Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tarsus Zateki
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
807
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:01:00 -
[91] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:...I am illiterate...
Fixed your post for you bro. You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
32
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:52:00 -
[92] - Quote
Another AFK cloaking whine? Get the **** out. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:03:00 -
[93] - Quote
Zadgul, you just mentioned some good points that need improvements and i do agree with most of your ideas in their large lines, however there's far too much other stuff that need changes so small entities are attracted by this little "skirmish" stuff we like and this means also some work on travelling abilities and docking possibilities (non the least)
But over all +1 brb |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
886
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Zadgul, you just mentioned some good points that need improvements and i do agree with most of your ideas in their large lines, however there's far too much other stuff that need changes so small entities are attracted by this little "skirmish" stuff we like and this means also some work on travelling abilities and docking possibilities (non the least)
But over all +1
The points to note about skirmish warfare, or the lack thereof in null is something I touched on with some of the ratting changes.
My thought process on speculating how this would increase lies in the change to local by making it so that you don't appear until someone decloaks after a gate jump. This is first step to make hunting more appealing and draw that crowd back out. As it stands, ratters are too slippery and have it too easy.
If you're going to do such a change that hits ratters, it seems fair we throw them a bone... so lets do a little something with cloaking so that it involves player interaction with their game. This would be to help counter the tears/threadnaughts.
Now, to attract people and have sheep to prey on, you need to have value in null sec. This is where my addition to Farms and Fields comes in. Sovereignty is based on activity and people would/should feel as though they are actually contributing. This contributing factor has rewards not only for the alliance, but also for the member. It gives you a reason to hold space, a reason to be active in it and requires more effort if you hold a lot of it.
I speculate if these changes were to go in that alliances would be discouraged from holding vast quantities of space and would reap more benefits by focusing on 1-2 regions, even for very large alliances. Anything beyond that wouldn't be viable or valuable. It would centralize members and it would kind of 'force' them to move around in their sovereign space due to the need to rotate your crops. If you rat in a single system for too long, you have the potential to raise your security status to the point where only ports (lowest anomaly in null sec) would spawn and battleships in belts would literally be non existent.
Overall, it'd be more attractive to be in null sec due to the increased bounty, but you'd always be playing the game of chasing the lowest security status system.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Nikodiemus
Jokulhlaup
49
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:52:00 -
[95] - Quote
I like almost everything in here but have to agree CCP will never boost bounties like that nor should they, the economy has enough problems. Everything is a very good and sound solution not found in the normal box of banter and BS thrown around so casually by people with too much skin in the game on one side or the other. I would say that indexes need to be properly thought out and well constructed with a focus on ships/objects destroyed as the other aspects can be easily manipulated. Good post, poast moar. |
Russell Casey
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
175
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 02:03:00 -
[96] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
Only mess with AFK cloaking after AFK mining has been fixed.
You could fix both with an AFK logout timer....except this is the game that rewards you for finding creative ways not to play. |
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
48
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 02:22:00 -
[97] - Quote
Remove local and afk cloaking is fixed.
Or
Remove wspace and tech 3s from the game as it cannot exist without cloaking. |
Rico Ramos
STARMINE inc Solaris Mortis
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:07:00 -
[98] - Quote
Your name shows up even in cloak due to you using the Jump gate. ...or at least thats how I rationalize it. Even when you dock and undock!
Or even if you logged in or out, you still came thru some kind of gate. Internet Space Ships is Serious Business |
Degren
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1889
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:08:00 -
[99] - Quote
Hmm Docking up to hold sov. || -áDocking up to hold sov. || -áDocking up to hold sov. || -áHOLY **** THEY ACTUALLY DOCKED UP TO HOLD SOV |
jimmy alt
Creative Export Black Pearl Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:30:00 -
[100] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Karmu Ivanostrov wrote:Ashmenda wrote:I fell Local should have been killed along time ago for null sec. If wormhole guys can deal with it so can the rest of eve. I cant shake off the idea that WH Space is how Null should have been from day 1 Removing local completely from null sec would make warping cloaked with a cyno horribly over powered and very unbalanced. The way WH's work and Null are COMPLETELY different, what works for one will not work for the other and all sides of the sandbox need to be considered. EDIT: Not to mention how horrible finding fights would be if it were removed. Local is also used to find hostiles to shoot. EDIT: The issue with local is that it's too easy. As soon as someone enters local, you see them and this is a problem. You should only see them if they decloak while you're in local with them. I'm of the opinion that if someone is cloaked in a system before you entered, they wouldn't show up. However something would have to be done to counter balance warping cloaked with a cyno. This concept in known space would be pretty horrible. Potentially adding a stat to covert ops cloaks that equipping the module increases CPU of cynos making them much harder to fit both. And if you did fit both, you'd have to completely sacrifice tank giving someone a chance to get out.
I have to say hot dropping random gangs would be foolish. There are prerequisites to dropping caps or even just bridging onto an opposing fleet. Local allows for control. Control being able to count out the numbers of the spyGÇÖd upon fleet, ship types, direction, who are there friends. As of now you get most of your Intel when a target enters local and you right click on their picture and show info.
Hot dropping or bridging your fleet onto opposing fleets is rare anyways. There only a handful of alliances or corporations that do this particular type of ambush pvp on normal bases. At the same time once you Titian bridge or drop a hand full of capitals on someone, that group tries to avoid you tell their friends, who tell their friends, who tell their friends who your cyno alt are and such, blaah blah. So the number of fights decreases significantly with this style of pvp. From personal experience in the big null fights I only see Titans wiped out for moving large fleets around during CTA's. You can send larger fleets farther for less the fuel then using the normal bridge network. |
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:34:00 -
[101] - Quote
Nice ideas, though I have to agree with the idea that AFK cloaking isn't a problem and thus doesn't need changes. It's an annoyance, sure, but certainly not worth changing the entire cloaking mechanic over (it's fine as it is).
Wait, I mean TL;DR GOON PETS SOMETHING SOMETHING |
Electra001
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:57:00 -
[102] - Quote
I would like to propose another alternative to the AFK-Cloaking problem. I understand that CCP encourage most type of gameplay, however, stopping people from playing the game because someone has left their character logged in while cloaked isnt fair.
Why not create the following:
As soon as you cloak, a 'Tachyon Signature' number begins and slowly climbs. When you warp to a new spot, that number starts again. However, if you stay still or even at subwarp velocities, your Tachyon signature begins to raise. Very slowly mind you...it would need to take at least an hour before you could be probed by someone with max skills in scanning.
Someone in a covert ops (eg. Helios) would need 4x Tachyon Scanner Probes. With these probes, similar to normal combat probes but designed to pick up Tachyon Signatures, you could probe down someone who is cloaked while afk.
It bothers me that CCP have let this problem slide for so long. How is it fair when people log on their pilot, cloak up and go to work for a full day...which impacts so many people. Give the victims a chance to counteract the antagonists.
Thoughts? |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 05:49:00 -
[103] - Quote
If the pilot is truly AFK the pilot is a threat to 0 people. Hence, not a problem that needs fixes or mechanic changes. |
Kheeria
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:00:00 -
[104] - Quote
AFK cloaking is like Schr+¦dingers cat, it's threat and it's not.
Edit: I love the poco idea, specially with Dust on the horizon. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:08:00 -
[105] - Quote
Quote:Here's my solution. AFK cloaking is a harassment tactic, it's fun! I do it and I encourage everyone to do it someday as it's pretty fun to watch ratting hubs for my hostiles decline in activity
Sorry but if you are watching you are not afk.. The truly AFK are not a problem or a threat.. please stop calling it that. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9021
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:52:00 -
[106] - Quote
Electra001 wrote:Thoughts? So now you've just broken all cloaks and their roles with your idea, let me ask you this. What about the extra intel you've just gained, on top of the already powerful tool you have?
