Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Caerbanog Walace
Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:37:00 -
[271] - Quote
I agree with about 70% of the statement.
- Ocupancy-based sov Although severely undetailed I fully agree with the principle. I further support mechanics were conquering a occupied system is very hard but conquering an unoccupied system is trivial.
- NPC 0.0 in every region Agreed. Personally would like to see an organic NPC were unoccupied space reverts to NPC control so that there is both static unconquerable NPC and dynamic conquerable NPC. Station density and medical station distribution need to be addressed.
- Increased player density Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec. If a single system economically supports a whole coalition why even go anywhere else. I don't see the benefit. I do not reach the implied conclusion that this would free space for smaller groups, instead it will just free space for even more rental. I favor the opposite: finite system resources, but with a much smaller index growth inertia, so that a small corp within the alliance can easily get the index to livable standards in 1 or 2 days. Corp occupancy withing Alliance sov will increase small group identity and reduce the focus on coalition identity. I favor that alliances grow by taking more systems so that more corps can join and ensure that space is occupied. This will split fleets and staging points and help foster smaller scale skirmishes that only escalate as needed. With a huge staging point the routine is allways "Wait for FC ping, then we blob them". This is holding back the emergence of rookie FC's that like leading small 5-10 man fleets but shy from leading 100-200 man whelps.
|
Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:44:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP: Make the npc stations not accesible for sov holding alliances :D Make them make more alts if they want to keep caps in npc station :D Profit. Remove ships to lowsec if they join sov holding alliance.
Wouldn't really be surprised if they actually did this since CCP is all for making ppl use alts. More subs yay. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
427
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:53:00 -
[273] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote: Stuff
You worry to much about the use of NPC stations. They're pretty important for staging when invading but they have their own weaknesses. I guess you've never been hellcamped into one.
|
Jackhera
BAZINGA. The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:56:00 -
[274] - Quote
-1 Get rid of all positive standings and enjoy. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
740
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:04:00 -
[275] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote: Stuff
You worry to much about the use of NPC stations. They're pretty important for staging when invading but they have their own weaknesses. I guess you've never been hellcamped into one.
NPC stations as means for instant force projection is just a bonus, not my main concern. I agree that they couldn't be used in all situations, but they would help increasing force projection in some of them. o.0 |
Nienna Itinen
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:06:00 -
[276] - Quote
Dislike.
You are too lazy to fly in the current NPC-nullsec? Or you think that anyone would want to live near you with 23.5/7 undock camps? Maybe in first time yes, but I think this will be very-very short life.
In general, your proposal will not do absolutely nothing in the current state of the null-sec, and I find it hard to understand what you want to do with this change? Save your beds from future changes?
P.S. Sorry for bed english =(. |
Archetype 66
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
169
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:11:00 -
[277] - Quote
+1 nice initiative |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
730
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:12:00 -
[278] - Quote
Nienna Itinen wrote:Dislike.
You are too lazy to fly in the current NPC-nullsec? Or you think that anyone would want to live near you with 23.5/7 undock camps? Maybe in first time yes, but I think this will be very-very short life.
In general, your proposal will not do absolutely nothing in the current state of the null-sec, and I find it hard to understand what you want to do with this change? Save your sov from future changes?
P.S. Sorry for bed english =(.
Especially if you have NPC 00 areas in deep water Sov 00 like far eastern drone lands or deep Angel and Sansha space. As a neutral, you cannot reach these areas without cynoing in hostile sov space. So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. |
Aareya
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:16:00 -
[279] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints? Twitter:-á-á @AareyaEVE |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8374
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:28:00 -
[280] - Quote
What I dislike is the absolute surety people always have when it comes to a complex problem. Some of the same 'signatories' of this agreement were HAPPY to see Dominion SOV because they were sure that is would fix things.
People never seem to learn that what they think they want is usually different from what they actually want. Quote:In his TED Talk on spaghetti sauces, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the food industry made a big mistake asking people about their preferences and conducting focus groups. Gladwell says that GÇ£The mind knows not what the tongue wants. [GǪ] If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what youGÇÖd say? Every one of you would say GÇÿI want a dark, rich, hearty roast.GÇÖ ItGÇÖs what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want GÇö that GÇÿI want a milky, weak coffee.GÇÖGÇ¥
This agreement seems like the 'Dark, Rich, Hearty Roast' variety. These guys think they want NPC space plopped into the middle of every region without understanding the myriad consequences of such a suggestion.
They don't understand because when people "hate" something, they can see no good in it at all and this leads to "throw the baby out with the bath water" thinking. That kind of thinking led to Dominion SOV in the 1st place because people were so tired of pos bashing that literally "anything has to be better than this".
