS after POS must be attacked. What CCP needs to do, it seems, is to create a new set of features which are tied directly to territory - a range of activities and possibilities for players which reignite interest in EVE's epic empire-building, and its ground-level engagement of carving out a niche for yourself in the corner of a thriving universe.

CRITICAL DECISIONS

EVE Online is, of course, unique among online worlds. It has evolved by being inhabited and by CP, and therein lies the problem. It s an unknown design. You might know that an oak will grow from an acorn, but you couldn't
draw the future tree if you had nothing but the seed. This was precisely the problem that CCP faced. It knew from early on that it wanted alliances to battle for control of nullsec, for politics and ongoing hostilities to break out, but it didn't quite know how that would work. So it had to improvise on the fly. CCP watched and provided what players seemed to need from month to month. In-game alliances were formalized, player-owned structures were developed and deployed, i dreadnoughts were conceived and constructed, the various fixes for capturable stations, outposts, cyno-jammers, and
all the rest of the paraphernalia of territorial war came overall concept which defines territory and ownership of space in nullsec, came together in a huge mosaic of development and design.
While so much in EVE has come into being in response to player needs, it's the sovereignty system that has some of the most far-reaching implications. It is of direct concern to thousands of players, and the very idea of player-owned space provides motivation and excitement for almost every player in EVE. What could be better than your name on the map?
And yet this patchwork of concepts CCP created now seems inadequate to the task. Worse, perhaps, it's no longer even fun: the little guy doesn't get a look in, and the bigger powers need to mobilize hundreds of people every night, just to capture a few more moons. The problems with this 'piled up' feature list are fast becoming too painful to ignore.
EVE needs change.

SHADE OF GREYSCALE

CCP is forthright on the problems that its system faces. It knows, all too well, that it has a major task ahead, and that it's going to have to make critical decisions that affect the game of thousands of its most dedicated players. Designer Matthew 'Greyscale' Woodward describes CCP's understanding of the problem to us when we ask whether sovereignty is now a game just for the very biggest powers on EVE: "It's not so much that sovereignty is easy for the big powers, but that it actively encourages
big powers to form. There's absolutely nothing standing in their way in terms of internal checks and balances. The system naturally brings people to larger coalitions, and that doesn't make for great gameplay."

Woodward expands on that, and takes note of some developments he sees as interesting in contemporary EVE. "Projection of power is an issue, but the coalition nature of everything is making it worse. We need to make localized '
conflict easier. Look at White Noise and Triumvirate operating out of Venal and hitting the north. Morsus Mihi have pretty much had to return to base to deal with that, and we think that is interesting. We want to make it so that you do have to watch your home assets. You won't want to go road-tripping for weeks on end because you'll come home to find everything is on fire."
Although that patchwork of ideas is showing its weak spots quite
clearly, there are, as ever in EVE, trends which suggest the future path
of the game. Wars should involve more than single decisive weight-of- i
numbers conflicts at moon after moon. Indeed, they should support gank-and-run tactics as much as mass-fleet building.

The way sovereignty works right now opposes that, as Woodward explains. "Starbases are actually deterring fights," says the CCP designer. "One of'our goals is to severely reduce the role of starbases in territorial conflict. They were originally designed as an industrial base and a kind of home away from home, and they work really well in that role. If you just live out in nullsec in a tower you can have a great time, even manufacture and build stuff out there. But it got shanghaied into the sov system, and that was a good quick fix, but if you'd built it from scratch you wouldn't have done it that way."

Of course, it wasn't built from scratch. And these days it's enmeshed in a bigger game altogether: that of EVE's immense, spiralling war economy. Whatever happens now will be a long-term process, and something that has to work without alienating players, or destroying the activities we already get a kick out of. Especially those involving money.

THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL

Evolution over time is both EVE's great strength, and its most complex problem, as Woodward explains: "The way the sovereignty system developed did not take... an optimal path, shall we say? It has grown very organically in response to immediate needs. It has had things bolted on, and has had changes made that were not, unfortunately, entirely perfectly thought through." If he were a designer embarking on a territorial model for the first time, Woodward admits, it'd probably look nothing like it looks in EVE today.
Needless to say, the rocky route that capital ships have cruised in the past few years has been deeply intertwined with the issue of sovereignty and any future changes have to encompass not simply the starbases, but the ships we use to attack them, the support fleets we deploy to defend them, and the industrial processes we go through to produce them. It's a hard, multi-layered problem for CCP's design team. "I think if we'd designed EVE and the sov system with capital ships in from the ground up we'd have kept the numbers of ships down. But the system as it exists now has players building their operations around capships. A huge amount of the game is focused on these large capital fleets, and we couldn't change that even if we wanted to."

This is crucial. CCP is now manager as much as designer, and anything it creates has to work with player needs and expectations. Disappointment and dismay are landmines that the team must detect before it starts implementing features. The solution for a new sovereignty system has to take into account the extremely developed state of conflict and politics that the game currently exhibits, as well as the vast skill time players have committed to becoming competent capital ship pilots.
But that's not to say changes in the capital ship arena won't happen: they will, with supercapital changes set to take place in the game." Nor would anyone who regularly participates in epic capita battles want to see them pushed out: they are some of EVE's most interesting experiences. And yet change is needed: change that will make the game more varied, so that starbase hot-drops aren't the only way we'll get combat high. Woodward can't say how that might happen, but there are plenty suggestions floating about. The core change will no doubt be to fleets away from attacking static targets over and over again. Chaning the factors which feed into territorial war, so that the focus is not on the starbase, is the first consideration for the design team.
"There isn't of a lot of variety in what happens in this kind of warfare, making it i thin and flat. Sovereignty wars all tend to play the same way," says Woodward, "The nature of warfare means you always want to bring more people ga make sure that you win, but starbases are a multiplier for that: they ha so many hitpoints that you want to bring even more people, not just th get it done, but to get it done quickly. When there are 40 starbases ahead, of you, the impulse is to just get more and more people involved. It makes the arms races much worse, and it's not fun Woodward's new design will have to work to disperse plans to counter this behaviour.
Identifying exactly what it is about the starbase system that is the problem hasn't been difficult.

Woodward explains: It s the moons which are causing the problem. I remember three or four years ago there were two flavours of alliance. The ASCN types, the big industrial alliance with a lot of people, and who were a bit soft. Then there was the smaller, harder PvP alliances. They didn't make quite so much money, because they didn't spend time exploiting their space in the same way. Since invention kicked in and moon-mining prices rose, it's been possible to be a tight military alliance and still make huge amounts of money. In fact, you pretty much have to do that now. Everyone in nullsec operates in that mode, because the expanding population wants more and more Tech II, which pushes up the moon value. That economic need changed the way EVE was played forever." CCP, of course, can change the direction by tweaking the design at its basic levels. The new world of EVE's territory systems means a new landscape for industrialists and producers.

CLIMB THE LADDER

The fix to sovereignty means more than just providing different things to shoot: it means fundamental changes in the use and value of nullsec space. Economic changes that alter the flow of wealth and change the responsibilities and tasks of players in an alliance. Woodward explains that he's been examining different land uses of real-world cultures for an idea of what might be applicable in-game for EVE players. "It's crucial for us to rebalance moon mining, and to change gameplay styles accordingly."
Woodward, encouraged by Lead Designer, Noah 'Hammerhead' Ward, and other members of the design team, has been trying to think of ways in which players can contribute outside of simply x-ing up for fleet and jumping in their rigged battleship. "It's the difference between a settled, agrarian society with lots of people working the land, and a more nomadic society," Woodward explains. "Like the Mongols versus ancient China. The Mongol's could raid and kill, and be unstoppable, but they couldn't conquer the land without becoming absorbed into that way of living. To stay as great warriors they couldn't settle down. You can't do both at the same time: that's what we're working towards. Something that encourages more play styles in the mechanics of sovereignty, so it's not just starbases." Meaning a return, perhaps, to the more roaming style of conflict from EVE's past? We shall see.
This approach suggests that the new sovereignty system will reward far more industrial and individual game types than it does currently. The 'capture high-end moon, profit' model that we see now is not going to last, but nor is it going to be instantly abolished. While CCP isn't talking about the timescale or exact details of the new systems, it's clear that they will be designed to be modular, and to allow EVE's empire builders to see more features brought in over time, in a systematic way. The long-neglected planets of EVE will also be part of that long-term sovereignty plan. "Planets have always been on our long-term radar, " says Woodward. "Sovereignty 2.0 will be built on the assumption that we can extend it over time, we'll engineer it with the option to add mote stuff, like planets."

