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 - 8 post(s) |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11256
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nullsec leaders holding conquerable space have come together to put forth an open letter to CCP expressing their dissatisfaction with the Dominion sovereignty system and stating their support for occupancy-based sovereignty mechanics. The letter further states a need for more NPC 0.0 space within conquerable regions for the sake of increasing activity in 0.0, especially much-needed small-scale combat, as a lot of conquerable systems are over 25 jumps from NPC space.
This statement has been signed by the leaders of the constituent alliances of the CFC, N3 and HERO coalitions, along with several non-coalition actors such as PL and Pizza.
The open letter can be read here. Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
1965
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
goon....... grrr |

Jace Sarice
Blackwell Financial
13782
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Feel free to get the supposed signatories to actually state they agree with this publicly. I don't care what you think as long as it's about me. |

Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1582
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
I look forward to seeing how the future CCP null revamp details fall into this. Anything that doesn't address one of these three items or directly support one is missing the boat. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11314
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jace Sarice wrote:Feel free to get the supposed signatories to actually state they agree with this publicly.
Then once we know they do, feel free to enjoy nobody caring.
you're free to ask them Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Thomas Hurt
Future Methods
325
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
If Goons came up with it, it can't be good, IMO |

Viyerkoichv
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
I support whatever my leaders want. |

Thead Enco
Radio New Vegas
204
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
\o/
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |

Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
206
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
<-------- enjoys the warm sun.
I am going to read this, though. The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |

Dod Kalm
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jace Sarice wrote:Feel free to get the supposed signatories to actually state they agree with this publicly.
Then once we know they do, feel free to enjoy nobody caring. :tinfoil: already
|
|

Kristoff Merkas
Ares' Legion The Bastion
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
I Support This Statement!
Death to the Dronelands, and Death to my eternal nemesis, Pandemic Legion!
-Kristoff Merkas Epic Killmail *****, CFC Grunt, Born and Raised in the Hellfires of Southern Nullsec. I am Loyal... Like a Dog. Give me a ship; give me food, and I'll stick by your side forever.
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM FOREVER!!!! |

H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
38
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
Jace Sarice wrote:Feel free to get the supposed signatories to actually state they agree with this publicly.
Then once we know they do, feel free to enjoy nobody caring.
If you follow the link in the OP you see them all |

Xydon
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:39:00 -
[13] - Quote
keep bumping |

Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
183
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
3 of 5 stars, needs more tildes. |

Lothros Andastar
The Minutemen The Bastion
172
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
I DISAGREE!
(I actually agree) |

Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
875
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:39:00 -
[16] - Quote
I read the public letter and agree, especially on the NPC nullsec part. I have lived in Null for a time. My time in Curse is still one of my most fun times, constantly fighting to keep a system or two under 'control' without worrying that you'll be denied access when one of the Big Boys decide to stomp through (unconquerable NPC stations)
So yes, I understand the value of NPC space & stations for smaller entities who want to live out in null, and ultimately the boost it provides for larger nullsec entities when they got neighbours they can fight without travelling halfway across the galaxy. The Yulai Incident, when Zombies defied Concord -áNew Eden Capsuleer writing contest! Deadline 15 october! |

Mizusu Bererund
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:40:00 -
[17] - Quote
I support this message. |

Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12322
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Portal 2 LP by Matt and Matt is really good. Sky Captain of Your Heart
Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn |

Xappu
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
Vince made me post here |

BigSako
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
108
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
seems good |
|

Thead Enco
Radio New Vegas
204
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[21] - Quote
.
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |

Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
33
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
Posting in a thread that the Devs will likely ignore. |

Help me ImDieing
Tackled In Belt xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[23] - Quote
Confirmed official blue doughnut |

Wrik Hoover
Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion
83
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[24] - Quote
more like a statement of a bunch of inactives |

Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
406
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
+1 |

TurboX3
Hax. Northern Coalition.
63
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
Is this the correct forum post, where I can buy a donkey? No Trolling Please |

Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
862
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[27] - Quote
Supported @EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |

Zadus Rejan
Kernel of War Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[28] - Quote
In before ccp. |

Redlaw Ikaruga
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
Because "GRRRRRRRR CCP" |

XxTheKmanxX
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:42:00 -
[30] - Quote
If it's on the internet it must be legit. I approve this message |
|

Thead Enco
Radio New Vegas
204
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTPWLpw5b_w
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |

Gius Grizzard
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:42:00 -
[32] - Quote
Supported |

RafisH
hirr Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:42:00 -
[33] - Quote
+1 let us see new eden burn again |

Rapiid
Hax. Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:42:00 -
[34] - Quote
Massivly agree that this will fix null  |

Takumiro
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ban thread, gas op skink |

TheButcherJohn
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:42:00 -
[36] - Quote
I approve of this message. |

Tianzi Li-Hua
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:42:00 -
[37] - Quote
As a new eve player (- 1 year), this seems like a good idea.
Quote:NPC 0.0 IN EVERY SOV REGION
We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist.
Source: http://themittani.com/news/null-deal-statement-sovereign-00 |

Pistonbroke
D00M. Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[38] - Quote
Vince said it this happens, then it might be worth being active again! |

Cuebick
Hax. Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[39] - Quote
Agree 100%. I like this. |

foxnod
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
100
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[40] - Quote
+1 |
|

ShiFoo
hirr Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[41] - Quote
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em. |

Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
206
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[42] - Quote
I'm happy about this agreement, because without the leaders consent, there would be no way in hell that sov could be fixed, ever.
Way to go guys! The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |

glitterbomb
BURN EDEN Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[43] - Quote
++++ Fix sov
|

Dethblossom
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[44] - Quote
+1 Change is needed |

Expron
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
I'm hoping with the last little shred of both my soul and dignity that ccp looks at this |

Hiply Rustic
Aliastra Gallente Federation
208
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:43:00 -
[46] - Quote
Dod Kalm wrote::tinfoil: already
If by that you mean that there might be, perhaps, a small group of people who are curious as to the rationale behind this letter then I suspect I should buy more shares in Alcoa. Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
|

Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:44:00 -
[47] - Quote
A very good start! CCP would be fools to ignore this. but it is pretty sad it takes this kind of steps to get people attention. CCP really needs to wake up and focus on EVE, |

Jace Sarice
Blackwell Financial
13782
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
Oh, I forgot to mention I support this. I don't care what you think as long as it's about me. |

x-bsod
Pink Fluffy Bunny Slippers Northern Associates.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:44:00 -
[49] - Quote
+10 change is needed |

Mor Rioghainn
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:44:00 -
[50] - Quote
we hope you care ccp |
|

Silk75
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:44:00 -
[51] - Quote
Awesome idea, this would get small fires burning in all of null sec, and new entities rising as a result. |

Kathao Crendraven
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:44:00 -
[52] - Quote
I support this message and/or product.
I was not told to post here. -á |

hanabal drake
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:44:00 -
[53] - Quote
Bout bloody time |

Worfeh Dallocort
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:45:00 -
[54] - Quote
+1 |

Migui X'hyrrn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
116
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:45:00 -
[55] - Quote
I agree with this product and/or service |

Edmond Lewis
Republic University Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:45:00 -
[56] - Quote
well, so long as they don't go too far with adding npc stations, the other points I got no issue with |

Starlandor
dodoi corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:45:00 -
[57] - Quote
+1 Do eeet. |

Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
539
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:45:00 -
[58] - Quote
But doesn't CCP Seagull have a vision that required at least five years?
Meanwhile, enjoy the flavor and lore of the game stripped out of the game, for more general terminology, since the influx of all these new players will not understand otherwise. |

Ryan Hawks
Evolution Northern Coalition.
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:46:00 -
[59] - Quote
+1 for a real fix |

Rutger Centemus
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:46:00 -
[60] - Quote
Idea seems good, we'll see what happens - "can't be worse than the current situation, can it?"  |
|

omgdutch2005
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:46:00 -
[61] - Quote
I approve of this message!
+1 |

Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
122
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:46:00 -
[62] - Quote
Quote:Dear CCP.
All the alliances in your null sec game are so scared you will break null-sec, that they have gotten together and and done stage one of the planning cycle for you.
Please accept this combination of ideas as it will open up your game to grow further into 2015 - 2016 and beyond.
Do not listen and your balance sheet will take a revenue hit for 2014 - 2015
Yours sincerely everyone directly associated with null-sec |

Josephine Carnius
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:46:00 -
[63] - Quote
I like the NPC space part.
+1 |

Nofearion
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC The Kadeshi
84
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:46:00 -
[64] - Quote
Something needs to be done, Not everything is going to be perfect, Not everyone is going to be happy. We do need change |

Mythical Myth
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:47:00 -
[65] - Quote
I was told there was pap here. Does anyone have some pap? |

Systemic
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:47:00 -
[66] - Quote
+1 |

FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:47:00 -
[67] - Quote
As another pontificator upon the mechanics of internet space I support this. It would really improve the game if it was implemented. |

MauseJule
hirr Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:47:00 -
[68] - Quote
Andski wrote:Nullsec leaders holding conquerable space have come together to put forth an open letter to CCP expressing their dissatisfaction with the Dominion sovereignty system and stating their support for occupancy-based sovereignty mechanics. The letter further states a need for more NPC 0.0 space within conquerable regions for the sake of increasing activity in 0.0, especially much-needed small-scale combat, as a lot of conquerable systems are over 25 jumps from NPC space. This statement has been signed by the leaders of the constituent alliances of the CFC, N3 and HERO coalitions, along with several non-coalition actors such as PL and Pizza. The open letter can be read here.
yep, ccp should start to do something about |

jabbastunog
Evolution Northern Coalition.
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:48:00 -
[69] - Quote
Agree with this statement.
(I find myself suddenly in shock that I would agree with a Goon... ) |

Sythetic War
hirr Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:48:00 -
[70] - Quote
+1 on topic |
|

Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
387
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:49:00 -
[71] - Quote
I hereby endorse this product and/or service Warping to zero |

Sion Kumitomo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
153
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:49:00 -
[72] - Quote
I never thought I'd see the day when bitter nullsec enemies would reach a consensus on an issue of this magnitude.
Obviously, supported. |

Kael Attrell
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:49:00 -
[73] - Quote
Please yes. |

Androxian
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:49:00 -
[74] - Quote
+1 |

Dark Drudis
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:50:00 -
[75] - Quote
I approve of this message. |

Hiply Rustic
Aliastra Gallente Federation
208
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:50:00 -
[76] - Quote
RafisH wrote:+1 let us see new eden burn again
Nothing prevents New Eden from burning right now except the unwillingness of those holding the matches and accelerants to use them. Nothing. Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
|

Ghost Reaper
Evolution Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:50:00 -
[77] - Quote
Nullsec has been broke for so long.
This needs to be your main priority, main focus, and it not take to long to impliment |

Kibbolski
Terra Rosa Militia SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:51:00 -
[78] - Quote
Good changes, fully agree. |

Anaxis Muntaine
Quovis The Bastion
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:52:00 -
[79] - Quote
without doubt +1 |

Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
868
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:52:00 -
[80] - Quote
It has my support. The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |
|

Capt Robertson
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:52:00 -
[81] - Quote
+1 We Want Fights |

Darksen Belisarius
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:52:00 -
[82] - Quote
The time has come CCP. We tired of ignoring of this problem |

Kaiwhakawa Tumuaki
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:53:00 -
[83] - Quote
+1 |

Mr Deathwhisper
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:54:00 -
[84] - Quote
+1 |

Whenua Momona
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:54:00 -
[85] - Quote
+1 |

Bux Scofield
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:55:00 -
[86] - Quote
+1 |

The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8250
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:55:00 -
[87] - Quote
I'm very proud of the nullsec leadership as a whole for putting aside our extraordinarily bitter rivalries and achieving a public consensus on these issues. ~hi~ |

Helen Clark
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:56:00 -
[88] - Quote
+1 |

Tector
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
83
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:56:00 -
[89] - Quote
I support the proposal and look forward to a nullsec teeming with life as all these empire dwellers crapping on the idea swallow their pride and take their first tentative steps into 0.0 and fall in love with it. |

Ltd SpacePig
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
22
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:57:00 -
[90] - Quote
+1 support this |
|

Lord Gluttony
Phobos Research and Technologies Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:59:00 -
[91] - Quote
Is this the thread for space likes? |

Snakepriest
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:59:00 -
[92] - Quote
+1 |

Xenocy
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:59:00 -
[93] - Quote
I support this. |

addelee
Hellfire Cult SpaceMonkey's Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:00:00 -
[94] - Quote
+1 |

BogdanZero
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:01:00 -
[95] - Quote
+1 |

Thead Enco
Radio New Vegas
206
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:02:00 -
[96] - Quote
+1, Do it CCP before your remaining staff get pouched by Riot
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |

Genii Cucullati
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:02:00 -
[97] - Quote
+1, CCP get on this. Your player base is speaking plainly to you. |

Jita Alt666
1299
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:02:00 -
[98] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:Quote:Dear CCP.
All the alliances in your null sec game are so scared you will break null-sec, that they have gotten together and and done stage one of the planning cycle for you.
Please accept this combination of ideas as it will open up your game to grow further into 2015 - 2016 and beyond.
Do not listen and your balance sheet will take a revenue hit for 2014 - 2015
Yours sincerely everyone directly associated with null-sec
|

stafii
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:03:00 -
[99] - Quote
signed |

kaimai
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:04:00 -
[100] - Quote
+1 lets do this! Fly safe o/ |
|

Innokin Decker
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:04:00 -
[101] - Quote
Short, sweet, concise, and hopefully able to move mountains. CCP, please. |

Kyle Aparthos
Fyght Club SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:04:00 -
[102] - Quote
As a guy who has been posting long-winded Manifestos to anybody who would listen about the theory of an occupancy-based Sov system, I am fully in support of this message :)
Furthermore it's awesome to see so many different leaders come together to try and push for a more content-filled future for EVE Online. |

Adrie Atticus
the shadow plague The Bastion
387
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:04:00 -
[103] - Quote
I came here just to harvest NPC corp alt tears and I haven't been disappointed yet. |

RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
191
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:06:00 -
[104] - Quote
I never thought I'd see the day where the leaders of 90+% of nullsec would agree on something more meaningful than water being wet.
Oh, and poast~ ~ |

Corbzila
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:06:00 -
[105] - Quote
+1 |

Menaiya Zamayid
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:07:00 -
[106] - Quote
I support this. More people to shoot. more places to play. Get people out of that "I am safe in my home nullsec" mentality.
But most importantly get more people out here playing instead of paying. |

t3hWarrior
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:07:00 -
[107] - Quote
+1 from SMA |

Bobby Thellere
Mining Bay inc SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:09:00 -
[108] - Quote
I support this also. +1 |

Raspar
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:09:00 -
[109] - Quote
please don't tell my CEO i posted on eve-o forums. |

Dafarr Maul
Kenshin. Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:10:00 -
[110] - Quote
+1 |
|

ShinjiKonai
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:10:00 -
[111] - Quote
+1 |

Levarris Hawk
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:11:00 -
[112] - Quote
+1 |

Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
257
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:13:00 -
[113] - Quote
Is this where I post to get the 20 million ISK?
I mean, +1. |

Rina Kondur
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
124
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:13:00 -
[114] - Quote
Jace Sarice wrote:Feel free to get the supposed signatories to actually state they agree with this publicly.
Then once we know they do, feel free to enjoy nobody caring.
Hello. If no one cares, why are you posting? |

Herpp Derpp
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:15:00 -
[115] - Quote
AND MY AXE! |

Drak Fel
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
61
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:17:00 -
[116] - Quote
+1 |

Kyros Emerson
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:17:00 -
[117] - Quote
+1 I support this |

uziel99
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:19:00 -
[118] - Quote
I support this plan |

Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
63
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:20:00 -
[119] - Quote
Oh yes. +1. |

Mirkali Maricadie
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:20:00 -
[120] - Quote
I approve of this product/message. |
|

Manic M1ner
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:20:00 -
[121] - Quote
Yes please +1 |

Chicen Soup
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:21:00 -
[122] - Quote
Agree |

Shojin Askulf
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:22:00 -
[123] - Quote
+1 |

malcotch
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:22:00 -
[124] - Quote
Seems legit.... lets do it! |

Rossi Tenmar
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:23:00 -
[125] - Quote
Do it! |

Suki Starjet
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:24:00 -
[126] - Quote
+1 |

Obsidian Crowe
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:25:00 -
[127] - Quote
+1 if Troika says so.
|

GetHighNow
Quantum Reality R n D The Unthinkables
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:25:00 -
[128] - Quote
+1 |

Dah' Khanid
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:27:00 -
[129] - Quote
+1 I support this statement. |

Tibalt Avalon
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
33
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:28:00 -
[130] - Quote
+1
Me likey...perfect for smaller alliances to form up and be a pain to the bigger alliances in their own region...also forces alliances that own sov in [X] Region to maybe stay closer to their home instead of deploying to the other side of eve without any consequences  |
|

yogizh
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:31:00 -
[131] - Quote
Do it CCP Never seen all these folks agree more. |

Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
541
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:31:00 -
[132] - Quote
Based upon the product CCP has been producing (or apparently just up-keeping in my opinion), do people feel CCP is capable of creating the (revised) game everyone agreeing upon this unified front needs to be changed? |

Tykonderoga
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:33:00 -
[133] - Quote
SURE WHY NOT! |

Techno36
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:34:00 -
[134] - Quote
+1 |

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6102
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:36:00 -
[135] - Quote
OH God! Not the 'open letter' tactic..
The last desperate cry of the terminally entitled that are clinging to some lost hope that they might be perceived as relevant.
Mr Epeen  There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass! |

Orontes Ovasi
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:36:00 -
[136] - Quote
+1
Please CCP do this so we can get back to killing Goons without the utter hell that is dominion sov war. And vice versa for them, I imagine. |

Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:36:00 -
[137] - Quote
Yes. CCP, please, please, take notice of this message and steer this game back onto the correct course. A bitter vet trying to start anew. |

Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
866
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:39:00 -
[138] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I'm very proud of the nullsec leadership as a whole for putting aside our extraordinarily bitter rivalries and achieving a public consensus on these issues.
Isn't the first time , won't be the last!
/realtalk
Grrrr Goons
PS. GÖÑ @EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |

smurfslayor
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:40:00 -
[139] - Quote
I can get behind this....i like to get behind things.. |

Emma Muutaras
State War Academy Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:41:00 -
[140] - Quote
agree 100%
maybe we can force ccp to take note and read it.
if every 0.0 alliance/corp (low sec welcome as well) blues each other for 1 month and finally completes the donut and just does a burn high sec event leaving a a trail of high sec tears as 20k+ null sec bears wrecks everything in there path from jump freighters to mission runners to miners maybe CCP will finally start fixing the dam sov issue
i implore our null-sec leaders to do this save null-sec save our eve |
|

ORJI
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:42:00 -
[141] - Quote
+1 This is historic and I'm fully on-board. |

Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12324
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:43:00 -
[142] - Quote
Confirming that I would resub several accounts if these changes happen. Sky Captain of Your Heart
Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn |

Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1807
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:45:00 -
[143] - Quote
Perhaps there's still hope! |

Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
866
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:45:00 -
[144] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:Confirming that I would resub several accounts if these changes happen.
Confirming that you are Confirming.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |

Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
123
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:47:00 -
[145] - Quote
And be forced to live in the space we own? Urgh, fine. Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!https://twitter.com/EVE_MHarmlesss-á |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
4003
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:50:00 -
[146] - Quote
how persuasive |

Giannizzero
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:50:00 -
[147] - Quote
+ 1 |

Mikeh24
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
101
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:51:00 -
[148] - Quote
+ 1 |

Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2550
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:55:00 -
[149] - Quote
Yep Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|

Niralos Shooah
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:58:00 -
[150] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:Confirming that I would resub several accounts if these changes happen.
All retrievers. |
|

Sean Crees
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:58:00 -
[151] - Quote
+1 |

Adrie Atticus
the shadow plague The Bastion
388
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:59:00 -
[152] - Quote
In b4 Gevlon Goblin declares that he caused CFC to drop sov or accuses goons of storng-arming PL and NC. to sign this or they take all of nullsec. |

Skyy Dracon
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:04:00 -
[153] - Quote
I support this idea. And any idea that leads to breaking up the stagnant state of null warfare as it currently stands.
"If you own in, live in it."
I do think however that there are several other changes that need to happen along with the three core principles outlined in this letter.
NPC's need to be more dangerous and not solely restricted to anoms/sites and 2-5 ships sitting on gates.
Roaming gangs need to happen. Gate gangs need to employ bubbles and tackle as well as other additonal forms of disruption. |

Sirhan Blixt
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
73
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:06:00 -
[154] - Quote
I am Sirhan Blixt and I endorse this product and/or service. Brought to you by Carl's Jr.! |

Lord Purifier
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:06:00 -
[155] - Quote
1. OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY 2. NPC 0.0 IN EVERY SOV REGION & 3. INCREASED PLAYER DENSITY
Agree its a start, but seriously, that was all these people could agree on ?
Sorry but expected more from these people.
Where was their united thoughts on addressing;
1. Corp, Alliance mechanics + coalitions & taxation there of / also the passive income derived from moon mining by them, 2. Stations, outposts & starbase's - changes needed / destructability of these structures. 3. The introduction of incentives or forced timers, so people become limited in how long they can stay in empire, in order to increase the popluation of low and nul sec. 4. Warfare - adequate conflict drivers. 5. Capital ship balancing & projection.
|

HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:07:00 -
[156] - Quote
I am totally down with these ideas please make my space more involving other than undocking my 10 carriers and ratting thanks |

Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:11:00 -
[157] - Quote
Lord Purifier wrote:1. OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY 2. NPC 0.0 IN EVERY SOV REGION & 3. INCREASED PLAYER DENSITY
Agree its a start, but seriously, that was all these people could agree on ?
Sorry but expected more from these people.
Where was their united thoughts on addressing;
1. Corp, Alliance mechanics + coalitions & taxation there of / also the passive income derived from moon mining by them, 2. Stations, outposts & starbase's - changes needed / destructability of these structures. 3. The introduction of incentives or forced timers, so people become limited in how long they can stay in empire, in order to increase the popluation of low and nul sec. 4. Warfare - adequate conflict drivers. 5. Capital ship balancing & projection.
I imagine they wanted to focus on a few simple, key objectives to get CCP's attention. The details can be hammered out later. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer] |

HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:13:00 -
[158] - Quote
Lord Purifier wrote:1. OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY 2. NPC 0.0 IN EVERY SOV REGION & 3. INCREASED PLAYER DENSITY
Agree its a start, but seriously, that was all these people could agree on ?
Sorry but expected more from these people.
Where was their united thoughts on addressing;
1. Corp, Alliance mechanics + coalitions & taxation there of / also the passive income derived from moon mining by them, 2. Stations, outposts & starbase's - changes needed / destructability of these structures. 3. The introduction of incentives or forced timers, so people become limited in how long they can stay in empire, in order to increase the popluation of low and nul sec. 4. Warfare - adequate conflict drivers. 5. Capital ship balancing & projection.
you know they probably thought about adding those in but this is a great start. Which is what we need a start not a huge blob of stuff at one time. |

Migui X'hyrrn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
118
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:13:00 -
[159] - Quote
Lord Purifier wrote:1. OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY 2. NPC 0.0 IN EVERY SOV REGION & 3. INCREASED PLAYER DENSITY
Agree its a start, but seriously, that was all these people could agree on ?
Sorry but expected more from these people.
Where was their united thoughts on addressing;
1. Corp, Alliance mechanics + coalitions & taxation there of / also the passive income derived from moon mining by them, 2. Stations, outposts & starbase's - changes needed / destructability of these structures. 3. The introduction of incentives or forced timers, so people become limited in how long they can stay in empire, in order to increase the popluation of low and nul sec. 4. Warfare - adequate conflict drivers. 5. Capital ship balancing & projection.
We agreed on those 3 small points as a point of start. |

Lysa Shardani
Twisp and Catsby's Moonvestments Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:14:00 -
[160] - Quote
Posting in support of this. |
|

Snot Shot
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
861
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:15:00 -
[161] - Quote
So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first?
CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid.
If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point.
Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space... ...but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show... . Twitter = @Snot_Shot-á - GÇ£If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"
evesnotshot.blogspot.com |

Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
879
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:17:00 -
[162] - Quote
Supporting this double, because nullsec needs more love. It's the place that generates stories to draw in more players! remember the great nullsec wars? Or all the stories of the smaller groups pulling off successful stunts against the big boys? That's what draws in a more positive & PvP oriented crowd! The Yulai Incident, when Zombies defied Concord -áNew Eden Capsuleer writing contest! Deadline 15 october! |

Grainsalt
PubSwarm Federation Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
217
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:25:00 -
[163] - Quote
Git 'er done CCP! |

Renegade Heart
Smack My Ship Up
205
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:25:00 -
[164] - Quote
I logged in to like the OP. These kind of posts need more likes.
Brilliant idea null sec leaders! |

Thercon Jair
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:32:00 -
[165] - Quote
I support this motion.
o7 |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11385
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:40:00 -
[166] - Quote
Snot Shot wrote:So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first? CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid. If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point. Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space...  ...but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show...  .
Can you expand on your ideas with anecdotes from your storied history of leading coalitions in wars contesting sovereignty? Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

DarkPanther
hirr Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:41:00 -
[167] - Quote
+1 OP This needs to happen sooner, rather than later. |

WhiteHalo117
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:43:00 -
[168] - Quote
Snot Shot wrote:So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first? CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid. If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point. Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space...  ...but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show...  .
Like always one giant grrr goons wall, 10/10 will read again. |

Migui X'hyrrn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
118
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:45:00 -
[169] - Quote
Snot Shot wrote:So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first? CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid. If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point. Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space...  ...but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show...  .
Do you think that people makes coalitions of 40k dudes because they love friendship?
Blue donuts are a consequence of a horrible gameplay and lack of solutions. You cannot have a good income to support your activities and shoot at everyone at the same time on the current sov iteration. If you want the big guys to risk their big guns give them a good reason to do that because crashing nodes after a tidifest is not a very convincing reason.
|

Tetsel
Heretic Army
130
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:46:00 -
[170] - Quote
Link Moon mining to Sov holding, and it will be even more fun. Grrrr PL Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel |
|

Brain Gehirn
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:53:00 -
[171] - Quote
+1
What is a signature? |
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2390

|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:56:00 -
[172] - Quote
I have taken the liberty of pointing CCP at this thread. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Ryan526
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:07:00 -
[173] - Quote
+1
Fully support this. |

KuroVolt
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
2056
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:11:00 -
[174] - Quote
Don't see the signature of any of my coalitions leadership.
I reject this agreement by default! BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty. |

Vendictus Prime
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:11:00 -
[175] - Quote
"Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station." |

Regnag Leppod
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:15:00 -
[176] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:..
This thread has also been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.
Phew.. that was close! Any longer in GD and it might have gotten a lot more attention from even more people!
|

Veinnail
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
102
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:20:00 -
[177] - Quote
+1 because dominion wasn't that great. |

Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
126
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:21:00 -
[178] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have taken the liberty of pointing CCP at this thread.
This thread has also been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.
How about putting a sticky in GD linking to the thread so that people know of it's existence before it disappears of of the front page?
|

Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:23:00 -
[179] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have taken the liberty of pointing CCP at this thread.
This thread has also been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.
more like isd dumb, why would you move this? I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |

Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:24:00 -
[180] - Quote
+1 for this thread by the way
good show gents I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |
|

Aggro Bot
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:29:00 -
[181] - Quote
Lore to back the needs of the people.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=376126 |

ShadowandLight
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
277
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:29:00 -
[182] - Quote
Many (myself included) are unhappy with the state of 0.0, but in a sandbox game how can you stop major groups from making Non-Aggression Pacts with each other without ground level changes to Sov.
I just have zero faith in the proposed changes
"More NPC stations"
- ok cool fine... It would help smaller gangs have a place to hide, and it would also help provide a convenient staging ground for the 500 man coalition rolling into your back yard.
"Occ. based sov"
- so renters will fill the void and if your not blue or renting, your sov structures you just paid 20b for are gonna die... sorry pay up or GTFO.
"Increased Player Density"
- means groups will have to join larger groups to hold their sov and cause further hegemony around EVE.
This will do absolutely zero to break up EVE into smaller groups and encourage more fighting (which I assume was the point of this farce). I can only think that CCP has something else in the pipeline to break up Nullsec and the larger rental empires are trying to get ahead of it with a popularity contest.
If you base 0.0 Sov holding off the number of members (so that smaller groups can have sov)what stops a larger group from walking in and nuking the Sov structures you just paid for?
I'm not even sure what the popular opinion states is the problem?
Is it a lack of fighting? Entities got creative, decided it was better to keep their space then possibly lose it. They needed the income to keep building supers, buy plexes etc.
What incentive is there to fight? The income from renters is a major motivator to do nothing, R64's never "run dry" nor change location and holding region x is pretty much the same as holding region y. The only groups to stay relatively neutral is Stainwagon (sovless), Black Legion (sovless) and Providence (soon to be sovless if N3/PL cared enough to take it).
I can get behind the NPC stations to a point, but thats about it. If you want to shake up 0.0, you need to go to the root of the problem and that is one word.
Income. http://eveservers.info/index.php?topic=123.msg126#new A fully functional Server platform dedicated to your Corp / Alliances IT needs!
|

Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:32:00 -
[183] - Quote
shut up shadowandlight I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |

WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
375
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:35:00 -
[184] - Quote
Venetian Tar wrote:shut up shadowandlight
seconded |
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2395

|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:36:00 -
[185] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts.
The Rules: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
As clarification for the move (apparently this seems necessary): This is a proposal for a change in game mechanics. As such, it belongs in F&ID just as any other proposal in that direction. Regardless who wrote it, the rules of the forum are the same for everyone. And please refrain from any further discussion of forum moderation. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Wilhelm Arcturus
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:40:00 -
[186] - Quote
Seems like a reasonable set of broad goals without an attempt to dictate actual game mechanics. |

Thead Enco
Radio New Vegas
213
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:40:00 -
[187] - Quote
KuroVolt wrote:Don't see the signature of any of my coalitions leadership.
I reject this agreement by default!
I'm sorry but I reject having to use "KOS Checker" prior to BLAPPING. o7 #yolo
-á"A Lannister always pays his debts."
-áTyrion Lannister |

Securitas Protector
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
60
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 00:54:00 -
[188] - Quote
Agree, CCPPLS do this |

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
956
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:01:00 -
[189] - Quote
Until all coalitions disband and do standings reset you will NOT see small alliances in 0.0 again.
The proliferation of titans and super caps is the exact reason small alliances do not go to 0.0 or the fact that they have to rent space from someone or suck the proverbial !#%@#% of someone else to get space.
So if you really want small alliances to come out there CFC, N3 and others. Reset your standings. Let's see how much 0.0 changes when your power coalition blocs are gone. |

Nariya Kentaya
The Pulsar Innovation Surely You're Joking
1551
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:08:00 -
[190] - Quote
So, more NPC 0.0 space WITHIN conquerable regions, basically provide a safe haven for whatever fleet wants to **** on or harass anyone they want within a couple jumps of anywhere, so how does system defense, or the entire point of SOV, even come into play here? cause "untouchable safe haven for the guys who are just waiting to **** on us with their fleet 4-5 jumps from our space" does not "conquerable regions" mesh
also, occupancy SOV always bothered me, basically you want a system that will advertise for you what systems have the highest density PvE (because lets face it, there will NEVER be enough PvP in a system someone wants SOV in to outdo PvE in ANY index), just so it can get perma-harassed/camped/roamed by every shitlord in a massive blob alliance already?
neither one of these will change anything with nullsec, every fight will still be "form fleet with blues" followed by "camp/**** on smaller guys trying to make their way in nullsec until they quit or agree to throw away their identity and join a big blob empire" or "OH **** OH **** those arent little guys they have roughly the same number of people as us, stand down, go home, we wasted 5 hours"
none of that will change, in fact, these 2 changes in particular will make it even EASIER for the big guy to take a warm smelly dump on whatever little guy they want. |
|

scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
226
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:09:00 -
[191] - Quote
Does this mean VFK will be NPC space? |

Levarris Hawk
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:13:00 -
[192] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:
... The only groups to stay relatively neutral is Stainwagon (sovless)....
I like how when Stainwagon failcascades its way back to Stain they use terms such as "sovless" to explain away how bad they are.
_A_ is ____
<3 |

ShadowandLight
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
277
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:25:00 -
[193] - Quote
Levarris Hawk wrote:ShadowandLight wrote:
... The only groups to stay relatively neutral is Stainwagon (sovless)....
I like how when Stainwagon failcascades its way back to Stain they use terms such as "sovless" to explain away how bad they are. _A_ is ____ <3
pick your next group to ride the coat tails of? http://eveservers.info/index.php?topic=123.msg126#new A fully functional Server platform dedicated to your Corp / Alliances IT needs!
|

BinaryData
Fatum Imperium
36
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:27:00 -
[194] - Quote
I agree with about 80% of this. I firmly believe that sov costs should be based upon the alliance size. The larger the alliance, the more costly it is to hold sov. With that said, I'd tie the system/constellation activity into the cost of sov.
Alliances like Goonswarm have billions to **** away at whatever they want. They also hold some of the best sov there is. This would also promote smaller alliances to pick up sov in null.
I like the responses that this has received, but I'm wary of anythingg GSF puts up, we all know how they had sov mechanics changed the last time. Least, that is how the story is told. |

Reshah
Fearless Little Tea Cups
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:31:00 -
[195] - Quote
+1 |

jaon43
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:31:00 -
[196] - Quote
+1 ccp pls |

Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:37:00 -
[197] - Quote
Really any change CCP could make would start up a lot of conflict for a while.
The trick is to get that going for the very long term. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer] |

Talbrys Narentyr
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:43:00 -
[198] - Quote
+1 |

Darion Akachi
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:44:00 -
[199] - Quote
+1 |

Jayne Fillon
418
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:45:00 -
[200] - Quote
Supported! Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI. |
|

Chopper Rollins
Lantean Empire
963
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:47:00 -
[201] - Quote
Sounds like the shitlord blobs want to be fed tourists. -1, bad precedent, CCP getting nagged 24/7 anyway.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good. |

Janus Pimco
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:57:00 -
[202] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:So, more NPC 0.0 space WITHIN conquerable regions, basically provide a safe haven for whatever fleet wants to **** on or harass anyone they want within a couple jumps of anywhere, so how does system defense, or the entire point of SOV, even come into play here? cause "untouchable safe haven for the guys who are just waiting to **** on us with their fleet 4-5 jumps from our space" does not "conquerable regions" mesh
also, occupancy SOV always bothered me, basically you want a system that will advertise for you what systems have the highest density PvE (because lets face it, there will NEVER be enough PvP in a system someone wants SOV in to outdo PvE in ANY index), just so it can get perma-harassed/camped/roamed by every shitlord in a massive blob alliance already?
neither one of these will change anything with nullsec, every fight will still be "form fleet with blues" followed by "camp/**** on smaller guys trying to make their way in nullsec until they quit or agree to throw away their identity and join a big blob empire" or "OH **** OH **** those arent little guys they have roughly the same number of people as us, stand down, go home, we wasted 5 hours"
none of that will change, in fact, these 2 changes in particular will make it even EASIER for the big guy to take a warm smelly dump on whatever little guy they want. Agreed.
I think the first most important step is to contraint power projection. If this first vital point is not firmly established. changing other things will make no difference. |

Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
153
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:59:00 -
[203] - Quote
I Approve this message fully. |

Sslink
Intergalactic Fight Club Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:00:00 -
[204] - Quote
When I first heard about the concerted effort to try to shift nul sov to a more occupancy based model, I penciled out some thoughts. With my current schedule (IRL and game job), I haven't had a ton of time to work this into a full scale proposal, but I thought I would go ahead and post some thoughts in raw form.
Basically I think the most practical way for developers to apply these types of changes, is to utilize and mirror existing game mechanics and code. I am by no means a programmer, but this seems a logical conclusion, so I think it is best to try to consider what existing game features could be used and/or copied to accomplish the desired results.
So here are some features I think could work well:
Occupancy Index: A mathematical equation that factors PVE activity (npc kills, ore mined, etc.), industrial (manufacturing, refining, possibly rented offices, etc..), and PVP activity within a system (i.e. a measure of home defense, possibly weighted heavily). The Occupancy Index is directly tied to a system defense modifier that would have the following possible affects:
Variable EH of sovereignty Structures: A low OI might result in a negative EH modifier, where a high OI might result in a positive EH modifier. Pretty straight forward, but an un-utilized system may be a very easy thing to grind through, vs. a very heavily utilized system.
Variable, Variables On Timers: Example, a station or IHUB timer set to X time already has a variable + or - hours from selected time. A very low OI might result in a much wider variable to the + or - hours (i.e. making it FAR more difficult to control exit timers). It might be possible to have a high enough OI to result in a + or - 1 or 2 hours, where a very low OI might result in a station or IHUB timer to come out + or - 8 hours from set time. IMO, this is one of the MOST important defensive features. Timer control and the inherent offset time zones of most opposing forces is one of the key factors. Not maintaining a high enough OI in ALL of your systems, presents a tactical vulnerability for an invading force to capture a foothold and expand.
Variable Sov Bills: Low OI could result in surcharge to sov bills, and very high OI could result in a discount. IMO, something like this should make it cost prohibitive to hold vast swathes of unoccupied space.
Additional Benefits of high OI: Things like fuel bonuses for home towers, possible expanded online time for SBU's (another defensvie features), etc... Possibly even a combat bonus for high OI (i.e. truly occupied space is easier to defend with bonus to tank, damage, etc...), etc...
Cap on Low OI systems: To avoid entities from holding vast quantities of un-utilized space, it may be possible to put a cap on how many OI zero systems an entity can hold (possibly as a percentage of member count, or something).
Adjacent System OI Bleed Over: Some form of "bleed over" of OI to adjacent systems. So basically a high OI in system X, would provide a small boost to adjacent systems, to provide significant tactical advantage to holding interconnected space, and to make expansion more logical (i.e. creating borders between smaller entities, and increasing the importance of maintaining alliance with tactically positioned allies).
OI Jump Fuel Consumption Bonus: Possibly a reduction in capital jump fuel required to jump between two systems with high OI held by the same entity (i.e. another benefit of occupancy). This could provide a large tactical advantage to holding Medium to Large sized pockets of thoroughly utilized space.
Well, those are some raw thoughts on the HOW. As to WHAT, I thoroughly support the above statement.
I wish I had more time to develop a more complete proposal, and/or participate in things like this, but the above seems relatively practical utilizing current (or presumably easily inserted) game mechanics, and IMO in some form (possibly using some or all of the above) would produce the desired result. Most importantly the above changes allows for some incremental integration of features, giving room to make ongoing "tweaks" to the equations and weighting of OI factors and results over time (an important feature for a major modification to our wonderful sandbox).
That's my .02. Fly Safe |

Akatenshi Xi
Elite Shadow Society
33
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:30:00 -
[205] - Quote
I'm glad you all went to the trouble to make this letter and make the original post, however if anyone was really worried about the opinion of a few nerds who lead a pack of other nerds they probably would have called you by now. Saying they are interested in your opinion and have asked you previously yet haven't done anything sort of underscores this so don't go that route with me.
For all the years I've played EVE Online the support from CCP staff has been lackluster at best making me feel as if I could get better service from the local Union Mission in downtown. How many thousands of players have to ***** about how ******** the SOV system and many other things in this game before DEVs and other CCP staff actually ***DO*** something about it?
Continually they have released expansion after expansion with ***NEW*** content instead of fixing what has been broken for years. Who's bright idea was it to make apparel for characters and then sell it for real money? They should be fired and made an example of as well as the person who okay'd them to do it.
CCP should fix all that is broken before even considering releasing a single grain of new content - French Localization Included. |

Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:43:00 -
[206] - Quote
I endorse, support and recommend this product and/or service. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
103
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:45:00 -
[207] - Quote
I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.
What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead? |

Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:55:00 -
[208] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.
What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead?
I don't know what game you play but less than a year ago the CFC and Rus super cap fleets laid waste to the flagship fleets of PL and N3. We did exactly what you ask of us. You might of heard it, it was the Bloodbath at BR5. Did this change anything apart from the price of Tritanium in Jita? No, the largest sov holding alliances in game are the PL and N3 renter allicances. Sonething else needs to change. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get. |

Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
261
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:55:00 -
[209] - Quote
Hell yes. X |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9922
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:57:00 -
[210] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.
What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead?
I don't know why you think you get to have an opinion about this. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
|

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
103
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 03:00:00 -
[211] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.
What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead? I don't know what game you play but less than a year ago the CFC and Rus super cap fleets laid waste to the flagship fleets of PL and N3. We did exactly what you ask of us. You might of heard it, it was the Bloodbath at BR5. Did this change anything apart from the price of Tritanium in Jita? No, the largest sov holding alliances in game are the PL and N3 renter allicances. Sonething else needs to change.
As I recall the battle would have let to decisive changes in the composition of nullsec but for the utter collapse of various CFC allies due to internal issues. To me that seems to show that the system works. What you need is to create a few more BR5's, and to follow up on them properly this time. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9922
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 03:15:00 -
[212] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And that fails to fix the fundamental malady of nullsec - a system of entrenched alliances who refuse to engage in the kind of total war that would really shake things up and allow new powerblocs to emerge.
Congratulations, you have now demonstrated Total Ignorance. Yes, it's capitalized. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 03:37:00 -
[213] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And the point is that the suggestions do nothing to create the conditions to make that large supercapital engagement more likely. They are geared towards getting smaller blocs to engage with larger ones - not towards getting the large blocs to directly engage with each other. And that fails to fix the fundamental malady of nullsec - a system of entrenched alliances who refuse to engage in the kind of total war that would really shake things up and allow new powerblocs to emerge.
Occupancy based sovereignty is intended to force alliances to focus on holding smaller amounts of space, not planting flags in a hundred systems and calling it a day. I don't expect CCP to implement something like this as suggested, and that isn't the point. The point of this letter is to give the CSM a mandate to push for sov changes, and to give the developers a damn good reason to listen to them. Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
281
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 03:38:00 -
[214] - Quote
I support this idea
o/ Celly Smunt Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |

Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 03:48:00 -
[215] - Quote
It's a misconceptiont, add npc systems will just keep busy coalitions'pvper with some small entites which will try to live in those places in order to teach people how to pvp/FC or to keep bittervet playing until the next "great war", this is not a solution, it won't change the "blue donnut" rule.
Anyways those systems where people have starbase and are free to roam in 0.0 sov already exist sirs, it's called wormholes. |

Captain Jack Geary
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 03:56:00 -
[216] - Quote
I fully support the OP message,
To the honor of our ancestors and the future of 0.0 space,
Cpt. Jack Geary |

Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
869
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 04:53:00 -
[217] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:So, more NPC 0.0 space WITHIN conquerable regions, basically provide a safe haven for whatever fleet wants to **** on or harass anyone they want within a couple jumps of anywhere, so how does system defense, or the entire point of SOV, even come into play here? cause "untouchable safe haven for the guys who are just waiting to **** on us with their fleet 4-5 jumps from our space" does not "conquerable regions" mesh
also, occupancy SOV always bothered me, basically you want a system that will advertise for you what systems have the highest density PvE (because lets face it, there will NEVER be enough PvP in a system someone wants SOV in to outdo PvE in ANY index), just so it can get perma-harassed/camped/roamed by every shitlord in a massive blob alliance already?
neither one of these will change anything with nullsec, every fight will still be "form fleet with blues" followed by "camp/**** on smaller guys trying to make their way in nullsec until they quit or agree to throw away their identity and join a big blob empire" or "OH **** OH **** those arent little guys they have roughly the same number of people as us, stand down, go home, we wasted 5 hours"
none of that will change, in fact, these 2 changes in particular will make it even EASIER for the big guy to take a warm smelly dump on whatever little guy they want.
NPC squatters have proved to be excellent content providers
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |

Rhoaden
Australia Federal Police
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 04:56:00 -
[218] - Quote
I feel like more NPC space well just allow the blue dount to get bigger. But other then that looks pretty good. |

Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
109
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:05:00 -
[219] - Quote
Rhoaden wrote:I feel like more NPC space well just allow the blue dount to get bigger. But other then that looks pretty good.
it'd be great if people could elaborate as to why they think this sort of thing would happen
where i come from we add substance to our poahahahaha I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |

Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12326
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:33:00 -
[220] - Quote
a wild venetian tar appears Sky Captain of Your Heart
Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn |
|

Carl Stonewall
Dirty Old Bastards Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:44:00 -
[221] - Quote
Quote:These entities who have signed this document are historically the most bitter of foes...
bwahahahahhaahhaa the most bitter of foes that wont go to war with eachother but rather drop supers on newbie-pilots and rp'ers???
How about this for fixing 0.0 by joint venture... PL and goons mans up and shreds OTEC - voila 0.0 fixed???
|

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11417
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:49:00 -
[222] - Quote
Carl Stonewall wrote:bwahahahahhaahhaa the most bitter of foes that wont go to war with eachother but rather drop supers on newbie-pilots and rp'ers???
How about this for fixing 0.0 by joint venture... PL and goons mans up and shreds OTEC - voila 0.0 fixed???
it's not that PL won't go to war with us it's that N3 won't go to war with us without PL holding their hands through the process Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
110
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:50:00 -
[223] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:a wild venetian tar appears
gotta catch 'em all
hi lyris I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
103
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:50:00 -
[224] - Quote
Andski wrote:Carl Stonewall wrote:bwahahahahhaahhaa the most bitter of foes that wont go to war with eachother but rather drop supers on newbie-pilots and rp'ers???
How about this for fixing 0.0 by joint venture... PL and goons mans up and shreds OTEC - voila 0.0 fixed??? it's not that PL won't go to war with us it's that N3 won't go to war with us without PL holding their hands through the process
So why not go to war with both of them? Literally nothing is stopping the CFC from deploying its supercapital fleet and looking for a major battle ala BR5. |

Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
110
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:52:00 -
[225] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Andski wrote:Carl Stonewall wrote:bwahahahahhaahhaa the most bitter of foes that wont go to war with eachother but rather drop supers on newbie-pilots and rp'ers???
How about this for fixing 0.0 by joint venture... PL and goons mans up and shreds OTEC - voila 0.0 fixed??? it's not that PL won't go to war with us it's that N3 won't go to war with us without PL holding their hands through the process So why not go to war with both of them? Literally nothing is stopping the CFC from deploying its supercapital fleet and looking for a major battle ala BR5.
what happens when one party wins? do you like questions in answer to your question? ahhhhhhhhh I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |

Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
870
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:53:00 -
[226] - Quote
Carl Stonewall wrote:Quote:These entities who have signed this document are historically the most bitter of foes... bwahahahahhaahhaa the most bitter of foes that wont go to war with eachother but rather drop supers on newbie-pilots and rp'ers??? How about this for fixing 0.0 by joint venture... PL and goons mans up and shreds OTEC - voila 0.0 fixed???
Cue a real life year of spending half your Eve time grinding structures and the other half repairing them.
Should any actual pvp occur in between that then it will have been by accident. The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |

yogizh
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:53:00 -
[227] - Quote
Snot Shot wrote:So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first? CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid. If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point. Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space...  ...but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show...  .
Yes, let's make structures vulnerable, so people can pay for your obsession with structure shoots. Do you even nullsec sir ? |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11417
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:53:00 -
[228] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:So why not go to war with both of them? Literally nothing is stopping the CFC from deploying its supercapital fleet and looking for a major battle ala BR5.
Perhaps when they openly proclaim that their raison d'etre is to destroy our coalition, they should actually put effort towards that end rather than being upset over a 1500 member alliance not caring to help them Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
783
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:58:00 -
[229] - Quote
Carl Stonewall wrote:Quote:These entities who have signed this document are historically the most bitter of foes... bwahahahahhaahhaa the most bitter of foes that wont go to war with eachother but rather drop supers on newbie-pilots and rp'ers??? How about this for fixing 0.0 by joint venture... PL and goons mans up and shreds OTEC - voila 0.0 fixed???
Because fighting to grind out more renter space or a few more moons isn't all that appealing. Especially if it involves spending the entire day in max tidi.
Also, this;
Venetian Tar wrote:
what happens when one party wins? do you like questions in answer to your question? ahhhhhhhhh
Cutting down the amount of maga-coalitions from 3 to 2 or 1 isn't much of a solution. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
103
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 06:17:00 -
[230] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Cutting down the amount of maga-coalitions from 3 to 2 or 1 isn't much of a solution.
0 would be good.
|
|

Oylmpia
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 06:21:00 -
[231] - Quote
I wholeheartedly recommend this statement and/or declaration, as instructed by our Great Leader. |

KaRa DaVuT
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 06:22:00 -
[232] - Quote
Its a good way to unite people btw.
Good approach. Hopefully I think CCP will listen. |

Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 06:31:00 -
[233] - Quote
don't support the idea, and i explain why :
Quote:THE NULL DEAL: A STATEMENT FROM SOVEREIGN 0.0
We, the undersigned alliance leaders of conquerable nullsec, are deeply concerned by the risk of another Dominion-style expansion making the existing mechanics of sovereignty even worse than they are today. We have put aside our many differences and brutal rivalries to advocate for the following three touchstones of a prospective sovereignty revamp. We hope that announcing the following united proclamation gives game developers at CCP the freedom they need to make the following drastic yet necessary changes.
I hope CCP developer don't wait player to think about change And don't make change because a kind of player ask. But yes if you want change 0.0 rules. People who live in 0.0 can ask for they and CCP want to change this. So for the moment: nothing new.
Quote:OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY
We believe that ownership of territory should be reflected by alliance occupancy. Players should live in and utilize their space, and player infrastructure and activity should be reflected in an occupancy index. We believe this will significantly shrink the footprints of the current absentee empires, free up large sections of sov 0.0 for smaller entities, and remove the current need for vast coalitions.
In fact it already exist, if you want upgrade number of anomy/signature of a system. Extend to sov conquest system is just ... a joke. Now just some problem: A) Perma clocker camp your system, you can't pie/dig cause he can kill your ship, if you bait he has 50 friend who arrive. So 2 choice : fight (and loss a lot of ship and they to, so you like this only if you are pvp player), and if they win fight : they win your system, great choice. Don't do nothing wait... loose sov. Actually people who ant take dove must have some logistic. wight his you don't need. B) You said to free up to small entities... But in fact you just make a copy of low sec with this. Smaller entity can't play H24 because maybe no people in one time zone, so ninja people come, juste make more activity... SURPRISE you loose system. C) Vast coalition can continue to exist with this system, in fact they are just the alone who can survive with this, because can defend some system, and perm bank all the other. Smelt like people who search easy target who try to save they 're sov every 2 day.
Quote:NPC 0.0 IN EVERY SOV REGION
We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist.
A) Foutain for exemple have a lot of very powerful moon but in exchange it's an area who you can disrupt farming easier as other area. You already have "guerrilla" in other area of 0.0. They just deploy some POS to have "temporary safe". Sovholder must broke this tower for they safety and the guerrilla must send new.So yea they spend iso to tower and it's not only pew pew. B) Permit to all player to have safe staging in each 0.0... and if i reminder CCP want nerf projection force and make outpost destructible. So you try to broke the idea of hell camp in 0.0 by full staging in NPC area. Counter the update before update come. Nice try... C)Eve is NOT a PVP game it IS a SANDBOX game, some player want live in deep 0.0 to have less problem with pirates for exemple. So you want they play unsafe everywhere for your fun of pvp and forget people who prefer to play for other thing.
Quote:INCREASED PLAYER DENSITY
We believe that vast swathes of conquerable nullsec are essentially worthless to our line members and can only support the activity of a handful of players in each system. We would like to see the value of individual systems increased to support a dense ecosystem of players undocked and interacting within single system.
A) Make 0.0 more unsafe means pvp people come to have content yes.But industrial can just leave. So you just make an exchange of population. B) In fact low density player means easy to conquer for small entities with more density when power projection be fixed. C) if you really want increase density : allow to deploy gate defense who can uncloack ship and gun like POS to counter small gang. And you see more people in 0.0 because safer as now for all pacifist people.
Conclusion : Change sov system: why not. - All other thing on the post : just no. I thin better thing can be doing to " change" 0.0 if you want. And maybe people must start to understand on thing:
Empire : war dec and suicide gank pvp/ PVE and miner car fly with some protection. LS: smale gangandFactionnal warfare./ PVE and miner can have a lot of difficulty to be here. W.H: between LS and 0.0 0.0: Large scale pvp./ You need strand industry to survive and finance your pvp fleet.
This change are here to forget the industrial part of 0.0 to increase pressure and power of the PVP part i think. |

Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
871
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 06:36:00 -
[234] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:don't support the idea, and i explain why : Quote:THE NULL DEAL: A STATEMENT FROM SOVEREIGN 0.0
We, the undersigned alliance leaders of conquerable nullsec, are deeply concerned by the risk of another Dominion-style expansion making the existing mechanics of sovereignty even worse than they are today. We have put aside our many differences and brutal rivalries to advocate for the following three touchstones of a prospective sovereignty revamp. We hope that announcing the following united proclamation gives game developers at CCP the freedom they need to make the following drastic yet necessary changes. I hope CCP developer don't wait player to think about change And don't make change because a kind of player ask. But yes if you want change 0.0 rules. People who live in 0.0 can ask for they and CCP want to change this. So for the moment: nothing new. Quote:OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY
We believe that ownership of territory should be reflected by alliance occupancy. Players should live in and utilize their space, and player infrastructure and activity should be reflected in an occupancy index. We believe this will significantly shrink the footprints of the current absentee empires, free up large sections of sov 0.0 for smaller entities, and remove the current need for vast coalitions. In fact it already exist, if you want upgrade number of anomy/signature of a system. Extend to sov conquest system is just ... a joke. Now just some problem: A) Perma clocker camp your system, you can't pie/dig cause he can kill your ship, if you bait he has 50 friend who arrive. So 2 choice : fight (and loss a lot of ship and they to, so you like this only if you are pvp player), and if they win fight : they win your system, great choice. Don't do nothing wait... loose sov. Actually people who ant take dove must have some logistic. wight his you don't need. B) You said to free up to small entities... But in fact you just make a copy of low sec with this. Smaller entity can't play H24 because maybe no people in one time zone, so ninja people come, juste make more activity... SURPRISE you loose system. C) Vast coalition can continue to exist with this system, in fact they are just the alone who can survive with this, because can defend some system, and perm bank all the other. Smelt like people who search easy target who try to save they 're sov every 2 day. Quote:NPC 0.0 IN EVERY SOV REGION
We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist. A) Foutain for exemple have a lot of very powerful moon but in exchange it's an area who you can disrupt farming easier as other area. You already have "guerrilla" in other area of 0.0. They just deploy some POS to have "temporary safe". Sovholder must broke this tower for they safety and the guerrilla must send new.So yea they spend iso to tower and it's not only pew pew. B) Permit to all player to have safe staging in each 0.0... and if i reminder CCP want nerf projection force and make outpost destructible. So you try to broke the idea of hell camp in 0.0 by full staging in NPC area. Counter the update before update come. Nice try... C)Eve is NOT a PVP game it IS a SANDBOX game, some player want live in deep 0.0 to have less problem with pirates for exemple. So you want they play unsafe everywhere for your fun of pvp and forget people who prefer to play for other thing. Quote:INCREASED PLAYER DENSITY
We believe that vast swathes of conquerable nullsec are essentially worthless to our line members and can only support the activity of a handful of players in each system. We would like to see the value of individual systems increased to support a dense ecosystem of players undocked and interacting within single system. A) Make 0.0 more unsafe means pvp people come to have content yes.But industrial can just leave. So you just make an exchange of population. B) In fact low density player means easy to conquer for small entities with more density when power projection be fixed. C) if you really want increase density : allow to deploy gate defense who can uncloack ship and gun like POS to counter small gang. And you see more people in 0.0 because safer as now for all pacifist people. Conclusion : Change sov system: why not. - All other thing on the post : just no. I thin better thing can be doing to " change" 0.0 if you want. And maybe people must start to understand on thing: Empire : war dec and suicide gank pvp/ PVE and miner car fly with some protection. LS: smale gangandFactionnal warfare./ PVE and miner can have a lot of difficulty to be here. W.H: between LS and 0.0 0.0: Large scale pvp./ You need strand industry to survive and finance your pvp fleet. This change are here to forget the industrial part of 0.0 to increase pressure and power of the PVP part i think.
Filthy renters... Be purged in fire! The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |

Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2796
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 06:38:00 -
[235] - Quote
I like how it is hyped as some kind of meaningful thing with actual impact on anything.
+1. Invalid signature format |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13392
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 06:47:00 -
[236] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:I like how it is hyped as some kind of meaningful thing with actual impact on anything.
+1.
This playerbase has changed many things before. The latest being bumping stuff out of a POS shield using titans Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Bobbyd
Kenshin. Northern Coalition.
67
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 06:55:00 -
[237] - Quote
+1 |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 07:04:00 -
[238] - Quote
It has to be better than what we have now. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Knerf
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 07:05:00 -
[239] - Quote
Please make this a thing ccp, no more coalitions in a staging system with 200 in local and every system within 20 jumps is dead. This game was much better when 10 - 20 man gangs ruled the skies |

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
426
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 07:26:00 -
[240] - Quote
+1 |
|

Volmyr
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 07:33:00 -
[241] - Quote
seems legit, +1 |

Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2796
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 07:38:00 -
[242] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:I like how it is hyped as some kind of meaningful thing with actual impact on anything.
+1. This playerbase has changed many things before. The latest being bumping stuff out of a POS shield using titans 
As I said: hyped as some kind of meaningful thing.
And now let me get back to my fleet of hulks drilling rocks I rented... Invalid signature format |

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 07:59:00 -
[243] - Quote
What is the measure of "occupancy base"?
I've read about this before. System index (and sov) strengthen with occupancy, rats killed, ore mined etc. Doesn't anyone see a bit of a problem with this? If you want to drop someone else's index, all you have to do is camp it (cloaked). People don't tend to rat or mine with reds in system do they.
Whilst we're at it let's go back to basics: What is the point of "sov" anyway? |

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
730
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 08:19:00 -
[244] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:Filthy renters... Be purged in fire!
Jealous of their success? Attitudes like yours are also a contributing factor why Sov 00 is what it is now.  |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2129
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 08:21:00 -
[245] - Quote
Quote: Increased Player Density
We believe that vast swathes of conquerable nullsec are essentially worthless to our line members and can only support the activity of a handful of players in each system. We would like to see the value of individual systems increased to support a dense ecosystem of players undocked and interacting within single system.
So.....let me get this straight: Instead of having thirty thousand renters spread over a dozen regions, the blocs can now fit all of them into a couple of systems (or constellations)? Geee, that isn't broken at all.
Currently, lowsec/npc entities can and have harassed renter alliances to the point where they lose thousands of members. Put them all in a single constellation, and it becomes trivial for the blocs to defend them against harassment. I have a great idea guys: Let's buff renter empires! |

Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 08:34:00 -
[246] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Miner Hottie wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.
What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead? I don't know what game you play but less than a year ago the CFC and Rus super cap fleets laid waste to the flagship fleets of PL and N3. We did exactly what you ask of us. You might of heard it, it was the Bloodbath at BR5. Did this change anything apart from the price of Tritanium in Jita? No, the largest sov holding alliances in game are the PL and N3 renter allicances. Sonething else needs to change. As I recall the battle would have let to decisive changes in the composition of nullsec but for the utter collapse of various CFC allies due to internal issues. To me that seems to show that the system works. What you need is to create a few more BR5's, and to follow up on them properly this time. And the point is that the suggestions do nothing to create the conditions to make that large supercapital engagement more likely. They are geared towards getting smaller blocs to engage with larger ones - not towards getting the large blocs to directly engage with each other. And that fails to fix the fundamental malady of nullsec - a system of entrenched alliances who refuse to engage in the kind of total war that would really shake things up and allow new powerblocs to emerge.
Unfortunately you missed the key point, the agreement between the CFC and PL meant BoT space was always safe and the vacuum allowed BNI, not the Russians, to take Catch whilst NC. and S2N licked their wounds. At a time when smaller groups could and should have then sniped at the edges of Northern Alliance space, they didn't because sov mechanics still massively favour defence. BR5 only happened due to sov being dropped inavertently, not due to ninja plexing or someother form of active engagement by the CFC and Rus. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get. |

Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 08:43:00 -
[247] - Quote
Carl Stonewall wrote:Quote:These entities who have signed this document are historically the most bitter of foes... bwahahahahhaahhaa the most bitter of foes that wont go to war with eachother but rather drop supers on newbie-pilots and rp'ers??? How about this for fixing 0.0 by joint venture... PL and goons mans up and shreds OTEC - voila 0.0 fixed???
Seeing as the CFC only ever took frigates up against BNI in their home, you must be trying to turkey slap PL with the implied insult they drop Supers on frigates and station eggs out of shear boredom?
Seriously though, we could shred OTEC, but we would really need to burn the BoTLord accord as well to generate such a clash of supers, CFC vs PL, but why should we? I don't see you and NC. offering to welp your super fleets into either us or PL. Surely that would fix 0.0 faster. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get. |

Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1388
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 08:46:00 -
[248] - Quote
+1 . |

Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
100
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 08:55:00 -
[249] - Quote
+1
As a non-nullsec small gang PVP pilot, these are the kind of changes that would make me interested in fighting over 0.0 territory. |

WILLY TROPICAL
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:17:00 -
[250] - Quote
What you are asking for is already invented: rent and let others to do the boring job.
No fleet pings No structure bashing No anchor+f1 epic battles No tidi Farm all you want in upgraded systems Live surrounded by blues Access to JBs Docking rights Small scale pvp with other renters or your own corp
|
|
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2398

|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:18:00 -
[251] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:21:00 -
[252] - Quote
Capt Robertson wrote:+1 We Want Fights
Just reset all your blues and have all the fights you want.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
426
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:33:00 -
[253] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Capt Robertson wrote:+1 We Want Fights Just reset all your blues and have all the fights you want.
That is treating the symptom, not the cause. Look at your current situation in Catch. CVA and Hero are just being toyed with to provide fun for PL and NCDOT because that's all there is to be had right now. A wargame between two strategic allies. This war is a complete farce. |

Orkasm
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:38:00 -
[254] - Quote
Resubbed just to +1 this, Make it happen CCP. |

Westar Egdald
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:50:00 -
[255] - Quote
100% goon scam. |

Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
110
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:55:00 -
[256] - Quote
Orkasm wrote:Resubbed just to +1 this, Make it happen CCP.
:cripes: I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |

Pheusia
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
183
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:59:00 -
[257] - Quote
The proposal is simply good common sense for the most part, and occupancy-based sov and higher economic density are inarguable. I unreservedly support that part of the "Null Deal".
But I can't help noticing the hook in the bait: the requested NPC stations in each region. The coalition use for this is blindingly obvious: invulnerable staging points and cache stores. They will be of limited use for attackers, but extremely useful for imperial defenders, and the reason they've been asked for is to allow the existing blocs to maintain domination and influence, albeit not direct ownership, over their existing territories.
No secret has been made of the plans to set up large caches of ships in order to work around curbs on power projection: these stations are wanted for exactly this strategy.
By all means lets ask CCP to add more NPC space - that's a drum I've been banging for a long time now - but the way to do this is not to gift the powerblocks with free indestructible staging points in every region, but to add 2-3 more Curse/Stain style regions to the map, especially the east and north, with plenty of medical stations (Venal only has 2 IIRC) and pirate agents so that it's not trivial to hellcamp NPC based groups who become more than a nuisance. Place these regions such that those 0.0 regions which are currently far from any NPC space are now within range. That will accomplish the stated goal of "generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. "
A full sized region has the resources to maintain a group that can be a realistic threat, not just harass hapless miners every now and then. |

Securitas Protector
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
61
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:00:00 -
[258] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil! The Rules:4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. Can you please ask CCP to comment, I'm sure we're all interested in what they have to say. |

Hademar Drake
Diversity 101
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:01:00 -
[259] - Quote
You want content ? reset your big blue donut. - want big fights move to provi - oh wait most of the big colitions have because they cannot risk loosing there space |

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1305
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:10:00 -
[260] - Quote
100% behind you guys who wrote the letter Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
|

Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2026
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:23:00 -
[261] - Quote
Who do I talk to about renting NPC nullsec systems in the middle of SOV holding alliances? EVE needs more Pssshhhh |

Tragot Gomndor
Rise of Cerberus Cerberus Unleashed
58
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:29:00 -
[262] - Quote
I hate 0.0 cuz of large entities + tidi and empty space. There is almost no in between. If any changes change that, +1. 0.0 = GOONS = SAAAMMMMEEE!!!!1111222 |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
43
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:34:00 -
[263] - Quote
Pheusia wrote:The proposal is simply good common sense for the most part, and occupancy-based sov and higher economic density are inarguable. I unreservedly support that part of the "Null Deal".
But I can't help noticing the hook in the bait: the requested NPC stations in each region. The coalition use for this is blindingly obvious: invulnerable staging points and cache stores. They will be of limited use for attackers, but extremely useful for imperial defenders, and the reason they've been asked for is to allow the existing blocs to maintain domination and influence, albeit not direct ownership, over their existing territories.
No secret has been made of the plans to set up large caches of ships in order to work around curbs on power projection: these stations are wanted for exactly this strategy.
By all means lets ask CCP to add more NPC space - that's a drum I've been banging for a long time now - but the way to do this is not to gift the powerblocks with free indestructible staging points in every region, but to add 2-3 more Curse/Stain style regions to the map, especially the east and north, with plenty of medical stations (Venal only has 2 IIRC) and pirate agents so that it's not trivial to hellcamp NPC based groups who become more than a nuisance. Place these regions such that those 0.0 regions which are currently far from any NPC space are now within range. That will accomplish the stated goal of "generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. "
A full sized region has the resources to maintain a group that can be a realistic threat, not just harass hapless miners every now and then.
I'll go against the anti-MOA propaganda and state that NPC stations in nullsec do make a difference. While Mordus Angels (MOA) are too small on their own to threaten CFC SOV they are trying (often successfully unless we actively camp them in) to harass the surrounding area. They are not totally unsuccessful and I think that opening up more places like this would make it possible for other groups to live in the midst of the SOV holders and cause havoc.
I know that I love shooting random dudes basing out of NPC nullsec (though I most often end up as a lossmail). I prefer having reds/neuts going through our systems opposed to it being totally dead (like when my old CFC alliance was living in Branch). |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
43
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:36:00 -
[264] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Who do I talk to about renting NPC nullsec systems in the middle of SOV holding alliances?
You can contact me. Fair offer will be given. |

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:37:00 -
[265] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:Capt Robertson wrote:+1 We Want Fights Just reset all your blues and have all the fights you want. That is treating the symptom, not the cause. Look at your current situation in Catch. CVA and Hero are just being toyed with to provide fun for PL and NCDOT because that's all there is to be had right now. A wargame between two strategic allies. This war is a complete farce.
Agree that the war is indeed a total farce. The outcome of this war will not be decided by anything either HERO or Provibloc does. But by N3/PL. We're well aware that they are farming both us and HERO for lulz. I'm surprised your lot hasn't joined in the "Thunderdome" yet.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2026
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:51:00 -
[266] - Quote
Ereshgikal wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:Who do I talk to about renting NPC nullsec systems in the middle of SOV holding alliances? You can contact me. Fair offer will be given. Can you give me a system that'll be used as a indestructible staging system?
......which would be any system! EVE needs more Pssshhhh |

ImYourMom
Republic University Minmatar Republic
54
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:58:00 -
[267] - Quote
please don't not listen to these people. |

Dirk Heizer
Ice Labs Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:59:00 -
[268] - Quote
-1 |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:24:00 -
[269] - Quote
Ereshgikal wrote:I'll go against the anti-MOA propaganda and state that NPC stations in nullsec do make a difference. While Mordus Angels (MOA) are too small on their own to threaten CFC SOV they are trying (often successfully unless we actively camp them in) to harass the surrounding area. They are not totally unsuccessful and I think that opening up more places like this would make it possible for other groups to live in the midst of the SOV holders and cause havoc.
I know that I love shooting random dudes basing out of NPC nullsec (though I most often end up as a lossmail). I prefer having reds/neuts going through our systems opposed to it being totally dead (like when my old CFC alliance was living in Branch).
Lies. MoA is irrelevant. |

Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
739
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:32:00 -
[270] - Quote
As I wrote on TMC:
The proposed changes are (as far as I understand):
- occupancy based sovereignty;
- increased amount of resources per system;
- NPC 0.0 in every sov region;
Current power blocks hold the most supers/titans, with decent enough force projection over pretty much all of EVE, and the monopoly over Tech 2 manufacturing (held by corporations, not by players). The proposed changes do not mention these, so I assume that they are not recognized by the alliances as problems. The proposed changes, without resolving force projection and moon goo monopoly will make it easier to rent out systems than before. You'll have all the tools and ISK to control the renting empires and the systems themselves will be more lucrative for any potential renters. With PushX and Black Frog logistics having access to every region in the game though NPC 0.0, it would be easier than ever to rent out even systems that have always been far away from any non-player owned systems, since the logistics of exporting farmed materials from rented systems would be easier than ever. Increased resource amount would mitigate the cost of logistics and I'm sure there will be more services that will offer sov null freight transport bringing the prices down.
The renters, on the other hand, even if they get more ISK from richer systems, would not be able to organize any meaningful action against their landlords, because they lack the tools for it. They can't hold high-end moons because it's against the agreement. If they try to do it by force, they will be stomped with supers. They can only build supers (if they can at all... different alliances have different rules) if they meet certain conditions and they can only sell them either to certain entities or lose ISK if not selling to their landlords (again, the rules are different with each landlord).
While we're at supers and force projection, with the new NPC 0.0 in each region, you won't even need supers to keep your renters under control. Large alliances could just stock up Dreads and Carriers in new NPC 0.0 and just leave them there docked and safe until they are needed for intervention and then use them in large numbers. And you won't even need to travel to your docked fleet since it's NPC 0.0 and you can just instruct your cap pilots to have jump clones installed and ready there. Basically, the force projection of a large number of capitals would not increase - it would be instantaneous (clone jump - done). No renter would think to go against it.
My thoughts around fixing 0.0 and giving smaller entities a chance without improving conditions for large renter empires is to have systems that are hard to reach by the landlords in the reasonable amount of time - aka reduce force projection. The system where deploying a large fleet of capitals and supers to distant systems/regions would leave you vulnerable in other regions, so you'd only deploy when you really need to. Combined with moon mining transition from corporation monopoly to a system similar to Planetary Interaction (similar as a concept of player extracted materials, not implementation and actual mechanics... CCP can be creative about it) with anyone being able to extract the materials regardless of the alliance that holds the system would give smaller entities a chance to compete. o.0 |
|

Caerbanog Walace
Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:37:00 -
[271] - Quote
I agree with about 70% of the statement.
- Ocupancy-based sov Although severely undetailed I fully agree with the principle. I further support mechanics were conquering a occupied system is very hard but conquering an unoccupied system is trivial.
- NPC 0.0 in every region Agreed. Personally would like to see an organic NPC were unoccupied space reverts to NPC control so that there is both static unconquerable NPC and dynamic conquerable NPC. Station density and medical station distribution need to be addressed.
- Increased player density Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec. If a single system economically supports a whole coalition why even go anywhere else. I don't see the benefit. I do not reach the implied conclusion that this would free space for smaller groups, instead it will just free space for even more rental. I favor the opposite: finite system resources, but with a much smaller index growth inertia, so that a small corp within the alliance can easily get the index to livable standards in 1 or 2 days. Corp occupancy withing Alliance sov will increase small group identity and reduce the focus on coalition identity. I favor that alliances grow by taking more systems so that more corps can join and ensure that space is occupied. This will split fleets and staging points and help foster smaller scale skirmishes that only escalate as needed. With a huge staging point the routine is allways "Wait for FC ping, then we blob them". This is holding back the emergence of rookie FC's that like leading small 5-10 man fleets but shy from leading 100-200 man whelps.
|

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:44:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP: Make the npc stations not accesible for sov holding alliances :D Make them make more alts if they want to keep caps in npc station :D Profit. Remove ships to lowsec if they join sov holding alliance.
Wouldn't really be surprised if they actually did this since CCP is all for making ppl use alts. More subs yay. |

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
427
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:53:00 -
[273] - Quote
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote: Stuff
You worry to much about the use of NPC stations. They're pretty important for staging when invading but they have their own weaknesses. I guess you've never been hellcamped into one.
|

Jackhera
BAZINGA. The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 11:56:00 -
[274] - Quote
-1 Get rid of all positive standings and enjoy. |

Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
740
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:04:00 -
[275] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Antihrist Pripravnik wrote: Stuff
You worry to much about the use of NPC stations. They're pretty important for staging when invading but they have their own weaknesses. I guess you've never been hellcamped into one.
NPC stations as means for instant force projection is just a bonus, not my main concern. I agree that they couldn't be used in all situations, but they would help increasing force projection in some of them. o.0 |

Nienna Itinen
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:06:00 -
[276] - Quote
Dislike.
You are too lazy to fly in the current NPC-nullsec? Or you think that anyone would want to live near you with 23.5/7 undock camps? Maybe in first time yes, but I think this will be very-very short life.
In general, your proposal will not do absolutely nothing in the current state of the null-sec, and I find it hard to understand what you want to do with this change? Save your beds from future changes?
P.S. Sorry for bed english =(. |

Archetype 66
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
169
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:11:00 -
[277] - Quote
+1 nice initiative |

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
730
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:12:00 -
[278] - Quote
Nienna Itinen wrote:Dislike.
You are too lazy to fly in the current NPC-nullsec? Or you think that anyone would want to live near you with 23.5/7 undock camps? Maybe in first time yes, but I think this will be very-very short life.
In general, your proposal will not do absolutely nothing in the current state of the null-sec, and I find it hard to understand what you want to do with this change? Save your sov from future changes?
P.S. Sorry for bed english =(.
Especially if you have NPC 00 areas in deep water Sov 00 like far eastern drone lands or deep Angel and Sansha space. As a neutral, you cannot reach these areas without cynoing in hostile sov space. So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. |

Aareya
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:16:00 -
[279] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints? Twitter:-á-á @AareyaEVE |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8374
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:28:00 -
[280] - Quote
What I dislike is the absolute surety people always have when it comes to a complex problem. Some of the same 'signatories' of this agreement were HAPPY to see Dominion SOV because they were sure that is would fix things.
People never seem to learn that what they think they want is usually different from what they actually want. Quote:In his TED Talk on spaghetti sauces, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the food industry made a big mistake asking people about their preferences and conducting focus groups. Gladwell says that GÇ£The mind knows not what the tongue wants. [GǪ] If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what youGÇÖd say? Every one of you would say GÇÿI want a dark, rich, hearty roast.GÇÖ ItGÇÖs what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want GÇö that GÇÿI want a milky, weak coffee.GÇÖGÇ¥
This agreement seems like the 'Dark, Rich, Hearty Roast' variety. These guys think they want NPC space plopped into the middle of every region without understanding the myriad consequences of such a suggestion.
They don't understand because when people "hate" something, they can see no good in it at all and this leads to "throw the baby out with the bath water" thinking. That kind of thinking led to Dominion SOV in the 1st place because people were so tired of pos bashing that literally "anything has to be better than this".
It wasn't lol.
The better way forward would be to look at the Dominion Sov system, see what works right, and build upon that. CCP following the suggestions in this agreement will only lead to ANOTHER Dominion SOV situation (especially after people start losing SOV in an activity based system because null sec is incredibly easy to disrupt).
|
|

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
730
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:30:00 -
[281] - Quote
Aareya wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints?
Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already". |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:57:00 -
[282] - Quote
All of that crap is directed by mittani and vince to make it easier for them to maintain their empires while pretending to create some content.
Oh just look at it, in 10minutes there were 30+upvotes from their F1 monkeys who were told to upvote this link and probably did so before they even finished reading it -_- |

Nienna Itinen
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:59:00 -
[283] - Quote
And another questions: What you promised HERO's for signature? You will not disturb them in their war against Provi? Or you don't kick them from their space? Or signed without the knowledge of theirs?
They has Stein at hand, why would they more NPC nulls? |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8375
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:07:00 -
[284] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Aareya wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints? Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already".
I do not believe the 'conspiracy' nuts when they say that the null sec people are saying this because they want to gain something. I do think they (the signatories) are mistaken and not taking everything into account. One such thing is that npc null in every region VASTLY simplifies logistics, because now their is an npc station in EVERY region to jump through. no need to send in an unsafe cyno alt to a system you don't won if you want to move your cap fleet across the map, no need to use unsafe low sec routes either.
\Just hop scotch across npc null systems from one side of the map to the other. |

Levarris Hawk
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
107
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:13:00 -
[285] - Quote
Quote:THE SANSHA'S NATION WISHES TO EXPAND ITS BORDERS, AND 9HXQ-G IS ONE OF ITS TARGETS. THEY HAVE SET UP A MAJOR BASE OF OPERATIONS IN 3GD6-8 AND ARE SLOWLY DESTROYING ALL OPPOSITION TO THEIR FORCES, WHILE THEIR PEONS BUILD THEIR NEW STARBASES. THE BIGGEST HINDRANCE TO THEIR PLANS IS IN MY-W1V. A GIGANTIC MINING COLONY, ALONG WITH A TRADING HUB, IS LOCATED THERE AND THE INHABITANTS ARE EXTREMELY AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO THEM SHOULD SANSHA DECLARE OWNERSHIP OF THEIR SOLAR-SYSTEM. THEY HAVE ASSEMBLED A SIZABLE FLEET OF AMARR AND AMMATAR SHIPS TO PROTECT THEIR ASSETS, AND PREVENT THE SANSHA'S NATION FROM EXPANDING THEIR SOVEREIGNTY INTO 9HXQ-G.
So, the sansha's nation will finally be able to fulfill its wishes if this proposal goes through. Huzzah. |
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2405

|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:18:00 -
[286] - Quote
Securitas Protector wrote:ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil! The Rules:4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. Can you please ask CCP to comment, I'm sure we're all interested in what they have to say. Rest assured I have done so. I am however unable to say If and/or when CCP will comment in/on this thread, as I frankly do not know.
ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Nienna Itinen
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:21:00 -
[287] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: I do not believe the 'conspiracy' nuts when they say that the null sec people are saying this because they want to gain something. I do think they (the signatories) are mistaken and not taking everything into account. One such thing is that npc null in every region VASTLY simplifies logistics, because now their is an npc station in EVERY region to jump through. no need to send in an unsafe cyno alt to a system you don't won if you want to move your cap fleet across the map, no need to use unsafe low sec routes either.
\Just hop scotch across npc null systems from one side of the map to the other.
For current signatories yes. They will have (at first view): - simple logistic - their caps will never be locked at one station (because they have NPC station at 2-3 jumps) - they will have some fun with pilots who try to live in this systems (camps/drops and other) - they don't lose current space with this changes |

Ltd SpacePig
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:23:00 -
[288] - Quote
ImYourMom wrote:please don't not listen to these people. all they want to do is
Point 1 , lose or use it translate to - we don't want to live there, but we want to charge billions more for rental space, this way by giving rewards it will do. Point 2 - More NPC space, see point 1, we don't want to live in sov because we want rental, however we still want to live in nullsec, and having more NPC regions means we can stick our assets away from nullsec and be protected but still be close to home, plus we can farm the hell out of them and get better stuff.
NPC sov should be moved COMPLETELY away from Nullsec, to MAKE the SOV alliances actually use the space. Yes create more but put inside where low sec is - something like highsec - lowsec - npc null - lowsec - highsec (think that like a target symbol)
Yes I do agree use or lose it, but I think this is purely for alliances to charge more rental not actually live there.
limit number of corps in alliances limit number of people in an alliance to 2000 limit number of systems alliances can hold limit number of stations limit number of blues alliances can only take sov in ONE region, and only 50% max of it. remove reinforcement timers, you snooze you lose, if your not in the system or surrounding areas then tough. If you don't have people in your TZ That's unlucky, go recruit some. make alliances USE the resources they have and REMOVE any passive income. remove alliances allowed to rent, sorry go make your own money, you want null, go work for it. limit number of capitals on a field, bringing 300 slowcats, and 1000 supers is just a joke, they can cyno more in when others drop. make missions pay more bring back more 10/10 plexes
Wow just wow.. just go back to your high sec mission or something.. |

Conar Balcos
ZERO T0LERANCE RAZOR Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:32:00 -
[289] - Quote
I would like to have a beer + Sounds good. |

Naco Dacella
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:36:00 -
[290] - Quote
Upvote |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13394
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:36:00 -
[291] - Quote
Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Nienna Itinen
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:43:00 -
[292] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game.
Quote: - they will have some fun with pilots who try to live in this systems (camps/drops and other)
|

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
208
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:03:00 -
[293] - Quote
+1
I have pretty much lived in all of Null over the past 11 years. Dronelands, the South, Period Basis, Pure Blind/Fade, Venal, Deklain and I think that the gist of this proposal is a great start.
With it broken down into parts, it can be implemented over several stages, they could even be sold as content, introducing a new "anti-rogue-drone" faction that moves into the east as they fear a terminator type wipe-out of biological life, hell, throw some event in the surrounding low-sec where rogue drones start spreading out with new ships, models and such, give the rogue drones rogue-ishtars, rattlesnakes, a version of every drone-boat, give the new faction anti-drone type ships and modules for players to LP up.
This could all be sold as reasonable content and features and be steps towards the ultimate goal.
Making sov based on occupancy can be introduce alongside the current system, introduce all the new features then phase-out the existing system. |

Aareya
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:07:00 -
[294] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Aareya wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints? Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already". When destructible stations are implemented (already announced @ Fanfest), the little guy will be able to enter the sov game and be able to safeguard some assets in NPC 0.0 before the "big guy" comes and possibly destroys their station. With the current map, small groups will just say "Nope, not for me".
The big guys already have their stuff in low sec, regardless of where on the map they are.
Twitter:-á-á @AareyaEVE |

Carl Stonewall
Dirty Old Bastards Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:07:00 -
[295] - Quote
Chopper Rollins wrote:Sounds like the shitlord blobs want to be fed tourists. -1, bad precedent, CCP getting nagged 24/7 anyway.
Haha your right on the money +1 to - 1 this |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:08:00 -
[296] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game.
We want to lose :) Yea now You want to lose it because they will nerf Your ability to hold it. So You want more in less systems to sustain big and abnormal alliance/coalition that wasn't designed to be in this game. You will lose it anyway - there is no point to reiburse You with more resources. You still want to have blob available but this need to change - massive fleets are what is killing eve - tidi and no opponents that can match numbers. Only way anything will change is to slice the coalitions to pieces. |

umnikar
Fishbone Industries
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:09:00 -
[297] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game.
...and then takin rent from them also?
Wait, are you saying there's not enough space for all the players? |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:11:00 -
[298] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. We want to lose :) Yea now You want to lose it because they will nerf Your ability to hold it. So You want more in less systems to sustain big and abnormal alliance/coalition that wasn't designed to be in this game. You will lose it anyway - there is no point to reiburse You with more resources. You still want to have blob available but this need to change - massive fleets are what is killing eve - tidi and no opponents that can match numbers. Only way anything will change is to slice the coalitions to pieces.
You cannot host any alliance of any size if the system you own can support at most 10 people at a time. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:14:00 -
[299] - Quote
umnikar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. ...and then takin rent from them also? Wait, are you saying there's not enough space for all the players?
There is plenty of room out here, most of null is all but abandoned. We also would not be taking rent off these new alliances as we wouldn't own their space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:15:00 -
[300] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. We want to lose :) Yea now You want to lose it because they will nerf Your ability to hold it. So You want more in less systems to sustain big and abnormal alliance/coalition that wasn't designed to be in this game. You will lose it anyway - there is no point to reiburse You with more resources. You still want to have blob available but this need to change - massive fleets are what is killing eve - tidi and no opponents that can match numbers. Only way anything will change is to slice the coalitions to pieces. You cannot host any alliance of any size if the system you own can support at most 10 people at a time.
So that is why most of Your sov is empty ? This is why it is rented out? |
|

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
103
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:20:00 -
[301] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. We want to lose :) Yea now You want to lose it because they will nerf Your ability to hold it. So You want more in less systems to sustain big and abnormal alliance/coalition that wasn't designed to be in this game. You will lose it anyway - there is no point to reiburse You with more resources. You still want to have blob available but this need to change - massive fleets are what is killing eve - tidi and no opponents that can match numbers. Only way anything will change is to slice the coalitions to pieces. You cannot host any alliance of any size if the system you own can support at most 10 people at a time. So that is why most of Your sov is empty ? This is why it is rented out?
Exactly...they rent out the good stuff, and then complain there isn't enough "density" - read farming ability in whats left - so they want to buff that. Now they get the best of both worlds, enough prime real estate to rent AND to support their own farming. Basically a massive buff to nullsec. Of course, as per usual, they will just rent out even more stuff and shaft their own pilots again. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:23:00 -
[302] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:
So that is why most of Your sov is empty ? This is why it is rented out?
Most of our space is more or less useless as you will earn a good deal more isk blitzing level 4s in high sec. Renting out our space is only a thing because we had to replace the moon goo income when they nerfed tech. What we need is bottom up income you can earn in null and that allows for an alliance to actually be able to live in the space it owns and supports all of its members. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2131
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:32:00 -
[303] - Quote
This idea is the pinnacle of risk aversion. It is a means to a simple end: a nigh impenetrable city on a hill from which to launch sorties against smaller entities in order to farm easy kills.
Population Density With this change you could fit the entire CFC + Renters in deklein, probably without using every constellation. And why not? It is far easier to protect your nullbears and renters when there are 200+ dudes per pve system rather than 5-10 dudes per pve system. Perfect safety and easy defense.
NPC Stations An NPC station 20 gate jumps form any arbitrary point on the map. Has some fledgling alliance in some obscure corner of the galaxy dared use capitals? Stage 200+ dreads in an npc station 1 capital jump out. "Content" for the whole alliance. Best of all, there's no need for B0tlord or the donut, just avoid the other guy's city-constellation and everything else is a farm.
The CFC will have their city in deklein, PL in the drone regions, N3 somewhere in the east. The unused space will empty out and some fledgling alliances may even stake a claim. But the moment they have anything scarcely worthwhile, someone will show up on the NPC doorstep looking for "content," while their own bears are safe as houses. Everyone gets their own personal providence to farm. How quaint. This isn't "conflict," this is easy mode farm for the blob.
|

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:33:00 -
[304] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:
So that is why most of Your sov is empty ? This is why it is rented out?
Most of our space is more or less useless as you will earn a good deal more isk blitzing level 4s in high sec. Renting out our space is only a thing because we had to replace the moon goo income when they nerfed tech. What we need is bottom up income you can earn in null and that allows for an alliance to actually be able to live in the space it owns and supports all of its members. Want to kill of the rental empires? The get behind occupancy sov as that makes it impossible to hold vast areas of space to rent out.
Sorry for not feeling Your pain - my alliance can't afford double srp. Are You afraid goonswarm will break when there is no income to buy players? When they will need to buy their own ships? When they will ask where are the resources?
Welcome to the real world where players play and don't get bought. They actually login to have something and risk something so others can have fun too.
All that renting, crazy srp, massive coalitions must be nerfed so ppl start playing the game like it is designed to be played. When you bypass rules of the game it kills it.
If goons need to break for it to happen then well **** happens. Noone guarantee that You will always be able to buy players. they should wan't to play for fun not for someone that just buys them and commands them. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:34:00 -
[305] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Regatto wrote:They felt that fire of change burning under butts and this looks like their attempt to turn it to their advantage . Is it just me or is it fishy this "proposal" is done pretty sudden (Some sovgroups only given 24h to respond) and straight after the CSM summit where CCP showed their plans for nullchanges? Also having all players of an alliance in a few systems next to each other sounds a lot like 100% safety and death of smallscale roaming. Unless ofc your smallscaleroam consists of more ships than the owner has members...
Occupancy sov has been getting pushed for months now by these same blocks, this letter is simply the latest call. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Innet Assumption
Real Enemy SOLAR FLEET
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:36:00 -
[306] - Quote
New npc space - ok.
Quote:Players should live in and utilize their space, and player infrastructure and activity should be reflected in an occupancy index. We believe this will significantly shrink the footprints of the current absentee empires, free up large sections of sov 0.0 for smaller entities, and remove the current need for vast coalitions.
Without a detailed plan is hard to say like or dislike. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:38:00 -
[307] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:
So that is why most of Your sov is empty ? This is why it is rented out?
Most of our space is more or less useless as you will earn a good deal more isk blitzing level 4s in high sec. Renting out our space is only a thing because we had to replace the moon goo income when they nerfed tech. What we need is bottom up income you can earn in null and that allows for an alliance to actually be able to live in the space it owns and supports all of its members. Want to kill of the rental empires? The get behind occupancy sov as that makes it impossible to hold vast areas of space to rent out. Sorry for not feeling Your pain - my alliance can't afford double srp. Are You afraid goonswarm will break when there is no income to buy players? When they will need to buy their own ships? When they will ask where are the resources? Welcome to the real world where players play and don't get bought. They actually login to have something and risk something so others can have fun too. All that renting, crazy srp, massive coalitions must be nerfed so ppl start playing the game like it is designed to be played. When you bypass rules of the game it kills it. If goons need to break for it to happen then well **** happens. Noone guarantee that You will always be able to buy players. they should wan't to play for fun not for someone that just buys them and commands them.
Yea, your speaking to someone who doesn't get all of that lovely isk when they die in a fleet. If you want null to be full of targets then this is how to fix it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:43:00 -
[308] - Quote
@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other? |

Nostromo Fidanza
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:44:00 -
[309] - Quote
NPC stations in every null sec region? Sounds good. Makes it even easier for me to rake in billions in null sec. |

Dave Stark
7004
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:45:00 -
[310] - Quote
I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.
throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it. unless you the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.
i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me. |
|

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:48:00 -
[311] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me.
It is about big alliances keeping their numbers. |

Myravingian
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:49:00 -
[312] - Quote
I still rekon CCP will manage to **** up this perfectly brilliant plan |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2546
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:49:00 -
[313] - Quote
Here's an area with an NPC area smack dab in the middle of it. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind/7D-0SQ#kills24
Where's the kills and interaction? Still looks dead. |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2131
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:54:00 -
[314] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.
throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it. unless you the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.
i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me. It is the latest in a long line of half baked ideas from the established powers that be; a desperate attempt from said powers to ~create content~ while avoiding the risk of fighting someone that might actually defeat them.
Manny's idea (for example) was to create choke points for freighters farmed by the established power houses. This one is a little more subtle, but the end result is the same: low risk "content" farm. |

Sydious
The Drunken Empire Fatal Ascension
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:06:00 -
[315] - Quote
This is exactly what null sec needs. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
842
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:07:00 -
[316] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:This idea is the pinnacle of risk aversion. It is a means to a simple end: a nigh impenetrable city on a hill from which to launch sorties against smaller entities in order to farm easy kills.
...
The CFC will have their city in deklein, PL in the drone regions, N3 somewhere in the east. The unused space will empty out and some fledgling alliances may even stake a claim. But the moment they have anything scarcely worthwhile, someone will show up on the NPC doorstep looking for "content," while their own bears are safe as houses. Everyone gets their own personal providence to farm. How quaint. This isn't "conflict," this is easy mode farm for the blob.
so it is both bad for nullsec if we own all of it, but it is also bad for nullsec if we only own part of it and let other people own part of it
have you really thought this brilliant argument all the way through
|

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
428
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:08:00 -
[317] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:
So that is why most of Your sov is empty ? This is why it is rented out?
Most of our space is more or less useless as you will earn a good deal more isk blitzing level 4s in high sec. Renting out our space is only a thing because we had to replace the moon goo income when they nerfed tech. What we need is bottom up income you can earn in null and that allows for an alliance to actually be able to live in the space it owns and supports all of its members. Want to kill of the rental empires? The get behind occupancy sov as that makes it impossible to hold vast areas of space to rent out. Sorry for not feeling Your pain - my alliance can't afford double srp. Are You afraid goonswarm will break when there is no income to buy players? When they will need to buy their own ships? When they will ask where are the resources? Welcome to the real world where players play and don't get bought. They actually login to have something and risk something so others can have fun too. All that renting, crazy srp, massive coalitions must be nerfed so ppl start playing the game like it is designed to be played. When you bypass rules of the game it kills it. If goons need to break for it to happen then well **** happens. Noone guarantee that You will always be able to buy players. they should want to play for fun not for someone that just buys them and commands them.
You ask for these things but provide no solutions. What you fail to understand is these three items suggested are the solution. You just don't like the messenger. Maybe Grath or PGL should have posted it, the reaction by the -1's and naysayers would have been different. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
842
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:09:00 -
[318] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other? yeah i'm sure game mechanics are going to be extra super successful in blocking us from talking to the leaders of other groups out of game and agreeing to alliances
like seriously has any moa poster itt thought through what they're posting even a little bit |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:15:00 -
[319] - Quote
If You want to show me how You go to war with entity that has comparable numbers then be my guest. If not then I see no reason to keep such large aliances around that only atract ppl who want easy game and deny content to smaller ones.
Or is it too risky for nullsec carebears? |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2131
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:19:00 -
[320] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: so it is both bad for nullsec if we own all of it, but it is also bad for nullsec if we only own part of it and let other people own part of it
have you really thought this brilliant argument all the way through
No one likes to be farm chattel. Point in case. As long as supra entities exist in their current form, they will farm lesser entities. As long as lesser entities are farmed, their members will (sooner or later) join the supra entities. It does not matter whether these supra entities span a single constellation or 12 regions.
Any nullsec change that does not give significant and immediate incentive for PL to literally sh*t down the throats of Nulli or NC. supers is destined to be a dismal failure. Any change which does not motivate Goonswarm to stomp on the face of Razor or FA repeatedly and with great prejudice will result in the same stagnation which we now enjoy.
The fault, dear Retar, is not in our npc stations, but in ourselves. We alone cannot fix ourselves, but perhaps CCP can nudge us along the proper path. |
|

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
428
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:21:00 -
[321] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.
throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it. unless you cap the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.
i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me.
The index would be linked to activity in a system like mining, ratting, kills or some other industry metric. It could be grown over a period of time. This in turn would affect how easy it is for them to defend and how hard it would be for opponents to take. You could directly link it to structure EHP or timers for instance.
This method would mean a dead system, with no activity would be very easy to conquer and a used system, with plenty of activity across the spectrum would be difficult to take.
|

Janeos
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:23:00 -
[322] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other? like 85%-90% of our corps are one-player altcorps so they can have towers without tower role issues, they're not actual corporations so yes that is entirely normal The sad, sad part is that these MOA tools are arguing against changes that would benefit them long term.
Yes, you might get bounced from your hovels in Pure Blind if the GoonMass concentrates further into Deklein and surrounds. But all of our far-flung tenement regions would also open up, because we would no longer be able to keep them. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13395
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:25:00 -
[323] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other?
Nerf null income?
Its already below high sec income, who in their right mind would want to live in null if it got any lower? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Dave Stark
7004
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:25:00 -
[324] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Dave Stark wrote:I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.
throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it. unless you cap the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.
i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me. The index would be linked to activity in a system like mining, ratting, kills or some other industry metric. It could be grown over a period of time. This in turn would affect how easy it is for them to defend and how hard it would be for opponents to take. You could directly link it to structure EHP or timers for instance. This method would mean a dead system, with no activity would be very easy to conquer and a used system, with plenty of activity across the spectrum would be difficult to take.
until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners. |

GuidoCom
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:27:00 -
[325] - Quote
change is good |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:28:00 -
[326] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:If You want to show me how You go to war with entity that has comparable numbers then be my guest. If not then I see no reason to keep such large aliances around that only atract ppl who want easy game and deny content to smaller ones.
Or is it too risky for nullsec carebears? who cares what you want i want a unicorn can you even lay out a coherent explanation of what game changes you'd want to give you what you want? no? then why should we care what you want, you want ponies and rainbows and whatever but without any roadmap you're just uselessly whining
I don't need to make any changes - ccp needs to do it. Your proposal is not fixing anything - it is just attempt to keep Your power. Everyone see this and it will fail or not - depends if ccp is stupid enough to buy that crap.
It is the same as I would propose: my carrier should be 200 times stronger because goons throw 200 carriers at me. Do it ccp do it - this is a good idea...
This proposal is signed by ppl who don't think or are benefited by it. No small aliance is stupid enough to want this. |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:29:00 -
[327] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other? Nerf null income? Its already below high sec income, who in their right mind would want to live in null if it got any lower?
Ppl that wan't to fight not farm. It would exclude goons but noone would care :D |

Ivana Twinkle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
476
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:29:00 -
[328] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:If You want to show me how You go to war with entity that has comparable numbers then be my guest. If not then I see no reason to keep such large aliances around that only atract ppl who want easy game and deny content to smaller ones.
Or is it too risky for nullsec carebears? who cares what you want i want a unicorn can you even lay out a coherent explanation of what game changes you'd want to give you what you want? no? then why should we care what you want, you want ponies and rainbows and whatever but without any roadmap you're just uselessly whining I don't need to make any changes - ccp needs to do it. Your proposal is not fixing anything - it is just attempt to keep Your power. Everyone see this and it will fail or not - depends if ccp is stupid enough to buy that crap. It is the same as I would propose: my carrier should be 200 times stronger because goons throw 200 carriers at me. Do it ccp do it - this is a good idea... This proposal is signed by ppl who don't thik or are benefited by it. No small aliance is stupid enough to want this.
I support whatever gets us more posts from this guy.
|

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:31:00 -
[329] - Quote
Yep Im all for not reimbursing anyone for power projection nerfs by buffing income from systems. If they fold the better for everyone.
npc stations as power projection buff - should never happen. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13400
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:32:00 -
[330] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:
Ppl that wan't to fight not farm. It would exclude goons but noone would care :D
So you want a nullsec in which it is impossible to live. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8377
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:32:00 -
[331] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Dave Stark wrote:I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.
throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it. unless you cap the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.
i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me. The index would be linked to activity in a system like mining, ratting, kills or some other industry metric. It could be grown over a period of time. This in turn would affect how easy it is for them to defend and how hard it would be for opponents to take. You could directly link it to structure EHP or timers for instance. This method would mean a dead system, with no activity would be very easy to conquer and a used system, with plenty of activity across the spectrum would be difficult to take.
The problem I have with this is the same problem i had when we discussed Dominon Sov all those year ago (and when CSm types used to talk "farms and fields".
The people doing the talking Are NOT PVE types. Big alliance/coalition leaders (and hell, CCP itself) in my experience tend to be PVP or heavy 'industry' types that don't know jack about PVE player sensibilities. This in and of itself if not a problem...until you try to design a SOV system around the behaviors of people you don't understand.
'Occupancy SOV' relies on people (PVE/ratting/mining players) who are notorious for not liking to lose ships having to PVE in congested systems where the local list is so long that you can't see neutral come in till it's too late and where awoxxing will be as easy as warping to anom or 'mission beacon'. These allaince leaders thinkg 'carebears' or going to form defense fleets to protect themselves. They must not know any carebears.
Or it has to rely on alliance PVPrs who don't like PVE in the 1st place and who fund their activites with plex or passive high/low sec stuff.
Under an 'occupancy sov' system , you'll have the same situation you had when CCP nerfed the system upgrades scheme: instead of more peole in null and more ships exploding, you'll have more people in high sec running missions and incursions, or flying bombers in FW, or bltizing lvl 5s with carriers in low sec, all of which are safer than ratting in a congested system and none of which make you fleet up with people (except incursions).
|

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2131
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:33:00 -
[332] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners.
He gets it. 
Don't worry, I think the goons will realizes it before the end.
For many years their standard reply to everything regarding fighting the blob was "sorry I have more friends than you," and even that is now changing. They'll get there, eventually... |

Samahiel Noban
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:33:00 -
[333] - Quote
If Mordus Angels are crying it MUST be a good idea. I support this product and or service. |

Eyrun Mangeiri
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:33:00 -
[334] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote: I don't need to make any changes - ccp needs to do it. Your proposal is not fixing anything - it is just attempt to keep Your power. Everyone see this and it will fail or not - depends if ccp is stupid enough to buy that crap.
It is the same as I would propose: my carrier should be 200 times stronger because goons throw 200 carriers at me. Do it ccp do it - this is a good idea...
This proposal is signed by ppl who don't think or are benefited by it. No small aliance is stupid enough to want this.
So, what is your idea that would not benefit anyone who knows how to play the SOV game? Or would you just keep things the way they are, so that in a few years goons quit EVE and play something else and you can claim victory over the empty husk of EVE that is left, because no one wants to play it anymore? I can see what you see not - vision milky then eyes rot. When you turn they will be gone - whispering their hidden song. |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2131
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:36:00 -
[335] - Quote
Samahiel Noban wrote:If Mordus Angels are crying it MUST be a good idea. I support this product and or service. Grrrr Mordus Angels.  |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:41:00 -
[336] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:Yep Im all for not reimbursing anyone for power projection nerfs by buffing income from systems. If they fold the better for everyone.
npc stations as power projection buff - should never happen. agreed, moa would be better off if we removed npc pure blind
Yea - we are deployed to lowsec because 5z and x7 are so good to be in. |

Xavi Bastanold
Parallax Shift The Periphery
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:42:00 -
[337] - Quote
This deal posed by the existing coalitions is interesting. While the proposal appeared genuine, it also seemed flawed. I do like the bit about more NPC-null presence in all the regions, but the idea of occupancy felt like it was coming from the wrong angle. The reason was that while CCP could create a mechanic for ownership to be contingent upon a requisite number of players being present in that system for x amount of hours a day(or something along those general lines), that doesn't address the imbalance of power that would continue to exist between the null coalitions and anyone optimistic enough to settle near their borders. It seemed pretty obvious to me that what would unfold was a transformation from renter corporations to 'serf' corporations.
For example, a corporation/alliance sets out to settle in a null system. Maybe they had to compete with another rival organization to get it. Now, say this system is a mere two jumps away from a CFC system. What's to stop CFC from visiting that system to pick up a monthly 'protection' fee? Nothing. It would be almost feudal. And, that's when it hit. Feudal.
See, right now, nullsec is very tribal. You're either part of the warband or you're not. Organization along these lines has gone to extremes with a cold war stagnation in place, but it's still very tribal. Moving to a feudal system would be an evolution of the current null culture. It would create more inter-dependency between the haves and have-nots.
At first, this inter-dependency would be in the coalitions' favor as they would possess the deepest pockets and most members. In time, however, would this persist? I don't think it will. At some point those various 'serf' corporations/alliances are going to develop their own power base and in turn, their own coalitions. The main coalitions will have to decide what to do at that point. Either destroy a 'rebellious' system/s and all the revenue that came from that, or find a means of compromising. Destroy the rebels and you run the risk of weakening yourself as well. Compromise and become more powerful but also relinquish more control.
It's an interesting idea and may actually work.
Good hunting, Xavi |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2131
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:42:00 -
[338] - Quote
Will the proponents of the change in this thread do me the kindness of answering a simple question:
Do you see a CFC or an N3PL reset in the immediate aftermath of these changes? If not, what changes in the meta? You still have two super entities that vastly overpower anything else and the only content consists of farming this guy. Once the novelty of the new system wears off, aren't we back to square one: a bipolar eve with two sides refusing to attack each other? |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:45:00 -
[339] - Quote
Once this stops being exchange of arguments between moa and gsf, you could take in consideration that density isn't problem in null sec(number of anomalies is fine). Stagnation comes from boring and slow Sov capturing mechanics. More havens in system wont change absolutly anything |

umnikar
Fishbone Industries
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:50:00 -
[340] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:umnikar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Caerbanog Walace wrote: Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.
Thats the point. We want to lose 70-80% of the space we hold and to make it possible to host your thousands of players in a small amount of systems. This frees up all of the abandoned space we currently own to others to enter the sov game. ...and then takin rent from them also? Wait, are you saying there's not enough space for all the players? There is plenty of room out here, most of null is all but abandoned. We also would not be taking rent off these new alliances as we wouldn't own their space.
All good then. I trust goons to not take my new established sov...
Seriously. You must have some information I don't have, else all this makes no sense. |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13401
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:54:00 -
[341] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Will the proponents of the change in this thread do me the kindness of answering a simple question:Do you see a CFC or an N3PL reset in the immediate aftermath of these changes? If not, what changes in the meta? You still have two super entities that vastly overpower anything else and the only content consists of farming this guy. Once the novelty of the new system wears off, aren't we back to square one: a bipolar eve with two sides refusing to attack each other?
Both empires shrink massively allowing room for new alliances to enter null. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Janeos
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:54:00 -
[342] - Quote
To take it, under the proposed system, we'd have to LIVE IN IT. Currently, we own half the galaxy, but only utilize the tiniest fraction of it. |

Dave Stark
7005
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:57:00 -
[343] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners.
You could only hold that which you use, at least 80% of our space would be impossible to hold onto.
but that's the point, you don't need to use it until some one contests it... then dogpile in to the system.
unless i'm missing something. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13402
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:00:00 -
[344] - Quote
umnikar wrote:
All good then. I trust goons to not take my new established sov...
Seriously. You must have some information I don't have, else all this makes no sense.
Occupancy sov changes several things.
First it makes it impossible for one power to own half of null.
Second it makes needing large fleets of several thousand redundant. The reason we use the massive fleets of today is because of the need to grind through huge amounts of EHP and defend against said huge fleets. This need goes away the second you get rid of the EHP grinds.
Lastly, Coalitions themselves would no longer be required to survive. It wont mean that they disband instantly but over time the rifts would get large enough that they will simply fall apart. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13402
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:02:00 -
[345] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners.
You could only hold that which you use, at least 80% of our space would be impossible to hold onto. but that's the point, you don't need to use it until some one contests it... then dogpile in to the system. unless i'm missing something.
If we don't use it then it will simply drop to become unoccupied space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2132
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:02:00 -
[346] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Will the proponents of the change in this thread do me the kindness of answering a simple question:Do you see a CFC or an N3PL reset in the immediate aftermath of these changes? If not, what changes in the meta? You still have two super entities that vastly overpower anything else and the only content consists of farming this guy. Once the novelty of the new system wears off, aren't we back to square one: a bipolar eve with two sides refusing to attack each other? Both empires shrink massively allowing room for new alliances to enter null. Hero entered null. Now being farmed alongside provi by N3PL. Truth is, anyone can enter null, even now. Most people just don't like being farm chattel.
So the same three choices will be present after your changs: (1) I can stay in npc 0.0/lowsec/hisec and raid 0.0 to farm afk ishtars (2) I can try and strike out on my own to be farmed for ~content~ by N3PL/CFC (3) or I can get on the old SA account and become an "overman" alongside Retar thereby "winning" eve. 
That's totally not stagnation. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
847
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:04:00 -
[347] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Will the proponents of the change in this thread do me the kindness of answering a simple question:Do you see a CFC or an N3PL reset in the immediate aftermath of these changes? If not, what changes in the meta? You still have two super entities that vastly overpower anything else and the only content consists of farming this guy. Once the novelty of the new system wears off, aren't we back to square one: a bipolar eve with two sides refusing to attack each other? Both empires shrink massively allowing room for new alliances to enter null. Hero entered null. Now being farmed alongside provi by N3PL. Truth is, anyone can enter null, even now. Most people just don't like being farm chattel. So the same three choices will be present after your changs:(1) I can stay in npc 0.0/lowsec/hisec and raid 0.0 to farm afk ishtars (2) I can try and strike out on my own to be farmed for ~content~ by N3PL/CFC (3) or I can get on the old SA account and become an "overman" alongside Retar thereby "winning" eve.  That's totally not stagnation. hero is getting farmed mercilessly because it is literally the only contested region in the game |

Dave Stark
7005
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:05:00 -
[348] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners.
You could only hold that which you use, at least 80% of our space would be impossible to hold onto. but that's the point, you don't need to use it until some one contests it... then dogpile in to the system. unless i'm missing something. If we don't use it then it will simply drop to become unoccupied space.
so you do the token amount to keep it. which will be a trivial amount, unless you don't want small entities to be able to hold sov.... |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13402
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:06:00 -
[349] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Will the proponents of the change in this thread do me the kindness of answering a simple question:Do you see a CFC or an N3PL reset in the immediate aftermath of these changes? If not, what changes in the meta? You still have two super entities that vastly overpower anything else and the only content consists of farming this guy. Once the novelty of the new system wears off, aren't we back to square one: a bipolar eve with two sides refusing to attack each other? Both empires shrink massively allowing room for new alliances to enter null. Hero entered null. Now being farmed alongside provi by N3PL. Truth is, anyone can enter null, even now. Most people just don't like being farm chattel. So the same three choices will be present after your changes:(1) I can stay in npc 0.0/lowsec/hisec and raid 0.0 to farm afk ishtars (2) I can try and strike out on my own to be farmed for ~content~ by N3PL/CFC (3) or I can get on the old SA account and become an "overman" alongside Retar thereby "winning" eve.  That's totally not stagnation.
Feel free to come take CFC sov if you feel any can enter null under the current mechanics. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
391
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:08:00 -
[350] - Quote
Regatto wrote:Once this stops being exchange of arguments between moa and gsf, you could take in consideration that density isn't problem in null sec(number of anomalies is fine). Stagnation comes from boring and slow Sov capturing mechanics. More havens in system wont change absolutly anything Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. As a result, in order to support a large number of players regions upon regions are required. Make that 80% worth using and alliances will naturally contract the area of space that is actually used. Throw in occupancy based sov, and you get entire regions that no one is using, regions that are **** easy for someone to take for themselves.
The two are inherantly linked; just changing one will not fix anything. Warping to zero |
|

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:10:00 -
[351] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Will the proponents of the change in this thread do me the kindness of answering a simple question:Do you see a CFC or an N3PL reset in the immediate aftermath of these changes? If not, what changes in the meta? You still have two super entities that vastly overpower anything else and the only content consists of farming this guy. Once the novelty of the new system wears off, aren't we back to square one: a bipolar eve with two sides refusing to attack each other? Both empires shrink massively allowing room for new alliances to enter null. Hero entered null. Now being farmed alongside provi by N3PL. Truth is, anyone can enter null, even now. Most people just don't like being farm chattel. So the same three choices will be present after your changes:(1) I can stay in npc 0.0/lowsec/hisec and raid 0.0 to farm afk ishtars (2) I can try and strike out on my own to be farmed for ~content~ by N3PL/CFC (3) or I can get on the old SA account and become an "overman" alongside Retar thereby "winning" eve.  That's totally not stagnation. Feel free to come take CFC sov if you feel any can enter null under the current mechanics.
You just need 5000 ppl being in 1 system for few days - would be funny to watch ppl racing to login after downtime to the system :D Everyone knows the server limits - put enough ppl in and You win. But where do I buy 5000 slav... err ppl - need to talk to amarr empire. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13403
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:11:00 -
[352] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
so you do the token amount to keep it. which will be a trivial amount, unless you don't want small entities to be able to hold sov....
It would take an alliance or large corp to hold that space. It just simply will not be possible for us to hold all of that space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:12:00 -
[353] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Occupancy sov changes several things.
First it makes it impossible for one power to own half of null.
Second it makes needing large fleets of several thousand redundant. The reason we use the massive fleets of today is because of the need to grind through huge amounts of EHP and defend against said huge fleets. This need goes away the second you get rid of the EHP grinds.
Lastly, Coalitions themselves would no longer be required to survive. It wont mean that they disband instantly but over time the rifts would get large enough that they will simply fall apart. How does that make sense?
Sure, it would be very difficult (though not impossible) for a coalition to own half of null, however it would be trivial to own key systems and crush anyone that tried to move into one of the empty gaps.
And while there would be less structure grind, there would still be POS grinds and POCO grinds, and most importantly the "Hellcamp your system until it becomes ours trololol", so there would be no benefit to splitting up the coalitions. Larger groups forming up to crush other larger groups will always be a problem, because "anything you can do, two can do better". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1262
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:12:00 -
[354] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners.
You could only hold that which you use, at least 80% of our space would be impossible to hold onto. but that's the point, you don't need to use it until some one contests it... then dogpile in to the system. unless i'm missing something.
Dogpiling one system would mean the others are wide open as long as the index decays fast enough. |

Dave Stark
7005
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:14:00 -
[355] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
so you do the token amount to keep it. which will be a trivial amount, unless you don't want small entities to be able to hold sov....
It would take an alliance or large corp to hold that space. It just simply will not be possible for us to hold all of that space.
lol. yes it would. if a small entity can hold a system, a large entity can hold multiple systems just as easily.
as i said, if the minimum amount is easily obtainable for small entities you can do the "minimum" several times over to hold space you still won't use regularly. those systems will also always be tottering on the almost vulnerable side of things and essentially be a safari park much like people treat provi currently. |

Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1262
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:15:00 -
[356] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Will the proponents of the change in this thread do me the kindness of answering a simple question:Do you see a CFC or an N3PL reset in the immediate aftermath of these changes? If not, what changes in the meta? You still have two super entities that vastly overpower anything else and the only content consists of farming this guy. Once the novelty of the new system wears off, aren't we back to square one: a bipolar eve with two sides refusing to attack each other? Both empires shrink massively allowing room for new alliances to enter null. Hero entered null. Now being farmed alongside provi by N3PL. Truth is, anyone can enter null, even now. Most people just don't like being farm chattel. So the same three choices will be present after your changes:(1) I can stay in npc 0.0/lowsec/hisec and raid 0.0 to farm afk ishtars (2) I can try and strike out on my own to be farmed for ~content~ by N3PL/CFC (3) or I can get on the old SA account and become an "overman" alongside Retar thereby "winning" eve.  That's totally not stagnation. Feel free to come take CFC sov if you feel any can enter null under the current mechanics. You just need 5000 ppl being in 1 system for few days - would be funny to watch ppl racing to login after downtime to the system :D Everyone knows the server limits - put enough ppl in and You win. But where do I buy 5000 slav... err ppl - need to talk to amarr empire.
Go ahead and PLEX 5k account to hold a system while they actaully use the space in other systems and effectively only need 100 active players per systems or so...
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8379
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:16:00 -
[357] - Quote
Just so people know where we started here. People forget the past, forget that we've made these mistakes in thinking before. So, have a look:
http://www.eveonline.com/expansions/dominion/
Quote:Will your ambitious new Alliance rise up to the challenge and stake their claim, evolving territory to suit it's needs? Will your established empire hold fast against the fleets that press at your borders, hungry for the wealth you protect? Will you call old friends to your side and convince them to join you once more in battle? Or are you the clever entrepreneur who sits clear of the danger and fuels the war from the periphery?
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sovereignty-breaking-the-chains?_ga=1.246131140.1143573604.1412006868
Quote:Sovereignty will no longer be tied directly to starbases.
This decision was an obvious one, as there is no one thing that causes more consternation amongst players than the seemingly endless task of shooting towers. Once the choice to do this was made, we then went ahead and pretty much scrapped the entire current system and started to build a new one from the ground up. Literally years of forum posts, player experience and feedback from the CSM contributed to what was a long, arduous process. What has emerged is a much leaner and infinitely more expandable system which we can continually evolve over time.
Reading this thread makes me want to watch Battlestar Galactica again, because this has all happened before, and it will happen again...
Edit: this was the funny part:
Quote:I want to blow *%#$ up!
No matter what happens, there will always be important things to shoot. The key is finding a balance between allowing smaller gangs of raiders to disrupt the day to day operations of your space against requiring massive battleship and capital fleets to actually remove you from the same space. Conquest of space in Dominion will differ greatly from what exists currently, as will the ability of roaming gangs to cause an GÇÿAFK Empire' no end of frustration. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9935
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:18:00 -
[358] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: Reading this thread makes me want to watch Battlestar Galactica again, because this has all happened before, and it will happen again...
So say we all. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13404
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:19:00 -
[359] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
so you do the token amount to keep it. which will be a trivial amount, unless you don't want small entities to be able to hold sov....
It would take an alliance or large corp to hold that space. It just simply will not be possible for us to hold all of that space. lol. yes it would. if a small entity can hold a system, a large entity can hold multiple systems just as easily. as i said, if the minimum amount is easily obtainable for small entities you can do the "minimum" several times over to hold space you still won't use regularly. those systems will also always be tottering on the almost vulnerable side of things and essentially be a safari park much like people treat provi currently.
Would you rather we keep the current zombie empires?
Nobody said living in null should be easy. That said it would simply be impossible to dogpile even a fraction of null systems outside of Dek. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8379
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:20:00 -
[360] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: Reading this thread makes me want to watch Battlestar Galactica again, because this has all happened before, and it will happen again...
So say we all.
:) See my edit.
|
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2547
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:21:00 -
[361] - Quote
Arkon Olacar wrote:Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?
Here are the "Elephant in the Room" questions that ought to be answered: 1. If these 0.0 systems are worthless, then why do the major powers still claim them? 2. If these 0.0 systems are worthless, then why are all the major powers rich beyond any measure wrt any other alliances in the game? 3. If inserting more non-sov 0.0 systems is the way forward, then why is there little or no pvp in the current non-sov 0.0 areas? |

