EVE Search - Shrinking Null Blocs - acknowledge coalitions.

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Shrinking Null Blocs - acknowledge coalitions.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jenshae Chiroptera 615	Posted - 2014.12.18 15:37:13 - [1] - Quote Right, so Phoebe. Okay, force projection is now limited. You still have an artificial force that makes people keeps more space than they need. SOV and stations. Please recognise coalitions in the mechanics so we can build a station on every planet and have one per alliance. One alliance can control the initial setup or in other words govern the system but if we can consolodate our space then we can use it more effectively and not try to grab so much of it. I see it working out like this in a coalition: Alliances would hold 1-2 systems as "home bases" / staging systems with only them in it. Other systems would have the more powerful alliances mixed in The lowest value systems and possibly border systems would have renters or new alliances. Over all though, it would mean less systems per bloc and more blocs. It would mean a greater concentration of pilots, which would mean that the smaller you are the more you can defend your space. Another thing that would be good is if we could mix our fleets in the coalitions and go through high sec. Have logi from alliance A being able to repp alliance B ship that was attacked. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 616	Posted - 2014.12.18 20:00:43 - [2] - Quote http://evenews24.com/2014/12/08/matt-greyscale-woodward-leaves-ccp/ Quote: Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs wonGÇÖt be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars. It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment so reds are easier to find. This may make it easier for small alliances to set up shop, with less supercapital curb stomping. Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period GÇ£everything will go to sh-.GÇ¥ We are still in the transition period. My point being that we could have smaller tougher nuts to crack but many more of them. Have a look around, a lot of coalitions and alliances are pulling back. CFC was withdrawing from the south west, if I remember correctly, as an example. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 14:18:13 - [3] - Quote 5/5/5 system supports more than that easily and isn't even being used effieciently. Teams, tear through sites so fast noctises are leap frogging and a hauler is needed to pick up the loot. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 17:42:12 - [4] - Quote I can agree on destruction but not easy destruction. This is EVE, with groups like Pandem Legion in them. If there is something to fight for to regain there will be more good fights otherwise the next big thing from Titan ganks is Station ganks. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 18:06:54 - [5] - Quote I think the over all plan is to have null sec running as a player driven high sec with its own law enforcements, markets, etc. Probably a dream but the waste land of systems can't be what they are hoping for or trying to make happen. Edit: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Alliance bookmarks first and foremost, obviously, but nonetheless, you don't just build bad on top of bad. Check into that. I think I read in a dev post or blog that it will never happen. Too many book marks bursting the download when you change systems. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 18:57:46 - [6] - Quote Timers are vital. Getting a large alliance organised to do something takes time. There are also weaknesses in time zones. The large alliances can't be bothered to build stations half the time. Just control it and rent out POSes. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 22:43:49 - [7] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: An alliance of alliances, how long before these groups demand that alliances of alliances of alliances becomes a recognized group? Then we adapt and coalitions can only have one station per system going forward, devaluing the alliance to corp levels. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 627	Posted - 2014.12.21 18:17:48 - [8] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Under your plan how would we support tens of thousands of pilots with just one system when currently a single system can support at most 10 pilots at a time? Not trying to herd 10 thousand into one system. I know that one system that is being used quiet inefficiently can support about 80 online at a time. Are you talking about 10 solo ratters taking their sweet time to clear a site? CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 627	Posted - 2014.12.21 19:23:21 - [9] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ...wow. ... because being the same as now, where they can have only one alliance station per coalition in there would be so bad? Oh hang on, there would still be more stations with more blues .... wow! CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.21 23:41:24 - [10] - Quote baltec1 wrote: No, Im talking about people using the best ratting ships in the game. 10 people is the max you can host in the very best truesec system. It is impossible to support 80 people let alone the thirty thousand in our empire on a single system. I repeat. I know it can support 80 I do not expect thousands confined to one system. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.21 23:59:36 - [11] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: You fail to understand. I'm talking about how you literally admit that you don't have a permanent solution, and just want iterative change after iterative change, all to spite people living in nullsec. If you can't see what's wrong with that... then you are beyond redemption. Is this more of your attempts to "bury" me like you have done to "better forumites" Oh, mighty forum warrior? Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I've buried better forumites than you, and to Falcon you won't even be a speed bump, even if you make it past Ezwal and Barstorlode. I do not think there are any permanent solutions. That is why there is balancing and re-balancing. The game is in constant flux. If you think I am trying to spite null sec, you are sorely mistaken. I live in null sec. Now can you, stop following me around like a bad smell just because you couldn't keep my CSM thread locked? It looks rather sulky. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.22 04:48:28 - [12] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Repeat it all you want, you are still wrong. Anyone who has done any kind of research into this subject can see that you cannot support 80 people in one system. The number is 10 per system 10 guys running solo and taking their sweet time. Edit: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/those-anomaly-changes-in-full/ It comes down to rate. The quicker you clear sites the quicker you spawn more. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.22 05:04:13 - [13] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We finish them so fast we have to wait for them to respawn. We have been over this time after time for years now with bears such as yourself who have no idea what they are talking about. Don't know what you are doing wrong. There is a change in OP before this page of threads saying that there probably needs to be a change to it anyway. Shrugs Edit: Wait. Are you clearing absolutely every site? Might like worm holes that you need to leave two junk anomolies to spawn others faster. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.22 05:32:48 - [14] - Quote Although I disagree with you, I shall quote you to the OP. I do agree that it needs an increase, especially if this thread's change were to be implemented. Edit: It seems to be a running concern, shared by quite a few. So if the average need it improved quite drastically then there we have it. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 631	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:09:35 - [15] - Quote Nariya Kentaya wrote: noe EASY destruction, just easier to destroy than capture, because these are afterall assets better kept alive for reuse, so that should be the difficult thing to do Makes sense in real world logic. EVE players, however ... they won't try to keep the station, just blow it up to spite the last owners. It assumes that most of the players would want to keep SOV. Consider how Pandemic grabbed a station and then put it into a four man corp to only the spite the previous owners. Huge alliances that do not want any more SOV will just go along to smaller ones, destroy their station, enjoy the tears and leave again. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 632	Posted - 2014.12.22 18:35:38 - [16] - Quote Added a provision about the enemy loot thing. A month should be enough time to try save your stuff. Multiple stations being held and fought for in a system means your wealth would be more distributed and less vulnerable. CSM Ten movement for change. EVE - the only MMO that not so subtly serves up victims. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 856	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:03:32 - [17] - Quote Getting the impression that Null Sec is too safe in some places and maybe shrinking means more alliances can fit out in Null. Meaning more friction and more conflict. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 857	Posted - 2015.02.04 13:22:54 - [18] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Coalitions must never be recognized. They nothing but a symptom of an insidious disease that Phoebe has hopefully helped to purge. Time will tell, of course. Pilot -> Corporation -> Alliance. Nothing larger. Ever. ... or because there is no easy solution to enforce that, make it possible for them to shrink into smaller areas of space? CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 858	Posted - 2015.02.04 16:53:20 - [19] - Quote Elenahina wrote: 2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members. . Jump bridges and station controls. Not all alliances trust each other completely and not being able to build strategic stations in the same system as each other ... Some systems are held only for strategic jump bridges ... so one per alliance on those also per system? CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 859	Posted - 2015.02.04 20:01:52 - [20] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Elenahina wrote: 2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members. . Jump bridges and station controls. Not all alliances trust each other completely and not being able to build strategic stations in the same system as each other ... Some systems are held only for strategic jump bridges ... so one per alliance on those also per system? If you don't trust someone to dock in your station or use your JB, you are sure as hell not living in the same system in the same coalition. You have this idea which was overly complex and didn't honestly solve much to start, and then each time someone points out a flaw, you add more restrictions or layers of complexity to the idea in an effort to patch it up. The result is a horrific Frankenstein's monster of a system that can easily be manipulated by shell alliances, but still doesn't address many of the fundamental issues with extremely compact sov. What for example prevents me from making a dozen shell alliances and then placing JB's in all directions from a singel system. It could be one alliance living there, plus 12 shell alliances with one corp and one person in that corp, and they could still have all those JB's in one system. Blow me away. Come up with the perfect solution. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 862	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:54:41 - [21] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Barbara Nichole wrote: Announce that in 6 months freighters and haulers will lose their fatigue bonus. Bad idea. they have that bonus because fatigue wasn't a really good idea in the first place. access to things not yours in an outpost after 6 months? You should never have access to anything in a player hanger without permission. ever. coalitions? perhaps the better move would be to outlaw them and to make it harder for unofficial organizations to work together. Don't really care much for coalitions, sorry. Fatigue was a great idea, it just makes JFs difficult, and since nullsec isn't currently capable of supporting itself industrially CCP relented. Impression I got , at one point, was that it was a temporary reprieve and we should prepare our null sec trade hubs. (I cheered this on). As to alliance bookmarks there was something about them flooding your machine / connection when you keep jumping systems if they are alliance wide. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 922	Posted - 2015.02.15 05:49:44 - [22] - Quote Cutter John wrote: Jump fatigue is horribly flawed... Horribly, What makes you think I want to sit and wait 15 minutes in between each and every 10LY jump with my freighter... It wrecks the ability of an individual to be self reliant. I will be selling my characters at wholesale and leaving EVE. I used to like this game for the freedom it allowed and now it is horribly broken. It is just absolutely, terrible that a multiplayer game would require more tactics, planning and team work. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 930	Posted - 2015.02.16 06:05:25 - [23] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: corebloodbrothers wrote: freedom of speech matters but ffs, u are in my alliance lol, your voice is your own ofc, not mine nor provi bloc Goodluck I doubt that I shall garner more than a few votes tossed at me; as nothing more than a lark. As I said in your thread, you have my vote. I probably won't get past this stage but hopefully there will be some discussion ... Right. So, very, very simple: If systems support more ratters (hopefully in teams to reduce the number of sites) then alliances need less systems. This means they can be smaller. Have less sprawl. This means more alliances can be in Null Sec and there would be more content. Now can you stop being so puerile, running around yacking away about rubbish and try come up with some solutions? "I don't like this" - So? "This is stupid" - So? I do not care about your opinion. Stop wasting my time reading it. Apply some logic if you have any. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 930	Posted - 2015.02.16 06:58:59 - [24] - Quote Reeses Peices wrote: Jen, The problem is that every Corp or alliance wants a space to call their own ... So what do you do, you try to shrink everyone down into the same space, what you will get is less players playing. What should be done is an expansion of the number of regions. ... You have a few corps and alliances calling many systems theirs because they can't get enough out of the systems they have. Have you been around Null Sec? Seen all the empty systems that don't have stations or players in them? Why do we need more of those? It is like farm land. If it is not fertile, you need more land. This denies all those corps and alliance, who want systems, those systems. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 934	Posted - 2015.02.16 08:06:12 - [25] - Quote Can't believe I am going to say this: Malcanis. People push their ISK/hour, so you land up with 5 - 10 guys running sites solo. Why should they share? They do not need to do so. It is just more hassle. .... and yes, more alliances might join existing coalitions but the funny thing about that is that more corps and alliances, the more egos, the more friction, the more breaks down, fracturing and conflict. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 938	Posted - 2015.02.17 02:01:11 - [26] - Quote CFC isn't relevant to me in this discussion. Pretty much all alliances have more systems than they really, actively use. As to having 7 alliances coming to a brawl, if you shrink them down then there will be your regular neighbour and 5 others new ones, who have moved into the gaps jumping into it. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 943	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:28:27 - [27] - Quote Anhenka wrote: 1) There not being an infinite amount of people who actually live or want to live in null, that's an odd assumption. 2) I would consider it far more likely that the competent groups would compact down to a certain degree, but set up a DMZ belt around them where they burn to the ground any other unfriendly inhabitants attempts to live there. 3) As the impact of Blops and titan bridges is highly dependent on how much coverage of your enemies systems you can achieve, 4) If space is in nearly no way a limited resource, what's the point of fighting over it? First of all, thank you for a decent post. I have carved it up to show, which parts I am addressing and where. 1) I think this is a matter of perception. Null Sec seems to be the easiest space to live in of all four types. 2) I think rather than a DMZ, I would get +5 standing corps and alliances around in a meat shield and they can be grateful when we keep coming to their rescue. 3) You need to get the cyno into the system and this can be prevented. Also with your meat shield you have more alliances intermingling and they are taking most of the heat. 4) It won't be, not in the long term. There would be more alliances filling in the space created. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 945	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:31:59 - [28] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: You know what will happen.......nothing. The coalitions would just move in and rent it out. There is no one big enough to fight them and their renters are too afraid to say no. What needs to happen is the renters need to start fighting for their system(s) instead of paying rent. p.s. I may not agree with Jen but I applaud the effort to be active and pose questions opening up dialogue. It is two fold. 1) Allow the coalitions to retract and live in smaller spaces. 2) Hopefully, this triggers a "gold rush" High-Sec has a huge pool of veteran player with a lot of ISK and skill at their disposal. They only need to pour out into low sec systems, grab POSes or just build capitals in stations. Even marauders can be heavy ships to PvP in despite the PVE perception. I took some spectres who roam Low Sec through some Null Sec space, they were surprised by how empty so many systems are and how Null is not full of capitals hot dropping on every little band of adventurers. Fertile ground for a viral idea. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1042	Posted - 2015.03.04 22:39:34 - [29] - Quote With the upcoming SOV changes, I see it playing out like this: - Loads of flies swarming around and triggering all the SOV things they can reach. - Alliances pulling back into choke points so they can swat the flies. - Alliances realise they can't support all their members, so they kick the useless ones out. - The useless ones realise they are institutionalised and no one wants them, they are scared of High Sec so they quit the game. I think this thread is more necessary for consideration, more than ever. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1044	Posted - 2015.03.05 02:52:13 - [30] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: It's probably a bad idea but just for the sake of your opinion, what if there were some anomaly with no "end"? Just trigger after trigger after trigger. I know it would print too much ISK but could a system similar to that prevent people from feeling they are stepping on each other's feets or do they really need to each have their own pocket in space while "workign"? Past a point the bounties are split among so many people that they would just not be worth the effort. Plus we would have issues with the number of wrecks littering the grid along with as you said, too much isk getting injected. We need a new systems more like missions and based upon LP. Perhaps rats can be a growing problem, at gates, stations, POCOs, if they are kept at bay and destroyed in anomolies. So, then SOV owners give our LP to keep systems clear. The LP is then used as a type of SRP program subsidising ships, modules and ammos that the SOV owners put up for sale in their trade hubs. The rates would have to be up to the SOV owners so they can fluctuate with the markets. I would like team / squad anomolies put in for: - less overall anomolies. - people getting used to roles and working together. - people being more confident and battle ready to repell intruders. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20251115/1027
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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