Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
kidkoma
Catastrophic Overview Failure Brave Collective
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:11:00 -
[91] - Quote
The fundamental problem with theory crafting at this level is you cannot truly understand what people are going to do or how they are going to react.
Sov Null suffers from a few things.
1) EHP of the structures you are required to shoot to take a system.
2) The ability to be at multiple timers that are very far away from each other very quickly.
3) The fact that there is safety in numbers.
A few suggestions I've noticed are:
Limit alliance blues: "Newbro's, see this list of alliances, right click them all and set to blue. If you shot them, you'll be shamed."
Escalating sov costs: "I have three characters on each account I have. Each one starts an alliance and holds the optimal number of systems."
I'd like to try out different sov systems. I know if CCP were to throw together a bunch of early build sov systems, put them on SISI and ask the community to come out and try them, I would be happy to show up, it would be a safe guess that a good part of the sov null scene would too.
For example, copy+paste FW into sov null, try it out.
I honestly have no idea how feasible this would be, but giving the players time to break your sov stuff and experiment with it would be a interesting way to figure out what works and what doesn't.
Everything doesn't have to be secret secret, we know you are as perplexed with the situation as we are; really, nobody knows what will actually fix null, and what will just make it weird and unworkable. The best option in my opinion is try every stupid idea and whittle them down into workable non stupid ideas. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3434
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:18:00 -
[92] - Quote
Contrary to what the failed lawyer states on his Eve Pravda site, the people CCP should be talking to about overhauling null sec sov are NOT the current owners, who have huge vested interests in maintaining the status quo when it comes to power / wealth distribution.
Talk to the people that want in to null sec, but are shut out by the cartels. That means IGNORING the cartel reps on the CSM, and dealing with anyone else, and I mean anyone else.
But that won't happen. The incestuous relationship will continue, and the hegemony of the cartels will continue, no matter what changes are made, because CCP makes posts talking about how they are discussing with the CSM.
CCP, you want to save null sec, and ultimately Eve and your company? Destroy every game construct that allows any space in the game to be under the total control of a handful of people. Build new game mechanics that make it impossible for any group to control vast swaths of space.
If you don't, the gridlock and boredom will continue, and CCP will continue to bleed subs. Oh and BTW, might be smart to actually cater to the casual player base, which regardless of all your propaganda, is still your largest customer demographic. |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1388
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:19:00 -
[93] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Sniper Smith wrote:Rovinia wrote:- Limit Alliance-to-Alliance blue standing to 2-3 entitys. Then it'll be done on the Corp level. There is nothing, NOTHING, you can do in Eve to keep people from working together. Weekly charge on the list. Escalating with the total number on the list. You don't need in-game standings to be blue to each other.
If CCP removed in-game standings in the worst case you'd end up with sth like the CVA KOS list (which I can tell you from having lived in Providence for a few months is completely workable), best case you'd do some sneaky client modifications to bring standings right back in (e.g. back in the day people replaced the cached player portraits with - / + pictures to see at a glance how much of local is red/blue). . |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1388
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:22:00 -
[94] - Quote
Kiera Malukker wrote: Think the kinds of stuff terrorist do in rl and apply it to eve.... we should have strategic class tools to balance super cap fleets to sow terror in the hearts of our enemies and those we want to enact revenge upon.
Real life terrorists attack checkpoints, not supercarriers. . |
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
939
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:57:00 -
[95] - Quote
Zappity wrote:What was the purpose of the OP? There have been so many threads and discussions. I think you need to provide at least some specifics about your goals if you want meaningful feedback beyond what has already been said.
might of been addressed, my guess is with all the hundreds of threads it is easier to look at all the ideas if they are gathered in one place and easily 'digable'
And i'll pipe in, One thing i think needs to happen is moon goo becomes more of an Active mining activity and not passive. The Ring mining idea was brillant, and the rorq coudl have roles change dot be a cap miner. This would mean alliances need to work there space more and would want to defend it to keep it open for players.
sov should be tied to use, and yes power projection tweeked. I'm not god at holding sov, but thats my thoughts. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331766 |
Fluffi Flaffi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
102
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:32:00 -
[96] - Quote
Eliminate the local!
