(...)

You don't need "standing mechanics" in the real world to know who's yor friend or foe.

Genius.

PS: CCP should ban anyone that makes a post about how null needs to be fixed when they post with a character with no null history.

Thank you for your support. Thought the real world knows friendly fire. I'm looking forward to have it ingame.

It's the playground of large coalitions. Most systems aren't used.
The coalitions brought the risk vs reward system to the ground. Where is the risk if most players there are blue to each other?

Remove the abitlity for alliances to set standings towards other alliances or corporations beside NPCs. Limit the available standing markers for Corporations below 10.

Limit the proliferation of Super Capitals, Titans and the ability to project power. The mechanics of Capital ships, Super Capitals, Titans, Jump Bridges and Cynosural Fields have to be changed.

The issue is not the large coalitions or the proliferation of empty space. There are a severe lack of things to do 0.0 and the core sov mechanic makes it tedious and boring for the average line pilots. Mix that with the potential for great moon goo income why would you want to risk losing it all to a rival power bloc when you guys can just bro up, secure your income and have fun bashing every one else with safety and impunity. Those who control the spice...

If 90% of the space was not worth crap, and moo goo was better dispersed, sprinkle in some other strategic combat options to take sov that does not require large fleets and then maybe, just maybe 0.0 will become interesting enough and rewarding enough to not blue up all your neighbors.

Remove the abitlity for alliances to set standings towards other alliances or corporations beside NPCs. Limit the available standing markers for Corporations below 10.

If only.

I'm not longer a residence of 0.0 with such a reduced play time so I reside in empire FW hoping to see some awesome changes to the sov mechanic in the future.

The underlying cause of all of this is CCP. They created mechanics that facilitate this current age of coalitions with no incentive not to de-homogenize the major players alliances.

You gusy never ***** about empty high sec systems, which there are a lot of.

What game are you playing... There is no such thing as an empty highsec system, there might be systems that are less populated, but there is ALWAYS someone online in any given system in highsec. Always.

The diplomacy stuff is fine, it's working as intended.

CCP gave us the ability to build corporatins with a few thousand members, and then ally those corps with other several thousand strong corporations.

...


Low sec is available for everyone who doesn't want to be involved in emprie bulding, but still want the small gang/ holding, and pvp experience.

I agree. I love the fact that I can pile into a system with 800+ other people shooting the poop out of each other. I appreciate the fact that CCP took the time to implement the hardware to facilitate this and then followed up with some TiDi to help the flow.

The issue I have with this is that I believe that myself and many people in smaller organizations or are now glimpsing threw the looking glass at the current situation want mechanics that favor creating coalitions out of necessity not out of convenience. Once the necessity is gone the mechanics would create an incentive to breaking the coalition and get people back to shooting each other. At the current it seems like the closest we have and 0.0 NIP's to stave off the boredom.

I could be mistaken though, this is just my opinion based on my experiences and I appreciate the fact that everyone may/will have differing opinions and views on the subject.

NUllsec main here...and even I have to admit, the whole "Sea of Blues" thing is corny as hell.

Null should be complete and utter chaos.

That's why I have to agree with the Highseccers who laugh at Nullseccers who complain about Risk VS Reward.

I feel safer in null sec than in low or high,and thats the damned truth.


...Just sayin. Null could be a lot better. All of this buddy buddy crap is lame.

I disagree.

it should be entirely based upon the actions of the players. CCP shoudl not enforce any kind of state on null. They give us the tools, and we use them to build our empires.

The "sea of blue" is no different then if all the NPC empires made peace.

Null sec is the player run version of high sec.
The entire point behind null is for US to decide it's state; not CCP.


Low sec is a warzone. It's where the 4 NPC empires are fighting over sov. Low sec is intended as the place of continual chaos through developer controlled state. The players only get to decide which empire the systems belong to, but don't get to control them.

There will be another war in null, and one day there will be likely a rather large one.
Untill then, anyone that wants a place of 'continual chaos" has the option to go to low, or shoot blues.

(...)

I'm not longer a residence of 0.0 with such a reduced play time so I reside in empire FW hoping to see some awesome changes to the sov mechanic in the future.

The underlying cause of all of this is CCP. They created mechanics that facilitate this current age of coalitions with no incentive to de-homogenize the major players alliances.

(...)
The issue I have with this is that I believe that myself and many people in smaller organizations or are now glimpsing threw the looking glass at the current situation want mechanics that favor creating coalitions out of necessity not out of convenience. Once the necessity is gone the mechanics would create an incentive to breaking the coalition and get people back to shooting each other. At the current it seems like the closest we have and 0.0 NIP's to stave off the boredom.

NUllsec main here...and even I have to admit, the whole "Sea of Blues" thing is corny as hell.

Null should be complete and utter chaos.

That's why I have to agree with the Highseccers who laugh at Nullseccers who complain about Risk VS Reward.

I feel safer in null sec than in low or high,and thats the damned truth.


...Just sayin. Null could be a lot better. All of this buddy buddy crap is lame.

All I'm saying is there should be more INCENTIVE for chaos, not for them to directly break up the coalitions. Just put the bowl of candy out there. Right now there is only incentive to form coalitions. There is no incentive for going rogue and going against the grain. It's All Bureaucratic bs.

Yes I want chaos. I want drama. I want betrayal. I want blood and guts. I want action. I want Medieval Europe.,,,without the Feudalism...that's another issue I have with null. A handful of nerds have all the say and that handful of nerds are best buddies so this "Kumbaya" crap starts from the top. Splintering is not an option because the chance of a new Alliance not being blobbed is close to nil. Either that or they join a coalition and the Blue circle jerk continues.

I love my guys in Test but the fact remains, to me, Null is the SAFEST space in EVE, and that my friend is Ridonkulous.

You should FEAR going into null sec. It's the lawless land. Your heart should pound every time you even THINK about crossing that line. Most of us? Man, my heart pounds harder when I'm in Empire.

Yes, you want "conflict drivers", as we all do.

There is a big difference between more reasons to fight and less ability to coordinate. The former is a good thing, the latter is a bad thing.