tl:dr
Remove/change/adapt the deadspace grid outside of the ESS to something with a real COUNTERPLAY.
Why?
It get abused as safe space by kiting into one direction to have a “break”
Has zero counterplay ( Booshing is NOT A COUNTERPLAY)
Chasing a Kitegroup is not a COUNTERPLAY
Current ESS Facts:
-
No combat probes
→ If you make save bookmarks in space you force PVP atleast to warp around until the timer expiered to filament.
→ You need to escape through an GATE or Wormhole if you dislike the reponse. -
No warping to Fleet Members
-
No Warping on deadspace grid
It gives the Kite group a safe space which has 0 counterpart in eve.
There is no RISK vs. Reward in this concept with is base mechanics of EVE -
A Bubble at the ACL Gate tracks you into the middle
This not true for any other bubble mechanic
Yes, you should be unable to use the ACL if bubbled → make the gate 15km or x KM for activiation
Is there an Advantage for the Defender?
No, not really. Sniper setup can only cover 300km into one direction and dislike to be on 0
The ESS Outside GRID already has a sphere of 200km
20/80 Pareto-Prinzip
Sorry but the usal Kite-Groups are not 20% of the Playerbase.
But all kite groups abuse the ESS deadspace grid.
What is the content outside of the ESS?
NONE, you need to enter the ESS to access the Banks.
You could try to stop defender to enter but therefore you need to bubble the Access gate and hold it. Which limits you in the option to kite.
What is the content inside of the ESS?
The Banks, for one of those you need a Key.
At least one ship needs to stay linked.
You limited to AB. You are in a bubble so if you loose your ship here you loose your POD.
But Kane why you don´t bubble the ESS?
When i do, they don´t come cause the insta lock Gnosis is big enough to hold them for the rest.
This ■■■■■■■ boring playstyle for broken mechanic
For a game which has a counterplay for most of the content.
Its really shaming which ~25% of Space (Nullsec) doesn´t have this considered.
History
When we didn´t had an ESS we complaint about BOTs warping off instantly when we entered System.
→ They banning bots left and right and it gets better
When they added the deployable ESS…
→ They complaint which the ESS got trapped into really nasty PVE sites which killed the attacker
They added the Static ESS…
and now its get abused from the Attackers in a way which the ESS is not desinged.
Remastered Text
The following text is based on above but 100% optimized by a Computer
I got told i am bad in writing. I am german not english.. and english is awful by desgin. 
Deutsch die Sprache der Dichter und Denker
German – the language of poets and thinkers
I tried to remove all wrong information, like making warpable bookmarks on the outside of the ESS and many more mistakes which the computer added up..
ESS Deadspace Grid: Remove the Safe-Space Mechanic and Introduce Real Counterplay
TL;DR
Remove, change, or fundamentally redesign the deadspace grid surrounding the ESS.
The current mechanic creates a space where an attacking group can kite indefinitely in one direction, disengage whenever it becomes unfavorable, and effectively reset the engagement.
That is not meaningful counterplay.
Booshing is not a counterplay.
Chasing a kite group is not a counterplay.
Having a sniper setup that can only cover one direction is not a counterplay.
The ESS should create a conflict over resources, not provide one side with a mechanically enforced safe space.
Why the Current Mechanic Is a Problem
The fundamental issue is not kiting itself.
Kiting is a legitimate EVE playstyle. The problem is that the current ESS deadspace grid allows a kite group to move outside meaningful engagement range while remaining effectively untouchable.
Once the attacking fleet reaches the edge of the grid and continues moving in one direction, the defender has very limited options:
- They cannot warp directly to the attackers.
- Combat probes cannot be used.
- The deadspace grid prevents normal warp mechanics.
- The attackers can create distance without committing to an actual disengagement.
- The defender cannot force the engagement back into a meaningful range.
This creates a situation where one side controls whether an engagement can actually happen.
That is fundamentally different from normal EVE combat.
Current ESS Mechanics That Matter
1. No Combat Probes
The lack of combat probes already creates an important dynamic.
This means that the attackers have to make meaningful choices:
- Continue fighting.
- Move around the grid.
- Eventually leave through a gate or wormhole.
- Risk being caught while repositioning.
That is good.
The problem begins when the deadspace grid itself provides an additional layer of protection.
2. No Warping to Fleet Members
This is another intentional restriction around the ESS.
Normally, EVE provides numerous ways to reposition:
- Warp to fleet members.
- Warp to probes.
- Warp to bookmarks.
- Use bubbles.
- Use tackle.
- Use interdiction.
- Use positioning.
Inside the ESS environment, many of these options are removed.
That is acceptable as long as the remaining mechanics provide meaningful counterplay.
Currently, they do not.
The Deadspace Grid Creates a Unique Safe Space
The ESS deadspace grid effectively creates a situation that has very few equivalents elsewhere in EVE:
A fleet can remain inside the engagement area while simultaneously moving outside practical combat range and preventing the opposing fleet from reliably following it.
This is especially powerful for kite groups.
Once they establish distance, the defender is essentially forced to chase them through space rather than fight them.
And chasing a fleet that has deliberately optimized for speed and range is not counterplay.
It is simply accepting the engagement on the attacker’s terms.
Is There an Advantage for the Defender?
Not enough to compensate for the mechanic.
A defender can prepare a sniper setup, but that comes with significant limitations.
The ESS already provides a large external sphere of approximately 200 km.
A sniper fleet can cover a portion of that space, but it cannot realistically cover every possible direction a kite group can use.
The result is predictable:
The attacker chooses the direction.
The attacker chooses the range.
The attacker chooses when to disengage.
The defender is left reacting.
That is not a healthy Risk vs. Reward relationship.
What Is the Actual Content Outside the ESS?
Very little.
The reason everyone is fighting around the ESS is ultimately the banks.
The banks are inside the ESS.
Therefore, the attacker eventually has to enter the ESS to actually obtain the reward.
The defender can attempt to stop this by controlling the access gate.
However, this creates another problem.
If the defender completely controls the gate with bubbles and tackle, they effectively deny the attacker access.
If they do not, the attacker can exploit the external deadspace grid to kite and reset the engagement.
This creates an awkward binary:
Either the defender completely controls the gate, or the attacker can exploit the external grid.
There is very little interesting space between those two extremes.
What Is the Content Inside the ESS?
The actual objective is inside the ESS:
- The Reserve Bank.
- The Main Bank.
- The required key mechanics.
- The need for at least one ship to remain connected.
- The acceleration gate restrictions.
- The inability to freely warp.
- The bubble environment.
Inside the ESS, there is genuine risk.
If you lose your ship, you can lose your pod.
If you commit to the objective, you are committing to a dangerous environment.
That is good game design.
The problem is that the attacker can spend a disproportionate amount of time outside that risk while still controlling the engagement.
“Why Don’t You Just Bubble the ESS?”
Because that does not solve the underlying problem.
If the defender bubbles the ESS, a kite group can simply refuse to commit.
A properly positioned, fast-locking ship can often hold the engagement at the desired distance for an extended period of time.
The result is not exciting PvP.
It becomes a waiting game where the attacker can simply remain outside the meaningful engagement area until the defender makes a mistake or becomes bored.
That is not counterplay.
It is a stalemate created by the mechanic.
Example:
The fact that the optimal response to the mechanic can become “don’t engage and wait” should be a major red flag.
Booshing Is Not a Counterplay
Booshing is a tool.
It can be useful against certain fleet compositions, but calling it the counterplay to the ESS deadspace grid is misleading.
A counterplay mechanic should provide a reasonable and repeatable method of responding to the strategy.
If the response to:
“The enemy is abusing the deadspace grid to maintain infinite range.”
is:
“Bring a very specific ship, get the positioning perfect, and hope you can successfully boosh them.”
then the mechanic does not have broad counterplay.
It has a niche counter.
Those are not the same thing.
Chasing Is Not Counterplay
This is the biggest distinction.
A kite fleet wants you to chase it.
Every kilometer you move toward it can be used against you.
Every mistake in positioning increases the advantage of the kite fleet.
The attacker has already selected a strategy specifically designed around controlling range.
Therefore:
“Just chase them” is not a counterplay mechanic.
It is playing directly into the strategy.
The 20/80 Pareto Argument
The argument that this mechanic only matters to a small percentage of players also misses the point.
Kite groups may represent a relatively small portion of the overall player population.
But the question should not be:
“How many players use this strategy?”
The question should be:
“Does the mechanic create a healthy interaction when the strategy is used?”
If a mechanic can be systematically exploited by a particular playstyle to remove meaningful interaction, the mechanic should be evaluated regardless of how popular that playstyle is.
The fact that essentially every competent kite group can exploit the same ESS deadspace behavior makes this a systemic mechanic issue, not an isolated player issue.
This Is About Risk vs. Reward
EVE’s core PvP design is built around meaningful decisions.
You commit to something.
You expose yourself to risk.
Your opponent gets tools to punish your mistakes.
You get tools to punish theirs.
The ESS should reinforce that philosophy.
Instead, the current deadspace grid can produce:
Reward:
Access to valuable ESS income.
Risk:
Potentially very low, because the attacker can remain outside meaningful engagement range.
Counterplay:
Extremely limited.
That is the part that needs to change.
What Should Change?
The goal should not be to make kite fleets impossible.
The goal should be to ensure that kite fleets have to make meaningful decisions.
A few possible solutions:
Option 1 — Remove the External Deadspace Grid
Return the area outside the ESS to normal space mechanics.
This would immediately restore:
- Combat probing.
- Normal warp mechanics.
- Warp-to-fleet-member mechanics where applicable.
- More meaningful positioning.
- More opportunities to force engagements.
Option 2 — Redesign the Deadspace Grid
Keep the ESS deadspace mechanics but remove the ability to use the outer boundary as an effectively safe kite zone.
For example:
- Reduce the external deadspace area.
- Prevent indefinite one-direction kiting.
- Introduce additional warpable points.
- Create meaningful interaction points around the ESS.
- Add mechanics that force the attacker to periodically reposition or commit.
Option 3 — Introduce Real Counterplay
If CCP wants the deadspace grid to remain, then it needs an actual counter mechanic.
Not:
“Bring a Boosher.”
Not:
“Chase them.”
But a mechanic that gives both sides meaningful tools and decisions.
The attacker should be able to kite.
The defender should have a reasonable method of challenging that kite.
Both sides should have to take risks.
The ACL Gate Is Another Problem
The bubble behavior around the ACL gate is also unusual.
The bubble effectively tracks ships toward the center.
This is not how most other bubble mechanics behave.
If the intended design is that ships should not be able to bypass the ACL restriction while bubbled, then the restriction should be explicit and predictable.
For example:
Require ships to be within a defined distance of the gate to activate it.
Something like 15 km, or another clearly defined activation range, would be much easier to understand and would avoid the unusual tracking behavior.
What the ESS Should Be
The ESS should create a conflict over valuable resources.
It should force attackers to make a decision:
“Do we commit to taking the money?”
And force defenders to make one:
“How much are we willing to risk to protect it?”
That is compelling PvP.
What it should not create is:
“Can we sit 200+ km away, kite indefinitely, and wait until the defender gets bored?”
That is not an interesting strategic decision.
The Core Problem
The current mechanic creates a situation where:
The attacker controls range.
The attacker controls direction.
The attacker controls whether the engagement happens.
The defender has very limited tools to change any of those conditions.
That is the fundamental design flaw.
Again:
Kiting itself is not the problem.
The problem is giving kiting a mechanically protected environment in which normal EVE counterplay is heavily restricted.
Conclusion
The ESS is one of the few pieces of nullsec infrastructure specifically designed to generate PvP around an economic objective.
That makes the quality of its combat mechanics extremely important.
The current external deadspace grid undermines that purpose.
It allows a fleet to remain connected to the objective while exploiting a space where many of EVE’s normal counterplay mechanics simply do not function.
That needs to change.
I am not asking for kite fleets to be nerfed.
I am asking for the ESS to follow the same fundamental philosophy as the rest of EVE:
If you want the reward, you should have to accept meaningful risk.
Give both sides tools.
Give both sides counterplay.
Let kiting remain viable.
But remove the mechanically protected safe space that allows an engagement to be avoided indefinitely.
The ESS should create fights — not provide a playground where one side can decide that the fight only happens when it is favorable to them.
