Well, if you all insist there is nothing wrong, lets see how far we can take it.

I propose all jump and bridge ranges be increased ten fold.

How does that sound?

And actually backing myself up a bit, a range nerf for the purpose of helping smaller entities is what's stupid, really.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD

It doesn't matter really. Anytime one of the PPP (Power Projection Protectors) is backed into a corner you evade the question, change the subject or simply jump out of a window. Anyone that provides a solid argument is dismissed due to the alliance they are in, sov they control, how long they have been playing the game, how many vowels in their name. Anything to keep you from having to actually discuss the subject.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD

Do that, and you get Goonwaffe1, Goonwaffe2, etc all holding the "optimum" amount of space (comparing Sov bills with Alliance maint fees), with Goonwaffe holding no sov and all the members.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD

Do that, and you get Goonwaffe1, Goonwaffe2, etc all holding the "optimum" amount of space (comparing Sov bills with Alliance maint fees), with Goonwaffe holding no sov and all the members.

Assuming CCP doesn't call that an exploit (and I'm reasonably confident CCP would do no such thing), to prevent that behavior you'd have to make it inconvenient. And offhand I can't think of a way to do that.

MDD

Not the tools for power projection are the real problems. The conflict drivers are. Its easier to just eliminate all small and relatively independent entities during a huge invasion to get rid of future threats and to guarantee more safety for pve activities. I think unused systems should have insanely high bills to prevent that while used systems should be still profitable. That is one of the main reasons why I think the farms and fields concept is a good direction (and not further nerfing). And/or making possible to live in enemy territory when a coalition is over expanding and taking unnecessarily huge amount of unused space (for example with that cloaky pirate base thingy they mentioned in the last CSM minutes). CCP shouldn't remove the ability to project power effectively. They should remove the need to do it.

Before Test decided to go bigger, a lot of small somewhat independent alliances lived in their neighbourhood (Walltreipers and Omega Vektor just to mention a few or the last year's delve thunderdoom is a perfect example). Of course setting foothold close to big entities' staging systems would be hard but there are a lot of backwater systems which noone cares about. The only reasons why big alliances taking those because there is no reason to leave blind spots in the middle of their blue ocean.

If big entites would go for systems only with strategical importance and good resources, than there would be too many unclaimed systems to care about and it would be hard to keep away everyone all the time. They would rather try to find diplomatic solutions with those small entites which could lead to another blueball but that kind of blueballs would be a lot more vulnerable than the current ones with a lot more drama, backstabbing and metagaming which is exactly what nullsec needs more.

But even if a big entity would decide to keep away others from those unclaimed systems, thats where that cloaky pirate base comes to the picture. Just think about that cloaky pirate base with jump drive what a dev mentioned in the CSM minutes at the pos section. I can't get out of my head the idea to be able to live in the middle of a hostile territory (of course with limited options but still). If seomeone's home system is under heavy attack they could just retreat to hidden POSes and wait till they leave and than taking back everything.

I think something like that could work without the need to nerf power projection. Small and large entities living side by side with conflicts every day but without the ability to threaten each others existance.

In what way have I avoided the subject? You set up a strawman* to argue against, and I'm simply refusing to bite.

*Unless you can show where someone involved in this conversation (besides you) has suggested a 10 fold jump range increase. Quote and Link, please, and I will respond to the "proposal."

The point I was making was if nerfing jump and bridge ranges would only really hurt the smaller entities in the game as some in this thread claim, then what if we increase the jump and bridge ranges so it will help the smaller entities. Based on the proclamation they claim, then it should work right?

If nerfing jump drive range actually helps smaller groups, wouldn't buffing it harm them instead?

See, we can both play dumb logic tricks with each other's argument.

Well, if you all insist there is nothing wrong, lets see how far we can take it.

I propose all jump and bridge ranges be increased ten fold.

How does that sound?

Now here's the part where you explain what's actually wrong with that.

Which is what?

You've basically just said "jump drives can take you farther than gates".
Naturally as a consequence of that you can indeed travel faster than subcaps.
But you haven't explained why that's actually a problem.

You do a lot of dancing my friend. I will leave you be for now. You seem to still have your head stuck in the sand like an ostrich.

If u want fun roams like all normal players do, dont sit whole nights on Titans. There are enough of targets in NPC nullsec to have fun with. And If u dont find any targets closer than u should maybe rethink of blueing 90% of Nullsec

How about you actually understand what you're talking about before you comment?

How about we remove every ship in the game except for Noobships and have a spaceship shooty game that depends on actual pilot skill instead of trained skills. No wait, that too would cause nothing but butthurt.

Non of them holds significant sov.

So u agree on the other points? Nice!!! Dont dance mate, dont!

And btw i am having like 5 times moar roams and fights x month than my quite few friends in CFC. Everyone is bored now when there is no any deployment and they barely log. And the main reason is sitting on titans and roams every other year.

I don't know who you're talking to, but I have no shortage of roams.
Keep spinning though.
And no I don't agree with your other points, I just didn't think your post was worth the effort of addressing them.

haha of course ...delusional

Yeah, I'm delusional about the roams that happen every day, about the fact that on average we spend less than ten minutes at any given time sitting on a titan, and that we have quite an extensive list of reds that's longer than the list of blues.
EDIT: Huh, we should probably take care of that, looks like it was updated today. We have a leak it seems.