Let it work like in wormholes.
Makes all the the things that are done in 0.0 more interesting and challenging. It will cause more conflicts and if I understood you the right way the last 1-2 years, this is what you are striving for at the moment. Stay true to yourself in that Position.
I could list pro and cons here now, but I leave that to 0.0 inhabitants as I seldom go to 0.0. But I know how interesting it is in wormholes to not know if there is somebody and if, how much and who is there and then you have those moments where: knock, knock, point, pow - surprise comes to you. :)
|
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
114
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:58:00 -
[97] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Thatt Guy wrote:Step 1: Ask for feedback Step 2: Ignore feedback Step 3: Change things to the way you want it, because screw the players feedback
You already proved you don't care what the players think with wormhole spawning distance and incursion scout sites.
So why should we bother this time? because what YOU want for the game is always whats best for the game right? man... you really are that guy...
Seeing as I was with the 85% of people who hated these changes, yeah.
Also seeing as I couldn't care less what is done with 0.0..
Just stating that CCP has a history of asking for feedback, then ignoring it. (and giving two examples) Haters gonna hate, Trolls gonna troll. |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2724
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:34:00 -
[98] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Sovereignty, in it's current form, should be removed from the game entirely.
The true measure of "ownership" is control. If I control what happens in your sov, then it doesn't matter whose name is on the label. Control of a system does not require new game mechanics
That's basically it. If you can stomp on anybody visiting your system you in fact have control over that system. You can allow people anchor their POSes, have mining ops, ratting parties, whatever but the moment you don't want them there you just burn everything to the ground and kill everybody because they are on "your" territory.
It works in lowsec pretty well, people take over systems not by planting artificial flags but by actually murdering everything that moves. People use "landscape" of systems connections (pipe lines) to protect resources (agents, belts, moons) they consider theirs. And all that without bubble baths on gates and jump bridges and mechanics to put their name on system info.
Null could be great if only system control would mean actual control not by magic power of my name painted on the wall. Invalid signature format |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
312
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:36:00 -
[99] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:Swiftstrike1 wrote:Sovereignty, in it's current form, should be removed from the game entirely.
The true measure of "ownership" is control. If I control what happens in your sov, then it doesn't matter whose name is on the label. Control of a system does not require new game mechanics That's basically it. If you can stomp on anybody visiting your system you in fact have control over that system. You can allow people anchor their POSes, have mining ops, ratting parties, whatever but the moment you don't want them there you just burn everything to the ground and kill everybody because they are on "your" territory. It works in lowsec pretty well, people take over systems not by planting artificial flags but by actually murdering everything that moves. People use "landscape" of systems connections (pipe lines) to protect resources (agents, belts, moons) they consider theirs. And all that without bubble baths on gates and jump bridges and mechanics to put their name on system info. Null could be great if only system control would mean actual control not by magic power of my name painted on the wall.
So we can plant N+1 players in a system for X amount of hours in cloaky ships to flip the system? |
Tzuko1
FREE GATES Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:39:00 -
[100] - Quote
Dear CCP !
As a null-sec pilot since 2006, i've been in predominion and now in the chains of dominion. What people are writing here is correct ! This system just not work. It wasnt worked since day 1. The few things you should consider is really the Travel time you get with capitals and i know some people will try to hit me now, but honestly jumping with capitals is way too easy.
1. Slow down travel ability of all capitals.
ITs really simple to do it. After a jump the capital must wait 15 minutes till he can jump again. Than 30 minutes. And keep counting, this can refresh around down time so most of the power blocks will slow down. For those who do logistic jobs this can be reduced in the jump freighters a bit and you can use 2 or 3 chars to do this job. So literally if you slow down the powerblocks ability to move bigger capital fleets you shake up smaller alliances to use capitals more often ! You can move SUB capital fleets faster in this case, so there will be more interesting battles again between sub capitals and capitals.
