Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.

Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.

This is actually one of the less horrible suggestions I've ever seen along these lines. It might actually even be good, I'm not sure.

Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.

One thing I read a lot on these forums is people complaining that nullsec sucks because small groups are at a disadvantage to larger groups in combat merely because of size. Now ignoring the fact that there are ways to mitigate this, I'm curious about a few things.

You say that larger groups should not have an advantage over smaller groups by virtue of their size. First of all, this is not something you can just change because it's basic tactics that larger groups generally overpower smaller ones. This is not some variable CCP developers can go into the code and set "smallerFleetsHaveAdvantage=1;".

Furthermore, even if they could somehow force a mechanic to nullify the advantage that larger groups have over smaller ones in combat, why SHOULD they? That's basically sending a message that "we don't want you to cooperate in large groups, smaller groups are better." Where would they draw the line, anyway? Who's to decide what size of a group is "good" and what size is "bad"?

you take the wrong side of the question...

we live in null and quite successful in small numbers, my ceptor alt was active for like 2 days in delve and killed 20 goon test razor pilot while lost an empty travel frig only, nothing in combat. the problem is, they still won the war. nobody will ever be able to compete with those, so there are 2 choices, lick an ass or leave. i can go there alone and live and get plenty of kills, but i cant build a stable background to start my roams from and earn my isk to buy and fit my ships, you can just live there, while they want you to live there, cos if that fleet start to move, you have no any chance to stop it... especially if they have unlimited range to hotdrop anywhere in the universe

we live in null and quite successful in small numbers, my ceptor alt was active for like 2 days in delve and killed 20 goon test razor pilot while lost an empty travel frig only, nothing in combat. the problem is, they still won the war. nobody will ever be able to compete with those

so there are 2 choices, lick an ass or leave. i can go there alone and live and get plenty of kills, but i cant build a stable background to start my roams from and earn my isk to buy and fit my ships

you can just live there, while they want you to live there, cos if that fleet start to move, you have no any chance to stop it... especially if they have unlimited range to hotdrop anywhere in the universe

The value of in-fleet broadcasts for target calling, anchor setting, remote repping, etc. is significant, and so splitting a fleet up could actually put you at a disadvantage. Depends on the break-points, basically, and how severe the penalty would be for increasingly large fleets.

Some number crunching would be necessary to figure out if it'd actually be a good idea or not. But it's got more potential than most suggestions I've seen.


You seem to be saying that you, as an individual, should be able to live amongst and compete against those who have chosen to live and work cooperatively. To be able to, as an individual, have the impact of an opposing corp or alliance, without having to actually be in one.

Sorry you think this is a single player game?

Only thing scarrier than a well disciplined organized small group is a well disciplined organized swarm......

you fail to adapt and overcome you deserve to be fodder that feeds the machine.

What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?

Organization of that many small fleets is actually a giant pain in the ass.

I have a hard time seeing how you would make a system that scales from solo to fleet pvp, without giving the large groups easy exploitable options. If it was possible to make a system that could nullify the advantage of numbers, it would also make pvp a lot more predictable and most likely more boring.

If you can organize a large fleet and keep them disciplined and well organized you should be able to reap the rewards. Regardless, if your targets are in large numbers or small.

It's not trying to nullify the advantage of numbers, though, or rather not overtly. 200 pilots receiving a 50% boost (indeed, any boost at all) is still a larger overall boost than (say) 100 pilots receiving a 100% boost.

It's an element that other suggestions along those lines should have. Something like that suggestion is good. "Put SBUs in deadspaces that only let 50 pilots from the sovereignty holder in" or something along those lines is bad. Big difference in the style of suggestion.

Only thing scarrier than a well disciplined organized small group is a well disciplined organized swarm.

There should be no mechanics to support smaller fleets over larger fleets.

If you can organize a large fleet and keep them disciplined and well organized you should be able to reap the rewards. Regardless, if your targets are in large numbers or small.

You can't penalized imergent play just because you don't want to adapt. If everyone around you is adapting to circumstance to best you, and you fail to adapt and overcome you deserve to be fodder that feeds the machine.

You seem to be saying that you, as an individual, should be able to live amongst and compete against those who have chosen to live and work cooperatively. To be able to, as an individual, have the impact of an opposing corp or alliance, without having to actually be in one.

Sorry you think this is a single player game?

It's not trying to nullify the advantage of numbers, though, or rather not overtly. 200 pilots receiving a 50% boost (indeed, any boost at all) is still a larger overall boost than (say) 100 pilots receiving a 100% boost.

It's an element that other suggestions along those lines should have. Something like that suggestion is good. "Put SBUs in deadspaces that only let 50 pilots from the sovereignty holder in" or something along those lines is bad. Big difference in the style of suggestion. Whether "make smaller better" should happen at all is a separate consideration - if people want it to happen, suggestions along those lines should be sane.

Ship restricted space is a viable idea!!!

We have ship restricted acceleration gates why not whole sectors? ::This warp gate is only designed for frig/destroyer/cruiser class only::. We can even make one just for caps as well.

Please no.

Ship restricted space is a viable idea!!!

We have ship restricted acceleration gates why not whole sectors? ::This warp gate is only designed for frig/destroyer/cruiser class only::. We can even make one just for caps as well.

Expressed in FW and missions it makes sense. You're attacking (or defending) areas whose owners have specifically structured them to block entry by ships of a certain size. Why would independent capsuleer alliances want to do that though?

And that's nevermind the fact that it doesn't actually do anything to promote the idea of "make smaller better" anyway. We'll just blob you with frigates instead!

One thing I read a lot on these forums is people complaining that nullsec sucks because small groups are at a disadvantage to larger groups in combat merely because of size...

I would like to see more ways for smaller groups to disrupt larger ones.

Being able raid an opponent and make off with some valuable product would be great. Give the defenders time to mount a defense fleet, but not neccessarily form up a 200 man blob.

Encourage small raiding groups by giving rapidly diminishing loot/product returns as you add more ships to the raid. This also encourages larger groups to spread out their operations if they are capable of fielding hundreds of capsuleers.

There needs to exist some level of combat beyond "killing ratters if you can catch them" and "sov warfare", which is basically everything else.

What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?

This is probably the core of the problem. We shouldn't be looking for a way for a 100 man fleet to fight a 200 man fleet. We should look for ways for a 100 man fleet to fight a 100 man fleet, and make it matter.

