|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
167
   |
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
papamike wrote:
The second evolution IMO was the introduction of a slave system where alliances began incorporating renters or pets to help finance supercapital programs.
Therefore the system of alliances owning moon goo cartels is by no means the 'traditional' allaince structure, nor is it the only way alliances can generate wealth to help subsidise pvp ventures. What you will probably see is a return to renter alliances and the need for larger pvp focused alliances to protect industrially based corps or renters incorporated into their space.
Yes, because a system where 90% of the population get shat on to finance the fun of the other 10% sounds like a great way to keep people playing. Theres a reason the feudal system almost died out and it has very little to do with Tech. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
170
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 14:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ponder Stuff wrote:I think the point is fun fights here pal, fights that require more than pressing fire when told...... your killboard suggests you love your allaince warfare and thas fine but 230people on one tengu mail is pretty fail. I note you have over a thousand kills but no killpoints..... why do you think this is..... we dont go join big allainces because once you can solo and small gang pvp big allaince stuff is really boring... its takes no skills only noobs with guns and spare time and in some cases a good fc. A good exaple of how fail big alliance warfare is in relation to smaller gang experts is what rooks and kings did to FA recently. FIGHTthere is more to pvp than you think so learn about all of pvp before assuming all pvp pilots are as fail as you.
Ahaha my irony meter just exploded |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
171
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 19:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Lord Zim wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Allies: get stuff to do more stuff.
Pets: pay for stuff.
vOv The most I would classify your allies would be "vassal" allies... And? Well the difference is the nature of how a true ally works vs. what you have setup... There is nothing wrong with it... ItGÇÖs just the way it works... I just donGÇÖt like you claiming you are any different then any of the other coalitions that have all risen and fallen in the past. When in reality you are the same just under different circumstances which allow you to be nicer and more lenient to your petsGǪ But when tech II production is fixed I would be shocked if you were able to continue the way you operateGǪ The only genuine people I have seen keep this up over the years are the Providence holdersGǪ
I guess if you conveniently ignore the fact that Goonswarm has pretty much always operated this way before tech was even a bottleneck. Hell, we only have tech now because we kept on good terms with TCF (an ally) instead of treating them like crap. I'm not sure what kind of relationship you'd like us to have with our allies but its certainly not going to be a democracy. At the end of the day you need somone at the top to make decisions or you're going to get your **** pushed in while you sit there counting votes. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
171
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 12:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
CeNedra wrote:Hi,
sorry for my english.
Why not give wh, the possibility of undermining the moons?
The wh are locked to everywhere, we can not put the station, we can not produce supercaps, we can not claim in the Exploration and is limited
Hey guys don't balance tech just give it to me instead of those other dudes thanks. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:Goonswarm leadership has been advocating for a Technetium nerf for a very long time - and now that it actually comes they are all mad about CCP removing valuable content from the game?
lolwut
I think we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels but I'd still be pretty mad if we started burning puppies instead. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
178
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:
... and when an anom nerf made truesec matter again for a few months the people who complained loudest about it (and eventually got CCP to buff the the lower-end CAs) were the same ones who cry that truesec doesn't matter anymore in this thread.
We're straying away from alliance income into personal pilot income here, and a lot of people would argue that the two should't be different (but they tend to be libertarians with no grasp of reality). The problem wasn't that CCP made truesec matter, it was that they made it matter so much that anything but the best truesec was worth less than high sec (that has no upkeep costs and requires no effort to defend). The ideal income graph would go highsec < lowsec < terrible truesec 0.0 < good truesec 0.0 but implementing that without completely reworking the Eve economy would mean nerfing highsec income and CCP have shown time and time again thats not something they're willing to do. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
180
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:UtamaDoc wrote:
it does nothing but promote blob warfare and although yes this game is incredibly social not everyone can spend 23/7 playing the game. Back in 2006 the game was exciting, there were things that small hit and run groups could do. Take a look now and everything points towards blob and alliance whoring memberships.
Blob warfare, the metagame and space Game Of Thrones politics are literally the only reasons to play EVE. Small gang elite pvp (tildes, tildes) can be had in every other game in the world, including Call of Duty, Halo, World of Tanks, etc. There is no other game that offers 2000 vs 2000 space battles. Strange to think, EVE could just be reduced to just 4,000 people playing it.
"Strange to think" perhaps but it looks like reading comprehension isn't your strong point either. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
181
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 09:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
Look at TEST, they can leave their space completely vacant and go invade a region dozens of jumps away because they know that they're making just as much isk now as they were before, and there is nobody stupid enough to drop the dreads necessary to take out any of their income sources.
I'd say rather that there is nobody smart or patient enough. Hit enough moons over a long enough period of time and Test will have to choose between canceling their deployment or losing some moons (or trying to keep two balls in the air at once at the risk of burning out their pilots).
Or do you think you should be able to half-arse attacking an entity larger and more organised than yourself and still win? |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
181
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 07:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
This is why I like my idea of giving some of that power back to the small gangs by letting the moon miners be attacked directly and giving them a small EHP tank so they can be incapped by small gangs.
This would encourage defense and allow for subversion of a big money machine.
No, it would encourage people to wait for the gang to leave then jump in a couple of carriers to rep it up. Shooting undefended structures isn't fun, shooting capital reps at structures isn't fun. All you get is a reduction in tech output (therefore an increase in price). |
Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 00:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
The problem with gate camps (other than the fact that you can't maintain them 23/7) is that there is no victory condition for the defenders that is fun. Either you fail and people get past you, or you succeed and nobody comes to fight you. Its exactly the same issue that people advocating a return to freighter convoys run into. On top of the fact that you have to maintain 100% coverage of your gates 100% of the time you have to deal with the fact that a single failure (or even a covert, nullified t3) will undo all your gate camping.
Requiring 23/7 gate camps is stupid much like demanding a return to freighter convoys is stupid.
As to your next point, even before Goonfleet held space my inbox was still full to the point that untl the (not so) recent evemail changes I couldn't even open it. Regardless of the notification issue its still easier to mop up after a small gang than it is to attempt to engage them before they ***** off back to where they came. You can't win against a small gang coming into your space, at best you just don't lose and thats not fun and it won't encourage people to go live in 0.0.
Most of the suggestions I've seen regarding the ability of small gangs to affect 0.0 have revolved around doing lasting damage but I'd much rather see small gangs do serious and wide-ranging damage for as long as they remain active with the effects disappearing when they logged off or left the sovereign space. That way you encourage people to actually come out and fight rather than tidy up afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|