Originally by: Tango Zulu

---

You speak as someone who has never experienced deep 0.0 travel. I trust based on your statements and corporation this is your main. If you get a moment, then please do this:

-Acquire a digital map of the eve universe without a sovereignty overlay, but with security statuses.
-open it in a simple imaging program. (If you're using a Microsoft Windows operating system, open your start menu and type "paint" into the search bar. Select the only option you should get, and when it opens, click "file," then "open." Find the file and double click it to open.)
-Using a pen(or brush) tool, draw a line around the first 5 systems in any direction outward from the center that show, after their name, the number *0.0*.
-Then, again with the same tool, pick your color of choice, and randomly click that area outside the amoebic-shaped ring you just drew, for about 3-7 seconds depending on how far into the future you're looking.

This exercise will have showed you what the sovereignty map will look like, if your concept of logistical nerfs were to see fruition.

Let's be honest, you'll go 40 jumps to ruin the day of someone who claimed sovereignty in your sector of the universe, but you won't go 40 jumps to source the minerals or modules for/of the 1600mm Artillery IIs you need to do it. This is because larger scale logistics are required for larger scale corporations and alliances.

What you think your proposing is a dissolution of blocs, what you're actually seeking is the dissolution of alliances in general. So long as there are people, where there are enemies, there will be enemies of those enemies, and they may as well be friends. Corporations bond together to form alliances, alliances form blocs. Corporations will still form blocs if there's no alliance mechanic, based on mutual interests, and agreement on what alcohol tastes best on Tuesdays.

Sovereignty will be held by the most powerful blocs still, and will only be however far people feel like reaching to live. And those people will control the trade routes to the outer areas, denying access to the smaller entities anyways.

And when people try to etch their name in space, they'll get it, but for the 4 days it'll take to take the system from them. Because even if no one wants to run from Period Basis in a Mammoth to get the Hydrogen Isotopes their jump freighter didn't bring enough of, You could hide in Jove space for all anyone cares:

Someone will still find a way to get there just to f*** your day up.

Edit: I'm leaving this up for truth, but I apologize for not noticing Disgruntled Flying Monkey's posts were obvious trolls. It took how blatantly off they were in TheMittani's thread for me to notice.

---

Originally by: Hyveres

---

I wouldnt go as far as removing JB networks totally but upping the fuel consumption and/or at least increasing their PG/CPU cost significantly to make sure that they cannot be on a heavily defended deathstar. Another idea I've seen but dont really like is restricting them to alliance only, it might reduce their impact on 0.0 but it blatantly favours bigger alliances.

---

Originally by: Dro Nee

---

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Could you clarify your points for me a little?

0.0:
So may I infer that, in your opinion, its not really a lack of goals but the lack of ability to attain those goals for some groups? You seemed to articulate the goals (better rats,mining, ownership)initially, but perhaps I misunderstood.

---

Quote:

---

Low:
Again you seemed to articulate some goals (pew pew without the "hassles" of 0.0) but then claim that there is no point. Is your argument, or what i interpreted in the 0.0 section, that the goals are too hard to achieve?



Also could you clarify your metric a little further? You mention that you know these problems are "fixed" when 1)there is a point/when people go to low/null and 2) those goals are achievable by small groups.

It seems that people already go to those areas and have goals for doing so, is your concern in 1) that there are insufficient people doing so? If so, then what would be the numbers you think are necessary?

Cheers!


EDIT- formatting

---

Originally by: Hyveres

---

The other huge downside with the current way 0.0 logistics work with JBs is that it links the entire universe to highsec tradehubs. Instead of 0.0 having its own market its all import/export.

---

Originally by: Vile rat

---

Originally by: Doggsbody

---

I actually thought that the rumours that NC and Goonswarm gad planned a massive campaign to claim all seats on the CSM were a joke until I read this.

Pitiful, depressing and shameless. Bad enough that NC / Goons have killed 0.0 alliance warfare through lazy defence pacts. Even worse that they're now manipulating the playerbase into voting them in to positions where they can control CCP policy to suit their own self-preservation.

Shame on you, Vile Rat.

The sooner this game is reclaimed by genuine players the better.

---

So I suppose I'm not getting your vote huh?

---

Originally by: Tehg Rhind

---

Supporting the removal of T2 BPOs is a remarkably dangerous position and one that I doubt any of the market community would support.

---

Originally by: pushedback

---

http://www.worsttattooever.com/

4 MORE YEARS! YEAH!

---

Originally by: Almgard

---

i think he is the most interesting candidate for this job...i vote him...and i hope that something finaly will change...expecially the dying mining, the part of the game that i love more than others, and its oppressed...

---

Originally by: Louis deGuerre

---

Edited by: Louis deGuerre on 16/03/2011 14:33:35
What's your position on microtransactions ?

EDIT : Ah, the hell with it, you got my vote.

/me facepalms for voting for a goon.

---

Quote:

---

Itæs important to clarify that virtual goods sales isnæt an arbitrary - or particularly greedy - decision. There is a constantly decreasing number of MMOæs out there that donæt incorporate virtual goods sales at some level. - games that aren't responding to this trend are dying out. Diversifying the business model allows us to offer our players the services and features they desire in ways that are conducive to how they wish to spend their entertainment dollars. The result is that we provide a wider range of options to our subscribers which, in turn, leaves us better positioned to react to future seismic shifts in the market.

---

Originally by: Helicity Boson

---

I'll be voting for you, and I've endorsed you on my little blog. (also I may or may not bully others to vote too)


regards,

HB

---