| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
812
   |
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
One thing that people don't seem to understand is this (cold war coalitions) is a natural progression and given enough time would probably self-regulate. Now, I'm not suggesting that it should be given enough time to self-regulate, just that it probably would. Stability provides profitability. Warfare costs... a lot!
The problem with most of the "lets fix sov nullsec" ideas is when you boil it down it hurts the little guy just as much as the big coalitions and in most cases the big coalitions could mitigate whatever the changes are but the little guys couldn't.
There's also the issue of screwing those who are "winning" just because people are complaining about it. How would you like it if you were winning at a computer game and just because others didn't like it the game provider changed the game so you weren't. Not because you'd actually done anything wrong, just because there wasn't currently anyone to challenge you and a few people whined about it.
Well, in this situation there is someone to challenge. In an all out war between N3/PL and CFC the outcome is far from predetermined. But... they don't seem to want all out war, presumably because it would threaten the empires that they've built. Well, not until one side thinks they can pretty much guarantee squashing the other, perhaps.
Here's a question for you: If everyone who's sick of sov nullsec joined Provi or HERO, would it be enough bodies to threaten CFC or N3/PL? What about if this happened and Provi and HERO joined together?
Now, I'm not saying change isn't needed because I think it is but only if it's fair and doesn't unduly penalise those that have built up empires because they don't deserve to have their efforts squashed just because some people complain on the forums. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
813
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 14:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dhaq wrote:Tchulen wrote:Here's a question for you: If everyone who's sick of sov nullsec joined Provi or HERO, would it be enough bodies to threaten CFC or N3/PL? What about if this happened and Provi and HERO joined together?. For a lot of people I think the problem is having to be part of a mega entity, more so than who those entities are. So everyone joining Provi or HERO would just be more of the same.
Yes, and that is a problem. Whilst one can argue (and I have) that this is a natural progression and that if you want to play in the big leagues you have to either grow into it or join one of the teams already in it, I can agree that it would be better if there was room for the smaller players.
So, there are a number of potential avenues to consider, some of which are:
1) Expand Sov Space - This is my favorite. If there was new space with significantly larger distances between stars that spread out from the outer boundaries of current Sov space it might alleviate the issue. The closer you are to Empire the easier it is to travel. The further out you go the less impact your jump drive has. Then shift nearly all the good moons further out making that the desirable space. It would massively increase the time for a fleet to get from one side of the map to the other. It would also mean that a lot of the space closer to Empire would be freed up as the current 2 massive coalitions took the more profitable space further out meaning that there would (hopefully) be space for smaller entities to take due to the distance issues making the big coalitions let go of the less profitable space. It would also mean that the better space you have the more pain in the backside it is to get to highsec and back. This is all off the top of my head so there are probably holes in it.
2) Reduce current sov holding through mechanics changes - This is rather intrusive and would likely garner complaint from the two main power blocs. Lots of potentials for this have been suggested on this forum and most have been soundly shot down.
3) Remove or massively reduce jump capability to enlarge the EVE galaxy by increasing travel times by a large factor - I'm pretty sure this isn't going to happen as it has WAY to many people against it, understandably.
It sure is a thorny subject though.
|
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
813
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 11:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Eh, yes you can say that i'm worried about eve.
This is nice game , but it is falling apart, because instead of growing ... devs are cutting roots just to make it more colourful and shiny , like this is the reason why most of the players play in this game.
Just for a bit of clarity, people have been complaining about a "big blue donut" for years and people have been complaining that "EVE is dying" and "EVE is falling apart" for years as well.
This doesn't necessarily mean it is. People complain about a lot of stuff. For some people EVE is working just fine as it is.
What roots are the devs cutting? |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
818
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 14:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:We are talking about commitment from CCP side.
...snipped...
Now ask yourself - will people pay for next two years for a HOPE that something will finally change?
Considering these changes mostly affect nullsec so one can imagine most if not all of your suggested account cancellations would come from that set and taking the assumption that nullsec is (almost) split in two it would seem likely that less than 10% (half of nullsec) would unsub. I suspect it would be significantly less than that but even at 10% CCP could weather that. If they change the system to make it more fun they'd get a lot more people resubbing and also joining the game.
So, whilst the wait might look bleak and you might want the changes sooner I don't think it'll actually be as much of an impact on the company or game as you think it will be.
I for one am having plenty of fights and fun in null so I'm happy to wait so they can get it right. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
819
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 12:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Change carriers and supercarriers so they can't use drones or fighters/bombers and can use gates. They're capital logistics/EWAR ships. Logistics in terms of reps and moving stuff. EWAR in terms of the remote ECM burst on supers. They can both still jump as they can now.
Change Titans so they can only bridge or jump once per day but can use gates. Make it so all characters have a timed flag associated which allows them to use a titan bridge once a day. This means that defending your area/region by hotdropping an invading fleet is possible and hot dropping once a day into a neighbouring region is possible but massive titan jump chains aren't.
Change Dreads so they can use gates and can't jump (except through a titan bridge).
Change it so an alliance can chose one region in which it can use jump bridges and that's it. That way no alliance can jump from one end of the galaxy to the other with jump bridges but they can be used for defensive positioning in your home region.
Don't touch black ops bridging/jumping or jump frighters.
At the moment, a fleet of subcaps can only move as fast as it's slowest ship. This would mean that if you wanted to use caps you would need to move them with your subcap fleet, mostly. That means that the bigger ships you have in your fleet the slower the fleet moves.
Logistics ships can't cause damage and so jumping is fine. Logistically moving things around en masse is still possible. Same with jump frieghters. Black ops should be able to move about more easily than normal fleets.
For sovreignty, make the sov cost for a system increase when the system remains unused. I don't have the skills to suggest a formula for it but have mining, ratting/anoms & pvp cause positive points for a system and time cause negative points and have the sov bills based on the system usage score.
Just my opinion on the matter. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
819
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 14:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:LImiting jumps or bridges to one per day will change absolutely nothing. Just like trying to put a mass limit on cynos, all you'll do is have more titans or cynos standing by to accomplish the same situation.
you can slow down capital movement and titan bridging to an extent, but the ONLY way it will get done is to put a spool-up timer on jump drives and titan bridges. If it takes several minutes to spool before each jump, this means it will take quite a long time to jump across eve. Imagine it taking an hour to jump a cap fleet 4 or five mids.
If the using a titan bridge once per day was per character as I suggested you could only use one titan. The second titan in the chain would be useless as the fleet couldn't bridge using it as they'd already done their one jump per day. It would limit the effective range of any jump capable fleet to one jump per day.
A spool-up timer would just increase the time to travel a bit but you could still travel a massive distance across the galaxy in that hour you're talking about. Limiting it to one per day would have more of an effect. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
819
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 14:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Structure timers are the worst part of the game right now. If you aren't around and are not capable of stopping someone from flipping a system over an afternoon, you don't deserve that space...plain and simple.
Giving people days, heck almost a week of timers to form up for and fight is the very reason why there are essentially 2 coalitions ruling in NS. It is a very ****** mechanic that doesn't do anything other than force an N+1 mentality and lots of hand wringing over some fictitious issue dubbed "Power Projection"
Honestly getting rid of reinforce timers should be the very first step in the process of a sov overhaul.
How is removing timers going to change anything? It still forces people to have the largest numbers (or as you buzz-worded it, "n+1 mentality"), spread right around the clock, in order to have any chance of holding onto what they've currently got. Removing timers just perpetuates and increases the "n+1 mentality".
Don't get me wrong, I think the timers have to change but I do think you're putting way too much emphasis on them. A lot needs to change, not just the timers. If you just removed them it would just exclude all smaller groups completely because anyone could flip the system, not just the 2 big power blocks. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
819
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 14:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:The discussion has degraded to just throwing random ideas.
Folks, before you change something - you set the goals for that change. Only after that it's reasonable to discuss any feats and perks that you suggest to see if they can accomplish the goals. You dont jump out and shout "my idea will change EVERYTHING, and for good of course!"
So what is your goal?
- To have more fights? Alright, but no changes needed. Join FW and you have them.
As far as I can tell, the goal is to make nullsec more vibrant, increase the possibilities for a much larger cross section of the population without necessitating joining the two current powerhouse blocs, increase the probability of encountering pvp content, make the pursuit of wealth and industry more viable in nullsec, reduce the ability to have sov sprawl and reduce the ability of large coalitions to travel everywhere in EVE quickly to make fleet positioning more tactical whilst not adversely affecting the other areas of EVE, namely WH, low sec, high sec and non-sov null.
You're massively over simplifying the goal here. You can't just break it down to individual disconnected goals and say "hey, you can do something similar so you're already fine! Quit whining" because most of the goals are interconnected. Whilst I'm fairly certain that various play styles will be affected, some adversely, by the changes which are inexorably coming to nullsec, it needs to be a net improvement overall. From what I've read of your comments you're likely to be one of those adversely affected but don't fret, you won't be alone. I probably will be too but it still needs to be done.
Skia Aumer wrote: - Assist people to build their own homes? Then you should explain exactly why a hostile TCU prevents them from doing it.
- Want more engaging industry? (Yes, that was mentioned in the OP among the other things.) Hell yeah, let's change mining first!
Or what?
I've noticed over a lot of your posts in this thread that you seem to confuse owning a system with living in a system. There is a difference. In the latter, you're a nomad living in someone else's space (NPC or sov owner) and no one can really affect you unless you put all your stuff in their station and they lock you out of it (if sov - if NPC there's nothing anyone can do short of hellcamping the station you're in). If you just live there, from a POS, NPC station or whatever, you don't own the system even if you and your friends terrorise those who own the sov. You're still just a nomad. In the former you own the system and any stations in it so you can actually be forced out. You can have your system taken from you. There is significantly more risk to owning a system than just living in it. One might argue that sov if a pointless waste of time due the additional risk but then one can also argue that it's worth it to have jump bridges, outposts, system upgrades etc. It's all a matter of perception and choice.
Whilst this distinction might not mean anything to you it does to some people which is fine. The fact that we have lots of people with different opinions on what defines "winning" makes for a more vibrant and fun game, frankly. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
822
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 09:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:...because steamrolling will always be a thing, unless you turn supers into useless coffins.
Unless there is a usable counter to supers which isn't more supers.
It all seems pretty simple to me. Make carriers only able to field fighters and make fighters unable to hit cruisers or smaller.
Make a cruiser glass cannon which can fit anti cap guns which simply can't hit sub caps but which do disgusting damage to caps.
Then fleets of caps will be vulnerable to something other than a larger fleet of caps. If you want to protect your cap fleet you *must* have subcap protection.
This would make cap/supercap use be more of a risk and therefore far less of an "iWin" button. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
830
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 09:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Soldarius wrote:Sov! Huh! What is it good for? This is a good question. what is the point of holding sov? I am dimly aware that sov is required to build supercaps, and also that lots of supercaps are required to have any realistic chance of holding sov. If this is the case then it's clearly broken. Isn't it enough for a corp or alliance to simply control a region by simply using that space and patrolling it and killing deterring others? This is how it happens in NPC nullsec.
Owning sov gives you reduction in POS fuel requirements, the ability to install jump bridges and system upgrades. It's not necessary but it does greatly improve a system's utility.
|
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
830
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 11:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Game without logi , this could be interesting, but CCP will never go into this direction.
No it wouldn't. Nerfing logi would serve almost no purpose.
Saying "but my fleet of 10 have no chance against a fleet of 100" is a statement of fact irrespective of whether logi are in the game or not.
Engaging a fleet of 100 with a fleet of 10 is suicide however you look at it, generally speaking. It's all about picking your fights. If you attack a fleet you have no hope of winning you screwed up, tactically. Nerfing logi has no affect on tactical screwups.
|
| |
|