2. Destructable stations.
Its a good thing, there are simply too much of them. But with that restriction if you destroy a station, you shouldn't do it in the same region for a while, that i beleive would be a fair deal of this.
3. sov capturing.
I think the current system is nothing but supporting the bigger numbers. What would shake this up, is that you need to think in constellation level when you capture a system. For example: You want to take a system, but for that you need to sit in all of the constellation systems. So the defenders have a chance becouse they dont need to fight all of the attackers, but just a part of it.
Mixing this 3 would totally rewrite the ability of big coalitons, would make buffer zones, and chances for smaller alliances to fight.
Good luck with this all im curious where you end up. |
|
Jezza McWaffle
Pandora Sphere Disavowed.
147
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:47:00 -
[101] - Quote
Can't wait to see every bit of player feedback regarding null get ignored. C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/ |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1837
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:58:00 -
[102] - Quote
Local chat tweaks
From my perspective as a wormholer, local chat is an overpowered intel tool as is instantly alerts people to a potential threat.
A quick fix: When you jump into a system you have a session change cloak. I propose that a player should not show up in local until their session change cloak has ended. This would give the hunter extra time to determine where his target is.
If people want the instant intel of someone jumping in, they will have to dedicate a character to watching a gate (work for it) but they wouldn't be able to tell if it was friend or foe jumping in until the session change cloak ends. +1 |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:02:00 -
[103] - Quote
Faction / sovereignty owner dependent security status
I think it's better for the game to encourage more types of engaging policies and in current 0.0 NBSI is predominant. The hard part with maintaining a NRDS policy are the long lists of reds that has to be shared with all the friendlies living in your area of space. It would be easier for the sov. owner to just flag the the reds as criminals towards them.
Ex: if CVA flags my alliance as reds/criminals we will appear in overview as flashy reds for everybody as soon as we would enter CVA space. That should make things easier for all the other neutrals living in that area of space and it would eliminate all the hard work associated with the red / blue shared lists.
I hope it helps! |
Slevin-Kelevra
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:10:00 -
[104] - Quote
I most say I am hesitant to even reply to this, plainly and simply because I don't feel like CCP have the guts to make the changes that on the scale that is currently needed. I completely disagree with peoples personal vendetta with Fozzie I do feel that he a long with the rest of CCP can be accused of not being brave enough to make large scale changes, no matter how much they are needed. So instead of going from point A to point B CCP ends up taking EvE from point A to Point A.1...A.2 ........ Until years latter there is some feeling of actual change. To fix the current problems with null we need large, sweeping changes to completely overhaul the mechanics, and I just don't think CCP has that in them.
While those are my feelings on whether or not this actually means anything I will provide my ideas on change none the less. The way I see it there are only two problems with null, but these problems are massive and completely mechanics based. Changing these two problems would change everything about null life, but I feel that is what needs to happen. I will list the two main problems and I my suggestion on changes below:
Problem Firstly we have the big one, sovereignty mechanics. This is the number one biggest problem with null, and brings with it a plethora of other problems. The just of the problem is two fold, one the idea that a large alliance can hold space they live no where near to is absurd, the whole point of null security space is to be untamed and uncontrollable. The second part of of the problem is the need to grind structures for days on end only to take a single system, this makes wars long, boring and unsustainable, because as much as CCP likes to forget it even the most hardcore of EvE players have a real life to get back to.
Solution The solution for the above problem in my mind is easy, occupancy sovereignty. Basically put this is the idea that you have to actually live in your space to own it, and to take a system from someone you only need to push them out. Thus you control what you can maintain, and if someone comes along wanting your space you have to fight for it or be forced out. This would remove in large part the need for large coalitions, as every alliance just has to hold their own space, while it would still be nice to have friends to come and help you fight for your space should you need it. I do how ever believe that stations should still have timers, as these take large isk investment and should therefor not be easy to remove.