It wasn't lol.
The better way forward would be to look at the Dominion Sov system, see what works right, and build upon that. CCP following the suggestions in this agreement will only lead to ANOTHER Dominion SOV situation (especially after people start losing SOV in an activity based system because null sec is incredibly easy to disrupt).
|
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
730
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:30:00 -
[281] - Quote
Aareya wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints?
Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already". |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:57:00 -
[282] - Quote
All of that crap is directed by mittani and vince to make it easier for them to maintain their empires while pretending to create some content.
Oh just look at it, in 10minutes there were 30+upvotes from their F1 monkeys who were told to upvote this link and probably did so before they even finished reading it -_- |
Nienna Itinen
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:59:00 -
[283] - Quote
And another questions: What you promised HERO's for signature? You will not disturb them in their war against Provi? Or you don't kick them from their space? Or signed without the knowledge of theirs?
They has Stein at hand, why would they more NPC nulls? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8375
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:07:00 -
[284] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Aareya wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints? Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already".
I do not believe the 'conspiracy' nuts when they say that the null sec people are saying this because they want to gain something. I do think they (the signatories) are mistaken and not taking everything into account. One such thing is that npc null in every region VASTLY simplifies logistics, because now their is an npc station in EVERY region to jump through. no need to send in an unsafe cyno alt to a system you don't won if you want to move your cap fleet across the map, no need to use unsafe low sec routes either.
\Just hop scotch across npc null systems from one side of the map to the other. |
Levarris Hawk
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
107
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:13:00 -
[285] - Quote
Quote:THE SANSHA'S NATION WISHES TO EXPAND ITS BORDERS, AND 9HXQ-G IS ONE OF ITS TARGETS. THEY HAVE SET UP A MAJOR BASE OF OPERATIONS IN 3GD6-8 AND ARE SLOWLY DESTROYING ALL OPPOSITION TO THEIR FORCES, WHILE THEIR PEONS BUILD THEIR NEW STARBASES. THE BIGGEST HINDRANCE TO THEIR PLANS IS IN MY-W1V. A GIGANTIC MINING COLONY, ALONG WITH A TRADING HUB, IS LOCATED THERE AND THE INHABITANTS ARE EXTREMELY AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO THEM SHOULD SANSHA DECLARE OWNERSHIP OF THEIR SOLAR-SYSTEM. THEY HAVE ASSEMBLED A SIZABLE FLEET OF AMARR AND AMMATAR SHIPS TO PROTECT THEIR ASSETS, AND PREVENT THE SANSHA'S NATION FROM EXPANDING THEIR SOVEREIGNTY INTO 9HXQ-G.
So, the sansha's nation will finally be able to fulfill its wishes if this proposal goes through. Huzzah. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2405
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:18:00 -
[286] - Quote
Securitas Protector wrote:ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil! The Rules:4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. Can you please ask CCP to comment, I'm sure we're all interested in what they have to say. Rest assured I have done so. I am however unable to say If and/or when CCP will comment in/on this thread, as I frankly do not know.
ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Nienna Itinen
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:21:00 -
[287] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: I do not believe the 'conspiracy' nuts when they say that the null sec people are saying this because they want to gain something. I do think they (the signatories) are mistaken and not taking everything into account. One such thing is that npc null in every region VASTLY simplifies logistics, because now their is an npc station in EVERY region to jump through. no need to send in an unsafe cyno alt to a system you don't won if you want to move your cap fleet across the map, no need to use unsafe low sec routes either.
\Just hop scotch across npc null systems from one side of the map to the other.
For current signatories yes. They will have (at first view): - simple logistic - their caps will never be locked at one station (because they have NPC station at 2-3 jumps) - they will have some fun with pilots who try to live in this systems (camps/drops and other) - they don't lose current space with this changes |
Ltd SpacePig
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:23:00 -
[288] - Quote
ImYourMom wrote:please don't not listen to these people. all they want to do is
Point 1 , lose or use it translate to - we don't want to live there, but we want to charge billions more for rental space, this way by giving rewards it will do. Point 2 - More NPC space, see point 1, we don't want to live in sov because we want rental, however we still want to live in nullsec, and having more NPC regions means we can stick our assets away from nullsec and be protected but still be close to home, plus we can farm the hell out of them and get better stuff.
NPC sov should be moved COMPLETELY away from Nullsec, to MAKE the SOV alliances actually use the space. Yes create more but put inside where low sec is - something like highsec - lowsec - npc null - lowsec - highsec (think that like a target symbol)
Yes I do agree use or lose it, but I think this is purely for alliances to charge more rental not actually live there.
limit number of corps in alliances limit number of people in an alliance to 2000 limit number of systems alliances can hold limit number of stations limit number of blues alliances can only take sov in ONE region, and only 50% max of it. remove reinforcement timers, you snooze you lose, if your not in the system or surrounding areas then tough. If you don't have people in your TZ That's unlucky, go recruit some. make alliances USE the resources they have and REMOVE any passive income. remove alliances allowed to rent, sorry go make your own money, you want null, go work for it. limit number of capitals on a field, bringing 300 slowcats, and 1000 supers is just a joke, they can cyno more in when others drop. make missions pay more bring back more 10/10 plexes
Wow just wow.. just go back to your high sec mission or something.. |
Conar Balcos
ZERO T0LERANCE RAZOR Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:32:00 -
[289] - Quote
I would like to have a beer + Sounds good. |
Naco Dacella
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:36:00 -
[290] - Quote
Upvote |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13394
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:36:00 -
[291] - Quote
Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Nienna Itinen
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:43:00 -
[292] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game.
Quote: - they will have some fun with pilots who try to live in this systems (camps/drops and other)
|
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
208
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:03:00 -
[293] - Quote
+1
I have pretty much lived in all of Null over the past 11 years. Dronelands, the South, Period Basis, Pure Blind/Fade, Venal, Deklain and I think that the gist of this proposal is a great start.
With it broken down into parts, it can be implemented over several stages, they could even be sold as content, introducing a new "anti-rogue-drone" faction that moves into the east as they fear a terminator type wipe-out of biological life, hell, throw some event in the surrounding low-sec where rogue drones start spreading out with new ships, models and such, give the rogue drones rogue-ishtars, rattlesnakes, a version of every drone-boat, give the new faction anti-drone type ships and modules for players to LP up.
This could all be sold as reasonable content and features and be steps towards the ultimate goal.
Making sov based on occupancy can be introduce alongside the current system, introduce all the new features then phase-out the existing system. |
Aareya
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:07:00 -
[294] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Aareya wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints? Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already". When destructible stations are implemented (already announced @ Fanfest), the little guy will be able to enter the sov game and be able to safeguard some assets in NPC 0.0 before the "big guy" comes and possibly destroys their station. With the current map, small groups will just say "Nope, not for me".
The big guys already have their stuff in low sec, regardless of where on the map they are.
Twitter:-á-á @AareyaEVE |
Carl Stonewall
Dirty Old Bastards Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:07:00 -
[295] - Quote
Chopper Rollins wrote:Sounds like the shitlord blobs want to be fed tourists. -1, bad precedent, CCP getting nagged 24/7 anyway.
Haha your right on the money +1 to - 1 this |
Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:08:00 -
[296] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game.
We want to lose :) Yea now You want to lose it because they will nerf Your ability to hold it. So You want more in less systems to sustain big and abnormal alliance/coalition that wasn't designed to be in this game. You will lose it anyway - there is no point to reiburse You with more resources. You still want to have blob available but this need to change - massive fleets are what is killing eve - tidi and no opponents that can match numbers. Only way anything will change is to slice the coalitions to pieces. |
umnikar
Fishbone Industries
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:09:00 -
[297] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game.
...and then takin rent from them also?
Wait, are you saying there's not enough space for all the players? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:11:00 -
[298] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. We want to lose :) Yea now You want to lose it because they will nerf Your ability to hold it. So You want more in less systems to sustain big and abnormal alliance/coalition that wasn't designed to be in this game. You will lose it anyway - there is no point to reiburse You with more resources. You still want to have blob available but this need to change - massive fleets are what is killing eve - tidi and no opponents that can match numbers. Only way anything will change is to slice the coalitions to pieces.
You cannot host any alliance of any size if the system you own can support at most 10 people at a time. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:14:00 -
[299] - Quote
umnikar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. ...and then takin rent from them also? Wait, are you saying there's not enough space for all the players?
There is plenty of room out here, most of null is all but abandoned. We also would not be taking rent off these new alliances as we wouldn't own their space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:15:00 -
[300] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. We want to lose :) Yea now You want to lose it because they will nerf Your ability to hold it. So You want more in less systems to sustain big and abnormal alliance/coalition that wasn't designed to be in this game. You will lose it anyway - there is no point to reiburse You with more resources. You still want to have blob available but this need to change - massive fleets are what is killing eve - tidi and no opponents that can match numbers. Only way anything will change is to slice the coalitions to pieces. You cannot host any alliance of any size if the system you own can support at most 10 people at a time.
So that is why most of Your sov is empty ? This is why it is rented out? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |