EVE Search - Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 56	Posted - 2014.07.07 14:00:00 - [181] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Spool timers are bad, as it will just lead to more capitals. You need to use capitals 5 times a day? Buy 10 carriers , you will have plenty of reserve. Fast relocation ? Un - rigged carriers here we come. Repackage on each station, bit annoying , but it can be done. Tie the timer to the pilot.. easy. A bit harder to overcome, i have 4 capital pilots. Damn need more. Hmm well if you put timers on ships (regardless of them being repacked inbetween - surely CCP can make that happen) and on pods/characters, that might work
Anthar Thebess 566	Posted - 2014.07.07 14:02:00 - [182] - Quote Well i don't say no. Something is better than nothing. But you need to include the same thing for titan bridges. What about jump freighters. For some regions you just made a very long trip for a JF. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1409	Posted - 2014.07.07 14:27:00 - [183] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Well i don't say no. Something is better than nothing. But you need to include the same thing for titan bridges. What about jump freighters. For some regions you just made a very long trip for a JF. Titan bridges are even more critical than jump drives sure. I would say probably a limit on how many times a ship can cross a titan bridge ( if you put the limit on the titans themselves that will change nothing). The fine details are irrelevant the problem is that your original proposal cannot be implemented because severeal parts of low sec become completely disconnected from the rest of universe and some rather large regions get chockepointed bya single system (just increasing the any fight will be a full super capital fight dilema). I can appreciate the feeling that a 1 system per time advance would create. The need to make a frontline move slowly.. But on current even geography that would cause so many problems that it becomes almost unfeasible. Other thing that could help would be to create a class of cyno jammer that is way easier to install. No need of sov. Just make it fragile and appear on overview of everybody in system. That would mean that you NEED to send initial forces to deal with those before capital movements. Yes its only a small delay but at least create chance for smaller scale fights to matter. Also, MY PERSONAL VIEW THAAT WILL MAKE LOTS OF PEOPLE ANGRY.. I think supercapital ships shoudl have a manteinance fee. Just like real life warships are a strain on the economy of their countries because of huge mantaeinace costs. Make that SERIOUS cost. Like Titans would cost 20 BIL per month or they become unusable. Half of that for motherships shoudl be ok. THe result? Creates a situation that having a huge fleet and not using it becomes stupid. THere will be an urge to use them , because in a full stagnated year the ship will have costed itself again in fees. Eventually that would reduce the incentive to have super massive super capital fleets mothballed waitign for wars that will never happen. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Araneatrox Sanctuary of Shadows Honorable Third Party 38	Posted - 2014.07.07 14:41:00 - [184] - Quote I find it rare that i agree with PL on things, but i must say i do like alot of these changes.
Retar Aveymone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 504	Posted - 2014.07.07 14:44:00 - [185] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Well, if we wanna go the route of limiting power projection, how about starting with something smaller and more incremental? How about we just remove Titan bridging? I mean it wouldn't solve the whole problem but it would be a start. I've always felt uneasy about the idea that 99% of Titans' role in Eve is just to sit in a POS and bridge. The problem is that the titan as a combat ship is a broken idea, and that we want to increase it's non-combat uses so there is more room to decrease its combat uses. The titan has been a nonstop problem for combat balance since it was introduced with the hilarious idea there would only ever be a few of them. It's too late to simply delete them, so a non-combat role has to be found. You won't get there by nerfing the only good one it's got.
Midori Tsu Evolution Northern Coalition. 133	Posted - 2014.07.07 14:45:00 - [186] - Quote I think that having timers and costs affected by usage are something that should be added. But i do have worries over this making the game tedious and unfun, which not every enjoys. I may of missed it, but how will this affect blackops?
Retar Aveymone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 504	Posted - 2014.07.07 14:46:00 - [187] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Easy to overcome, but can be part of solution. Why? Because the more things to manage , the bigger possibility for something go wrong. I think instead of influence , increasing sov bill for the distance from capitol , will be enough. No one will want to pay 7bill to keep sov in a system on the 3 regions away. This will force also changes to the JB network. This is a bad idea because you're still just trying to tweak a bad system that has incredible difficulty getting around being gamed by alt alliances. The correct solution is to go back to something like pos fuel: the farther-stretched your empire is, the more your logistics are overtaxed and something will go wrong.
Wentworth III Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 5	Posted - 2014.07.07 15:19:00 - [188] - Quote Interesting solutions but I'm afraid the coalitions would not break up as a result. When the best income is directly dependent on the amount of sov owned, it makes sense for alliances to collaborate rather than fight. The only way to really break up the coalitions would be to make renting less profitable to the extent that it could not support a coalition of 50,000+ characters. But that's impossible if you think about it. The only other option is to outlaw renting, but CCP wouldn't dare interfere with the whole ~sandbox~ narrative.
Anthar Thebess 566	Posted - 2014.07.07 15:22:00 - [189] - Quote Retar Aveymone wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Easy to overcome, but can be part of solution. Why? Because the more things to manage , the bigger possibility for something go wrong. I think instead of influence , increasing sov bill for the distance from capitol , will be enough. No one will want to pay 7bill to keep sov in a system on the 3 regions away. This will force also changes to the JB network. This is a bad idea because you're still just trying to tweak a bad system that has incredible difficulty getting around being gamed by alt alliances. The correct solution is to go back to something like pos fuel: the farther-stretched your empire is, the more your logistics are overtaxed and something will go wrong. I don't think that this is perfect idea, but it is better than nothing , and it should be applied with others. We already have multiple material sinks, but eve lacks good isk sinks. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1409	Posted - 2014.07.07 15:29:00 - [190] - Quote Retar Aveymone wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Easy to overcome, but can be part of solution. Why? Because the more things to manage , the bigger possibility for something go wrong. I think instead of influence , increasing sov bill for the distance from capitol , will be enough. No one will want to pay 7bill to keep sov in a system on the 3 regions away. This will force also changes to the JB network. This is a bad idea because you're still just trying to tweak a bad system that has incredible difficulty getting around being gamed by alt alliances. The correct solution is to go back to something like pos fuel: the farther-stretched your empire is, the more your logistics are overtaxed and something will go wrong. wow wowo no no.. he might be right... conceptually That system is basically what civilization 3 used to cosntrain the limits of your empire. The metagame result was that players tryed to concentrate their empire a lot. Problem arises in the coalitions. How to solve it? You pay a price for EACH station that your alliance CAN DOCK! BE it yours or not. With price increasing with distance. Obviously you must have the option to remove your own alliance docking rights from stations that you do not want to dock (avoid enemy abusing). Just throwing ideas... mmmmmmm That will make extremely undesirable to hold a station far far away from your capital..... "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Naecuss Higher Than Everest Black Legion. 0	Posted - 2014.07.07 15:39:00 - [191] - Quote Excellent discussion Manfred, hopefully something comes out of it. Jump Bridges and distances one can Titan bridge needs changing and changing fast.
Xolve Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2459	Posted - 2014.07.07 15:40:00 - [192] - Quote I like how all of you assume that making gross changes to the way capitals navigate the known game world will somehow have some mystical ability on players way to undermine even the best changes, to simply make more jumps, or to just quit playing this awful game. "Power Projection" was a neat catch phrase during the CSM, but when most of the nullsec populace is capital ready (in many cases with several racial variants at that) what you're experiencing isn't 'power projection breaking the game' it's the influx of more and more players with higher and higher skill points.
John Ending GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 40	Posted - 2014.07.07 15:46:00 - [193] - Quote Manfred Sideous wrote: The fact remains that nullsec as it stands is broken and has been for some time. I really think it would be cool to see a more diverse nullsec. I mean N3/PL control over 1500 systems and 500 stations and CFC controls a similar amount as well. Thats just dumb but we all are just playing with the tools and rules we are given. Everyone likes winning so in the end will exploit any advantage to improve chances of victory or victorious endstate. Real change needs to happen. I dont know how to fix it but I think all of us can agree on this.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1409	Posted - 2014.07.07 15:53:00 - [194] - Quote Xolve wrote: Making Sov cost more might do something to break up huge swathes of space owned by a single entity, but if the space is unused in a 40k man coalition, why is going to be more desirable to a much, much smaller group? Bad space is bad. There was a lot more to this, but the forum ate it (twice); this is the draft, and I can't be *** to re-write it all again. TL;DR Tinkering with Sov, sure; ***** with jump drives, meh.* It is not only sov that is the problem. If we tie up costs to sov we jusut split the alliances within a coalition, not the coalition itself. If we could make life be more expensive the more blues you have that would result in the ideal solution, the problem lies in how to do it in an elegant way that is not easily circunvented. That is why I proposed (rough and very very initial idea) that the alliance manteinance bill be tied to the number of player owned outposts it is allowed to dock "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Kel hound Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 103	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:01:00 - [195] - Quote Zappity wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 7 minutes across the universe sure is kind of stupid for a ship like an archon when an interceptor need an hour. Yeah, pretty much this. New Eden is far too small with the current mechanics. More broadly, I WANT to want to go to null. But the current options of join the blob, bow the knee or rent have zero appeal for me. And no, I don't know how to fix it :) I feel the same. I have had a few personal peaks into the nulsec life and a large serving of second hand accounts. What I have observed is not encouraging and yet, I still want to want to go to nulsec. Nulsec was one of those things that caught my interest in EVE in the first place, and yet, with the current mechanics and setup, I would not choose to live there if you paid me. Saisin wrote: Allison A'vani wrote: I Basically the entire 0.0 outside of border regions to empire space would be abandoned and you would see a mass exodus back to high/low sec. . Wrong.. There are some types of players that would settle it, with all these difficulties.. It would not become abandoned. After all, wh space is being settled too. Sure, it would not be the current type of players that currently enjoy their null sect riches without much risks... Those would leave null sec As a wormholer I can confirm that the idea of remote, hard to reach space appeals to me in a strange way. I would love to set up in some remote corner of 0sec, trading and/or fighting with my neighbors. I remain unconvinced that the effective removal of jumpdrives and bridges is the answer to this obvious problem, but it is definitely a key factor that must be considered when overcoming it. That we are talking about it in a (semi) serious manner is a good thing. Power projection does feed into the N+1 problem, and while it would help to alleviate it, addressing it directly is treating the symptom, not the cause. If we did (effectively) remove jump drives, how would this change anything? What would stop people from adopting old tactics of alpha fleets made up of tornados and naga? How can you be confident this would meaningfully change anything at all?
ProphetGuru Evolution Northern Coalition. 0	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:15:00 - [196] - Quote I've been around a fairly long time as well, and I can't say I recall the early days of Eve with any great fondness. Yes their is the nostalgia element, looking back on being part of discovering new things, pushing the boundaries of the limited tools we had, being part of things that helped shape the game in a lot of ways etc is neat, but the game itself wasn't all that compelling. I believe the compelling part of Eve back then, and the nostalgia some look on it with, mainly came from the social aspect and bonds people, and groups of corporations used to have. You actually did a lot of corporation based activities, be it pvp, and or pve stuff, and usually built more relationships. A lot of that went away with large alliances, and even more of it has gone away with mega coalitions. Yeah you have some leadership groups that still converse, but in general the social dynamic has changed. Their are certainly exceptions to this, but in general you don't have that kind of connection with the people in your 1500 man fleet, or your 30,000 person coalition. That's the real genie you are trying to put back in the bottle, but I'm not sure that it is possible. CCP is in the unenviable position of having to make decisions not based on just making a widely diverse subscriber group happy, but having to take into account how it affects the sandbox as a whole. The fact that they typically lack the courage to tackle large issues, doesn't help. (wanna guess how many re-balance passes I've seen in 11 years while fundamental game play aspects are left ignored because they are too hard or hot to handle?) That said, in regards to Manny's proposal, I'm not sure it would have the desired effect, other then making a lot of logistics teams want to slash their own wrists, and coalitions placing fleets of capitals, and jump clones, in every region they own. I'm also unsure if we even know where CCP stands on power projection. Their is a general assumption among a lot of players that CCP wants to nerf it, but on the other hand, they use the results of that power projection capability as a marketing tool. (see b-r) . If they really are not happy with the mechanic, their would be a certain amount of hypocrisy in making videos and publishing reports lauding it. I think all the game mechanic changes in the world won't help, until you figure out away to break the usefulness of coalitions, and the blob mentality of Eve that has existed since 2004. Rebuilding Sov from the ground up might go a long way in doing that.
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5358	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:18:00 - [197] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: I am watching this thread with great interest and am very happy to see the discussion it's spawning. It's very interesting to compare the ideas being discussed here with concepts we're discussing internally. I just hope you realize this simple fact: If the time it takes to conquer a system is less than the time it takes for a group to move capitals over a longer distance, join in on the fight for the system and then move back home before they lost their system; nothing will change for the political landscape. Please tell me you understand that. The Paradox
Anthar Thebess 566	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:22:00 - [198] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I am watching this thread with great interest and am very happy to see the discussion it's spawning. It's very interesting to compare the ideas being discussed here with concepts we're discussing internally. I just hope you realize this simple fact: If the time it takes to conquer a system is less than the time it takes for a group to move capitals over a longer distance, join in on the fight for the system and then move back home before they lost their system; nothing will change for the political landscape. Please tell me you understand that. I hope this is obvious. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption
Draahkness The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:22:00 - [199] - Quote Some more random ideas: 1. Make pos-jump bridges only take industrial ships. IE any ship made by ORE or any ship that requires the racial Industrial skill. 2. Make titan jump bridges use fuel and also make the titan fuel bay really small. Bridging tons of players would be possible but only in waves between refuelling. 3. Limit station docking rights to the alliance owning it rather then the blue-list. Bit unfair againnst people trying to be 0.0-traders I agree but common good... 4. Increase sov cost per system beyond 4-5 by alot. I'm talking BILLIONS and rising. 5. Reduce hitpoints of station services to a few thousand. If a system is lived in and a random roam pops in and destroy services it shouldnt take more then a few minutes to rep. If no one lives there services may be down for weeks. 6. Make supers weapons not work on anything but ships. 7. Remove carriers remote rep bonus and triage module. Make a new capital with no fighters and bonus to rep drones only to give capital reps and triage to. Finally I just wanted to say to the people using the argument "This will only cause more alt alliances and renters" that renters and alt-alliances have turned on their masters many many times. RAT is a good example. RA pirate corp who formed their own alliance and went to war agaisnt RA.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 672	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:25:00 - [200] - Quote A common mistake that is made in these threads is to attempt to use cost to limit throughput or power projection. As we can see with the proliferation of titans, cost is NOT a balancing factor; money is just too easy to make in this game for that to ever be the case. In particular, the popular idea wherein ships or pilots can only execute a limited number of jumps in a time period is actually an indirect attempt to limit power projection through cost. Personally, I own six jump freighter pilots and a jump freighter for each; if a jump cooldown timer was added to jump freighters, I would set up a Pony Express style jump chain and continue business as usual. Meanwhile, people with only one jump freighter are completely screwed. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
jack1974 Reikoku Pandemic Legion 31	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:27:00 - [201] - Quote A few pages in and it is nice to see the conversation evolving. In my opinion the main problem will nullsec, AND THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH NULLSEC, is the sov mechanics. I'm no expert at creating rules but I feel the solution is simple: Speed up all timers so a system can change owners in less than a day. Example: Alliance B could destroy Alliance A's station in under 18 hours(6 hour reinforcement timers). Potential Situation: Ally B knows that Ally A has a horrible USTZ and an even worse Aussie TZ. Ally B waits for Ally A to have a bad EUTZ showing so they begin to siege a strategic hub. Unless Ally A pulls a rabbit out of their @ss their station is lost. How is this a solution? Alliances today rule out strategic hits/death blows because you can see them coming from a mile away. With todays mechanics Ally A would reinforce Ally B's station on a wednesday. Ally B now has 3 days to plan its defense for the weekend. 3 days to move cynos, dictors, etc. WAY TOO MUCH TIME. In current times, as we learned from Germanys Blitzkrieg, the faster you can hit the better! Advanced Situation: Coalition A needs to remove Coalition B from a region. They alarm clock on a Monday after DT for their coalition to reinforce and now CAPTURE every system in said region by Monday night. Come Monday afternoon Coalition B would be backpedaling due to the abrupt, vast attack on their space. Either they pull together numbers within the next 12 hours to defend every system or they face to lose all of their hardwork. Que Mannies solution: Stations can be destroyed(assets beamed to lowsec/jita) If a coalition did a deathblow to another alliances main station, the defender would then logistically have to get all of their assets back out of lowsec/jita to the frontline again That would be a pain and people would gladly defend their turf to prevent the extra work. All together this solution would do the following: require all alliances to be on high alert at all times SOV wars to be more FPS like, high death/action logistic networks ready to retrieve lost assets from destroyed stations potential more cap use(='s greater chance of cap loss)(more fuel usage) more wars as alliances run the risk of losing their entire space in a week or two(nowadays 1 system a week)
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5358	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:29:00 - [202] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I am watching this thread with great interest and am very happy to see the discussion it's spawning. It's very interesting to compare the ideas being discussed here with concepts we're discussing internally. I just hope you realize this simple fact: If the time it takes to conquer a system is less than the time it takes for a group to move capitals over a longer distance, join in on the fight for the system and then move back home before they lost their system; nothing will change for the political landscape. Please tell me you understand that. I hope this is obvious. You would be surprised how most of the players, especially null players, do not comprehend this fact. The Paradox
Kirluin 44	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:29:00 - [203] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: I am watching this thread with great interest and am very happy to see the discussion it's spawning. It's very interesting to compare the ideas being discussed here with concepts we're discussing internally. any chance you could post some "null-sec statistics that may surprise you" data? It might help direct the discussion towards things that are actually not working, vs what we think is not working. also, real data is cool.
Retar Aveymone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 506	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:37:00 - [204] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I am watching this thread with great interest and am very happy to see the discussion it's spawning. It's very interesting to compare the ideas being discussed here with concepts we're discussing internally. I just hope you realize this simple fact: If the time it takes to conquer a system is less than the time it takes for a group to move capitals over a longer distance, join in on the fight for the system and then move back home before they lost their system; nothing will change for the political landscape. Please tell me you understand that. "please tell me you understand that fire is wet" that's wrong and you have a history of not really grasping the details of why power projection is a problem or how to fix it. of the many, many wrong things with your post the single biggest one is your casual acceptance of one of the biggest problems with "power projection" and sov issues: the defender-takes-all nature of sov fight victories where a single win by the defender resets all progress in the system. if you were to go back to the tug-of-war nature of pos warfare that you CAN show up in time for one fight wouldn't be enough because one fight would not be enough. your ideas on power projection tend to be really really bad because you are heavily blinkered and generally make that sort of casual assumption that various things are fixed, so you must heavily nerf the things you haven't casually fixed without thinking about it or make other seriously bad changes because they're the only ones you see. if you must continue posting, please stop posting as if you are an authority on the subject and have some idea of what "simple facts" people need to understand. you're generally wrong and you generally don't even put an argument in the post so that I can explain the errors in your thinking and correct them for the benefit of the reader or you
Logan PewPew Crazy Bird Inc. The Fire Nation Syndicate 16	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:47:00 - [205] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Manfred Sideous wrote: Speedkermit Damo wrote: The "little guy" that everyone keeps referring to has access to NPC nullsec. The problem is that there's not a lot of npc null, not enough anyway and what there is has become quite crowded. Which is why I advocate expanding NPC nullsec space at the expense of sov-nullsec. If CCP wants more players in nullsec, then we need more NPC nullsec space. The little guy will just get camped into those NPC stations by mega coalitions when the little guy pisses off the mega coalition. Why is that a problem? I'm serious. People are allowed to lose, you realize. But losing simply because you've been around for less time and have less members is just harmful to the game. The issue at hand, i think, is that there should be other avenues of approach. Ultimately the game is really just a game is it really fun when there is no competition? i suppose but it seems like not everyone agrees.
Cherry Yeyo 3	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:49:00 - [206] - Quote I can tl;dr this whole problem: 1. Its too easy to control large swaths of space via capitals and capitals are too hard to kill in large numbers Why would anyone do that? 2. Theres not enough localized value in 0.0 If I have one lump of coal that isnt worth much but I have the ability to gather 500 lumps of coal that will be pretty great, I will gather 500 lumps of coal to the best of my ability. If you make my one lump of coal more valuable, enough to sustain a reasonable living and make it impossible for me to gather 500, I will learn to live with that. This is a simplified analogy about garbage space and collecting a ton of it then renting it out, no one can contest my 19 regions of space because of my capital blob that can move anywhere in it in minutes.
Retar Aveymone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 506	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:54:00 - [207] - Quote Cherry Yeyo wrote: I can tl;dr this whole problem: 1. Its too easy to control large swaths of space via capitals and capitals are too hard to kill in large numbers Supercapitals are too hard to kill in large numbers. Capitals are quite well balanced, except for problems caused by supercapitals (threat of escalation if you drop dreads on the capitals, mostly).
Cherry Yeyo 3	Posted - 2014.07.07 16:58:00 - [208] - Quote Retar Aveymone wrote: Cherry Yeyo wrote: I can tl;dr this whole problem: 1. Its too easy to control large swaths of space via capitals and capitals are too hard to kill in large numbers Supercapitals are too hard to kill in large numbers. Capitals are quite well balanced combat-wise, except for problems caused by supercapitals (threat of escalation if you drop dreads on the capitals, mostly). What if they cut titan and supercarrier EHP in half and removed ewar immunity?
jack1974 Reikoku Pandemic Legion 31	Posted - 2014.07.07 17:01:00 - [209] - Quote Another solution to power projection is similar to escalations. Mechanics: A SUBCAP Cyno will allow the mass of any subcap to come through its tunnel but is limited to the use of only 1 capital ship. 1 Capital ship coming through the tunnel would result in the cyno overheating and burning out. can only fit to subcaps A CAPITAL Cyno will allow the mass of any subcap, carrier, or dread to come through the tunnel. 1 Supercapital may come through the tunnel but then the cyno would overheat and burnout.can only fit to capital ships A SUPERCAPITAL Cyno will allow the mass of any supercap, carrier, dread, subcap to come through its tunnel without overheating.can only fit to super capitals Supporting ideas: cynos will now be sized small/medium/large. This would make it impossible for a hound to fit a supercapital cyno in its highs. Larger cynos means more LO in order for a super to come on a field there would have to be a sacrificial carrier cyno(limited to 1 super) or a super lit cyno. In order for there to be a carrier on grid there would have to be a subcap lit cyno. This would ensure a version of subcap dominance in order to ESCALATE to supers. supers can no longer get across the universe in 20 minutes. If you want to move a super fleet you will consequently need a super cyno for each mid. Since cyno's last a while the fleet will have to wait for the cyno to end or they risk losing the super that lit the cyno. This would apply to carriers/dreads too.
Retar Aveymone GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 507	Posted - 2014.07.07 17:04:00 - [210] - Quote Xolve wrote: Making Sov cost more might do something to break up huge swathes of space owned by a single entity, but if the space is unused in a 40k man coalition, why is going to be more desirable to a much, much smaller group? Bad space is bad. Most "unused" space is rented out. I don't want it, goons don't want it, but we can control it and rent it to the people who do want it. You look at PBLRD and NA space and most of it should be the ** space that we don't care about but new alliances can try to carve out and plant their flag and eventually grow into something worthwhile. But instead, we are absentee landlords until someone comes in force and it's filled with ratters in organizations with no real hope of advancement. The space is desirable to a much smaller group because it's a foothold. It's why goons wanted Scalding Pass way back in the day: space, moons, logistics but it was a start and it got us on the map. And as much as BoB and other real powers claimed to want it it just wasn't close enough to them or valuable enough to them to really bother. Again though I think just making it cost more in isk doesn't do the trick: we have plenty of money, and new organizations don't. You need holding space to be costly in terms of effort but not isk, so poor but hungry organizations can outcompete a goonswarm or a PL for ** space we just really can't be bothered to put much effort into holding.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.