Problem 2 This is the current isk making format, the current system benefits alliance leadership, while hardly benefits line members. The top down income system is in place because of three reasons, renter income, POS income, and Tax income, all of which go straight to the leadership, who then distribute how they feel fit, often not very fairly or evenly. This is incredibly unfair, as without the member base these large entities would be nothing, it should be the members who benefit from incomes not leadership. And yes it has to be accepted that this will effect SRP and other replacement funds, but if line members are making their own isk then this wont matter as they will be able to fund their own activity. A better system would urge members to be more active, as they have to make their own isk, not being able to relay on being dribble feed by leadership, and as we all know more activity is sorely needed.
Salution Well I hinted at the solution within the problem, but to broaden this I have to admit that I don't have a fully formed solution as to how to completely remove top down income, because how do you change the likes of POS income to benefit line members? If a move to occupancy sovereignty had to happen that would solve the Renter income. My idea ties in with my previous solution, if an alliance has to be active in their own space to own it, you increase the rewards to members who are active, making space more valuable for the people who own it, thus increasing the desire to own space, while still being restricted in that you have to be active in your space to own it.
Anyway this is just my feeling on the matter, I hope we see change, and fairly soon. I urge CCP to please be brave enough to make the much needed radical changes, null sec needs it, and EvE needs it! |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2725
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:16:00 -
[105] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:So we can plant N+1 players in a system for X amount of hours in cloaky ships to flip the system?
What part of "murdering everything" did you miss from my post?
It's not about just having numbers in system, it's about using them to keep others away. Right now system is yours even if you never visit it again after planting a flag. Only thing stopping others from building a station there is that flag not your men power. I'm not talking about some weird occupancy game mechanics, I'm talking about occupancy by being there and fighting other off "your" ground. System should be yours because you actively prevent others from being there and exploiting its resources not because your alliance ticker is in system info panel.
Don't think in terms of "I will drop 1000 ships for X hours and flip occupancy timer" think in terms "I log in and see strange people in local, they poach my belts and rats and maybe even will suck my moongoo, I need to murder them before more will come".
Again, occupancy by keeping land by force not by some new lines of code calculating "presence factors". Null should be no mans land, you deserve nothing unless you can fend off others from it. Invalid signature format |
Hermelien Griffel
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:28:00 -
[106] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I used to think that the way to get small entities involved in null sec was to make sov more defensible allowing a smaller group to really dig in their heels and stand up against a large group.
I know see that the exact opposite is true... the large HP numbers on sov structures actually provide a minimum barrier to entry while not effecting larger entities at all.
think about it, if you multiply the HP on all sov structures by 30x, the only people who could realistically do sov warfare would be N3, PL, and the CFC; nobody else could bring a relevant amount of damage.
TL;DR instead of making sov harder to take, make it easier
It will be easier if you tie the structure HP to the activity level of the system. From 1/30 HP with no to very low activity to 30x HP to very high nearly continuous activity
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:47:00 -
[107] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:Just saying seeing CCP on the focus group about sov null makes me nervous.
Fixed that for you......... |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
806
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:49:00 -
[108] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Local chat tweaks
From my perspective as a wormholer, local chat is an overpowered intel tool as is instantly alerts people to a potential threat.
A quick fix: When you jump into a system you have a session change cloak. I propose that a player should not show up in local until their session change cloak has ended. This would give the hunter extra time to determine where his target is.
If people want the instant intel of someone jumping in, they will have to dedicate a character to watching a gate (work for it) but they wouldn't be able to tell if it was friend or foe jumping in until the session change cloak ends.
nice, so punish people even harder for not having alts |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:05:00 -
[109] - Quote
Jezza McWaffle wrote:Can't wait to see every bit of player feedback regarding null get ignored.
CCP don't do that....they only ignore the aspects of player feedback that they do not agree with. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1841
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:06:00 -
[110] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Local chat tweaks
From my perspective as a wormholer, local chat is an overpowered intel tool as is instantly alerts people to a potential threat.
A quick fix: When you jump into a system you have a session change cloak. I propose that a player should not show up in local until their session change cloak has ended. This would give the hunter extra time to determine where his target is.