Do you think this is a balanced approach?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
904
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 01:31:00 -
[107] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Quote:Here's my solution. AFK cloaking is a harassment tactic, it's fun! I do it and I encourage everyone to do it someday as it's pretty fun to watch ratting hubs for my hostiles decline in activity Sorry but if you are watching you are not afk.. The truly AFK are not a problem or a threat.. please stop calling it that.
I agree. However, I feel if I'm going to throw the wolves a bone by delaying local until a decloak, I'm going to attempt a compensation for the sheep by throwing them one also for ~something~ surrounding using cloaking as a griefing tactic.
As I said, I love doing it and it's hilarious watching current ratting indices drop like a rock when you do this. But the fact remains that it's a one sided tactic that has no counter or recourse. I think it'd be pretty neat for both sides to have a chance, even if a slim one, to kill each other.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Jett0
Surface Warfare Tribal Band
200
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 07:47:00 -
[108] - Quote
Thought these might be of use:
Nullsec Development: Rules and Guidelines Nullsec Development: Design Goals Occasionally plays sober |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
560
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:31:00 -
[109] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Barbara Nichole wrote:Quote:Here's my solution. AFK cloaking is a harassment tactic, it's fun! I do it and I encourage everyone to do it someday as it's pretty fun to watch ratting hubs for my hostiles decline in activity Sorry but if you are watching you are not afk.. The truly AFK are not a problem or a threat.. please stop calling it that. I agree. However, I feel if I'm going to throw the wolves a bone by delaying local until a decloak, I'm going to attempt a compensation for the sheep by throwing them one also for ~something~ surrounding using cloaking as a griefing tactic. As I said, I love doing it and it's hilarious watching current ratting indices drop like a rock when you do this. But the fact remains that it's a one sided tactic that has no counter or recourse. I think it'd be pretty neat for both sides to have a chance, even if a slim one, to kill each other.
The fuel idea for cloak is bad for specialised ships however the idea of giving a very long cycle to those mods would be interesting imho, provided travelling wouldn't be affected by the cycle (gate/wh/bridge jumping). One would have to be in front of his computer and hit cloak once cycle finished, for instance a 30min cycle with 5 sec recharge, but then we'd have a problem for travelling for these specialised ships and I don't think it's very easy to code this thing without nerfing those to the ground with this simple change.
Maybe some new mod on a specialised destroyer (new ship is always good, people love new ships) with some kind of radius depending on spec skill offering some kind of % of uncloak whatever ship in said radius (50km seems quite OP to me but less would be insignificant) brb |
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 14:56:00 -
[110] - Quote
Ki're Suahien wrote:Any mechanic that lets you influence your enemy (whether they be ratting, missioning, mining, small gang or fleet pvp) while you aren't actively playing is enormously stupid; end of story.
Would be inclined to agree if you could prove they were AFK as opposed to very patient or running multiple alts. Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
917
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 22:31:00 -
[111] - Quote
BoBoZoBo wrote:Ki're Suahien wrote:Any mechanic that lets you influence your enemy (whether they be ratting, missioning, mining, small gang or fleet pvp) while you aren't actively playing is enormously stupid; end of story.
Would be inclined to agree if you could prove they were AFK as opposed to very patient or running multiple alts.
Putting a fuel requirement or timer that was randomized on that cloak would prove it.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
367
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:36:00 -
[112] - Quote
Good ideas Zagdul.. nice start to the discussion.
