Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] 50 60 .. 62 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 20:28:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Angeal MacNova wrote: (which removing CONCORD bounties would do)
Never said that, what I meant was the new space should have no bounty. There is more than enough isk potential in null sec. And there are players who have so much isk that they can buy the entire jita ceptor market and make another 10bil doing so. Same goes for plex some people made a fortune in that market with each making more than 100bil isk. So there is already so much isk in the game that some traders are just chasing the next 1 at the beginning of there wallet.
Anthar Thebess wrote:But supers are currently issue. CCP could make them cheaper (if ccp wants more super fights)
This is a direct result of killing the bots and removing drone loot. It helped highsec miners put it made tritanium go from 1,8 isk up to something around 5 isk. A supercap is a huge amount or tritanium pyrite and mexallon all 3 increased in the price and so titan prices increased from 35bil to about 70bil+. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
873
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 20:28:00 -
[1172] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
well theres always alts and HS/LS too trade and make isk etc... what would be interesting is adding people too planets .. so holding SOV would allow you too collect tax from them..
So how is this a good thing for your average line member given that a planet would be alliance level income?
like alliances don't have SRP's?? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12649
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 20:33:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
well theres always alts and HS/LS too trade and make isk etc... what would be interesting is adding people too planets .. so holding SOV would allow you too collect tax from them..
So how is this a good thing for your average line member given that a planet would be alliance level income? like alliances don't have SRP's??
Not all of them, most don't cover fully, and in my case the vast bulk of my costs are not covered due to my special interests (I think I get like, 10% back on my harpy variation).
So again, how does this help average joe? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
873
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 20:47:00 -
[1174] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
well theres always alts and HS/LS too trade and make isk etc... what would be interesting is adding people too planets .. so holding SOV would allow you too collect tax from them..
So how is this a good thing for your average line member given that a planet would be alliance level income? like alliances don't have SRP's?? Not all of them, most don't cover fully, and in my case the vast bulk of my costs are not covered due to my special interests (I think I get like, 10% back on my harpy variation). So again, how does this help average joe?
special interest .. so your example is a small exception.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 20:58:00 -
[1175] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Not all of them, most don't cover fully, and in my case the vast bulk of my costs are not covered due to my special interests (I think I get like, 10% back on my harpy variation). So again, how does this help average joe?
The average joe is getting -a new challange. -more space -less blob wars -a new gold rush
and the CFC is the first coaliton I know that does close to full reimburstment. Which I never used. A old rule in EVE is "You should not fly a ship you can not afford to lose"
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12651
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:09:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote: Not all of them, most don't cover fully, and in my case the vast bulk of my costs are not covered due to my special interests (I think I get like, 10% back on my harpy variation). So again, how does this help average joe?
The average joe is getting -a new challange. -more space -less blob wars -a new gold rush and the CFC is the first coaliton I know that does close to full reimburstment. Which I never used. A old rule in EVE is "You should not fly a ship you can not afford to lose"
Your plan gives no new challenge, yet more useless space for use to hold onto for zero reason, just as many blobs as now and no isk income for line members all while fixing not a single one of the problems null sec has. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12651
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:12:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
special interest .. so your example is a small exception..
Outside of strat ops you don't get full payout on losses and if you want to go into some areas of fly expensive toys you get nothing.
So no, its not a small exception and that's from the best SRP on offer. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
873
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:27:00 -
[1178] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
special interest .. so your example is a small exception..
Outside of strat ops you don't get full payout on losses and if you want to go into some areas of fly expensive toys you get nothing. So no, its not a small exception and that's from the best SRP on offer.
you're trying too tell me the richest alliance in the game couldn't afford too ?? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12651
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:34:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
you're trying too tell me the richest alliance in the game couldn't afford too ??
Do you have any idea how big our bills are?
Cold war superweapon arms races are not cheap affairs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
873
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:44:00 -
[1180] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
you're trying too tell me the richest alliance in the game couldn't afford too ??
Do you have any idea how big our bills are? Cold war superweapon arms races are not cheap affairs.
are you kidding me?? you're probably sitting on hundreds of trillions Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12651
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:51:00 -
[1181] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
are you kidding me?? you're probably sitting on hundreds of trillions
This is why people who don't live in null shouldn't throw around ideas on how to fix the problems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
296
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 22:19:00 -
[1182] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
are you kidding me?? you're probably sitting on hundreds of trillions
This is why people who don't live in null shouldn't throw around ideas on how to fix the problems.
Why not?
The people running null are the ones responsible for ruining it. Admittedly with collusion from CCP.
Don't Panic.
|
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 22:39:00 -
[1183] - Quote
We did not ruin it we just found a way to maximize profit. For most null sec members it is safer then highsec.
And what he means is that the assumption that a big coalition has 100 trillion isk can only be made by someone who never tried to understand the possibilites of null sec and how leading coalitions are working in null sec. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12652
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 22:42:00 -
[1184] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Why not?
The people running null are the ones responsible for ruining it. Admittedly with collusion from CCP.
How are we responsible? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
366
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 01:40:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Stop trying to lie baltec.
It is totally hundreds of trillions. |
Atkyaz Dreadstalker
Killer Sea Monkeys
4
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 03:26:00 -
[1186] - Quote
When CCP revamped SOV a while back, they had great intentions, and the ideas they had where good, and sounded like they would work well. A lot of work was put into it, and many of the improvements were really great for the game.
They changed the value of SOV space so that lower true sec space would be better, high income, and more valuable. The idea, as I understand it, was that the more powerful alliances would fight over the better space, leaving the lower value space for smaller groups to get a foot hold in null. previously all null sec was about the same in value. it was believed that having the value of systems fluctuate would drive conflict.
But that is not what happened. The larger alliances just got bigger, and the space they controlled got bigger. Why? The answer is very simple. The cost of maintaining SOV is minimal, and more importantly, holding all that extra space, whether they use it or not, requires very little additional effort. If your power projection allows you to surround yourself with a large amount of empty buffer space, making your core systems even more secure. And holding that extra buffer space requires very little effort. it only makes sense to do so, and why should they not do it? Currently most of that space is filled with renters anyway, creating even more income for the controlling alliances.
I have read a lot of idea's, in this thread, other threads, and even several sources outside of these forums. Although I can not claim any input on the idea's, the best idea I have read is that of occupancy SOV. This is a system where an alliance can not hold space they do not actively use. SOV is dependent on members of the owning alliance actually being active in the system to the point of maintaining the system indexes. The higher the indexes, the more secure and harder the system is to capture. If they do not maintain the indexes their SOV over the system will degrade and the TCU will eventually go offline. This requires members of the alliance actually ratting, mining, and manufacturing, in that system. members of the big alliances that control the higher value system are not going to want to use systems with poor true sec if they have much better systems available to them, and why should they. This would lead to those alliances losing SOV on those low value systems they do not use.
There are many different ideas of how to implement this, including a few great articles outside of the EVE forums. a good summary can be found hereArticle there are ways of doing it that only require small modifications of the existing system. This would be much different from the old system of who ever holds the most POSes in the system gets SOV, or however it used to work. But the core idea, although maybe not perfect, would be a huge improvement over the massive alliances holding hundreds of systems we have now. |
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 09:28:00 -
[1187] - Quote
The problem with the use space to get sov idea is that it does not change a thing. The same coalition will control the system, they just do not have sov it would be like NPC null sec.
Make it like faction warfare ,or make it like incursions idea is not working because the bigger coalition would lock down the system 24/7 and win.
The reason why the big coalitions hold the space is that they have enough players and ships todo so. They have a mangement system outside of the game the takes dozens of people and hundreds of $ or Gé¼ to maintain and the result of that is supremacy and there is no gamemechanic that can change something outside the game.
With hardcaps and instancing you kill the idea of game and the same people would rule.
New and more complicated space creates the need for more players and even better mangement systems to maintain supremacy for these coalitions. If there is more space then they can control then there will be space for new groups who don't want to be someones pet. And the bigger a group is the more difficult it is to keep it from destroing itself .
Most coalitions and alliances died because they got to rich and fought internally over the isk or they where fighting over where they should be heading or the people who where holding them together left the game.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12660
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 10:28:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Just adding more space will result in exactly what we have now, only CFC and N3/PL will hold even more space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 10:53:00 -
[1189] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Just adding more space will result in exactly what we have now, only CFC and N3/PL will hold even more space. then it were not enough systems. I am not joking around when i say make it 100.000ly and a 1mil systems. This would be 12000 jumps for a titan to cross and it would take 10days and need insane amounts of fuel.
If you want to bring the big coalitions into trouble you have to think big |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12660
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 10:57:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Just adding more space will result in exactly what we have now, only CFC and N3/PL will hold even more space. then it were not enough systems. I am not joking around when i say make it 100.000ly and a 1mil systems. This would be 12000 jumps for a titan to cross and it would take 10days and need insane amounts of fuel. If you want to bring the big coalitions into trouble you have to think big
Thats not possible with current server technology and you STILL have not fixed the problems with null. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 11:06:00 -
[1191] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: and you STILL have not fixed the problems with null. The problem with null is not a game mechanic problem it is a meta gaming problem. Yes there are some null mechanics that are not cool or fun but no game mechanic can solve the problem that the bigger amount of players with the better means of working together will be the one who owns the space.
And systems that are not loaded because nobody is there is not a server performance problem.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12660
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 11:18:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote: and you STILL have not fixed the problems with null. The problem with null is not a game mechanic problem it is a meta gaming problem. Yes there are some null mechanics that are not cool or fun but no game mechanic can solve the problem that the bigger amount of players with the better means of working together will be the one who owns the space. And systems that are not loaded because nobody is there is not a server performance problem.
Most of null is already empty and it is very much game mechanic issues at the heart of nulls problems.
Empire sprawl is the result of each system only being able to support at most 10 ratters at a time. Sov mechanics dictate that we need huge fleets to fight a handful of battles to grind down billions in EHP. The way carriers work means we can dump massive boot/wreckingball fleets into a cynojammed system and be invincible. Supers and titans are a pain for everyone including the people flying them as they are now trapped in a space coffin. Logistics means that smaller fleet dock up because they simply cannot kill anything.
These are the problems with null not a lack of space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 11:50:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:The problem with the use space to get sov idea is that it does not change a thing. The same coalition will control the system, they just do not have sov it would be like NPC null sec.
logistical attrition. if you study history you'll see that keeping empire togeter is all about how fast you can move supplies, armies and order from their center to their borders - mainly orders. if you lower the ability to rapidly move forces and increase the local micromanaging required to keep sov you'll see the "empire" break up in small kingdoms and city states as the local groups need their ships to defend themselves and not on the other side of the galaxy where the main central control would want them.
Quote:
The reason why the big coalitions hold the space is that they have enough players and ships todo so.
-and- they can use those ships as a single force when needed, without requiring to distribute them over all their borders to cover every possible invasion route, requiring then not only ships and cannon-fodder people but exponentially more capable FC. |
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 12:31:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Most of these are player made problems.
@Sara Torsa That is exactly what would happen if more space is added people whould be spread thin.
If you study military history you will see that splitting forces is the last thing you want. You will keep a delay army on one battlearea and then use your main forces to win the other battlearea.
@baltec1 Just because there is no one willing to find or able to make a countersetup work does not mean the game is broken.
|
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 13:37:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:Most of these are player made problems.
@Sara Torsa That is exactly what would happen if more space is added people whould be spread thin.
with today ability to keep sov without any effort an move troops around not even a galaxy ten time what its now would suffice. and then with people spreaded too thin the game would be a lot less fun to play.
Quote: If you study military history you will see that splitting forces is the last thing you want. You will keep a delay army on one battlearea and then use your main forces to win the other battlearea.
only if your main army can travel fast enough to intercept any invading army from your center. if you cant, you'll need a standing army in every province big enough to be a deterrent to any potential invader. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
635
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 14:40:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:Most of these are player made problems.
@Sara Torsa That is exactly what would happen if more space is added people whould be spread thin.
with today ability to keep sov without any effort an move troops around not even a galaxy ten time what its now would suffice. and then with people spreaded too thin the game would be a lot less fun to play. Quote: If you study military history you will see that splitting forces is the last thing you want. You will keep a delay army on one battlearea and then use your main forces to win the other battlearea.
only if your main army can travel fast enough to intercept any invading army from your center. if you cant, you'll need a standing army in every province big enough to be a deterrent to any potential invader.
As far as I can tell from these discussions (those who are in nullsec please feel free to set me straight/clarify) it is the instant power projection that is the problem (if you believe there is one). Standing armies are irrelevant for controlling an area if you can just drop a fleet of titans/supercaps/etc on any given area in a very shprt time. A mechanism that would require the defender of any given space to maintain a presence would make for more dynamic space and give better chances to smaller entities to carve out a chunk of space for themselves.
Maybe a change to the jump mechanism whereby it has a limit on distance as a function of mass. You want to bridge a massive fleet? Then you can only jump it 1 ly. You want to bridge a fleet 5 ly? Then the mass you can jump comes right down (a frigate fleet for instance). People would now have to balance fleet size/composition against range. Large fleets could still be bridged but it would place more assets at risk and at higher cost. Dropping larger fleets of smaller ships would become a more valid proposition. You want to take a huge fleet in to an area you'd better start taking and holding nerby staging areas.
At the very least it might bring a bit more thought to fleet composition and attacks, splitting them over multple systems with a bit of luck. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
704
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 15:27:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:As far as I can tell from these discussions (those who are in nullsec please feel free to set me straight/clarify) it is the instant power projection that is the problem (if you believe there is one). Standing armies are irrelevant for controlling an area if you can just drop a fleet of titans/supercaps/etc on any given area in a very shprt time. A mechanism that would require the defender of any given space to maintain a presence would make for more dynamic space and give better chances to smaller entities to carve out a chunk of space for themselves.
Maybe a change to the jump mechanism whereby it has a limit on distance as a function of mass. You want to bridge a massive fleet? Then you can only jump it 1 ly. You want to bridge a fleet 5 ly? Then the mass you can jump comes right down (a frigate fleet for instance). People would now have to balance fleet size/composition against range. Large fleets could still be bridged but it would place more assets at risk and at higher cost. Dropping larger fleets of smaller ships would become a more valid proposition. You want to take a huge fleet in to an area you'd better start taking and holding nerby staging areas.
At the very least it might bring a bit more thought to fleet composition and attacks, splitting them over multple systems with a bit of luck. You are only scratching the surface of the problem with Null.
One of the problems is the amount of EHP you have to grind through in order to be able to plant your flag. This necessitates a large capital fleet, at least, in order to knock down the EHP quickly enough to not be a ungodly, boring, slog. Since a large capital fleet is vulnerable to massed supers, you have to at least have supremacy of those supercaps in order to field your caps, which leads to coalitions being formed to achieve supercap supremacy. You could, at least in the past, field lots of subcaps to deal with capital ships, but this ceaced to be viable as Boot/Wreckingbal doctrines totaly negated subcap DPS as adding a few EWAR immune supercarriers ment you could never damp or jam out the remote reps to capitals, wich necessitaes having a larger supercap blob to basically doomsday the carriers off the field, wich leads to bigger coalitions to get supercap dominance and what we are left with now, a bipolar Eve.
That is the TL;DR version of the problems with null. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 15:52:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Power projection is not realy the issue.
EVE is full and I will try to explain. We started with an empty null , then we learned to live in it and to controll it. In the beginning we had multiple alliances who took space. Over time they collided and coalitions were formed(Something that was never intended by a game mechanic). At the end 2 Powerblocks and a few minor blocks where left. Now self preservation kicks in, none of the minor blocks can turn the edge and both sides do not want to lose what they gained. We reached the point were there is nothing left to conquer and the space there is has been distributed.
EVE is full
EHP, jumprange, tactics, everything around ships and how they are not balanced is all jumping around the issue of EVE is full.
Yes there should be more distance between the systems or less jumprange (which is basicly the same). Yes EHP is a problem if you want to attack SOV with a small group but the 1000players stoping you in search of good fights will be a bigger issue. Yes ewar immue ships are like a hardcap which should never exist but they still die.
EVE is about promise, opportunity and the option to build your empire and all this in a multiplayer enviroment which encourages community. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
704
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 16:26:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:EVE is full. Bullcrap! The good space in Null may be full I'll grant you that, but when an alliance has sov in a system where the only good thing to do in that system is plop down a moon harvesting array on the only money making moon in that system, since it is not worth upgrading because the truesec is shite, so it won't spawn the right kind of anomally, or enough of them, and even miners avoid the system because it won't spawn the right kind of ISK/Hour minerals, or enough belts to even start to upgrade it. That is ONE of the problems with null. Not that it is "full" which is patently false. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 17:00:00 -
[1200] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:EVE is full. Bullcrap! The good space in Null may be full I'll grant you that, but when an alliance has sov in a system where the only good thing to do in that system is plop down a moon harvesting array on the only money making moon in that system, since it is not worth upgrading because the truesec is shite, so it won't spawn the right kind of anomally, or enough of them, and even miners avoid the system because it won't spawn the right kind of ISK/Hour minerals, or enough belts to even start to upgrade it. That is ONE of the problems with null. Not that it is "full" which is patently false. So you say the good space is full and the other space is not worth it. There will be always bad and good space you can not change that and most of the time this is the buffer between the coalitions. So you realy say EVE is full
What you might want is more PVP and hope to accomplish that by adding more people into null. The problem is most people do not want to PVP all the time so adding more people to null will not help. It also will not increase the fighting over limited ressources because we already done that .
Yes null is not as full as it could be in terms of player numbers but it is definitely in terms of systems and ressources. You proved my point, thank you for that. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] 50 60 .. 62 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |