EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Sovereignty--Breaking the Chains

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Sovereignty--Breaking the Chains

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Mister Builder SSI-Holding's SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE	Posted - 2009.09.17 20:00:00 - [601] this is utter crap...here begins the death of eve and with dust coming aswell this mmo is well and truly ****ed...love who folks always wanna reward the mediocer
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.09.17 20:18:00 - [602] Originally by: LegendaryFrog Originally by: RevrendStyx Originally by: m3rb3aSt Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01 how about this idea! a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first. that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec. No dude. This would be too predictable. You know exactly where your enemy would have to be to take the next system. Which would allow you to prepare waaaaayyyyy in advance. I dun like this idea at all. It is a better idea to let an enemy dive straight into your most upgraded and central system and flip a station (locking most of your alliance out of most of their assets) during a single weekend? With larger alliances this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but what about small alliances who only have 10 or so systems, with only 1 in the center being upgraded and valuable. If they lose that one system on one foreign holiday where they have work and an attacking force does not, they should lose pretty much every asset they own? LOL. What a troll this is. So your saying its not fair for another alliance too swoop in and take your space while your not looking? hmmmm cause I swear goons got some guy to push a button and disband a whole alliance and they lost all the space they own. Goons not only took the 1 good system bob had but 3+ regions, while they were at work too. Sigh...I feel for the goonies troll. I fail ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROLFORL
Alisaadi Chorster Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.17 20:18:00 - [603] Will an alliance or corp be allowed to anchor a POS in a system that a none friendly alliance holds? Will a corp/alliance with a treaty be allowed to anchor a POS and receive upgrade benefits to there POS? Example would be alliance A upgrades there system to allow capital and super capital ship building. Alliance B signs a treaty that lets them anchor a POS in that system and begin to build capital and super capital ships.
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 01:23:00 - [604] Edited by: Josh Silver on 18/09/2009 01:23:24 Please make sure a decent 0.0 system will be able to sustain more than ONE active player at a time, tia. (this means instanced belt rats or WAY faster respawn, higher quality overall, more static belts.. anything really)
Sworn Absent GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 06:05:00 - [605] Originally by: Aralis WAH WAH WAH I DONT WANT ANY COMPETITION LEAVE ME BE
Phacia Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.18 08:13:00 - [606] Originally by: Amarr Roman I just wander if CCP will consider at lest parts from Aralis post. Just to ruin works of thousands people to see "just if works" is not an approach. CCP shuld read this, and more than this, to improve Eve, not to ruin it I hope CCP consider at least 80% of Aralis post. Just to remember CCP... please dont make EvE = Star Wars Galaxies DO NOT KILL THIS GAME!!!
Leon Vert	Posted - 2009.09.18 08:16:00 - [607] Originally by: Aralis horrified +1
Miklas Laces tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.09.18 10:22:00 - [608] Originally by: Aralis those who have invested in the past are being seriously punished now. Billions in excess pos. Massive wars waged for devalued moons. Stations put in the wrong place. We've spent what - a trillion isk - on stations to give ourselves constellation sov across almost all our region and as many capitals as possible - and now those features are to be removed Half of the things you train/buy/build/develop get nerfed at some point. ________________________________________________ CCP Claw > Sokata has been destroyed for boundary violation Drug Kito > Sokata you'll always be remembered as a noob in history of alliance tourname
AS0T	Posted - 2009.09.18 10:25:00 - [609] CCP take a look at Aralis's post and do it not just "yeah what ever".. don't try to make players in eve fight more, loose more isk, pay more $$$ (the ideea about paying for stargates it's below's a monkey's IQ). Improve EVE not ruin it.
Tiel Enim	Posted - 2009.09.18 10:53:00 - [610] Aralis is right, but at the same time i dont think anyone want sov working the way it is today... Everyone hates the POS-crap.

Charles Tyr Gallente Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.18 12:54:00 - [611] I agree with much of what Aralis says on this. Well summed up. CCP seems to contradict themselves a lot on the changes and their purposes. I for one am all up for new ways to have fun but this fun is coming at a huge cost which is a deterrence. Quote: I want to blow *%#$ up! No matter what happens, there will always be important things to shoot. The key is finding a balance between allowing smaller gangs of raiders to disrupt the day to day operations of your space against requiring massive battleship and capital fleets to actually remove you from the same space. Conquest of space in Dominion will differ greatly from what exists currently, as will the ability of roaming gangs to cause an æAFK Empire' no end of frustration. Just as raiders will be presented new opportunities to create havoc, aggressors intent on all out conquest will have to carefully weigh their plans and make decisions on what and where to attack first. Strategies that work in one system may completely fail in the next. Defenders of space in Dominion will have new ways of defending their space as well. These tools will not replace a proper defence force but they will provide new and exciting options which ensure that not every fight is the same and will reward investment in military infrastructure. source http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=691 why should raiders/pirates be able to disrupt our space dramatically (according to the blog) when already there are no tools to actually benefit the alliance in defending against these day to day pirates that pass through. And if we are to pay for the upkeep of stargates and enemies are free to use them without consequence (besides gathering a fleet) yet raiders would be able to come into alliance space and wreak havoc before a defence fleet is formed/makes it to the location. Will it be even worth living in 0.0 space if the day to day running is interrupted by pirates and the holders unable to make a profit.
Far Wanderer Gallente Dominium Brotherhood	Posted - 2009.09.18 13:09:00 - [612] Questions: To what degree will the new sovereignty rules apply (if at all) to currently sovereignty-less w_space? Are there any general ideas about sovereignty and w_space that have been discussed internally by CCP which can be shared at this point? Will the new sovereignty rules (if not the Dominion expansion in general) reveal more about the Sleeper backstory or perhaps allow players to manipulate wormholes themselves? :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Some ideas: (skip for those not interested in w_space) Since sovereignty and certain other aspects of regular 0.0 space activity are currently not available in w_space, are there other analogous benefits which can be made available to players who set up stations in w_space and attempt to improve the solar system they occupy? Could players improve a wormhole system such that they can afford to spend a fixed "mass budget" per day on any one wormhole they find that would allow for a very limited extension of the lifetime/duration for that wormhole. Maybe some sort of harvested sleeper tech that's modified at a POS to become an anchorable-near-a-wormhole, mass stabilizer that expires at some point? Could w_space players be allowed the option of manipulating the class of the next wormhole that spawns in their w_space? With some considerable effort, could players improve their wormhole system to the point where it perma-links with a low or null-sec system? Or scrap the lowsec part and instead offer the possibility of null-sec linking through a joint effort, where an alliance in k_space can choose to devote most of its system improvement efforts to linking with other alliance members who have actively improved a w_space system? This last idea might seem contrary to the inherently random and fleeting nature of wormholes. However I think it's one way in which players can finally expand the map (i.e. grow the sandbox) in Eve and bring true sovereignty to a wormhole system. Perhaps at this point moons would "unlock" in w_space and be available for mining? I think w_space tends to favor the home team. System improvements (with or without sovereignty) would seem to tip the scales even more. Can Sleepers be used to balance against or otherwise offset this home-base advantage? Maybe random, massed sleeper attacks on a corp's claiming module? Or once-daily missions required by players to harvest sleeper tech that is then used to "pay" for system upkeep? Or multiple wormholes opening in the system per day so other players have a shot at attacking or claiming some of the developed resources? Have a nice day and thank you for listening! :)
RedSplat	Posted - 2009.09.18 14:39:00 - [613] Edited by: RedSplat on 18/09/2009 14:39:42 Originally by: Charles Tyr I agree with much of what Aralis says on this. Well summed up. CCP seems to contradict themselves a lot on the changes and their purposes. I for one am all up for new ways to have fun but this fun is coming at a huge cost which is a deterrence. Quote: I want to blow %#$ up! No matter what happens, there will always be important things to shoot. The key is finding a balance between allowing smaller gangs of raiders to disrupt the day to day operations of your space against requiring massive battleship and capital fleets to actually remove you from the same space. Conquest of space in Dominion will differ greatly from what exists currently, as will the ability of roaming gangs to cause an æAFK Empire' no end of frustration. Just as raiders will be presented new opportunities to create havoc, aggressors intent on all out conquest will have to carefully weigh their plans and make decisions on what and where to attack first. Strategies that work in one system may completely fail in the next. Defenders of space in Dominion will have new ways of defending their space as well. These tools will not replace a proper defence force but they will provide new and exciting options which ensure that not every fight is the same and will reward investment in military infrastructure. source http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=691 why should raiders/pirates be able to disrupt our space dramatically (according to the blog) when already there are no tools to actually benefit the alliance in defending against these day to day pirates that pass through. And if we are to pay for the upkeep of stargates and enemies are free to use them without consequence (besides gathering a fleet) yet raiders would be able to come into alliance space and wreak havoc before a defence fleet is formed/makes it to the location. Will it be even worth living in 0.0 space if the day to day running is interrupted by pirates and the holders unable to make a profit. If your players aren't prepared to actively defend themselves they don't deserve to have space. If you cant defend all the space you currently have then abandon what you cant secure and defend what you can. CCP has been planning this for a long time, they aren't going to change anything drastically. Now you all just have to deal with the consequences. Originally by:* CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.18 15:02:00 - [614] Originally by: Sworn Absent Originally by: Aralis WAH WAH WAH I DONT WANT ANY COMPETITION LEAVE ME BE CVA would be NAPped to our more powerful neighbor -A- if we didn't want competition. Aralis is addressing inherent conflicts with what CCP claims to want to accomplish and the changes CCP is making. If CCP can successfully seperate logistical stability and the sov flag system, a lot of issues won't be conflicting anymore. But right now, all things "carebear" that would attract population density from high-sec are directly tied to sovereignty...and if sovereignty is meant to be inherently unstable, the density in 0.0 that CCP is looking for just won't happen. Human nature will keep people grinding high-sec missions for isk rather than investing time and effort in an inherently unstable venture in 0.0. Meanwhile, the system CVA currently has in place that CCP is apparently so optimistic about...CCP is about to turn it on its head and remove every mechanism that allows the system to work at all. I know it's fun to inaccurately summarize other peoples' posts in one sentence as a whine in order to quickly dismiss/discredit their ideas, but CCP needs to be addressing a lot of very real issues if they really want the vision they've shared to be realized.
Tiel Enim	Posted - 2009.09.18 15:03:00 - [615] Quote: If your players aren't prepared to actively defend themselves they don't deserve to have space. If you cant defend all the space you currently have then abandon what you cant secure and defend what you can. What you mouthbreathers fail to understand is that there is not a problem defending space right now, but there is a real ****ing big problem defending the industrials that are IN and USING that space. The only thing that works right now is to have moon mining POSs up and maybe one or two large scale "minerals-for-titans" mining ops. All other kinds of small scale industrial ops are doomed to fail in 0.0, leaving most of the population in EVE wondering why, since CCP give us all these new fancy 0.0 industry ships to play with, but no one is using.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.09.18 17:06:00 - [616] I, for one, welcome the new SOV system. All the established alliances will be thrust out of their comfort zone. Hopefully CCP will ignore their whines & tears and follow through.
Mr Bananas Minmatar Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 18:19:00 - [617] The only reason CVA has money on an alliance level is that they churn out supercapitals from behind the complete safety of their sov 4s. Because it is not the space itself that is valuable, and dislodging a sov 4 is such a thankless task, nobody has bothered to put a stop to it. CVA's cash cow loophole is being fixed. After this patch, their space will be worth taking, their CSAAs will be vulnerable, and their position relative to empire will make things harder rather than easier. No wonder their alliance leader is mad!
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 18:53:00 - [618] Originally by: Aralis Well horrified as I have been by the info about the Dominion patch my annoyance reached whole new levels of outrage when I read this: wordswordsWORDSWORDSWORDS cva is one of the oldest and most stable alliances in eve, and it hasn't ever come close to cascading as best as i can tell hrm Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 19:15:00 - [619] Originally by: Mr Bananas The only reason CVA has money on an alliance level is that they churn out supercapitals from behind the complete safety of their sov 4s. Because it is not the space itself that is valuable, and dislodging a sov 4 is such a thankless task, nobody has bothered to put a stop to it. CVA's cash cow loophole is being fixed. After this patch, their space will be worth taking, their CSAAs will be vulnerable, and their position relative to empire will make things harder rather than easier. No wonder their alliance leader is mad! Their motives for complaining might be suspect, but I think CVA have other reasons to be worried. While CCP claim to have been inspired by their success at populating Providence, the main reason for that has been the relative stability provided by the current sov mechanics. The prospect of grinding through a thoroughly POS spammed region full of cyno jammed systems and Sov4s to claim a region of mediocre truesec and little moon mineral wealth has deterred any serious invasion attempts, and so the residents have been able to feel secure that they aren't going to have their base outposts taken away and their assets locked up. Under the new system, that stability is being pulled out from beneath them whilst at the same time the ability to upgrade space once you've taken it makes Providence a far more tempting target, so in Dominion highsec players looking to move out to 0.0 might find CVA's offer far less attractive than it is now. Obviously we don't have all the details yet and there will obviously be ways to enhance the defences of a system with infrastructure (I expect that what we currently know as Sov4 will still do something), but it would be ironic if, in seeking to replicate CVA's model CCP managed to turn Providence into a ghost-town.
Mr Bananas Minmatar Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 19:26:00 - [620] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Mr Bananas The only reason CVA has money on an alliance level is that they churn out supercapitals from behind the complete safety of their sov 4s. Because it is not the space itself that is valuable, and dislodging a sov 4 is such a thankless task, nobody has bothered to put a stop to it. CVA's cash cow loophole is being fixed. After this patch, their space will be worth taking, their CSAAs will be vulnerable, and their position relative to empire will make things harder rather than easier. No wonder their alliance leader is mad! Their motives for complaining might be suspect, but I think CVA have other reasons to be worried. While CCP claim to have been inspired by their success at populating Providence, the main reason for that has been the relative stability provided by the current sov mechanics. The prospect of grinding through a thoroughly POS spammed region full of cyno jammed systems and Sov4s to claim a region of mediocre truesec and little moon mineral wealth has deterred any serious invasion attempts, and so the residents have been able to feel secure that they aren't going to have their base outposts taken away and their assets locked up. Under the new system, that stability is being pulled out from beneath them whilst at the same time the ability to upgrade space once you've taken it makes Providence a far more tempting target, so in Dominion highsec players looking to move out to 0.0 might find CVA's offer far less attractive than it is now. Obviously we don't have all the details yet and there will obviously be ways to enhance the defences of a system with infrastructure (I expect that what we currently know as Sov4 will still do something), but it would be ironic if, in seeking to replicate CVA's model CCP managed to turn Providence into a ghost-town. otoh it might turn into a completely balkanized pirate-topia, excepting a very small core set of systems that cva collapses to, though i don't expect they would be able to resist any serious attempt to dislodge them by that point ^_^

torN Deception GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 20:42:00 - [621] What about some sort of 'license' standing? I.e, a temporary standings change issued to a pilot/corp/alliance which only applies in certain systems/constellations/regions, and has the option to have the tax rate of the issuing entity apply to them when the license is active.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 21:21:00 - [622] Don't forget the fact that no one actually wants Providence because it isn't very good space. However, it'll be a lot more desireable once you can upgrade space. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Xiang Jiao	Posted - 2009.09.19 12:27:00 - [623] x up for provid-fense!
Wildcard Trek Caldari Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.19 12:52:00 - [624] Originally by: Mr Bananas The only reason CVA has money on an alliance level is that they churn out supercapitals from behind the complete safety of their sov 4s. Because it is not the space itself that is valuable, and dislodging a sov 4 is such a thankless task, nobody has bothered to put a stop to it. CVA's cash cow loophole is being fixed. After this patch, their space will be worth taking, their CSAAs will be vulnerable, and their position relative to empire will make things harder rather than easier. No wonder their alliance leader is mad! You Sir, Must truly be Bananas if you think the CVA hide behind Sov 4 churning out Super Capitals for any sort of profit. The CVA are not rich like the Alliances of -A-, Goonswarm, PL, B0B / Kenny / It, The CVA have never had any rock better than Hedbergite to mine, no rat until the patch were rats got a boost worth more than 950K, no R64s like that of Delve, Querious, Catch, and the rest. We literally live in the single poorest region of 0.0 in existance out of all of the 0.0. What makes Providence and the success of the CVA work is NRDS and the welcoming of the newer player to 0.0 with help and open arms instead of at gunpoint sending him back home. The CVA fight along side other great players that think that a meaningful kill(ie-a red hostile) is more important then an easy kill(ie-a noob). NRDS makes our pilots better pilots in my opinion since we only kill those that are prepared and looking for a fight then some poor noob who got lost so we can pad our killboard. Providence has for the longest time has been the most stable and populated region in 0.0, where everyone in Eve can come without fear and set up shop, and mine, rat, explore, join a defence gang to repell raiders, and immerse themselves in that sandbox that CCP so proudly braggs about. With the new changes, this is going to hurt everyone, not just the CVA, it seems more like a punishment patch for the spaceholding Alliances than anything else. The reason Providence works is simple, we dont allow you to shoot neutrals just for being neutral, everyone has a right to use the resources of the Amarrian Empire that God gave us to use. You dont have to pay any rent to avail yourself of Providence, your not required to X up and join any defence gangs, if you do decide to enjoy PVP you may only engage targets that are known hostiles, pirates, and terrorist that visit the area ( The KOS List). Trade is not restricted, refinery is not restricted, mining is not restricted, ratting is not restricted, plexing is not restricted, people have come to grow beyond neutral, blue, and red, and have become one big Providence Family. It is not about NAPs and Blues, it is about common respect for your neighbor, and common decency for the place you live. The market of Providence is almost as good of that in Amarr, we have several trade hubs in Providence where you can literally purchase anything. Living in Providence is probably the closest you can get to Empire low sec without actually going there. The mood, security, and stability is on that level. This patch from all acounts will just about destroy all of that. This patch is going to force everything industrial to Empire, it will cause Alliances to creat Alt Corps and Alliances just to build and sell thier wares. Super Cap prices will no doubt double and triple overnight with no one wanting to risk building them when Sov can be lost in a day, and jammers are no more. Nothing will stand in the way of a weekend war to kill Shipyards for the lulz of it, Nothing will stand in the way of a 20 man Titan driveby, with the ability to kill some Alliances Entire Capital Fleets in one engagement. And where will they be replaced from without stable 0.0 space and regions to build them? OOC: I personally see this patch as an Eve breaking patch where there will be no escape or return. My views are mine and not of my Corp and or Alliance.
Lrrp Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.19 13:39:00 - [625] Originally by: Normin Bates I, for one, welcome the new SOV system. All the established alliances will be thrust out of their comfort zone. Hopefully CCP will ignore their whines & tears and follow through. This from someone who more than likely never spent time helping a corp build up their assets, who never helped defend a area of space and whose most ejaculating moment was ganking a noob hauler in lo sec.
wizardz Caldari	Posted - 2009.09.19 17:07:00 - [626] Originally by: Lrrp Originally by: Normin Bates I, for one, welcome the new SOV system. All the established alliances will be thrust out of their comfort zone. Hopefully CCP will ignore their whines & tears and follow through. This from someone who more than likely never spent time helping a corp build up their assets, who never helped defend a area of space and whose most ejaculating moment was ganking a noob hauler in lo sec.
niroshido Caldari Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.09.19 23:14:00 - [627] Hello, i dont know if the following has been questioned yet but i have some questions regarding a few aspects of the new soverign system. As we all know, the face of claiming sov is been completely redone (and it sounds great), but the word redone comes with issues in my mind. Given the development of null sec within the past few years and how regions have changed hands from time to time. How will the new Soveriegn actually effect current space holders with the release of this patch? to simplify my question, an alliance has spent an entire year organising finances and setting up POS's to claim ownership, will the new sov mechanic wipe clean ALL the claiming done, as in will all systems in null sec excluding faction owned space (serpentis etc.) be set to no owner? The question above will also corrispond to the stations, will people find there stations on patch release to be open for capture? my next question regards the potential to "improve" systems. Regarding this are there stipulations excluding vast ISK and ownership blockading system improvement? lets say we have a station system. The station system consists of 24 belts, can we take 2 of those said belts and change them to icebelts?, can we litterally change the roids which spawn on those belts, and can we effectively alter what NPC spawns appear, both in composition and in size?. regarding these new markers, would i be correct in saying these "soveriegn markers" are purchasable, and in that regards are they supplied via Non player corp or will there be a blueprint to purchase from the given NPC's ? thanks in advance and hopefully the above is not something that has been questioned or written about.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.19 23:43:00 - [628] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Obviously we don't have all the details yet and there will obviously be ways to enhance the defences of a system with infrastructure (I expect that what we currently know as Sov4 will still do something), but it would be ironic if, in seeking to replicate CVA's model CCP managed to turn Providence into a ghost-town. This is my primary...concern? Observation? Something like that. CCP says one thing, but the changes they propose seem to indicate either different intentions or a fundamental misunderstanding of how their own game works (or rather how human nature manifests itself in their game.) CVA won't be the only space-holding alliance finding out what we're really made of when all this goes live. We've historically exceeded expectations...time to see if we've still got "it."
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.20 05:09:00 - [629] Originally by: Lrrp Originally by: Normin Bates I, for one, welcome the new SOV system. All the established alliances will be thrust out of their comfort zone. Hopefully CCP will ignore their whines & tears and follow through. This from someone who more than likely never spent time helping a corp build up their assets, who never helped defend a area of space and whose most ejaculating moment was ganking a noob hauler in lo sec. When was the last time someone "built a corp" and managed to make an alliance from scratch and take space from anyone? 0.0 is held by a handful of entities, most doesn't use their space and no matter what will never let new players let alone corps in. Nor can any new alliance take and hold space since the moment they do the r64 iskies steamroll them. Sure this is a super duper solution to you and all other holders. You will never be challenged and can have your personal little circle.. (well you know). However in the long run the system is stagnation and with a ever increasing population where more want to go out to 0.0 the current system doesn't work. The current system also rewards "passive" isk generation several times above active. That's just wrong. The current system means that all power rests in combat, while you might like that it doesn't make sense. Power should be in economy, economy should be built on active not passive income streams. "carebears" as they are called are seen as freeloading parasites and in the current system they are. This is wrong. Sure works for you with your oodles of iskies from r64s but it doesn't work with an expanding population locking people from 0.0. So the choice here is, screw over the holders a short while (you will adapt and hold most of what you do anyway or you aren't as deserving of it as you claim) but in the long run make 0.0 into a dynamic place where new entities can be formed and get space which will lead to more conflict and more fun.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.20 10:28:00 - [630] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal The current system also rewards "passive" isk generation several times above active. That's just wrong. The current system also rewards "passive" character progression via real-time skill training, also wrong? Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal The current system means that all power rests in combat, while you might like that it doesn't make sense. Considering that EVE is founded on blowing ships up, I would say it makes sense. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Power should be in economy, economy should be built on active not passive income streams. "carebears" as they are called are seen as freeloading parasites and in the current system they are. This is wrong. You seem to mistake EVE for SimCity, I think. The fact you see carebears as parasites is your opinion. They are as important as PVPers. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Sure works for you with your oodles of iskies from r64s but it doesn't work with an expanding population locking people from 0.0. How are they locked out? I see 0.0 corps recruiting all the time.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.