Dave Stark
7006
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:22:00 -
[362] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
so you do the token amount to keep it. which will be a trivial amount, unless you don't want small entities to be able to hold sov....
It would take an alliance or large corp to hold that space. It just simply will not be possible for us to hold all of that space. lol. yes it would. if a small entity can hold a system, a large entity can hold multiple systems just as easily. as i said, if the minimum amount is easily obtainable for small entities you can do the "minimum" several times over to hold space you still won't use regularly. those systems will also always be tottering on the almost vulnerable side of things and essentially be a safari park much like people treat provi currently. Would you rather we keep the current zombie empires? Nobody said living in null should be easy. That said it would simply be impossible to dogpile even a fraction of null systems outside of Dek.
couldn't care less.
but saying this idea will force coalitions to downsize, there's literally 0 evidence to support that. also if you can't dogpile everyone outside of the area where you're living, attacking forces will literally always be outnumbered and be trounced resulting in an equally stagnant and ****** system.
Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13404
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:22:00 -
[363] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?
Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:22:00 -
[364] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: can you even lay out a coherent explanation of what game changes you'd want to give you what you want? no? then why should we care what you want, you want ponies and rainbows and whatever but without any roadmap you're just uselessly whining
This is the problem I'm seeing with the "anti occupancy based sov" camp. The aren't any real better ideas and for some it seems like the bar of success is "CFC and N3 must collapse instantly after change".
If they're adding more NPC null space a good look should be given at its livability. Another region like the Great Wildlands will do little good for the majority of players.
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8379
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:23:00 -
[365] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?
Jump bridges. Cyno Beacons. To keep others out. Just because. To rent to scrubs who don't know any better.
Pick one lol.
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13404
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:24:00 -
[366] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
couldn't care less.
but saying this idea will force coalitions to downsize, there's literally 0 evidence to support that. also if you can't dogpile everyone outside of the area where you're living, attacking forces will literally always be outnumbered and be trounced resulting in an equally stagnant and ****** system.
Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.
Thats where other changes come in such as nerfs to invincible capital and subcap fleets. The changes listed here are simply to fix empire sprawl. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Dave Stark
7006
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:26:00 -
[367] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
couldn't care less.
but saying this idea will force coalitions to downsize, there's literally 0 evidence to support that. also if you can't dogpile everyone outside of the area where you're living, attacking forces will literally always be outnumbered and be trounced resulting in an equally stagnant and ****** system.
Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.
Thats where other changes come in such as nerfs to invincible capital and subcap fleets. The changes listed here are simply to fix empire sprawl.
which literally makes the whole "attackers being outnumbered and always losing thus causing stagnation" thing worse. if you can't move your capitals away from your "home" then only defenders have them, skewing the power balance to them leading to impregnable "fortresses" for lack of a better term.
again, more stagnation. just a different variety. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9935
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:26:00 -
[368] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
couldn't care less.
but saying this idea will force coalitions to downsize, there's literally 0 evidence to support that. also if you can't dogpile everyone outside of the area where you're living, attacking forces will literally always be outnumbered and be trounced resulting in an equally stagnant and ****** system.
Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.
Thats where other changes come in such as nerfs to invincible capital and subcap fleets. The changes listed here are simply to fix empire sprawl.
Yep, still gotta nerf logi into the ground eventually, too. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |

Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
391
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:26:00 -
[369] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee? Because the sov bill for ****** systems is **** all, and the fuel block consumption reduction that comes with holding sov alone makes it worthwhile. And because under the current system, taking the system just to prevent someone else from taking it is incredibly easy to do with minimal effort. Warping to zero |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2133
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:27:00 -
[370] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.
 |
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8379
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:28:00 -
[371] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote: can you even lay out a coherent explanation of what game changes you'd want to give you what you want? no? then why should we care what you want, you want ponies and rainbows and whatever but without any roadmap you're just uselessly whining
This is the problem I'm seeing with the "anti occupancy based sov" camp. The aren't any real better ideas and for some it seems like the bar of success is "CFC and N3 must collapse instantly after change". If they're adding more NPC null space a good look should be given at its livability. Another region like the Great Wildlands will do little good for the majority of players.
Pointing out that things won't work the way people predict doesn't mean we have something better in mind. I don't, i have no clue as to how to achieve the goals people say they want achieved.
And that's the difference. I KNOW I don't know, but just like Dominion, so many people are SURE they know what the right answer is.
Them KNOWING for sure what the answer is is a good indicator that they are wrong lol.
I will say this though. Rather than trying for a certain result ('coalitions break up' , 'more fighting' , 'small groups have a chance' etc). I think CCP should always just work to provide us TOOLS with which we can figure things out for ourselves. Like tools that make some sub caps super dangerous to supers (like the 'Strategic Weapon' Tech3s were supposed to have but never got, or the big bombs black ops were talked about having).
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2547
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:30:00 -
[372] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee? Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots. So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying? |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:31:00 -
[373] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee? Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots.
Baltec gives us the simplest explanation of why this works. Doing logistics positively sucks. If the null blocs can realistically shrink their footprints they will. Does anyone really think playing "ship fuel blocks online" is any fun?
Shrinking is hard when a system can't support a large # of people in a realistic faction. By realistic I mean, as good as running Incursions in hi sec because we're in null and we're supposed to get reward for the risk. The risk will be increased if the local list is so long you can't easily tell if neuts come in system.
|

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:31:00 -
[374] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:Dave Stark wrote:I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.
throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it. unless you cap the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.
i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me. The index would be linked to activity in a system like mining, ratting, kills or some other industry metric. It could be grown over a period of time. This in turn would affect how easy it is for them to defend and how hard it would be for opponents to take. You could directly link it to structure EHP or timers for instance. This method would mean a dead system, with no activity would be very easy to conquer and a used system, with plenty of activity across the spectrum would be difficult to take. until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners.
If you build a system which requires certain activity to take place in said system, it won't be a problem. That and if your 1000 guys are in system X, they are not in system Y. System Y is now vulnerable. Even a coalition of 40,000 will contract and can't be everywhere at once but CCP isn't going to give people a free ticket to just take any space they want without some kind of fight.
|

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:32:00 -
[375] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: There is plenty of room out here, most of null is all but abandoned. We also would not be taking rent off these new alliances as we wouldn't own their space.
Oh come on, do you think we're all fools? You don't need a "sov mechanic" to shake players down in a protection racket. CODE do it all the time in high sec. You say "pay us and we won't farm you". You have an apex force. You can do whatever you like.
Eve is fundamentally broken. What broke it wasn't sov mechanics, it's players like Mittani re-creating the kind of society and systems in game you play video games to get away from in the real world. It's Lord of the Flies all over again. I don't know why people go along with it but they do. There's a psychology thesis somewhere here I'm sure.
When I look at CCP marketing with their "100,000 v 100,000 people isn't this amazing!" BS, it's clear to me that Eve is kind-of finished as development potential. It's matured and we're at the end game. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8380
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:32:00 -
[376] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying?
Noticed that did you? 
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2548
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:37:00 -
[377] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:X Gallentius wrote: So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying? Noticed that did you?  Kind of the big elephant in the room isn't it?
|

Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
781
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:40:00 -
[378] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:Yep Im all for not reimbursing anyone for power projection nerfs by buffing income from systems. If they fold the better for everyone.
npc stations as power projection buff - should never happen. agreed, moa would be better off if we removed npc pure blind Yea - we are deployed to lowsec because 5z and x7 are so good to be in.
No you deployed to lowsec because you're a roleplaying PVE alliance trying to masquerade as a nullsec PVP one and when you got put to the test you crumbled like Gen Eve's English skills. |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2133
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:44:00 -
[379] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:
No you deployed to lowsec because you're a roleplaying PVE alliance trying to masquerade as a nullsec PVP one and when you got put to the test you crumbled like Gen Eve's English skills.
So much Grrrrrrr, do try to stay on topic please. 
|

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:46:00 -
[380] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:Yep Im all for not reimbursing anyone for power projection nerfs by buffing income from systems. If they fold the better for everyone.
npc stations as power projection buff - should never happen. agreed, moa would be better off if we removed npc pure blind Yea - we are deployed to lowsec because 5z and x7 are so good to be in. No you deployed to lowsec because you're a roleplaying PVE alliance trying to masquerade as a nullsec PVP one and when you got put to the test you crumbled like Gen Eve's English skills.
true story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEiYFoq9dtQ |
|

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:52:00 -
[381] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: Pointing out that things won't work the way people predict doesn't mean we have something better in mind. I don't, i have no clue as to how to achieve the goals people say they want achieved.
And that's the difference. I KNOW I don't know, but just like Dominion, so many people are SURE they know what the right answer is.
Them KNOWING for sure what the answer is is a good indicator that they are wrong lol.
I will say this though. Rather than trying for a certain result ('coalitions break up' , 'more fighting' , 'small groups have a chance' etc). I think CCP should always just work to provide us TOOLS with which we can figure things out for ourselves. Like tools that make some sub caps super dangerous to supers (like the 'Strategic Weapon' Tech3s were supposed to have but never got, or the big bombs black ops were talked about having).
If CCP waits until its 100% sure of a result they simply won't ever change anything. If you don't design mechanics with a goal in mind you're going to end up with a mess of rules that accomplish nothing vs. rules that at least encourage large empires like the CFC to contract.
You can't force the null contraction, but you certainly can make it painful not to.
|

Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:57:00 -
[382] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:
No you deployed to lowsec because you're a roleplaying PVE alliance trying to masquerade as a nullsec PVP one and when you got put to the test you crumbled like Gen Eve's English skills.
So much Grrrrrrr, do try to stay on topic please. 
Why would I be mad? I think it's hilarious that of the caliber of alliances the CFC has scooped up you guys couldn't even manage for like 2 months on top of us offering free SRP. But hey give us the 411 on what being a "null-sec sov owner" is like from the luxury of your NPC station living experience I suppose. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8380
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:01:00 -
[383] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: Pointing out that things won't work the way people predict doesn't mean we have something better in mind. I don't, i have no clue as to how to achieve the goals people say they want achieved.
And that's the difference. I KNOW I don't know, but just like Dominion, so many people are SURE they know what the right answer is.
Them KNOWING for sure what the answer is is a good indicator that they are wrong lol.
I will say this though. Rather than trying for a certain result ('coalitions break up' , 'more fighting' , 'small groups have a chance' etc). I think CCP should always just work to provide us TOOLS with which we can figure things out for ourselves. Like tools that make some sub caps super dangerous to supers (like the 'Strategic Weapon' Tech3s were supposed to have but never got, or the big bombs black ops were talked about having).
If CCP waits until its 100% sure of a result they simply won't ever change anything. If you don't design mechanics with a goal in mind you're going to end up with a mess of rules that accomplish nothing vs. rules that at least encourage large empires like the CFC to contract. You can't force the null contraction, but you certainly can make it painful not to.
No one is suggesting waiting till you're 100%, nothing would ever be done.
But the point here is that the same kind of thinking that created Dominion is being displayed here. people are SURE that "occupancy SOV" and the rest is the answer, when there are gaping logical holes here.
When Dominion happens, people were so tired of pos shooting that they said "just change it, ANYTHING has to be better than this". Result? The problems we have today.
This agreement (if implemented in game) could end up making things WORSE. It could turn the Blue Donut into a Purple Croissant, then we're screwed because those things are French (lol) . That's all I'm saying.
What is called for is new thinking. "Occupancy SOV" and "npc constellations in every region" isn't new thinking, it's a rehash of pre-Dominion ideas.
|

Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1262
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:07:00 -
[384] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:X Gallentius wrote: So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying? Noticed that did you?  Kind of the big elephant in the room isn't it?
How do you think they would keep them if it takes hundred of man hours to keep them? |

Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Intrepid Crossing
79
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:09:00 -
[385] - Quote
Well this is a nice little band aid on the idea of fixing sov. How bout we actually talk about the real issue here.
Moons.
Why are alliances in the space they are? It's not cause of the pretty lights. It's cause of the money. The moons or access to materials in those areas. I started playing this game only a few years ago but my goal was to be able to make Tech 2 items. Well i cant do that. I am forbidden to moon mine high end materials. Either its controlled by my alliance and thus I have to buy it or it's in the hands of people, that on my own, I cant overthrow.
So though the letter of occupancy based sov is nice and I support that, minus the addition of the free jump bridge network, AKA more NPC stations. The real truth is that you have to look where the money is to fix the real issue.
My idea. Pretty simple. That high end moon.... well after a week it runs dry. Goes barren for a week and then comes back as some other resource, but not what it was. So no one resource can be harvested twice in a row. So all those precious moons that alliances covet so much are suddenly limited and not static to one area of space. Now EVERYONE can get a crack at the T2 market.
The walls of sov would quickly break. Groups would be forced to scan moons, hunt moons, defend moons or attack moons.
Corps could keep their space. In all honesty no one cares about the actual space. It's strictly the resources it provides.
What would this do?
Lots of gang fights. People fighting over moons and resources. You wouldnt need HUGE capital fleets to flip a station. The station is no where near as important, if the resource in that area isn't fixed.
PVP would increase on a huge scale. Fights would no longer be over certain space, but owning more space.
This benefits people like myself as an industrial person but forces me to get into PVP if I wish to defend my materials. It also means that the area I call home wont be a risk of lose so much, but will more far more active while people hunt resources.
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:13:00 -
[386] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee? Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots. Baltec gives us the simplest explanation of why this works. Doing logistics positively sucks. If the null blocs can realistically shrink their footprints they will. Does anyone really think playing "ship fuel blocks online" is any fun? Shrinking is hard when a system can't support a large # of people in a realistic faction. By realistic I mean, as good as running Incursions in hi sec because we're in null and we're supposed to get reward for the risk. The risk will be increased if the local list is so long you can't easily tell if neuts come in system. 1. You're going to willingly give up moons in 0.0 systems? 2. You're not going to continue to rent out your unused space? 3. You're not going to increase rent and make even more isk out of these proposed changes? 4. 0.0 entities are making massive amounts of isk already. Why do you need to make more isk? You guys are building Super Caps and storing them on unused accounts as a sort of savings plan.
What is likely to happen is that both sides of the 0.0 sov conflict will increase rents on these now valuable systems, and then build even more super caps due to the fact that both sides "need to stay competitive with each other."
5. wrt risk/reward argument: Shouldn't the reward be having your name on the map? If isk is the bottom line goal in this game, then we'd all form a non-aggression pact over every area where isk is involved and then we'd farm 23/7.
|

Adrie Atticus
the shadow plague The Bastion
393
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:16:00 -
[387] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Well this is a nice little band aid on the idea of fixing sov. How bout we actually talk about the real issue here.
Moons.
Why are alliances in the space they are? It's not cause of the pretty lights. It's cause of the money. The moons or access to materials in those areas. I started playing this game only a few years ago but my goal was to be able to make Tech 2 items. Well i cant do that. I am forbidden to moon mine high end materials. Either its controlled by my alliance and thus I have to buy it or it's in the hands of people, that on my own, I cant overthrow.
So though the letter of occupancy based sov is nice and I support that, minus the addition of the free jump bridge network, AKA more NPC stations. The real truth is that you have to look where the money is to fix the real issue.
My idea. Pretty simple. That high end moon.... well after a week it runs dry. Goes barren for a week and then comes back as some other resource, but not what it was. So no one resource can be harvested twice in a row. So all those precious moons that alliances covet so much are suddenly limited and not static to one area of space. Now EVERYONE can get a crack at the T2 market.
The walls of sov would quickly break. Groups would be forced to scan moons, hunt moons, defend moons or attack moons.
Corps could keep their space. In all honesty no one cares about the actual space. It's strictly the resources it provides.
What would this do?
Lots of gang fights. People fighting over moons and resources. You wouldnt need HUGE capital fleets to flip a station. The station is no where near as important, if the resource in that area isn't fixed.
PVP would increase on a huge scale. Fights would no longer be over certain space, but owning more space.
This benefits people like myself as an industrial person but forces me to get into PVP if I wish to defend my materials. It also means that the area I call home wont be a risk of lose so much, but will more far more active while people hunt resources.
Causing T2 ships to skyrocket in price would not create more PvP until they hit a mark where it's feasible to drop caps to every moon to clear the POS, erect your own and suck it for less than a week. This price point? Billions per hull. |

Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
881
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:19:00 -
[388] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.
throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it. unless you cap the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.
i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me.
But then those bodies would have to remain there to keep it and they won't because eventually they will want to go home. The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |

Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Intrepid Crossing
79
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:19:00 -
[389] - Quote
No. The price of T2 would fall. EVERYONE in null would be able to get the mats to make T2. But those materials would random and not fixed like they are now. They would also deplete and then respawn as something different.
You break the monopoly on T2 production and you will see major changes in the game cause prices will fall. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8380
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:22:00 -
[390] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Toriessian wrote:baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Arkon Olacar wrote:Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee? Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots. Baltec gives us the simplest explanation of why this works. Doing logistics positively sucks. If the null blocs can realistically shrink their footprints they will. Does anyone really think playing "ship fuel blocks online" is any fun? Shrinking is hard when a system can't support a large # of people in a realistic faction. By realistic I mean, as good as running Incursions in hi sec because we're in null and we're supposed to get reward for the risk. The risk will be increased if the local list is so long you can't easily tell if neuts come in system. 1. You're going to willingly give up moons in 0.0 systems? 2. You're not going to continue to rent out your unused space? 3. You're not going to increase rent and make even more isk out of these proposed changes? 4. 0.0 entities are making massive amounts of isk already. Why do you need to make more isk? You guys are building Super Caps and storing them on unused accounts as a sort of savings plan. What is likely to happen is that both sides of the 0.0 sov conflict will increase rents on these now valuable systems, and then build even more super caps due to the fact that both sides "need to stay competitive with each other." 5. wrt risk/reward argument: Shouldn't the reward be having your name on the map? If isk is the bottom line goal in this game, then we'd all form a non-aggression pact over every area where isk is involved and then we'd farm 23/7.
One thing I think you might be missing here, and that is that "grunt income" and "Alliance income" are 2 different things. When they talk about making systems have better rewards, they are talking about Grunt income (which is seriously capped in null sec compared to most other space because there are only so many anomalies and belts to go around per system where as mission agents are an infinite resource).
I've heard the same null leaders talk about shifting income from top down (moons )to bottom up (taxes on activity and such), but that's impossible with current sov null.
The signers of the agreement aren't asking for more money for null, they think making null systems viable to live in is a good thing and generally I agree even though i disagree with the overall ideas.
|
|

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:23:00 -
[391] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other? Nerf null income? Its already below high sec income, who in their right mind would want to live in null if it got any lower? Ppl that want to fight not farm. It would exclude goons but noone would care :D
Says the one living in a mission hub.... |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:30:00 -
[392] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:umnikar wrote:
All good then. I trust goons to not take my new established sov...
Seriously. You must have some information I don't have, else all this makes no sense.
Occupancy sov changes several things. First it makes it impossible for one power to own half of null. Second it makes needing large fleets of several thousand redundant. The reason we use the massive fleets of today is because of the need to grind through huge amounts of EHP and defend against said huge fleets. This need goes away the second you get rid of the EHP grinds. Lastly, Coalitions themselves would no longer be required to survive. It wont mean that they disband instantly but over time the rifts would get large enough that they will simply fall apart.
Eh, large fleets are needed because the enemy has huge numbers. The enemy has huge numbers because we have large fleets. Arms race. Nothing in the proposal stops an arms/numbers race.
And why would CFC suddenly break up if this proposal should happen in one form or another. When was "friends" bad to have? I am starting to feel that GSF is merely viewing the rest of CFC as a necessary evil. Several posts indicate this. Reset CFC and let the fire commence...? |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:31:00 -
[393] - Quote
Ereshgikal wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other? Nerf null income? Its already below high sec income, who in their right mind would want to live in null if it got any lower? Ppl that want to fight not farm. It would exclude goons but noone would care :D Says the one living in a mission hub....
Unfornately I did 0 mordus angels missions :( sorry. I don't know anything about it. |

Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:33:00 -
[394] - Quote
+1
A change needs to be made, the current system is dumb.
mlmp |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:40:00 -
[395] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: No one is suggesting waiting till you're 100%, nothing would ever be done.
This agreement (if implemented in game) could end up making things WORSE. It could turn the Blue Donut into a Purple Croissant, then we're screwed because those things are French (lol) . That's all I'm saying.
What is called for is new thinking. "Occupancy SOV" and "npc constellations in every region" isn't new thinking, it's a rehash of pre-Dominion ideas.
This is a risk but one that can be mitigated. CCP has to move at some point and right now there aren't any other realistic proposals on the table to consider. At some point, you have to go with the idea you have. We wait much longer for a "jesus null sec sov feature" there may not be many players left in null to care.
New thinking is great but we've had years as you've pointed out. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:40:00 -
[396] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:X Gallentius wrote: So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying? Noticed that did you?  The goal is to make them more valuable when you can keep them, but much harder to keep as an absentee landlord. That's a primary goal of occupancy sov.
We pay 84m every two weeks to maintain sov in a backwater system nobody uses. It's dumb. You make systems able to carry an appropriate volume of people, but then make it much harder to keep when you're not using it with an appropriate volume of people. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:44:00 -
[397] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: No one is suggesting waiting till you're 100%, nothing would ever be done.
But the point here is that the same kind of thinking that created Dominion is being displayed here. People are SURE that "occupancy SOV" and the rest is the answer just like they were with Dominion, but then as now, there are gaping logical holes here.
When Dominion happened, people were so tired of pos shooting that they said "just change it, ANYTHING has to be better than this". Result? The problems we have today, which are WORSE than pre-Dominon SOV.
This agreement (if implemented in game) could end up making things WORSE. It could turn the Blue Donut into a Purple Croissant, then we're screwed because those things are French (lol) . That's all I'm saying.
What is called for is new thinking. "Occupancy SOV" and "npc constellations in every region" isn't new thinking, it's a rehash of pre-Dominion ideas.
it is the considered opinion of the experts on the subject that there is nothing worse: 0.0 is at a point of terminal stasis and even bad changes, that would lead to a worse stasis point, are preferable in the near term to no changes at all because the period of stasis readjustment would at least be interesting and buy time
0.0 is over: we and PL/N3 won. We need a better 0.0 game, yes, but we also need a 'restart' to a certain degree even if its not going to get any better. |

Dave Stark
7006
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:46:00 -
[398] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Dave Stark wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:Dave Stark wrote:I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.
throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it. unless you cap the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.
i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me. The index would be linked to activity in a system like mining, ratting, kills or some other industry metric. It could be grown over a period of time. This in turn would affect how easy it is for them to defend and how hard it would be for opponents to take. You could directly link it to structure EHP or timers for instance. This method would mean a dead system, with no activity would be very easy to conquer and a used system, with plenty of activity across the spectrum would be difficult to take. until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners. If you build a system which requires certain activity to take place in said system, it won't be a problem. That and if your 1000 guys are in system X, they are not in system Y. System Y is now vulnerable. Even a coalition of 40,000 will contract and can't be everywhere at once but CCP isn't going to give people a free ticket to just take any space they want without some kind of fight.
being vulnerable is irrelevant, you just dogpile the system when people attack it. unless a system is being attacked, it's irrelevant how vulnerable it is. ****, look at the reddit thread mocking people who reinforced that goon ihub in a system where they simply couldn't be bothered to remove the SBUs. it just proves the point - vulnerability is irrelevant unless some one bothers attacking. at which point they get dogpiled by the still oversized coalitions.
not to mention perpetually vulnerable systems that are being used a token amount are going to draw lambs to the slaughter like a moth to the flame.
AND STILL nothing has encouraged coalitions to downsize. |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:46:00 -
[399] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: it is the considered opinion of the experts on the subject that there is nothing worse: 0.0 is at a point of terminal stasis and even bad changes, that would lead to a worse stasis point, are preferable in the near term to no changes at all because the period of stasis readjustment would at least be interesting and buy time
THIS ^^
What I haven't been able to verbalize well because I'm at work IRL :) |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:48:00 -
[400] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:No. The price of T2 would fall. EVERYONE in null would be able to get the mats to make T2. But those materials would random and not fixed like they are now. They would also deplete and then respawn as something different.
You break the monopoly on T2 production and you will see major changes in the game cause prices will fall.
You are a special cookie, but I will try to explain it in simple words.
A single POS mining a single type of moon goo yields a specific amount of moon goo per month. If the moon goo drains after one week there will be a period of looking until someone else finds the new moon producing the moon goo. This means there is lost "mining time", meaning there is less moon goo available. Sure, this could be addressed by increasing the number of moons seeded with each specific moon goo.
Then you have reactions to consider. Today reaction farms churn 24/7 having set up suppliers and buyers. Disrupting the flow of moon goo means disrupting the reaction farms; this in turn means more overhead for reaction farms (changing production, finding new suppliers, or dismantling the POS). In the end this will translate to less material being available to build T2 components from...and then the prices will go up.
Sorry about the multiple-syllable words, but I hope you understand them despite previous evidence to the contrary. |
|

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6109
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:54:00 -
[401] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: NPC 0.0 in Every Sov Region We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist.
Translation:
It's going to suck for us when destructible player stations are introduced. Better get some NPC stations where we need them or we might have to actually pay attention to our sov holding.
Mr Epeen 
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass! |

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
302
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:54:00 -
[402] - Quote
This suggestion serves one purpose: to allow the current power holders to condense their large empires into small, unpenetrable fortresses (cynojam, lot of friendlies in fleet 1-2 jumps away) where they can rat in complete safety, regions away from anyone who could theoretically harm them.
In the meantime both their own PvP-ers and current pirates are pacified by offering them regions full of terrible players who are easy to farm (these are dubbed as "new alliances").
The result: CFC, N3 and PL are ratting in Nyxes in 3 far corners of the universe without any risk of losing them. No more SRP to pay as fleets barely have losses (see PL losses against HERO/Provi), no capital subsidies as there is no need for capital fleet and greatly decreased Sov costs. So alliance leaders could keep the whole alliance income to themselves without the members giving a damn. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

orange offspring
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:54:00 -
[403] - Quote
+1
Soooo Jita Riots part 2 soon?  |

Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Intrepid Crossing
79
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:56:00 -
[404] - Quote
Ereshgikal wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:No. The price of T2 would fall. EVERYONE in null would be able to get the mats to make T2. But those materials would random and not fixed like they are now. They would also deplete and then respawn as something different.
You break the monopoly on T2 production and you will see major changes in the game cause prices will fall. You are a special cookie, but I will try to explain it in simple words. A single POS mining a single type of moon goo yields a specific amount of moon goo per month. If the moon goo drains after one week there will be a period of looking until someone else finds the new moon producing the moon goo. This means there is lost "mining time", meaning there is less moon goo available. Sure, this could be addressed by increasing the number of moons seeded with each specific moon goo. Then you have reactions to consider. Today reaction farms churn 24/7 having set up suppliers and buyers. Disrupting the flow of moon goo means disrupting the reaction farms; this in turn means more overhead for reaction farms (changing production, finding new suppliers, or dismantling the POS). In the end this will translate to less material being available to build T2 components from...and then the prices will go up. Sorry about the multiple-syllable words, but I hope you understand them despite previous evidence to the contrary.
Nice attempt at being insulting. You will have to try harder.
As for your attempt to explain things. You're argument is based around the idea that it would require effort. Sorry bout that is exactly what I purpose. Moons are what make the alliances money. This is what needs to be broken up.
Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up? |

Zhaniz
xX-Crusader-Xx Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:56:00 -
[405] - Quote
+1 full support of this! |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2134
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:58:00 -
[406] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
AND STILL nothing has encouraged coalitions to downsize.
don't get me wrong, i don't think sov is fine as it is. i think it's boring as hell too and that's why i do fun things instead... however the occupancy sov doesn't really address any of the issues you people are perpetually whining about.
The crux of it is that they don't want to downsize. They want to have the same 2 coalitions, each with almost half of the active combat sov pilots, with both coalitions unwilling to fight each other.
At the same time, they want new "content" to materialize out of thin air, in the form of farmable sov-holding non-aligned entities from currently sov-wanting players that don't actually exist. |

Aiken Lugre
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:02:00 -
[407] - Quote
I actually like the idea of somehow breaking the monopoly on moons the larger powers have.
We all know that their money isn't from taxes, it's predominately from R64s (and to a lesser extent other moons).
If we break the monopoly they hold on these moons we break the large powers significantly.
Of course no one in these big coalitions, or at least none of the leadership, want this. Regardless of whether sov is structure or resident based they will be attempting to hold these moons and hold this income close.
The idea that shifting these moons randomly would generate higher T2 prices is probably right if we keep the moons the same. But we up the number of tech moons overall while also shifting them then the amount of goo coming out should stay roughly the same.
Further, it's not like ONLY the big guys will be hunting these moons, everyone will be.
And even further still, assuming T2 prices did go up, I don't see how this would stop PvP, it's not like people aren't allowed to shoot each other in T1 ships; you can still kill each other just as easily in a Vexor or VNI rather than an Ishtar in Ishtar's Online. |

Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12329
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:06:00 -
[408] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:The Mittani wrote: NPC 0.0 in Every Sov Region We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist.
Translation: It's going to suck for us when destructible player stations are introduced. Better get some NPC stations where we need them while we still have time. Mr Epeen 
We have frequently advocated for destructible stations. I would love to be able to not only hellcamp someone but also completely and irreversibly destroy their stuff trapped inside. Sky Captain of Your Heart
Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:08:00 -
[409] - Quote
Aiken Lugre wrote:I actually like the idea of somehow breaking the monopoly on moons the larger powers have.
We all know that their money isn't from taxes, it's predominately from R64s (and to a lesser extent other moons).
If we break the monopoly they hold on these moons we break the large powers significantly.
Except this hasn't been true for some time and N3 and the CFC are making more profit off rent.
|

Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:09:00 -
[410] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
AND STILL nothing has encouraged coalitions to downsize.
don't get me wrong, i don't think sov is fine as it is. i think it's boring as hell too and that's why i do fun things instead... however the occupancy sov doesn't really address any of the issues you people are perpetually whining about.
The crux of it is that they don't want to downsize. They want to have the same 2 coalitions, each with almost half of the active combat sov pilots, with both coalitions unwilling to fight each other. At the same time, they want new "content" to materialize out of thin air, in the form of farmable sov-holding non-aligned entities from currently sov-wanting players that don't actually exist.
We've stated numerous times that if the meta didn't incentivize massive coalitions, then we wouldn't be in one. We, being Goonswarm, does what the most efficient route to both make other people angry and make ourselves happy. A massive ****-off coalition right now accomplishes just that. Now it so happens that the majority of the alliances in our coalition gel well for the most part making it an actual coalition of ideas. With that said, I'd argue that if the tables were turned and we were in a coalition with NC. or PL then culturally we'd be just as successful. Nullsec entities that last are the ones that appreciate the space for what it is, which is a sandbox without limits. You have to earn your keep, by putting in the work either on the logistics front, the battle front, or the spreadsheet front. |
|

Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:10:00 -
[411] - Quote
You would know that if you ever had to work to keep anything in nullsec. |

Antihrist Pripravnik
T-AFK and counting
741
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:11:00 -
[412] - Quote
orange offspring wrote:+1 Soooo Jita Riots part 2 soon? 
If CCP messes with sov in a wrong way or allow Rent-a-Space Mk.2 like proposed in the OP, there will be no riots. Community is just too old and tired to fight the windmill. o.0 |

FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:16:00 -
[413] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This suggestion serves one purpose: to allow the current power holders to condense their large empires into small, unpenetrable fortresses (cynojam, lot of friendlies in fleet 1-2 jumps away) where they can rat in complete safety, regions away from anyone who could theoretically harm them.
In the meantime both their own PvP-ers and current pirates are pacified by offering them regions full of terrible players who are easy to farm (these are dubbed as "new alliances").
The result: CFC, N3 and PL are ratting in Nyxes in 3 far corners of the universe without any risk of losing them. No more SRP to pay as fleets barely have losses (see PL losses against HERO/Provi), no capital subsidies as there is no need for capital fleet and greatly decreased Sov costs. So alliance leaders could keep the whole alliance income to themselves without the members giving a damn.
I have a question for you. How would a new alliance come into null without being worse at it than some existing null alliances? Holding sov null requires competence above that of the individual player, and organizational competence takes time to develop. Without letting them try how could they do it? They might start out terrible, and they might even fail at sov-null their first try, but at least they would be trying as opposed to now where they either rent or don't bother.
On a different note, why do you think that more players in one place would form an untouchable fortress? Sure a large alliance would be harder to root out of their home system but shouldn't that be how its supposed to be? Why should a 100 man alliance be able to turf a 1000 man alliance out of their home easily? Granted under occupancy sov if I had a 20 man roam I might not be able to truck into YAO and shut down the 300 people that live there, but why would it be good for the game as a whole if I could?
Finally, ratters are already basically untouchable. Even if you find them on a roam they will simply pos/dock/safe and cloak the instant a red his local. Give me concentration and gate movement, it increases my chances of catching somebody at a chokepoint or just somebody dumb. In the desert predators will often wait for prey by waterholes, the same principal applies.
As you are very fond of pointing out Goons lose ratting Ishtars all the time in Dek, and there are standing fleets for defense up 23/7. If you want to say that these places would lead to invincibility somehow then why is it that not the case in Eastern Dek which already has the highest concentration of players anywhere in null? |

Aiken Lugre
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:20:00 -
[414] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin.
Then breaking one with sov changes and the other with moon changes sounds even better.
|

Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:23:00 -
[415] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Aareya wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to. Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints? Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already". I do not believe the 'conspiracy' nuts when they say that the null sec people are saying this because they want to gain something. I do think they (the signatories) are mistaken and not taking everything into account. One such thing is that npc null in every region VASTLY simplifies logistics, because now their is an npc station in EVERY region to jump through. no need to send in an unsafe cyno alt to a system you don't won if you want to move your cap fleet across the map, no need to use unsafe low sec routes either. \Just hop scotch across npc null systems from one side of the map to the other.
You seem to be writing as if having NPC nullsec seeded around within jump range of each other to simplify logistics is a negative thing. I strongly suspect that is actually a primary goal: make it so that a determined organization can live in two systems in the ass end of nowhere if they really want to, without having to blue everyone all the way to empire space. I was really surprised they highlighted based on "25 jumps of NPC space", but I'm pretty sure the "within JF range of NPC space" map would look very similar (and admittedly be harder to calculate). |

Dave Stark
7006
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:23:00 -
[416] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Why should a 100 man alliance be able to turf a 1000 man alliance out of their home easily?
because that's the very reason you're in this shitfest right now.
100 man alliances can't kick out 1000 man alliances, so the 100 man alliance becomes a 1000 man alliance to do that, then the 1000 man alliance becomes a 10000 man alliance and you're where we are now.
occupancy sov doesn't seem to change this. instead of needing 10k people because structures have millions of hitpoints, you will just keep 10k people to keep some "sov index" as high as possible.
you've just moved "there are too many hp to grind" to "the index is too high to bother grinding".
that's why i don't bloody get it; you're just trading 1 grind for another which still ends up with the optimal tactic being "more warm bodies". |

Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
881
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:25:00 -
[417] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:The Mittani wrote: NPC 0.0 in Every Sov Region We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist.
Translation: It's going to suck for us when destructible player stations are introduced. Better get some NPC stations where we need them while we still have time. Mr Epeen  We have frequently advocated for destructible stations. I would love to be able to not only hellcamp someone but also completely and irreversibly destroy their stuff trapped inside.
Not to mention change what station we have in any particular stations.
Since the Crius bonuses are wholly dependant on what kind of station it is and those stations were already placed years ago.
Would some sort of "station reconstruction kit" be so far fetched?
I mean the real issue with being able to destroy a station is all the equipment inside. What about just replacing it with another station.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8380
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:25:00 -
[418] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: No one is suggesting waiting till you're 100%, nothing would ever be done.
But the point here is that the same kind of thinking that created Dominion is being displayed here. People are SURE that "occupancy SOV" and the rest is the answer just like they were with Dominion, but then as now, there are gaping logical holes here.
When Dominion happened, people were so tired of pos shooting that they said "just change it, ANYTHING has to be better than this". Result? The problems we have today, which are WORSE than pre-Dominon SOV.
This agreement (if implemented in game) could end up making things WORSE. It could turn the Blue Donut into a Purple Croissant, then we're screwed because those things are French (lol) . That's all I'm saying.
What is called for is new thinking. "Occupancy SOV" and "npc constellations in every region" isn't new thinking, it's a rehash of pre-Dominion ideas.
it is the considered opinion of the experts on the subject that there is nothing worse: 0.0 is at a point of terminal stasis and even bad changes, that would lead to a worse stasis point, are preferable in the near term to no changes at all because the period of stasis readjustment would at least be interesting and buy time 0.0 is over: we and PL/N3 won. We need a better 0.0 game, yes, but we also need a 'restart' to a certain degree even if its not going to get any better.
Why make things worse when you could examine the thinking that lead to 'now' and just not do that again?
That's what I'm always saying in these discussions, it doesn't have to lead to a crappy outcome, but you can't expect to keep thinking the same way (ie "anything has to be better than this") and get a different result. I was around pre-Dominion and it'd like Deja Vu all over again. |

Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
771
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:25:00 -
[419] - Quote
Turn over some of your rental systems to an NRDS policy. Make them accessible systems through a High Sec entry point. Show a little self discipline and don't shoot neutrals, Establish a reds list based on forward activity in the regions, establish docking fees that are realistic. Consider any number of other options I haven't considered.
The point is simple, EVE is rigid because you play it rigid. We have Overview save options. You can have an NBSI overview for systems that you don't want neutrals in. This is the Sandbox element. I'm not hating on you guys, I get the mechanical restrictions but you turned the sandbox in to a cement box.
- do I have an 'ulterior motive'? An 'Agenda'?
Kind of. If you guys introduce CFC backed NRDS, I expect PL and Co to move out of Provi to torture you and make it difficult for you to implement but isn't that what you are asking for? |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:25:00 -
[420] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This suggestion serves one purpose: to allow the current power holders to condense their large empires into small, unpenetrable fortresses (cynojam, lot of friendlies in fleet 1-2 jumps away) where they can rat in complete safety, regions away from anyone who could theoretically harm them.
In the meantime both their own PvP-ers and current pirates are pacified by offering them regions full of terrible players who are easy to farm (these are dubbed as "new alliances").
The result: CFC, N3 and PL are ratting in Nyxes in 3 far corners of the universe without any risk of losing them. No more SRP to pay as fleets barely have losses (see PL losses against HERO/Provi), no capital subsidies as there is no need for capital fleet and greatly decreased Sov costs. So alliance leaders could keep the whole alliance income to themselves without the members giving a damn. ladies and gentlemen, gevlon "all that nullsec power blocks want to do is rat in peace" goblin with another gem showing his deep understanding of how isk is all that matters in eve |
|

Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:27:00 -
[421] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:[quote=Jenn aSide]0.0 is over: we and PL/N3 won. We need a better 0.0 game, yes, but we also need a 'restart' to a certain degree even if its not going to get any better. I-¦m pretty sure there is a name for games where two or more people get awarded first place. Sometimes even everybody gets a trophy. You didn-¦t win you just made sure you will not loose by not competing against each other. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:28:00 -
[422] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: Why make things worse when you could examine the thinking that lead to 'now' and just not do that again?
That's what I'm always saying in these discussions, it doesn't have to lead to a crappy outcome, but you can't expect to keep thinking the same way (ie "anything has to be better than this") and get a different result. I was around pre-Dominion and it'd like Deja Vu all over again.
we are: we've put lots of time into thinking what the best changes are and poking holes in bad proposals and thinking through why certain ones are worse than others and what is and is not a good change, a good guiding philosophy, etc - we have our one shot and want it to be as good as possible
but what I'm saying is that the fear of making things worse should not play a role because that's not really any possible: we are in a situation where you must do something so the right answer is to pick the best option, not wait to see if you can top that one |

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
958
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:30:00 -
[423] - Quote
How about with the next patch CCP breaks the patch and a universal standings reset. That might help break up a lot of these coalitions and larger alliances and bring back the small ones.
But somewhere on an earlier page, i saw a post about player limits. CCP really needs to rethink the corp management skills and max corp sizes and max alliance sizes.
Also bigger alliances do need bigger fees. not linear but exponential increase on fees and fees for each upgraded indice for the system. |

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1370
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:30:00 -
[424] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:The Mittani wrote: NPC 0.0 in Every Sov Region We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist.
Translation: It's going to suck for us when destructible player stations are introduced. Better get some NPC stations where we need them while we still have time. Mr Epeen  And on the flipside, groups without their own outposts (most often the small ones), have a safer place to be a nuisance from. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:32:00 -
[425] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up? Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end moon goo that suddenly turned up on your moons. Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:32:00 -
[426] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:I-¦m pretty sure there is a name for games where two or more people get awarded first place. Sometimes even everybody gets a trophy. You didn-¦t win you just made sure you will not loose by not competing against each other. we get a trophy
you don't
you go home and cry while we can determine for ourselves the particulars of how we rank against each other while agreeing that we rank above all the worthless shitheels we've ground in the dust, but ain't nobody interested in playing "grind the other half of the map", an insanely unfun game |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8380
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:33:00 -
[427] - Quote
Ranamar wrote: You seem to be writing as if having NPC nullsec seeded around within jump range of each other to simplify logistics is a negative thing.
It is. Because it's the same kind of thinking as this was: Quote:tl;dr There's now a reason to fight for better space again: sov upgrades will spawn better cosmic anomalies in lower truesec space; cosmic anomalies spawned by methods other than sov upgrades are unaffected.
The whole idea here is to make null sec more active, more chaotic, more 'fun' and 'accessible but small groups'. NPC null in every region does the opposite. It makes traveling safer (no more having to sneak a cyno into hostile space or light a cyno in low sec space that everyone and thier space-mommas are in super cap range of) and it gives allainces someplace to store material and ships that can never be taken away.
It makes the big guys stronger while not doing jack for the little guy. Every new npc null constellation should be named some variation of 'Malcanis' (Malcanium, Malcanistan etc) because Malcanis' law will reign supreme lol.
I'm not jumping on the 'selfish conspiracy' bandwagon. I think Mittani and the rest have good intentions with these ideas, but I think these ideas are fatally flawed. |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11454
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:33:00 -
[428] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This suggestion serves one purpose: to allow the current power holders to condense their large empires into small, unpenetrable fortresses (cynojam, lot of friendlies in fleet 1-2 jumps away) where they can rat in complete safety, regions away from anyone who could theoretically harm them.
In the meantime both their own PvP-ers and current pirates are pacified by offering them regions full of terrible players who are easy to farm (these are dubbed as "new alliances").
The result: CFC, N3 and PL are ratting in Nyxes in 3 far corners of the universe without any risk of losing them. No more SRP to pay as fleets barely have losses (see PL losses against HERO/Provi), no capital subsidies as there is no need for capital fleet and greatly decreased Sov costs. So alliance leaders could keep the whole alliance income to themselves without the members giving a damn.
So you're saying that the CFC and PL/N3 would become weak and be promptly thrown out of their space as a result. That sounds like a good outcome to me. Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

javer
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:33:00 -
[429] - Quote
+1 I can only support the current set of changes as proposed |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:36:00 -
[430] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Ereshgikal wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:No. The price of T2 would fall. EVERYONE in null would be able to get the mats to make T2. But those materials would random and not fixed like they are now. They would also deplete and then respawn as something different.
You break the monopoly on T2 production and you will see major changes in the game cause prices will fall. You are a special cookie, but I will try to explain it in simple words. A single POS mining a single type of moon goo yields a specific amount of moon goo per month. If the moon goo drains after one week there will be a period of looking until someone else finds the new moon producing the moon goo. This means there is lost "mining time", meaning there is less moon goo available. Sure, this could be addressed by increasing the number of moons seeded with each specific moon goo. Then you have reactions to consider. Today reaction farms churn 24/7 having set up suppliers and buyers. Disrupting the flow of moon goo means disrupting the reaction farms; this in turn means more overhead for reaction farms (changing production, finding new suppliers, or dismantling the POS). In the end this will translate to less material being available to build T2 components from...and then the prices will go up. Sorry about the multiple-syllable words, but I hope you understand them despite previous evidence to the contrary. Nice attempt at being insulting. You will have to try harder. As for your attempt to explain things. You're argument is based around the idea that it would require effort. Sorry bout that is exactly what I purpose. Moons are what make the alliances money. This is what needs to be broken up. Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up?
You claim I try to insult you and yet you did not understand what I wrote. :hopecrushed: |
|

Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Intrepid Crossing
81
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:41:00 -
[431] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up? Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons.
Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:44:00 -
[432] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons. Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo. There was another question in that quote. Why do you expect that your alliance would suddenly change policy and allow you to keep your high-end moon goo? In addition to your response: Why exactly would prices drop if people have to expend more work? Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:46:00 -
[433] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:How about with the next patch CCP breaks the patch and a universal standings reset. That might help break up a lot of these coalitions and larger alliances and bring back the small ones.
But somewhere on an earlier page, i saw a post about player limits. CCP really needs to rethink the corp management skills and max corp sizes and max alliance sizes.
Also bigger alliances do need bigger fees. not linear but exponential increase on fees and fees for each upgraded indice for the system.
Yes, awesome idea. 'cause re-establishing standings is so impossible. No one will ever remember who their friends were!
Artificially limiting the amount of players gathered under a banner is another splendid idea. I have heard it is totally impossible to cooperate unless one is in the same corporation or alliance.
...please, use a plastic bag as an exit method. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:48:00 -
[434] - Quote
i do not get what you think you're getting at with this post because it literally applies to any change where thought has been put into it
that ccp was manifestly wrong before when they supposedly thought things through means...
Jenn aSide wrote:Quote: but what I'm saying is that the fear of making things worse should not play a role because that's not really any possible: we are in a situation where you must do something so the right answer is to pick the best option, not wait to see if you can top that one
What exactly is the big rush? EVe has survived much worse than anything currently going on now. Doing something just to be doing something is never the answer when you can spend an extra 15 seconds and get it right. In my real life experience, when someone has said to me "it can't possibly get any worse than this" it got worse, and in a hurry.
then you haven't been paying attention. like I said, eve is in a point of terminal stasis. the end point has been reached, the winners determined, no more change is possible. that is what you're not getting, and that is why your "wait lets think about this a little longer" is absolutely wrong.
the game is over. it is ended, we have declared winners, and there is nothing left to conquer. eve cannot persist like this because it is incredibly terminally boring.
there must be change or the game we're going to play will be Not-Eve, instead of 0.0 with some new rules that cause a shakeup |

Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:53:00 -
[435] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up? Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons. Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.
Look. With current moongoo prices, either it's a strategic asset (R32s and R64s) because it requires a strategic defense, or it's barely worth fueling the towers to keep the reactions running. R32s and R64s would continue to be strategic assets because they'd be worth at least as much, and they'd still require full-alliance defense efforts, and sub-R32s might rise a bit in price because people would be even less arsed to do the effort to harvest them for a limited period of time (because towering and detowering sucks).
Also, who do you think actually does moon scanning? (Hint: It's not random line members unless some sort of bounty is put out.) I suspect you have no idea how nullsec sov alliances actually work. |

Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
659
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:55:00 -
[436] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:If Goons came up with it, it can't be good, IMO
Yeah, goons wrote evemon. Obviously, it is bad for the game, stop using it. |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:57:00 -
[437] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin. So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?
The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential? |

Janeos
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:03:00 -
[438] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin. So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable? The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential? It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there. |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2795
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:03:00 -
[439] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up? Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons. Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.
Do you also expect everyone to pay 50m for an Interceptor? |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:04:00 -
[440] - Quote
Janeos wrote:X Gallentius wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin. So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable? The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential? It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there. You extract rent from them already even though it's their sov. What would change? |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13404
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:04:00 -
[441] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?
Same reason we campaigned to nerf tech when we had a monopoly on the stuff.
X Gallentius wrote: The overall income in null sec is already very high.
You earn more running high sec level 4s.
X Gallentius wrote: Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?
They support at most 10 people and they earn less than if in low sec or high sec. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:11:00 -
[442] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Janeos wrote:X Gallentius wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin. So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable? The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential? It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there. You extract rent from them already even though it's their sov. What would change?
I think you should read up on who owns Northern Associates, Brothers of Tangra, and Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere (PBLRD). Then you will understand who owns the SOV. |

HeXxploiT
Little Red X
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:14:00 -
[443] - Quote
What a bunch of horsecrap. This is like Exxon Johnson & Johnson and Monsanto putting forth suggestions on how to run the economy.
Keep nulsec difficult to get to. Sporadic Npc space in nulsec is great but but having it everywhere is like having highsec in nulsec and sort of defeats the purpose.
Packing solar systems with trillions of isk worth of profits would only prevent nullseccers from spreading out. Nulsec is not supposed to be safe. Risk vs reward remember? Make them earn their money. There is plenty of isk to be made in nulsec.
Really not concerned about what the mega alliances and coalitions(the talking heads) think would be good for eve. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:14:00 -
[444] - Quote
Nullsec already has more than enough farming available, you can make a lot more doing missions, escalations, etc... in safe nullsec than you can in highsec. It's just that the big alliances shaft their own playerbase by renting out the prime areas, and leaving over the scraps. Now codewords like "density" are used to call for buffing the scraps as well. Of course this will just lead to more renting, and not make the rank and file members any better off.
What null really needs is mechanics changes to compel larger fleet battles, and to shatter some of the larger powerblocs. Also the whole renting fiasco needs to be overhauled. The suggestion do precisely nothing to alleviate this situation, and are solely made to provide for even easier nullsec farming. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13405
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:20:00 -
[445] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Nullsec already has more than enough farming available, you can make a lot more doing missions, escalations, etc... in safe nullsec than you can in highsec.
Null sov has zero missions, escalations are rare and anoms earn less than level 4s in high sec and every time a neutral enters local all pve activity stops(when did this last happen in high sec).
X Gallentius wrote: It's just that the big alliances shaft their own playerbase by renting out the prime areas, and leaving over the scraps.
So who is renting S-D in Dek?
X Gallentius wrote: What null really needs is mechanics changes to compel larger fleet battles, and to shatter some of the larger powerblocs. Also the whole renting fiasco needs to be overhauled. The suggestion do precisely nothing to alleviate this situation, and are solely made to provide for even easier nullsec farming.
We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:28:00 -
[446] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: The whole idea here is to make null sec more active, more chaotic, more 'fun' and 'accessible but small groups'. NPC null in every region does the opposite. It makes traveling safer (no more having to sneak a cyno into hostile space or light a cyno in low sec space that everyone and thier space-mommas are in super cap range of) and it gives allainces someplace to store material and ships that can never be taken away.
It makes the big guys stronger while not doing jack for the little guy. Every new npc null constellation should be named some variation of 'Malcanis' (Malcanium, Malcanistan etc) because Malcanis' law will reign supreme lol.
I'm not jumping on the 'selfish conspiracy' bandwagon. I think Mittani and the rest have good intentions with these ideas, but I think these ideas are fatally flawed.
This is exactly what I was thinking. The only people this is good for is the few major alliances. How does it improve 0.0 if goon can drop supers in a system and gain control at any time?
All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.
baltec1 wrote:We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire.
No, you are literally asking CCP to let you drop your massive cap/super fleets in any system and take control at any time. |

Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
883
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:33:00 -
[447] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.
What do you mean "even more"? the signatories already own 90% of nullsec and the remaining 10% only exists with their good graces.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:34:00 -
[448] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote: All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.
please point out on a map the spots we have not taken over
don't worry, I'll wait |

Prince Kobol
2214
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:35:00 -
[449] - Quote
The thing is all this discussion is pointless because CCP will never make such sweeping changes, not because they are scared to (though they problem are as no matter what they do they will most likely **** off 50% of the player base) but because I believe they simply do not have the manpower or expertise any more to do so.
Look at the majority of changes they have made in the last 2 years. There has been nothing which would / has constituted major coding work.
What has been been proposed and many other idea's like would be a massive undertaking involving a huge amount of man hours. Essentially it would be a Jesus feature, something which many people here have argued against many times in the past.
I simply do not believe that CCP have the experience or technical expertise or the will any more to pull something like this off. You look at all the staff that has left in the 12 - 18 months.. all that experience and technical expertise gone, who has replaced them?
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:36:00 -
[450] - Quote
Goonswarm Federation: 11k members, Sovereignty 232 systems. 11k/232 = 47 players / system. You're pretty much there already aren't you? Why do need more income?
Why continue to rent? Competitive pressures, still super lucrative. Why continue to rent?
1. Look at "Renting vs. Asakai" chart. 2. GÇ£As much as we hate renters, we hate the idea of being on a losing end of a war more, so it's a natural move.GÇ¥
Goonswarm and others will likely be forced to be maintain their rental empires simply because the other guys will as well.
What you may likely do is put your Western Co-Properity Sphere alts wherever another side is trying to take your rental sov. You'll also move your pvp guys to the same area as well. Rental empire maintained - at greater rates of return than now.
|
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:37:00 -
[451] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:
No, you are literally asking CCP to let you drop your massive cap/super fleets in any system and take control at any time.
We want those nerfed too.
This letter is simply to do with dealing with our need for massive empires. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:37:00 -
[452] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote: All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.
please point out on a map the spots we have not taken over don't worry, I'll wait uua-f4 Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:38:00 -
[453] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote:All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps. What do you mean "even more"? the signatories already own 90% of nullsec and the remaining 10% only exists with their good graces.
I guess people don't get this. The only reason there are parts of nullsec that don't belong to the signatories of this proposal is that they literally cannot be arsed to grind the EHP down to take it. A bitter vet trying to start anew. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:39:00 -
[454] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Goonswarm Federation: 11k members, Sovereignty 232 systems. 11k/232 = 47 players / system. You're pretty much there already aren't you? Why do need more income?
That is almost five times more people than the best null sov system can support. We want to reduce GSF to only being able to hold Dek. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:42:00 -
[455] - Quote
Ereshgikal wrote:I think you should read up on who owns Northern Associates, Brothers of Tangra, and Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere (PBLRD). Then you will understand who owns the SOV. You're saying Pandemic Legion and Goonswarm are not renting that space? They didn't take that space to gain passive income? That they wouldn't find a way to continue maintaining their cash cow? That they couldn't charge more rent because that space would be more valuable?
|

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
302
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:43:00 -
[456] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire. No. You are asking them to make it unnecessary while upkeeping the same income. Instead of having to protect a dozen regions, the same people could rat the same amount of anoms just in Deklein. As a bonus: the high population density would allow ratters to use carriers/supers, as a cynojam would keep enemy capitals out and a small gang cannot break the spider tank of 50+ carriers. Not to mention that the nearest able enemy would be 5 regions away.
Fun fact: you can already kill 500k rats in one system in a month, check RQNF-9 in the Dotlan August toplist. Since 97M rats were killed, 180 systems could support all the ratters under the current mechanics. Hint: there are 3200 nullsec systems. And this isn't easy enough for you and want more nerfs? My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:47:00 -
[457] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote: What do you mean "even more"? the signatories already own 90% of nullsec and the remaining 10% only exists with their good graces.
That was my point...why make it easier for them? Sov is a mechanic keeping those on that list from grinding out the last 10%.
Retar Aveymone wrote: please point out on a map the spots we have not taken over
don't worry, I'll wait
As I said, I am very OK with the proposed changes, but we need a nerf to caps/supers to go along with it.
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:I guess people don't get this. The only reason there are parts of nullsec that don't belong to the signatories of this proposal is that they literally cannot be arsed to grind the EHP down to take it.
Yes, I get this. And that is the point. sov is the only think keeping the remaining null not held by major alliances away from those alliances.
baltec1 wrote:We want those nerfed too.
This letter is simply to do with dealing with our need for massive empires.
No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.
If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.
|

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:49:00 -
[458] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote: No. You are asking them to make it unnecessary while upkeeping the same income. Instead of having to protect a dozen regions, the same people could rat the same amount of anoms just in Deklein. As a bonus: the high population density would allow ratters to use carriers/supers, as a cynojam would keep enemy capitals out and a small gang cannot break the spider tank of 50+ carriers. Not to mention that the nearest able enemy would be 5 regions away.
This might seem like a strange question but isn't that what a high population alliance SHOULD be able to do? Defend its ratters/miners and utilize their space to make ISK? There is also a reward for playing well and being able to put 50 carriers into your general defense.
The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again.
|

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:49:00 -
[459] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:baltec1 wrote:We want those nerfed too. No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go. Are you aware of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction?
Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

SuKahn
The Minutemen The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:54:00 -
[460] - Quote
Great Idea i support this :P |
|

Schwa Nuts
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:55:00 -
[461] - Quote
I approve of this Goonspiracy. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:56:00 -
[462] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote:baltec1 wrote:We want those nerfed too. No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go. Are you aware of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction? Yeah thats gonna happen with that carebear deal pl and cfc signed...you two cant even drop super in a same region :P |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:59:00 -
[463] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again. They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal?
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:59:00 -
[464] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:baltec1 wrote:We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire. No. You are asking them to make it unnecessary while upkeeping the same income. Instead of having to protect a dozen regions, the same people could rat the same amount of anoms just in Deklein. As a bonus: the high population density would allow ratters to use carriers/supers, as a cynojam would keep enemy capitals out and a small gang cannot break the spider tank of 50+ carriers. Not to mention that the nearest able enemy would be 5 regions away. Fun fact: you can already kill 500k rats in one system in a month, check RQNF-9 in the Dotlan August toplist. Since 97M rats were killed, 180 systems could support all the ratters under the current mechanics. Hint: there are 3200 nullsec systems. And this isn't easy enough for you and want more nerfs?
Anom incom caps out at 90 mil/hr per person.
High sec level 4 mission blitzing nets 110mil/hr+ per person.
Thats with the best null systems, most of null sec has ****** anoms to run thanks to true sec. Also, if we swap to Sheroo in high sec we see 1,286,804 NPCs were killed in a system with just a level 3 agent. (incidently SOE level 3 when blitzed in a mach will net 80 mil/hr, better than what you find in most of null systems) Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1370
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:59:00 -
[465] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:baltec1 wrote:We want those nerfed too.
This letter is simply to do with dealing with our need for massive empires. No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go. If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that. let me quote myself from earlier because I'm lazy:
Rowells wrote:Do you ever blame the guy who decided to take the train this morning instead of driving through the heavy traffic? When you take the stairs and he takes the elevator to the top floor, do you believe he is at fault for not making needless sacrifices?How can you even begin to blame someone for using tools at their disposal when the whole point of the game is to gain an advantage over your opponents? Do you ever see any of the top football players tying weights to themselves whenever they play a team that isnt as good or prepared? Or when someone shows up early to a movie premier and is one of the first to get in, but you have to wait hours in the back of the line? How can you even begin to blame someone for using tools at their disposal when the whole point of the game is to gain an advantage over your opponents?
Why should anyone willingly give anyone else an advantage in a contest? Honor? Pity? Shame? Do you really want the game to be a charade of people living in space only because the biggest powers are holding back and allowing them too? It is a terrible argument to say someone playing by the rules doesn't want them changed. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:03:00 -
[466] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:
No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.
If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.
Why would we deliberately shoot ourselves in both kneecaps to fix an issue with the mechanics that everyone else would utilise? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:04:00 -
[467] - Quote
Null may not be fixable. We have 2 sides so powerful and established that it is not realy possible for 3rd party to do something. 3rd party limited by lack of new players and eaven if there are new players they will probably join big coalition because it is easier.
Why it was possible for faction warfare to be succesful? 2 sides fighting all the time - no cold war - actual fighting over teritory. Null is just producing supers - no war, no content.
If there would be constant war between 2 sides I think 3rd party would be reduced or at least would participate in fight if wouldn't join any side. Content for everyone. Sov wouldn't matter that much eaven for 3rd party - there would be other objectives like fun, isk, etc.
So force the war on sov would be my answer. Change mechanics to less grind but penalize side that is not fighting. Reward side that is taking sov. Like lp payouts in factional warfare.
If it is not possible to get rid of big alliances/coalitions make them fight - not rat, mission, actually fight for sov and for rewards.
1. Backend systems used for production/other activities designated by side not available for taking - still you can kill poses etc to hurt side. We don't want one side totally destroyed - we want fighting to go on. 2. Frontend systems available for taking and the main theater of war. 3. Rewards for taking/defending systems. 4. Rewards for multiple fronts of war in different places to discourage massive fleets. 5. Faction warfare had missions in systems - available to system holding side - do something like that - not missions only but premium moons, belts etc.
Whole do what you want with sov is flawed. We need rules for the game - if not ppl can refuse to play and that is what we have here - 2 biggest sides in null eve refused to play. Make them play. Create content for everyone. We need war. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:11:00 -
[468] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Anom income caps out at 90 mil/hr per person.
High sec level 4 mission blitzing nets 110mil/hr+ per person.
Thats with the best null systems, most of null sec has ****** anoms to run thanks to true sec. Also, if we swap to Sheroo in high sec we see 1,286,804 NPCs were killed in a system with just a level 3 agent. (incidently SOE level 3 when blitzed in a mach will net 80 mil/hr, better than what you find in most of null systems)
110 + is a joke, try 90 mil/hour and miserable boredom getting it....the best evidence that this is bunk is that people in nullsec aren't flocking to highsec to run missions. They are perfectly happy to rat, run missions, anoms, etc... and to make more isk/hour than highsec. The SOE L4 highsec mission hubs are pretty darn empty. Nullsec doesn't need more isk, it needs for the big alliances to cast off their risk aversion and look for some big fights instead of one sided massacres. |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:11:00 -
[469] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Anom incom caps out at 90 mil/hr per person. 90*24 = 2.16 billion isk/day for one person (assuming it's not really 900 million isk/hour total). 2*30 = 600 billion isk/month 600 billion isk/month revenue.
So, now let's look at Goonswarm's losses/month in terms of ships lost. https://zkillboard.com/alliance/1354830081/stats/
Looks like about 800 billion isk.
How much isk does your alliance need to break even?
Anybody want to offer up an estimated balance sheet for major alliances?
|

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:12:00 -
[470] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote: As I said, I am very OK with the proposed changes, but we need a nerf to caps/supers to go along with it.
one was already announced |
|

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:13:00 -
[471] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal?
First breaking the ability to run rentals with one large alliance (Northern Associates, Greater Western Co Properperity Sphere, BOT) makes it much harder to run the logistics of the rental empire. Jump bridges, Cyno Beacons, Blue Standings, the logistics start adding up the more pieces that get added to the puzzle.
Second they DO have to mind protecting their sov. If the CFC were to lose sov in rental systems, I guarantee renters nearby will start bailing.
Third we DO know capitals are getting nerfed. Not knowing HOW is one of the elephants in the room making this conversation difficult. If jump drives get nerfed, the N3/CFC ability to run rentals on an occupancy based sov system gets iffy. No slowcat/boot blobs. Extortion threats become smaller if you're not next door.
http://themittani.com/news/ccp-announces-force-projection-changes-more - to reference changes in force projection.
|

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1370
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:14:00 -
[472] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Toriessian wrote:The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again. They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal? Geuss what happens if CFC stops holding all of its space under current mechanics. You think suddenly it will be the garden of eden for everyone who wants to be null? No. The remaining big guns in null will stomp through and take everything they want. You would just trade one overlord for another. CFC and other large groups need to have this space in order to maintain an edge against players their size. Since anoms are terrible for normal player income, you have rely on alliance SRP, fuel programs, etc. Income is a top down system that requires extreme dependence on the alliance or coalition in order to be competitive. And since it is the most effective method currently, you can damn sure expect someone to use it, and if someone else uses it to their advantage, you can also be sure even more will as well since this is a competitive game.
Go ahead and try to tell everyone in eve to refrain from trying to gain an advantage over their opponents. Lets see how well that works. In fact I hear James315 is running a similar operation in highsec. Maybe get some tips on success from him. |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:16:00 -
[473] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote: No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.
If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.
we play to win, which is why we're kings of the west and you're in an npc corp
we do not just decide to pointlessly cripple ourselves in the hopes that our suffering will convince ccp to fix it
we dominate all lesser people as viciously as possible with the broken mechanic so that their suffering will convince ccp to fix it
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:16:00 -
[474] - Quote
Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Toriessian wrote:The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again. They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal? Geuss what happens if CFC stops holding all of its space under current mechanics. You think suddenly it will be the garden of eden for everyone who wants to be null? No. The remaining big guns in null will stomp through and take everything they want. You would just trade one overlord for another. CFC and other large groups need to have this space in order to maintain an edge against players their size. Since anoms are terrible for normal player income, you have rely on alliance SRP, fuel programs, etc. Income is a top down system that requires extreme dependence on the alliance or coalition in order to be competitive. And since it is the most effective method currently, you can damn sure expect someone to use it, and if someone else uses it to their advantage, you can also be sure even more will as well since this is a competitive game. Go ahead and try to tell everyone in eve to refrain from trying to gain an advantage over their opponents. Lets see how well that works. In fact I hear James315 is running a similar operation in highsec. Maybe get some tips on success from him. What I impled was "They'll likely STILL maintain their rental empire for all the same reasons you just listed above." |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:17:00 -
[475] - Quote
ITT: Established sov alliances want dense, fortified space cities where they and their renters can rat in safety, away from the scary fozzie-ceptor gangs. Also, sprinkling about npc stations literally everywhere to counter any power projection nerf would be greeaaaat. 
Oh, and much faux-concern over the hypothetical small, independent sov entity, with little actual change to the existing coalition meta. |

Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:18:00 -
[476] - Quote
This has turned into a Typical Eve Thread: -Entirety of 0.0 power blocs come together and agree on a change that needs to be made for null -Randoms come out of the woodworks with tinfoil hats and nay saying -Randoms propose that no change is needed and big null entities need to stop being "isk averse" -said randoms have only ever lived in highsec or have never actually held 0.0 space |

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1370
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:18:00 -
[477] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:baltec1 wrote:Anom incom caps out at 90 mil/hr per person. 90* 24 = 2.16 billion isk/day for one person Stop right there |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:19:00 -
[478] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Ereshgikal wrote:I think you should read up on who owns Northern Associates, Brothers of Tangra, and Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere (PBLRD). Then you will understand who owns the SOV. You're saying Pandemic Legion and Goonswarm are not renting that space? They didn't take that space to gain passive income? That they wouldn't find a way to continue maintaining their cash cow? That they couldn't charge more rent because that space would be more valuable?
Let me add one thing from the quote chain that you removed that showed your earlier misconceptions.
X Gallentius wrote: You extract rent from them already even though it's their sov. What would change?
It is not the renters SOV...it is PL's, CFC's, and NCDOT's SOV.
Our SOV, but the renters live there.
Maintaining it as it is would be easy even if the proposal was implemented. Just continue to own and control the alliances holding the SOV. Anyone not willing to be part of the SOV holding alliance will get dunked by the mother alliance/coalition if they try to gain a foothold. So on that part we probably agree (even though we most likely disagree on the details). |

E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
689
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:19:00 -
[479] - Quote
Andski wrote:Nullsec leaders holding conquerable space have come together to put forth an open letter to CCP expressing their dissatisfaction with the Dominion sovereignty system and stating their support for occupancy-based sovereignty mechanics. The letter further states a need for more NPC 0.0 space within conquerable regions for the sake of increasing activity in 0.0, especially much-needed small-scale combat, as a lot of conquerable systems are over 25 jumps from NPC space. Lastly, to support the concept of occupancy-based sovereignty, the need for an expansion of systems to support more player density is also expressed. This statement has been signed by the leaders of the constituent alliances of the CFC, N3 and HERO coalitions, those of non-coalition actors such as PL and Pizza, various current and former CSM delegates and community opinion leaders. The open letter can be read here. Ok I was all for this concept. If it is being supported by goonies, then I have to admit I am a little nervous. Goonies never support anything they cannot exploit.  |

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1370
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:22:00 -
[480] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Toriessian wrote:The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again. They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal? Geuss what happens if CFC stops holding all of its space under current mechanics. You think suddenly it will be the garden of eden for everyone who wants to be null? No. The remaining big guns in null will stomp through and take everything they want. You would just trade one overlord for another. CFC and other large groups need to have this space in order to maintain an edge against players their size. Since anoms are terrible for normal player income, you have rely on alliance SRP, fuel programs, etc. Income is a top down system that requires extreme dependence on the alliance or coalition in order to be competitive. And since it is the most effective method currently, you can damn sure expect someone to use it, and if someone else uses it to their advantage, you can also be sure even more will as well since this is a competitive game. Go ahead and try to tell everyone in eve to refrain from trying to gain an advantage over their opponents. Lets see how well that works. In fact I hear James315 is running a similar operation in highsec. Maybe get some tips on success from him. What I impled was "They'll likely STILL maintain their rental empire for all the same reasons you just listed above." of course their will be people paying rent. Unless you stop player donations and make every group equal in power then their will always be rent. Will the goons be able to keep order over the influx of players that come down to null as the income becomes more lucrative and systems support more people? |
|

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:22:00 -
[481] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:ITT: Established sov alliances want dense, fortified space cities where they and their renters can rat in safety, away from the scary fozzie-ceptor gangs. Also, sprinkling about npc stations literally everywhere to counter any power projection nerf would be greeaaaat.  Oh, and much faux-concern over the hypothetical small, independent sov entity, with little actual change to the existing coalition meta. with strategic thinking like this it's such a shock mordus got flattened by two bored cfc squads as a lark
not like the combat squads, the ratting squad and the wannabe EG squad |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:23:00 -
[482] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote: No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.
If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.
we play to win, which is why we're kings of the west and you're in an npc corp we do not just decide to pointlessly cripple ourselves in the hopes that our suffering will convince ccp to fix it we dominate all lesser people as viciously as possible with the broken mechanic so that their suffering will convince ccp to fix it
This would be more compelling if your supercapital fleet wasn't sitting in drydock because your organization is far too risk averse to willingly commit it to a potentially even fight against N3/PL..... |

l3aal
Next Chapter For New Adventures SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:24:00 -
[483] - Quote
Andski wrote:Nullsec leaders holding conquerable space have come together to put forth an open letter to CCP expressing their dissatisfaction with the Dominion sovereignty system and stating their support for occupancy-based sovereignty mechanics. The letter further states a need for more NPC 0.0 space within conquerable regions for the sake of increasing activity in 0.0, especially much-needed small-scale combat, as a lot of conquerable systems are over 25 jumps from NPC space. Lastly, to support the concept of occupancy-based sovereignty, the need for an expansion of systems to support more player density is also expressed. This statement has been signed by the leaders of the constituent alliances of the CFC, N3 and HERO coalitions, those of non-coalition actors such as PL and Pizza, various current and former CSM delegates and community opinion leaders. The open letter can be read here.
This is bullshit..
Null was supposed to be a vast conquerable place, and it is great.. Just fix the broken sov system making it harder to have these super massive empires. And so that you actually have to fight the enemie fleet to keep/win the space..
OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY is also bullshit since aslong i fight for having this system, for whatever reason.. Might be off some kind of other value than me living in it.. I should be able to do so without being inside the system constantly.
If you want npc stations .. go to low sec omg?! .. If you want small gang pvp go to low sec omg?! |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:24:00 -
[484] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
110 + is a joke
110 is proven to be not only realistic but rather easy to get. Hence why the bulk of null player earn their isk in high sec.
Veers Belvar wrote: the best evidence that this is bunk is that people in nullsec aren't flocking to highsec to run missions.
The fact that null is empty and high is full of alts tells us that they are indeed, going to highsec for their isk.
Veers Belvar wrote: They are perfectly happy to rat, run missions, anoms, etc... and to make more isk/hour than highsec. The SOE L4 highsec mission hubs are pretty darn empty. Nullsec doesn't need more isk, it needs for the big alliances to cast off their risk aversion and look for some big fights instead of one sided massacres.
SOE systems are empty? Seriously, you expect anyone to believe that one for a second? Facts are there, high sec mission blitzing earns you more than Null anoms. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:25:00 -
[485] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: This would be more compelling if your supercapital fleet wasn't sitting in drydock because your organization is far too risk averse to willingly commit it to a potentially even fight against N3/PL.....
we already won that fight sorry about your pathetic destroyed talking point |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:25:00 -
[486] - Quote
Ereshgikal wrote:
It is not the renters SOV...it is PL's, CFC's, and NCDOT's SOV.
Our SOV, but the renters live there.
Maintaining it as it is would be easy even if the proposal was implemented. Just continue to own and control the alliances holding the SOV. Anyone not willing to be part of the SOV holding alliance will get dunked by the mother alliance/coalition if they try to gain a foothold. So on that part we probably agree (even though we most likely disagree on the details).
I agree with you. Rental empire will be maintained. |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:25:00 -
[487] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote: -said randoms have only ever lived in highsec or have never actually held 0.0 space
You're sh*t at checking employment histories mate. FFS, most dudes in npc 0.0, lowsec, and wh's have done the whole sov schtick at some point or another. That's the first place most people go, everyone thinks it's all nice and shiny.
Oddly enough, being facleless f1 monkey #52,341 didn't appeal to a great many people. But hey, I'm glad to hear it's working out for you. And then not being able to shoot at more than half the people that currently live in nullsec is also none too appealing. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:26:00 -
[488] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:we dominate all lesser people as viciously as possible with the broken mechanic so that their suffering will convince ccp to fix it nb: running a broken mechanic into the ground by making the whole CFC abuse it mercilessly has proven time and again the best way to force CCP to look at something
PotatoOverdose wrote:ITT: Established sov alliances want dense, fortified space cities where they and their renters can rat in safety, away from the scary fozzie-ceptor gangs. Also, sprinkling about npc stations literally everywhere to counter any power projection nerf would be greeaaaat.  Oh, and much faux-concern over the hypothetical small, independent sov entity, with little actual change to the existing coalition meta. I see you ran out of arguments and have retreated to mud-flinging
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:Ok I was all for this concept. If it is being supported by goonies, then I have to admit I am a little nervous. Goonies never support anything they cannot exploit.  if you actually believe that you should probably just go kill yourself (ingame) Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:30:00 -
[489] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:ITT: Established sov alliances want dense, fortified space cities where they and their renters can rat in safety, away from the scary fozzie-ceptor gangs. Also, sprinkling about npc stations literally everywhere to counter any power projection nerf would be greeaaaat.  Oh, and much faux-concern over the hypothetical small, independent sov entity, with little actual change to the existing coalition meta. with strategic thinking like this it's such a shock mordus got flattened by two bored cfc squads as a lark not like the combat squads, the ratting squad and the wannabe EG squad More Grrrrrrr MoA, yay! Also, fun trivia: the moment the incursion cyno jammer went up in 5zxx, those 2 squads were flattened. The next day they packed their sh*t and left for stain to harass "battlement coalition" (lol). Funny, how losing cyno capability affected "just 2 squads."
But I do agree with you that our over-emphasis on 5zxx is both sub-moronic and wholly counterproductive, but vOv. |

SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
155
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:30:00 -
[490] - Quote
I do like the idea of an npc station in every region. They would make obvious staging points for any attackers, for certain, but...the potential for some really good pew pew is right there. Wouldn't suprise me that the battle that occurrs on the NPC station would be a very good indicator of what fighting for the rest of the area will be like. If they fix remote repping and carrier/super asshattery, fighting for virtual control of an npc staging system COULD. BE. AWESOME. |
|

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:31:00 -
[491] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:This would be more compelling if your supercapital fleet wasn't sitting in drydock because your organization is far too risk averse to willingly commit it to a potentially even fight against N3/PL..... when we commited our super fleet last time, it went on for 20 hours, and no fun was had by anyone, but afterwards there was an article on the BBC
e: also the servers broke and the only thing doing reliable damage in the system was titan doomsdays Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:32:00 -
[492] - Quote
Eyrun Mangeiri wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: This would be more compelling if your supercapital fleet wasn't sitting in drydock because your organization is far too risk averse to willingly commit it to a potentially even fight against N3/PL.....
We did, the result was broken servers and trillion isk bills for both parties and very little change to the sov in the end. Has anything changed at all after B-R besides the collapse of RUS and the expansion auf NA and HERO getting allowed (to be farmed) in catch?
A good few got new titans but thats about it. I didn't even lose a megathron in that war Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2549
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:38:00 -
[493] - Quote
Kalenn Istarion wrote: I too rat for 24 hours a day instead of actually doing fun things, or eating, or sleeping. Get out Nobody does. At 800 billion isk in ships lost per month, on average Goonswarm alliance members need to rat 72,727,272 isk/month. which is less than one hour per month, or 2 minutes per day.
Let's say Goons had 1/5th as many members. You would have to rat 10 minutes / day to make up for losses.
Do you think you can sustain those types of losses? |

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:38:00 -
[494] - Quote
Is it risk aversion or mutually assured destruction?
If there's a balls to the wall war and someone loses, they get disbanded (or lose the advantage for good, due to apex forces making it increasingly hard for them to start a new war and win). But the winning side loses too, because the blue dohnut would be +10, implying a break-up of the original alliance into factions for content or subs and numbers dropping.
Goons could have gone on the offensive after BR. Why didn't they? If the idea was to win and winning is controlling space, they showed how much they wanted to control that space by signing an agreement with the enemy just after destroying a good size of their opponent's force.
So what's all this talk about sov mechanics really about apart from people thinking up ways to make renting more profitable? The game is totally broken and it can't be fixed because player behaviour and the external channels they use to manage and control it cannot itself be controlled by CCP. |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:38:00 -
[495] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:ITT: Established sov alliances want dense, fortified space cities where they and their renters can rat in safety, away from the scary fozzie-ceptor gangs. Also, sprinkling about npc stations literally everywhere to counter any power projection nerf would be greeaaaat.  Oh, and much faux-concern over the hypothetical small, independent sov entity, with little actual change to the existing coalition meta. I see you ran out of arguments and have retreated to mud-flinging What part of that is mud flinging? Allowing any coalition to condense all of it's nullbears and renters into a couple of constellations or less is the definition of dense, fortified space cities. This would give a massive buff to the safety of your nullbears and renters. |

Antylus Tyrell
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:39:00 -
[496] - Quote
Any suggestion that does not address the broken mechanics around jump bridges and Titan bridging is a suggestion that will have no affect on making sov politics more interesting. All the members of the large coalitions use those tools to their advantage but at the same time are also slaves to it. They cant afford to declare independence because alone they will be crushed.
Take away the ability to zip across the galaxy and back within minutes and we will see members of the big coalitions think... "Hey our alliance leader is kinda a jerk... I want my own kingdom" |

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5495
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:44:00 -
[497] - Quote
I have a strange feeling that the nullsec overlords might actually care about this game.
Whatever happens, I hope a reason to care can be instilled in the rest of us.
Bring back DEEEEP Space! |

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:47:00 -
[498] - Quote
Limit fights in system to 1 fleet per side. No broken servers. Actual skill of ppl fighting matters. If coalitions can't limit themselves to have a good time force them :> |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:48:00 -
[499] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:Limit fights in system to 1 fleet per side. No broken servers. Actual skill of ppl fighting matters. If coalitions can't limit themselves to have a good time force them :> duuuuuude...... |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:48:00 -
[500] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote: Goons could have gone on the offensive after BR. Why didn't they? If the idea was to win and winning is controlling space, they showed how much they wanted to control that space by signing an agreement with the enemy just after destroying a good size of their opponent's force.
Does grinding through half of nullsecs structures sound fun to you?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:50:00 -
[501] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:Limit fights in system to 1 fleet per side. No broken servers. Actual skill of ppl fighting matters. If coalitions can't limit themselves to have a good time force them :> duuuuuude......
I feel truly sorry for you Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Antylus Tyrell
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:52:00 -
[502] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:Limit fights in system to 1 fleet per side. No broken servers. Actual skill of ppl fighting matters. If coalitions can't limit themselves to have a good time force them :>
I hardly think that is the solution, or introducing any mechanic too artificially limit the size of the large powers. It should still be possible to conquer the galaxy and make the blue doughnut, there should just be many ways for smaller groups to stand up and fight it.
|

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:53:00 -
[503] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:Limit fights in system to 1 fleet per side. No broken servers. Actual skill of ppl fighting matters. If coalitions can't limit themselves to have a good time force them :> duuuuuude......
There is no point bringing 2000-4000 ppl in system - it will not hold.
Keep it under limit and you will have gf. No then wait for crash in lag.
Noone want tidi/lag. But they are forced to do it so limit it.
It is stupid to say something is bad but still cause it. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:54:00 -
[504] - Quote
[quote=baltec1]
You honestly believe this? I have a decently blinged out Mach, and would struggle to make a consistent 100 mil/hour doing SOE L4s....maybe if you do the really cheap buying mission items beforehand, etc.... you can hit 110, but it is agonizingly boring, and I doubt you can do it for more than a couple hours a day. Now if you multibox you can up that, but it will still hit a hard cap pretty fast.
In Apanake local I see around 100-150 people, on average.....and most of them are lifelong highsec runners, not nullsec alts. This idea that thousands of nullsec alts move to highsec to run L4 missions as their primary income stream is pretty crazy. They may come for incursions (though not lately!), and they may go to NPC null for missions there, etc... but they are certainly not flooding SOE hubs for their primary income. I still think the vast majority of them make their ISK ratting, either in a carrier or in an ishtar....which is going to get you decent income with minimal effort. Supposedly some of the nullsec folks make good isk through trading, manufacturing, etc.... But one thing I can assure is that nullsec is not being funded by L4 mission income! |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:56:00 -
[505] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:What part of that is mud flinging? Allowing any coalition to condense all of it's nullbears and renters into a couple of constellations or less is the definition of dense, fortified space cities. This would give a massive buff to the safety of your nullbears and renters. We've already condensed our nullbears into a handful of systems, because the rest is useless for everyone who isn't botting. Those systems still see ratting ships ganked, because people rat while AFK (because ratting is the most soul-crushingly boring activity you can do in EVE bar flying a freighter) and only notice when they get their shield/armor warning.
Heavypredator Singh wrote:Limit fights in system to 1 fleet per side. No broken servers. Actual skill of ppl fighting matters. If coalitions can't limit themselves to have a good time force them :> Who gets to decide which fleet is on which side? If GSF and NC. are fighting over, say, a moon, is PL allowed to jump in? Do they have to shoot both fleets? What happens if they don't? What happens if they wanted to shoot both fleets, but they did more damage to one or the other? Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Hiply Rustic
Aliastra Gallente Federation
229
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:59:00 -
[506] - Quote
Knerf wrote: This game was much better when 10 - 20 man gangs ruled the skies
You don't honestly think anything suggested here will lead to that.
Do you?
Seriously? Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
|
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2407

|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:00:00 -
[507] - Quote
Thread temporarily locked for some cleaning. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2407

|
Posted - 2014.09.29 22:16:00 -
[508] - Quote
Right people, calling each other names, belittling each other and pouring the whole 'haters gonna hate' trollfest shenanigans out over this thread is not going to get this proposal any more support then it already has. Or any less for that matter if you oppose it. For or against, post your arguments in a civil manner please!
That said, I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
The Rules: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.
Racism, gender stereotyping and hate speech are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.
23. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
Thread re-opened.
ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Heavypredator Singh
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 22:38:00 -
[509] - Quote
Lets see what problems we face:
1. tidi, crashes, servers have limits. 2. lack of fights between big alliances due to above. 3. no way for smaller aliances to play sov. 4. lack of new players (with sp to go against established coalitions).
1 and 2 can only be fixed by limiting players in fights - it is limited by tidi and upper server limit already but this limit is broken. There is need to limit this or no good fights will happen. ccp should stop this they talk about our 4000 ppl fight in news - if they knew how it looks they would laugh.
3. smaller aliances may not need sov but you can incorporate them as 3rd party that benefit from sov. They can fight one or other or both sides.
4. fix the game maybe more players will come.
We have winners of sov - create 2/4 factions - not npc factions like in faction warfare. Give coalitions faction status in game that can not be eradicated completly. Allow ppl to join them or act as 3rd party. Make them or allow them to fight - no stupid grinding of structures.
If You see other way of making this game playable then ok. But try to take into account that you need to fix actual problems that you first need to identify.
I see it like above - if You do not agree with my solution then try to acknowledge the problems and find solution for them. Anything less and it will not be good for anyone.
EOT from me - I said what I had to say. |

Adrie Atticus
the shadow plague The Bastion
393
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 22:39:00 -
[510] - Quote
Wooo back in action.
So, any new tinfoil theories? |
|

Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:12:00 -
[511] - Quote
Just FYI ISD Ezwal they won't promote you to GM based on a quota for locked threads. That was just an inside joke at CCP. |

Circumstantial Evidence
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:49:00 -
[512] - Quote
Although not as convenient as current travel, with NPC stations sprinkled liberally through deep null, and jump clones, large alliance fleets could cross the map instantly once a day. The Supers can't follow, but, it would be a powerful force nonetheless. "Dock up ye locals, the Sheriff's come to town!" |

Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:56:00 -
[513] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:Lets see what problems we face:
1. tidi, crashes, servers have limits. 2. lack of fights between big alliances due to above.
No, just no. That is not why there are fewer large scale fights than what you might wish.
Heavypredator Singh wrote: 3. no way for smaller aliances to play sov.
Correct, and the intention of this proposal is to fix that. Whether it is a good way or not is exactly what this thread is about. Welcome to page 23 (or it might be page 24 when I am done).
Heavypredator Singh wrote: 4. lack of new players (with sp to go against established coalitions).
1 and 2 can only be fixed by limiting players in fights - it is limited by tidi and upper server limit already but this limit is broken. There is need to limit this or no good fights will happen. ccp should stop this they talk about our 4000 ppl fight in news - if they knew how it looks they would laugh.
3. smaller aliances may not need sov but you can incorporate them as 3rd party that benefit from sov. They can fight one or other or both sides.
And is that not what SOV-less nullsec entities like your alliance are doing? Are you not SOV-less and benefit from SOV (lots or stupid ratters nearby to kill)?
Heavypredator Singh wrote: 4. fix the game maybe more players will come.
Fix the game? What problem are you referring to? You list this as item 4 that you above have connected to lack of new players...
Heavypredator Singh wrote: We have winners of sov - create 2/4 factions - not npc factions like in faction warfare. Give coalitions faction status in game that can not be eradicated completly. Allow ppl to join them or act as 3rd party. Make them or allow them to fight - no stupid grinding of structures.
Not sure if you are just trolling at this point or trying out that plastic bag trick I adviced someone else to try out. |

HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:57:00 -
[514] - Quote
This looks so exciting all of eve is looking at this idea and going WTF is going to happen in the next year or two. |

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6112
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 00:01:00 -
[515] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have not deleted any of Mr Epeen's posts for a change.
Thread re-opened.
Much appreciated, Ezwal
Mr Epeen 
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass! |

ashley Eoner
348
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 00:35:00 -
[516] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Although not as convenient as current travel, with NPC stations sprinkled liberally through deep null, and jump clones, large alliance fleets could cross the map instantly once a day. The Supers can't follow, but, it would be a powerful force nonetheless. "Dock up ye locals, the Sheriff's come to town!" One of the first things that popped in my head was this concept. An instant fleet with no real warning appearing anywhere once a day. Just stock up some ships and JCs beforehand and wait. |

Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
890
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 00:44:00 -
[517] - Quote
TY ISD for cleaning up the thread.
Dear Community,
Look we all love to shovel dung on each other and S*** up threads. Take a step back from the names or parties endorsing this idea and actually consider the merits of it. I know it is easy to jump to conclusions that X , Y & Z are trying to manipulate things to a advantage . However , I and most of the people who are party to this "Statement" are veteran players. We sincerely enjoy this game. We want to see it live on and thrive. Because it has to for everyone to continue to enjoy it. Throughout the history of this game people have gamed the mechanics of the Eve Sandbox squeezing whatever advantages they can. I have done this and will continue to do this. What we are saying in Unison " Hey changes are needed not so much for our benefit but for everyones benefit". So I try to appeal to you gentle community member , bro of bro who might be a Grrr Space Enemy cast aside differences for the moment and join in unison in pushing forward the unified consensus that we as players want change.
GÖÑManny @EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny |

Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
774
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 01:01:00 -
[518] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:TY ISD for cleaning up the thread.
Dear Community,
Look we all love to shovel dung on each other and S*** up threads. Take a step back from the names or parties endorsing this idea and actually consider the merits of it. I know it is easy to jump to conclusions that X , Y & Z are trying to manipulate things to a advantage . However , I and most of the people who are party to this "Statement" are veteran players. We sincerely enjoy this game. We want to see it live on and thrive. Because it has to for everyone to continue to enjoy it. Throughout the history of this game people have gamed the mechanics of the Eve Sandbox squeezing whatever advantages they can. I have done this and will continue to do this. What we are saying in Unison " Hey changes are needed not so much for our benefit but for everyones benefit". So I try to appeal to you gentle community member , bro of bro who might be a Grrr Space Enemy cast aside differences for the moment and join in unison in pushing forward the unified consensus that we as players want change.
GÖÑManny
A lot of the vitriol is deserved. Most of us have been pulled through the forum ringer at one time or another. Me more than most. Between Ocih, Skydell, Ioci and Sisohiv I have had my foot in my mouth a few times and I've seen a lot of mud in the pits of EVE-O.
My standing issue here is the idea that CCP need to fix this game for us when we are the problem and in the sandbox mantra, we are the solution.
99% of the game breaking aspect of SOV are player driven, NBSI. We can have our Area 51 systems but not all sov needs to be so unwelcoming and the scam central themes make any 'fee' or 'rent' a suckers game. I say that if we want CCP to 'Fix' EVE we try first. NBSI is paranoia and it does far more to keep Null dead than anything CCP do or don't do. |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11459
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 01:22:00 -
[519] - Quote
Ocih wrote:A lot of the vitriol is deserved. Most of us have been pulled through the forum ringer at one time or another. Me more than most. Between Ocih, Skydell, Ioci and Sisohiv I have had my foot in my mouth a few times and I've seen a lot of mud in the pits of EVE-O.
My standing issue here is the idea that CCP need to fix this game for us when we are the problem and in the sandbox mantra, we are the solution.
99% of the game breaking aspect of SOV are player driven, NBSI. We can have our Area 51 systems but not all sov needs to be so unwelcoming and the scam central themes make any 'fee' or 'rent' a suckers game. I say that if we want CCP to 'Fix' EVE we try first. NBSI is paranoia and it does far more to keep Null dead than anything CCP do or don't do.
NBSI is not the problem, otherwise it wouldn't have worked for 10 years. Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
774
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 01:23:00 -
[520] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ocih wrote:A lot of the vitriol is deserved. Most of us have been pulled through the forum ringer at one time or another. Me more than most. Between Ocih, Skydell, Ioci and Sisohiv I have had my foot in my mouth a few times and I've seen a lot of mud in the pits of EVE-O.
My standing issue here is the idea that CCP need to fix this game for us when we are the problem and in the sandbox mantra, we are the solution.
99% of the game breaking aspect of SOV are player driven, NBSI. We can have our Area 51 systems but not all sov needs to be so unwelcoming and the scam central themes make any 'fee' or 'rent' a suckers game. I say that if we want CCP to 'Fix' EVE we try first. NBSI is paranoia and it does far more to keep Null dead than anything CCP do or don't do. NBSI is not the problem, otherwise it wouldn't have worked for 10 years.
If it's working, why the petition? |
|

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11460
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 02:37:00 -
[521] - Quote
Ocih wrote:If it's working, why the petition?
Because NBSI isn't the problem?
This is like blaming the janitor for a company going bankrupt. Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11460
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 02:42:00 -
[522] - Quote
Unless you honestly believe that rules of engagement were the deciding factor in the fact that two coalitions own basically all of nullsec Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 02:49:00 -
[523] - Quote
I support this joint statement. |

Wildcard Trek
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 02:52:00 -
[524] - Quote
I think this joke that has been put forth as "occupancy Sov" can best be summed up with a simple statement an Alliance mate of mine came up with.
Quote:Ahh, occupancy SOV.
Instead of SBU/TCU grind, just place few cloaked cyno ceptors/tech3s in system, and mercilessly hotdrop all ratters, denying the occupancy ratting. Then come with 50+ carriers/titans/tech3s fleet, do few plexes, flip sov, camp undock. Profit?
The Future of SOV Wars...
The problem is not and has not ever been ( "insert some inanimate object here POS, TCU, IHUB, Station" ) the problem has always been how can it get done easier, How many times have we heard the cry I dont want to log in and put forth any effort. I want to drop fifty eleven supers and grind with impunity and be done as fast I can so I can go play another game until something exciting happens, or I can **** in someones cheerios.
The big "excuse" of I need fifty eleven people to flood a system and crash a node or create 1% tidi IS player sandbox made and player sandbox caused. No structure, no POS, no TCU, no IHUB, no Station ever caused the problem, the will of the people caused it with the incessant cry of boredom. And out of the same mouth came cries of too many blues and CCP ruined SOV.
CCP had nothing to do with ruining SOV. The masses upon masses who need to create elaborate coalitions, boatload of bullcrap accords, and rent vast amounts of space to subsidize their members because "effort" to go rat and buy a ship. People want to play but dont want to work at having to play.
I have called it the Obama effect for about 6 years now, take from the ones who put forth effort and give to the ones who wont or are too worthless to do so unless subsidized. The true heart of the matter is not what object to grind, destroy, occupy, it is the gamer mentality we have here in Eve, and it stems from real life, give anyone anything for free and they will show up, make them work for it and they wont. People are expected to get everything for free and not put forth any effort for it.
People who live in 0.0 want their cake and want to eat it as well. You used to have to work to gain sovereignty, it used to take a week, not 4 days at best. Now I can just drop my big phallus machine and let a drone of some type do the work for me. You know the no effort way.
CCP Find a way to stop the renting empire, the passive moon incomes, side deals, boatload of crap initiatives, moving fleets within a blink of an eye across the galaxy in minutes, and the smaller guy might one day have a chance. Until then nothing you do for anyone who cries SOV sucks will ever be enough. |

I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
1241
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 03:10:00 -
[525] - Quote
It'll just fall on deaf ears like most anything in Eve that makes sense does. |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 03:38:00 -
[526] - Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind these changes seems to be: Condense existing coalitions into handful of systems---> provide room for new sov entities to exist.
There's nothing wrong with this, it will probably work. However, new entities have entered sov within the last 6 months: just look at Hero. And then Hero, to their dissatisfaction, was put on farm by N3PL. Being put on farm is an integral part of the stagnation that we all oppose.
My question is this: How will the new system be any different in this regard? Will N3PL stop farming hero for whatever reason? And if that situation doesn't change, how will the end result of the new sov system be any different then the current stagnation? |

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1374
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 03:56:00 -
[527] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind these changes seems to be: Condense existing coalitions into handful of systems---> provide room for new sov entities to exist.
There's nothing wrong with this, it will probably work. However, new entities have entered sov within the last 6 months: just look at Hero. And then Hero, to their dissatisfaction, was put on farm by N3PL. Being put on farm is an integral part of the stagnation that we all oppose.
My question is this: How will the new system be any different in this regard? Will N3PL stop farming hero for whatever reason? And if that situation doesn't change, how will the end result of the new sov system be any different then the current stagnation? no. the big will always prey on the small. no change in mechanics or anything is going to stop that. |

Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
775
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:15:00 -
[528] - Quote
Andski wrote:Unless you honestly believe that rules of engagement were the deciding factor in the fact that two coalitions own basically all of nullsec
NBSI isn't about the rules of engagement, it's about the rules of peace. NBSI does 'work'. It creates a theater of 0 hostility. It eliminates all option for wide scale threat. It creates blue donuts.
Of course that's a double edged sword. We now have a passive null sec and that seems to be the complaint. Sorry, I won't support change in EVE when the people crying for change won't? Change.
:tldr You got what you wanted. Now rot in it. Or change. |

Snot Shot
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
865
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:15:00 -
[529] - Quote
Andski wrote:Snot Shot wrote:So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first? CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid. If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point. Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space...  ...but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show...  . Can you expand on your ideas with anecdotes from your storied history of leading coalitions in wars contesting sovereignty? Well as you know, I've been telling you folks this was going to happen for a while now... . I hate to say I was right but....I was right..
I do get a chuckle out of the fact that the guy whose painted Null Sec into this corner with diplomacy, is now they guy waiving a piece of paper in front of CCP claiming he's got the solution to all our problems...
Can you expand on how this "Null Deal" was discussed? Did all these peeps who signed this get on comms and hammer this out together? Can we get the meeting minutes or Soundcloud recording? After they came up with this decision was it brought to a vote by each Alliance leader to their pilots? Or was it just 4 or 5 of them coming up with the best mouse trap to use on Null Sec for the next 5 years and trying to pawn it off as being whats best for everyone.... .
Twitter = @Snot_Shot-á - GÇ£If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"
evesnotshot.blogspot.com |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11461
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:17:00 -
[530] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Andski wrote:Unless you honestly believe that rules of engagement were the deciding factor in the fact that two coalitions own basically all of nullsec NBSI isn't about the rules of engagement, it's about the rules of peace. NBSI does 'work'. It creates a theater of 0 hostility. It eliminates all option for wide scale threat. It creates blue donuts. Of course that's a double edged sword. We now have a passive null sec and that seems to be the complaint. Sorry, I won't support change in EVE when the people crying for change won't? Change. :tldr You got what you wanted. Now rot in it. Or change.
Unlike NRDS which is essentially NBSI with a gigantic red list instead of a short blue list
Again, you're wrong and NBSI has nothing to do with the current situation Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |
|

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:21:00 -
[531] - Quote
Rowells wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind these changes seems to be: Condense existing coalitions into handful of systems---> provide room for new sov entities to exist.
There's nothing wrong with this, it will probably work. However, new entities have entered sov within the last 6 months: just look at Hero. And then Hero, to their dissatisfaction, was put on farm by N3PL. Being put on farm is an integral part of the stagnation that we all oppose.
My question is this: How will the new system be any different in this regard? Will N3PL stop farming hero for whatever reason? And if that situation doesn't change, how will the end result of the new sov system be any different then the current stagnation? no. the big will always prey on the small. no change in mechanics or anything is going to stop that. So, what you're saying is that with current incentives people will keep joining the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big?
Won't you just be back in 6 months, after the novelty wears off, complaining that nullsec is still stagnant? |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:32:00 -
[532] - Quote
Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless. |

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
303
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:32:00 -
[533] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Anom income caps out at 90 mil/hr per person. High sec level 4 mission blitzing nets 110mil/hr+ per person.
Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person. That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.
I've also written a post why this suggestion is self-serving and horrible.
The short version: nullsec alliances will condense to constellations and rat there in capitals in complete safety as no pirate gang could break their spider-tank. The nearest competent enemy would be 5 regions away, separated by huge buffer zone of terribads who can be farmed for laughs. There won't be a single war or even major battle in Nullsec. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11461
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:35:00 -
[534] - Quote
I really didn't know that so many people just love the status quo Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:36:00 -
[535] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:baltec1 wrote: Anom income caps out at 90 mil/hr per person. High sec level 4 mission blitzing nets 110mil/hr+ per person.
Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot
In a carrier, while blitzing anoms can be refined to produce well beyond 110m an hour. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:39:00 -
[536] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless.
I get bored shitless when 3 hours of fighting is stretched to a period of 23 hours to be honest. If we just started shooting each other tomorrow, this is literally what we'd be stuck with. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1374
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:42:00 -
[537] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The short version: nullsec alliances will condense to constellations and rat there in capitals in complete safety as no pirate gang could break their spider-tank. The nearest competent enemy would be 5 regions away, separated by huge buffer zone of terribads who can be farmed for laughs. There won't be a single war or even major battle in Nullsec. "complete safety" "spider-tanking ratting carriers" "everybody who isn't goons or N3 is terribad"
I get that right? |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:45:00 -
[538] - Quote
Rowells wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Rowells wrote: no. the big will always prey on the small. no change in mechanics or anything is going to stop that.
So, what you're saying is that with current incentives people will keep joining the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big? Won't you just be back in 6 months, after the novelty wears off, complaining that nullsec is still stagnant? "With current incentives" meaning nothing changed just the map layout, yes. And I'm assuming you play to win as well? will we see you in CFC some time soon? Most likely not. For whatever reason you and your alliance decided to literally do the opposite of 'join the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big'. Winning for some people isn't just being part of the biggest bloc in the game. See but that isn't true. A casual look at dotlan will show that people have left MoA for the larger coalitions. One of the larger corps, Epsilon Lyr, for example, recently left for nulli secunda. Likewise, I suspect many in the cfc wont be happy if all of the content they get for the next couple years is what remains of MoA. 
|

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:46:00 -
[539] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:The short version: nullsec alliances will condense to constellations and rat there in capitals in complete safety as no pirate gang could break their spider-tank. The nearest competent enemy would be 5 regions away, separated by huge buffer zone of terribads who can be farmed for laughs. There won't be a single war or even major battle in Nullsec. "complete safety" "spider-tanking ratting carriers" "everybody who isn't goons or N3 is terribad" I get that right?
Guy who doesn't do anything in game because he couldn't get in to the corp of his choice & can never have a dual-tanked tackling mining titan knows everything about what will happen because of :reasons & :tinfoil. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:48:00 -
[540] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless. I get bored shitless when 3 hours of fighting is stretched to a period of 23 hours to be honest. If we just started shooting each other tomorrow, this is literally what we'd be stuck with. A fair and valid point. But when N3PL crams all their dudes and renters into a handful of systems, you'll have the exact same problem: TiDi practically guarantees a 23 hour fight in these densely populated home systems.
So you have the same problem: You're bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. |
|

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1375
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:05:00 -
[541] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Rowells wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Rowells wrote: no. the big will always prey on the small. no change in mechanics or anything is going to stop that.
So, what you're saying is that with current incentives people will keep joining the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big? Won't you just be back in 6 months, after the novelty wears off, complaining that nullsec is still stagnant? "With current incentives" meaning nothing changed just the map layout, yes. And I'm assuming you play to win as well? will we see you in CFC some time soon? Most likely not. For whatever reason you and your alliance decided to literally do the opposite of 'join the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big'. Winning for some people isn't just being part of the biggest bloc in the game. See but that isn't true. A casual look at dotlan will show that people have left MoA for the larger coalitions. One of the larger corps - Epsilon Lyr, for example, recently left for nulli secunda. Likewise, I suspect many in the cfc wont be happy if all of the content they get for the next couple years is what remains of MoA.  Or you could take a look at a larger sample than the last 2 weeks and see your alliance is above the numbers it had at the start of the year and had a very long period between April and August where you were almost twice as big as the beginning. Even HERO has been seeing a very decent net gain over the same period of time. At the same time, goons lost a chunk mid year and have remained stagnant. People don't always choose their comrades based on numbers and statistics. Even if those numbers and statistics drive their gameplay styles to the core. |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:06:00 -
[542] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless. I get bored shitless when 3 hours of fighting is stretched to a period of 23 hours to be honest. If we just started shooting each other tomorrow, this is literally what we'd be stuck with. A fair and valid point. But when N3PL crams all their dudes and renters into a handful of systems, you'll have the exact same problem: TiDi practically guarantees a 23 hour fight in these densely populated home systems. So you have the same problem: You're bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other.
They won't be forced to cram all of their dudes in to a handful of systems though, that's the entire point. To hold space it will have to be used. Plonking a bunch of people in to a system without actually using it won't allow them to retain sov & as an added bonus, it makes having massive coalitions detrimental to any war effort or skirmish due to the existence of TiDi.
Nullsec not shooting each other will cease to be a thing because holding vast areas of space will cease to be a thing. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1375
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:09:00 -
[543] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless. I get bored shitless when 3 hours of fighting is stretched to a period of 23 hours to be honest. If we just started shooting each other tomorrow, this is literally what we'd be stuck with. A fair and valid point. But when N3PL crams all their dudes and renters into a handful of systems, you'll have the exact same problem: TiDi practically guarantees a 23 hour fight in these densely populated home systems. So you have the same problem: You're bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. Thats why this isn't a single dimensional problem. Simply looking at sov and saying "thats your problem there" is not enough. The argument delved down into very specific area of debate in this thread and doesnt seem to be getting out any time soon.
Like for instance the idea to nerf logi. Throw that into the equation and, yes for the first portion of the fight its a tidi slugfest, but as people start dying it becomes less and less crowded until the losers have fled or died to the last man.
We need to keep in mind the other solutions and problems floating around while we disect one subject apart until it is a gory , unrecognizable mess on the table. |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:12:00 -
[544] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless. I get bored shitless when 3 hours of fighting is stretched to a period of 23 hours to be honest. If we just started shooting each other tomorrow, this is literally what we'd be stuck with. A fair and valid point. But when N3PL crams all their dudes and renters into a handful of systems, you'll have the exact same problem: TiDi practically guarantees a 23 hour fight in these densely populated home systems. So you have the same problem: You're bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. They won't be forced to cram all of their dudes in to a handful of systems though, that's the entire point. To hold space it will have to be used. Plonking a bunch of people in to a system without actually using it won't allow them to retain sov & as an added bonus, it makes having massive coalitions detrimental to any war effort or skirmish due to the existence of TiDi. Nullsec not shooting each other will cease to be a thing because holding vast areas of space will cease to be a thing. You lost me. Are you saying that increasing population density won't increase the population density?
Dense "vibrant ecosystems" were proposed and supported. I interpret this to mean that instead of 10 dudes across 200 systems, you have 200 dudes across 10 systems. Which, when combined with standing fleets and so on will lead to a lot of people in system. Am I missing something here?
Dense population --> any attack results in tidi and 23 hour fights --> You're still bored shitless because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. |

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6406
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:26:00 -
[545] - Quote
Good to see we've now shifted over to a TiDi discussion. Which wasn't mentioned, a glaring lack. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:29:00 -
[546] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote: Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person.
I just said that.
Gevlon Goblin wrote: That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.
Which is why buffing anoms is not the way to go, missions are. They inject less isk, scale infinatly, can lock out carriers, will offer higher reward than high sec and are relatively easy for CCP to implement. [/quote]
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:34:00 -
[547] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Thats why this isn't a single dimensional problem. Simply looking at sov and saying "thats your problem there" is not enough. The argument delved down into very specific area of debate in this thread and doesnt seem to be getting out any time soon.
Like for instance the idea to nerf logi. Throw that into the equation and, yes for the first portion of the fight its a tidi slugfest, but as people start dying it becomes less and less crowded until the losers have fled or died to the last man.
We need to keep in mind the other solutions and problems floating around while we disect one subject apart until it is a gory , unrecognizable mess on the table.
A good point, but lets take a look at the article in question. It raises 3 points (occupancy, npc stations, population density) and then provides an impressive list of supporters. Do all of those signatories also support a logi nerf? I suspect not. This is CCP we're dealing with. You handed them a mandate - it's anyone guess if they'll listen. But if they do, given that it is CCP, it's not exactly likely that they'll search out other proposals and heed them as well.
I take and criticize the proposal in a vacuum because it is presented in a vacuum. CCP won't see a logi nerf or any other proposed changes in the document in question. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13407
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:39:00 -
[548] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Rowells wrote: Thats why this isn't a single dimensional problem. Simply looking at sov and saying "thats your problem there" is not enough. The argument delved down into very specific area of debate in this thread and doesnt seem to be getting out any time soon.
Like for instance the idea to nerf logi. Throw that into the equation and, yes for the first portion of the fight its a tidi slugfest, but as people start dying it becomes less and less crowded until the losers have fled or died to the last man.
We need to keep in mind the other solutions and problems floating around while we disect one subject apart until it is a gory , unrecognizable mess on the table.
A good point, but lets take a look at the article in question. It raises 3 points (occupancy, npc stations, population density) and then provides an impressive list of supporters. Do all of those signatories also support a logi nerf? I suspect not. This is CCP we're dealing with. You handed them a mandate - it's anyone guess if they'll listen. But if they do, given that it is CCP, it's not exactly likely that they'll search out other proposals and heed them as well. I take and criticize the proposal in a vacuum because it is presented in a vacuum. CCP won't see a logi nerf or any other proposed changes in the document in question.
They can find it in the thread about the CSM meeting, it has been debated in that thread for that last month at least. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:44:00 -
[549] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote: Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person.
I just said that. Gevlon Goblin wrote: That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.
Which is why buffing anoms is not the way to go, missions are. They inject less isk, scale infinatly, can lock out carriers, will offer higher reward than high sec and are relatively easy for CCP to implement. [/quote]
Of course 10/10 DED sites, etc... are way more than that.... C5 wormholes are 200 mil + an hour, etc.... No one is leaving nullsec to come run L4 missions....I see about 100 people in local while running SOE L4s, and most of them are career highsec folks. Obviously the people in null are finding ways to make isk already. |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:58:00 -
[550] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Of course 10/10 DED sites, etc... are way more than that.... C5 wormholes are 200 mil + an hour, etc.... No one is leaving nullsec to come run L4 missions....I see about 100 people in local while running SOE L4s, and most of them are career highsec folks. Obviously the people in null are finding ways to make isk already.
The thing with high level DED sites is there is a very limited amount of them available at any given time & the chance for an escalation from an anomaly is extremely low, also add in that whether high value loot drops or not is entirely random. You can spend a few hours running the 4 parts of No Quarter & end up with nothing to show for it.
A lot of null people have highsec alts for mission running & incursions due to the fact that high levels of income require a lot of money to begin with & there aren't enough worthwhile anomalies to go around. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
|

Carl Stonewall
Dirty Old Bastards Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:17:00 -
[551] - Quote
Okay so read the letter... first off:
Quote:These entities who have signed this document are historically the most bitter of foes...
Quote:We have put aside our many differences and brutal rivalries...
Let me just sit comfortably in my chair, wai..- WHAAAT!? Brutal enemies... bitter rivals... are you for real???
Goons and PL are effectively allies, and we all know goons wrote this precautionary damage control... they refuse to attack eachothers sov... is this supposed to be some kind of troll?? Bitter rivals my @-ú$ - you havent touched eachothers sov for.. what... 3 YEARS!?
Okay second... what will happen if these changes becomes reality? - Nothing... this proposal is only good for one group, and that is renters... thus indirectly good for Goons and PL (suprice suprice)
Think about the 3 points proposed
1. Occupancy sov.
Ok renters win, they use the systems... what would happen if some new entity tries to take some renter space... yep... you guessed it... 99 supers will land on their face GG... but then again... they can just rent from goon/PL empire and live in happy space harmony, yay... \o/
2. more NPC space...
Nice idea, but what does it have to do with broken 0.0? say a small alliance wants to take some space, deploying in NPC space... what happens when they take the space... yep... you guessed it 99 supers jump across the map in 5 min. and blow them up... but... again, they can just rent guys... no worries...
Basicly sim city general best bro coalition aka goons and PL are bored to death and want CCP to spawn content for them, cause they too scared to figh themselves, we all know it... even goons know it lol.
3. Player density
Again, what does this have to do with broken 0.0??? say this goes into effect, and all of goonswarm can rat in the same system... does anyone seriously believe that new alliances refusing to pay rent, wont get blabbed by 99 supers before you can say "blue donut"??
Its like these guys are deliberatly taking the cart before the horse... a new alliance will never even get to the point of taking advantage of occupancy sov or perks of density system... it will never get to that , they will still be forced to rent from you guys, cause if not... there is 99 supers sitting 70 jumps out, that will be on grid in 5 minutes
All this is, is a precautionary damage control by Goons and PL, luring other sov holders on by proposing generic sound good ideas, that really wont have any significant impact on 0.0 other than incentivising renting even further. Hopefully CCP nerfs capital mobility hard and adress the issue and not this hot air... for all i care make caps jump through gates, that would solve 0.0 before you can say "death to supers"
|

Emma Muutaras
State War Academy Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:43:00 -
[552] - Quote
while i do still support the idea i feel it needs to be if you don't use it you lose so if a system is being under used sov should drop and any station(s) in the system should be locked down as in no one can dock at these stations until the sov if claimed again.
also i would add if a system does drop sov said system should appear on scope news (i.e captains quarters of every player, and on the billboards) after all being a sov holder is kinda like being a government currently in power if that government collapsed its news worthy.
This hopefully will lead to conflict and content as corps and alliances try to get there foothold.
personally i would even have concord said out a eve wide mail to inform all players of a sov drop and the system is available for new claims.
as for destructible stations no just no i can see already that it will lead to massive amounts of players losing everything on the first day its in place and just quitting. it will be a case of needing enough supercaps to defend a station as a bench mark to enter null which i feel is kinda the opposite of what this idea is about.
lets be honest if they made stations destroyable tomorrow how long do you think it will be before a pl/n3 or cfc supercap fleet goes round just to burn stations off the map. my guess not very long and if i had to guess provi and catch would be the first targets of the new station burning as both groups (provi/hero) realistically cant come close (at the moment at least) to fight and defend against super caps.
i feel there should be some sort of safeguard in the new system to limit the size of rental empires cuz lets face most the space in eve now is rental space for the super powers and its got beyond a joke. im not saying ban rental empires but they need to be regulated better.
|

Trii Seo
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
667
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:43:00 -
[553] - Quote
You know something needs fixing if enemies actually agree that it needs fixing. And yes, they're actually enemies, contrary to the opinion of some.
I'm a bit mixed on the NPC regions bit - it seems like a step away from diversifying regions. The one thing EVE lacks today in terms of space alone is diversity and can't help but agree that it'd make staging capitals into a region much easier were a power projection nerf to hit.
With this much buildup and claims of dedication, I'm actually slowly starting to hope that CCP amazes us with something awesome and tops the introduction of Wormholes. And, while at it, provide the catalyst to the greatest, biggest, meanest and most epic space-war this universe has ever seen. Is it Hotdrop O'Clock yet?
Covert pilots unite! Safer working conditions, less accidental limb loss due to unfortunate Cyno accidents! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=258986 |

Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2798
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 07:57:00 -
[554] - Quote
I like how big boys come here en masse to say how they won Eve and it is boring and they need sth else to win at. I seem to recall more or less same people telling everybody on various occasions that Eve is a sandbox and in sandbox you make your own goals and wins so maybe they should take their own advice and try to win at something else than 'who can collect more cubic meters of space' competition?
Or maybe just frakk off and go play sth else. Isn't that another advice you love to shove in other people throats every time when somebody expresses doubts about Eve?
"We the people...", the hubis of that... Invalid signature format |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11460
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:02:00 -
[555] - Quote
Carl Stonewall wrote:ughhhhhh wall of text
So why would we (and PL) completely ruin our diplomatic credibility by conning most of nullsec into putting their names on a proposal that would be completely against their interests? Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

yogizh
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:06:00 -
[556] - Quote
Heavypredator Singh wrote:baltec1 wrote:Heavypredator Singh wrote:@baltec1
No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.
They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.
Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other? Nerf null income? Its already below high sec income, who in their right mind would want to live in null if it got any lower? Ppl that want to fight not farm. It would exclude goons but noone would care :D
I am willing to believe that when I see you uncloaked in space fool.
|

Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
692
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:45:00 -
[557] - Quote
Look, average lowsec/highsec scrump - Pizza/Pasta likes to pick on the sov empires more than most, and I can honestly tell you that these changes would make our life a lot easier and probably lead to more entities like us popping up around the map. Do you think thats something the blue doughnuts want? I personally don't think so, but the fact that people like N3 and PL are asking for NPC null space in the east and goonies would be okay with it in the north should make you wake up and realise they aren't in it for personal reasons.
When people suggest things that are directly detrimental to their own coalitions income for the sake of the game, I think it's pretty safe to assume they aren't trying to pull a fast one on you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:46:00 -
[558] - Quote
I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:52:00 -
[559] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying.
Which just shows why this change is so badly needed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:09:00 -
[560] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
|

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:40:00 -
[561] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions
Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship.
|

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
308
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:45:00 -
[562] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote: Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person.
I just said that. Gevlon Goblin wrote: That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.
Which is why buffing anoms is not the way to go, missions are. They inject less isk, scale infinatly, can lock out carriers, will offer higher reward than high sec and are relatively easy for CCP to implement. [/quote]
And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right?
I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined.
Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1661
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:04:00 -
[563] - Quote
I do not like the concepts of using missions. I still think other kind of anomalies or better belt rattign stuff woudl be the way to go economically.
Something simple would be the more time pirate NPCs are alive in a system the more the alliance lose claim to that system. You need to effectively keep the systems rather clean to keep sov claim.
The economic issues can be balances as well as they would with missions.
on NPC statiosn YES. please. those woudl be very important.
Another thing needed is DESTRUCTABLE outposts. Outposts are aplague now in 0.0. Back in my time each reagion had 4-5. Now you cannot even count. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1661
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:06:00 -
[564] - Quote
Emma Muutaras wrote:
as for destructible stations no just no i can see already that it will lead to massive amounts of players losing everything on the first day its in place and just quitting. it will be a case of needing enough supercaps to defend a station as a bench mark to enter null which i feel is kinda the opposite of what this idea is about.
No need. Just make simple rules. During the first month, all stuff in destroyed stations are moved to nearest low sec station, that will give time to everybody LEARN about it. Also make that any character Unsubscribed has their stuff always moved when they outpost is destroyed.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:29:00 -
[565] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right?
Feel free to try that in a level 4.
Speedkermit Damo wrote: I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined.
Just to point out, the exact same thing has happened on the chinese server. It not us that caused this its the mechanics, the current situation is inevitable.
Speedkermit Damo wrote: Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't.
It will cause at least 80% of sov to drop and would make it impossible for just two powers to dominate EVE. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:33:00 -
[566] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:I do not like the concepts of using missions. I still think other kind of anomalies or better belt rattign stuff woudl be the way to go economically.
That won't fix the issue of hosting an alliance/corp in a single system as there will still be a low limit on the amount of people a single system can host. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:34:00 -
[567] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Emma Muutaras wrote:
as for destructible stations no just no i can see already that it will lead to massive amounts of players losing everything on the first day its in place and just quitting. it will be a case of needing enough supercaps to defend a station as a bench mark to enter null which i feel is kinda the opposite of what this idea is about.
No need. Just make simple rules. During the first month, all stuff in destroyed stations are moved to nearest low sec station, that will give time to everybody LEARN about it. Also make that any character Unsubscribed has their stuff always moved when they outpost is destroyed.
sounds complicated and bit unrealistic. Dunno how they wanna make this but I still havent heard any specific idea how they want to implement it. Removing players ability to build stations would prove interesting....leaving us with what we have built :D
On the other hand stations exploding with players assets may prove interesting way how to slow down inflation and money stockpilling in eve. |

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:34:00 -
[568] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship.
TEST tried to form their own mega coalition and failed. To claim they did anything else is naive.
What some of you simply do not get it is people will gravitate towards each other for mutual benefit. Unless CCP gets rid of standings entirely - which they simply will never do - you will always have coalitions. It's just human nature showing up in a sandbox game.
The ideas suggested as the Null Deal will simply mean those coalitions contract leaving empty space to be taken by smaller entities (who will no doubt have alliances and agreements between them, it's the meta game which is in fact what makes EVE, EVE) and it will not serve the purpose of the large coalitions to gas them out of existence. |

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:45:00 -
[569] - Quote
Get rid of static resources and make them dynamic, including:
(a) Moon goo (b) Truesec status (c) Rat types
So over a period of time say, six months, the environment changes. One day you're in a really rich area, a few weeks later it's resource poor and your grunts want to move elsewhere. Renting empires would fall because (a) you won't be holding sov over one area for years, (b) you'd find it hard to rent to players when the systems they're in go from rich to poor or poor to rich. When they're rich you want them for yourselves. When they're poor nobody wants to rent them.
The "Null Deal" is idiotic. Static wealth generation is the problem. Stop it from happening.
Whilst I'm at it, get rid of all asteroid belts. Just make them go away. All content should be dynamic.
Now get coding.
|

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
308
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:47:00 -
[570] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:
And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right?
Feel free to try that in a level 4. Speedkermit Damo wrote: I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined.
Just to point out, the exact same thing has happened on the chinese server. It not us that caused this its the mechanics, the current situation is inevitable. Speedkermit Damo wrote: Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't.
It will cause at least 80% of sov to drop and would make it impossible for just two powers to dominate EVE.
And that 80% of dropped sov is going to be filled by who exactly? It's going to be more renters isn't it. Of course they won't "technically" be renters. They'll just have to pay you or PL or N3 protection money, or else.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |
|

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:47:00 -
[571] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship. TEST tried to form their own mega coalition and failed. To claim they did anything else is naive. What some of you simply do not get it is people will gravitate towards each other for mutual benefit. Unless CCP gets rid of standings entirely - which they simply will never do - you will always have coalitions. It's just human nature showing up in a sandbox game. The ideas suggested as the Null Deal will simply mean those coalitions contract leaving empty space to be taken by smaller entities (who will no doubt have alliances and agreements between them, it's the meta game which is in fact what makes EVE, EVE) and it will not serve the purpose of the large coalitions to gas them out of existence.
Yes thats exactly how mittens wanted it to sound. Looking at it from more perspectives shows that it will hurt empires in no way, allows them to lessen their space and effort. I'm not saying some of those changes arent good for null, but decreasing null vulnarability, even in used systems and making power projection harder are way more important. |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:52:00 -
[572] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship. TEST tried to form their own mega coalition and failed. To claim they did anything else is naive. What some of you simply do not get it is people will gravitate towards each other for mutual benefit. Unless CCP gets rid of standings entirely - which they simply will never do - you will always have coalitions. It's just human nature showing up in a sandbox game. The ideas suggested as the Null Deal will simply mean those coalitions contract leaving empty space to be taken by smaller entities (who will no doubt have alliances and agreements between them, it's the meta game which is in fact what makes EVE, EVE) and it will not serve the purpose of the large coalitions to gas them out of existence.
Well, you just said what I was saying, only using more words. And ad-hominems are not something desirable in a debate, they will just make people ignore your input. There are big issues with the Null Deal proposals (occupancy and NRDS comes first to my mind) and as long as those issues are not addressed those proposals won't get much support.
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:14:00 -
[573] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
And that 80% of dropped sov is going to be filled by who exactly? It's going to be more renters isn't it. Of course they won't "technically" be renters. They'll just have to pay you or PL or N3 protection money, or else.
It will be filled with whoever has the spine to take them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Mordecai Murska
Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:16:00 -
[574] - Quote
hey,
i read about 10pages before writing this, so if someone already said this, too bad.
Ops wants npc stations for content, agents I figure, others are against stations so people dont get safe plases in 0.0
that could be easily solved so that when occupancy is high enough, Cosmos type agents fly there in their ships, light up a beacon
and start offering missions, if people dont work for said agents enough they move to some other system or go home wherever
their corp or alliance is from.
my cent for this... |

Bunka en Daire
Eminentia Griseus
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:20:00 -
[575] - Quote
Oh ask yourself how much of those who signed petition are RMT?
I bet on my life, that 99% of them are RMT.
|

Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
595
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:37:00 -
[576] - Quote
Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:40:00 -
[577] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect. How does it exactly hurt them so much? |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:41:00 -
[578] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right? Why would an AFK pilot be any safer because there's a gate between the interceptor and the ratter? Missions would generally mean you can't be anywhere close to as AFK, since it's usually split up into sections rather than being a mass of red crosses in one area.
You know what AFK means, right?
Speedkermit Damo wrote:I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined. The funny thing is, people have gone on for years about effort based sov, and now that Mittani has suggested it, suddenly those people are against it. By the way, how exactly is the game "ruined"?
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't. Why should we disband? You don't like us, but what give you the right to state that we should disband? EVE is a sandbox and can be played however people want. Forcing people to only bind together in tiny groups is not really EVE.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
595
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:42:00 -
[579] - Quote
Regatto wrote: How does it exactly hurt them so much?
They hold sov by power not presence and the absence of npc stations makes work of attackers much harder especially when they have to fight guerilla warfare.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:46:00 -
[580] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Regatto wrote: How does it exactly hurt them so much?
They hold sov by power not presence and the absence of npc stations makes work of attackers much harder especially when they have to fight guerilla warfare.
They hold sov with the threat of presence. |
|

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:48:00 -
[581] - Quote
Bunka en Daire wrote:Oh ask yourself how much of those who signed petition are RMT?
I bet on my life, that 99% of them are RMT.
None of them currently. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
308
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:50:00 -
[582] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right? Why would an AFK pilot be any safer because there's a gate between the interceptor and the ratter? Missions would generally mean you can't be anywhere close to as AFK, since it's usually split up into sections rather than being a mass of red crosses in one area. You know what AFK means, right? Speedkermit Damo wrote:I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined. The funny thing is, people have gone on for years about effort based sov, and now that Mittani has suggested it, suddenly those people are against it. By the way, how exactly is the game "ruined"? Speedkermit Damo wrote:Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't. Why should we disband? You don't like us, but what give you the right to state that we should disband? EVE is a sandbox and can be played however people want. Forcing people to only bind together in tiny groups is not really EVE.
So basically with (Mittens) occupancy based sov, there will still be a blue donut, there will still the blob, and there will still be botlord.
In other words just the same as now.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:57:00 -
[583] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:So basically with (Mittens) occupancy based sov, there will still be a blue donut, there will still the blob, and there will still be botlord.
In other words just the same as now. Pretty much. Just there will also be empty space. This has always been raised as the issue with occupancy based sov the several thousand times it's been raised before. You can't force people to not cooperate. Even if they took away all standing systems, we'd still cooperate using out of game systems. You should know being that you're CVA so you run a KOS checker for pilots in local.
The idea here is to lower the bar for entry, condense the larger groups into smaller space and limit how far the larger groups can project themselves. Occupancy based sov means you don;t need to put billions of isk in space assets out for people to destroy, you just need to show up in an area and start playing. I think the idea needs a lot of work, but its certainly a step in the right direction and shows CCP the type of change that the null groups would most support. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:04:00 -
[584] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: The idea here is to lower the bar for entry, condense the larger groups into smaller space and limit how far the larger groups can project themselves. Occupancy based sov means you don;t need to put billions of isk in space assets out for people to destroy, you just need to show up in an area and start playing. I think the idea needs a lot of work, but its certainly a step in the right direction and shows CCP the type of change that the null groups would most support.
It's an absolutely terrible idea. How about we limit force projection and not increase the value of systems? Maybe Goons or PL or whomever will have to, you know, not be so large in the first place if they want to keep all of their pilots happy. And whilst we're busy nerfing nullsec, let's make sure resources are no longer static. Let's make it so that if you want all the stuff, you have to keep fighting for it. CCP can make regional value dynamic and ever changing, including true sec and moon goo.
Why am I the only one suggesting this? How does dynamic content not force the blob to become dynamic too? If they want to make BOTLORDII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIV fine. Destroy the game you enjoy if you want. Nobody really cares all that much.
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:19:00 -
[585] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:It's an absolutely terrible idea. How about we limit force projection and not increase the value of systems? Maybe Goons or PL or whomever will have to, you know, not be so large in the first place if they want to keep all of their pilots happy. And whilst we're busy nerfing nullsec, let's make sure resources are no longer static. Let's make it so that if you want all the stuff, you have to keep fighting for it. CCP can make regional value dynamic and ever changing, including true sec and moon goo. Force projection certainly needs to be looked at, but the value of systems would too. Everything is spread out at the moment because force projection exists. Nuke force projection and you have to shrink the spread of the content too.
And make resources dynamic? That would then mean you need a means of moving between content, so having billions of isk in structure you have to keep putting up and taking down seems to go against that, so sov needs to be tied to something else, like say activity?
The thing is, you can happily say move moon goo around and move true sec around and force people to have to run around all over null, because it doesn't affect you. You're perfectly happy for someone else's game to become a chore because it's no additional effort on your part. Why should people have to jump though hoops for content? For that matter, why would people continue to jump though hoops at all? Nullsec wouldn't take much of a nerf to become completely pointless as is, since blitzing level 4 missions can earn you just as much.
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Why am I the only one suggesting this? How does dynamic content not force the blob to become dynamic too? Because without changing the way sov is held, they can;t be dynamic.
Ms Forum Alt wrote:If they want to make BOTLORDII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIV fine. Destroy the game you enjoy if you want. Nobody really cares all that much. Apparently you care a lot. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:23:00 -
[586] - Quote
The suggestion is aimed to avoid conflict between powerful entities by letting them condense into far regions. The other regions will be filled by terribads who serve as food.
This way the leaders can have large ISK income without Sov costs, reimbursements, capital subsidies, strategic planning or any effort. The members of all groups will be denied fights other than dunking terribads that is just as much PvP as ganking highsec miners.
This proposal is a combined effort of all leaders to betray all their line members and turn them into ratting machines, while denying them the PvP content they joined for. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:34:00 -
[587] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: And make resources dynamic? That would then mean you need a means of moving between content, so having billions of isk in structure you have to keep putting up and taking down seems to go against that, so sov needs to be tied to something else, like say activity?
Yes, effort. No, not activity. Activity can easily be subverted by for example, camping. Indeed camping will become the primary way in which you subvert someone's sov if it isn't already. You can make their space have zero value with the constant hotdrop threat. Another CCP "innovation" that wasn't fully thought through.
Lucas Kell wrote: The thing is, you can happily say move moon goo around and move true sec around and force people to have to run around all over null, because it doesn't affect you.
No, it would affect me. And when I said dynamic I didn't mean dynamic like PI, I meant over a longer period of time, like six months. And the value of that doesn't have to be as it is now. You can change the frequency and amplitude to fit. You don't have to keep everything else the same whilst fiddling with just that 1 variable. For example I think CCP really want to replace POS with something better. Well OK, fold that into the design.
Lucas Kell wrote:Because without changing the way sov is held, they can;t be dynamic.
What's the point of holding sov anyway? You get to name the station? Who cares.
Thanks for responding to my ideas. I've struggled to persuade on this even though I've had these ideas since CCP first released dynamic content (anoms) a looooong time ago. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:40:00 -
[588] - Quote
Bunka en Daire wrote:Oh ask yourself how much of those who signed petition are RMT?
I bet on my life, that 99% of them are RMT. RIP you
Arya Regnar wrote:It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most. we also advocated for the tech nerf when we were one of the biggest tech moon empires in the game Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:48:00 -
[589] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Yes, effort. No, not activity. Activity can easily be subverted by for example, camping. Indeed camping will become the primary way in which you subvert someone's sov if it isn't already. You can make their space have zero value with the constant hotdrop threat. Another CCP "innovation" that wasn't fully thought through. What effort would you consider as the solution? If someone was happily playing away in their area, and we came over and hellcamped them for 2 weeks, would they still hold the sov?
Ms Forum Alt wrote:No, it would affect me. And when I said dynamic I didn't mean dynamic like PI, I meant over a longer period of time, like six months. And the value of that doesn't have to be as it is now. You can change the frequency and amplitude to fit. You don't have to keep everything else the same whilst fiddling with just that 1 variable. For example I think CCP really want to replace POS with something better. Well OK, fold that into the design. So people would still follow around the content, and the complaint would turn from "CFC or N3/PL own all of the null space!" to "CFC or N3/PL own all of the good content in null space!".
Ms Forum Alt wrote:What's the point of holding sov anyway? You get to name the station? Who cares. Reduced POS fuel cost, restrictions over who can and cannot dock, Market/refinery/repair taxes, system upgrade (ihub) control.
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Thanks for responding to my ideas. I've struggled to persuade on this even though I've had these ideas since CCP first released dynamic content (anoms) a looooong time ago. No problem. The idea of dynamic content isn't a bad one for consideration, it just isn't a solution to the nullsec troubles in and of itself. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:59:00 -
[590] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The suggestion is aimed to avoid conflict between powerful entities by letting them condense into far regions. The other regions will be filled by terribads who serve as food. Conflict is already as avoided right now as it would be then. And whether or not occupancy based sov is considered, force projection needs to be wound down, so either way the effect is the same.
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This way the leaders can have large ISK income without Sov costs, reimbursements, capital subsidies, strategic planning or any effort. The members of all groups will be denied fights other than dunking terribads that is just as much PvP as ganking highsec miners. Erm... what? There would still be fights, reimbursments, capital ships, etc. The thing you don't seem to understand is that many people WANT fights. We play this game for entertainment, not so we can stare at our wallet balance and fap while writing blogposts. The problem is that at the moment force projection pretty much means any fight will escalate into a 10% tidi brawl, and anyone outside of the major blobs stands very little chance of moving in to null without being crushed. By shortening the range of force projection and condensing the current superpowers they open up the floor to other groups moving in and growing into power themselves.
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This proposal is a combined effort of all leaders to betray all their line members and turn them into ratting machines, while denying them the PvP content they joined for. We get it mate, you don't like goons, thus you'll disagree with just about anything they say. The problem is that you have no idea how 99% of EVE mechanics work. You know how to trade and run mining missions, and that's about it. Take off the tinfoil hat and learn to play EVE. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:02:00 -
[591] - Quote
don't touch the poop Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:12:00 -
[592] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: There would still be fights, reimbursments, capital ships, etc. Could you tell me who would the CFC fight with? Against Arthasdklol's mining corp? Would you call the current PL vs HERO/Provi encounters "fights"? Because I sure call them ganks.
Fights needs able enemies who can shoot back. Who else can shoot back to Goons than N3/PL?
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:29:00 -
[593] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect.
It doesn't hurt them, or they wouldn't have proposed it.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:34:00 -
[594] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: There would still be fights, reimbursments, capital ships, etc. Could you tell me who would the CFC fight with? Against Arthasdklol's mining corp? Would you call the current PL vs HERO/Provi encounters "fights"? Because I sure call them ganks. Fights needs able enemies who can shoot back. Who else can shoot back to Goons than N3/PL?
Anyone who want to try.
Just because you are spineless and dont like expending effort doesn't mean there are not tens of thousands who will. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:35:00 -
[595] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect. It doesn't hurt them, or they wouldn't have proposed it.
So tell us, why did we push for the tech nerf when we held almost all of it? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:36:00 -
[596] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:
Well, you just said what I was saying, only using more words. And ad-hominems are not something desirable in a debate, they will just make people ignore your input. There are big issues with the Null Deal proposals (occupancy and NRDS comes first to my mind) and as long as those issues are not addressed those proposals won't get much support.
Well if a claim is made to support an opinion on how something worked, and that claim is incorrect it's only fair to point that out.
NRDS is the personal choice of a single Bloc. It's up to them if they want to use NRDS, NBSI or NPSI. These are all fairly minor concerns, if at all. It's part of the meta game.
Regatto wrote:
Yes thats exactly how mittens wanted it to sound. Looking at it from more perspectives shows that it will hurt empires in no way, allows them to lessen their space and effort. I'm not saying some of those changes arent good for null, but decreasing null vulnarability, even in used systems and making power projection harder are way more important.
Look at it like this - and you have to assume CCP will do this right: If the CFC was to contract to say just Deklein, all that empty space currently owned by the CFC will fill up with new blood. Those guys will form groups and coalitions. One day they may have the numbers or the will to take on the CFC. If the CFC alliances chose to remain in far flung regions of space they won't have the support of the greater CFC. If the greater CFC comes to their aid, they risk lowering any defensive index on their home systems.
The principles of what has been suggested are sound. It remains to be seen in CCP can do something with them.
|

Steppa Musana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:37:00 -
[597] - Quote
Love how you've pinged your alliance to +1 this thread. Reminds me of the time you guys did the same thing in the thread on freighter changes, thinking +70 from Goons in 1 day would sway Fozzie.
Goonies, masters of propaganda, and why no one really cares what they have to say.  |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13411
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:39:00 -
[598] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:Love how you've pinged your alliance to +1 this thread. Goonies, masters of propaganda, and why no one really cares what they have to say. 
So said the NPC high sec posting alt. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:49:00 -
[599] - Quote
So has the anti-occupancy based sov camp come up with a better alternate idea yet? Thats something missing from this thread. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:57:00 -
[600] - Quote
Did somebody mention some complete proposal how that occupancy based SOV would work? I may have missed it...everything i read was very sketchy and without any actual details |
|

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:09:00 -
[601] - Quote
I guess thats my point.
I can point to one side and say they have an idea for occupancy based sov that looks like it'll make room for others.
I have nothing to point to from the other side. Not a name for an idea. Not an outline. Nothing. I've seen some reasonable concerns, but nothing that says sov based occupancy is a bad idea and worse than what we have now.
|

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:11:00 -
[602] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:So has the anti-occupancy based sov camp come up with a better alternate idea yet? Thats something missing from this thread. the anti-occupancy camp consists entirely of alliances who have no idea whatsoever about how sov works, and CVA, so I'll let you guess whether they were able to come up with an idea Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

WILLY TROPICAL
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:24:00 -
[603] - Quote
I would like to know the opinion of CCP. For now, this thread is just free trolling and pointless speculations. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:27:00 -
[604] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Could you tell me who would the CFC fight with? Against Arthasdklol's mining corp? Would you call the current PL vs HERO/Provi encounters "fights"? Because I sure call them ganks. Exactly the same people they fight with now. Or are you suggesting that if the CFC lived in a smaller area of space that MoA would just fold up and stop fighting?
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Fights needs able enemies who can shoot back. Who else can shoot back to Goons than N3/PL? According to you the main enemy of the CFC is not N3/PL, so how come N3/PL are suddenly the only people who can shoot back? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

KBLUEJACK54
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:28:00 -
[605] - Quote
All well and good proposing stuffz to CCP in this manner, but essentially it is down to them to look at the current situation with a different mind set than they have exhibited these past four years.
This game was always about balance, somehow along the way this has slipped aside in favour of one aspect of game play, heavily weighted in this manner it is not good for EVE in the long term.
While I agree in principle with some points in this list of proposals, CCP needs to look very hard at why this imbalance has come about in the first instance and then set about correcting it.
EVE was never about any one aspect of game play but about the multiplicity of interactions brought about by the differing styles offered within the construct that is EVE, Careless tinkering with that in the past has been the promotion of a broken game such as we currently have now, CCP admit that EVE has been damaged and before they run off looking to change yet more stuff they need to correct that first, then build on that solid foundation again or risk having the whole thing collapse even further into the realms of a simple FPS with bling. |

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:30:00 -
[606] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Toriessian wrote:So has the anti-occupancy based sov camp come up with a better alternate idea yet? Thats something missing from this thread. the anti-occupancy camp consists entirely of alliances who have no idea whatsoever about how sov works, and CVA, so I'll let you guess whether they were able to come up with an idea
Yes, CCP should only listen to the blue donut boys who broke nullsec in the first place, many of whom don't even log in to the game, and not listen to anyone anyone else. Especially not anyone from Providence. The only region where everyone isn't whining about how bored they are. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
212
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:31:00 -
[607] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:If Goons came up with it, it can't be good, IMO
NPC systems throughout null sec for launch points would be one.
http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-voices-have-spoken-but-to-what-end/ |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:33:00 -
[608] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Yes, CCP should only listen to the blue donut boys who broke nullsec in the first place, and not listen to anyone anyone else. Especially not anyone from Providence. The only region where everyone isn't whining about how bored they are. I take it your suggestion is not to change anything, then? Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:36:00 -
[609] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:What effort would you consider as the solution? If someone was happily playing away in their area, and we came over and hellcamped them for 2 weeks, would they still hold the sov?
My suggestion nerfs or boosts various areas of nullsec dynamically, meaning that your huge alliance, currently sitting on the best content in game suddenly finds itself sitting on space not much better than low sec. How would that not drive conflict?
Lucas Kell wrote:So people would still follow around the content, and the complaint would turn from "CFC or N3/PL own all of the null space!" to "CFC or N3/PL own all of the good content in null space!".
The plain fact is it's CFC and N3/PL who've destroyed nullsec, together - a kind of MAD - by snowballing into these two huge alliances that nobody can take on. Some say this is the endgame with CCP's model and I'm inclined to agree with them on this if things remain the same. There's *nothing* CCP can do to change the situation if both of these large blocs are determined not to go to war. The Null Deal doesn't change this fact and neither does my proposal. But I think at least mine has the potential to be a conflict driver between the large blocs. Null Deal certainly isn't.
Lucas Kell wrote:Reduced POS fuel cost, restrictions over who can and cannot dock, Market/refinery/repair taxes, system upgrade (ihub) control.
All of those things except POS fuel cost are about owning stations, not some nebulous absurdity called "sov". Who needs an ihub control if content is dynamic? POS fuel cost buff is a hangover from the days when you needed to spam POSes to "win" a system. What's the point of it now? Have fewer POS. Have more POS but make them cheaper. All potentially solvable problems.
People always imagine the solution in the context of all the other game mechanics remaining the same. I think you can change more than one thing at once, and slaughter a few sacred cows at the same time.
|

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:37:00 -
[610] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:Yes, CCP should only listen to the blue donut boys who broke nullsec in the first place, and not listen to anyone anyone else. Especially not anyone from Providence. The only region where everyone isn't whining about how bored they are. I take it your suggestion is not to change anything, then?
No, lots of things ought to change. Power projection and caps/supers most of all.
Personally, I'm in favour of removing sov from the game entirely. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |
|

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:39:00 -
[611] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:No, lots of things ought to change. Power projection and caps/supers most of all.
Okay, let's hear your proposals. Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:42:00 -
[612] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:No, lots of things ought to change. Power projection and caps/supers most of all.
Okay, let's hear your proposals.
see previous post, amended
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:42:00 -
[613] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:NRDS is the personal choice of a single Bloc. It's up to them if they want to use NRDS, NBSI or NPSI. These are all fairly minor concerns, if at all. It's part of the meta game.
Got it, my way or the highway. This is not helping you when stating that you care about the sandbox or small entities. And it's not OK to ask others to make sacrifices for you. We don't have CCP's directions on how they are going to change null-sec, so until then, this thread is pure speculation and rumor mongering.
|

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:50:00 -
[614] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Exactly the same people they fight with now. Or are you suggesting that if the CFC lived in a smaller area of space that MoA would just fold up and stop fighting?
Likely yes. They would carve out a little constellation for themselves around the 5XKK station and won't bother to go 25 jumps to find the nearest Goon. They would get rich from Mordus LP and a green killboard from farming nearby terribads. They aren't saints and heroes, they prefer the easy way for their goals.
Currently their options are fighting CFC till the bitter end and bend a knee. They are indeed better than most who bent a knee. With the suggestion they'll have the option to not fight with CFC and not bend a knee.
Same for everyone else. PASTA, Tri, Mortuus will all carve out a little constellation and will be ratting there until they are too bored to log in.
baltec1 wrote: Anyone who want to try. [will fight]
Just because you are spineless and dont like expending effort doesn't mean there are not tens of thousands who will.
Where are these magical tens of thousands now? Why are they not fighting right now? Or you claim that highsec miners will take the abandoned space and will form deadly small gangs? My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:50:00 -
[615] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Personally, I'm in favour of removing sov from the game entirely. Replacing sov null with what? FW? Keep in mind that Pre-FW lowsec was the least used space in the game, by a wide margin.
Ms Forum Alt wrote: My suggestion nerfs or boosts various areas of nullsec dynamically, meaning that your huge alliance, currently sitting on the best content in game suddenly finds itself sitting on space not much better than low sec. How would that not drive conflict?
We (i.e. the CFC) own half of conquerable nullsec. Unless your system is rigged in a way that moves the vast majority of "value" (for whatever metric you want to use) out of our half into N3's, or vice versa, I don't see a meaningful conflict driver. Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:51:00 -
[616] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:My suggestion nerfs or boosts various areas of nullsec dynamically, meaning that your huge alliance, currently sitting on the best content in game suddenly finds itself sitting on space not much better than low sec. How would that not drive conflict? Well it wouldn't really be "conflict". We'd just migrate to whatever section of space is now good and evict whoever is living there. Chances are we'd work out details with N3/PL so we can keep up the current PvP and continue to ensure survival for us both, much like B0TLRD keeps us from nuking each others income streams.
Ms Forum Alt wrote:The plain fact is it's CFC and N3/PL who've destroyed nullsec, together - a kind of MAD - by snowballing into these two huge alliances that nobody can take on. Some say this is the endgame with CCP's model and I'm inclined to agree with them on this if things remain the same. There's *nothing* CCP can do to change the situation if both of these large blocs are determined not to go to war. The Null Deal doesn't change this fact and neither does my proposal. But I think at least mine has the potential to be a conflict driver between the large blocs. Null Deal certainly isn't. But it wouldn't be. Going to all out war would destroy us both after several dozen incredibly slow tidi fights. Neither side wants that. So we would work out how to avoid that scale of conflict. The null deal suggested at the very least gives the opportunity for groups who are not part of our groups to move into null. It's certainly not perfect and needs a lot of actual thought, but it's at least a start. The thing is, unless you can think of a way to stop cooperation being beneficial, I don't see how you can stop massive groups forming up and ruling.
Ms Forum Alt wrote:All of those things except POS fuel cost are about owning stations, not some nebulous absurdity called "sov". Who needs an ihub control if content is dynamic? POS fuel cost buff is a hangover from the days when you needed to spam POSes to "win" a system. What's the point of it now? Have fewer POS. Have more POS but make them cheaper. All potentially solvable problems. Station ownership itself is sov driven. How would you decide who gets to own a station instead? Would it just be a station grind? Or would all space be NPC null, scrapping sov altogether?
Ms Forum Alt wrote:People always imagine the solution in the context of all the other game mechanics remaining the same. I think you can change more than one thing at once, and slaughter a few sacred cows at the same time. You certainly can, but at the same time you have to consider the impact that will have on the game and the existing playerbase. You knock out sov and the complexity of null shrinks. You make all stations free to dock, and now you've done players out of trillions of isk.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:57:00 -
[617] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote: We (i.e. the CFC) own half of conquerable nullsec. Unless your system is rigged in a way that moves the vast majority of "value" (for whatever metric you want to use) out of our half into N3's, or vice versa, I don't see a meaningful conflict driver.
Do you? Or do you mean to say that some corps have access to the best systems (lowest truesec) and the others can go **** themselves? I think that's what you mean isn't it. How would they feel about the CFC if certain corps barged their way into their space because it was one of the hotspots?
See what I mean about driving conflict? It's not so hard now is it.
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:04:00 -
[618] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Likely yes. They would carve out a little constellation for themselves around the 5XKK station and won't bother to go 25 jumps to find the nearest Goon. They would get rich from Mordus LP and a green killboard from farming nearby terribads. They aren't saints and heroes, they prefer the easy way for their goals. Since one of their stated goals is the destruction of the CFC, why wouldn't they move to wherever the CFC is and continue fighting them? If they are only interested in farming LP, why aren't they doing that now? They don;t have to fight the CFC, that's a choice they've made. You're suggesting that choice is entirely because we happen to be nearby.
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Currently their options are fighting CFC till the bitter end and bend a knee. They are indeed better than most who bent a knee. With the suggestion they'll have the option to not fight with CFC and not bend a knee. Why is that their only choice? There's N3/PL, there HERO/Brave, there's CVA, there's random pirate groups. Or they could currently be ratting their days away. They choose to fight the CFC. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't choose to after a change.
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Same for everyone else. PASTA, Tri, Mortuus will all carve out a little constellation and will be ratting there until they are too bored to log in. How do you even think this rubbish up? People aren't just sitting around fighting because ratting is too hard. If people wanted to rat, they would rat. They are making an active choice to PvP because that's what they enjoy doing. If a change was made they aren't going to suddenly say "Well now I guess we'll have to rat instead! Boring!". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:08:00 -
[619] - Quote
For those of you who're interested, here's how something like a Perlin Noise Plasma evolves over time.
Now imagine that was truesec and moon goo spread across the universe. CCP can tweak the frequency, amplitude (including in the time dimension to make it evolve fast or more slowly). Notice how "hotspots" form in different regions of the map at different times. Different frequencies produce more or fewer hotspots of different sizes. See what works and what doesn't.
This is how I imagine dynamic content should look and I think (personally) that dynamic content would drive conflict. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:08:00 -
[620] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Do you? Or do you mean to say that some corps have access to the best systems (lowest truesec) and the others can go **** themselves? uh yeah maybe you've not noticed but branch has different truesec from pure blind but somehow it still works out??? Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
|

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:12:00 -
[621] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:Do you? Or do you mean to say that some corps have access to the best systems (lowest truesec) and the others can go **** themselves? uh yeah maybe you've not noticed but branch has different truesec from pure blind but somehow it still works out???
It does now. But with my idea it might not in 3 months time. Someone would come along and tell you to GTFO wouldn't they. Would that annoy your line members? Having to move out for another corp in your alliance? I submit that it would.
Again, it drives conflict. |

Carl Stonewall
Dirty Old Bastards Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:14:00 -
[622] - Quote
Andski wrote:
So why would we (and PL) completely ruin our diplomatic credibility by conning most of nullsec into putting their names on a proposal that would be completely against their interests?
What are you on about? |

Eyrun Mangeiri
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:17:00 -
[623] - Quote
Carl Stonewall wrote:Andski wrote:
So why would we (and PL) completely ruin our diplomatic credibility by conning most of nullsec into putting their names on a proposal that would be completely against their interests?
What are you on about?
In your post you just talk about how this would benefit PL or CFC, while nearly every leader of an alliance in nullsec has signed it. That includes Nulli Secunda. I can see what you see not - vision milky then eyes rot. When you turn they will be gone - whispering their hidden song. |

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:20:00 -
[624] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:[quote=Speedkermit Damo]Personally, I'm in favour of removing sov from the game entirely. Replacing sov null with what? FW? Keep in mind that Pre-FW lowsec was the least used space in the game, by a wide margin./quote]
Yes, but that was before CFC, N3 and PL turned null into shite.
Just replace all sov with NPC null. No more structure grinds, no more blue donut, no more botlord. Because if after any null revamp, we still have the same blue donut with two huge blue blobs with renters inbetween then it's all been for nothing.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:25:00 -
[625] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:It does now. But with my idea it might not in 3 months time. Someone would come along and tell you to GTFO wouldn't they. Would that annoy your line members? Having to move out for another corp in your alliance? I submit that it would.
Again, it drives conflict. So, we have different levels of truesec held by our coalition now, and it works fine. And, under your proposal, we'll also have different levels of truesec held by our coalition in three months, but for some reason everyone will suddenly start clawing at each other's throats then. Sounds reasonable. Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:27:00 -
[626] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:My suggestion nerfs or boosts various areas of nullsec dynamically, meaning that your huge alliance, currently sitting on the best content in game suddenly finds itself sitting on space not much better than low sec. How would that not drive conflict? Well it wouldn't really be "conflict". We'd just migrate to whatever section of space is now good and evict whoever is living there. Chances are we'd work out details with N3/PL so we can keep up the current PvP and continue to ensure survival for us both, much like B0TLRD keeps us from nuking each others income streams.
So "you"(lets admit SMA is irrelevant in the matter) pretty much admited that you are making this game so boring on purpose :P either way, running around and having to nuke out people would still be more interesting than current stagnation. |

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:33:00 -
[627] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: They don;t have to fight the CFC, that's a choice they've made. You're suggesting that choice is entirely because we happen to be nearby. Indeed. Open Dotlan! Everything around their station is CFC land. They can't fight anyone else but CFC. Sure, they could move somewhere else, but somebody else already live there. If they move to NPC Fountain, they have to fight CFC. If they move to NPC Delve, they have to fight CFC. If they move Stain, they have to fight N3. If they move Great Wilderlands, they have to fight PL. Anywhere they move they have to fight someone competent who lives there. Their choices are: - deciding which one of the big empires they fight - or they can give up, crawl back to Empire and disband
With the new proposal, most land will be abandoned and open for anyone. The nearest able enemy will be 20+ jumps away. Sure, they will form an anti-CFC roam once a week or so, just for the old times sake, but they won't have conflict of interest with the CFC. The CFC will be a bad historic enemy to them, like BoB is to Goons. Old MoA members will tell stories about the glorious days of fighting CFC to new ones, but for new ones CFC will be just another bunch of players 20 jumps away. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:37:00 -
[628] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote: So, we have different levels of truesec held by our coalition now, and it works fine. And, under your proposal, we'll also have different levels of truesec held by our coalition in three months, but for some reason everyone will suddenly start clawing at each other's throats then. Sounds reasonable.
Not so. If there were, say, two hotspots there's a 25% chance you won't have ANY decent truesec if you own half of space. Now what are you going to do? Wait six months for it to come around again? Maybe it won't. You might go and join the other bloc and start leeching players because they've got the hotspots. Are you still just going to sit there and wait?
If that's the attitude then I suppose there's absolutely no helping the Eve community. But it seems to me that you're determined to keep everything static. It's a kind of neurosis in Eve as a whole and I think it started on day 1 with asteroid belts that were just there day after day, in the same place! |

Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:46:00 -
[629] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: They don;t have to fight the CFC, that's a choice they've made. You're suggesting that choice is entirely because we happen to be nearby. Indeed. Open Dotlan! Everything around their station is CFC land. They can't fight anyone else but CFC. Sure, they could move somewhere else, but somebody else already live there. If they move to NPC Fountain, they have to fight CFC. If they move to NPC Delve, they have to fight CFC. If they move Stain, they have to fight N3. If they move Great Wilderlands, they have to fight PL. Anywhere they move they have to fight someone competent who lives there. Their choices are: - deciding which one of the big empires they fight - or they can give up, crawl back to Empire and disband With the new proposal, most land will be abandoned and open for anyone. The nearest able enemy will be 20+ jumps away. Sure, they will form an anti-CFC roam once a week or so, just for the old times sake, but they won't have conflict of interest with the CFC. The CFC will be a bad historic enemy to them, like BoB is to Goons. Old MoA members will tell stories about the glorious days of fighting CFC to new ones, but for new ones CFC will be just another bunch of players 20 jumps away.
Wrong. In reality, MoA currently does not have a conflict of interest with CFC. This is simply because MoA does not have the organization, capability or competency to hold assets in space under current system. Therefore, they never make it an objective to hold assets or sov, as they know well that they will fail to realize any end involving holding control on assets or sovereignty.
MoA does not 'fight' CFC over resources or space. Actually, there is no instance of MoA being able to hold the field on any space engagement at all. (They are so risk averse that the only instance they undocked capitals was when 5Z was cyno jammed and it was hellcamped. Even that day, they still managed to lose at least two capital ships to CFC frigates) Only thing MoA is able to do is to kill is ratters that do not pay attention. If they see a region of space that is more abundant with careless ratters that do not give a damn about ratting ship losses, they will move there since MoA only exists to shoot at targets (inattentive ratters) that cannot shoot back. This also explains why MoA has a persistent concern on killboard color, even as far as their directors yelling at line members to keep losses below a certain value. Since killboard color has jack all to do with power dynamics of sovereign null, MoA does not and cannot have a claim to holding control over anything.
By the way, 5Z is a NPC station, it does not belong to MoA. For instance, VFK outpost is ours. But 5Z station does not belong to MoA. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:46:00 -
[630] - Quote
Regatto wrote:So "you"(lets admit SMA is irrelevant in the matter) pretty much admited that you are making this game so boring on purpose :P either way, running around and having to nuke out people would still be more interesting than current stagnation. No, I'm saying that whatever happens people will still look for the most efficient way to run things and that you won't suddenly split up groups of cooperating alliances all the time they benefit from that cooperation.
And lol, Tri talking about SMAs relevance in null. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:51:00 -
[631] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: They don;t have to fight the CFC, that's a choice they've made. You're suggesting that choice is entirely because we happen to be nearby. Indeed. Open Dotlan! Everything around their station is CFC land. They can't fight anyone else but CFC. Sure, they could move somewhere else, but somebody else already live there. If they move to NPC Fountain, they have to fight CFC. If they move to NPC Delve, they have to fight CFC. If they move Stain, they have to fight N3. If they move Great Wilderlands, they have to fight PL. Anywhere they move they have to fight someone competent who lives there. Their choices are: - deciding which one of the big empires they fight - or they can give up, crawl back to Empire and disband Or they could rent. Or they could move to Provi where it's NRDS.
MoA aren't only fighting because they can't find anywhere safe to rat. Like seriously dude.
Gevlon Goblin wrote:With the new proposal, most land will be abandoned and open for anyone. The nearest able enemy will be 20+ jumps away. Sure, they will form an anti-CFC roam once a week or so, just for the old times sake, but they won't have conflict of interest with the CFC. The CFC will be a bad historic enemy to them, like BoB is to Goons. Old MoA members will tell stories about the glorious days of fighting CFC to new ones, but for new ones CFC will be just another bunch of players 20 jumps away. How do you know they will be 20 jumps away? And there would be even more NPC space they could move into, or they could even take their own sov. You realise that MoA hating CFC isn't because they happen to be nearby, right? It's an RP conflict they've chosen because we are a large enemy to fight. They want to fight people, and they will find people to fight wherever they go. They won;t suddenly start ratting just because people move around null a bit.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:57:00 -
[632] - Quote
Regatto wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:My suggestion nerfs or boosts various areas of nullsec dynamically, meaning that your huge alliance, currently sitting on the best content in game suddenly finds itself sitting on space not much better than low sec. How would that not drive conflict? Well it wouldn't really be "conflict". We'd just migrate to whatever section of space is now good and evict whoever is living there. Chances are we'd work out details with N3/PL so we can keep up the current PvP and continue to ensure survival for us both, much like B0TLRD keeps us from nuking each others income streams. So "you"(lets admit SMA is irrelevant in the matter) pretty much admited that you are making this game so boring on purpose :P either way, running around and having to nuke out people would still be more interesting than current stagnation.
SMA holds assets and sovereignty in space. Please let us know when TRI is able follow suit, then we might take your comment on the relevancy of SMA seriously. |

Rahelis
Tris Legomenon
114
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:09:00 -
[633] - Quote
It is a shame that those noobs that broke the game now try to fix it - the jalta pic in mits post really fits into the grander landscape.
All those players should biomass their chars.
EVE needs fresh ideas and devs willing to approach new ways of gaming that provide content.
Not sov null version 2.0
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13414
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:11:00 -
[634] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote: Where are these magical tens of thousands now? Why are they not fighting right now? Or you claim that highsec miners will take the abandoned space and will form deadly small gangs?
They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us.
Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:23:00 -
[635] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote: Where are these magical tens of thousands now? Why are they not fighting right now? Or you claim that highsec miners will take the abandoned space and will form deadly small gangs?
They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us. Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob.
Well, considering such Goon sponsored events as Burn Jita and Hulkageddon, and such Goon sponsored organizations as CODE and Miniluv, and the longstanding desire of Goons to cajole (or even force) players to leave highsec for nullsec, it's quite reasonable that those who oppose that agenda would make their voices heard, and critically analyze the proposed "solutions" for nullsec, with a specific focus on how they buff nullsec rewards, and serve as a relative nerf on highsec income, which will attract more players to nullsec.
It's not "grrr.... Goons," it's just common sense. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:24:00 -
[636] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:This is simply because MoA does not have the organization, capability or competency to hold assets in space under current system.
Pretty much because every time they try they get blobbed by one unnamed 30k pilots big coalition which goes for any other alliance in this game, neither would any cfc alliance on it's own would be able to hold sov...except gsf probably. But this kind of discussion is off topic.
Im still more interested in idea about sov occupancy..."leaders of nullsec" did make their famous open letter but didn't really say how to implement it. I don't suppose system would belong to anyone who would rat there most right? Eve conquering should be still about shooting stuff, space being unoccupied should only make this somehow easier. Maybe change to how strategic upgrades work would be viable? Technically military/industrial upgrades work on that principal already.
Right now you need to hold system for several days/weeks to be able to instal cyno jammer/beacon etc. Relating this occupancy could make power projection harder since you couldn't have cyno beacons in systems you dont use...but then again I don't see how that can be done.
I still think sov needs to be way more vulnarable, and not only in unoccupied systems. Systems on daily use must be easier to take as well, otherwise invasions/sov wars won't get very encouraged. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13416
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:25:00 -
[637] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote: Where are these magical tens of thousands now? Why are they not fighting right now? Or you claim that highsec miners will take the abandoned space and will form deadly small gangs?
They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us. Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob. Well, considering such Goon sponsored events as Burn Jita and Hulkageddon, and such Goon sponsored organizations as CODE and Miniluv, and the longstanding desire of Goons to cajole (or even force) players to leave highsec for nullsec, it's quite reasonable that those who oppose that agenda would make their voices heard, and critically analyze the proposed "solutions" for nullsec, with a specific focus on how they buff nullsec rewards, and serve as a relative nerf on highsec income, which will attract more players to nullsec. It's not "grrr.... Goons," it's just common sense.
What is so bad about null being attractive to come to? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Snot Shot
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
866
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:29:00 -
[638] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote: Where are these magical tens of thousands now? Why are they not fighting right now? Or you claim that highsec miners will take the abandoned space and will form deadly small gangs?
They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us. Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob. ItGÇÖs pretty common knowledge that if you want a toon in Null Sec you just need to join any of the CFC Alliances as the recruitment requirement is pretty low. So if anyone is "stuck outside of null" then they probably only have one account.
And yeah, thats pretty whacky that the only people kicking up a stink in this thread are non-goonie......who wudah thunk dat.....
Anywhoo......the Null "Back Room" Deal thatGÇÖs being promoted looks like a Trojan horse approach. "Just get it through the door and by the time they stop to really examine what its carrying it will be too late"... . Twitter = @Snot_Shot-á - GÇ£If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"
evesnotshot.blogspot.com |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4286
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:37:00 -
[639] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, considering such Goon sponsored events as Burn Jita and Hulkageddon, and such Goon sponsored organizations as CODE and Miniluv, and the longstanding desire of Goons to cajole (or even force) players to leave highsec for nullsec, it's quite reasonable that those who oppose that agenda would make their voices heard, and critically analyze the proposed "solutions" for nullsec, with a specific focus on how they buff nullsec rewards, and serve as a relative nerf on highsec income, which will attract more players to nullsec.
It's not "grrr.... Goons," it's just common sense. Lets face it though, most of these people are arguing because the idea is backed by goons, not because they disagree with the idea. Half of them probably haven't got a clue what they are disagreeing with. The insane thing is how many times this has been raised as an idea on F&I by the non-null guys and how it's the same crowd now suddenly like "activity based sov? NO WAY GOONS!".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:37:00 -
[640] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
What is so bad about null being attractive to come to?
Nothing per se. Just like there is nothing wrong with highsec, lowsec, or wormholes being attractive. All different types of space should be attractive for folks seeking that type of experience. So people should go to nullsec to be able to participate in player controlled alliances, to control large swaths of space, and for large scale pvp fleet combat. People should go to lowsec for small gang pvp and faction warfare, and some measure of security on gates. People should go to wormholes for the cloak and dagger mechanics, the secrecy, and the chance to be part of a small group to make an impact. And people should go to highsec for relative safety and security, relaxed collaborative PvE, wardecc mechanics, and robust trade hubs.
And that's great. Now the problem is that nullsec has become stagnant and boring. Supercapital fleets sit in drydock, people dock up to avoid fleet fights, and everyone is just looking for turkey shoots. The large powerblocs fail to engage each other, and everyone is kinda bored and depressed.
The problem is that the suggested changes do nothing to fundamentally change that malady. Instead, they just serve to consolidate sov and make farming easier. It's basically bribing people to come to nullsec without making it any more exciting, and that just doesn't make sense.
What is really needed are fundamental changes to get the large powerblocs to meaningfully engage each other in supercapital combat, to actually have some of the major alliances collapse, and to radically shake things up throughout. Stop having a design where the natural progression is towards larger and larger alliances that are too risk averse for the kind of total war that nullsec should be about. |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13416
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:42:00 -
[641] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
The problem is that the suggested changes do nothing to fundamentally change that malady. Instead, they just serve to consolidate sov and make farming easier. It's basically bribing people to come to nullsec without making it any more exciting, and that just doesn't make sense.
These changes are only to deal with the need for massive galaxy spanning empires. There are other fixes needed for the other issues null faces. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:46:00 -
[642] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us.
70% of the CFC losses come from non-sov holders, so owning sov isn't a pre-requisite of fighting. My question is, can you point at an organization that isn't killing CFC now and with this suggestion will start killing CFC? Where are they?
baltec1 wrote:Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob. Yeah, it's pretty funny. I mean this proposal is a selfless one, CFC, PL, N3 all gave up their own interests to help the little guys. Yet only the CFC, PL, N3 posters support it, and all the "little guys" hate it. We are a very ungrateful bunch and don't deserve your kindness. Maybe you should teach us a lesson and withdraw your generous suggestion. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Rumbaldi
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:49:00 -
[643] - Quote
NPC 0.0 in every sov region????... so you can just park up those sub cap fleets in convenient places in every null sec system, so that any force projection change that nerfs range will not really affect anyone, because the ships will already be in NPC 0.0 just waiting for the pilot. |

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:49:00 -
[644] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
The problem is that the suggested changes do nothing to fundamentally change that malady. Instead, they just serve to consolidate sov and make farming easier. It's basically bribing people to come to nullsec without making it any more exciting, and that just doesn't make sense.
These changes are only to deal with the need for massive galaxy spanning empires. There are other fixes needed for the other issues null faces.
Are you saying that there would be no requirement for the CFC to stay together if you get the sort of sov-system you are after?
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:54:00 -
[645] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:baltec1 wrote: They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us.
70% of the CFC losses come from non-sov holders, so owning sov isn't a pre-requisite of fighting. My question is, can you point at an organization that isn't killing CFC now and with this suggestion will start killing CFC? Where are they? baltec1 wrote:Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob. Yeah, it's pretty funny. I mean this proposal is a selfless one, CFC, PL, N3 all gave up their own interests to help the little guys. Yet only the CFC, PL, N3 posters support it, and all the "little guys" hate it. We are a very ungrateful bunch and don't deserve your kindness. Maybe you should teach us a lesson and withdraw your generous suggestion.
Actually Im pretty sure 70% of CFC losses come from Guristas |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4286
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:55:00 -
[646] - Quote
By the way, the following idea was posted by someone totally against activity based sov:
Quote:Maybe CCP should change the sov mechanics to something like this:
- All mining towers and stations are NPC operated and indestructible. - The system starts with no sov holder, the system is NPC null and the moon goo belongs to no one, no cyno jammer is present. - In "NPC null" state, the sov-number is calculated as the ratio of ISK destroyed (not looted) in kills by your alliance. If your alliance destroyed 32% of ISK in the system in the last 30 days, you have 32% sov points. - (after 30 days of data available) if your alliance is over 30% and has 10% more than the second highest you become the sov holder. You get the moon goo, you control the station and can erect a cyno jammer. The sov number resets. - If the sov is held by an alliance, the sov number is calculated as "ISK destroyed by owners vs ISK destroyed by everyone else against the owners (not on randoms) in the system in the last 30 days". - (after the 30 days grace period) if the sov number goes below 50%, you lose sov and NPC null state returns.
Any guesses on who? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
299
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:56:00 -
[647] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob.Yeah, it's pretty funny. I mean this proposal is a selfless one, CFC, PL, N3 all gave up their own interests to help the little guys. Yet only the CFC, PL, N3 posters support it, and all the "little guys" hate it. We are a very ungrateful bunch and don't deserve your kindness. Maybe you should teach us a lesson and withdraw your generous suggestion.
As someone else not currently N3/CFC/PL and a "little guy" I'll also say I'm seeing a distinct lack of any better ideas from the non-occupancy based sov side.
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13416
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:57:00 -
[648] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
The problem is that the suggested changes do nothing to fundamentally change that malady. Instead, they just serve to consolidate sov and make farming easier. It's basically bribing people to come to nullsec without making it any more exciting, and that just doesn't make sense.
These changes are only to deal with the need for massive galaxy spanning empires. There are other fixes needed for the other issues null faces. Are you saying that there would be no requirement for the CFC to stay together if you get the sort of sov-system you are after?
There would be no pressing need like today, it will not mean we break up though.
The aim of this change is not to smash up the coalitions its to shrink our empire dramatically so that there is room for others to enter null. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Heat-seeking Moisture Missile
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:59:00 -
[649] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Speedkermit Damo][quote=baltec1][quote=Veers Belvar]
The aim of this change is not to smash up the coalitions its to shrink our empire dramatically so that there is room for others to enter null.
Yeah I wanna see 500-2500 man alliances thrive in their on sov space.
:content: and fun baby!
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13416
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:03:00 -
[650] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:My question is, can you point at an organization that isn't killing CFC now and with this suggestion will start killing CFC? Where are they?
In NPC null, in lowsec, in WH and in HS.
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Yeah, it's pretty funny. I mean this proposal is a selfless one, CFC, PL, N3 all gave up their own interests to help the little guys. Yet only the CFC, PL, N3 posters support it, and all the "little guys" hate it. We are a very ungrateful bunch and don't deserve your kindness. Maybe you should teach us a lesson and withdraw your generous suggestion.
Its not all the little guys. Its shiptoasters such as yourself who spring up every time the mittani or goons get mentioned and a handful of alliance/corp posters who are still bitter about getting stomped on/kicked out of the CFC. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|

Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
776
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:04:00 -
[651] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ocih wrote:Andski wrote:Unless you honestly believe that rules of engagement were the deciding factor in the fact that two coalitions own basically all of nullsec NBSI isn't about the rules of engagement, it's about the rules of peace. NBSI does 'work'. It creates a theater of 0 hostility. It eliminates all option for wide scale threat. It creates blue donuts. Of course that's a double edged sword. We now have a passive null sec and that seems to be the complaint. Sorry, I won't support change in EVE when the people crying for change won't? Change. :tldr You got what you wanted. Now rot in it. Or change. Unlike NRDS which is essentially NBSI with a gigantic red list instead of a short blue list Again, you're wrong and NBSI has nothing to do with the current situation
The NRDS system is a three point system. Blue, Red and Neutral. You continue to neglect the Neutrals.The NBSI system is a fence, nobody is neutral. Blue Donut is not a mechanic. It's a place in time that came about from NBSI game play. It has happened before. In addition, there are aspects of Provi Bloc NRDS I think could be improved upon and refined.
There are other factors to this, factors you haven't mentioned that make an NRDS sector of CFC unlikely. - One, you don't have the credibility to run it. - Two, you could argue if it did take off, you would see more PvE but not PvP. I'm pretty sure the the obvious is at play here though. The only hot spots in EVE right now are in NRDS space. - History also shows the Nerf bat follows the populace and not mechanical balance factors. So introducing more people to Null is going to see the nerf bat make its way out of popular high sec.
By the nature of your solution you are in fact agreeing with me, NBSI is the problem. You don't want me, A Neutral to dock up in your stations. You want CCP to offer NPC stations I can dock up in. I can tell you based on the option to move to Sansha regions now has crossed my mind but I can't create supply lines to get there. I can't create a logistics scenario that lets me live there.
The true difference I think we have is, you seem content with Null populace and are fine with dividing up the Null players in to Blue and not blue. My goal for Null is to see more people in it and to include the true neutral. The people who don't hate you, don't like you, don't care what you do. They make up 70% of the EVE population. |

Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:05:00 -
[652] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:baltec1 wrote: They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us.
70% of the CFC losses come from non-sov holders, so owning sov isn't a pre-requisite of fighting. My question is, can you point at an organization that isn't killing CFC now and with this suggestion will start killing CFC? Where are they? baltec1 wrote:Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob. Yeah, it's pretty funny. I mean this proposal is a selfless one, CFC, PL, N3 all gave up their own interests to help the little guys. Yet only the CFC, PL, N3 posters support it, and all the "little guys" hate it. We are a very ungrateful bunch and don't deserve your kindness. Maybe you should teach us a lesson and withdraw your generous suggestion.
The point of fixing sovereignty is not conformity for your Grr Goons narrative, nobody is going to hand you out a magic bullet or do your work for you, especially not CCP. You should not expect CCP to change the game according to what you want, just because you personally cannot reach that point in game. Why should CCP personally bail you out?
'Little guys' do not hate it, they are behind this initiative. 90% of null, not just sov empires, have found a common ground, and came up with this. Anyone else objecting are hard to take seriously because of the tinfoil on their heads and their hilarious inability to represent a viable alternative suggestion.
By the way, it's hard to take someone seriously talking about 'fighting' who has never 'fought' in the first place. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13416
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:14:00 -
[653] - Quote
Ocih wrote:The only hot spots in EVE right now are in NRDS space.
That would be the war currently going on down there, not because of their NBDS policy. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
4011
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:30:00 -
[654] - Quote
well that certainly sounds interesting |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6282
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:38:00 -
[655] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:With the new proposal, most land will be abandoned and open for anyone. The nearest able enemy will be 20+ jumps away. Sure, they will form an anti-CFC roam once a week or so, just for the old times sake, but they won't have conflict of interest with the CFC. The CFC will be a bad historic enemy to them, like BoB is to Goons. Old MoA members will tell stories about the glorious days of fighting CFC to new ones, but for new ones CFC will be just another bunch of players 20 jumps away.
That's the point of the new proposal, coupled with the fact that they could move in to NPC Deklein. And oh my, 20 jumps is too far for MOA? What a tragedy. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4288
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:45:00 -
[656] - Quote
Ocih wrote:The NRDS system is a three point system. Blue, Red and Neutral. You continue to neglect the Neutrals.The NBSI system is a fence, nobody is neutral. Blue Donut is not a mechanic. It's a place in time that came about from NBSI game play. It has happened before. In addition, there are aspects of Provi Bloc NRDS I think could be improved upon and refined.
There are other factors to this, factors you haven't mentioned that make an NRDS sector of CFC unlikely. - One, you don't have the credibility to run it. - Two, you could argue if it did take off, you would see more PvE but not PvP. I'm pretty sure the the obvious is at play here though. The only hot spots in EVE right now are in NRDS space. - History also shows the Nerf bat follows the populace and not mechanical balance factors. So introducing more people to Null is going to see the nerf bat make its way out of popular high sec.
By the nature of your solution you are in fact agreeing with me, NBSI is the problem. You don't want me, A Neutral to dock up in your stations. You want CCP to offer NPC stations I can dock up in. I can tell you based on the option to move to Sansha regions now has crossed my mind but I can't create supply lines to get there. I can't create a logistics scenario that lets me live there.
The true difference I think we have is, you seem content with Null populace and are fine with dividing up the Null players in to Blue and not blue. My goal for Null is to see more people in it and to include the true neutral. The people who don't hate you, don't like you, don't care what you do. They make up 70% of the EVE population. I'm pretty sure if we were NRDS, everyone would just be red or blue.
And anyway, the problem is that sov mechanics favour enormous groups by their very nature, so creating super coalitions is simply the best way to efficiently hold space. NRDS wouldn't change who owns the space, it would just be allowing free renting. It may work for proviblock since they life in space so terrible that nearly nobody wants it, but it really wouldn't work with serious null alliances. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Bhuda Slash
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:46:00 -
[657] - Quote
I endorse this post.
No animals were harmed during this post.
May contain traces of nuts, palm oil and coffee harvested in the 3rd world using Amarr slaves.
Names of the slaves have been changed to protect their masters. |

Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
776
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:50:00 -
[658] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ocih wrote:The only hot spots in EVE right now are in NRDS space. That would be the war currently going on down there, not because of their NBDS policy.
Provi Bloc opposition is an evolved group who decided it was 'corrupt' by being in that space. They seeded their own pew pew just by being NRDS. Being seen as a manageable target plays in to it as well but in any CFC pilot project with NRDS space, that can be in the benefit of CFC. Most neutrals won't see CFC as a valid target to oppose because they are seen as too strong to beat. They might go there to get a piece of you but they won't bite off more than they can chew, like what happens in Provi a lot. |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
301
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:56:00 -
[659] - Quote
So from a "little guy" in support of the idea:
1) I love the idea of more NPC null. We're a little band of merry BLOPSers but hey its a living. As someone who does the logistics for these fleets and has a very good network of cyno alts staged around, its a giant PITA to get to some places in null. Yes I CAN get to Tenal and the upper left hand corner of Deklein on dotlan.... that doesn't make it practical. A little NPC space fixes this.
2) If all this accomplishes is that N3/PL/CFC can't rent the SW corner of the map in a practical fashion, we've made room for another big block at least. Thats progress and buys CCP some time to fix stuff to get MORE players in the game. Then we can look at making them some more room.
3) We don't know the mechanics of the force projection nerf or the mechanics of the sov system. The nerf to force projection may make it impractical to move your slowcat/boot fleet too far from home. Those sudden sov drops can suck after all...
|

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:09:00 -
[660] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:That's the point of the new proposal, coupled with the fact that they could move in to NPC Deklein. And oh my, 20 jumps is too far for MOA? What a tragedy. No, it's not far geographically. But it's very far politically. I mean - the Goons will be no threat to them, fighting for "freedom and independence" will be silly as the last Goon they've seen in Pure Blind was a lost noob in a Rifter 3 last month. - Goons won't have anything MoA want or reasonably could take either. Sure they'd still have Deklein Sov, but PB sov is just as good and under occupancy Sov mechanics they are struggling to keep the indexes of one PB constellation up. - The corp of Arthasdkl+¦l recently left WoW for EVE because he heard they have open world housing and there are lot of free "land spots" in Pure Blind. They provide much easier "fights" than the Nyx-ratter Goons.
So there would be absolutely no reason to shoot Goons besides "Grr Goons". And "Grr Goons" is only interesting while Goons are relevant. After Goons would be just a small spot on the map, hating them would be rather idiotic, just like when The Mittani makes a hate speech against BoB who were destroyed before I started playing 3 years ago.
The reason of this proposal is to shrink the large coalitions into small spots so people stop bumping into them and killing them. 3.3T/month was probably too much.
Anyway, I'm completely sure that this suggestion serves no one but the signatories. Which is kind of obvious, see Malcanis law. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |
|

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:09:00 -
[661] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:NRDS is the personal choice of a single Bloc. It's up to them if they want to use NRDS, NBSI or NPSI. These are all fairly minor concerns, if at all. It's part of the meta game.
Got it, my way or the highway. Well, we don't have CCP's directions on how they are going to change null-sec, so until then, this thread is pure speculation and rumor mongering.
Ok, so you're being truculent because of who I fly with. Or you don't understand that NRDS or whatever is nothing to do with these changes. |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6288
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:35:00 -
[662] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:That's the point of the new proposal, coupled with the fact that they could move in to NPC Deklein. And oh my, 20 jumps is too far for MOA? What a tragedy. No, it's not far geographically. But it's very far politically. I mean - the Goons will be no threat to them, fighting for "freedom and independence" will be silly as the last Goon they've seen in Pure Blind was a lost noob in a Rifter 3 last month. - Goons won't have anything MoA want or reasonably could take either. Sure they'd still have Deklein Sov, but PB sov is just as good and under occupancy Sov mechanics they are struggling to keep the indexes of one PB constellation up. - The corp of Arthasdkl+¦l recently left WoW for EVE because he heard they have open world housing and there are lot of free "land spots" in Pure Blind. They provide much easier "fights" than the Nyx-ratter Goons. So there would be absolutely no reason to shoot Goons besides "Grr Goons". And "Grr Goons" is only interesting while Goons are relevant. After Goons would be just a small spot on the map, hating them would be rather idiotic, just like when The Mittani makes a hate speech against BoB who were destroyed before I started playing 3 years ago. The reason of this proposal is to shrink the large coalitions into small spots so people stop bumping into them and killing them. 3.3T/month was probably too much. Anyway, I'm completely sure that this suggestion serves no one but the signatories. Which is kind of obvious, see Malcanis law.
There is so many things wrong with everything you have said. Delusion is an amusing thing. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
212
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:42:00 -
[663] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:So from a "little guy" in support of the idea:
1) I love the idea of more NPC null. We're a little band of merry BLOPSers but hey its a living. As someone who does the logistics for these fleets and has a very good network of cyno alts staged around, its a giant PITA to get to some places in null. Yes I CAN get to Tenal and the upper left hand corner of Deklein on dotlan.... that doesn't make it practical. A little NPC space fixes this.
2) If all this accomplishes is that N3/PL/CFC can't rent the SW corner of the map in a practical fashion, we've made room for another big block at least. Thats progress and buys CCP some time to fix stuff to get MORE players in the game. Then we can look at making them some more room.
3) We don't know the mechanics of the force projection nerf or the mechanics of the sov system. The nerf to force projection may make it impractical to move your slowcat/boot fleet too far from home. Those sudden sov drops can suck after all...
This http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-voices-have-spoken-but-to-what-end/
Goon are out in force in this thread.
Goon propaganda.
|

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6288
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:45:00 -
[664] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Toriessian wrote:So from a "little guy" in support of the idea:
1) I love the idea of more NPC null. We're a little band of merry BLOPSers but hey its a living. As someone who does the logistics for these fleets and has a very good network of cyno alts staged around, its a giant PITA to get to some places in null. Yes I CAN get to Tenal and the upper left hand corner of Deklein on dotlan.... that doesn't make it practical. A little NPC space fixes this.
2) If all this accomplishes is that N3/PL/CFC can't rent the SW corner of the map in a practical fashion, we've made room for another big block at least. Thats progress and buys CCP some time to fix stuff to get MORE players in the game. Then we can look at making them some more room.
3) We don't know the mechanics of the force projection nerf or the mechanics of the sov system. The nerf to force projection may make it impractical to move your slowcat/boot fleet too far from home. Those sudden sov drops can suck after all...
This http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-voices-have-spoken-but-to-what-end/Goon are out in force in this thread. Goon propaganda.
Quote:Call me a bit pretentious, but nothing null blocs have done or supported could ever be construed as less than self-serving, in my opinion.
Maybe the blog person can explain how us supporting the tech nerf was self serving, considering we had an agreement on that due to the big coalitions owning all of it. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
212
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:48:00 -
[665] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote: Maybe the blog person can explain how us supporting the tech nerf was self serving, considering we had an agreement on that due to the big coalitions owning all of it.
Do I see tears? What does that have to do with anything except you spewing the thread. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:53:00 -
[666] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote: Maybe the blog person can explain how us supporting the tech nerf was self serving, considering we had an agreement on that due to the big coalitions owning all of it.
Do I see tears? calling out bullshit isn't tears you ******
Arsine Mayhem wrote:What does that have to do with anything except you spewing the thread. I dunno, you were the one linking the post that claims all of our actions are self-serving Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
212
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:00:00 -
[667] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote: Maybe the blog person can explain how us supporting the tech nerf was self serving, considering we had an agreement on that due to the big coalitions owning all of it.
Do I see tears? calling out bullshit isn't tears you ****** Arsine Mayhem wrote:What does that have to do with anything except you spewing the thread. I dunno, you were the one linking the post that claims all of our actions are self-serving
R U Mad?
That's why you're camped out on the forums spewing propaganda. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
4012
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:01:00 -
[668] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:After Goons would be just a small spot on the map, hating them would be rather idiotic, is hating a social organisation any more justified or reasonable only because it's influential |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:08:00 -
[669] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:R U Mad? yes, I tend to get angry when confronted with stupid people
but do feel free to explain, at any point, how advocating for a tech nerf was one of those self-serving actions of ours, I'm genuinely interested Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
783
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:10:00 -
[670] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote: - the Goons will be no threat to them, fighting for "freedom and independence" will be silly as the last Goon they've seen in Pure Blind was a lost noob in a Rifter 3 last month.
So are you saying that your main opposition to this is because the people you pay to shoot at us will have less reason to shoot at us?
|
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
212
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:12:00 -
[671] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:R U Mad? yes, I tend to get angry when confronted with stupid people but do feel free to explain, at any point, how advocating for a tech nerf was one of those self-serving actions of ours, I'm genuinely interested
Stupid people have problems focusing on the subject. |

Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
216
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:12:00 -
[672] - Quote
ok - so instead of seeing massive alliances stomp all over small ones at timer based points like POS-timers, we'll see the massive alliance perma-camping the small alliance's system, forcing them out, EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO ESTABLISH
bullies never like upstarts, and that's basically what sov is - being able to bully someone else out. For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it WILL be. |

Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
155
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:14:00 -
[673] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:That's the point of the new proposal, coupled with the fact that they could move in to NPC Deklein. And oh my, 20 jumps is too far for MOA? What a tragedy. No, it's not far geographically. But it's very far politically. I mean - the Goons will be no threat to them, fighting for "freedom and independence" will be silly as the last Goon they've seen in Pure Blind was a lost noob in a Rifter 3 last month. - Goons won't have anything MoA want or reasonably could take either. Sure they'd still have Deklein Sov, but PB sov is just as good and under occupancy Sov mechanics they are struggling to keep the indexes of one PB constellation up. - The corp of Arthasdkl+¦l recently left WoW for EVE because he heard they have open world housing and there are lot of free "land spots" in Pure Blind. They provide much easier "fights" than the Nyx-ratter Goons. So there would be absolutely no reason to shoot Goons besides "Grr Goons". And "Grr Goons" is only interesting while Goons are relevant. After Goons would be just a small spot on the map, hating them would be rather idiotic, just like when The Mittani makes a hate speech against BoB who were destroyed before I started playing 3 years ago. The reason of this proposal is to shrink the large coalitions into small spots so people stop bumping into them and killing them. 3.3T/month was probably too much.
Your posts strike me particularly under this thread as the handiwork of someone who doesn't know what he is talking about.
-Goons have everything that MoA could want, but cannot hope to reasonably take and hold onto in the current system. MoA lacks the competence, organization and the numbers to take and hold any assets. They have been around since 2007. MoA's failure and inability to be relevant at sov politics has nothing to do with game mechanics. Goons were flying around in Rifters at that time, and now the coalition Goons are leading are controlling half the sov null.
-MoA isn't organizationally threatened by Goons since they don't (can't) control anything as an organization. MoA exists to kill inattentive, careless ratters. MoA aren't freedom fighters or warriors, they are rather, analogue to terrorists only capable of hitting soft targets such as inattentive ratters or offline towers. Therefore, since MoA isn't a danger to any null block and coalition, there is no existential threat from anyone towards MoA.
-Nobody rats in a Nyx. Your ignorance reveals itself nicely with that ridiculous claim.
What 3.3T/month? Are you seriously taking this opportunity to put forward a bunch of badly analyzed and highly cooked up data points and claim personal victory over something? We are used to your routinely shifting goal posts and cooked up numbers covering up your personal failures in EVE, but perhaps you can entertain us by explaining to everyone how much damage you have caused against, say, N3 and PL? (They are our competition and signatories)
Highsec and ratting losses do not affect any alliance, coalition or corporation. But please, by all means, continue to ignore this and keep up providing us with quality comedy and entertainment. |

Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
155
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:27:00 -
[674] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote: - the Goons will be no threat to them, fighting for "freedom and independence" will be silly as the last Goon they've seen in Pure Blind was a lost noob in a Rifter 3 last month.
So are you saying that your main opposition to this is because the people you pay to shoot at us will have less reason to shoot at us?
Good lord! Heaven forbid, that actually might reveal his whole "MoA kills ratters because of me, Marmite decs major entities in EVE because of me, I'm rich and only I am able to keep funding them" drivel is false. He wouldn't want that, as it would ultimately show that what Gevlon is able to spend is peanuts and nobody cares about peanuts much to do his personal bidding.
In other news, emulating his ~success~, I'm going to buy a single share of Microsoft first thing tomorrow and will start blogging about how I am the driving power behind the supremacy of Windows in the personal OS market. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:28:00 -
[675] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Stupid people have problems focusing on the subject. everything that was to be said about the original subject must already have been said, because all that's come up in the last couple of pages have been conspiracy theories about how this proposal is GSF trying to... uh make it less mandatory for us to hold as much space as we currently do, and that is somehow bad for the game
but by all means, continue advocating for the status quo, I'm sure nobody is discontent with two large powerblocs holding basically all of nullsec short of a couple of rounding errors Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
301
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:33:00 -
[676] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote: Goon are out in force in this thread.
Goon propaganda.
So you have absolutely nothing to say about any of the content I actually posted. Your only rebuttal is I'm a goon alt. Is there some kind of little achievement trophy in EVE for getting called that?
I'm going to put this in a way I know you understand it. You are making SpaceMonkey's Alliance look very intelligent today.
|

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:35:00 -
[677] - Quote
Let us just leave it at whatever toys CCP throws into the sand pit, the players will eventually break them and we'll be back here all over again.
The game is finished because the two largest blocs are too chicken to declare war on each other.
And those Something Awful DW say it's only a game. You'd think they'd revel in the chaos and destruction. That's why I believe someone is earning coin from the status quo. It's quite inexplicable otherwise. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:51:00 -
[678] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:The game is finished because the two largest blocs are too chicken to declare war on each other. Where's the point? There's nothing fun about shoving 1500 people (each side) into a system and have them slug it out at 10% tidi in soul-crushing lag. Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
783
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:51:00 -
[679] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote: The game is finished because the two largest blocs are too chicken to declare war on each other.
We have nothing to fight over, and any fight between us will also involve everyone else in Eve wanting to get on some titan KMs piling into a single system, and turning a 2 hour fight into a 20 hour fight.
|

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:56:00 -
[680] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:The game is finished because the two largest blocs are too chicken to declare war on each other. Where's the point? There's nothing fun about shoving 1500 people (each side) into a system and have them slug it out at 10% tidi in soul-crushing lag.
I know, it's true. That's why I said the game is broken, end-game, finished, done for. |
|

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
131
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:57:00 -
[681] - Quote
more npc space = more empire gangs that come to null sec to play station games "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mine" -Dr. Smith |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11468
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:06:00 -
[682] - Quote
Snot Shot wrote:Anywhoo......the Null " Back Room" Deal thatGÇÖs being promoted looks like a Trojan horse approach. "Just get it through the door and by the time they stop to really examine what its carrying it will be too late"... 
we want people to tear this to bits and examine it critically
but all of these dumb posts about ~ulterior motives~ merely decrease the signal to noise ratio Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
776
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:08:00 -
[683] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Ocih wrote:The NRDS system is a three point system. Blue, Red and Neutral. You continue to neglect the Neutrals.The NBSI system is a fence, nobody is neutral. Blue Donut is not a mechanic. It's a place in time that came about from NBSI game play. It has happened before. In addition, there are aspects of Provi Bloc NRDS I think could be improved upon and refined.
There are other factors to this, factors you haven't mentioned that make an NRDS sector of CFC unlikely. - One, you don't have the credibility to run it. - Two, you could argue if it did take off, you would see more PvE but not PvP. I'm pretty sure the the obvious is at play here though. The only hot spots in EVE right now are in NRDS space. - History also shows the Nerf bat follows the populace and not mechanical balance factors. So introducing more people to Null is going to see the nerf bat make its way out of popular high sec.
By the nature of your solution you are in fact agreeing with me, NBSI is the problem. You don't want me, A Neutral to dock up in your stations. You want CCP to offer NPC stations I can dock up in. I can tell you based on the option to move to Sansha regions now has crossed my mind but I can't create supply lines to get there. I can't create a logistics scenario that lets me live there.
The true difference I think we have is, you seem content with Null populace and are fine with dividing up the Null players in to Blue and not blue. My goal for Null is to see more people in it and to include the true neutral. The people who don't hate you, don't like you, don't care what you do. They make up 70% of the EVE population. I'm pretty sure if we were NRDS, everyone would just be red or blue. And anyway, the problem is that sov mechanics favour enormous groups by their very nature, so creating super coalitions is simply the best way to efficiently hold space. NRDS wouldn't change who owns the space, it would just be allowing free renting. It may work for proviblock since they life in space so terrible that nearly nobody wants it, but it really wouldn't work with serious null alliances.
In my original suggestion that CFC introduce an NRDS aspect, the idea wasn't that they adopt an exclusive NRDS policy. I made that very clear too. They do it by system to region. I'd in fact suggest the same thing to CVA and their allies. That they make a few dead end systems military zones. This idea that Provi sucks and the only reason Provi is NRDS is because it sucks is false and lets face it. Most Sov space sucks in that it can't support itself as Sov space. How we subsidy the systems is working with both NRDS and NBSI but it's NBSI space that has no pew pew.
I don't see CCP adding more systems. It has been asked for a hundred times, ignored a hundred times. Maybe they could add wormhole space with non conquerable stations. Wormhole space that links deep Null to Low and High, offers little to no PvE content but insures a logistical PvP incursion point. Even that would evolve in to power bloc camping.
It still amounts to EVE being a machine and once you beat the machine, the only flexibility is on us. As it sits, none of us are flexible. Nothing CCP do is going to 'con' high sec people in to Null, nothing CCP do is going to stop Null bloc's from blobbing. As well intentioned as CFC and other parties might be, the solution is a band aid. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:15:00 -
[684] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote: The game is finished because the two largest blocs are too chicken to declare war on each other.
We have nothing to fight over, and any fight between us will also involve everyone else in Eve wanting to get on some titan KMs piling into a single system, and turning a 2 hour fight into a 20 hour fight.
well exactly! Eve null should be about nice fights where couple of alliances brawl it out together...not putting one coalition to two regions and having even more stupid tidi and lags  |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11468
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:16:00 -
[685] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Are you saying that there would be no requirement for the CFC to stay together if you get the sort of sov-system you are after?
The CFC exists because the sov system requires huge fleets to attack and defend timers. An occupancy based system takes away sov timers and requires an attrition campaign to contest sov. Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
213
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:44:00 -
[686] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Stupid people have problems focusing on the subject. everything that was to be said about the original subject must already have been said, because all that's come up in the last couple of pages have been conspiracy theories about how this proposal is GSF trying to... uh make it less mandatory for us to hold as much space as we currently do, and that is somehow bad for the game but by all means, continue advocating for the status quo, I'm sure nobody is discontent with two large powerblocs holding basically all of nullsec short of a couple of rounding errors
You forgot about the NPC stations for your launch points, clone jump points.
Goon are really out pushing their propaganda. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
214
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:03:00 -
[687] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote: Goon are out in force in this thread.
Goon propaganda.
So you have absolutely nothing to say about any of the content I actually posted. Your only rebuttal is I'm a goon alt. Is there some kind of little achievement trophy in EVE for getting called that? I'm going to put this in a way I know you understand it. You are making SpaceMonkey's Alliance look very intelligent today.
Oh but you conveniently left this out of the quote:
This http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-voices-have-spoken-but-to-what-end/
Bwaaahhhahahhaha |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4292
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:20:00 -
[688] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:R U Mad? yes, I tend to get angry when confronted with stupid people but do feel free to explain, at any point, how advocating for a tech nerf was one of those self-serving actions of ours, I'm genuinely interested Stupid people have problems focusing on the subject. Lol. In other words "I have no idea how to answer that, so I'm going to dodge the question by acting like a moron". Good job kiddo.
Toriessian wrote:I'm going to put this in a way I know you understand it. You are making SpaceMonkey's Alliance look very intelligent today. Psssh. Low blow dude.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4292
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:25:00 -
[689] - Quote
Ocih wrote:In my original suggestion that CFC introduce an NRDS aspect, the idea wasn't that they adopt an exclusive NRDS policy. I made that very clear too. They do it by system to region. I'd in fact suggest the same thing to CVA and their allies. That they make a few dead end systems military zones. This idea that Provi sucks and the only reason Provi is NRDS is because it sucks is false and lets face it. Most Sov space sucks in that it can't support itself as Sov space. How we subsidy the systems is working with both NRDS and NBSI but it's NBSI space that has no pew pew. But provi really does suck. The space is terrible and the people are about the equivalent of being in an NPC corp. There's no real identity to them, they are just a bunch of randoms who are too risk averse to fight each other. If that were what null turned into I'd just move to high sec.
Ocih wrote:It still amounts to EVE being a machine and once you beat the machine, the only flexibility is on us. As it sits, none of us are flexible. Nothing CCP do is going to 'con' high sec people in to Null, nothing CCP do is going to stop Null bloc's from blobbing. As well intentioned as CFC and other parties might be, the solution is a band aid. Mate, that's not going to happen. EVE players will always try to find the most efficient way of doing everything. The only way for that to stop is for the mechanics to evolve as the players do. You can't just go "well lets hope this time round the players are more flexible", since it's not going to happen. Sure, it would be nice if it could happen, but it never ever will. The thing is, nullsec isn't the only place this exists, this exists in incursions, faction warfare, mining, even highsec missions. Yet out of all of those, it's only nullsec that gets dogpiled onto by everyone and his nan about how null players are "doing it wrong". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
215
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:29:00 -
[690] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:R U Mad? yes, I tend to get angry when confronted with stupid people but do feel free to explain, at any point, how advocating for a tech nerf was one of those self-serving actions of ours, I'm genuinely interested Stupid people have problems focusing on the subject. Lol. In other words "I have no idea how to answer that, so I'm going to dodge the question by acting like a moron". Good job kiddo.
Maybe you should read the OP again. Seems you have problems focusing also. I don't see anything about moon goo.
Focus space monkey. |
|

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
301
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:31:00 -
[691] - Quote
We'll pick this apart piece by piece then. I put things from the article in Italics. This article doesn't refute anything and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The idea to put NPC null stations in every region gives large entities clone bay options to put their foot in whatever region they choose.
The idea that the CFC and N3/PL can't already deploy close enough to any region they want now to use their capital fleet is simply asinine. Since we're not removing existing low sec/null sec deployment points, this is largely an unwarranted fear. A nerf to jump drive range won't stop them from deploying after this.
The article also doesn't mention the possibility of a larger coalition getting a huge knife in the back if it deploys it's "APEX Force" to screw with a smaller entity. Remember the CFC has lost its space before. Sov has dropped suddenly before.
This was PRECISELY the complaint when I was with Li3 and FA. FrFrmPukin and other CFC voices were very verbal in their objections to the fact that here we had guys launching fight after fight against us and there was no way we could totally push them out because they staged in NPC stations.
This is the whole point and desirable. OMG we can't be 100% safe blergh hurr durr. Reread the note above and remember that the existing large null blocs can already deploy to hit anything they want. Every null sec entity should have to deal with randoms from null sec space.
Larger forces such as Pandemic Legion will always have a motivation to helicopter-**** whomever they choose as long as thereGÇÖs a fight. If you force the lesser entities to fight and lose, youGÇÖll drive the lesser entities out. The other option? Batphone. ThereGÇÖs quite the possibility that going to this kind of sov mechanic will put more Batphones in more hands and build more alliances out of need rather than convenience.
How does provi exist again? The game shouldn't reward competent diplomacy? Author is arguing against people forming groups more than the mechanics of this change. How does the author propose any group fight a larger one if its not "batphone". More batphones = more dead supers too.
Overall, this GÇ£agreementGÇ¥ MUST be construed as reactionary since it was drafted AFTER the CSM Summit.
What if what was presented at the summit was so bad nobody liked it? Is there any confirmation of what DID occur at the CSM summit? Or is this conjecture because the author doesn't like who the idea comes from? |

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:32:00 -
[692] - Quote
I've given this some thought and I'm actually gonna do a complete 180 on this. CCP should implement the whole population density thing post haste on TQ. I was wrong, I'm sorry.
To anyone opposed to the idea for misguided reasons, two questions to consider:
1) What happens when all the nullbears and renters of a coalition are condensed into ~10 pve systems and the surrounding systems are generally inadequate for pve due to lack of upgrades/activity?
2) What do renters fear most? |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4292
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:34:00 -
[693] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:R U Mad? yes, I tend to get angry when confronted with stupid people but do feel free to explain, at any point, how advocating for a tech nerf was one of those self-serving actions of ours, I'm genuinely interested Stupid people have problems focusing on the subject. Lol. In other words "I have no idea how to answer that, so I'm going to dodge the question by acting like a moron". Good job kiddo. Maybe you should read the OP again. Seems you have problems focusing also. I don't see anything about moon goo. Focus space monkey. No, what I see is a moron whining on about how goons are always self serving, followed by a goon pointing out a time when they clearly weren't asking how that fits the morons narrative, then the moron whining on about how that's not the subject. So basically you have nothing valid to say.
But I know, this is tears and I'm so mad and all that jazz, right? More diversionary bullshit. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2814
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:39:00 -
[694] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:I've given this some thought and I'm actually gonna do a complete 180 on this. CCP should implement the whole population density thing post haste on TQ. I was wrong, I'm sorry.
To anyone opposed to the idea for misguided reasons, two questions to consider:
1) What happens when all the nullbears and renters of a coalition are condensed into ~10 pve systems and the surrounding systems are generally inadequate for pve due to lack of upgrades/activity?
2) What do renters fear most?
I'm going to answer these rhetorical questions just because I can.
1) Why, local starts looking like highsec and god help you actually notice when someone new has come into a highsec system.
2) Okay, so I'm not going to answer both questions because I'm not a renter. |

Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:42:00 -
[695] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: 1) What happens when all the nullbears and renters of a coalition are condensed into ~10 pve systems and the surrounding systems are generally inadequate for pve due to lack of upgrades/activity?
They quit? Or am i stating the obvious? |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
215
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:46:00 -
[696] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote: yes, I tend to get angry when confronted with stupid people
but do feel free to explain, at any point, how advocating for a tech nerf was one of those self-serving actions of ours, I'm genuinely interested
Stupid people have problems focusing on the subject. Lol. In other words "I have no idea how to answer that, so I'm going to dodge the question by acting like a moron". Good job kiddo. Maybe you should read the OP again. Seems you have problems focusing also. I don't see anything about moon goo. Focus space monkey. No, what I see is a moron whining on about how goons are always self serving, followed by a goon pointing out a time when they clearly weren't asking how that fits the morons narrative, then the moron whining on about how that's not the subject. So basically you have nothing valid to say. But I know, this is tears and I'm so mad and all that jazz, right? More diversionary bullshit.
And who has access to moon goo besides cfc and n3. Seems to me I was reading a chat log with N3 telling another alliance "we want you're moons, move or we'll take it".
Yea, you did it for the good of all. At least that's what the propaganda reads.
But that's what propaganda is.
The tears are coming from the ones spewing the propaganda getting mad at those of us who see through it.
Go feed you're b s to someone else.
And by all means moar tears. |

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
733
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:46:00 -
[697] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But provi really does suck. The space is terrible and the people are about the equivalent of being in an NPC corp. There's no real identity to them, they are just a bunch of randoms who are too risk averse to fight each other. If that were what null turned into I'd just move to high sec.
You are part of the biggest coalition in the game, which makes you even more terrible because you are "just a bunch of randoms who are too risk averse to fight each other." They have an identity, their underlying roleplay as Amarr loyalists as well as providing open space with their NRDS policy and a testing ground for 00 Sec, their space is the most active 00 Sec space in all of EVE, which means that your "space is terrible", which is according to your own coalition members' statements 80%+ empty and unused. It is also the other Sov 00 entities and especially your coalition which propagate the use of AFKtars, it is your coalition who uses intriguing POS passwords to store valuables, which for me makes you "the equivalent of being in an NPC corp" that is only there to be farmed by others like red crosses.
So ... "If that were what null turned into" ... If 00 Sec actually became a bustling place of massively increased activity in more areas, if more people would actually use their space instead of having it lay around empty and unusable, you would "just move to high sec". Is that comprehensive summary correct so far? |

Plukovnik
Everyone vs Everything THE R0NIN
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:53:00 -
[698] - Quote
Problem: no enemies within 20+ jumps. Solution: disband coalitions, reset, cancel botlord agreement. You dont need CCP for this.
I hope CCP does not help nullsec holders even more. They deserve to drown in the swamp of boredom they created. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4292
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:53:00 -
[699] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:And who has access to moon goo besides cfc and n3. Seems to me I was reading a chat log with N3 telling another alliance "we want you're moons, move or we'll take it".
Yea, you did it for the good of all. At least that's what the propaganda reads.
But that's what propaganda is.
The tears are coming from the ones spewing the propaganda getting mad at those of us who see through it.
Go feed you're b s to someone else.
And by all means moar tears. Oh, I apologise, I thought you knew what the tech nerf actually was. It meant that the actual value of the moon goo went down, so the moons were worth less. They had the moons before the nerf, and could simply control the price as they controlled the entire supply. The change that goons supported was a considerable detriment to them, and was a leading factor in why they had to create a rental empire to recover funds they lost in that nerf.
And dude, you're the one here raging out yelling "propaganda" about things you seemingly have little to know knowledge of, so who's the mad one?  The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
2135
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:53:00 -
[700] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:I've given this some thought and I'm actually gonna do a complete 180 on this. CCP should implement the whole population density thing post haste on TQ. I was wrong, I'm sorry.
To anyone opposed to the idea for misguided reasons, two questions to consider:
1) What happens when all the nullbears and renters of a coalition are condensed into ~10 pve systems and the surrounding systems are generally inadequate for pve due to lack of upgrades/activity?
2) What do renters fear most? I'm going to answer these rhetorical questions just because I can. 1) Why, local starts looking like highsec and god help you actually notice when someone new has come into a highsec system. 2) Okay, so I'm not going to answer both questions because I'm not a renter. The answer to (1) and (2) is actually the same: The afk cloaker.
It's also probably the reason why pasta is a signatory of this proposal. |
|

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
522
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:54:00 -
[701] - Quote
If you think null is deserted now, wait until there are npc stations full of archon fleets and jump clones distributed neatly across all of null. It will make bridging and cynos feel like waiting for a postcard from your great aunt Mammy Thule. (without the mustache) |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4292
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:01:00 -
[702] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:You are part of the biggest coalition in the game, which makes you even more terrible because you are "just a bunch of randoms who are too risk averse to fight each other." Sure, I'll accept that. We've got specific allies though and we fight outside of that. From provi, you try to fight nobody by being open to everybody, and most groups move away if combat starts. It's the nullsec equivalent of high sec.
Rivr Luzade wrote:They have an identity, their underlying roleplay as Amarr loyalists as well as providing open space with their NRDS policy and a testing ground for 00 Sec, their space is the most active 00 Sec space in all of EVE, which means that your "space is terrible", which is according to your own coalition members' statements 80%+ empty and unused. Erm, no, they really don't. I've had alts in provi, and because they are open to everyone they have no direction, nothing that defines them. And that's also why their space is used even though it's terrible. And I don't mean we think it's terrible, I mean that it's a fact that the system layout and sizes combine with the truly awful true sec make it terrible.
Rivr Luzade wrote:It is also the other Sov 00 entities and especially your coalition which propagate the use of AFKtars, it is your coalition who uses intriguing POS passwords to store valuables, which for me makes you "the equivalent of being in an NPC corp" that is only there to be farmed by others like red crosses. Yes, we use afktar because it;s the most efficient way to make isk in null with minimal effort. You can roll around on your PvP pilot on one screen and grind isk on another. It would be nice if that wasn't the case, but apparently meaningful PvE has no place in EVE.
Rivr Luzade wrote:So ... "If that were what null turned into" ...  If 00 Sec actually became a bustling place of massively increased activity in more areas, if more people would actually use their space instead of having it lay around empty and unusable, you would "just move to high sec". Is that comprehensive summary correct so far? Lol. If null turned into a bustling place filled with random asshats whining whenever someone shot in their general direction who have absolutely no desire to cooperate in any way, just co-exist and grind isk for no particular reason, then yes, I'd just move to high sec where you get the same thing with a better market.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
213
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:05:00 -
[703] - Quote
There seems to be big need for sovereignty system change. In current system lots of empty systems are controlled by large alliances. My (evil) mind came up something that could help this situation:
Could Territorial Claim units require POS fuel blocks? This would force large alliances to maintain their areas. Also there would be window to sabotage sovereignty ownage by just attacking transport/industrial moving fuel blocks. If TCU runs out of fuel blocks it would be destroyed. TCU could require fuel blocks from all major races in EVE.
Comments are welcome for my idea. Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs. |

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:09:00 -
[704] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:If you think null is deserted now, wait until there are npc stations full of archon fleets and jump clones distributed neatly across all of null. It will make bridging and cynos feel like waiting for a postcard from your great aunt Mammy Thule. (without the mustache) Last time EG deployed half-way across the galaxy, it took about half an hour. Getting carrier fleets anywhere quickly is in no way dependent on NPC stations. Why again would null become more deserted when there's more NPC null? Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4292
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:09:00 -
[705] - Quote
Mikhem wrote:There seems to be big need for sovereignty system change. In current system lots of empty systems are controlled by large alliances. My (evil) mind came up something that could help this situation:
Could Territorial Claim units require POS fuel blocks? This would force large alliances to maintain their areas. Also there would be window to sabotage sovereignty ownage by just attacking transport/industrial moving fuel blocks. If TCU runs out of fuel blocks it would be destroyed. TCU could require fuel blocks from all major races in EVE.
Comments are welcome for my idea. How would this do anything besides make logistics guys slightly more sad and raise the bar slightly higher for anyone fresh wanting to take sov?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:11:00 -
[706] - Quote
Mikhem wrote:Could Territorial Claim units require POS fuel blocks? This would force large alliances to maintain their areas. We already have towers in pretty much all systems that we control. Fueling TCUs in addition to the tower just means loading one more box of fuel blocks into the Rorqual. Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2414

|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:14:00 -
[707] - Quote
Just putting this note here to let you know I'm cleaning up some mess. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
522
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:22:00 -
[708] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:If you think null is deserted now, wait until there are npc stations full of archon fleets and jump clones distributed neatly across all of null. It will make bridging and cynos feel like waiting for a postcard from your great aunt Mammy Thule. (without the mustache) Last time EG deployed half-way across the galaxy, it took about half an hour. Getting carrier fleets anywhere quickly is in no way dependent on NPC stations. Why again would null become more deserted when there's more NPC null?
Carrier travel currently isn't dependant on NPC stations. If they were sprinkled throughout sov null, folks would use jump clones and truely instantly teleport to where they want to be. The speed at which you deployed half way across the galaxy is a problem. NPC stations scattered about will just make that worse.
If I were a null block that was forced to capitalize on game mechanics, I'd go from cynos to jump clones in a matter of days. If you didn't - you'd be stupid. So that being what it is, scattering NPC stations across null and forcing this would just be stupid. It would further support the stranglehold that has made null a deserted wasteland. It would make control more instant. It's just bad for the game. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
215
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:43:00 -
[709] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:Just putting this note here to let you know I'm cleaning up some mess.
There is a sticky thread on the subject, so this is duplicate.
Lock it. |

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1375
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:45:00 -
[710] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:If you think null is deserted now, wait until there are npc stations full of archon fleets and jump clones distributed neatly across all of null. It will make bridging and cynos feel like waiting for a postcard from your great aunt Mammy Thule. (without the mustache) So why isn't current NPC null like this? There's no pattern or precedent for your claim. In fact current NPC null has residents apart from the the blocs residing there. Why would this suddenly change? |
|

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 22:57:00 -
[711] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:The change that goons supported was a considerable detriment to them, and was a leading factor in why they had to create a rental empire to recover funds they lost in that nerf.
It really wasn't because they were losing the ISK war anyway. That's why they changed policy towards renting. So you know, the pea under the thimble, etc.
|

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
4014
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:02:00 -
[712] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:ISD Ezwal wrote:Just putting this note here to let you know I'm cleaning up some mess. There is a sticky thread on the subject, so this is duplicate. Lock it. you mean the outdated "pre csm summit" thread? why yes it should be locked
perhaps this thread can be stickied in its place to reflect the topic's obvious importance and to acknowledge the open letter's mass endorsement by some of the most well respected leaders and content creators in eve online |

Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:08:00 -
[713] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote: perhaps this thread can be stickied in its place to reflect the topic's obvious importance and to acknowledge the open letter's mass endorsement by some of the most well respected leaders and content creators in eve online
Oh do give it a rest. It's CCP's game and everyone who plays it has an interest in it, not just "leaders" (much arrogance?) and "content creators" (double-speak given that they have an agreement not to create any content any more).
|

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
4014
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:21:00 -
[714] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Oh do give it a rest. It's CCP's game and ... and a surprising number of player representatives, leaders and experts have come to a common agreement to create a considered constructive document of suggestions to aid ccp in improving eve online |
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2415

|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:41:00 -
[715] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
22. Posting regarding RMT (Real Money Trading) is prohibited.
Posts discussing, linking to, or advertising RMT, including but not limited to the sale of in game items, assets, currency, characters or game accounts for real life money are strictly prohibited.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.
Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual solid information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. These kinds of threads and posts are detrimental to the well being and spirit of the EVE Online Community, and can create undue panic among forum users, as well as adding to the workload of our moderators. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Cae Lara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:43:00 -
[716] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:Oh do give it a rest. It's CCP's game and ... and a surprising number of player representatives, leaders and experts have come to a common agreement to create a considered constructive document of suggestions to aid ccp in improving eve online
What's surprising about a group of players that all have treaties signed with one another continuing to look out for their common interest of maintaining the status quo and making it more secure? |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
215
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:44:00 -
[717] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Benny Ohu wrote: perhaps this thread can be stickied in its place to reflect the topic's obvious importance and to acknowledge the open letter's mass endorsement by some of the most well respected leaders and content creators in eve online
Oh do give it a rest. It's CCP's game and everyone who plays it has an interest in it, not just "leaders" (much arrogance?) and "content creators" (double-speak given that they have an agreement not to create any content any more).
Only action you see in null is catch and providence. I've been checking dotlan for the last couple of weeks. Caldari space is far more dangerous than null.
They do nothing for the game, and actually it's just the opposite. They have ruined it. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
215
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:49:00 -
[718] - Quote
Cae Lara wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:Oh do give it a rest. It's CCP's game and ... and a surprising number of player representatives, leaders and experts have come to a common agreement to create a considered constructive document of suggestions to aid ccp in improving eve online What's surprising about a group of players that all have treaties signed with one another continuing to look out for their common interest of maintaining the status quo and making it more secure?
Goon want their npc stations in every region so they have launch points.
http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-voices-have-spoken-but-to-what-end/ |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8383
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:54:00 -
[719] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:I've given this some thought and I'm actually gonna do a complete 180 on this. CCP should implement the whole population density thing post haste on TQ. I was wrong, I'm sorry.
To anyone opposed to the idea for misguided reasons, two questions to consider:
1) What happens when all the nullbears and renters of a coalition are condensed into ~10 pve systems and the surrounding systems are generally inadequate for pve due to lack of upgrades/activity?
2) What do renters fear most? I'm going to answer these rhetorical questions just because I can. 1) Why, local starts looking like highsec and god help you actually notice when someone new has come into a highsec system. 2) Okay, so I'm not going to answer both questions because I'm not a renter. The answer to (1) and (2) is actually the same: The afk cloaker. It's also probably the reason why pasta is a signatory of this proposal.
Actually, condensing people down into a few system slike that hurts afk cloakers, because cloaky hotdroppers rely on weak singular targets. It's one thing dropping on people when help has to gate jump or cyno in, it's another when the guy gettting dropped on is in a 100 man strong defense fleet that can just dock and reship into heap but effective ships (Cruisers, BCs etc).
I don't see any alterior motives. I see a repeat of the Dominion mistikes.
A short list:
-Human Nature. In game as in real life, people don't fight over things they can buy or trade for. Despite what people think, people are generally cooperative by nature (which is why on a planet of 6 billion+ souls, only a tiny tiny fraction is actually doing any shooting and killing of each other, TV just makes it seem like more lol).
This 'agreement' seems to rely on the mistaken belief that people want to fight each other. If they did everyone wouldn't be blue lol. What people want is to WIN , and if the best way to do that is cooperation (OTEC, Coalitions, etc) then that's what will happen. These suggestions will end up in BOTLRD styled "don't screw our heartlands" agreements and not much more.
-Relying on PVE as the cornerstone of the system. Dominion did this, system upgrade status decays if no one uses it.
-Failing to understand the null sec does not exist in a vacuum. Related to the 2nd point. The signatories aren't PVE players, they don't understand that people in null alliances pve for quick funds and will not stack up in crowded systems where you can't see all of local and stand a higher chance of losing a pve fit carrier or BS. Why do that when you can incursion under COMCORD protection of do FW missions in frig sized ships.
This problem is exacerbated by npc null in every region. Bad guys so close is even more reason for people to abandon null for safer empire isk making.
-The null sec rewards paradox. CCP unwittingly created a situations where increasing wealth generation high enough to be worth it in null has the knock on effect of burning up the EVE economy. We saw this with the 500 mil an hour Titan + tracking link scimitar madness of the early Dominion days. Now it's super carriers but not that bad.
PVE rewards high enough (in a 'condensed' null sec scheme) to entice people to not flee to high sec, low sec and wormhole alt corp groups would be so high that it would be worthwhile for alliances to lock down their own systems with cyno jammers and standby defense fleets (who aren't PVEing, like the guys who guarded those FW mission locust fleets in the early days). While that sounds cool, you end up with higher inflationary preassure thats bad for everyone.
The above are just a few consequences of the ideas contained in the agreement. It's wrong headed to support game mechancis changes when what's really needed is better tools.
By 'better tools' I mean "Malcanis law resistant' tools ie things that give smaller poorer groups capabilities they would not normally have BUT are useless to larger richer groups. An example of the idea was seen in the last Alliance tournament. Some teams used 2 logi frigs instead of one logi cruiser. Less repping power, but also a MUCH lower points cost.
|

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11468
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 00:25:00 -
[720] - Quote
who the **** are "goon" Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |
|

Snot Shot
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
867
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 00:27:00 -
[721] - Quote
He meant goonie Twitter = @Snot_Shot-á - GÇ£If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"
evesnotshot.blogspot.com |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 00:38:00 -
[722] - Quote
Really? |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11468
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 00:45:00 -
[723] - Quote
did you know that 'goon' is a singular term and not a plural or collective term
no, apparently not Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
523
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 01:03:00 -
[724] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:If you think null is deserted now, wait until there are npc stations full of archon fleets and jump clones distributed neatly across all of null. It will make bridging and cynos feel like waiting for a postcard from your great aunt Mammy Thule. (without the mustache) So why isn't current NPC null like this? There's no pattern or precedent for your claim. In fact current NPC null has residents apart from the the blocs residing there. Why would this suddenly change?
It's pretty basic reasoning. The distribution of NPC stations in null is pretty limited. So it's not as practical to do the clone jump thing. Put 1 or 3 in every region and suddenly it is practical. The more you spread the NPC stations across null the more practical clone jumping becomes.
No pattern or precedence?? It would be a new system, so of course there is no pattern or precedence. If you're arguing that it's not likely because they aren't doing it now then you're just not getting it.
The relatively recent introduction of the advanced infomorph psychology skill is what the cynic in me kind of wonders about. I mean really, who needs 10 jump clones. On the other hand, with NPC stations scattered across null this suddenly becomes quite useful.
It's chicken and egg really. Now that there is an option for 10 clones, of course I'd want NPC stations all over null. Combine that with the deep pockets that can put multiple fleets in said NPC stations and the whole proposed system becomes rather obviously abuse ready. I mean heck, a non relevant guy like me w/ little null experience and no stake in null politics can figure this out.... I'd think just about anyone could.
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 01:03:00 -
[725] - Quote
Andski wrote:did you know that 'goon' is a singular term and not a plural or collective term
no, apparently not
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goon
it's the 1st definition.
And in case you missed this in your propaganda adventures.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5063055#post5063055 |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11468
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 01:16:00 -
[726] - Quote
still not a singular noun Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1375
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 01:31:00 -
[727] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Rowells wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:If you think null is deserted now, wait until there are npc stations full of archon fleets and jump clones distributed neatly across all of null. It will make bridging and cynos feel like waiting for a postcard from your great aunt Mammy Thule. (without the mustache) So why isn't current NPC null like this? There's no pattern or precedent for your claim. In fact current NPC null has residents apart from the the blocs residing there. Why would this suddenly change? It's pretty basic reasoning. The distribution of NPC stations in null is pretty limited. So it's not as practical to do the clone jump thing. Put 1 or 3 in every region and suddenly it is practical. The more you spread the NPC stations across null the more practical clone jumping becomes. No pattern or precedence?? It would be a new system, so of course there is no pattern or precedence. If you're arguing that it's not likely because they aren't doing it now then you're just not getting it. The relatively recent introduction of the advanced infomorph psychology skill is what the cynic in me kind of wonders about. I mean really, who needs 10 jump clones. On the other hand, with NPC stations scattered across null this suddenly becomes quite useful. It's chicken and egg really. Now that there is an option for 10 clones, of course I'd want NPC stations all over null. Combine that with the deep pockets that can put multiple fleets in said NPC stations and the whole proposed system becomes rather obviously abuse ready. I mean heck, a non relevant guy like me w/ little null experience and no stake in null politics can figure this out.... I'd think just about anyone could. well the thing is, there are currently some regions of NPC space in null areas (not a lot, but they are there) and geuss who stages from them. Goons? PL? HERO? It's usually smaller groups, sometimes medium sized groups even. They use them as bases for fun and to farm the renters/goons for their ratters and the occasional gangs. So there is precedence against your proposal. Why would anyone waste time with standings or moving the clone when they have much more easily availible options.
|

Strange Shadow
Hedion University Amarr Empire
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 02:40:00 -
[728] - Quote
Occupancy SOV just adds even more grind than current system.
For SOV warfare, structure grind is replaced by rat grind (or whatever grind, to prove that you 'occupied' here). For both attacker and defender. All day long, instead of single timer. Average null people will be rejoiced to grind more stuff i imagine, so many signatures under that letter. For SOV holding, few afk cloakers with cynos can conquer SOV for anybody in a few days, even if deadspace instances used - just bridge few ceptors through to catch that phat ratting golem, ceptors with 'warping speed' rigs will get on top of him in 15 seconds. Also for SOV holding, ratting becomes mandatory, it will be more like going to work rather than logging to play game. Current system is way better in all those regards.
Whoever proposed occupancy SOV had not thought it through obviously. |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11468
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 02:58:00 -
[729] - Quote
Strange Shadow wrote:Occupancy SOV just adds even more grind than current system.
For SOV warfare, structure grind is replaced by rat grind (or whatever grind, to prove that you 'occupied' here). For both attacker and defender. All day long, for a few days, for each system. Average null people will be rejoiced to grind more stuff i imagine, so many signatures under that letter. For SOV holding, few afk cloakers with cynos can conquer SOV for anybody in a few days, even if deadspace instances used - just bridge few ceptors through to catch that phat ratting golem, ceptors with 'warping speed' rigs will get on top of him in 15 seconds. Also for SOV holding, ratting becomes mandatory, it will be more like going to work rather than logging to play game. Current system is way better in all those regards.
Whoever proposed occupancy SOV had not thought it through obviously.
nobody said anything about it depending exclusively on PvE Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Ivory Kantenu
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 03:11:00 -
[730] - Quote
Strange Shadow wrote:Occupancy SOV just adds even more grind than current system.
For SOV warfare, structure grind is replaced by rat grind (or whatever grind, to prove that you 'occupied' here). For both attacker and defender. All day long, for a few days, for each system. Average null people will be rejoiced to grind more stuff i imagine, so many signatures under that letter. For SOV holding, few afk cloakers with cynos can conquer SOV for anybody in a few days, even if deadspace instances used - just bridge few ceptors through to catch that phat ratting golem, ceptors with 'warping speed' rigs will get on top of him in 15 seconds. Also for SOV holding, ratting becomes mandatory, it will be more like going to work rather than logging to play game. Current system is way better in all those regards.
Whoever proposed occupancy SOV had not thought it through obviously.
Occupied Sov can come from more than just ratting, you know. Be it Mining, Manufacturing (Stations and POS), Planetary Interation, Exploration, PVP...
Do I need to keep listing here or do you get the gist? Learn the basics of Wormhole Selling: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101693&find=unread
|
|

criativa
Zugleich Techniken
79
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 03:18:00 -
[731] - Quote
Supported. |

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 04:16:00 -
[732] - Quote
There is one aspect of this proposal that is not explored: what if the proposal isn't some underhanded manipulation to serve the signatories, but indeed a honest attempt to help the little guys enter nullsec.
We have statistics that only 10% of the WoW population raided in heroic difficulty (killed one boss), so the hardest WoW content still retained some exclusivity and requires some skills to complete.
In EVE, 60-80K pilots are in nullsec alliances and renters. That's already over 20% of the accounts. Allowing even more "little guys" (scrubs) to nullsec by nerfs would make the "Dark PvP Game (TM)" literally much easier than WoW.
Do you honestly want players who failed in WoW to come to EVE because it's easier? Should we get to the point when WoW raiders yell at people who failed "go back to EVE"? My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 04:37:00 -
[733] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:There is one aspect of this proposal that is not explored: what if the proposal isn't some underhanded manipulation to serve the signatories, but indeed a honest attempt to help the little guys enter nullsec. We have statistics that only 10% of the WoW population raided in heroic difficulty (killed one boss), so the hardest WoW content still retained some exclusivity and requires some skills to complete. In EVE, 60-80K pilots are in nullsec alliances and renters. That's already over 20% of the accounts. Allowing even more "little guys" (scrubs) to nullsec by nerfs would make the "Dark PvP Game (TM)" literally much easier than WoW. Do you honestly want players who failed in WoW to come to EVE because it's easier? Should we get to the point when WoW raiders yell at people who failed "go back to EVE"?
I would guess we would arrive at a similar conclusion wow arrived at, most players dont want to die over and over and be shouted at for standing in green/red/black/pink(?) goo/cloud/patch/ray/balloon(?) while doing it.
Similarly it is not unreasonable to say that most players here would not enjoy much and/or long constantly looking around their shoulder and loosing ships to camps/blops/supers on a regular basis.
Its kinda a win-win scenario on a selfish level, either i will be right or be proven wrong and the game will become better :) |

Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
777
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 04:46:00 -
[734] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:There is one aspect of this proposal that is not explored: what if the proposal isn't some underhanded manipulation to serve the signatories, but indeed a honest attempt to help the little guys enter nullsec. We have statistics that only 10% of the WoW population raided in heroic difficulty (killed one boss), so the hardest WoW content still retained some exclusivity and requires some skills to complete. In EVE, 60-80K pilots are in nullsec alliances and renters. That's already over 20% of the accounts. Allowing even more "little guys" (scrubs) to nullsec by nerfs would make the "Dark PvP Game (TM)" literally much easier than WoW. Do you honestly want players who failed in WoW to come to EVE because it's easier? Should we get to the point when WoW raiders yell at people who failed "go back to EVE"? I would guess we would arrive at a similar conclusion wow arrived at, most players dont want to die over and over and be shouted at for standing in green/red/black/pink(?) goo/cloud/patch/ray/balloon(?) while doing it. Similarly it is not unreasonable to say that most players here would not enjoy much and/or long constantly looking around their shoulder and loosing ships to camps/blops/supers on a regular basis. Its kinda a win-win scenario on a selfish level, either i will be right or be proven wrong and the game will become better :)
EVE is a different game. EVE needs PvP. It's the decay system in the game. Like Raids, WoW or something I am better able to compare, the dungeon grind of FF14 ARR, it was only forced on people by way of reward. If you don't raid grind, you never obtain l33t gear. That's not really true in EVE. I can buy anything and everything in Jita and that's a result of the Null people willing and really, forced to sell it to me to pay their rental tax .aka Sov bills.
I suppose CCP could make all T2 bound to character. That wouldn't create a mass rage moment /sarcasm |

Strange Shadow
Hedion University Amarr Empire
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 04:59:00 -
[735] - Quote
Ivory Kantenu wrote:Strange Shadow wrote:Occupancy SOV just adds even more grind than current system.
For SOV warfare, structure grind is replaced by rat grind (or whatever grind, to prove that you 'occupied' here). For both attacker and defender. All day long, for a few days, for each system. Average null people will be rejoiced to grind more stuff i imagine, so many signatures under that letter. For SOV holding, few afk cloakers with cynos can conquer SOV for anybody in a few days, even if deadspace instances used - just bridge few ceptors through to catch that phat ratting golem, ceptors with 'warping speed' rigs will get on top of him in 15 seconds. Also for SOV holding, ratting becomes mandatory, it will be more like going to work rather than logging to play game. Current system is way better in all those regards.
Whoever proposed occupancy SOV had not thought it through obviously. Occupied Sov can come from more than just ratting, you know. Be it Mining, Manufacturing (Stations and POS), Planetary Interation, Exploration, PVP... Do I need to keep listing here or do you get the gist?
And for purposes of SOV warfare all i see is "grind, grind, and more grind". Do you get the gist?
Face it, occupancy SOV favors renters, they are FORCED to grind to pay the rent. I can understand goons voting for this system. Everyone else? Just their cattle. |

Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2704
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:29:00 -
[736] - Quote
Oh look... another dominion topic.
At this rate... we'll be back to revisiting Incarna in about 3 expansions / releases and or 9 months. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |

Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
156
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:35:00 -
[737] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:There is one aspect of this proposal that is not explored: what if the proposal isn't some underhanded manipulation to serve the signatories, but indeed a honest attempt to help the little guys enter nullsec. We have statistics that only 10% of the WoW population raided in heroic difficulty (killed one boss), so the hardest WoW content still retained some exclusivity and requires some skills to complete. In EVE, 60-80K pilots are in nullsec alliances and renters. That's already over 20% of the accounts. Allowing even more "little guys" (scrubs) to nullsec by nerfs would make the "Dark PvP Game (TM)" literally much easier than WoW. Do you honestly want players who failed in WoW to come to EVE because it's easier? Should we get to the point when WoW raiders yell at people who failed "go back to EVE"?
EVE is not WoW, null is by itself not an endgame PvE content. You have failed to provide a single valid support for your argument so far. I don't think this is a place for your lamentations derived from not being able to get into, or affect null game so far. In my opinion, you are only pushing your objections because it's incompatible with your personal narrative that under the current system, you had some mythical affect on null politics.
You didn't, and the only thing you might be right about is that with what is proposed by 90% of the null dwellers, including non-sov holding little guys, you will still not be able to have any affect on the null game.
You should stop demanding bailouts from CCP to make you get into null game because you cannot by yourself.
Success in null game is all about organization, group work and good management. Those who cannot adhere to an already existing organization by finding themselves a places within, or start their own organization should not expect CCP to skew the rules so that they can be overnight winners by themselves. |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2818
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:38:00 -
[738] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Oh look... another dominion topic.
At this rate... we'll be back to revisiting Incarna in about 3 expansions / releases and or 9 months.
Incarna could do with a proper revisiting. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13433
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:49:00 -
[739] - Quote
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:ok - so instead of seeing massive alliances stomp all over small ones at timer based points like POS-timers, we'll see the massive alliance perma-camping the small alliance's system, forcing them out, EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO ESTABLISH
bullies never like upstarts, and that's basically what sov is - being able to bully someone else out.
So please explain how we do that to several thousand systems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
494
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:55:00 -
[740] - Quote
Strange Shadow wrote: And for purposes of SOV warfare all i see is "mining grind, explorer grind, and more grind". Do you get the gist? Or how else do you propose to contest SOV?
What I was wondering. Was never partial to this idea. Here's why:
To keep sov...you have to be in the system.
To expand sov....you have to a road trip with most of your people. Ergo your occupancy is down to maintain the sov as readlily.
So.....in week 1 of campaign against blob A all they have to do is either split forces to go sit in your space. Or pay mercs to do it. Longer that campaign wears on, more the invaders sov is being eaten away. Yay....we took 3 systems from blob A. And lost 3 systems to merc/Blob A partial zerg rush in our garrison....doh.
Long story short...I am seeing occupancy discourage road tripping. Sure you'd like to go take some sov...but then you aren't home to keep your space. Now you have 2 stalemates. Your saving force back in garrison sitting around to get the sov secured for maybe days. And your offensive push on the frontlines is stalling since you have peeps in high numbers in garrison as just mentioned.
Which leads to what you said about (grrr) goons being kind of accurate. They like to rent. get enough renters, they can roadtrip and keep the homefires burning strong with renter density. This ofc applies to any crew who likes to play online landlord...or would it be spacelord? lol.
|
|

Elsa Hayes
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 07:18:00 -
[741] - Quote
Very good starting point, now nerf jump bridge range and make outposts destructible and add something like the heavy bomber someone posted in F&I awhile ago, a ship which excels at fighting supers, would be good at fighting capitals but suck at pretty much everything else like a big player controlled fighter bomber with reasonable survivability and price tag (not too squishy and not too cheap) and things could be looking up in null space. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13433
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 07:34:00 -
[742] - Quote
Elsa Hayes wrote:Very good starting point, now nerf jump bridge range and make outposts destructible and add something like the heavy bomber someone posted in F&I awhile ago, a ship which excels at fighting supers, would be good at fighting capitals but suck at pretty much everything else like a big player controlled fighter bomber with reasonable survivability and price tag (not too squishy and not too cheap) and things could be looking up in null space.
You just invalidated dreads. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6289
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 07:52:00 -
[743] - Quote
Has anyone theory crafted a hybrid between occupancy & what we have now? TCU's or whatever to claim sov when the system is unoccupied, but if nothing happens (mining, ratting, production, whatever) in the system for a period of time you lose it? The upside is you wouldn't have to have people shooting red crosses or rocks to claim sov, but if your entire alliance deploys somewhere & neglects your home space, someone else can take it. Also occupancy doesn't have to be limited to ratting & mining activities. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 08:01:00 -
[744] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Has anyone theory crafted a hybrid between occupancy & what we have now? TCU's or whatever to claim sov when the system is unoccupied, but if nothing happens (mining, ratting, production, whatever) in the system for a period of time you lose it? The upside is you wouldn't have to have people shooting red crosses or rocks to claim sov, but if your entire alliance deploys somewhere & neglects your home space, someone else can take it. Also occupancy doesn't have to be limited to ratting & mining activities.
Yeah thats pretty much what I was saying...claiming sov by ratting would be absolutly stupid imo. Occupancy should only result in alliance losing sov or some benefits and making it very vulnarable. |

Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 08:22:00 -
[745] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Barton Breau wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:There is one aspect of this proposal that is not explored: what if the proposal isn't some underhanded manipulation to serve the signatories, but indeed a honest attempt to help the little guys enter nullsec. We have statistics that only 10% of the WoW population raided in heroic difficulty (killed one boss), so the hardest WoW content still retained some exclusivity and requires some skills to complete. In EVE, 60-80K pilots are in nullsec alliances and renters. That's already over 20% of the accounts. Allowing even more "little guys" (scrubs) to nullsec by nerfs would make the "Dark PvP Game (TM)" literally much easier than WoW. Do you honestly want players who failed in WoW to come to EVE because it's easier? Should we get to the point when WoW raiders yell at people who failed "go back to EVE"? I would guess we would arrive at a similar conclusion wow arrived at, most players dont want to die over and over and be shouted at for standing in green/red/black/pink(?) goo/cloud/patch/ray/balloon(?) while doing it. Similarly it is not unreasonable to say that most players here would not enjoy much and/or long constantly looking around their shoulder and loosing ships to camps/blops/supers on a regular basis. Its kinda a win-win scenario on a selfish level, either i will be right or be proven wrong and the game will become better :) EVE is a different game. EVE needs PvP. It's the decay system in the game. Like Raids, WoW or something I am better able to compare, the dungeon grind of FF14 ARR, it was only forced on people by way of reward. If you don't raid grind, you never obtain l33t gear. That's not really true in EVE. I can buy anything and everything in Jita and that's a result of the Null people willing and really, forced to sell it to me to pay their rental tax .aka Sov bills. I suppose CCP could make all T2 bound to character. That wouldn't create a mass rage moment /sarcasm
Nice flamebait for someone who cares, but for myself, please explain how relevant (i heard your group likes that word) it is to the argument put forward by mr crazy goblin or (crazy) me :)
|

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
431
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 08:50:00 -
[746] - Quote
The economy is largely based on stuff getting blown up. If stuff doesn't get blown up, people won't buy new stuff. |

Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 09:23:00 -
[747] - Quote
Could the need of occupying sov space to claim ownership not simply be avoided by multiboxing? |

Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
394
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 09:29:00 -
[748] - Quote
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:Could the need of occupying sov space to claim ownership not simply be avoided by multiboxing?
And it'll be lost just as easily due to how horribly you can multibox in PvP. |

Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
394
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 09:33:00 -
[749] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:There is one aspect of this proposal that is not explored: what if the proposal isn't some underhanded manipulation to serve the signatories, but indeed a honest attempt to help the little guys enter nullsec. We have statistics that only 10% of the WoW population raided in heroic difficulty (killed one boss), so the hardest WoW content still retained some exclusivity and requires some skills to complete. In EVE, 60-80K pilots are in nullsec alliances and renters. That's already over 20% of the accounts. Allowing even more "little guys" (scrubs) to nullsec by nerfs would make the "Dark PvP Game (TM)" literally much easier than WoW. Do you honestly want players who failed in WoW to come to EVE because it's easier? Should we get to the point when WoW raiders yell at people who failed "go back to EVE"?
Human social interaction to achieve a goal 24/7 versus scripted encounters which require pure grind at predetermined time and date for x hours per week. If one has done both then they'd understand how different these things are. They would also understand the difference in the games and their cultures.
Why are you leaving out high-level PvP'ers (I know, oxymoron) in WoW from this statistic? How many take part in e.g. arenas or other PvP grind which requires a more complex skillset than knowing when to press arcane missiles? |

Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2030
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 09:47:00 -
[750] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:There is one aspect of this proposal that is not explored: what if the proposal isn't some underhanded manipulation to serve the signatories, but indeed a honest attempt to help the little guys enter nullsec. We have statistics that only 10% of the WoW population raided in heroic difficulty (killed one boss), so the hardest WoW content still retained some exclusivity and requires some skills to complete. In EVE, 60-80K pilots are in nullsec alliances and renters. That's already over 20% of the accounts. Allowing even more "little guys" (scrubs) to nullsec by nerfs would make the "Dark PvP Game (TM)" literally much easier than WoW. Do you honestly want players who failed in WoW to come to EVE because it's easier? Should we get to the point when WoW raiders yell at people who failed "go back to EVE"? The moment you realize this isn't WoW, is the moment you stop being a joke... EVE needs more Pssshhhh |
|

Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:04:00 -
[751] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Nicolai Serkanner wrote:Could the need of occupying sov space to claim ownership not simply be avoided by multiboxing? And it'll be lost just as easily due to how horribly you can multibox in PvP.
Using "multibox" was perhaps not the correct word. Using multiple characters is what I mean. Most players have numerous characters and can easily afford many more. Spreading them out over the area you need to "occupy" might make it very easy to keep the area occupied.
|

Sally Hermoine
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:05:00 -
[752] - Quote
No disrespect but Gevlon is a bumbling idiot every idea/post he has is just an extension of the mad mans imagination.
I like the changes, not sure about NPC Nullsec being in place everywhere, they would just allow power projection with the major coalitions who will simply select certain ones as lilly pad Cyno zones.
Also the occupation idea is great everyone wins Blocs get nerfed in size renters can still rent but dont need multiple systems and new forces can try and take some space , assuming they don't get blobbed out which will probably happen but lifes not meant to be easy right? BUT i would not like a one system to become Uber amazing in its farming ability just because there a gazillion people working the farms, that would not be good for nullsec.
Also can we have player built stargate Turrets that would be so cool
|

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:19:00 -
[753] - Quote
If I may have one stupid question...
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
1. No alliance signed below will create coalition consisting of more than 3 alliances. Nor will it maintain blue standings with more than these 2 alliances. This doesn't apply to alt corps/small groups up to 200members.
2. In case that another coalition larger than mentioned is forming, all the signed groups will create temporary alliance to take this group down.
This is ofcourse just hard sketch, numbers can different, it can be longer. This is just proof that CCP isn't only one who can save null sec. If these so called leaders would really want to save null, they could be able to do it. But this is something they would never sign for. |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6290
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:35:00 -
[754] - Quote
Regatto wrote:If I may have one stupid question...
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
1. No alliance signed below will create coalition consisting of more than 3 alliances. Nor will it maintain blue standings with more than these 2 alliances. This doesn't apply to alt corps/small groups up to 200members.
2. In case that another coalition larger than mentioned is forming, all the signed groups will create temporary alliance to take this group down.
This is ofcourse just hard sketch, numbers can different, it can be longer. This is just proof that CCP isn't only one who can save null sec. If these so called leaders would really want to save null, they could be able to do it. But this is something they would never sign for.
Because that does nothing to address the issue of grinding through ten of millions of ehp & how it currently takes 7 days of winning every single timer fight. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
32
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:35:00 -
[755] - Quote
Regatto wrote:If I may have one stupid question...
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
1. No alliance signed below will create coalition consisting of more than 3 alliances. Nor will it maintain blue standings with more than these 2 alliances. This doesn't apply to alt corps/small groups up to 200members.
2. In case that another coalition larger than mentioned is forming, all the signed groups will create temporary alliance to take this group down.
This is ofcourse just hard sketch, numbers can different, it can be longer. This is just proof that CCP isn't only one who can save null sec. If these so called leaders would really want to save null, they could be able to do it. But this is something they would never sign for. Hahahaha, well said! Add 3. None of the signatares will agree on non-aggression BOTLORD accords. We strongly believe that 0.0 should be a place of conflict not a safe heaven for ISK generation and supercap accumulation. If another coalition does it, see point 2. |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6290
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:38:00 -
[756] - Quote
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Nicolai Serkanner wrote:Could the need of occupying sov space to claim ownership not simply be avoided by multiboxing? And it'll be lost just as easily due to how horribly you can multibox in PvP. Using "multibox" was perhaps not the correct word. Using multiple characters is what I mean. Most players have numerous characters and can easily afford many more. Spreading them out over the area you need to "occupy" might make it very easy to keep the area occupied.
The idea is that sitting afk in space or docked won't stop sov from decaying. You will have to actually do thing. What those things are is what CCP needs to work out. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:00:00 -
[757] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Regatto wrote:If I may have one stupid question...
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
1. No alliance signed below will create coalition consisting of more than 3 alliances. Nor will it maintain blue standings with more than these 2 alliances. This doesn't apply to alt corps/small groups up to 200members.
2. In case that another coalition larger than mentioned is forming, all the signed groups will create temporary alliance to take this group down.
This is ofcourse just hard sketch, numbers can different, it can be longer. This is just proof that CCP isn't only one who can save null sec. If these so called leaders would really want to save null, they could be able to do it. But this is something they would never sign for. Because that does nothing to address the issue of grinding through ten of millions of ehp & how it currently takes 7 days of winning every single timer fight.
Ofcourse not, but it would still bring life back to null while ccp figures out new sov mechanics that work. It would create fights on every corner. Fights that are fun between smaller groups, with couple of hundred pilots and without 10% tidi. Anyone in null sec warfare can agree that fight between 500 dudes is more fun than 2500.
Honestly I know this won't happen, cause its obvious that ppl like Vince are egomaniacs that just want to hoard power and isk(lets wonder why). So basically, even though they have power, they won't do anything about it. They will rather have their members run around eve and dunk on some hopeless groups like provi to keep their pilots "entertained" and quiet. |

Anthar Thebess
715
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:03:00 -
[758] - Quote
What CCP must , is to stop working of stuff that is not related to fixing nullsec. Putting some stuff to game is nice , but att the same time those are work hours spent on stuff that will not persuade people to login again.
What is more important : - i will not login and undock , as i cannot name clones. - i will not login and undock , as nothing is happening and eve is boring.
Recent changes are nice , but again they do not bring us any closer to solving current player retention issues.
The same goes for the module re balance.
Who think that putting dozens or hundreds of work hours in a project that will reduce number of modules , while changing almost nothing will make more players to login?
This time will be simply wasted at this point. Right now we loose 1000 accounts per month , owners of those accounts just don't care to login any more. How many of "still active" people just login to update skills or update some passive operations , like PL.
Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption Support Needed : Faction Crystal Changes |

Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2030
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:05:00 -
[759] - Quote
Regatto wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Regatto wrote:If I may have one stupid question...
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
1. No alliance signed below will create coalition consisting of more than 3 alliances. Nor will it maintain blue standings with more than these 2 alliances. This doesn't apply to alt corps/small groups up to 200members.
2. In case that another coalition larger than mentioned is forming, all the signed groups will create temporary alliance to take this group down.
This is ofcourse just hard sketch, numbers can different, it can be longer. This is just proof that CCP isn't only one who can save null sec. If these so called leaders would really want to save null, they could be able to do it. But this is something they would never sign for. Because that does nothing to address the issue of grinding through ten of millions of ehp & how it currently takes 7 days of winning every single timer fight. Ofcourse not, but it would still bring life back to null while ccp figures out new sov mechanics that work. It would create fights on every corner. Fights that are fun between smaller groups, with couple of hundred pilots and without 10% tidi. Anyone in null sec warfare can agree that fight between 500 dudes is more fun than 2500. Honestly I know this won't happen, cause its obvious that ppl like Vince are egomaniacs that just want to hoard power and isk(lets wonder why). So basically, even though they have power, they won't do anything about it. They will rather have their members run around eve and dunk on some hopeless groups like provi to keep their pilots "entertained" and quiet. If CCP keeps their word on serious nerfs to Power Projection within the coming weeks.
We will see a serious shift in Nullsec power...
EVE needs more Pssshhhh |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
755
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:05:00 -
[760] - Quote
Regatto wrote:All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
because noone of them will weaken his own position. This is like you would ask to not bring as many people to the fight to make it fair. |
|

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:14:00 -
[761] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Regatto wrote:All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient: because noone of them will weaken his own position. This is like you would ask to not bring as many people to the fight to make it fair.
yeah or asking them to play this game for fun instead of politics, power and money.
as I said, I dont believe this would happened :P ALthought if I remember correctly something similiar occured once, when DRF formed pretty much just to take down old NC, but that was for slightly different reasons. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13434
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:15:00 -
[762] - Quote
Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:21:00 -
[763] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet. Why not give it a try, discuss this among yourselves and see what can be done. You guys already have 2 agreements, BOTLORD and NullSec Manifesto. It has more chances to do something good for EVE rather than asking CCP to do it. It's a sandbox, it's up to the players to make the game fun or boring. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:24:00 -
[764] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet.
Mechanics? what I just said would bypass these mechanics. But then again, third time, for this to happen they would need to want make this game fun, and voluntarily give up big of their power. Although they would still remain dominant parts of null sec probably. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
755
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:28:00 -
[765] - Quote
one of biggest appeals of this game was originally the cut throat universe, exploiting everything to your advantage and taking any little chance to stab your enemy in the back and take his land. What you're asking for is a complete change of mentality of the game, where people are responsible to make it fair all of the sudden because mechanics lead them into a dead end. That wouldn't be eve-like anymore, I wonder who would want to play this for any longer time once CCP refuses to fix their game and bring back a dark cut throat universe upon players. |

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:29:00 -
[766] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet.
Bull*excrement*. You keep blaming that on the mechanics, as if there's ANY set of applicable rules that can simultaneously discourage your kind from bunching up and carebearing in peace forever (all the while whining about no content) AND keep the game a sandbox. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13434
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:31:00 -
[767] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet. Bull*excrement*. You keep blaming that on the mechanics, as if there's ANY set of applicable rules that can simultaneously discourage your kind from bunching up and carebearing in peace forever (all the while whining about no content) AND keep the game a sandbox.
Tell me, if you had access to a fleet that is impossible for anyone else to kill would you not use it? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:38:00 -
[768] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet. Bull*excrement*. You keep blaming that on the mechanics, as if there's ANY set of applicable rules that can simultaneously discourage your kind from bunching up and carebearing in peace forever (all the while whining about no content) AND keep the game a sandbox. Tell me, if you had access to a fleet that is impossible for anyone else to kill would you not use it?
If I would, I'd be having another corp/alliance ticker right now, don't you think? What does the mechanics have to do with you wanting an easy life-style? At least don't be a hypocrite. Any set of enforceable rules will succumb to that desire of yours to bunch up and "winwinwin", be it by dropping the node with a "thousand of megathrons(c)", having b0tl0rds of this kind or another, blobbing with titans and what not.
That's not something CCP CAN possibly fix. They can stir the pot a bit, but once everything settles into a steady state - that attitude of "If you had access to ..." will prevail. Always.
I hope they recognize it, and I hope that it settles in your head as well. |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:42:00 -
[769] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet. Why not give it a try, discuss this among yourselves and see what can be done. You guys already have 2 agreements, BOTLORD and NullSec Manifesto. It has more chances to do something good for EVE rather than asking CCP to do it. It's a sandbox, it's up to the players to make the game fun or boring. We would wind up defeated and you would be bitching at a new empire to do the same. You don't fix the game by asking people to not use all of the tools at their disposal. So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring (hello BOTLRD accord). Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal sure doesn't do that. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13434
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:46:00 -
[770] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13434
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:50:00 -
[771] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
If I would, I'd be having another corp/alliance ticker right now, don't you think? What does the mechanics have to do with you wanting an easy life-style? At least don't be a hypocrite. Any set of enforceable rules will succumb to that desire of yours to bunch up and "winwinwin", be it by dropping the node with a "thousand of megathrons(c)", having b0tl0rds of this kind or another, blobbing with titans and what not.
That's not something CCP CAN possibly fix. They can stir the pot a bit, but once everything settles into a steady state - that attitude of "If you had access to ..." will prevail. Always.
I hope they recognize it, and I hope that it settles in your head as well.
Given that I am also calling for our fleets to stop being unkillable I would say I understand. We are trying to get CCP to make changes that we cannot abuse. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:54:00 -
[772] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...
You see, you either drink that cool-aid willingly, or troll, or ... not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box. Because having them indestructible NPC stations in every sov. region is "literally asking CCP for a nerf". Right. While it probably will cause some small PvP groups to jump in and farm you/your renters, it actually amplifies the ability of the powerblocks to wage war, specially if you consider the possibly incoming power projection changes. Nothing like having an invulnerable staging system in every region, so that events like B-R5 will never happen again. So yeah, that proposal is something along the lines of - secure our the holdings currently held by the blue doughnut against future changes (destructible stations, power projection, cap nerfs) - Add some non-intimidating PvP content in the form of small groups who harass the holders/renters without presenting a real risk - Please CCP, we will keep bluing each other and crying out of boredom - you got to help us overcome us!
GJ, high five o/ |

Anthar Thebess
715
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:54:00 -
[773] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote: If CCP keeps their word on serious nerfs to Power Projection within the coming weeks.
We will see a serious shift in Nullsec power...
What nerfs? Only statement i got is that you cannot move so easily in capital feets around the eve.
Yes this is good , but without other changes it is worthless. As long as you can move capitals and fleets between regions using JB , Titan bridges or jump drives this is pointless.
Currently big blocks earn Trilions of isk.
1 fitted carrier cost around 2bil - this give us around 7 baltecs?
So simple "fix" to this "nerf" Spend some of those ISK to make ship catches in some remote locations around eve space.
If something is going on there - put people in ceptors , and reship there to proper doctrine.
Until fleets will have to travel by gates again (to the battle) , nothing will change.
Even those 5 jumps by gates makes every thing very complicated , as even with smaller force you can camp and wipe out much bigger fleet. Just bubble this gate and put 3 bomber wings in proper spots.
Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption Support Needed : Faction Crystal Changes |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:56:00 -
[774] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...
this:
baltec1 wrote:We would wind up defeated ...
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13435
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:06:00 -
[775] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe... this: baltec1 wrote:We would wind up defeated ... You might consider it a nerf, but still safe.
Context, it helps.
Under the current mechanics yes, if we give up our unkillable fleets and dump most of our sov someone else will take it all and we will get crushed and we will be back to where we are today.
Take the unbeatable fleets away from everyone and put in mechanics that makes taking and holding half of EVE impossible and you fix the problem. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:09:00 -
[776] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Take the unbeatable fleets away from everyone and put in mechanics that makes taking and holding half of EVE impossible and you fix the problem.
How's that related to the "letter" at hand, signed by all the stars of our blue doughnut and then some? |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:09:00 -
[777] - Quote
Sally Hermoine wrote:No disrespect but Gevlon is a bumbling idiot every idea/post he has is just an extension of the mad mans imagination.
I like the changes, not sure about NPC Nullsec being in place everywhere, they would just allow power projection with the major coalitions who will simply select certain ones as lilly pad Cyno zones.
Also the occupation idea is great everyone wins Blocs get nerfed in size renters can still rent but dont need multiple systems and new forces can try and take some space , assuming they don't get blobbed out which will probably happen but lifes not meant to be easy right? BUT i would not like a one system to become Uber amazing in its farming ability just because there a gazillion people working the farms, that would not be good for nullsec.
Also can we have player built stargate Turrets that would be so cool
NPC null points in every region would also give jump clone points. They only need to stage equipment.
With all the capitals they have been sitting back amassing being the biggest carebear organizations in the game, there is likely little you can do at this point.
Since everyone is content with being sheep, this is the game. |

Anthar Thebess
715
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:10:00 -
[778] - Quote
Simply - new rules will be for all the same. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption Support Needed : Faction Crystal Changes |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:11:00 -
[779] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...
Yea, like we believe that, but you keep up with the propaganda stream. That is what you're here for, spamming the forums.
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:20:00 -
[780] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:[quote=baltec1] They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us. 70% of the CFC losses come from non-sov holders, so owning sov isn't a pre-requisite of fighting. My question is, can you point at an organization that isn't killing CFC now and with this suggestion will start killing CFC? Where are they? *Snip* Removed reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.The point of fixing sovereignty is not conformity for your Grr Goons narrative, nobody is going to hand you out a magic bullet or do your work for you, especially not CCP. You should not expect CCP to change the game according to what you want, just because you personally cannot reach that point in game. Why should CCP personally bail you out? 'Little guys' do not hate it, they are behind this initiative. 90% of null, not just sov empires, have found a common ground, and came up with this. Anyone else objecting are hard to take seriously because of the tinfoil on their heads and their hilarious inability to represent a viable alternative suggestion. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Well, 99% of null is blue, so who else is going to attack you.
Pretty simple. |
|

Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2030
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:25:00 -
[781] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet. When did "Non-aggression Pacts" enter the game?
I believe I missed that Dev blog/patch notes... EVE needs more Pssshhhh |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:27:00 -
[782] - Quote
So goon, what happened to the moon goo spin you were trying to feed us?
You couldn't spin it you're way so you had ISD remove all the posts?
You were trying to feed me that moon goo nerf was due to goon and that it was so righteous of you, until i pointed out N3 was going through systems, were taking your moons, move or we will move you by force.
Where is all of that. Well here is you're moon goo job.
https://gfycat.com/GoodnaturedPastelGander
See if ISD will remove it again.
|

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9954
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:30:00 -
[783] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:baltec1 wrote: Take the unbeatable fleets away from everyone and put in mechanics that makes taking and holding half of EVE impossible and you fix the problem.
How's that related to the "letter" at hand, signed by all the stars of our blue doughnut and then some?
Because the situation that allows such massive fleets to reign supreme will remain, unless they nerf logi to stop the zero sum fleet fight equation.
Right now, if a smaller fleet goes up against a larger one and cannot break their reps (which is rather likely), the smaller fleet simply should not engage at all.
If they nerf logi so that people actually have a chance to do lasting damage, then smaller forces gain a relevancy that is greater than zero. And not just in sov, but at every level of combat. "Go down fighting" would actually mean something besides just whelping to no effect.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:39:00 -
[784] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:baltec1 wrote: Take the unbeatable fleets away from everyone and put in mechanics that makes taking and holding half of EVE impossible and you fix the problem.
How's that related to the "letter" at hand, signed by all the stars of our blue doughnut and then some? Because the situation that allows such massive fleets to reign supreme will remain, unless they nerf logi to stop the zero sum fleet fight equation. Right now, if a smaller fleet goes up against a larger one and cannot break their reps (which is rather likely), the smaller fleet simply should not engage at all. If they nerf logi so that people actually have a chance to do lasting damage, then smaller forces gain a relevancy that is greater than zero. And not just in sov, but at every level of combat. "Go down fighting" would actually mean something besides just whelping to no effect.
And that is precisely the reason the letter is self serving. Exactly what you'd expect. |

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:53:00 -
[785] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe... No, we think you want to be safe because you are literally asking CCP to nerf your empires and your capabilities to wage war.
Treaties weren't enough because mistakes were made and suddenly B-R. You want to nerf yourself physically unable to harm each other, so your status will forever be stabilized. You want to be away from each other and want to feed your pilots with the kills of terribads so they never provoke the other empire. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 12:57:00 -
[786] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:baltec1 wrote:We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe... No, we think you want to be safe because you are literally asking CCP to nerf your empires and your capabilities to wage war. Treaties weren't enough because mistakes were made and suddenly B-R. You want to nerf yourself physically unable to harm each other, so your status will forever be stabilized. You want to be away from each other and want to feed your pilots with the kills of terribads so they never provoke the other empire.
I'm more for this:
http://evenews24.com/2014/10/01/leaks-corebloodbrothers-sends-out-a-internal-statement-about-the-null-deal/
They broke it, they can fix it.
Seems subs are taking a dive, for good reason. Do you want to be sheep? |

cpt Niki
Pharmaceutical Development
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:06:00 -
[787] - Quote
Shutdown the API servers!
Yes I'm back again, make the corporation/alliance/coalition management a nightmare.
and to anyone say that API is not a problem I dare them to start not using it.
make people interact with people and then maybe we will have some "falcon" events. |

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
525
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:08:00 -
[788] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...
Yes |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13446
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:10:00 -
[789] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:baltec1 wrote: Take the unbeatable fleets away from everyone and put in mechanics that makes taking and holding half of EVE impossible and you fix the problem.
How's that related to the "letter" at hand, signed by all the stars of our blue doughnut and then some?
The fact that they are calling for mechanics that make it impossible to take and hold half of null sec and make it easier for smaller entities to enter null to harass us. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:10:00 -
[790] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe... Yes
That is exactly what it is. |
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:12:00 -
[791] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:baltec1 wrote: Take the unbeatable fleets away from everyone and put in mechanics that makes taking and holding half of EVE impossible and you fix the problem.
How's that related to the "letter" at hand, signed by all the stars of our blue doughnut and then some? The fact that they are calling for mechanics that make it impossible to take and hold half of null sec and make it easier for smaller entities to enter null to harass us.
At least that's what the propaganda you're spinning is. Just read through all your posts. You're pushing this crap pretty hard.
The CFC propaganda machine.
You broke it, YOU fix it. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13446
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:12:00 -
[792] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:baltec1 wrote:We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe... No, we think you want to be safe because you are literally asking CCP to nerf your empires and your capabilities to wage war. Treaties weren't enough because mistakes were made and suddenly B-R. You want to nerf yourself physically unable to harm each other, so your status will forever be stabilized. You want to be away from each other and want to feed your pilots with the kills of terribads so they never provoke the other empire.
You actually believe the rubbish you spout don't you? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13446
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:13:00 -
[793] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
You broke it, YOU fix it.
Feel free to post a subcap counter to our boot fleet. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:17:00 -
[794] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
You broke it, YOU fix it.
Feel free to post a subcap counter to our boot fleet.
I don't fight cowards. Yes, cowards. That is why you blue everyone. Oh, PLEASE, don't attack me and I won't attack you.
That is what this is all about.
Blue Doughnut. You are nice and safe because you won't attack each other.
You even cry nerf on intercepters because a few come and attack you. Oh, yea, I've seen the tears on that also.
Cry some more. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13449
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:21:00 -
[795] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
You broke it, YOU fix it.
Feel free to post a subcap counter to our boot fleet. I don't fight cowards. Yes, cowards. That is why you blue everyone. Oh, PLEASE, don't attack me and I won't attack you. That is what this is all about. Blue Doughnut. You are nice and safe because you won't attack each other. You even cry nerf on intercepters because a few come and attack you. Oh, yea, I've seen the tears on that also. Cry some more.
You do realise that we are not blue with half of nullsec right?
You know, this thread might not get any CCP response in it but at least they can see the poor arguments people are trying to use to keep the status quo. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:24:00 -
[796] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:
If I would, I'd be having another corp/alliance ticker right now, don't you think? What does the mechanics have to do with you wanting an easy life-style? At least don't be a hypocrite. Any set of enforceable rules will succumb to that desire of yours to bunch up and "winwinwin", be it by dropping the node with a "thousand of megathrons(c)", having b0tl0rds of this kind or another, blobbing with titans and what not.
That's not something CCP CAN possibly fix. They can stir the pot a bit, but once everything settles into a steady state - that attitude of "If you had access to ..." will prevail. Always.
I hope they recognize it, and I hope that it settles in your head as well.
Given that I am also calling for our fleets to stop being unkillable I would say I understand. We are trying to get CCP to make changes that we cannot abuse.
There are like 50comments in this topic saying how you can abuse it...cant you just stop saying this now? :D |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:25:00 -
[797] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
You broke it, YOU fix it.
Feel free to post a subcap counter to our boot fleet. I don't fight cowards. Yes, cowards. That is why you blue everyone. Oh, PLEASE, don't attack me and I won't attack you. That is what this is all about. Blue Doughnut. You are nice and safe because you won't attack each other. You even cry nerf on intercepters because a few come and attack you. Oh, yea, I've seen the tears on that also. Cry some more. You do realise that we are not blue with half of nullsec right? You know, this thread might not get any CCP response in it but at least they can see the poor arguments people are trying to use to keep the status quo.
Yet, there are no battles being waged. This is another lie anyway. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4296
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:26:00 -
[798] - Quote
Regatto wrote:Honestly I know this won't happen, cause its obvious that ppl like Vince are egomaniacs that just want to hoard power and isk(lets wonder why). So basically, even though they have power, they won't do anything about it. They will rather have their members run around eve and dunk on some hopeless groups like provi to keep their pilots "entertained" and quiet. No, it's because they are players of the game, not employees of CCP there to keep the game in check when the mechanics fail to do so. It's not their responsibility to step in and play differently when the developers of the game fail to design their game properly.
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Because having them indestructible NPC stations in every sov. region is "literally asking CCP for a nerf". Right. While it probably will cause some small PvP groups to jump in and farm you/your renters, it actually amplifies the ability of the powerblocks to wage war, specially if you consider the possibly incoming power projection changes. First off, we can already wage a war from practically anywhere, we own half the space. How will having NPC stations suddenly make us more able to wage war?
Secondly, if it did make us more able to wage war, isn't that exactly what you want? You are whining that we aren't fighting then telling us that our suggested changes will makes us fight people thus are bad. The reason this doesn't make sense is because you haven't thought it through, you are just raging because "grr goons".
The ideas suggested here aren't perfect, and they need a lot of fleshing out and work, but they give a general idea of where the null community would like to see the game going, and would give opportunities for smaller groups to make their own stand in null outside of renting. Standing there screaming "I hate goons and goons should just play different to make the rest of us happy" isn't really helping anything.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
302
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:28:00 -
[799] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: You do realise that we are not blue with half of nullsec right?
You know, this thread might not get any CCP response in it but at least they can see the poor arguments people are trying to use to keep the status quo.
On that note lets summarize the arguments against:
1) Its all a giant plot by N3/PL and the CFC to get more null sec staging points so they can ROFLCoptor stomp any and all upstarts in the new sov system.
2) Its all a giant plot to condense PvE activities so null ratter become invincible slowcat/boot hordes with 50 man carrier fleets rallying to kill anyone who interrupts the ratting.
3) There won't be any fighting because the distance between entities will be too large and the small entities won't do anything to the larger ones and nobody else will be fighting anyone.
4) This won't fix anything because the CFC and N3/PL still exist
5) Why change the mechanics? People should change the way they play the game.
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:28:00 -
[800] - Quote
Regatto wrote:baltec1 wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:
If I would, I'd be having another corp/alliance ticker right now, don't you think? What does the mechanics have to do with you wanting an easy life-style? At least don't be a hypocrite. Any set of enforceable rules will succumb to that desire of yours to bunch up and "winwinwin", be it by dropping the node with a "thousand of megathrons(c)", having b0tl0rds of this kind or another, blobbing with titans and what not.
That's not something CCP CAN possibly fix. They can stir the pot a bit, but once everything settles into a steady state - that attitude of "If you had access to ..." will prevail. Always.
I hope they recognize it, and I hope that it settles in your head as well.
Given that I am also calling for our fleets to stop being unkillable I would say I understand. We are trying to get CCP to make changes that we cannot abuse. There are like 50comments in this topic saying how you can abuse it...cant you just stop saying this now? :D
It's the goon propaganda machine. It keeps going and going and going.
Doesn't matter that is lies. He just keeps pushing it.
They broke it. They need to fix it. CCP can't fix out of game treaties they hide behind like the weasels they are. |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13452
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:29:00 -
[801] - Quote
Regatto wrote:
There are like 50comments in this topic saying how you can abuse it...cant you just stop saying this now? :D
There are 50 comments by people making the same mistakes and assumptions over and over along with a smattering of grr goon. The only reason most of you are against it is simply because we are supporting it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:30:00 -
[802] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
There are like 50comments in this topic saying how you can abuse it...cant you just stop saying this now? :D
There are 50 comments by people making the same mistakes and assumptions over and over along with a smattering of grr goon. The only reason most of you are against it is simply because we are supporting it.
The propaganda machine lives on. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:31:00 -
[803] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
You broke it, YOU fix it.
Feel free to post a subcap counter to our boot fleet. I don't fight cowards. Yes, cowards. That is why you blue everyone. Oh, PLEASE, don't attack me and I won't attack you. That is what this is all about. Blue Doughnut. You are nice and safe because you won't attack each other. You even cry nerf on intercepters because a few come and attack you. Oh, yea, I've seen the tears on that also. Cry some more. You do realise that we are not blue with half of nullsec right? You know, this thread might not get any CCP response in it but at least they can see the poor arguments people are trying to use to keep the status quo.
No...? Only like 12 regions? :D while in another half you can't even use caps because of that deal with PL to keep your supers/caps safe? Just to be sure... |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
302
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:33:00 -
[804] - Quote
Regatto wrote: No...? Only like 12 regions? :D while in another half you can't even use caps because of that deal with PL to keep your supers/caps safe? Just to be sure...
That has absolutely no bearing on how ridiculous most of the arguments against the proposed changes to the sov system are. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:34:00 -
[805] - Quote
Regatto wrote:baltec1 wrote: You do realise that we are not blue with half of nullsec right?
You know, this thread might not get any CCP response in it but at least they can see the poor arguments people are trying to use to keep the status quo.
No...? Only like 12 regions? :D while in another half you can't even use caps because of that deal with PL to keep your supers/caps safe? Just to be sure...
Goon and pets broke it, they need to fix it. Goons are scared, hence the propaganda machine. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:35:00 -
[806] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote: You broke it, YOU fix it.
how exactly would you expect them to fix it? Reset friendly alliances? Cancel BOTLRD?
There are still gazillions of structure HP noone wants to grind through at 0.1% tidi.
C'mon, get real. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:42:00 -
[807] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Regatto wrote:Honestly I know this won't happen, cause its obvious that ppl like Vince are egomaniacs that just want to hoard power and isk(lets wonder why). So basically, even though they have power, they won't do anything about it. They will rather have their members run around eve and dunk on some hopeless groups like provi to keep their pilots "entertained" and quiet. No, it's because they are players of the game, not employees of CCP there to keep the game in check when the mechanics fail to do so. It's not their responsibility to step in and play differently when the developers of the game fail to design their game properly.
Exactly! I didn't say they would need to fix their games, just their heads. As leaders of the biggest groups, they should try to make game fun for their pilots, shouldn't they?? I mean why are you even following somebody who doesn't give a crap about you and just focuses on himself? Instead of trying to tell devs how to fix the game way they like, they could think how their subjects can have more fun in this game. |

Souxie Alduin
Anarchy in the Eve
139
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:44:00 -
[808] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Regatto wrote:baltec1 wrote: You do realise that we are not blue with half of nullsec right?
You know, this thread might not get any CCP response in it but at least they can see the poor arguments people are trying to use to keep the status quo.
No...? Only like 12 regions? :D while in another half you can't even use caps because of that deal with PL to keep your supers/caps safe? Just to be sure... Goon and pets broke it, they need to fix it. Goons are scared, hence the propaganda machine.
CCP broke it. Goons just took advantage of the game mechanics as they currently function. |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:45:00 -
[809] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote: You broke it, YOU fix it.
how exactly would you expect them to fix it? Reset friendly alliances? Cancel BOTLRD? There are still gazillions of structure HP noone wants to grind through at 0.1% tidi. C'mon, get real.
Thats the part pilots could change yes, ccp needs to change the rest. There won't be tidi if there are couple of alliances nuking it out. You also wont need to grind through 5regions of sov if you don't need to rent it out. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9955
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:45:00 -
[810] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote: Goon and pets broke it, they need to fix it. Goons are scared, hence the propaganda machine.
They did not break anything. It was already broken because CCP did not do a good job.
Using mechanics as they exist is not "breaking" anything. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:46:00 -
[811] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Goon and pets broke it, they need to fix it. Goons are scared, hence the propaganda machine.
Who put in the mechanics to hold hundreds of empty systems forever? Who put in the mechanics that makes our fleets unkillable? Who put in the mechanics that force us to need huge areas of space to support our members?
Who blued "everyone". Goon.
Did they nerf intercepters enough for you? Or are they still a threat. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:48:00 -
[812] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote: Goon and pets broke it, they need to fix it. Goons are scared, hence the propaganda machine.
They did not break anything. It was already broken because CCP did not do a good job. Using mechanics as they exist is not "breaking" anything.
Because CCP intended everyone to agree on treaties with everyone else because they are scared. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13455
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:49:00 -
[813] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Goon and pets broke it, they need to fix it. Goons are scared, hence the propaganda machine.
Who put in the mechanics to hold hundreds of empty systems forever? Who put in the mechanics that makes our fleets unkillable? Who put in the mechanics that force us to need huge areas of space to support our members? Who blued "everyone". Goon. Did they nerf intercepters enough for you? Or are they still a threat.
Nobody is blue with everyone. We are currently not blue with half of null, all of low sec and all of high sec.
Interceptors got another balance pass to balance them. So guess that made us right doesn't it?
Now, lets have some answers to those three questions I asked of you. Who is responsible for those mechanics? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:52:00 -
[814] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Goon and pets broke it, they need to fix it. Goons are scared, hence the propaganda machine.
Who put in the mechanics to hold hundreds of empty systems forever? Who put in the mechanics that makes our fleets unkillable? Who put in the mechanics that force us to need huge areas of space to support our members? Who blued "everyone". Goon. Did they nerf intercepters enough for you? Or are they still a threat. Nobody is blue with everyone. We are currently not blue with half of null, all of low sec and all of high sec. Interceptors got another balance pass to balance them. So guess that made us right doesn't it? Now, lets have some answers to those three questions I asked of you. Who is responsible for those mechanics?
Not technically blue, just have treaties with. Oh, now. That makes a big difference. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13455
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:54:00 -
[815] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Not technically blue, just have treaties with. Oh, now. That makes a big difference.
Given that they still attack us it seems that there is a very big difference. Now, lets have those answers to the asked questions. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
735
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:55:00 -
[816] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Who put in the mechanics that force us to need huge areas of space to support our members?
This point I never really understood. How do empty systems sustain players? Moons? With the now very limited income amount? They can also be harvested in unclaimed systems. Anoms? Again: empty systems? PI? Should I start counting Interbus Pocos in Sov 00? What else is there that I don't see?
|

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9955
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:58:00 -
[817] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:baltec1 wrote:Who put in the mechanics that force us to need huge areas of space to support our members? This point I never really understood. How do empty systems sustain players? Moons? With the now very limited income amount? They can also be harvested in unclaimed systems. Anoms? Again: empty systems? PI? Should I start counting Interbus Pocos in Sov 00? What else is there that I don't see?
Renting. Take large amounts of space, make people who want to live there pay tribute, use said tribute for SRP and other beneficial things.
And thanks to the economy of scale, large numbers are needed to win. But thanks to CCP screwing up null income so badly at the conceptual level, the numbers needed to win cannot be reasonably sustained by the income derived from living there, hence the need to expand. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |

Eyrun Mangeiri
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:00:00 -
[818] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote: Goon and pets broke it, they need to fix it. Goons are scared, hence the propaganda machine.
They did not break anything. It was already broken because CCP did not do a good job. Using mechanics as they exist is not "breaking" anything. Because CCP intended everyone to agree on treaties with everyone else because they are scared.
So the "good eve player" attacks everyone on sight, because setting anyone blue breaks the rules. I see. I don't know why people are even atempting to discuss the matter with you anymore. It's clear that the only solution you'd accept is goons "and pets" quitting EVE forever.
I could now say that EVE as a game should be fun, and that BOTLRD may change nothing, because even N3 is not attacking any sov.
I play EVE 9 month now and even I find the current sov games the most boring **** ever with the current set of mechanics. So any change is welcome, and the CFC quitting EVE would change nothing. I can see what you see not - vision milky then eyes rot. When you turn they will be gone - whispering their hidden song. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13455
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:00:00 -
[819] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:baltec1 wrote:Who put in the mechanics that force us to need huge areas of space to support our members? This point I never really understood. How do empty systems sustain players? Moons? With the now very limited income amount? They can also be harvested in unclaimed systems. Anoms? Again: empty systems? PI? Should I start counting Interbus Pocos in Sov 00? What else is there that I don't see?
Thats the cap of 10 people per system. That the systems are so bad nobody want to rat in them makes little difference. If it ever became viable to run anoms in them for line members then we will need the systems to support our pilots. To put this issue into context, we currently have more pilots than our systems could support. Under the current system if only 10% of our members in the CFC went ratting we would need around 3000 systems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
735
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:01:00 -
[820] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:baltec1 wrote:Who put in the mechanics that force us to need huge areas of space to support our members? This point I never really understood. How do empty systems sustain players? Moons? With the now very limited income amount? They can also be harvested in unclaimed systems. Anoms? Again: empty systems? PI? Should I start counting Interbus Pocos in Sov 00? What else is there that I don't see? Thats the cap of 10 people per system. That they systems are so bad nobody want to rat in them makes little difference. If it ever became viable to run anoms in them for line members then we will need the systems to support our pilots. To put this issue into context, we currently have more pilots than our systems could support. Under the current system if only 10% of our members in the CFC went ratting we would need around 3000 systems.
Then if they are worthless why keep them to begin with?
|
|

Anthar Thebess
716
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:03:00 -
[821] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote: Because CCP intended everyone to agree on treaties with everyone else because they are scared.
You know what.
You are right . PL should attack NC , NC should attack BOT, BOT should attack CFC, CFC should attack HERO, and Hero hit NA , and NA should attack S2N.
But .... PL will not attack NC as they have a deal. NC will not attack BOT , as there is a deal BOT will not attack CFC, as there is a deal CFC will not attack HERO, as there is a deal HERO will not attack NA , as there is a deal NA will not attack S2N, as they are renters.... and there is a deal.
I don't like goons, or blooobs, but why every one see only that Goons are the issue.
Why N3 will not attack PL .... becasue they have deal Why PL don't camp NA ... as there is a deal
Every one is guilty. If someone is able to change something in current situation is not CFC , but NC and PL.
PL can make deal with CFC invalid , just strike some CFC space using supers. NC can make their deal with PL not valid by attacking PL space .... or they might hit CFC space ( something they are saying from ages).
Many smaller groups will join. This could be the final war for this game. Big blocks will fall apart during this war, or we get one group that will control whole nullsec - so in this case it will be end of eve . Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption Support Needed : Faction Crystal Changes |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13455
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:04:00 -
[822] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Then if they are worthless why keep them to begin with?
Because we need them for when the are not worthless. It costs us damn near nothing in sov bills and are an asset despite being near worthless to line members. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

DeadDuck
Mining Industry Exile Foundation The Camel Empire
103
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:10:00 -
[823] - Quote
TBH the blame on the current state of the game is on both parts:
1) CCP to blame on current sov mechanics and introducing and permiting to expand the 0.0 game "Super Caps Online"; 2) The players with idiotic agreements, such as the "Botlord agreements" to keep their lawns quite, and to benefitiate, from the huge tons of isks earned in the ways they please.
So since the 0.0 players seem to not being able to get out of theis stagnant situation that their leadership condemned them, they turn on CCP to do something about it, including some of the same leaders that signed and maintain the stupid agreements 
Most probably CCP will do something that will pretty much change 0.0 game. They have to, or their game will die. After all it's the 0.0 battles that sell the game out there not the friendly Empire environment.
TBH, to deal with the current 0.0 joke that we live in, CCP has to make a total revamp of the roles performed by super caps or by the boost of some of existing ships in order to counter the absurd power the super caps present when working in huge groups. Probably both.
The power projection limitation seems to be a good idea, like the end of EW invulnerability seems also a good idead, but TBH CCP has to go further, besides enhancing a new sov mechanic, it has to boost Dreads the existing ship with potentai to really hurt the super cap blobs. They can do it by simply eliminating the 0 m/s when a Dread is in siege and allowing on the same type the remote repping. Siege will pretty much be the boost the ship fire power, but still preventing the ship from jumping out.
With this small tweak, the small, medium enthities, will have a weapon to fight the super cap blobs, they can have a chance since their cap fleets will have the power to hurt super cap fleets.
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:15:00 -
[824] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote: Because CCP intended everyone to agree on treaties with everyone else because they are scared.
You know what. You are right . PL should attack NC , NC should attack BOT, BOT should attack CFC, CFC should attack HERO, and Hero hit NA , and NA should attack S2N. But .... PL will not attack NC as they have a deal. NC will not attack BOT , as there is a deal BOT will not attack CFC, as there is a deal CFC will not attack HERO, as there is a deal HERO will not attack NA , as there is a deal NA will not attack S2N, as they are renters.... and there is a deal. I don't like goons, or blooobs, but why every one see only that Goons are the issue. Why N3 will not attack PL .... becasue they have deal Why PL don't camp NA ... as there is a deal Every one is guilty. If someone is able to change something in current situation is not CFC , but NC and PL. PL can make deal with CFC invalid , just strike some CFC space using supers. NC can make their deal with PL not valid by attacking PL space .... or they might hit CFC space ( something they are saying from ages). Many smaller groups will join. This could be the final war for this game. Big blocks will fall apart during this war, or we get one group that will control whole nullsec - so in this case it will be end of eve .
More like it's giving CFC exactly what they want, easy targets. Because we all know how they cry when something doesn't go their way.
CFC crying is the game. Oh, no, intercepters blew up my ship, NERF.
And you expect them to attack anyone that has a chance? |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13455
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:16:00 -
[825] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote: With this small tweak, the small, medium enthities, will have a weapon to fight the super cap blobs, they can have a chance since their cap fleets will have the power to hurt super cap fleets.
The way to nerf cap fleets is to remove their ability to be invincible death machines, key to this is dealing with the thing that makes them so hard to kill, RR. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9956
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:22:00 -
[826] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:DeadDuck wrote: With this small tweak, the small, medium enthities, will have a weapon to fight the super cap blobs, they can have a chance since their cap fleets will have the power to hurt super cap fleets.
The way to nerf cap fleets is to remove their ability to be invincible death machines, key to this is dealing with the thing that makes them so hard to kill, RR.
Yep. Reps are the problem with a lot of the game. Infinitely scalable, infinitely sustainable, and more powerful per single pilot than a dps ship (as a general rule anyway).
They are why a smaller can only evade or whelp against a large fleet. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |

Frayze Nissai
Twenty Questions RAZOR Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:29:00 -
[827] - Quote
[/quote]
The way to nerf cap fleets is to remove their ability to be invincible death machines, key to this is dealing with the thing that makes them so hard to kill, RR.[/quote]
I am unashamedly stealing this name for any and all cap ships I currently, or will at any time in the future, own.
|

zyathussi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:35:00 -
[828] - Quote
i find it somehow interesting that this game is widely considered to be a sandbox but most players do not want to utilize the "freedom to do whatever you want".
read, if nullseccers want npc-constellations in every sov-region, why don't you guys just create them? found a together ally, move some systems from every region into it, hand directorate to someone you all trust, make stations ffa and there you go.
|

Marcus Covinus
The Blood Ankhs
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:37:00 -
[829] - Quote
zyathussi wrote:i find it somehow interesting that this game is widely considered to be a sandbox but most players do not want to utilize the "freedom to do whatever you want".
read, if nullseccers want npc-constellations in every sov-region, why don't you guys just create them? found a together ally, move some systems from every region into it, hand directorate to someone you all trust, make stations ffa and there you go.
The temptation/risk of locking someone out on a whim for the pure 'lol factor' would be too high when they've moved billions of assets into a "FFA Station" |

Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:44:00 -
[830] - Quote
It would be interesting to see changes if carriers could use RR only in triage...after all they are their name suggest that they should be platforms carrying ships/drones and not huge logistics. Its kinda like we would give guardian sentry drones |
|

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
307
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:48:00 -
[831] - Quote
Arsine Mayhem wrote:They broke it, they can fix it. Seems subs are taking a dive, for good reason. Do you want to be sheep? WRONG! Subs have nothing to do with nullsec. I made some charts and proved that nullsec activity (jumps, NPC kills, ship kills) is stable and irresponsive to concurrent login changes. On the other hand highsec activity has strong correlation with logins.
So nullsec is fine, highsec players are quiting.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
525
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:04:00 -
[832] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:baltec1 wrote: Take the unbeatable fleets away from everyone and put in mechanics that makes taking and holding half of EVE impossible and you fix the problem.
How's that related to the "letter" at hand, signed by all the stars of our blue doughnut and then some? The fact that they are calling for mechanics that make it impossible to take and hold half of null sec and make it easier for smaller entities to enter null to harass us.
Give up cyno jammers, timers and all your supers - then and only then would this start to become reasonable. Until then, these suggested changes are totally useless. You're trying to totally lock down the remaining null via clone jump diplomacy.
More NPC doesn't make your holdings any less stale or boring. I would say the biggest null block problem is that their eve pretty much sux AND they can't force me or anyone else to come play it. It's getting lonely in the winner's circle and no one cares - there are plenty of other rides in the amusement park that are actually fun.
Did you ever see the picture of the snake biting itslef in the tail? If you paint the snake blue it will resemble a big blue donut. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8391
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:08:00 -
[833] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:They broke it, they can fix it. Seems subs are taking a dive, for good reason. Do you want to be sheep? WRONG! Subs have nothing to do with nullsec. I made some charts and proved that nullsec activity (jumps, NPC kills, ship kills) is stable and irresponsive to concurrent login changes. On the other hand highsec activity has strong correlation with logins. So nullsec is fine, highsec players are quiting.
I might not be that high sec players are 'quiting' but rather that a lot of high sec alts accounts are being allowed to lapse. I know lots of people who only had extra accounts in order to train alts, now you don't have to do that because you can use plex to train alts on 1 account.
But yea, I read your chart and it was good info, Despite all the hurf-blerf , people are still logging in to do stuff in null sec (and wormholes and low sec). Big surprise that the themepark area of EVE (high sec) is seeing less and less activity since CCP stopped 'creating content' for them. if only CCP had let them walk around in stations, high sec would have survived! 
|

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
525
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:20:00 -
[834] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:They broke it, they can fix it. Seems subs are taking a dive, for good reason. Do you want to be sheep? WRONG! Subs have nothing to do with nullsec. I made some charts and proved that nullsec activity (jumps, NPC kills, ship kills) is stable and irresponsive to concurrent login changes. On the other hand highsec activity has strong correlation with logins. So nullsec is fine, highsec players are quiting.
Those charts are awesome! Just a couple of questions regarding them...
1. Do you count wh space as null or high sec (this is about just null proper suckingass, so putting wh w/ null is misleading) 2. Have you ever looked at the in game map?? (HS and LS are packed with players and activity - null isn't) 3. What are you smoking?
EDIT 4. Did you factor out mining and farming bots in your null activity? Because F..... them. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8391
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:24:00 -
[835] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:They broke it, they can fix it. Seems subs are taking a dive, for good reason. Do you want to be sheep? WRONG! Subs have nothing to do with nullsec. I made some charts and proved that nullsec activity (jumps, NPC kills, ship kills) is stable and irresponsive to concurrent login changes. On the other hand highsec activity has strong correlation with logins. So nullsec is fine, highsec players are quiting. Those charts are awesome! Just a couple of questions regarding them... 1. Do you count wh space as null or high sec (this is about just null proper suckingass, so putting wh w/ null is misleading) 2. Have you ever looked at the in game map?? (HS and LS are packed with players and activity - null isn't) 3. What are you smoking? EDIT 4. Did you factor out mining and farming bots in your null activity? Because F..... them.
4. most bots are caught in high sec.
As to #2, you do know that the in game map is misleading right? Why do you think things like Dotlan exist in the 1st place?
|

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:25:00 -
[836] - Quote
funny how people request involved parties to shoot their own feet instead pushing sov changes toward CCP. I really dont know who is more likely to shake up eve, CCP in leaking subscriptios or players who'd need shooting their own feet. |

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
525
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:33:00 -
[837] - Quote
So out of all the stuff being shovelled in this thread you draw the line at the in game map being misleading??
It is my understanding that the eve map is a visual representation of live data displayed across the eve map. Please explain how this is misleading? Teach me. |

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:49:00 -
[838] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:So since the 0.0 players seem to not being able to get out of theis stagnant situation that their leadership condemned them, they turn on CCP to do something about it, including some of the same leaders that signed and maintain the stupid agreements 
So people can't play the metagame? The thing that keeps EVE actually alive and the only thing that has ever got EVE in the news? It's fairly depressing that what you suggest - and some others here - is players have to be self regulating in a game which says it's a sandbox and even advertises itself as one where the metagame is a core element.
DeadDuck wrote: TBH, to deal with the current 0.0 joke that we live in, CCP has to make a total revamp of the roles performed by super caps or by the boost of some of existing ships in order to counter the absurd power the super caps present when working in huge groups. Probably both.
The power projection limitation seems to be a good idea, like the end of EW invulnerability seems also a good idead, but TBH CCP has to go further, besides enhancing a new sov mechanic, it has to boost Dreads the existing ship with potentai to really hurt the super cap blobs. They can do it by simply eliminating the 0 m/s when a Dread is in siege and allowing on the same type the remote repping. Siege will pretty much be the boost the ship fire power, but still preventing the ship from jumping out.
With this small tweak, the small, medium enthities, will have a weapon to fight the super cap blobs, they can have a chance since their cap fleets will have the power to hurt super cap fleets.
Power creep of dreads won't work especially if you add remote reps, not unless you want to see 256 man Dread Fleets replacing battleship fleets. It would be fun for us, but not for the small guy who's worried about supers. Supercaps and Titans themselves need addressing directly as they are part of the problem and the reason for the numerically large coalitions. The occupation based Sov, if done correctly will invalidate some of the threat supercaps pose to smaller groups as you're not just talking about grinding out hit points when you want to take Sov.
|

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1381
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:57:00 -
[839] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:So out of all the stuff being shovelled in this thread you draw the line at the in game map being misleading??
It is my understanding that the eve map is a visual representation of live data displayed across the eve map. Please explain how this is misleading? Teach me.
EDIT while you're spouting facts, could you divulge your base line data for most bots are in high sec? I'd love to sink my teeth into the data base you pulled that from. because short term sample because looking at colored circles and sizes =/= data
Pretty much the two requirements for any legitimate study on anything, except case studies which don't necessarily give any clue as to the broader picture.
Looking at map right now and using that is like looking out the window and trying to predict the weather for the week. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8393
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:02:00 -
[840] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:funny how people request involved parties to shoot their own feet instead pushing sov changes toward CCP.
I really wonder who is more likely to shake up status quo: CCP, who face leaking subscriptions or players, who'd require themselves to shoot their own feet. Get real.
Their is no proof of 'leaking subscriptions'. Both the sub numbers and pcu counts people glean from EVE-Offline can be explained by CCP allowing multiple character training. EVE-offline never told anyone who was or wasn't an alt to begin with, so using it as a reference to say "subs and activity declined" is illogical.
|
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2553
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:03:00 -
[841] - Quote
Marcus Covinus wrote:The temptation/risk of locking someone out on a whim for the pure 'lol factor' would be too high when they've moved billions of assets into a "FFA Station" Give them to Chribba. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8393
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:08:00 -
[842] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:So out of all the stuff being shovelled in this thread you draw the line at the in game map being misleading??
It is my understanding that the eve map is a visual representation of live data displayed across the eve map. Please explain how this is misleading? Teach me.
EDIT while you're spouting facts, could you divulge your base line data for most bots are in high sec? I'd love to sink my teeth into the data base you pulled that from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CZR9w3ftjY
And yes, the in game map is misleading. Take for instance ship kills, it only tells you a ship was killed, doesn't tell you what kind, or whether it was killed by another person, or an npc. The last time CCP gave us numbers they revealed that the most kills ship in high sec was the CONDOR you get free from tutorial missions lol.
Or take 'jumps per hour', a lot of what looks like "activity' in high sec is actually people who are at work/school (not at home) and no where near their computers auto piloting across high sec (something that doesn't happen in low, null and wormhole space).
Null, low and WH activity can be gauged by the ingame map. High Sec activity can not. |

Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2031
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:19:00 -
[843] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:They broke it, they can fix it. Seems subs are taking a dive, for good reason. Do you want to be sheep? WRONG! Subs have nothing to do with nullsec. I made some charts and proved that nullsec activity (jumps, NPC kills, ship kills) is stable and irresponsive to concurrent login changes. On the other hand highsec activity has strong correlation with logins. So nullsec is fine, highsec players are quiting. At least you didn't compare EVE to WoW in that post... EVE needs more Pssshhhh |

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:19:00 -
[844] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:First off, we can already wage a war from practically anywhere, we own half the space. How will having NPC stations suddenly make us more able to wage war?
Did you notice what happened to PL when they lost the battle for B-R5? Look up Grath's story on FHC if you don't. They had to eat a **** sandwich (and that's a quote) and be gone for a while. Do you know why? Because assets, in station. A lot of them. So yeah, you could wage war from anywhere, but if you can have invulnerable staging systems, I'd say that increases your ability to wage war. Similar thing happened with BL and CFC, or something along the line. And now the "leaders" write a "letter" to CCP saying, please CCP, we're bored - let us have an undestructable staging system to stash our caps, have our clones and what not, so they won't be able to purge us completely out of any region, and so we can clone around EvE safely - to counter what ever changes CCP might introduce, be it caps nerf , power projection nerf, destructible stations and more. I'd even say they request it BECAUSE of these incoming changes, but that i won't be able to prove.
So yeah, don't be a ******.
Lucas Kell wrote: Secondly, if it did make us more able to wage war, isn't that exactly what you want? You are whining that we aren't fighting then telling us that our suggested changes will makes us fight people thus are bad. The reason this doesn't make sense is because you haven't thought it through, you are just raging because "grr goons".
Who are you kidding, you're not going to fight anyone, no matter what happens. Your leaders want some content, as long as there's not threat to your sov, since renting and sov. is not something to put at risk. So no, there won't be any war, none of you will initiate it. It took a 3rd party to initiate last time, if you remember. The time before that, we remember what happened to HBC/Montolio when he decided not to play according to your "agreements".
Lucas Kell wrote: The ideas suggested here aren't perfect, and they need a lot of fleshing out and work, but they give a general idea of where the null community would like to see the game going, and would give opportunities for smaller groups to make their own stand in null outside of renting. Standing there screaming "I hate goons and goons should just play different to make the rest of us happy" isn't really helping anything.
The idea suggested are the essence of what's going on right now:
- Need some more content, but only of the type that doesn't endanger sov/income and doesn't require commitment. - People are bored, please help us overcome ourselves.
And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, and I don't differentiate goons from the rest of the donut - all the same to me, but when the donut starts to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting. |

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:29:00 -
[845] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.
It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null. The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock.
Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one? |

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:37:00 -
[846] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...
Sorry but this is disingenuous. What the blue donut wants is more space for renters.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
525
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:38:00 -
[847] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:
And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.
It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null. The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock. Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one?
He's got you there. Practically everyone in null did sign the letter. (check the map.... giggle) |

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
285
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:40:00 -
[848] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:
And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.
It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null. As I said, the doughnut.
knobber Jobbler wrote: The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock.
Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one?
Sure, don't touch any of it for another couple of years, the cancer might just die out.
Oh wait... the doughnut wants content, but it wants to be forced into content... Oh well - let's change the mechanics then, why shan't we? \o/ |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:50:00 -
[849] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:
And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.
It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null. As I said, the doughnut. knobber Jobbler wrote: The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock.
Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one?
Sure, don't touch any of it for another couple of years, the cancer might just die out. Oh wait... the doughnut wants content, but it wants to be forced into content... Oh well - let's change the mechanics then, why shan't we? \o/
From what I can see it will die out. It has already begun. Goon kill eve. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8393
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:51:00 -
[850] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:So out of all the stuff being shovelled in this thread you draw the line at the in game map being misleading??
It is my understanding that the eve map is a visual representation of live data displayed across the eve map. Please explain how this is misleading? Teach me.
EDIT while you're spouting facts, could you divulge your base line data for most bots are in high sec? I'd love to sink my teeth into the data base you pulled that from. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CZR9w3ftjYAnd yes, the in game map is misleading. Take for instance ship kills, it only tells you a ship was killed, doesn't tell you what kind, or whether it was killed by another person, or an npc. The last time CCP gave us numbers they revealed that the most kills ship in high sec was the CONDOR you get free from tutorial missions lol. Or take 'jumps per hour', a lot of what looks like "activity' in high sec is actually people who are at work/school (not at home) and no where near their computers auto piloting across high sec (something that doesn't happen in low, null and wormhole space). Null, low and WH activity can be gauged by the ingame map. High Sec activity can not. I'll just say I look at the map quite often. Players in space and players docked in station. Forget the skewed and misleading empire stuff and just look at Null. It's empty. Jumps in the last hour is pathetic across all regions. It sux out there. Regardless of how you paint HS - Null is void and empty. It's stupid to claim otherwise (pro hint- we're not dumb and we can all open the map and see what isn't going on in null)
That's a cop out. Null is several times larger than high sec, the activity in null is there, it is much more diffused than what happens in high sec. This will always be the case because a significant portion of EVE's players (and Gamers in general) are to weak in the grey area between their ears to put imaginary spaceships at risk in space not controlled by CONCORD. NO sov (or any other kind) change is ever going to change that.
And it's always been that way, since virtually the beginning (according to DEVs at fanfest) null has accounted for no more than 10-15% of character population, so this is nothing at all new.
|
|

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
971
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:03:00 -
[851] - Quote
I still say fix the problem with coalitions and end them. That is the problem with 0.0. |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2553
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:06:00 -
[852] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote: So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe... Sorry but this is disingenuous. What the blue donut wants is more space for renters. They can be well-intentioned, but they are also looking out for themselves at the same time. It simply makes no sense to add more income to null sec. 1. You're rewarding entities that have decided to blue each for isk instead of creating content. You're not supposed to feed a cancer, you're supposed to starve it. 2. They will be "forced" to continue their (now more valuable) rental empires due to "competitive pressures". Status Quo continues. 3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)
If players really want content, then give them a good occupancy based sov and let them go kill each other. Bribing them with better isk making opportunities in null sec won't suddenly make them any more altruistic than they already are (not).
|

Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
310
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:06:00 -
[853] - Quote
More NPC nullsec space I can see the sense of, but not the odd constellation in every region. I'd prefer whole regions to revert to NPC control.
Two or Three regions should be enough. The east especially needs another NPC region or two. It's a wasteland. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
286
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:06:00 -
[854] - Quote
Ahaha, wow.
And how do you propose to do that, in a game environment that doesn't have "coalition" as an entity? Would you prefer to see mega-alliances/corps (there were/are some already...)? Or just have small bodies being "friends" with one another? That's easily done even if the standings mechanism is altered or REMOVED.
So yeah, once you come up with a way that deals with the "n+1" problem in a sandbox... we'll get back to that. For now try to stick to reality. |

tryianid
Corporate Scum Cult of War
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:12:00 -
[855] - Quote
Here I just wish to add my thoughts on the OP(I agree with the proposed changes) I apologize if anything I state here has been said before. sorry for any bad spelling or grammar I am typing this on laptop.
I agree that sov space needs to be changed so that only systems being used will offer rewards sort of how they have the index set up right now but on an even more large scale, for instance having Corps choose a system (with or with out a station) to use as a home system and everything that corp does (mining, ratting, moon mining, anything) is influenced from the home system out, kind of like how teritory grows for cities in Civ 5, Zerg from Starcraft, or undead from Warcraft 3 (im unsure but i thought they needed plague area's to grow) the more members, or the more activity the faster the 'influence' grows. At the same time tho if your corp suddenly goes inactive then you lose influence at a rate that would have to be tested for fairness and speed ect. As for the corp Home system i believe that a new Starbase should be added something a kin to a Large Tower but with a bigger bubble more allocated space for Hangars or Production, offensive or defensive capabiliteis, with the same base stats as a large tower tho nothing rediculous, more of a deepspace FOB (foward operating base) and not just another outpost) have the influence made so that if a Corp loses a FOB the influence generated lingers on but slowly retreats to nothing or if the corp only loses the homebase the other systems keep their influence but cannot gain more untill another FOB is established, some thing to bring more tacticle placement of bases not so they are worth the most but maybe a choke point as well.
On another note systems should be able to grow so that they can support more members ratting, or more members mining but to a limit (this could be based on -sec status or celestial bodies present) something fun would also be the more gate fire in a system causes npc's to spawn or gank inbound fleets (with some sort of bubble that a fleet needs to work together to kill, might not be the best way about my idea but something more interactive than just looking for players, it would also add a seperate element of tactics to large gang warfare if all of a sudden a 30 man NPC fleet landed on field just an idea tho not really refined yet)
you4 idea on the NPC systems and stations are great it would allow for more people to use such tatics that in my opion Rooks and Kings have mastered,as well i do believe that it would allow for more large corps or small alliances to try and hold sov if they have a nuetral staging point a few jumps from their sov. Instead of my idea in the paragraph above the NPC's could have "fleet/fleets" patroling their area as a sort of random event that happens (CCP would have to figure out bounties or loot so that they cannot be farmed or make them rare spawns like Faction)
(weak idea) Something interesting would be Deployment of temporary defensive structure, sort of like gate guns that help multiply a small gangs force in systems they have influence over, but only to a limit (based upon a hard start or a influence mesure or something of the sort) low tank low dps but something that might make a difference on small scale warfare but not effect large scale. They could deal damage increase resists, provide small rep bonus, increase tracking or some sort of small benifit. i realize this is not the best idea and im only putting it out there to see what it helps you guys come up with.
If you managed to make it through my ramblings i thank you and i welcome any feedback.
Regards tryianid
|

Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:12:00 -
[856] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:baltec1 wrote:We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe... No, we think you want to be safe because you are literally asking CCP to nerf your empires and your capabilities to wage war. Treaties weren't enough because mistakes were made and suddenly B-R. You want to nerf yourself physically unable to harm each other, so your status will forever be stabilized. You want to be away from each other and want to feed your pilots with the kills of terribads so they never provoke the other empire.
'Pilots provoking the other empire' has never been a problem in the scale of starting a war before, so nobody has a motive to request game mechanic changes to avoid such a possibility.
B-R has never been an event that both sides of the fence wanted to avoid. On the contrary, it was a welcome event and such a confrontation was expected. Anyone can ask N3 and PL about whether they'd rather avoided a B-R or not. I'm sure they'd preferred that the outcome was such that they'd have emerged victorious instead of us, but no N3 or PL director or member would say that they wish B-R wouldn't have happened.
Everyone wanted a B-R. I'm pretty sure that everyone that was involved is glad to have been involved.
You have never been in a position to influence null strategy. You have never lived in null enough to understand it's dynamics, and these are showing in your nonsensical comments. You have no idea what you are talking about. |

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:21:00 -
[857] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:
And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.
It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null. As I said, the doughnut. knobber Jobbler wrote: The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock.
Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one?
Sure, don't touch any of it for another couple of years, the cancer might just die out. Oh wait... the doughnut wants content, but it wants to be forced into content... Oh well - let's change the mechanics then, why shan't we? \o/
So that'll be a no then.
|

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1382
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:22:00 -
[858] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)
Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? Do we just want people running missions in highsec and then running back down to defend money moons in null? Null needs to switch the majot income sources from alliance level to individual level. So not necessarily just 'more money' in null, but switching how the bulk of it is made.
Not to mention how giving highsec residents more money doesnt mean theyll come spend it (in terms of ships and bullets) in null. If anything give NPC null a high income close to what null will be, in order to give venturing pilots a nearby income source as they launch themselves into null space. |

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman Southern Federation
286
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:26:00 -
[859] - Quote
Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)
Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? Do we just want people running missions in highsec and then running back down to defend money moons in null? Null needs to switch the majot income sources from alliance level to individual level. So not necessarily just 'more money' in null, but switching how the bulk of it is made. Not to mention how giving highsec residents more money doesnt mean theyll come spend it (in terms of ships and bullets) in null. If anything give NPC null a high income close to what null will be, in order to give venturing pilots a nearby income source as they launch themselves into null space.
If anything, I'd reduce the income in 0.0 , it's a lot safer to carebear in null. than in lowsec, for instance. |

Patty Loveless
Minute to Midnight
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:37:00 -
[860] - Quote
I'm fine with "NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them" as long as it isn't just about giving the blue donut all their own little pirate mission farm hubs. Make them NPC's with heavily nerfed agents (like max L3 Q0) and no security.
Other than that, it is nice to see you guys all agree how crap your blue donut has made this game. |
|

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1382
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:46:00 -
[861] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)
Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? Do we just want people running missions in highsec and then running back down to defend money moons in null? Null needs to switch the majot income sources from alliance level to individual level. So not necessarily just 'more money' in null, but switching how the bulk of it is made. Not to mention how giving highsec residents more money doesnt mean theyll come spend it (in terms of ships and bullets) in null. If anything give NPC null a high income close to what null will be, in order to give venturing pilots a nearby income source as they launch themselves into null space. If anything, I'd reduce the income in 0.0 , it's a lot safer to carebear in null. than in lowsec, for instance. If you make it safe, yes. But if i tried to go carebear in any space that i dont own how easy do you think I'll make isk? Take that away or even better just go somewhere you're not welcome and then compare it to low again. Pretty similar amounts of risk but the rewards are different. Thats why a lot of guys also had FW alts to farm the sites. And those were even more farmable than anoms in null. |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2553
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:06:00 -
[862] - Quote
Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now) Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? If you want a competitive game, then you need to favor attack (movement) over defense (stagnation). If the current power (null sec holders) make more isk than the attackers(groups who have been kicked out or want to get into null sec), then there's no way for the attackers to succeed.
The defenders already have organization, inertia, capital advantages. Their passive isk stream is already superior to the potential invaders. Why does their "line member" risk free isk stream need to be superior as well? (which is a farse, btw. The "line member" isk stream is really a "passive rental isk stream").
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8395
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:14:00 -
[863] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)
Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? Do we just want people running missions in highsec and then running back down to defend money moons in null? Null needs to switch the majot income sources from alliance level to individual level. So not necessarily just 'more money' in null, but switching how the bulk of it is made. Not to mention how giving highsec residents more money doesnt mean theyll come spend it (in terms of ships and bullets) in null. If anything give NPC null a high income close to what null will be, in order to give venturing pilots a nearby income source as they launch themselves into null space. If anything, I'd reduce the income in 0.0 , it's a lot safer to carebear in null. than in lowsec, for instance.
This is untrue. almost all of low sec income making (except FW PVE and belt ratting) is done in deadspace areas (missions, exploration etc) AND is more lucrative than whatr is available in null. The only way to get the 'super loot' in null sec (such as pithum a, b and c type invuls) is to farm low end (unprofitable) anomalies, where as the DED plexes that spawn in low sec offer these as potential rewards. including FW makes it more insane because you can make more isk doing FW missions in a STEALTH BOMBER than you can from doing null sec anomalies in a pirate battleship.
And don't even get me started on lvl mission blitzing with carriers (parked in a pos or station around the lvl 5 mission agent system so no need to even cyno around. You can make as much isk (after converting LP) with a Thanatos blitzing low sec lvl 5 missions (using fighters and aligned to the station or pos the whole time in a deadspace pocket that requires probes to fine) as you can in null With a NYX in anomalies that are NOT deadspace and don't require probes to find. I know this because It (blitzing lvl 5s) is how I make my isk now.
Nothing in null sec compares to the magical wealth teet that low sec has become, and all when low sec PVE is either safer (because of the deadspace) or cheap enough that the danger doesn't matter in the least (FW missions in stealth bombers or drakes).
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4298
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:14:00 -
[864] - Quote
Regatto wrote:Exactly! I didn't say they would need to fix their games, just their heads. As leaders of the biggest groups, they should try to make game fun for their pilots, shouldn't they?? I mean why are you even following somebody who doesn't give a crap about you and just focuses on himself? Instead of trying to tell devs how to fix the game way they like, they could think how their subjects can have more fun in this game. And they do. They make it fun for us as best they can. You want us to go to all out war with each other so null doesn't remain stagnant, but mate, 10% tidi battles and grinding through structures is not at all fun. Having treaties which allow us to fight in smaller groups without having to grind each others sov is pretty much the best that can be done right now. Sov mechanics need to be fixed so it's actually fun to flip sov.
Jenn aSide wrote:I might not be that high sec players are 'quiting' but rather that a lot of high sec alts accounts are being allowed to lapse. I know lots of people who only had extra accounts in order to train alts, now you don't have to do that because you can use plex to train alts on 1 account. Just FYI, alt training on other account and with dual training is exactly the same in terms of ACU, since most people training alt accounts for something specific and can move them to DCT don't log them on anyway.
By the way, his charts are pretty much guesswork, since all the API can provide is Jumps, Player/NPC kills and the ACU, which discounts many other forms of activity such as trading, scamming, mining, PI, even blitzing missions. I'm a null player, yet when I log in I tend to log in a couple of null characters and like 4 high sec ones. I tend to jump (autopilot ftw) around a lot in highsec hauling items for trade, and be pretty much invisible to null sec stats since I don't rat. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4298
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:17:00 -
[865] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Their is no proof of 'leaking subscriptions'. Both the sub numbers and pcu counts people glean from EVE-Offline can be explained by CCP allowing multiple character training. EVE-offline never told anyone who was or wasn't an alt to begin with, so using it as a reference to say "subs and activity declined" is illogical. Well the fact that CCP regularly celebrated sub increase and that has stopped is pretty telling. There's no confirmation, but I'd be willing to put money down to say that subs have declined. How sure would you be in your estimate (which again, it's unconfirmed) that subs have not declined?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
155
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:19:00 -
[866] - Quote
Well done CCP, I'm looking forward to every bit of this. Who knows, perhaps BL will even try to take some space for once. The ability to move your quick-strike assets just got a whole lot more tactical too. This might see a new resurgence of black ops fleets. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8395
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:26:00 -
[867] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Rowells wrote:X Gallentius wrote:3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now) Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? If you want a competitive game, then you need to favor attack (movement) over defense (stagnation). If the current power (null sec holders) make more isk than the attackers(groups who have been kicked out or want to get into null sec), then there's no way for the attackers to succeed. The defenders already have organization, inertia, capital advantages. Their passive isk stream is already superior to the potential invaders. Why does their "line member" risk free isk stream need to be superior as well? (which is a farse, btw. The "line member" isk stream is really a "passive rental isk stream").
This is kind of off here. What people are saying is that isk should be changed to be from the bottom up, not the top down. No one is asking for null to have it's cake (like moon income) and eat it too (buff individual level isk making).
Also off is the attack vs defense argument. Malcanis' law applies here, if you give the attacker the advantage, people will 'defend' by just being the bigger attacker. Skewing the game in favor of the attacker makes the 10,000 member elephant in the room (Goons) that much more unstoppable, because they can just let the 'little guy' attack, take the space, then blob them (becoming the new 'attacker') and the result is the exact same as if nothing changed.
What is wrong here is the basic premiss of "smaller weaker group should have a chance". no, they actually shouldn't, a game that rewards people for being weak and small isn't a game with a rule set that any human being would want to play (despite how much they say they would).
Rather, what should happen is CCP develops resources in such a way that the big groups HAVE to fight (ie there is no more incentive to cooperate and 'blue' everyone). This forces the big guys to exhaust their players and materials and leadership and that kind of 'designed chaos' leads to cracks in the 'empires' that leads to fragmentation and conflict.
This is why I say that rather than game mechanics changes (that ALWAYS favor older, more established players), CCP needs to concentrate on 2 things:
-re-working across the board how resource gathering and isk making works to make the natural human tendency to cooperate less profitable (human beings do NOT fight over things they can just buy or trade for, in game as it is in real life).
And
-Adding more 'malcanis law resistant' tools for poorer groups to have an effect on larger groups (like siphons, or something like a bastion module for smaller groups who can't afford dreads to be able to use sub caps to in-cap things) that can aid in the larger groups downfall like Vandals nipping at Rome.
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8395
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:32:00 -
[868] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Their is no proof of 'leaking subscriptions'. Both the sub numbers and pcu counts people glean from EVE-Offline can be explained by CCP allowing multiple character training. EVE-offline never told anyone who was or wasn't an alt to begin with, so using it as a reference to say "subs and activity declined" is illogical. Well the fact that CCP regularly celebrated sub increase and that has stopped is pretty telling. There's no confirmation, but I'd be willing to put money down to say that subs have declined. How sure would you be in your estimate (which again, it's unconfirmed) that subs have not declined?
I mean no offense to CCP, but CCP was probably lying and they probably knew it. They touted the rising sub numbers for years when they knew (or should have known) that a lot of those accounts were alt accounts being made by existing players (no different than how telecom companies claim growth because they are selling more lines but in reality it's just current customers buying cell phones for their now teenaged kids). CCP probably itself has a problem telling truly new members from new alt accounts.
Bottom line, there is no proof either way, speculating about it when the "observed phenomenon" (seeming fewer 'accounts) can be explained by simple things (again , like multiple account training) is generally a waste of time.
The people who are seizing on this apparent drop in subs are malcontents who always wanted the game to be different in the first place and are now just 'politicking' people's perceptions. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4298
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:32:00 -
[869] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:And yes, the in game map is misleading. Take for instance ship kills, it only tells you a ship was killed, doesn't tell you what kind, or whether it was killed by another person, or an npc. The last time CCP gave us numbers they revealed that the most kills ship in high sec was the CONDOR you get free from tutorial missions lol.
Or take 'jumps per hour', a lot of what looks like "activity' in high sec is actually people who are at work/school (not at home) and no where near their computers auto piloting across high sec (something that doesn't happen in low, null and wormhole space).
Null, low and WH activity can be gauged by the ingame map. High Sec activity can not. Both of these issues also affect the API data, since they both source from the same place. You could also say that as highsec missions get blitzed, highsec activity and npc kills won't necessarily relate. At the same time, people roll AFK missions in null, literally leaving their PC alone half hour at a time sometimes, so where does activity stop being activity. Mining and exploration won't show up at all. WH activity doesn't show up on the map either. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8395
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:35:00 -
[870] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:And yes, the in game map is misleading. Take for instance ship kills, it only tells you a ship was killed, doesn't tell you what kind, or whether it was killed by another person, or an npc. The last time CCP gave us numbers they revealed that the most kills ship in high sec was the CONDOR you get free from tutorial missions lol.
Or take 'jumps per hour', a lot of what looks like "activity' in high sec is actually people who are at work/school (not at home) and no where near their computers auto piloting across high sec (something that doesn't happen in low, null and wormhole space).
Null, low and WH activity can be gauged by the ingame map. High Sec activity can not. Both of these issues also affect the API data, since they both source from the same place. You could also say that as highsec missions get blitzed, highsec activity and npc kills won't necessarily relate. At the same time, people roll AFK missions in null, literally leaving their PC alone half hour at a time sometimes, so where does activity stop being activity. Mining and exploration won't show up at all. WH activity doesn't show up on the map either.
Exactly, so the guy i was replying to relying on the in game map for anything was off base, because the in game map can't tell you anything. That's why it's 'misleading'.
High sec posters have for years referenced the in game map when trying to talk bad about null without understanding that it (like EFT for example) is something that gives you a very general idea of things. It's not Gospel truth.
|
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4298
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:39:00 -
[871] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:I mean no offense to CCP, but CCP was probably lying and they probably knew it. They touted the rising sub numbers for years when they knew (or should have known) that a lot of those accounts were alt accounts being made by existing players (no different than how telecom companies claim growth because they are selling more lines but in reality it's just current customers buying cell phones for their now teenaged kids). CCP probably itself has a problem telling truly new members from new alt accounts.
Bottom line, there is no proof either way, speculating about it when the "observed phenomenon" (seeming fewer 'accounts) can be explained by simple things (again , like multiple account training) is generally a waste of time.
The people who are seizing on this apparent drop in subs are malcontents who always wanted the game to be different in the first place and are now just 'politicking' people's perceptions. A sub is a sub, whether it's for an existing player who is encouraged to invest more or a new player investing or the first time is irrelevant. I'm sure CCP can see exactly how many plexes are activated into time, be it a new account, and existing account or a dual character training activation. The "observed phenomenon" most of us actually see is CCPs new reluctance to hint at subs, an increase in the number of people with negative opinions on the game and a distinct lack of fresh content being delivered. Sure, any conclusions made are purely speculation, but speculation isn't necessarily incorrect, and I think anyone looking at the situation realistically would surmise that EVE is in a bad place right now. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4298
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:42:00 -
[872] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Exactly, so the guy i was replying to relying on the in game map for anything was off base, because the in game map can't tell you anything. That's why it's 'misleading'.
High sec posters have for years referenced the in game map when trying to talk bad about null without understanding that it (like EFT for example) is something that gives you a very general idea of things. It's not Gospel truth. Yes, but dotlan is also misleading. Dotlan if anything has less forms of information, and certainly has missing information (you have to grab map data at the time it's published and if the server is down, you lose data). So anyone making a conclusion is guessing at best. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2553
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:45:00 -
[873] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:This is kind of off here. What people are saying is that isk should be changed to be from the bottom up, not the top down. No one is asking for null to have it's cake (like moon income) and eat it too (buff individual level isk making).
Actually, they are. There is nothing in these proposals that say anything about reducing passive isk income (moon income), and making null sec systems more valuable from an isk generation point of view only increases their rental value (further increasing passive income).
The proposal is: "Give us more valuable specific income and we'll let others have 0.0 space" The reality, if the proposal is accepted by CCP, will likely be: "Thank you for the more valuable systems, we can now increase rent"
The solution should be occupancy based sov with no increase in specific income of 0.0 systems.
|

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
307
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:50:00 -
[874] - Quote
Muhaha! This suggestion was all about cowardice! The new dev blog is out with the jump changes and it's clear that you can't travel fast further than a region. So if PASTA attacks Delve and BL attacks Branch, Goons can sloooowly travel to one, but in the other place LAWN or FCON will have to fend for itself. And Goons won't be home till next day, so MoA will burn Deklein in the meantime.
You knew about it from your CSMs, so you figured out that you just pack all your coalition into one region so you can defend it from small groups.
You didn't care that you'd destroy the game and remove all combat. Shame on you!
Last post from me here, I have ISK to make, the pirate groups will use it well after the jump nerfs are up. See you in Branch chickens! My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4298
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:57:00 -
[875] - Quote
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Did you notice what happened to PL when they lost the battle for B-R5? Look up Grath's story on FHC if you don't. They had to eat a **** sandwich (and that's a quote) and be gone for a while. Do you know why? Because assets, in station. A lot of them. So yeah, you could wage war from anywhere, but if you can have invulnerable staging systems, I'd say that increases your ability to wage war. Similar thing happened with BL and CFC, or something along the line. Yes, if you stupidly drop sov on your staging system, you can run into issues. Outside of that, losing a primary staging systems is very rare. And the thing is, if it were an issue we could already stage from either existing NPC space or low sec and get pretty much anywhere in the universe.
JIeoH Mocc wrote:And now the "leaders" write a "letter" to CCP saying, please CCP, we're bored - let us have an undestructable staging system to stash our caps, have our clones and what not, so they won't be able to purge us completely out of any region, and so we can clone around EvE safely - to counter what ever changes CCP might introduce, be it caps nerf , power projection nerf, destructible stations and more. I'd even say they request it BECAUSE of these incoming changes, but that i won't be able to prove. Well at the moment, if we are deep in our sov, we only need to worry about the force projection supercap groups coming in, so we're already pretty safe. Having an NPC station where anyone can dock and store stuff, sure, we couldn't be prevented from docking, but we certainly could be prevented from undocking, and lets not forget, we couldn't prevent anyone else from docking too. I think if you really really thought about it and took off the "grr goon" tinfoil, you'd see there were far more benefits to other groups than there would be to sov holders.
JIeoH Mocc wrote:Who are you kidding, you're not going to fight anyone, no matter what happens. Your leaders want some content, as long as there's not threat to your sov, since renting and sov. is not something to put at risk. So no, there won't be any war, none of you will initiate it. It took a 3rd party to initiate last time, if you remember. The time before that, we remember what happened to HBC/Montolio when he decided not to play according to your "agreements". First off, you stated "it actually amplifies the ability of the powerblocks to wage war". so which is it? Will NPC stations allow us to wage war, or will we not fight either way?
And lets say we won;t ever fight, like you are suggesting above. You also suggest we don't fight right now, right? Because we have all these agreements? So which is better (with "we" meaning sov null coaltions in general): 1. We don't fight, and we own all of the space (like it is now). 2. We don't fight, and we own sections of space, with the other space up for people to grab and fight over (like is being suggested).
I really don't understand what exactly it is you think should be don;e instead. You seem to think that us superpowers should either destroy ourselves for your benefit, or endlessly fight each other in 10% tidi and soul crushing lag.
JIeoH Mocc wrote:The idea suggested are the essence of what's going on right now:
- Need some more content, but only of the type that doesn't endanger sov/income and doesn't require commitment. - People are bored, please help us overcome ourselves.
And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, and I don't differentiate goons from the rest of the donut - all the same to me, but when the donut starts to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting. So then we stay as is, we continue to have to moderate fun we have now, with the leaders setting up soft wars between null groups and the occasional mass destruction of supers, and everyone outside of null continues to cry about how they can only get in by renting, while we roll around in the rental income making ISK angels.
I'm yet to see a realistic counter proposal from you by the way. Why not set one up? You could even get it signed off by Gevlon and MoA (although you might want to avoid that since that would probably be a negative thing). Alternatively, suggest how this proposal could be changed. We all know it;s not perfect and not even remotely a complete idea, so be part of the solution. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4298
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:01:00 -
[876] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Muhaha! This suggestion was all about cowardice! The new dev blog is out with the jump changes and it's clear that you can't travel fast further than a region. So if PASTA attacks Delve and BL attacks Branch, Goons can sloooowly travel to one, but in the other place LAWN or FCON will have to fend for itself. And Goons won't be home till next day, so MoA will burn Deklein in the meantime. You knew about it from your CSMs, so you figured out that you just pack all your coalition into one region so you can defend it from small groups. You didn't care that you'd destroy the game and remove all combat. Shame on you! Last post from me here, I have ISK to make, the pirate groups will use it well after the jump nerfs are up. See you in Branch chickens! Lol, maybe read the whole of the dev blog:
Dev Blog wrote: It is too early to go into great detail about what these changes will contain, but currently most of our conceptual prototyping has loosely fallen into categories that could be described as GÇ£occupancy-basedGÇ¥ systems and more GÇ£freeformGÇ¥ systems that decentralize sov to focus more on control of the individual pieces of infrastructure. And we've all know power projection changes were coming, for quite some time. At the very least since fanfest, and you'd be hard pushed to find sov null superpowers that disagree with limiting force projection. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:03:00 -
[877] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:They broke it, they can fix it. Seems subs are taking a dive, for good reason. Do you want to be sheep? WRONG! Subs have nothing to do with nullsec. I made some charts and proved that nullsec activity (jumps, NPC kills, ship kills) is stable and irresponsive to concurrent login changes. On the other hand highsec activity has strong correlation with logins. So nullsec is fine, highsec players are quiting.
That fits then. Sheep are sheep and will always be sheep.
Someone comes in the game and sees sheep and they leave. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4298
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:12:00 -
[878] - Quote
Oh by they way: RIP blops gangs. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8400
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:27:00 -
[879] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Oh by they way: RIP blops gangs.
I know right. Unintended consequences are a *****, CCP is about to learn this again lol. |

Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
217
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:28:00 -
[880] - Quote
Nerf drones, nerf intercepters. |
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8400
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:29:00 -
[881] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:This is kind of off here. What people are saying is that isk should be changed to be from the bottom up, not the top down. No one is asking for null to have it's cake (like moon income) and eat it too (buff individual level isk making).
Actually, they are. There is nothing in these proposals that say anything about reducing passive isk income (moon income), and making null sec systems more valuable from an isk generation point of view only increases their rental value (further increasing passive income). The proposal is: "Give us more valuable specific income and we'll let others have 0.0 space" The reality, if the proposal is accepted by CCP, will likely be: "Thank you for the more valuable systems, we can now increase rent" The solution should be occupancy based sov with no increase in specific income of 0.0 systems.
As I explained, it doesn't work then, because you shove people into overcrowded systems to make less isk than they could per hour bltizting lvl 3 missions in high sec in a machariel.
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4299
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:31:00 -
[882] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Oh by they way: RIP blops gangs. I know right. Unintended consequences are a *****, CCP is about to learn this again lol. To be fair, most blops gangs I've seen just want to gank the odd ratter and run away, so not really too much of a loss there, and if they didn;t throw restrictions on blops jumps, we'd just migrate over to a tengu fleet and blops over then refit to something combat worthy to blot out the sun.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8408
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:45:00 -
[883] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Oh by they way: RIP blops gangs. I know right. Unintended consequences are a *****, CCP is about to learn this again lol. To be fair, most blops gangs I've seen just want to gank the odd ratter and run away, so not really too much of a loss there, and if they didn;t throw restrictions on blops jumps, we'd just migrate over to a tengu fleet and blops over then refit to something combat worthy to blot out the sun.
'The odd ratter' is sometimes a carrier or super carrier. Fewer of those ships dying is bad. Those ships living longer to spew 200-300 mil LIQUID isk per hour into the economy is bad too.
I'll be in my Thanatos ratting with fighters while aligned to a pos and giving no Fs about the neutral in local if i can't see a blob on my in game map within 5 light years lol. Just because i disagree with a change doesn't mean i won't exploit the holy hell out of it lol.
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13456
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:47:00 -
[884] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Actually, they are. There is nothing in these proposals that say anything about reducing passive isk income (moon income), and making null sec systems more valuable from an isk generation point of view only increases their rental value (further increasing passive income).
The proposal is: "Give us more valuable specific income and we'll let others have 0.0 space" The reality, if the proposal is accepted by CCP, will likely be: "Thank you for the more valuable systems, we can now increase rent"
The solution should be occupancy based sov with no increase in specific income of 0.0 systems.
Rental empires will become impossible to do with this change. Also, moon goo generates around the same per month as a single ice miner. If you do not shift from anoms to something that will allow an infinite group of people to live in a system then not a single alliance will be able to support their members with their space.
Seriously, this is something like the tenth time you have had this explained to you and you still continue with this fabrication. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
213
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:52:00 -
[885] - Quote
I have now second idea how to fix sovereignty system. This idea makes it completely impossible to maintain sovereignty in inactive solar systems.
All kind of activities like mining and ratting have change to produce sovereignty objects in each capturable solar system. I call these objects now sovereignty crystals. Each capturable solar system has its own sovereignty crystal. Territorial Claim Unit needs these sovereignty crystals to be active.
Only way to maintain sovereignty is to do something in that solar system. These sovereignty crystals can be sold in market. Solar system truesec would determine drop rate for sovereignty crystals. 0.0 would be the easiest to keep sovereignty (the highest drop rate for crystals) and -1.0 would be the hardest to keep sovereignty since there is the lowest drop rate for sovereignty crystals.
Comments are welcome for my idea. Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs. |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6292
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 23:29:00 -
[886] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:one of biggest appeals of this game was originally the cut throat universe, exploiting everything to your advantage and taking any little chance to stab your enemy in the back and take his land. What you're asking for is a complete change of mentality of the game, where people are responsible to make it fair all of the sudden because mechanics lead them into a dead end. That wouldn't be eve-like anymore, I wonder who would want to play this for any longer time once CCP refuses to fix their game and bring back a dark cut throat universe upon players.
CCP has already changed sov mechanics once, to something arguably worse than the previous arrangement. Why not do it again? I mean it's perfectly ok for everyone else to demand a change to game mechanics when it suits them. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2554
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 23:33:00 -
[887] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Actually, they are. There is nothing in these proposals that say anything about reducing passive isk income (moon income), and making null sec systems more valuable from an isk generation point of view only increases their rental value (further increasing passive income).
The proposal is: "Give us more valuable specific income and we'll let others have 0.0 space" The reality, if the proposal is accepted by CCP, will likely be: "Thank you for the more valuable systems, we can now increase rent"
The solution should be occupancy based sov with no increase in specific income of 0.0 systems.
Rental empires will become impossible to do with this change. Also, moon goo generates around the same per month as a single ice miner. If you do not shift from anoms to something that will allow an infinite group of people to live in a system then not a single alliance will be able to support their members with their space. Seriously, this is something like the tenth time you have had this explained to you and you still continue with this fabrication. Rental empires will be easy for you to enforce with conventional fleets. First, the renters will be the most active players in the systems - so keeping de facto sov will be really easy. Second, when somebody does make a serious push for the rental space, your conventional fleets will show up to kick them out.
And now you'll be able to rat afk in your home systems with less risk than a high sec mission running care bear.
There's still no reason to increase the specific income of null sec systems.
|

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6292
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 23:47:00 -
[888] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Actually, they are. There is nothing in these proposals that say anything about reducing passive isk income (moon income), and making null sec systems more valuable from an isk generation point of view only increases their rental value (further increasing passive income).
The proposal is: "Give us more valuable specific income and we'll let others have 0.0 space" The reality, if the proposal is accepted by CCP, will likely be: "Thank you for the more valuable systems, we can now increase rent"
The solution should be occupancy based sov with no increase in specific income of 0.0 systems.
Rental empires will become impossible to do with this change. Also, moon goo generates around the same per month as a single ice miner. If you do not shift from anoms to something that will allow an infinite group of people to live in a system then not a single alliance will be able to support their members with their space. Seriously, this is something like the tenth time you have had this explained to you and you still continue with this fabrication. Rental empires will be easy for you to enforce with conventional fleets. First, the renters will be the most active players in the systems - so keeping de facto sov will be really easy. Second, when somebody does make a serious push for the rental space, your conventional fleets will show up to kick them out. And now you'll be able to rat afk in your home systems with less risk than a high sec mission running care bear. There's still no reason to increase the specific income of null sec systems.
Individual player income is more important than alliance level income & currently that player level income is less than what is available in highsec.
Also no, under the proposed change there will be more people roaming around nullsec looking for kills than ever. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
283
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 00:30:00 -
[889] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Muhaha! This suggestion was all about cowardice! The new dev blog is out with the jump changes and it's clear that you can't travel fast further than a region. So if PASTA attacks Delve and BL attacks Branch, Goons can sloooowly travel to one, but in the other place LAWN or FCON will have to fend for itself. And Goons won't be home till next day, so MoA will burn Deklein in the meantime. You knew about it from your CSMs, so you figured out that you just pack all your coalition into one region so you can defend it from small groups. You didn't care that you'd destroy the game and remove all combat. Shame on you! Last post from me here, I have ISK to make, the pirate groups will use it well after the jump nerfs are up. See you in Branch chickens!
I was going to mention that the nerfs that are coming to jumping will negate some of the claims of quickly rolling over some smaller entity... however, prior knowledge of the changes via CSM candidates equate to a breach of the NDA doesn't it?, especially if the supposition of prior knowledge precipitated this "joint" deal announcement as a way to appear more in tune with what's needed is correct.
just saying... and good call.
o/ Celly Smunt Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |

Celly Smunt
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
283
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 00:30:00 -
[890] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Muhaha! This suggestion was all about cowardice! The new dev blog is out with the jump changes and it's clear that you can't travel fast further than a region. So if PASTA attacks Delve and BL attacks Branch, Goons can sloooowly travel to one, but in the other place LAWN or FCON will have to fend for itself. And Goons won't be home till next day, so MoA will burn Deklein in the meantime. You knew about it from your CSMs, so you figured out that you just pack all your coalition into one region so you can defend it from small groups. You didn't care that you'd destroy the game and remove all combat. Shame on you! Last post from me here, I have ISK to make, the pirate groups will use it well after the jump nerfs are up. See you in Branch chickens!
I was going to mention that the nerfs that are coming to jumping will negate some of the claims of quickly rolling over some smaller entity... however, prior knowledge of the changes via CSM candidates equate to a breach of the NDA doesn't it?, especially if the supposition of prior knowledge precipitated this "joint" deal announcement as a way to appear more in tune with what's needed is correct.
just saying... and good call.
o/ Celly Smunt Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |
|

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6295
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 00:39:00 -
[891] - Quote
Celly S wrote:Gevlon Goblin wrote:Muhaha! This suggestion was all about cowardice! The new dev blog is out with the jump changes and it's clear that you can't travel fast further than a region. So if PASTA attacks Delve and BL attacks Branch, Goons can sloooowly travel to one, but in the other place LAWN or FCON will have to fend for itself. And Goons won't be home till next day, so MoA will burn Deklein in the meantime. You knew about it from your CSMs, so you figured out that you just pack all your coalition into one region so you can defend it from small groups. You didn't care that you'd destroy the game and remove all combat. Shame on you! Last post from me here, I have ISK to make, the pirate groups will use it well after the jump nerfs are up. See you in Branch chickens! I was going to mention that the nerfs that are coming to jumping will negate some of the claims of quickly rolling over some smaller entity... however, prior knowledge of the changes via CSM candidates equate to a breach of the NDA doesn't it?, especially if the supposition of prior knowledge precipitated this "joint" deal announcement as a way to appear more in tune with what's needed is correct. just saying... and good call. o/ Celly Smunt
Yeah that guy has it all worked out. Good job. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4300
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 00:47:00 -
[892] - Quote
I don't know who's dumber, Gobbo or his fans.
We all knew power projection nerfs were coming, genius. The pretty much stated it outright at fanfest. Gevlon is acting smug because he "predicted" common knowledge, connected the dots wrong so he could accuse goons of whatever tinfoil hat theory he has this time, then failed to read the part of the dev blog that states that sov will likely be changed in the exact way called for by null leadership. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2555
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 00:51:00 -
[893] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Individual player income is more important than alliance level income & currently that player level income is less than what is available in highsec.
Also no, under the proposed change there will be more people roaming around nullsec looking for kills than ever.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.png
Tell me you guys can't continue easily defend your rental areas down at the bottom left side of the map. With a straight face please. |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6296
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 01:09:00 -
[894] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
Individual player income is more important than alliance level income & currently that player level income is less than what is available in highsec.
Also no, under the proposed change there will be more people roaming around nullsec looking for kills than ever.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.pngTell me you guys can't continue easily defend your rental areas down at the bottom left side of the map. With a straight face please.
I'm 100% sure that we give zero fucks about people looking to kill ratters in renter space. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2555
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 01:26:00 -
[895] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
Individual player income is more important than alliance level income & currently that player level income is less than what is available in highsec.
Also no, under the proposed change there will be more people roaming around nullsec looking for kills than ever.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.pngTell me you guys can't continue easily defend your rental areas down at the bottom left side of the map. With a straight face please. I'm 100% sure that we give zero fucks about people looking to kill ratters in renter space. So the answer is "yes, you will maintain rental empire". |

Celly Smunt
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
283
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 01:28:00 -
[896] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: I don't know who's dumber, Gobbo or his fans.
I'm not sure that fanaticism has anything to do with it, While I personally don't know who he is outside of his post here, his comment is entirely plausible, if there's something that he's said elsewhere that leads folks to believe he's just making a statement based on what everyone already knew was coming?, then doesn't that still validate his statement?.
He may be "stating the obvious" if that's the case, but that doesn't mean he's wrong and demeaning his comment only reflects badly on the person doing it more-so than the target of the beratement.
*shrugs..
o/ Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |

Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
285
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 01:28:00 -
[897] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: I don't know who's dumber, Gobbo or his fans.
I'm not sure that fanaticism has anything to do with it, While I personally don't know who he is outside of his post here, his comment is entirely plausible, if there's something that he's said elsewhere that leads folks to believe he's just making a statement based on what everyone already knew was coming?, then doesn't that still validate his statement?.
He may be "stating the obvious" if that's the case, but that doesn't mean he's wrong and demeaning his comment only reflects badly on the person doing it more-so than the target of the beratement.
*shrugs..
o/ Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4300
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 08:06:00 -
[898] - Quote
Celly S wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: I don't know who's dumber, Gobbo or his fans. I'm not sure that fanaticism has anything to do with it, While I personally don't know who he is outside of his post here, his comment is entirely plausible, if there's something that he's said elsewhere that leads folks to believe he's just making a statement based on what everyone already knew was coming?, then doesn't that still validate his statement?. He may be "stating the obvious" if that's the case, but that doesn't mean he's wrong and demeaning his comment only reflects badly on the person doing it more-so than the target of the beratement. *shrugs.. So his "you knew about it from your CSMs" is validated? It's all tinfoil hattery. And while the force projection changes will make it harder to move about (but not much, interceptors can get you across the map in 15-20 minutes and we have ships stashed everywhere) it will also mean the chances of us being attacked in out deepest sov is slim, since nobody is likely to slowboat through hostile space, and multiple jumping into hostile space will leave you trapped there for a significant time.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11483
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 09:11:00 -
[899] - Quote
i know that some of you may not understand these things but our CSM guys aren't stupid enough to violate the NDA because it's an actual binding agreement between them and CCP
there are actual consequences for violating it and even if CCP doesn't pursue legal action, you really wouldn't want a potential employer to google your name and see "NDA breach" in the top results Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6298
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 12:49:00 -
[900] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
Individual player income is more important than alliance level income & currently that player level income is less than what is available in highsec.
Also no, under the proposed change there will be more people roaming around nullsec looking for kills than ever.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.pngTell me you guys can't continue easily defend your rental areas down at the bottom left side of the map. With a straight face please. I'm 100% sure that we give zero fucks about people looking to kill ratters in renter space. So the answer is "yes, you will maintain rental empire".
I'm not the person to ask. Why don't you shoot a mail off the mynnna & ask? He's pretty friendly & likes meeting new people. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
|

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4300
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 12:56:00 -
[901] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
Individual player income is more important than alliance level income & currently that player level income is less than what is available in highsec.
Also no, under the proposed change there will be more people roaming around nullsec looking for kills than ever.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.pngTell me you guys can't continue easily defend your rental areas down at the bottom left side of the map. With a straight face please. I'm 100% sure that we give zero fucks about people looking to kill ratters in renter space. So the answer is "yes, you will maintain rental empire". I'm not the person to ask. Why don't you shoot a mail off the mynnna & ask? He's pretty friendly & likes meeting new people. I imagine whatever change is made, the options for moving into nullsec will always be: 1. Pay someone to live there 2. Blue someone to live there 3. Get roflstomped by the existing coalitions
For those going "but provi but provi!", that's number 2, they just extend blue to cover grey so you are "blue" until you get added to the absolutely enormous list of reds..
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2557
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 13:39:00 -
[902] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:I'm not the person to ask. Why don't you shoot a mail off the mynnna & ask? He's pretty friendly & likes meeting new people. rgr, thanks for responding. |

Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
286
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 01:34:00 -
[903] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Celly S wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: I don't know who's dumber, Gobbo or his fans. I'm not sure that fanaticism has anything to do with it, While I personally don't know who he is outside of his post here, his comment is entirely plausible, if there's something that he's said elsewhere that leads folks to believe he's just making a statement based on what everyone already knew was coming?, then doesn't that still validate his statement?. He may be "stating the obvious" if that's the case, but that doesn't mean he's wrong and demeaning his comment only reflects badly on the person doing it more-so than the target of the beratement. *shrugs.. So his "you knew about it from your CSMs" is validated? It's all tinfoil hattery. And while the force projection changes will make it harder to move about (but not much, interceptors can get you across the map in 15-20 minutes and we have ships stashed everywhere) it will also mean the chances of us being attacked in out deepest sov is slim, since nobody is likely to slowboat through hostile space, and multiple jumping into hostile space will leave you trapped there for a significant time.
I said his statement was plausible... the rest of it was an example of why berating someone isn't the best thing to do. as to the force projection thing, it is true that these changes are going to force people to approach things in a different manner than is currently done. Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13512
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 06:20:00 -
[904] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:So the answer is "yes, you will maintain rental empire".
With a change to occupancy sov no we wont. We replace rental empire income with taxing our own members running missions in our own space. Thats the whole point of having a bottom up income stream for allainces, it is much better for the line members and gives them a reason to want to live in the empire the fight to build and protect. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2559
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 06:30:00 -
[905] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:So the answer is "yes, you will maintain rental empire". With a change to occupancy sov no we wont. We replace rental empire income with taxing our own members running missions in our own space. Thats the whole point of having a bottom up income stream for allainces, it is much better for the line members and gives them a reason to want to live in the empire the fight to build and protect. We'll see. Nothing has been revealed by CCP suggests that defending your rental empire will be difficult at all. |

Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2230
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 10:59:00 -
[906] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: I don't know who's dumber, Gobbo or his fans. We all knew power projection nerfs were coming, genius. The pretty much stated it outright at fanfest. Gevlon is acting smug because he "predicted" common knowledge, connected the dots wrong so he could accuse goons of whatever tinfoil hat theory he has this time, then failed to read the part of the dev blog that states that sov will likely be changed in the exact way called for by null leadership.
It's pretty hilarious that you expect people to think the Goon elected CSM representatives don't leak inside information to their boss. Pure comedy. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13524
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 13:51:00 -
[907] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: I don't know who's dumber, Gobbo or his fans. We all knew power projection nerfs were coming, genius. The pretty much stated it outright at fanfest. Gevlon is acting smug because he "predicted" common knowledge, connected the dots wrong so he could accuse goons of whatever tinfoil hat theory he has this time, then failed to read the part of the dev blog that states that sov will likely be changed in the exact way called for by null leadership. It's pretty hilarious that you expect people to think the Goon elected CSM representatives don't leak inside information to their boss. Pure comedy.
Given that it would be very easy for CCP to figure this out and dump them out of the CSM staining their RL name forever with an NDA violation, yes, its rather easy to see why they don't tell alliances anything. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Plukovnik
Everyone vs Everything THE R0NIN
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 17:35:00 -
[908] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote: Individual player income is more important than alliance level income & currently that player level income is less than what is available in highsec.
Also no, under the proposed change there will be more people roaming around nullsec looking for kills than ever.
WRONG: High concentration of players in systems is bad for roaming. I killed hundreds of Ishtars in Deklein in past five months. Even Orcas, Tengus, Vidnicators... and believe me, the more people in system, the lower chance for a good kill, because defence is so easy when you have 30+ buddies on local. Some of worst syst+¬m to kill a ratter is JU-UWQ, where is permanently 40+ guys, often 20 or more farming at the same time. There are people in Deklein who live in one system for months and never feel the need to go to another systwm because anomalies would be occupied. If enemy comes, all they need to do is dock and reship. No effort, no coordination. Just dock,reship, warp to gate - piece of cake.
CCP should change the anomaly spawning so that no more than 6 good anoms are in system at the same time. Also, Forsaken Hubs should be bad anoms again, Havens and Sanctums should be the most sought anoms. The yield per anomaly could even be higher - just not for 20 dudes in one syst+¬m at the same time, just for the 6 who were lucky to be there first. Others would have to go looking elsewhere.
Decreasing number of anoms per system would force people spread across universe looking for unoccupied anomalies, there would be less empty system and roaming would be funnier. Also people who would want to join home defence fleet would have to travel to staging system. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
4021
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 17:58:00 -
[909] - Quote
Andski wrote:there are actual consequences for violating it and even if CCP doesn't pursue legal action, you really wouldn't want a potential employer to google your name and see "NDA breach" in the top results fry cooks aren't told what's in the big mac sauce so some people could be excused for thinking the above isn't a big deal |

Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1146
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 18:31:00 -
[910] - Quote
NPC space in every region? No thanks. I like the idea of different regions with different advantages and disadvantages. We don't need to make all of nullsec rapidly accessible to non-sov null just like we don't need all of null to have tons of truesec systems. |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13525
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 18:41:00 -
[911] - Quote
Plukovnik wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote: Individual player income is more important than alliance level income & currently that player level income is less than what is available in highsec.
Also no, under the proposed change there will be more people roaming around nullsec looking for kills than ever.
WRONG: High concentration of players in systems is bad for roaming. I killed hundreds of Ishtars in Deklein in past five months. Even Orcas, Tengus, Vidnicators... and believe me, the more people in system, the lower chance for a good kill, because defence is so easy when you have 30+ buddies on local. Some of worst syst+¬m to kill a ratter is JU-UWQ, where is permanently 40+ guys, often 20 or more farming at the same time. There are people in Deklein who live in one system for months and never feel the need to go to another systwm because anomalies would be occupied. If enemy comes, all they need to do is dock and reship. No effort, no coordination. Just dock,reship, warp to gate - piece of cake. CCP should change the anomaly spawning so that no more than 6 good anoms are in system at the same time. Also, Forsaken Hubs should be bad anoms again, Havens and Sanctums should be the most sought anoms. The yield per anomaly could even be higher - just not for 20 dudes in one syst+¬m at the same time, just for the 6 who were lucky to be there first. Others would have to go looking elsewhere. Decreasing number of anoms per system would force people spread across universe looking for unoccupied anomalies, there would be less empty system and roaming would be funnier. Also people who would want to join home defence fleet would have to travel to staging system.
And would force empire to require hundreds to thousands of systems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2562
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 20:44:00 -
[912] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:And would force empire to require hundreds to thousands of systems. Is that a bad thing? Lower density of farmers over larger area leads to more targets, err, "fights". Again, there seems to be a "Pay us or we'll hold 0.0 hostage" type of vibe going on here.
The reality is that null sec entities are going to hold as much turf as they can - whether or not the specific income of each system is ridiculously high or low. The specific income only sets the rental rate on the areas they choose not to farm for themselves. |

Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4301
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 21:03:00 -
[913] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: I don't know who's dumber, Gobbo or his fans. We all knew power projection nerfs were coming, genius. The pretty much stated it outright at fanfest. Gevlon is acting smug because he "predicted" common knowledge, connected the dots wrong so he could accuse goons of whatever tinfoil hat theory he has this time, then failed to read the part of the dev blog that states that sov will likely be changed in the exact way called for by null leadership. It's pretty hilarious that you expect people to think the Goon elected CSM representatives don't leak inside information to their boss. Pure comedy. No, it's pretty hilarious that you didn't see power projection nerfs coming yourself, since during fanfest it was made pretty clear and since then it's been a pretty big topic. You want to think that because goons choice for CSM got though the vote, that a bunch of people - who are not all goons - would be willing to breach a real life legally binding document to tell us something that we already know and that will be outright explained prior to deployment for feedback.
The fact that you believe tinfoil hat theories doesn't lend them any more credibility. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13535
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 21:31:00 -
[914] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Is that a bad thing?
That's exactly what we have now. So yea, its a very bad thing because that is what everyone wants to not happen.
X Gallentius wrote: The reality is that null sec entities are going to hold as much turf as they can - whether or not the specific income of each system is ridiculously high or low. The specific income only sets the rental rate on the areas they choose not to farm for themselves.
We have something like 30k pilots in the CFC, with only 10% ratting at a time we would need 3000 systems under your plan to house them all. That leaves just 524 systems in null for everyone else out here. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Nariya Kentaya
The Pulsar Innovation Surely You're Joking
1562
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 21:49:00 -
[915] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Is that a bad thing? That's exactly what we have now. So yea, its a very bad thing because that is what everyone wants to not happen. X Gallentius wrote: The reality is that null sec entities are going to hold as much turf as they can - whether or not the specific income of each system is ridiculously high or low. The specific income only sets the rental rate on the areas they choose not to farm for themselves.
We have something like 30k pilots in the CFC, with only 10% ratting at a time we would need 3000 systems under your plan to house them all. That leaves just 524 systems in null for everyone else out here. Not to mention, with proposed changes, renter empires will be difficult to defend, might have to start havign small regional fleets bolstered with renter "militias" at a mandatory or kicked the **** out level for quick reaction fleets.
Also, unrelated note, I hope CCP doesnt do anythign to alleviate the goon's concern with "getting new members out to our space on day 1", memebers shoudl bo considered assets/resources, and should eb forced to sit on their ass until the enxt weekly freighter convoy back into null to get out there. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13536
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 21:54:00 -
[916] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote: Also, unrelated note, I hope CCP doesnt do anythign to alleviate the goon's concern with "getting new members out to our space on day 1", memebers shoudl bo considered assets/resources, and should eb forced to sit on their ass until the enxt weekly freighter convoy back into null to get out there.
They alted their plan to get new corp members out to where the corp is. Under 30 days old you can suicide pod jump to your new corp. Over 30 days old you get to do that once a year. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2569
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 21:57:00 -
[917] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Is that a bad thing? That's exactly what we have now. So yea, its a very bad thing because that is what everyone wants to not happen. X Gallentius wrote: The reality is that null sec entities are going to hold as much turf as they can - whether or not the specific income of each system is ridiculously high or low. The specific income only sets the rental rate on the areas they choose not to farm for themselves.
We have something like 30k pilots in the CFC, with only 10% ratting at a time we would need 3000 systems under your plan to house them all. That leaves just 524 systems in null for everyone else out here. You guys are going to hold all of the systems anyways. We both agree on that.
The only question is how much isk you're going to generate from renters while doing so, and at what threshold you're going to have to undock to defend your space (get pew).
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13536
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 21:59:00 -
[918] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Is that a bad thing? That's exactly what we have now. So yea, its a very bad thing because that is what everyone wants to not happen. X Gallentius wrote: The reality is that null sec entities are going to hold as much turf as they can - whether or not the specific income of each system is ridiculously high or low. The specific income only sets the rental rate on the areas they choose not to farm for themselves.
We have something like 30k pilots in the CFC, with only 10% ratting at a time we would need 3000 systems under your plan to house them all. That leaves just 524 systems in null for everyone else out here. You guys are going to hold all of the systems anyways. We both agree on that. The only question is how much isk you're going to generate from renters while doing so, and at what threshold you're going to have to undock to defend your space (get pew).
Under your plan it would be zero. All of that space would be needed for us alone and it most likely would not be enough. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 22:18:00 -
[919] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Given that it would be very easy for CCP to figure this out and dump them out of the CSM staining their RL name forever with an NDA violation, yes, its rather easy to see why they don't tell alliances anything.
... because moving from "possible but unlikely" to "absurd" helps your argument :) |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2569
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 22:40:00 -
[920] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Under your plan it would be zero. All of that space would be needed for us alone and it most likely would not be enough. Again, you are posting some sort of extortion threat to CCP. "Give us rich farms in null sec or we won't let anybody else use get in."
|
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13547
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 06:37:00 -
[921] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:baltec1 wrote:Under your plan it would be zero. All of that space would be needed for us alone and it most likely would not be enough. Again, you are posting some sort of extortion threat to CCP. "Give us rich farms in null sec or we won't let anybody else use get in."
No I am telling you what would have to happen. You cannot shrink our empire and not deal with over population and the fact that the space simply cannot support even a fraction of our members. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1430
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 07:01:00 -
[922] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Andski wrote:there are actual consequences for violating it and even if CCP doesn't pursue legal action, you really wouldn't want a potential employer to google your name and see "NDA breach" in the top results fry cooks aren't told what's in the big mac sauce so some people could be excused for thinking the above isn't a big deal I hear McDonalds in iceland is adding tears to theirs. |

X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2574
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 07:40:00 -
[923] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:baltec1 wrote:Under your plan it would be zero. All of that space would be needed for us alone and it most likely would not be enough. Again, you are posting some sort of extortion threat to CCP. "Give us rich farms in null sec or we won't let anybody else use get in." No I am telling you what would have to happen. You cannot shrink our empire and not deal with over population and the fact that the space simply cannot support even a fraction of our members. And yet you have so much space.... hmmm... Maybe there isn't a link between being able to support your base and the number of systems you'll own. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13547
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 08:04:00 -
[924] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: And yet you have so much space.... hmmm... Maybe there isn't a link between being able to support your base and the number of systems you'll own.
If you had paid any attention over the last week you would know that the vast bulk of systems in sov null are so crappy that you can earn more isk running level 3 missions in high sec. It still doesn't change the fact that even if the systems were worth ratting in they could still only host at the very most 10 people. If you want to shrink the CFC down to just being able to hold Deklein then you are going to have to deal with the fact that you are going to have 30,000 trying to live in just 80-90 systems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
892
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 08:34:00 -
[925] - Quote
I believe someone's missing a view here: CFC has a huge memberlist, so no matter what system you implement, the space they'll occupy will always be large, simply due to the amount of manpower they can call on at any time.
The jumprange change will undoubtedly have effects on CFC, perhaps they'll relinquish some bad fringe systems to bold adventurous sov entities, in order to establish a better border that they can defend much better (which might also include taking systems to get a nice, defendable border going) But as long as CFC commands such a huge pool of members, they're not in any danger of falling apart or loosing large parts of space, no matter the system you introduce.
What does matter tho, is making a system where it's viable for smaller entities to exist in null, to offer a more constant pressure to the large entites, keeping them on their toes. NPC nullsec offers this. The changes to the jumpranges can also help, as the big coalitions can't just blindly jump hundreds of capitals on a small threat. They now got to run a cost/effective analysis before doing so, no more dumping 100 caps when 10 would do. The Yulai Incident, when Zombies defied Concord -áNew Eden Capsuleer writing contest! Deadline 15 october! |

Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances CAStabouts
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 10:34:00 -
[926] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:X Gallentius wrote:baltec1 wrote:Under your plan it would be zero. All of that space would be needed for us alone and it most likely would not be enough. Again, you are posting some sort of extortion threat to CCP. "Give us rich farms in null sec or we won't let anybody else use get in." No I am telling you what would have to happen. You cannot shrink our empire and not deal with over population and the fact that the space simply cannot support even a fraction of our members.
Maybe a simplistic question, but given the history of CFC itself, why would anyone assume that it is somehow immune to change?
I would note that I fly down through Goon space a lot, even right through the heart of Fountain from time to time, and 90% of those systems are empty, as in not a single pilot in local, 90% of the time. Your claim seems to have little factual basis based on simple observation. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13548
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 10:41:00 -
[927] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Maybe a simplistic question, but given the history of CFC itself, why would anyone assume that it is somehow immune to change?
I would note that I fly down through Goon space a lot, even right through the heart of Fountain from time to time, and 90% of those systems are empty, as in not a single pilot in local, 90% of the time. Your claim seems to have little factual basis based on simple observation.
The power projection nerf wont have much impact due to the way we operate. We have a vast subcap fleet which will not be badly impacted by this and it is deployed in sigs across our space so we can deploy a fleet or three to any attempt upon our sov/assets rather quickly. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances CAStabouts
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 12:26:00 -
[928] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Maybe a simplistic question, but given the history of CFC itself, why would anyone assume that it is somehow immune to change?
I would note that I fly down through Goon space a lot, even right through the heart of Fountain from time to time, and 90% of those systems are empty, as in not a single pilot in local, 90% of the time. Your claim seems to have little factual basis based on simple observation.
The power projection nerf wont have much impact due to the way we operate. We have a vast subcap fleet which will not be badly impacted by this and it is deployed in sigs across our space so we can deploy a fleet or three to any attempt upon our sov/assets rather quickly.
OK, but doesn't this suggest that the nature of warfare and conflict is likely to become more dynamic because of the changes? If an attacker doesn't have to worry about being instantly hot-dropped by a massive capital fleet when they decide to attack some remote system and in fact could even plan blockades/ambushes on the approaches to counter said "vast subcap fleet" trying to get there, that will change the strategic balance. Perhaps in a major way.
Surely, that's a good thing?
In fact, if these changes will have no impact on your space tyranny at all, as you suggest, why then is there any problem with them? |

Hemmo Paskiainen
463
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 13:35:00 -
[929] - Quote
My proposed idea of adding more npc space in certain regions, got trilled away back in 2011, just say'ng. Just like faster warps, tech effect warnings, and a gazillion other **** like that. How's your 'life' now in mommies basement   CCP FIX BLACK OPS FFS
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13559
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 06:30:00 -
[930] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
OK, but doesn't this suggest that the nature of warfare and conflict is likely to become more dynamic because of the changes? If an attacker doesn't have to worry about being instantly hot-dropped by a massive capital fleet when they decide to attack some remote system and in fact could even plan blockades/ambushes on the approaches to counter said "vast subcap fleet" trying to get there, that will change the strategic balance. Perhaps in a major way.
Surely, that's a good thing?
In fact, if these changes will have no impact on your space tyranny at all, as you suggest, why then is there any problem with them?
Oh things will change. Expect new and interesting uses for capitals. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|

Maeltstome
Twisted Insanity. The Kadeshi
599
|
Posted - 2014.10.06 10:15:00 -
[931] - Quote
The motivation behind this is utterly, utterly ********.
Nothing that's being asked for is out-with the reach of the alliances/coalitions currently. They CHOSE to play the game this way. They have escalated every situation into a total cluster f*ck. CCP are basically having to change the game to make it harder to do anything on a fleet level because people have jumped into a pentagon of power and will bludgeon anything that is not allied to one of these power blocks.
Changing sov mechanics doesn't fix the underlying Humans who play the game - and it's nothing short of pretentious for these people in the community to claim to know whats best - The old adage of "actions speak louder than words" would go a long way here. |
|
|
|
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] |