I have some problems to add - from a "just a grunt in the alliances" standpoint taht I think needs addressed more than anything
Time Required What about those of us that cannot log in every day? or even every other day? Most alliances tell us the fack off. Having a life and living in 0.0 are incompatible in my experience.. and going on a fleet op with less than 5 hours to stay on eve? yeah.. not going to happen.
my wife HATES it when i join 0.0, and my physical health suffers (i stop hitting the gym/mountains as much)
Rich Alliance, Poor Grunts Alliance rakes in the dough - grunts have to rat/mine to make money (which to a certain extent is fine) .. but in the time invested to fund PVP was too much.. especially considering how money flush the 0.0 alliance i was in was.
but then, maybe our ship reimbursement program just sucked nuts :P If you don't see a problem in 0.0 eroding into two big super-coalitions and a few hangers on in areas nobody cares about.. then you don't have brains. |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
57
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 03:41:00 -
[113] - Quote
Thread has had a little clean up work done on it, all in all seems you have a great discussion going on here
Inappropriate wording removed from thread - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
918
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:47:00 -
[114] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Good ideas Zagdul.. nice start to the discussion.
I have some problems to add - from a "just a grunt in the alliances" standpoint taht I think needs addressed more than anything
Time Required What about those of us that cannot log in every day? or even every other day? Most alliances tell us the fack off. Having a life and living in 0.0 are incompatible in my experience.. and going on a fleet op with less than 5 hours to stay on eve? yeah.. not going to happen.
my wife HATES it when i join 0.0, and my physical health suffers (i stop hitting the gym/mountains as much)
Rich Alliance, Poor Grunts Alliance rakes in the dough - grunts have to rat/mine to make money (which to a certain extent is fine) .. but in the time invested to fund PVP was too much.. especially considering how money flush the 0.0 alliance i was in was.
but then, maybe our ship reimbursement program just sucked nuts :P The thing is, game mechanics in EVE reward time. It's the nature of the beast and very few things will be able to change this, it's true for empire or null sec.
The difference between null sec entities and empire is that Alliances, or corporations for that matter, hire you in to support the space. We don't have 'concord' in null. It's up to each warm body behind a computer to provide security or defend. Therefore when you chose to take up null sec life as your style of gameplay in EVE, you have to make some sacrafices.
Now, just like with choosing what aspect of EVE you wish to enjoy, choosing an entity in EVE online who caters to your playstyle is also important. For example, in my alliance there are multiple corps who all have different atmospheres. Each corp is asked simply to contribute towards the betterment of the alliance and they are all required to bring ~something~ to the table for the ultimate goal of power, isk and control of space. How the corp chooses to contribute and devote their time, I just ask that their contribution is on par with what everyone else brings to the table. Many null sec entities operate in this fashion, so lumping all of 0.0 life into a time sink, or lack of fun sink is just not an accurate assessment. It's very possible, you just never got into the proper corporation who supported your playstyle.
To address the concern with Rich Alliances / Poor Grunts, this can't be more accurate. As it stands right now, there is very little, if any benefit to a grunt participating in the betterment of an alliance and this isn't because null sec alliances aren't trying. It's because the majority of isk sinks which are incurred are done in null sec. Sov bills are a huge sink. Not to mention the sheer costs of being an effective null sec alliance. The amount of isk involved is astronomical and so far, CCP has done nothing to make it easier, only more expensive with less forms to generate new isk for null sec. For empire, it pretty much remains static, however for the people in null sec, unless you're an organization who can compensate losses during wars, you're really not able to stand on your own as a Grunt. This is why my ideas for improving sov and the rewards for inhabiting it begin to take form as a positive way for individuals to feel as though they are contributing in a positive way while increasing their income.
Even PVPers help.
It's very much a top down way of distributing isk and alliances are forced to tax members simply to survive. It costs my alliance roughly 150b a month just to operate on a daily basis.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
380
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:01:00 -
[115] - Quote
Zagdul wrote: The thing is, game mechanics in EVE reward time. It's the nature of the beast and very few things will be able to change this, it's true for empire or null sec.
the game mechanics in any MMO reward time.. the problem with eve is sometimes the continuous time blocks you must put in are too large [10 hour fleet ops for 10 minutes of combat SUCK]
Zagdul wrote:
The difference between null sec entities and empire is that Alliances, or corporations for that matter, hire you in to support the space. We don't have 'concord' in null. It's up to each warm body behind a computer to provide security or defend. Therefore when you chose to take up null sec life as your style of gameplay in EVE, you have to make some sacrafices.