If people want the instant intel of someone jumping in, they will have to dedicate a character to watching a gate (work for it) but they wouldn't be able to tell if it was friend or foe jumping in until the session change cloak ends. nice, so punish people even harder for not having alts
How is anyone being punished? The system is currently unbalanced and you don't necessarily need a alt, this is a MMO and your corps mates should supports you.
This is a game about spaceship combat and this change only applies to the areas of space that are supposed to be dangerous. If you don't want to risk ships in null sec/low sec, you should move to high sec.
However, it this change goes ahead and more ratters and miners are being killed as a result, the isk earning potential would need to be increased to improve the risk vs. reward balance.
Everyone wins! +1 |
|
Slevin-Kelevra
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:11:00 -
[111] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Local chat tweaks
From my perspective as a wormholer, local chat is an overpowered intel tool as is instantly alerts people to a potential threat.
A quick fix: When you jump into a system you have a session change cloak. I propose that a player should not show up in local until their session change cloak has ended. This would give the hunter extra time to determine where his target is.
If people want the instant intel of someone jumping in, they will have to dedicate a character to watching a gate (work for it) but they wouldn't be able to tell if it was friend or foe jumping in until the session change cloak ends. nice, so punish people even harder for not having alts How is anyone being punished? The system is currently unbalanced and you don't necessarily need a alt, this is a MMO and your corps mates should supports you. This is a game about spaceship combat and this change only applies to the areas of space that are supposed to be dangerous. If you don't want to risk ships in null sec/low sec, you should move to high sec. However, it this change goes ahead and more ratters and miners are being killed as a result, the isk earning potential would need to be increased to improve the risk vs. reward balance. Everyone wins!
So the way you see it, massive coalitions are not a problem, grinding structures is not a problem, top down isk distribution is not a problem, capital move meant si not a problem, No the biggest problem in your eyes is that its to hard to get kills in null sec?
Have you even contemplated how OP an interceptor would be without appearing in local? It would not be hard to make isk, it would be impossible.
And the fact that your brightest idea is to make it harder for people to make isk in null, means that you know absolutely nothing and would do well to stay in your wormhole
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
299
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:15:00 -
[112] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:If you're going to reconsider the high level goals of the sov mechanics, it would be enormously helpful to have a discussion on what the justifications are for having de jure sovereignty in the first place.
If 0.0 is supposed to be "lawless" space, ownership by fiat (i.e. arbitrary game mechanics) seems to contradict that principle. All of the actual benefits of controlling a system -- and the mechanics that enable it -- could remain in place without the contrivance of a Territorial Claim Unit. In other words, perhaps player groups should be able to build infrastructure hubs, CSAA's, jump bridges, etc., or even plant a pretty flag, in any system at any time. The only requirement for keeping those structures and reaping the benefits would be the ability of owners to defend them. That would be the purest expression of occupancy-based sov.
Just to be clear, this isn't about "fixing" the current sov mechanics. I'm questioning whether they should exist at all.
I can't recommend this post enough. It'll be the end of renting.
What also needs to happen is a massive nerf to teleportation. The ability to move 1000s of Megathrons, or 100s of Archons from one side of the galaxy to the other is ridiculous.
It ruins the immersion, the feeling of inhabiting a massive galaxy is just not there. It should be. It encourages massive coalitions of everything being set blue for 20 jumps. It encourages oversized blob fleets, which CCP technology just can't cope with. It allows bored 3rd parties to effectively ruin localised conflicts and gatecrash fights/wars which are none of their business.
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." Douglas Adams
The above quote should apply to New Eden, instead New Eden seems about as large as the inside of a fridge.
Don't Panic.
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1841
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:17:00 -
[113] - Quote
Slevin-Kelevra wrote: So the way you see it, massive coalitions are not a problem... Some or irrelevant rubbish
I didn't mention anything to do with sov or the general state of null. I'm only concerned about local and CCP have already stated that they want to do away with this "instant intel, no effort" intel tool.
Like i said, increase the site values to compensate and it wouldn't make it harder to make isk it would just ensure the risk vs. reward is balanced. And while CCP are at it they should fix interceptors as they are already op.
Your sense of entitlement is one of the things that is ruining null sec, this your "but see see pee, i should be able to make my isk in complete safety". +1 |
Galdur Trudaihnel
United System's Commonwealth
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:19:00 -
[114] - Quote
LOL just LOL,
Before you all become disappointed and waste your time with well thought out and articulated feedback, please check the wormhole forums and make a decision on how ''valuable'' CCP thinks player and CSM feedback is. There is one threadnaught that may stand out...... |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1841
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
Limit the number of bubbles that can be placed around a gate in null and remode bubble immunity from interceptors but give them a small MJD instead. +1 |
Slevin-Kelevra
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:29:00 -
[116] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Slevin-Kelevra wrote: So the way you see it, massive coalitions are not a problem... Some or irrelevant rubbish
I didn't mention anything to do with sov or the general state of null. I'm only concerned about local and CCP have already stated that they want to do away with this "instant intel, no effort" intel tool. Like i said, increase the site values to compensate and it wouldn't make it harder to make isk it would just ensure the risk vs. reward is balanced. And while CCP are at it they should fix interceptors as they are already op. Your sense of entitlement is one of the things that is ruining null sec, this your "but see see pee, i should be able to make my isk in complete safety ".
Your point is completely mute, I don't make isk in Null, actually I have a wormhole alt corp. I don't believe isk making in null should be completely safe at all. I do how ever feel your idea of "I think null should be more like wormholes because that's where I live and its what I know, therefor making it right" is idiotic and massively short sighted.
The reason I brought up the rest of that stuff is not because you disagree with it, but because when asked to give feed back on null sec your brightest idea was to fix local, well done on your amazing problem solving abilities,.
Guys who knew!!! the solution to all the problems with null is to fix local chat!!!!
|
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
312
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:31:00 -
[117] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:So we can plant N+1 players in a system for X amount of hours in cloaky ships to flip the system? What part of "murdering everything" did you miss from my post? It's not about just having numbers in system, it's about using them to keep others away. Right now system is yours even if you never visit it again after planting a flag. Only thing stopping others from building a station there is that flag not your men power. I'm not talking about some weird occupancy game mechanics, I'm talking about occupancy by being there and fighting other off "your" ground. System should be yours because you actively prevent others from being there and exploiting its resources not because your alliance ticker is in system info panel. Don't think in terms of "I will drop 1000 ships for X hours and flip occupancy timer" think in terms "I log in and see strange people in local, they poach my belts and rats and maybe even will suck my moongoo, I need to murder them before more will come". Again, occupancy by keeping land by force not by some new lines of code calculating "presence factors". Null should be no mans land, you deserve nothing unless you can fend off others from it.
But what metric would you use to gauge the "ownership" of the system or are you thinking of NPC null style of "no one owns this space but group X dominates the system technically owning it"? |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1841
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:39:00 -
[118] - Quote
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
The reason I brought up the rest of that stuff is not because you disagree with it, but because when asked to give feed back on null sec your brightest idea was to fix local, well done on your amazing problem solving abilities,.
Guys who knew!!! the solution to all the problems with null is to fix local chat!!!!
So i guess local isn't a part of null sec?
Again, i don't care about the general problems with null. I live in wormholes and my focus is on PVP so i'll leave the general state of null to the experts.
My expertise lie in killing stuff and when you consider that an aligned miner/ratter will be alerted by local, and often be in warp before the hunters screen loads, something is broken.
If you can't see how this is unbalanced you have no clue about the concept risk vs. reward and should just stop talking to me because you clearly don't have the capacity to have a logical and rational debate with me. +1 |
Oxide Ammar
159
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:42:00 -
[119] - Quote
1- remove local channel : it provides so much intel for no effort.
2- destroy able outposts as they promised before. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing. |
Slevin-Kelevra
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:42:00 -
[120] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: Again, i don't care about the general problems with null. I live in wormholes
And yet here you are providing suggestions on how Null should be changed. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |