| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 17:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:CHANGES
- Proximity to other owned sov. So if you own a system and your other sov is not connected to that system then the cost is increased of the unconnected system.
- Pirate & Mining index affects sov cost. So if you are at level 4 or higher than there is no cost modifier. But 3 , 2 , 1 affects the cost. (levels are subjective and clearly open to debate/adjustment)
One point I'd like to bring out is that this model would encourage/require sovereignty over low value systems with no real use, except as interconnects between one developed and useful part of space and another.
Because it is desirable to keep alliance players who own space relatively close to home, low value systems would be great points of contest for blowing up an alliance's sovereignty costs-but only if it is trivial to contest sovereignty in systems that are minimally developed or utilized.
|

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 17:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: It should not be trivial to win space ever. Even unused space. However, like I said before I think that unused space should cost effort to hold and defend, because while rich and powerful alliances have amounts of isk that are effectively inexhaustable in a fight against an up and coming alliance, they don't have infinite effort.
If it's not hilariously easy to attack (or, likewise, to defend against), people will not have to live in the space they have in order to keep it. The contests will simply be decided by whoever can motivate the most pilots to burn their defending fleet across N systems in time for the sovereignty structure timer(s). In this scenario, the design would ultimately not make much difference in permitting smaller entities to persist in anything resembling close proximity to large ones. With the modern timer model, the window of reaction would still be large enough to bring out the mighty glacier fleets, which stop any systems from changing hands, even when it is stationed dozens of jumps from home, with little advanced notice. |

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 17:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Not by a small fleet. If people want more of smaller alliances/power blocs, then you NEED to stop thinking on the terms of fleets always having 200 members or more. The majority of the people that I know and that left 0.0, did it because they do not want that scale of fleets as the standard to do anything meaningful.
This blog entry by Kaeda Maxwell is very relevant to this topic:
http://kaedamaxwell.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/theres-small-and-than-there-is-small.html
Quote:I have to ask that question because when I say small I mean anything between about 6 or 7 and 20. It's not uncommon for 0.0 FC's or even just residents to consider a 50 man fleet a 'small gang'. You may wonder why that qualification is relevant? Well it's relevant because the term 'small gang' has been coming up a lot in balance discussions on the forums over the past few expansions. And when the word 'small' doesn't mean the same thing on both sides of a debate it leads to unnecessary misunderstandings.
As I already alluded to in the second paragraph, definitions of small are in part tied to where in New Eden you live. In lowsec 50 people is a *sizeable* fleet, it's not a gang size that is unheard of but if you move around lowsec with 50 people in fleet you stand out. Even for some of lowsecs largest groups like say Shadow Cartel or the Waffles a casual fleet of 50 is a bit of a novelty, usually when I see them roam (or sit on a Titan) their numbers tend to be somewhere between 20 and 40. And numbers for entities like SCUM. or combined militia fleets tend to be in that ball park too. For corporations like say the Tuskers or Calamitous-Intent a 50 man fleet literally requires half of the membership to be logged in all at once (and the paper membership numbers include alts and people on extended afks). And even for entities that have comparatively high participation rates like Snuff Box or Balex I rarely see a battle report that has more then 30-35 of them on it at once.
|

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:If you limit power projection people will have to spend time to travel to find content. Time is the commodity because players can't spend there day traveling to find the content. So logical choices will have to be made like " Hey if were blue to everyone within reasonable travel distance then we have nothing to do" " Likewise a group on the otherside of the universe will not travel here reasonably everyday " "Therefore why don't we unblue some of these groups so that our members have the ability to have content without traveling a unreasonable amount of time". You would still see epic battles for pivotal timers ( Home Systems ) when people "phone a friend to come to their aid". I also think this would give rise again to mercenaries ( Nomadic groups that can be contracted to augment stationary groups ).
I'm not under the impression that anyone who participates in territorial conflicts is in it to have fun. It seems dominated by Victory At All Costs, including any resemblance of fun, if it will achieve victory.
|

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:The entire in game economy relies on the Jump Freighter making logistics not more of an absolute pain in the ass than it already is. If my JF was limited to jumping 1 system at a time I would strait up unsub my accounts. Its funny the economy got along just fine before jumpfreighters. Sure and the economy 100 years ago got on just fine too. Of course, it did not and could not support a standard of living like we see today. There is one very simple rule anyone who takes any economics course should learn. Everything comes with trade offs. Everything. I'm not sure you've fully explored the trad offs inherent in your suggestion here. For example, various items would become more scarce as there would be increased risk in moving stuff around. From empire to null and vice-versa. At the very least that increased risk will mean sometimes stuff does get blown up. As scarciity increase price will go up. If price did not go up then some people would not undertake the actions necessary to provide those items (risk vs. reward calculations). And who would be less harmed by an overall increase in the price level...older more established characters....often the very same people in the older, larger and well established current null sec entities. I get what you want to accomplish here and I even applaud your attempt to take on the issue. But instead of making logisitics in Eve even more like a second or even full time job...might I suggest you find ways to that result in more utilization of space and creating content via positive incentives vs. negative ones?
The environment that cynos built is toxic and needs to go. If logistics being a full time job seems to be the ensuing direction, maybe you should look at your approach from a human resources standpoint. Making it easier on logistics guys is no excuse for the game that has grown around its mechanics. |

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:The environment that cynos built is toxic and needs to go. If logistics being a full time job seems to be the ensuing direction, maybe you should look at your approach from a human resources standpoint. Making it easier on logistics guys is no excuse for the game that has grown around its mechanics. Sure it is. If you make things ****** for them they'll either stop doing logistics, or they'll stop playing EVE altogether. I'm sure that'll be great for the health of the game. 
I'm not convinced that it's necessary for logistics guys to play the game as you perceive they do right now. |

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
Wentworth III wrote:I'm still not convinced people would give up their blues in favor of content and specifically, I cannot see the CFC doing this. As we've seen over the past years alliances within the CFC have been completely OK with sacrificing content for security and income (evidenced by the stagnation in nullsec we experience today.) Every alliance complains about the lack of content but none want to give up their massive safety net of blues.
Bottom line, I don't see most of the CFC alliances which are quite frankly not capable of standing on their own resetting their blues to get content. If content is what they wanted in the first place they wouldn't have joined the largest blue list the game has ever seen. They'll just live with less ability to deploy as a coalition, or will all live on the fringes of CFC controlled space.
Winning seems to take priority over fun, especially for strategic objectives. If that's the case, winning is the thing that is broken, and needs to be fixed. I think the changes proposed by Manfred Sideous will serve that end well. |

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Just curious here... Since this predates my time in game (which is fairly long now), can any of your rally bitter vets (  ) describe this nerf ot carriers?
Many years ago, there were no restrictions on what could be inside of a ship's cargohold when it was placed in a carrier. People would pack Iteron Mark Vs full of stuff, put them in carriers, and then jump to their destinations.
|

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
297
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:So, run it more like a business so it is less like a business? Is that your suggestion? Sorry, but you'll have to pardon me for finding that kind of rhetoric completely daft.
You've got a massive uphill climb to convince me that your convenience is worth more than the game's overall health. |

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
298
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 21:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
Querns wrote:I will repeat it until my fingers are bloodied, useless stumps:
COST DOES NOT ACT AS A LIMITING FACTOR IN EVE: ONLINE, A SPACESHIP GAME.
This.
There is a good, crucial, question that must be asked of every design: given infinite manpower and infinite resources, does the system break down? If it breaks, the system is no good, and should be reworked until it can withstand the scenarios that sound impossible. |

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
298
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 21:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:CCP depends upon these once a year proxy wars to advertise 2000 man space battles to draw more people in. What these people don't understand is the 10% tidi, the billions of isk needed to field huge behemoths let alone the years to train such ships too.
The stories told by players to their friends have always been worth more for gaining and keeping subscribers than these flash in the pan battles ever were. |

Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
301
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 00:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
mynnna wrote:There are literally no redeeming qualities to your post whatsoever, everything from "let's remove jump drives but not ACTUALLY remove them" to "let's give people a way to disable hub upgrades for a day at a time within a fifteen minute window, yeah THAT won't get abused in odd timezones at all with no recourse whatsoever" just screams "Let's make the game so awful and unfun that half of nullsec quits."
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. *Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.
I'm going to go a bit off topic here - how many players have already quit because of how awful playing in today's nullsec is for them? The CFC seems positively desperate to hold onto the advantages presently afforded by their girth, and you're constantly shouting down every conceivable inconvenience proposed to the lifestyle lived by the coalitions. You can't have your cake and eat it, too; the way you play the game works to your advantage, but within it is every reason why the null game sucks. |
| |
|