Then the alliance should be reimbursing pilots for ships lost in defense ops - whether or not they're official defense ops.
Zagdul wrote:
Now, just like with choosing what aspect of EVE you wish to enjoy, choosing an entity in EVE online who caters to your playstyle is also important. For example, in my alliance there are multiple corps who all have different atmospheres. Each corp is asked simply to contribute towards the betterment of the alliance and they are all required to bring ~something~ to the table for the ultimate goal of power, isk and control of space. How the corp chooses to contribute and devote their time, I just ask that their contribution is on par with what everyone else brings to the table. Many null sec entities operate in this fashion, so lumping all of 0.0 life into a time sink, or lack of fun sink is just not an accurate assessment. It's very possible, you just never got into the proper corporation who supported your playstyle.
it's possible.. for now i'm dicking around in RvB until i burn throught the ships i bought for this purpose. then i'm going to go isk ***** for a bit and figure out what i want to do.
Zagdul wrote:
To address the concern with Rich Alliances / Poor Grunts, this can't be more accurate. As it stands right now, there is very little, if any benefit to a grunt participating in the betterment of an alliance and this isn't because null sec alliances aren't trying. It's because the majority of isk sinks which are incurred are done in null sec. Sov bills are a huge sink. Not to mention the sheer costs of being an effective null sec alliance. The amount of isk involved is astronomical and so far, CCP has done nothing to make it easier, only more expensive with less forms to generate new isk for null sec. For empire, it pretty much remains static, however for the people in null sec, unless you're an organization who can compensate losses during wars, you're really not able to stand on your own as a Grunt. This is why my ideas for improving sov and the rewards for inhabiting it begin to take form as a positive way for individuals to feel as though they are contributing in a positive way while increasing their income.
Even PVPers help.
It's very much a top down way of distributing isk and alliances are forced to tax members simply to survive. It costs my alliance roughly 150b a month just to operate on a daily basis.
yeah they're trying to use cost of sov as a way to control sov size. it will never work. just put a ******* hardlimit on how many systems you can have sov over and be done with it. more entities in 0.0 means more drama => more war. If you don't see a problem in 0.0 eroding into two big super-coalitions and a few hangers on in areas nobody cares about.. then you don't have brains. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
918
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:36:00 -
[116] - Quote
Denidil wrote: the game mechanics in any MMO reward time.. the problem with eve is sometimes the continuous time blocks you must put in are too large [10 hour fleet ops for 10 minutes of combat SUCK]
I've never been forced into 10 hour ops unless I chose to. This is a gross exaggeration. Not to mention that it's impossible to force an enemy to fight. In my coalition, we encourage time limits on our fleet ops and focus on a wide vareity of timezone recruitment so that we have better coverage and better flash formups.
Our objective is to formup in 15-20 minutes max, be on field within 10, and complete the objective as quickly as possible to get people home. Every coalition, alliance, corp is different however and some people are far more demanding of their pilots. Again, I think you just chose the wrong group of people to fly with.
Denidil wrote: Then the alliance should be reimbursing pilots for ships lost in defense ops - whether or not they're official defense ops.
Any competent alliance does. The question isn't wheather an alliance should or shouldn't, it's that it's a requirement for member retention. How that isk is generated is many times taxed on to the member base, not the alliance due to the way income is primarily generated in null sec (hint: moon goo) making most efforts that to support only a greater entity, instead of a two way street.
Denidil wrote: it's possible.. for now i'm dicking around in RvB until i burn throught the ships i bought for this purpose. then i'm going to go isk ***** for a bit and figure out what i want to do. [quote=Zagdul]The problem is that current efficient ways to generate isk in this particular MMO are encouraged by solo behavior due to penalties for being in a group.