TERRITORIAL HORIZONS

So, we can expect to see Sovereignty 2.0 include a series of features, bring in new skills, new details to the EVE universe outside those of starbases and moon mining. It will provide new roles for players in any given corporation or alliance. It could also change how combat unfolds. "The ways you can entrench your space will be more varied," says Woodward, suggesting that new tactics for attack and defence will soon be challenging
the strategic brains of the fleet commanders of future EVE. The changes that CCP's design team are going to implement will be multi-lateral: changing social, economic and organisational aspects of the entire game. Sovereignty
2.0 is about encouraging the little guys, and larger alliances the tools to exploit their power, and to deal efficiently with little corps and allow smaller alliances who want to play a role to actually play one. "We want to look at a more organized way of dealing with renters," says Woodward. "If you want to develop your space you want a lot of people around, You're going to want small and medium-sized groups moving in, and we want to make that easier. A lot of alliances start out that way and then grow up to prove their worth, and that's important. There's currently a lot of history and power being thrown around, but we want to make it possible to climb the ladder."
This change of focus is crucial for the future of EVE: with so many new players coming in, forming new corporations and alliances, and looking for a game in nullsec, there need to be options. Just as individuals are pointed in the direction of a number of career paths by EVE's tutorials and recruitment systems, so corporations and alliances need to be given a more formal introduction to the ways in which they can expect to grow over time.
And of course, no wholesale sweep of these aspects would be complete without a look at that grey area between Empire and true nullsec, those pirate regions such as Syndicate, Curse, Venal, and Stain. Woodward comments: "NPC space is a great place for players to get out into nullsec and see how it works. Alliances tend to go to places like Syndicate to be born, or to die. For that reason it's great. But at the same time it's a hurdle because it's a place that people can't be evicted from, can't be wiped out. Should we really have these invulnerable stations for people to store their capships in?" Perhaps we need to have systems for the alliances to interact with these NPC factions? "All in good time," says Woodward.

So we have to sit back and wait. Nurse the space we hold now if we are already entrenched, and start to scheme for power if we're territorial alliances in waiting. One thing is always certain in EVE: it's never going to stay the same, and you can expect to see many of these changes appearing in the months to come. Here's to future battles.

[Endie]

Tl;dr:

Sov changing this year
Planets likely to be a focus
Alliance infrastructure to improve space a possibility
Focus on moving warfare, giving smaller gangs a way to influence sov, and on forcing those who want space to defend it
Capships to be shoehorned in somehow, since we've all got millions of SPs doing nothing else
Focus on smaller alliances, and on giving them roles for themselves and for bigger alliances
NPC space not to be invulnerable and immune to disruption
High ends to be de-emphasised
People to be forced to choose between wealth and fighting (almost certainly totally retarded as an idea)

On first read, fairly neutral or slightly positive for GF, particularly since we have the numbers to balance space-holding and PvPing.  It seems pretty harshly targetted at PL though.  Bobdevs' last revenge 

[Surlyboi]

NPC space not to be invulnerable and immune to disruption

So, in other words, the increasingly shrinking sphere of influence for the Galente might actually have an effect on gameplay in Empire, beyond some lore handwaving.
Perhaps some player-driven NPC space smash-and-grab runs too? I'd like to see how they work in planets.

[ajax34i]

Heh, sounds like "They blow up some structures and Concord doesn't come anymore.  Oh, and agents refuse to give you missions until you kill the intruders."

[Pezzle]

 Flavor text when discussing new mechanics?  Really?  Why do they insist on wall-of-texting things that really belong in bullet points or a similar format?

Not trying to be overly harsh but why the hell are they quoting anything Anakjkgfdkjghklj said in terms of 0.0?  I do not expect everyone to know everything about the game but they leave out some of her terribly ill informed ideas.  Oh, and why do we need new skills for a sov overhaul?  

I have written out workable sov changes on the back of a napkin.  Bah.

[Endie]

The Amarr loyalist stirred uneasily as he put down the communique.  Many considered his habit of reading only from synthpaper to be a ridiculous affectation, but he held sufficient power within the Curatores faction for them not to raise such feelings to his face.  "Flavor text when discussing new mechanics?  Really?  Why do they insist on wall-of-texting things that really belong in bullet points or a similar format?"

Impatience showed on his face momentarily, but he remembered that the God of the Amarr demanded impassive detachment in the righteous.

"Not trying to be overly harsh but why the hell," - his Permanent Under-Secretary flinched at the blasphemy but the zealous clergyman did not notice - " why the hell are they quoting anything Anakjkgfdkjghklj said in terms of 0.0?"  He virtually spat as his Amarr tongue mangled the name of the pacifistic heretic.  

"I do not expect everyone to know everything about the game but they leave out some of her terribly ill informed ideas.  Oh, and why do we need new skills for a sov overhaul?"

"Game?" thought the Under-Secretary?  Like all assigned staff he reported to the High Exarch's office on matters of doctrinal observance, and the reference to the Most Holy Crusade as a mere diversion would cause upheavals.  But, this time, he controlled his expression as his superior turned with a dismissive gesture and continued in a mocking tone.  "I have written out workable sov changes on the back of a napkin.  Bah."

With that, the alarm sounded!  Heretical Minmatar space-slaves were attacking the system.  "To my space-steed!" cried the brave space-crusader.

I think that's what you meant to say, RP-boy.

[Pezzle]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

or would  be better?   Oh well, you get both!

[Endie]

I have said it before: Goons are the most consistent role-players in Eve.

[Pezzle]

We could have long discussions on that subject while continuing the derail.  Maybe when I get home.

[Pennilenko]

You guys are awesome.

[Simond]

So essentially CCPs 'plan' to fix 0.0 is:
1) Remove/randomise one of the core reasons people claim 0.0
2) Make it near-impossible to defend your space unless all you do is defend.

Leading to 3) So what's the point of claiming 0.0, then?

 

[Surlyboi]

There really isn't unless you're a fucking masochist.

Hell, let the remnants of BoB rally around that flag for a while and just fuck their shit up on the regular.

[TripleDES]

I bet if the focus switches from moons to planets, it'll be a drastic patch day change, having a sov-reset effect like when Goonfleet invaded Delve.

[Endie]

I bet if the focus switches from moons to planets, it'll be a drastic patch day change, having a sov-reset effect like when Goonfleet invaded Delve.

I don't see them doing that.  Especially as the guy talks about their modular, gradualist approach.

[Pax]

I bet if the focus switches from moons to planets, it'll be a drastic patch day change, having a sov-reset effect like when Goonfleet invaded Delve.

I don't see them doing that.  Especially as the guy talks about their modular, gradualist approach.

Reset sov and watch alliances gruadually rip eachother apart.

[Jayce]

I bet if the focus switches from moons to planets, it'll be a drastic patch day change, having a sov-reset effect like when Goonfleet invaded Delve.

I don't see them doing that.  Especially as the guy talks about their modular, gradualist approach.

Even if he didn't come on.  CCP might be pretty dumb in some areas, but they're not so oblivious or malicious as to literally destroy the majority every 0.0 alliance's infrastructure and defenses.

Only the SWG dev team was that bad   

[MahrinSkel]

Might wind up as a B-Team Transition problem: Most of the people working on Eve now are new, and see only the faults of the current system and not its strengths, nor do they really understand *why* the pieces of the Sov system were bolted together the way they were, if there was a plan that was being pursued that isn't readily apparent from an analysis of the pieces.

For example, Sov was intended to create a sense of investment and allow development of space by player entities.  Making it hard to overcome the defense has caused the creation of monstrously large coalitions, and now entails thousands of manhours spent shooting POS, putting up POS, and repairing shields on POS, and these are seen as weaknesses and faults of the system.  But the inherent problem they were addressing was ensuring that defenders had time to organize a defense (because attackers have the initiative and can't take as long as needed to organize the assault).  Just making it easier to assault won't "fix" the problem as much as it will advantage the attack and encourage the formation of NAP-blocks.

But the real source of these timesinks is not the nature of POS defense/attack, or the Sov system, but the logistical improvements (JB's especially, but JF's to a lesser extent) that have made it *possible* to handle the sheer volume of material that so many POS require.  On the flip side, the JB's and Cyno Generators represent the only *substantial* non-military, non-industrial result of POS/Sov mechanics that allow alliances to substantially improve their space.  The only reason besides fuel costs to maintain sovereignty outside of Stations.

Before Sovereignty mechanics, territorial ownership turned on Empire gateways, outpost undock camping, and anti-ratting and anti-mining raiding.  You controlled or denied space through sheer endurance on low-scale warfare.  But as the 0.0 population climbed and securing space this way became effectively impossible (because you'd never get to stop chasing raiders and actually use your space), they implemented POS-based Sov and Exploration-based exploitation.  Exploration made it a lot harder to raid effectively, while POS meant that taking a station was no longer just about controlling the system and pouring battleship ammo into it until it flipped.  Taking territory required an organized campaign.  After some changes to prevent POS-spamming and encourage actual POS assaults, things became stable and workable.

Advanced Sov, Cyno-generators, Cyno-jammers, and JB's, were intended to slow things down again by giving the defender advantages, and they worked, although they've steadily eroded in effect as dread fleets have grown.  At this point, if anything things have swung too far in favor of the offensive tempo.  We got a preview of what removing advanced Sov facilities and POS-based Sov mechanics in the effect on BoB/Kenzoku after the Haargoth affair, as the strongest alliance in the game was wiped from the map in a single month after years of holding out.

Any move to reduce the sheer scale of logistics and manhours of Siege will simply advantage the offensive in the same way, but universally.  The best indication of the likely result comes from the pre-Sovereignty era, when it was so hard to defend that everyone entered into a NAP against all possible threats, because diplomacy was the *only* effective defense.

--Dave

[Comstar]

Reading the EON article seems to indicate that CCP considers the BoB V ASCN war the hight of Strategic, Operational and Tactical Space Warfare. And that *Tri* is the best existing alliance to follow current practice.


Oh god.

[Endie]

Well, if you want rapid gains then losses of territory, the various incarnations of Tri are your poster children alright.

And re bob vs ascn, little wonder ccp look back on it as the golden age. It was the last time most of them won.a big war...

[Predator Irl]

If they want to fix Sov then it isn't the acutally Sov holding mechanics and rules they need to fix as such. I think the sov 1 - 4 works quite well and all the advantages of each level etc.

What they need to focus on is something than weakens sov as territory expands, such as not being able to hold Sov 3 unless within a set distance from your constellation capital, for example, you couldnt have a sov 3 system 10 - 15  jumps from your nearest capital (but maybe allow JBs at sov 2 to compensate for logistics). This way, you could have a very strong central defence and a weak perimeter, allowing the smaller alliances to take a shot at your turf and have a real chance of breaking sov.

[ajax34i]

edit: nm

[tazelbain]

I hope they include economic pvp as a greater factor for sov.

[patience]

Tl;dr:

Sov changing this year
Planets likely to be a focus
Alliance infrastructure to improve space a possibility
Focus on moving warfare, giving smaller gangs a way to influence sov, and on forcing those who want space to defend it
Capships to be shoehorned in somehow, since we've all got millions of SPs doing nothing else
Focus on smaller alliances, and on giving them roles for themselves and for bigger alliances
NPC space not to be invulnerable and immune to disruption
High ends to be de-emphasised
People to be forced to choose between wealth and fighting (almost certainly totally retarded as an idea)

On first read, fairly neutral or slightly positive for GF, particularly since we have the numbers to balance space-holding and PvPing.  It seems pretty harshly targetted at PL though.  Bobdevs' last revenge 

I don't see where you got the underlined portions from. Anything you may have been inferring about small gangs and alliances mattering was most likely referring to making internal politics of the alliance more relevant.

Also it's not a definite that NPC stations like the ones in Syndicate will get nerfed. The lead designer on SOV just saw it as annoyance.

What I found most amusing about that whole article was that their basic vision to fix SOV is to make clearer lines between Industry and War, which means Industrialists will get a huge amount of goodies, if they follow through on this. Yet at the same time their wording continue to sill makes their Industrialists sound like second class customers citizens.

[Endie]

Tl;dr:

Sov changing this year
Planets likely to be a focus
Alliance infrastructure to improve space a possibility
Focus on moving warfare, giving smaller gangs a way to influence sov, and on forcing those who want space to defend it
Capships to be shoehorned in somehow, since we've all got millions of SPs doing nothing else
Focus on smaller alliances, and on giving them roles for themselves and for bigger alliances
NPC space not to be invulnerable and immune to disruption
High ends to be de-emphasised
People to be forced to choose between wealth and fighting (almost certainly totally retarded as an idea)

On first read, fairly neutral or slightly positive for GF, particularly since we have the numbers to balance space-holding and PvPing.  It seems pretty harshly targetted at PL though.  Bobdevs' last revenge 

I don't see where you got the underlined portions from.

That's ok.  Not everyone likes reading, and I'm happy to do it for you:

Giving smaller gangs a way to influence sov: "Small gang warfare will thus be a viable tactic -there will always be targets in enemy space, and if not, then there should at least be some vulnerable infrastructure around to raze"
Focus on smaller alliances: "[sov] 2.0 is about encouraging the little guys, and larger alliances the tools to exploit their power, and to deal efficiently with little corps and allow smaller alliances who want to play a role to actually play one."
NPC space not to be invulnerable and immune to disruption "But at the same time it's a hurdle because it's a place that people can't be evicted from, can't be wiped out. Should we really have these invulnerable stations for people to store their capships in?" Perhaps we need to have systems for the alliances to interact with these NPC factions? "All in good time," says Woodward."

Obviously, I've only picked one example for each but there are tons of bits, from hint to concern troll to explicit statement, dotted throughout and fairly obvious to any sort of close reading exercise.

[patience]

I don't agree that they are going to make that type of focus especially on the smaller gangs part.

As for NPC stations they were speculating what they might do. There's no guarantee unlike their other statements where they don't give themselves as much leeway.

[Endie]

I don't agree that they are going to make that type of focus especially on the smaller gangs part.

As for NPC stations they were speculating what they might do. There's no guarantee unlike their other statements where they don't give themselves as much leeway.

As opinions on what the ever-fickle CCP's intentions go that's fair enough: the whole article might be completely unrelated to what actually emerges from testing..  But you can't really say "I don't see where you got the underlined portions from."

[Goumindong]

I bet if the focus switches from moons to planets, it'll be a drastic patch day change, having a sov-reset effect like when Goonfleet invaded Delve.

If only there were some system we could use in the interim that would not cause a large disruption and would allow people to start moving Sov control to planets..

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=530688

[Amarr HM]

If only there were some system we could use in the interim that would not cause a large disruption and would allow people to start moving Sov control to planets..

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=530688

I remember reading that way back, nice post.