Why does CCP even need to get involved?

I've seen plenty of small groups and even solo'ers do fine in null without needing CCP to step in (UK campaign in CVA space, 'nuff said). They fit these things called cloaks and actually avoid fighting the mega-blobs/camps sent after them and occassionally get kills on unwary lone or small grouped targets.

Unfortunately a lot of this is completely eliminated thanks to the ever-present Instant Information curse in EVE.

One thing I read a lot on these forums is people complaining that nullsec sucks because small groups are at a disadvantage to larger groups in combat merely because of size. Now ignoring the fact that there are ways to mitigate this, I'm curious about a few things.

You say that larger groups should not have an advantage over smaller groups by virtue of their size. First of all, this is not something you can just change because it's basic tactics that larger groups generally overpower smaller ones. This is not some variable CCP developers can go into the code and set "smallerFleetsHaveAdvantage=1;".

Furthermore, even if they could somehow force a mechanic to nullify the advantage that larger groups have over smaller ones in combat, why SHOULD they? That's basically sending a message that "we don't want you to cooperate in large groups, smaller groups are better." Where would they draw the line, anyway? Who's to decide what size of a group is "good" and what size is "bad"?

goon pet monkey.

What might that be?

What might that be?

I believe the phrase is: "Nerf Local".

sshhh... you speak of the nerf which must not be named.

Revamping the d-scanner so it picks up signature signals which could be players/anomalies/whatever which the player then have to try and identify and approach in order to get more detailed information is the way to go. And of course increasing the chances of being detected yourself if you rely too much on the d-scan (if you for instance have passive/active scan settings).

Please don't, i already spend more time then i like trying to find someone willing to blow up my ship. There is really no need to complicate the process even more, with endless amount of scanning.

Make it a null only feature, i have no problem with people wanting to play ninja in the backyard, but there is no reason everyone should be forced to do it.

The main problem isn't the efficiency of small gangs vs. large ones but the lack of any meaningful objectives for small gangs.

A smaller gang of comparable ships should always lose when engaged by a bigger gang (assuming the FCs and pilots being on par), but there's hardly a siutuation where a small gang would be the better tool for accomplishing a task than a blob.

In RL (yes - bad reference when it comes to internet spaceships), using a small task force offers huge advantages in terms of cost, logistics, flexibility and maneuverability. Eve mitigates these advantages to a large extent and even if there are things that may be accomplished with a small gang, there's no reason to not bring a blob and achieve the same thing faster and easier if you can muster it.

A small gang would be preferred if you for instance want to quickly go behind enemy lines, attack industrial ships and then fly off. A big blob would be quite more noticeable.

Well - and what would be the downside of just bridging in a blob on top of them? You kill them quicker, the likelihood of someone getting away is smaller and if the blob is big enough, you could care less if you're noticed or not because the defender can do jack about it.

Yes - you need to muster them, but if you have a bored blob and a titan at your disposal, there's no major reason to not bring it.

Currently any awake industrialist in null would already be half-way to the nearest PoS by the time any non-blue enters the system.

Right or wrong?

Just sit this in system for a few days and you'll do fine. (There are, of course, cheaper/better ways to do it.)

[Arazu, The Solution to your Mining Fleet]

Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
True Sansha Warp Scrambler
True Sansha Warp Scrambler
Republic Fleet Warp Disruptor
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier

Cynosural Field Generator I
Covert Cynosural Field Generator I
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
[Empty High slot]

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

Are you telling me that cyno is the one and only means of catching industrial ships in null?

Is this the part where I am supposed to start laughing out loud or something cause unless I misunderstand you it sure seems like an appropriate time to do so.

That's called "Being annoying in an enemy territory". There is no way a small group can get sov that way.

Sov structures are some sort of barriers that you have to break through in order to get sov. It adds a hard cap to how many dudes you need to bring in order to grind those amounts of EHPs.

Are you telling me that cyno is the one and only means of catching industrial ships in null?

Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.

You can't easily, nor should you, make a mechanic that directly makes less people better than more people. Suggestions for such mechanics are always contrived and against the spirit of the game.

If you wanted to make nullsec more friendly to small gangs then you need to create objectives which can be accomplished by small groups, and can also be done simultaneously with other small groups. If there's only one objective to do, and the time to do it decreases linearly with fleet size, people will blob. If, on the other hand, you can do more of these objectives faster by splitting your 100 guys into 5 20-man fleets, and enough faster to make up for the vulnerability to a single large enemy fleet, you might see more smaller gangs.

Yep. The problem with that is that, of course, the small group can field N gangs, while the Larger group can field 2N gangs, meaning that, even if the small group wins every battle they fight, the larger group will win the war in smashing style, having N unattended targets for every round of fighting.

Creating important targets that can only be efficiently fought over by small gangs actually magnifies the power of a larger group.

One thing I read a lot on these forums is people complaining that nullsec sucks because small groups are at a disadvantage to larger groups in combat merely because of size. Now ignoring the fact that there are ways to mitigate this, I'm curious about a few things.

You say that larger groups should not have an advantage over smaller groups by virtue of their size. First of all, this is not something you can just change because it's basic tactics that larger groups generally overpower smaller ones. This is not some variable CCP developers can go into the code and set "smallerFleetsHaveAdvantage=1;".

Furthermore, even if they could somehow force a mechanic to nullify the advantage that larger groups have over smaller ones in combat, why SHOULD they? That's basically sending a message that "we don't want you to cooperate in large groups, smaller groups are better." Where would they draw the line, anyway? Who's to decide what size of a group is "good" and what size is "bad"?

I often have a chuckle at the people who scream "omg blobs". They woulda been the poor extra on TV or in a movie like Battlestar Galactica/Star Trek/Babylon 5/Star Wars battle screaming "Effing Blobbers" right before they got their dumb ass vaporized.

The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.

The truth is some people can't deal with their own failures (in this case, their failure to make friends and generate a following) in an MMO.

No - the truth is that I and many people I know don't enjoy large scale engagements.

- When two comparable fleets fight each other, the bigger one should usually win.
- When a large alliance fights a smaller one, the larger one will in most cases eventually win (as Ruby Porto pointed out).

Noone would seriously want to change that.

I wouldn't have issues joining a large alliance if it wasn't usually associated with mind-numbingly boring blob-style warfare and as long as it's usually better to move around in one big blob instead of fielding 10 small gangs due to a complete lack of objectives for the latter, that wont change.

Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).

What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?

Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.

You mean squads and wings? Nothing.

This is just another symptom of the 1985+ parenting strategy of telling kids they are special, and better than everyone else.

Small gangs don't need some artificial boost, they need a purpose (and no I don't call 'Killmails' a purpose).

What about gudfites?

I thought ~gudfites~ involved hotdropping some moms onto a solo pvp drake.

Local + current D-scan. Local which instantly tells you who else is in a system and d-scan which instantly tells you what exact ships are within range.

I still think that finding ships based on signature radius is the ultimate cure for many problems in EVE.

Revamping the d-scanner so it picks up signature signals which could be players/anomalies/whatever which the player then have to try and identify and approach in order to get more detailed information is the way to go. And of course increasing the chances of being detected yourself if you rely too much on the d-scan (if you for instance have passive/active scan settings).

Once you've narrowed down the location of a signal by reducing the scan radius (distance should also play a role of course) you get more detailed intel. Narrow it down further and you can then lock on to the signal and track it. Narrow it down to the max and you can go to it instantly.

In relation to this topic, this would give small groups the mobility/stealth/guerilla factor that currently doesn't exist as small groups would not emit a strong signal/sig radius unless they happen to fly big ships.

And of course, using anomalies and such in order to try and hide your own signal for whatever purpose should be an option.

To be honest I also would want to wrap in a change to the warp mechanic on top - making it harder to escape once detected. That is, the ability to have a free flight during warp (warp flight drains cap + changing course would drain cap) and at the same time the ability to catch up to someone and force them out of warp.

Shooting structures isn't a great purpose for small gang either.

You really seem to be hell-bent on keeping small gangs at bay. Now I may be assuming things but I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with you being in a big blob alliance and fear the wrath of countless of small groups harassing you. Cause you know, that would be soooo bad for EVE, right?

If dscan can detect cloaked ships in the vicinity, but not tell you where they are, then sure.
Otherwise no.

I certainly don't see why not considering there'd be no local. It'd almost be insane not to have it detect cloaked ships as the cloak is just a means of visually conceal your ship. Whether it should be easier or harder to find a cloaked ship in this kind of environment however would be a pure balancing issue.

If dscan can detect cloaked ships in the vicinity, but not tell you where they are, then sure.
Otherwise no.

Why are you so afraid of the unknown?

Why do you believe small gangs should be capable of achieving strategic victories?

Why do you only ever post rhetoric?

I am not saying that small gangs should be able to fly around and leave scrapheaps of former PoS's behind them. I am saying that small gangs should have the ability to harass as a means of fighting the "big guys" or anyone else. The economic damages would hardly be massive in any kind of way, but enough harassment overtime would still have an effect.

The manner at which these small gangs handle the "response" of their enemies is up to them. Either they get harassed back or get a full blob on them...or attempted blob anyway.

Here is my counter question: do you want to see more people in low/null? Cause you know, I believe we are in the agreement that not everyone wants to join a blob super-power or some such yet at the same time have absolutely no way of doing anything against them that would cause any kind of damage over time.

Good point. I thought you were referring to things like small gangs capturing systems and the like.
The problem becomes how to scale such things so that these are not particularly advantageous for a larger fleet to do, but very effective measures when done by small fleets.

Which is why we go back to the problem of instant information with Local + d-scan and why the alternative of having the d-scan rely on signature radius becomes so tempting.

After that it is up to the players when it comes to how to utilize an environment where it takes a while to figure out if anyone is in a system and if so what ship is flown and it will be up to players whether they want to move small and swift or in a big blob. So what if a small group is chased by a blob? The small group will then have the advantage of detecting the blob before the blob detects the small group. That gives the small group a chance of getting the hell out, or if they are crazy enough, even attempt some kind of ambush by hiding in anomalies. Regardless of how things play out there will at least be a lot more possible outcomes because there is no instant information available to either side which automatically eliminates quite a few options.

What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?

Yeah, it's not like "your tower is under attack" mails have anything to do with that.

lol does Gillia really think removing local would help small corps/alliances in 0.0?

I thought ~gudfites~ involved hotdropping some moms onto a solo pvp drake.

lol does Gillia really think removing local would help small corps/alliances in 0.0?

Toss in the removal of structure mails (another instant information tool that promotes blobs) and you have my vote. Information through effort.

They'll never see the titan blob coming :v:

Why do you only ever post rhetoric?

Shooting structures isn't a great purpose for small gang either.

Yep. The problem with that is that, of course, the small group can field N gangs, while the Larger group can field 2N gangs, meaning that, even if the small group wins every battle they fight, the larger group will win the war in smashing style, having N unattended targets for every round of fighting.

Creating important targets that can only be efficiently fought over by small gangs actually magnifies the power of a larger group.

Have you actually tried to PVP in null ina frigate these days?

NPC AI changes make small frigate gangs a thing of the past.

Have you actually tried to PVP in null ina frigate these days?

NPC AI changes make small frigate gangs a thing of the past.

Given that the AI switches instantly to newcomers in anomalies, even if those newcomers haven't taken any hostile action towards the rats whatsoever, most any sort of solo PvP in null is kind of a pain these days. Supposedly it's a bug, but I haven't heard anything about fixing it.

it seems to be "working as intended" http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=18318073

What would stop people from forming 10 small fleets of 5 people instead of one big 50 man fleet?

One thing I read a lot on these forums is people complaining that nullsec sucks because small groups are at a disadvantage to larger groups in combat merely because of size. Now ignoring the fact that there are ways to mitigate this, I'm curious about a few things.

You say that larger groups should not have an advantage over smaller groups by virtue of their size. First of all, this is not something you can just change because it's basic tactics that larger groups generally overpower smaller ones. This is not some variable CCP developers can go into the code and set "smallerFleetsHaveAdvantage=1;".

Furthermore, even if they could somehow force a mechanic to nullify the advantage that larger groups have over smaller ones in combat, why SHOULD they? That's basically sending a message that "we don't want you to cooperate in large groups, smaller groups are better." Where would they draw the line, anyway? Who's to decide what size of a group is "good" and what size is "bad"?

Given that the AI switches instantly to newcomers in anomalies, even if those newcomers haven't taken any hostile action towards the rats whatsoever, most any sort of solo PvP in null is kind of a pain these days. Supposedly it's a bug, but I haven't heard anything about fixing it.

It's about fights in a away yes. But the scope is wider than just fights.

Alot of people and small enitities are interested in owning and working a SOV system in Null but they aren't interested to be a drone in large alliance or the super coalitions of today. The current system favours numbers. It hasn't to stay that way.
PvP and fleets are just one aspect. There is production, ratting, moon mining, PI and so on you didn't even mentioned which is possible in Null. Many if not most small entities are interested in all that actions not just the narrow field you offered here.

Since most of us are no game designers it's not my task to find a way how it could work. We all pay subscriptions in one way or another for our accounts to pay for the content and it's development. Let them come up with something usefull.

WH isn't really claimable. You can say it's yours but it doesn't show anywhere and you can't do everything you can do in SOV Null.

As someone mentioned before. We can read tons of posts in General Discussions from Null that they would like to see more players there and less in highsec but you'll never achive that by nerfing highsec to death.
You'll have to offer something. You'll need every aspect of the game workable in Null as or better than in highsec and you need to give small entities a way to raise their flag.

The SOV system has to become strong enough to weather some attacks for a time to keep their investment but it also has to be smart and smooth enough to leave it conquerable.

The risk to move to Null to own SOV is to high for small entities vs it's rewards. They can't compete with the large organisations there but also don't want to join them. So most of them just stay where they can have all aspects of the game everything. Highsec.

Last I checked you don't fight against NPCs when you PVP.

" Where would they draw the line, anyway? Who's to decide what size of a group is "good" and what size is "bad"?

Anyone who chooses to fly solo or in a small group must accept the risks that come with it. There are of course many advantages of being small compared to a large group.

I am saying this with the experience and enthusiasm of a small-gang advocate.

It's about fights in a away yes. But the scope is wider than just fights.

Alot of people and small enitities are interested in owning and working a SOV system in Null but they aren't interested to be a drone in large alliance or the super coalitions of today. The current system favours numbers. It hasn't to stay that way.
PvP and fleets are just one aspect. There is production, ratting, moon mining, PI and so on you didn't even mentioned which is possible in Null. Many if not most small entities are interested in all that actions not just the narrow field you offered here.

Since most of us are no game designers it's not my task to find a way how it could work. We all pay subscriptions in one way or another for our accounts to pay for the content and it's development. Let them come up with something usefull.

WH isn't really claimable. You can say it's yours but it doesn't show anywhere and you can't do everything you can do in SOV Null.

As someone mentioned before. We can read tons of posts in General Discussions from Null that they would like to see more players there and less in highsec but you'll never achive that by nerfing highsec to death.
You'll have to offer something. You'll need every aspect of the game workable in Null as or better than in highsec and you need to give small entities a way to raise their flag.

The SOV system has to become strong enough to weather some attacks for a time to keep their investment but it also has to be smart and smooth enough to leave it conquerable.

The risk to move to Null to own SOV is to high for small entities vs it's rewards. They can't compete with the large organisations there but also don't want to join them. So most of them just stay where they can have all aspects of the game everything. Highsec.

I am not saying that small gangs should be able to fly around and leave scrapheaps of former PoS's behind them. I am saying that small gangs should have the ability to harass as a means of fighting the "big guys" or anyone else. The economic damages would hardly be massive in any kind of way, but enough harassment overtime would still have an effect.

The manner at which these small gangs handle the "response" of their enemies is up to them. Either they get harassed back or get a full blob on them...or attempted blob anyway.

Here is my counter question: do you want to see more people in low/null? Cause you know, I believe we are in the agreement that not everyone wants to join a blob super-power or some such yet at the same time have absolutely no way of doing anything against them that would cause any kind of damage over time.

(...) Just too bad that so many ignore these facts. On purpose too no doubt.

Check again

You are right that 10 player organisations will ever be to small to achive something in Null. But it shouldn't take thousands of characters to raise the flag and keep it there. A few hundred should be enough.

Some basic ideas like upgrading SOV are great. But there should be other defensible features than EHP of SOV moduls.

"Ganking ratters isn't pvp"

you take the wrong side of the question...

we live in null and quite successful in small numbers, my ceptor alt was active for like 2 days in delve and killed 20 goon test razor pilot while lost an empty travel frig only, nothing in combat. the problem is, they still won the war. nobody will ever be able to compete with those, so there are 2 choices, lick an ass or leave. i can go there alone and live and get plenty of kills, but i cant build a stable background to start my roams from and earn my isk to buy and fit my ships, you can just live there, while they want you to live there, cos if that fleet start to move, you have no any chance to stop it... especially if they have unlimited range to hotdrop anywhere in the universe

The problem that you are talking about it's not related to bigger = better.
The problem here is that kills does not matter. You will never be able to do enoght dmg, just by killing few ships.

The value of a kill is so low as the value of the individual in the group.
Therefor, goons and test are unbeatable :)

They also have silly money to create a risk free pvp env. This is why i don't like then, I liked the risk vs reward that existed back in the days...

So, why should a few hundred people be able to take a and hold a system from a few thousand who are actively defending it? If your few hundred people can get the few thousand to not actively defend the system you want, you'll have no problem taking it (iHubs and TCUs don't take that many people to take down in a reasonable amount of time).

Basically, you're complaining that "people working together" is OP and suggesting that it should be nerfed.

So, why should a few hundred people be able to take a and hold a system from a few thousand who are actively defending it? If your few hundred people can get the few thousand to not actively defend the system you want, you'll have no problem taking it (iHubs and TCUs don't take that many people to take down in a reasonable amount of time).

Basically, you're complaining that "people working together" is OP and suggesting that it should be nerfed.

The super corporations/alliances/coalitions of today control more space than they really need to support their numbers.

The current system favours large numbers of players within super corporations/alliances/coalitions. It doesn't have to stay that way.

I'm not here to propose how to change the mechanics. I'm here to propose a different way than todays "numbers are everything".

James pretty much has it spot on. If you can answer his question then you might have an argument OP.

The problem to me isn't about whether a small force can beat a larger one more that a small gang can't do anything to force the afk empires to have to respond quickly to their raids. It's curently easier to stay docked and say 'we'll rep it when they've gone' than risk ships.
I have no idea how or even if there's any real way to fix this but to me that's the real issue.

I AM the OP.
Or are you referring to the person I quoted?

you people can't be serious (or at least have any real knowledge about the game) if you think that nerfing local will be a boost to smaller groups

if anything, it will make the deployment of capitals and supercapitals by smaller groups that are not PL impossibly risky and targets for casual roams (ratters, miners, etc.) would simply move to highsec, making nullsec even more of a desert

This old chestnut again but the CSM summit has just been

It would make it more fun for us paranoid bas***ds from Wormholes.

like fish in a barrel.

So, why should a few hundred people be able to take a and hold a system from a few thousand who are actively defending it? If your few hundred people can get the few thousand to not actively defend the system you want, you'll have no problem taking it (iHubs and TCUs don't take that many people to take down in a reasonable amount of time).

Basically, you're complaining that "people working together" is OP and suggesting that it should be nerfed.

For a week, maybe. In the long term the only people you'll be catching doing PVE in nullsec will be people whose functional IQ is about half that of those who get caught now (so roughly 25).

Well, not quite. However, the only viable PvE in nullsec will be missions and exploration since both require you to be probed out. But missions are limited to NPC nullsec, and don't pay much better in 0.0 than they do in highsec, and solo exploration in 0.0 is such a gigantic pain unless you have others doing the probing for you for a cut of the profits.

So how do you suppose we magically eliminate the basic tactical axiom that superior numbers generally mean a stronger force, other things being equal?

Of course you're not. You have no idea how, because you're trying to change basic common sense. If you can come up with some way to make small groups competitive without penalizing large groups just because they're large, then I'm all ears.

As it is, it's like asking to change the economy so your mom and pop store can pull the same profits as Walmart.

1. The super corporations/alliances/coalitions of today control more space than they really need to support their numbers.
2. Smaller groups have an internal organization too. It's not just the "big boys" who have it. The members of smaller entities work together too. It's no nerf of "working together".
3. The current system favours large numbers of players within super corporations/alliances/coalitions. It doesn't have to stay that way.
4. Giving smaller entities the ability to claim SOV and defend it successfully (even against larger entities) will create more PvP, more politics and so on. Space that is used to it's full potential. Space where someone lives not just to fly through.
5. I'm not here to propose how to change the mechanics. I'm here to propose a different way than todays "numbers are everything".

SOV for the middle class of corporations/alliances in EVE will make the game and null more interesting again.

You are misunderstanding some parts here. The idea is not to make small groups equally strong as big groups and make numbers pointless. Numbers should always matter! But numbers should also lack certain advantages that you sacrifice for more fire power basically.

In your case where you have 100 or so players versus 1000 or so players, yes in a direct battle the advantage would definitely be in the large group's favour. The 100 player group would have to use a different strategy.

Can smaller groups that are less than 100 do anything EFFECTIVELY? Say 5-10 players?

Another thing that you are missing is that there are tons of small group corps out there, most in high-sec. If we put methods/game mechanics aside, what do you think would happen if they realized that they now have at least ONE way of fighting the mega-alliances in null without getting swatted in 2 seconds, if they play a bit smart? Sure, they would not be able to do massive economic damage or leave a path of burned PoS's behind them or grab systems and claim it as their own because they have no firepower for that, but they would still be able to cause low-scale constant economic damage via harassment.

Yeah, a puny, tiny corp doing that would be no real issue for these huge mega-alliances, right? Well, it would be a different story if you had hundreds of these small groups attempting harassment strategies. And I bet you anything that a large percentage of these small corps want to get into null by themselves, by their own strength, with their own identity and name.

So let's speculate a bit and assume that we have a scenario where the biggest alliances are constantly harassed by small corps. Mining/ratting in null is somewhat risky because you never know when a surprise attack may come and it all comes down to who can detect who first.

What would EVE look like? How would these alliances deal with this environment?

Or do I dare to go as far and suggest that the only kind of PvP the null-dwellers want to see are the big fleet battles? It would be an explanation as to why there seem to be a certain resistance to suggestions which would let small groups participate effectively.

Ah yes, numbers always win? That isn't true. Persian Wars, Battle of Agincourt and so on
Superior numbers can be circumvented in the real world. In EVE that is extremly hard to impossible, especially with SOV warfare.

Basic common sense? Is EVE a real world simulation with all physical, economical, social and so on laws? No it isn't.
It's a sandbox game with certain rules, which were made by CCP. It was CCP who created these mechanics. It's common sense to modify these game mechanics so CCP can make more profit.

1. So you should be able to take one of their "extra" systems without any trouble, huh?
2. It's a nerf to "people working together" that you're suggesting. As in "lots of them."
3. Everything in the world ever favors larger groups working together over smaller groups. That's because 2 > 1. It's how numbers work.
4. Why should 5 guys be able to push 10 guys out of their home when they don't have any special advantage besides "having fewer people" and the 10 guys are willing and able to defend their home? It takes 4-5 guys in Dreads to take Sov in a system in a reasonable amount of time. You're complaining that you and your "couple hundred" guys can't defeat a "couple thousand guys" who are actively defending it. It's not a mechanics issue you're complaining about.
5. Yet what you're proposing would require contrived, nonsensical, and easily exploitable mechanical changes.


You're complaining that 2 > 1. I suggest you take your complaint up with some Mathematicians, not the EVE-O forums.

Yes we should be able to take systems from them easily. But it wouldn't take long to be blobed out, outnumbered with 10:1 or more.

Unless you do it while they are sleeping in rl. Even then you have no chance to take it or keep it, since they have to defend it else they would look weak. And wasn't there a lag of PvP in Null?

The only way to get this runing would be an attack of thousands of smaller alliances/corps at the same time and everywhere. But what would that be? Super Coalition!
We already have enough leviathan corporations/alliances/coalitions. We want no more of them!

It is a game mechanic issue i "complain" about. Current game mechanics favours numbers. EVE is no real world simulation. it's a sandbox game made by CCP. The game mechanics were contrived by CCP. Some mechanics are nonsensical, just have a look at the SOV system.

Everything in the world ever favors numbers. One of the most compelling theories about why Humans have such large brains (20% of our Caloric intake goes to brain maintenance) is that it allows us to deal with larger social groups. There's a fantastically strong correlation between primate brain size and social group size. Our increasing brain size wasn't an arms race of "smarts" or "inventiveness" or anything like that, it was an arms race of numbers. The people who could organize 20 person tribes outcompeted the people only able to organize 10 person tribes, and were in turn out competed by those who could organize 30 person tribes.

You know why we cheer for David when he fights Goliath? Because we know that, 99 times out of 100, Goliath pounds David into a bloody pulp. You're saying that David should regularly win. That's a contrivance.

Removing timers would massively hurt smaller groups who can't provide full TZ coverage. Removing timers would also remove an enormous amount of PvP and cripple industry (because wars would just be about who can afford to drop endless sov structures).

Ruby, so you claim that there are effective strategies already for small groups that can be used against big blob alliances?

Could you then please explain to me why:

A: We still have a handful of mega-blob alliances?

B: Why these blobs complain about lack of activity in null

Because if what you say is true then these discussions would not even be necessary, because then we would have seen all these small groups harassing everyone in null to a decent effect and everyone would be happy.

Or do you claim that everyone who is not in a big group are just a bunch of idiots who don't know how to play the game or something? You seem to be awfully keen on generalizing all the high-sec corps together into one single nice lump.

Also it would be nice if you did not assume that 10 man groups automatically have capital ships or assume that 10 man groups should be able to hold a system easily. I am still not going as far as to claim that 10 man groups should easily be able to hold a system. Sov should require reasonable manpower after all.

100 people taking sov from 1000 should obviously be possible depending on how aware the defenders are/willing to defend/insert whatever other appropriate factors here. Keeping the system however is a whole different ballgame. The 100 man group would then be forced to face off against 1000 if they decide to retaliate full force. Absolutely nothing wrong here whatsoever.

It was a combination of being smart and inventive and numbers if you ask me. 10 tribesmen with a bow kill 20 with a stick at range.
I'm sure we could argue a year long with historical wars and empires to prove both points.

Looks like we found the missunderstanding. I don't say that the smaller should always win. But as it stands right now in EVE the odds are much worse for him to succeed. (Thought your argument is something about smart&inventive kills numbers/strength)

I didn't say remove timers. You understood that the wrong way. The SOV system as it stands with all it's structure grind is contrived and nonsensical. It was an easy way (more or less) to grant time to mount a defence but it brought Null to the stagnation of today. Ever growing super cooperations/alliances/coalitions. The current systems climax will be a Null under the rule of just one super coalition.

The SOV system is a game mechanic introduced by CCP and it needs a revamp from the ground. The how to, is the problem of CCP from my point of view.

A: Because Harassment != Killing and kicking from their space.

B: Because there's no real reason to live in Null at the moment, so there're fewer harassment targets than there used to be. It's a relative lack of activity that people complain about. (Also, a lot of the people who complain are too lazy for some of the strategies.)


Why should 100 people be able to take a system from 1000 people who are actively defending it? You're saying it's obvious when it's not at all. If you're saying a 100 man group should be able to take an undefended system, guess what? They already can (easily).

The second part of your suggestion implies that you want to remove timers which would be crippling to the smaller groups (believe it or not, they do exist), who can't provide full TZ coverage, and would turn war into a monstrous logistical nightmare of constantly dropping new Sov Structures while systems flip back and forth almost at random (also would make a war between Alliances strong in different TZs ridiculous and unwinnable).

If you don't mean another Corp than Bat Country it's no surprise because they are part of Goonswarm since 2010.

A: But here is the thing: if harassment was truly possible then wouldn't it mean that the power of the large blobs would be smaller than it is today due to the investments required to deal with this? Wouldn't the blobs have to worry more about who is in their space and try and defend it? Please do share with me: how often does your alliance have to deal with harassment and defend your industrials against active and successful attacks? Anything that is less than 1 times every 24 hours is beyond pathetically small.
It does not matter if it is about holding space or not - this is about small groups fighting large groups in the only way they can.

B: If there is no reason to live in Null then why aren't you packing up and leaving it? Sorry but you're sprouting BS on this one. Null is quite a profitable place if exploited, you know it and I know it. If it wasn't we wouldn't even have these capital ship saturated blobs of today. The lack of activity comes merely from the environment that the EVE mechanics and blobs have created.

100 players attacking 1000 actively defending players should generally not result in a win to the 100 man team. I am still saying that direct confrontation should play out the way they are now. I am talking about alternatives here and I think we keep missing each other here. Sure, if the 1000 man group can defend themselves against all types of attacks, whether they are blob-scale or harassment scale then they should and hopefully win. The thing is however that they must become more open to these kind of attacks if you ever want any life brought to null. I am not saying that small groups should become the ends mean for everything, just another level of warfare that must be taken into consideration and thus also become an entry gateway for small groups. I dunno, either I am just bad at explaining myself or people are trying to constantly take my words out of context in order to suit their own needs - in any case it is starting to become somewhat annoying.

As for timers I haven't said a single word about changing them or sov mechanics. Timezones is quite the sensitive topic and I sort of have my doubts on whether it is possible to ignore time-zones to the same extent as say Planetside 2. But EVE is not Planetside 2 as the former actually has consequences while the latter pretty much has none thus my doubts. It would certainly be liberating yes, but whether practical or balanced is a whole different matter.

Null is somewhere between marginally more profitable to vastly less profitable than HS across all segments of individual ISK making, and it takes a lot of effort for it to get there. It generally makes much more sense to make your ISK in HS, where your ISK/Effort and ISK/risk are vastly higher.

(...)
Why should harassment result in Sov gain? Small groups can all ready be very effective at harassing larger groups. The damage just isn't as obvious as "we took system X."

You keep saying that a 100 man group should be able to take a system from an active 1000 man group. To make that possible, you'd either need some contrived system to make the 1000 man group weaker, or you'd need to get rid of timers.

Null is somewhere between marginally more profitable to vastly less profitable than HS across all segments of individual ISK making, and it takes a lot of effort for it to get there. It generally makes much more sense to make your ISK in HS, where your ISK/Effort and ISK/risk are vastly higher.

I don't make my ISK where I live, and neither do many people who live in Null. Want good targets to harass? Convince CCP to make Null worth making money in again.

Why should harassment result in Sov gain? Small groups can all ready be very effective at harassing larger groups. The damage just isn't as obvious as "we took system X."

You keep saying that a 100 man group should be able to take a system from an active 1000 man group. To make that possible, you'd either need some contrived system to make the 1000 man group weaker, or you'd need to get rid of timers.

Taking SOV with 100 players from 1000 both parties active. Yes that should be possible with the new system if the 1000 don't put in enough effort to hold it. Thought the 1000 should also be able to take it back or not lose it at all if it's one of their key systems (against 100). That sounds a bit tricky and i can't tell how it could be forged to be honest.

Yes, and what exactly is wrong with this? Nothing keeps null alliances from making ISK in highsec along with nullsec, but for people that hope to challenge nullsec powerblocks in the future the ONLY place they can make ISK is highsec.

Just harassment shouldn't result in SOV gain. It stays at it is, maybe a mechanic could be added to pillage resources or ISK from the SOV holder to make it more interesting.
I'm not sure about that and it's not really my agenda.

Taking SOV with 100 players from 1000 both parties active. Yes that should be possible with the new system if the 1000 don't put in enough effort to hold it. Thought the 1000 should also be able to take it back or not lose it at all if it's one of their key systems (against 100). That sounds a bit tricky and i can't tell how it could be forged to be honest.

The effort for the smaller party should be smaller than for the larger. But if the larger put in enough effort they keep it. It's a bit more complex than the current system. But isn't being complex one of EVE's earmarks?
From my limited point the following stuff has to be in the equation:
- number of members
- number of SOV systems
- number of Outposts
- ISK
- usage of the system by owner (jumps, ratting, mining, ...)
- titans, super caps
- blue listings if they are close to the area of operation (SOV, fleets, members)

The more i write down the more the word "power level rating" comes to my mind. That rating would be part of the determination.

You've still not made a convincing argument why the hell 1000 guys shouldn't be able to keep their home from falling to 100 guys when they're actively defending it.

Thought the 1000 should also be able to take it back or not lose it at all if it's one of their key systems (against 100).

If the effort to take a system is smaller for a smaller group, the 1000 man group will simply take 10 systems at a time (10x 100 man groups working together).

Nerfing people based on Membership and blue lists is just silly contrivance. Here's how that ends up working: Holding alliance(s) holds Sov and is neutral to the Alliance doing the work*. Holding alliance has like 5 alts in it. The power rating of all that is much lower than any attacking force, giving the defender of Sov space an even larger advantage than they already have.

Not to mention how silly and contrived a "nerf numbers" mechanic is. You're seriously suggesting that getting help from your friends to do something should make you *worse* at doing it.


*People run fleets with "allied" neuts all the time, because it's ::effort:: to set standings for just a short time.

answer:

I don't see a problem here. There is nothing that couldn't be overcome.
It's to ease the overpowering effects of the current system that places numbers above everything else. There is no counter to numbers at the moment.

Example:
If i would manage to find 50000 "friends" and invade Null with T1 BCs it's very likely that i could steamroll everyone there within time.

That is just a small exaggeration of where we are heading today. The first super alliance hit 11000 characters the 2nd in the line close to 9000.

Make a suggestion for another counter if you don't like mine.

Yes, and what exactly is wrong with this? Nothing keeps null alliances from making ISK in highsec along with nullsec, but for people that hope to challenge nullsec powerblocks in the future the ONLY place they can make ISK is highsec.

Could you then please explain to me why:

A: We still have a handful of mega-blob alliances?

B: Why these blobs complain about lack of activity in null

It can be hard to notice unless you are familiar with who is who but the only ones complaining are those who lost their space, to larger groups unironically. We have tons of activity with multiple groups deployed all over the map.

I guess smaller is more boring because you get kicked about by people with friends?

I'm saying that the strategy "I brought more friends than you did" proving to be a winning one is just fine. That's how it works in real life, that's how it works in every game that doesn't use a contrived numbers cap, that's what makes sense.

You have yet to present any argument for WHY 1 guy should have a good chance against 10 (or 100 against 1000), all else being equal.

Historically, the way 1 guy beats 10 is by making everything else very unequal. The problem people are having is that (it turns out), the guys in 1000 man groups have at least as many really good players as the guys in 100 man groups, so it's very difficult to stack the deck (cause they're stacking the deck their direction just as much as you are yours).

I see no problem with the continuation of 2>1.



For various other reasons, I'd like to see the return of a variant of pre-Dominion Sov; allowing Alliances to reduce the cost of owning space in exchange for reduced protection for their space (a system with full Moon coverage was Expensive, but a fortress, while a system with 1 Large POS holding it was cheap, but relatively easy to contest). But that's a separate topic.

Hmmm... I dunno, but I'll take a stab: Change boosting mechanics to include a "law of diminishing returns" so that boosts give out more bonus to smaller fleets and less boost to larger ones.

So, say, a 10% boost could just up to 20% if the fleet is 5 people or less, or drop to only 5% if the fleet is over 20 people. Just an example. You get the idea. Realistically it would have to be scaled with more complex math (and I hate math, so you do it).

Justification would be simulating that it's easier to manage smaller groups than larger ones. Less strain on computers etc.

Sure and suddenly You've got 30 small fleets overpowering one other small fleet. makes perfect sense.

You seem to be saying that you, as an individual, should be able to live amongst and compete against those who have chosen to live and work cooperatively. To be able to, as an individual, have the impact of an opposing corp or alliance, without having to actually be in one.

Sorry you think this is a single player game?

In basically every other PvP game, an highly trained team who spent months to practice together can easily fight blobbers opponents 10 times their number. That's "team" in a game, not blobbing up as many warm bodies as possible to reach the "critical mass".

Of course EvE does not help, because it won't provide line of sight mechanics (for the skilled to use at advantage), terrain properties and different "heights", consistent and PvP usable collision detection and so on.

In basically every other PvP game, an highly trained team who spent months to practice together can easily fight blobbers opponents 10 times their number. That's "team" in a game, not blobbing up as many warm bodies as possible to reach the "critical mass".

Of course EvE does not help, because it won't provide line of sight mechanics (for the skilled to use at advantage), terrain properties and different "heights", consistent and PvP usable collision detection and so on.

In real life it works that way? Well maybe in a bar brawl. As you or someone else said EVE fights are direct combats, all bring what they have. It's a kind of ancient warfare. Find a field the conduct your fight and that was it, more or less.

But even in the good old days we had:

• superior tacitcs - not applicable in EVE since the fog of war isn't dense enough
• terrain - we find that in EVE just by the jump lanes surely not enough to turn the tide
• technical superiority - techwise the ships&moduls in EVE are more or less equivalent, not the thing to give you a real edge

(more could be added to that list if i thought of it longer)

Your it's in the rl world so doesn't hit that well. As i said before EVE is no rl world simulation. Take the flight mechanism of our ships. That isn't spaceflight it's submarine. They took it because it required less adaption of the player.
But players adepted to a ton of other rules. The SOV mechanics for example. That can be changed or replaced.

Going back to pre-Dominion SOV-systems won't change anything.

The current system favours numbers and doesn't provides anything to counter them. That being said, it's no wonder some rage about afk cloakers. Since disruptive actions are the only thing left to do something against numbers.

Yes, it does. If you look at the history of warfare and find a significant number of examples of an *invading force* defeating a defending force 10 times larger than it, I will eat my hat.

1. Absolutely applicable to EVE. But expect your tactics to be copied quickly.
2. Do it right, and the grid or a gate can be used to turn the tide of a fight.
3. Take a look at some R&K videos and tell me that technological superiority doesn't give you an edge.

Everything in the world ever favors numbers. (...) Numbers bring an advantage to everything in the real world.

(...) mechanics being contrived, stupid, and trivially exploitable.

And in EVE, a highly trained group or individual can fight effectively against much larger numbers (see the videos of Garmon, R&K, etc).

Most of the people complaining about "dirty blobbing ruining our leet PvP" are not actually better at flying their ship than their more numerous opponents, they just don't have as many people.


P.S. You're crazy if you think Collision mechanics aren't usable in PvP.

Lets have a look. Mhmm pretty much what happend during the conquest of the "new world" Mayas, Incas. Conquest of the british empire. Pretty much alot of conquest and occupation during the age of imperialism. Another nice example are the history around how the british crown got Hongkong. Retalliation during the Boxer Rebellion.
Not all of them apply for your 1:10 but it's good enough anyway.

Mhmm yes gate games will help to capture SOV. That might be the case but not very often.
R&K are specalists and they hold no SOV.
The worth of tactics nullified within days.

I'm sure most inhabitants in overpopulated 3rd world countries are happy to read that. Damn most of them can't read or if so have no i-net and a pretty bad medical care.

We shouldn't start about that because most of the games mechanics can be described as contrived, stupid, and trivially exploitable. Just an example: bots!

As you say yourself in your next post, making David winning Goliath etc. made the news for how rare it was.

Instead, in other games a small group going to bait and even tease a large blob is so normal there are no "R&K" videos of that. Most videos of those cases come out because of an expecially executed or ludicrous manouver that is worth recording not because of a small group going against a large one. In EvE you really have to go after Garmon super-cases to find such examples.

Finally, about collision, I take it you have not seen what's possible with *real* collision detection. Collision mechanics being "usable" is all another level compared to consistently using them to take a great advantage (i.e. body blocking narrow passage ways, funneling, drawing DPS away....).

Pretty silly of people to expect CCP to do the complete opposite of what they've spent years of resources to allow us to do.

I have a question of my own for the people that think their "small" group should be able to "compete" in null.

Do you guys have any idea how large you can make a corp?
And wtf would CCP let us form several thousand man corporations and then ally them with other thousands of player strong corps if they didn't intend for us to do exactly that.

Crying is always easier than working together, and reading this forum sometimes is like watching my nieces and nephews play together. They ALWAYS end up crying because someone won't let hem do what they want.

Know what I tell them? Go do something else then!
You are not entitled to anything, your parents were wrong, and it was a horrible of them to raise you into adults who behave in such a manner.

Stop acting like children.

Pretty silly of people to expect CCP to do the complete opposite of what they've spent years of resources to allow us to do.

I have a question of my own for the people that think their "small" group should be able to "compete" in null.

Do you guys have any idea how large you can make a corp?
And wtf would CCP let us form several thousand man corporations and then ally them with other thousands of player strong corps if they didn't intend for us to do exactly that.

Second, answer the main question: WHY Should 100 Guys be able to take Sov from 1000 who are actively defending it?

Nope. The new world was primarily "Conquered" by disease.
(...)
(Oh, and the Mayan civilization started its final decline into warring cities in 1450, and completed it well before the Spaniards got anywhere near them, so they really don't serve as an example.)

And? This topic started on how smaller groups can hurt larger ones. Now you've decided that smaller groups should be able to take Sov. Why?

And most of the rest of the British Empire came about through their vast technological advantages (I guess I should have mentioned that Gun vs Spear fights don't count, unless you want me to count the times people Smartbomb 10+ Mackinaws in an Ice belt).
(...)

"I'm sure most inhabitants in overpopulated 3rd world countries are happy to read that. Damn most of them can't read or if so have no i-net and a pretty bad medical care."

Hey, China's economy is competing pretty well with that of the US (which has a 50+ year head start on industrialization).

You're grasping here.

Propose a Sov mechanic that reduces the advantage that numbers bring that isn't contrived and easily exploitable.

Second, answer the main question: WHY Should 100 Guys be able to take Sov from 1000 who are actively defending it?

Thought i have to repeate myself: I'm no game designer or developer or what ever. Like everyone else i pay a subscription like we all do in one way or another. EVE was developed by CCP, they are the experts for the game. It's their task to develop game mechanics. Not mine.
All i do is suggesting ways to open up areas of the game to a broader audience than has right now.

Your second answer was already answered. Or i put in a counterquestion: Why shouldn't they?

It isn't the complete opposite at all. It would bring a new wind into an old system. Change is good. Yes, we can!

Well let's counter your questions with a question: Why shouldn't small entities be able to do it? (beside current game mechanics and all the singsong about only numbers matter)

CCP let you do it because it brought them money so far. If they decide that there is an opportunity to earn even more money with another approach they'll adjust the mechanics.

Some of us lobby for "smaller is better".
You and some others just "see one's hope dashed" and lobby to keep the old stagnating system.

Null is designed and intended to be developed by large numbers of players, not small groups of people here to "just pvp". Go to low or WH space if that's all you want.

Come to null if you want to be a part of a player run empire.
Leaen to use diplomacy if you want your corp to be a part of an emprie.

No, you're suggesting arenas. That's how you remove or limit the advantage that numbers bring. I'm not asking you to come up with "x structure has 5 and a quarter HP and becomes invulnerable at Y time of night," I'm asking you to come up with a general suggestion for how you think SOV mechanics should support a 100 man group taking space from a 1000 man group without allowing the 1000 man group to simply reform into 10x100 man groups and take space 10 times faster.

Blobbers, blue lists and being a pet.