[quote=Denidil] yeah they're trying to use cost of sov as a way to control sov size. it will never work. just put a ******* hardlimit on how many systems you can have sov over and be done with it. more entities in 0.0 means more drama => more war.
Hard limits on how many systems an alliance can hold is a horrible idea. That removes the sandbox in that if I want to have a powerful large space empire, I can. You suggesting to remove that doesn't support this playstyle.
Instead, encourage alliances to not want vast swaths of space because maintaining it is more of a hassle. As it stands, isk costs aren't a valid deterrent, it's actually an incentive to take more. The way to do this is by making smaller areas more valuable but challenging to maintain. The amount of warm bodies behind the computer will become more of a factor in how much space is manageable for an alliance rather than simply their military might. Smart entities can fortify their space and make challenging space difficult.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
381
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:29:00 -
[117] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Denidil wrote: yeah they're trying to use cost of sov as a way to control sov size. it will never work. just put a ******* hardlimit on how many systems you can have sov over and be done with it. more entities in 0.0 means more drama => more war.
Hard limits on how many systems an alliance can hold is a horrible idea. That removes the sandbox in that if I want to have a powerful large space empire, I can. You suggesting to remove that doesn't support this playstyle. Instead, encourage alliances to not want vast swaths of space because maintaining it is more of a hassle. As it stands, isk costs aren't a valid deterrent, it's actually an incentive to take more. More space = more available moons = more income. The way to do this is by making smaller areas more valuable but challenging to maintain. The amount of warm bodies behind the computer will become more of a factor in how much space is manageable for an alliance rather than simply their military might. Smart entities can fortify their space and make challenging space difficult.
hard limit on sov size is a stop gap until they can re-implement the sov system from scratch to be something that encourages many small, and a few moderate/large, organizations in null.
make holding sov require a activity in systems, and make it worthwhile. once we can pos-spam to our hearts content (see CSM minutes about removing 1 moon=1 pos limit) change the sov mechanics to require mining (ice/ore + ring), combat (ratting/pve of some nature), and some sort of "tower activity index" (ie stuff done at poses) or something.
ie made SOV based on activity in the system, not "we shat a 150m ISK module with double reinforce timers down".
If you don't see a problem in 0.0 eroding into two big super-coalitions and a few hangers on in areas nobody cares about.. then you don't have brains. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
920
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 19:42:00 -
[118] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Zagdul wrote:Denidil wrote: yeah they're trying to use cost of sov as a way to control sov size. it will never work. just put a ******* hardlimit on how many systems you can have sov over and be done with it. more entities in 0.0 means more drama => more war.
Hard limits on how many systems an alliance can hold is a horrible idea. That removes the sandbox in that if I want to have a powerful large space empire, I can. You suggesting to remove that doesn't support this playstyle. Instead, encourage alliances to not want vast swaths of space because maintaining it is more of a hassle. As it stands, isk costs aren't a valid deterrent, it's actually an incentive to take more. More space = more available moons = more income. The way to do this is by making smaller areas more valuable but challenging to maintain. The amount of warm bodies behind the computer will become more of a factor in how much space is manageable for an alliance rather than simply their military might. Smart entities can fortify their space and make challenging space difficult. hard limit on sov size is a stop gap until they can re-implement the sov system from scratch to be something that encourages many small, and a few moderate/large, organizations in null. make holding sov require a activity in systems, and make it worthwhile. once we can pos-spam to our hearts content (see CSM minutes about removing 1 moon=1 pos limit) change the sov mechanics to require mining (ice/ore + ring), combat (ratting/pve of some nature), and some sort of "tower activity index" (ie stuff done at poses) or something. ie made SOV based on activity in the system, not "we shat a 150m ISK module with double reinforce timers down". Hard limits solve nothing. If they implemented it, I'd just create holding alliances to manage the space I want to hold.
Hard limits =/= sandbox.
What you are suggesting are band-aids for things YOU think are broken without considering other playstyles.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |