Originally by: Orosinii

---

Sovereignity
Once an alliance claims space they should be able to deploy poppable sentry guns and lock gates to all systems within a 2 jump range of an Outpost as long as they claim sovereignity of that system. POS's should be setup with a timezone (whereby they can only be attacked within that timezone) if the timezone needs changing the POS would need to be taken down and put back up again.
As a change to existing game mechanics POS's should only be able to be put up if an Outpost is already built by the Alliance within 2 jumps of the POS - (this will keep the amount of claimed space down) or if the Corp putting the POS up has +5 standing with the corp faction of a station within that system (e.g. Proteque Pharmaceuticals). Yes this would require a big change but is would open up 0.0 and allow space to be really claimed.

---

Originally by: James Lyrus

---

P


POS warfare, despite what many would say, I rather like. There's a few tweaks and improvements I'd suggest, but in the main I like the paradigm. Someone goes to the effort to build a home, and run it, it hardly seems fair that it's easy for the next vandal to come along and tear it down.

Stability is what lets alliances grow. I think that's a good thing. I don't think that 'raids' should ever be put out of the picture, but it remains the case that 'hit and run' is virtually impossible to counter, without 'boring gate camp'.

I also think that the current state of PvP is very much blob/counterblob. There's been a devblog about it, which means it's being looked at. But try flying solo around 0.0 in hostile space. It's very unlikely you'll find someone who'll actually engage. Because all too often at the moment, the 'solo' is actually the 'forward scout' and if you do engage, a fleet (or a mothership) will land in your face, and you'll get ganked.

---

Originally by: Riddari

---

I would love to know where I can go to rat for 2-4 hours to replace a t2 fitted battleship. Do you fit small tech2 weapons?

I would love to have a billion isk, nevermind several billions.

The filthy rich keep whining that "everyone has too much isk" while a lot of people are saying that they are scared to undock their shiny tech 2 ships becauses replacing them is wallet breaking.

So who has all the ISK? The whiners who says everyone has too much isk?

---

Originally by: Elve Sorrow

---

!=

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Originally by: Elve Sorrow

---

!=

---

I really wish people would stop using that.

---

Originally by: Jasmine Constantine

---

There is a strong argument that many of the current perceived woes of Eve are the fault of the veteran players. IFm not saying this flippantly, and IFm not going to accuse particular organisations and alliances specifically, but the reality of the situation is that successful players and player entities do influence the nature of the game. The developers play Eve, they listen to the forums, they listen to the opinions and desires of high profile corporate and alliance leaders and they do react to perceived aspirations and player ambitions.

Lets analyse the currently malady in Eve.

ItFs too difficult to get a reasonable fight without:

A) frustration from stabbed foes escaping.
B) outmatched numbers lead to no engagement.
C) gank vs gank no skill results.
D) simple inability to make oneFs enemies wish to fight.

Factors involved in this situation:

1. Lag tactics/perception of lag turns people off.
2. POS warfare is very dull and very laggy.
3. Tech2 ships are too expensive to lose to ganks and lag.
4. Clones are too expensive to lose to ganks and lag.
5. Bubbles and interdictors make ganking/clone death easier.

Resulting in:

1. 0.0 alliances tend to play indirect POS sovereignty wars to hold territory because itFs cheaper and more reliable way to hold territory claims.
2. New players stay out of 0.0 because itFs a virtual insta-death zone.
3. The server population has become more risk-averse due to the perception (mostly correct) that warfare in 0.0 is about numbers and lag and bubbles and isnFt any fun.
4. 0.0 pvpers get bored and ennui bound because combat is not accessible and challenging/fun any more.
5. 0.0 POS industrialists rule the world.

But how did this really happen?

Now IFm thinking that Oveur and his happy crew of devs didnFt really sit down one day and have a meeting about turning the fantastic player-led political free-for-all of Eve into a turgid satellite-spewing simulator to the exclusion of all else.

What I think happened was that the tTeam Ethosv from games like Battlefield and Counterstrike and online tclanv based systems game to roost in Eve. I think that successful players in Eve lobbied successfully for the game to become more tteamv and less tindividualv, more mandatory cooperation and less chance for individuals to achieve anything. We saw corporations rendered less important by the adoption of Alliance structure { we saw numbers become critical in fleet battles and fighting, saw expensive infrastructure and building items become essential and along the way the whole concept of Eve as telite next generationv got traded in for something more like one of those multiplayer space empire games about stats and weight of production.

And people liked this donFt get me wrong. Some very successful alliances and alliance leaders have gone on record as saying that the individual has no real place in Eve today. That teamwork, team orientation, big battalions are everything. Some people love the high end content that is only accessible for the elite of the elite and takes multiple-billions of isk to rollout. Some people live this game, they play 24/7, they consider it a replacement for their rl aspirations and are absolutely committed to the goals of their in-game organisation.

And its somewhat nanve to believe that this degree of obsession/fandom/enthusiasm, lets say, doesnFt infect and drive the priorities of the developers. Why is the corporate interface so poor? Why are corp standings still borked? Why do individual missions and items of single player content get shuffled to the back of the to do lists? Well, I believe the perception from CCPFs point of view is that all new content needs to be about the big power veteran organisations to be texcitingv. If your corporation canFt build a Titan it just means you arenFt trying hard enough. If your entity fails to take and hold a vast POS network in 0.0 it means you lack vision, arenFt dedicated, are rubbish at teamwork and generally fail at Eve.

---

Originally by: Elve Sorrow

---

New ships != content.

---

Originally by: HostageTaker

---

Use your brain and use your main! OMFG I just rhymed!

---

Originally by: Nebuli

---

Secondly, the incesent chest beating on these forums, from certain corps/alliances on their glorious kill/death ratio, this has also hurt pvp alot imo, and I know this is true, many times do you hear "well if we engage and lose they will just make us look stupid on eve-o with their k/d ratios" ,it happens all the time when fighting those certain corps/alliances, and you know who you are, good job.

---

Originally by: welsh wizard

---

I don't think anyone is disputing this Yazoul. We cant exactly storm CCP HQ's and change the way the game works can we? Your points are correct but lecturing people because they choose to make their voices heard doesn't really help.

If something about the game is rubbish you can rely on the Eve community to ***** about it until it gets fixed or is changed. This is every players right.

If you don't like hearing what they have to say I think you should take your own advice, leave the forums, don't tell them to leave the game which they have been paying to play for so long.

The wonders of free speech.

edit: grammar

---