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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
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
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 172	Posted - 2014.12.18 17:47:38 - [2] - Quote Outpost are only in a number of systems because the 30 plus billion needed for them has become a small cost compared to the capship fleets that fielded, same with the 500m a system, just a small fee is all its become. Much of null sec is just held waiting for renters rather then being used because its more then what's needed. I am not in null due to multiple reasons, but I have seen the problems all over eve To take null by force you would need to build a major power to compete with the null powers or they will just stomp you "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 616	Posted - 2014.12.18 20:00:43 - [3] - 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
Lugh Crow-Slave 283	Posted - 2014.12.20 07:19:43 - [4] - Quote more outposts per system would be nice but only after they can be popped
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1803	Posted - 2014.12.20 08:11:20 - [5] - Quote You only need 4 systems to have all the outposts you want. The actual issue with Null Density is the number of players who can live in a system doing anything other than mining. Average accepted number is about 10 people in an average system across every single time zone occupy all the PvE content a single system can provide. While this number remains at this level, you will not see significant compression of members. Null needs to be able to support a great many more per system, without significantly affecting max income per player.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 14:18:13 - [6] - 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
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 1651	Posted - 2014.12.20 17:26:07 - [7] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: more outposts per system would be nice but only after they can be popped make outright destroying them easier than capturing them, afterall, capturing one should be a GOAL of an invasion, its an important asset with extreme military utility, destroying it should be the easy path to system domination, capturing it should be difficult, maybe later on with LEGION integration for fun times. also make defenders able to enact scorched earth protocols to deny aforementioned military asset from the enemy (and ALL assets currently held inside it destroyed with a 10% drop chance)
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 17:42:12 - [8] - 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
Bl1SkR1N Euphoria Released Triumvirate. 54	Posted - 2014.12.20 17:54:15 - [9] - Quote How about, instead of making destructable stations...which is imo super hard to implement without ruining game, you remove abilitiy to build stations at all. Regions would be stuck with what they have, give them whole new meaning, maybe change how upgrades work.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10866	Posted - 2014.12.20 18:06:43 - [10] - Quote Wow, no. First, how about we make it so that alliances actually exist? You know, instead of being a slapdash hotfix that has held for years and years? Alliance bookmarks first and foremost, obviously, but nonetheless, you don't just build bad on top of bad. Yeesh. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 18:06:54 - [11] - 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
SFM Hobb3s Wrecking Shots Black Legion. 249	Posted - 2014.12.20 18:20:13 - [12] - Quote I'm hoping CCP will do the exact opposite of what OP wants, and instead forces localization on null. Remove all timers on sov structures and outposts. Make it so the only people that can hold and defend a system, are those that live there. No more coalitions sending a thousand f1 scrubs to make a timer and prevent any change or growth in null. Sure, at first you'll see exactly that. Coalitions desperately clinging to their old meta and flipping some systems...but with no more timers, the original inhabitants of those systems can literally take them back right after the aggressors leave. Maybe this could make coalitions irrelevant, which would be the best thing for Eve since sliced bread and jump fatigue. And as for destroyable stations....the only people that REALLY want this are those that are currently members of those large coalitions. They would absolutely love to go from system to system and pop every station that is not their own. Perhaps this mechanic could work a long time in the future, but not so long as the coalitions of today exist. It would just be exploited, which is what they always do.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 18:57:46 - [13] - 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
admiral root Red Galaxy 2051	Posted - 2014.12.20 20:34:02 - [14] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Wouldn't this new on-demand gizmo thingy mean that they wouldn't need to download until you right clicked in space or opened people & places? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2614	Posted - 2014.12.20 21:06:58 - [15] - Quote An alliance of alliances, how long before these groups demand that alliances of alliances of alliances becomes a recognized group?
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 622	Posted - 2014.12.20 22:43:49 - [16] - 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14304	Posted - 2014.12.21 04:49:55 - [17] - Quote 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? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 627	Posted - 2014.12.21 18:17:48 - [18] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10888	Posted - 2014.12.21 18:32:00 - [19] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. ...wow. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 627	Posted - 2014.12.21 19:23:21 - [20] - 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14318	Posted - 2014.12.21 20:01:27 - [21] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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? 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.21 23:41:24 - [22] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10889	Posted - 2014.12.21 23:45:09 - [23] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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! 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. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.21 23:59:36 - [24] - 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14319	Posted - 2014.12.22 04:43:32 - [25] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I repeat. I know it can support 80 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 before you start getting issues with overcrowding. Why do you think most null powerblocks want to move away from anoms being the primary way of making isk in sov null? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.22 04:48:28 - [26] - 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14319	Posted - 2014.12.22 04:55:39 - [27] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Wrong again. 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.22 05:04:13 - [28] - 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14319	Posted - 2014.12.22 05:27:07 - [29] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Doesn't work like that. There is a fixed number of spawns that respawn on a fixed time. A max upgraded, best truesec system will host 10 people before they start stepping on eachothers toes. Next step in this thread is someone will say "well then run plexes" to which the response is they will support at the very most 100 per region. Inevitably someone will say something about faction/officer spawns to which the response is that they are rare, hence why they cost what they do. Long story short, if you don't own a personal carrier fleet for ratting and just have the one ratting character you are better off running SOE level 4 missions in high sec. Your plan can't work because it doesn't address the real issue for empire sprawl. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 628	Posted - 2014.12.22 05:32:48 - [30] - 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14319	Posted - 2014.12.22 05:50:18 - [31] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Occupational sov is happening anyway, the last hurdle is to get CCP to change the primary way of earning isk in null so that we can deal with the need for empire sprawl. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 1654	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:58:14 - [32] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. 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
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 631	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:09:35 - [33] - 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
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate 180	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:27:42 - [34] - Quote Destructible stations I am all so against.. Now don't get me wrong.. I live in null.. this has nothing to do with losing a station.. Or losing what I have inside of it... I am all for losing my station to an enemy.. ( I will fight to keep that bastard tho) But I do believe the current station META is broke and game breaking in my eyes. If Pl/goons/provi/solar/MOA/RIM whoever suddenly Take a system over.. then Capture the station.. it should be like taking over someones Storage Facility.. They lost it.. the Contents get shifted over to the new owner... Not have this super secret Tight Locker combination that no one can break and they can diplo all their assets back. If I blow up a POS... I get its contents on a random Scale.. I'm not blowing up a POS.. I am seizing control of a outpost from its owners. It's contents in my eyes should immediately become a new form of loot to the new Corp/alliance that took over it. It's prize for winning that fight. In my eyes... that will bring your Hell fights to SOV real quick especially over station systems. Instead of going.. we will just wait for the right time.. take it back and you will have your stuff back. If I kidnap a ship from someone because they ejected and ran away.. I get the contents.. if a alliance abandons its station because the forces it faced is to strong.. well then those contents should be the victors.. nevermind watching a new explosion scene added to the game. Give the loot to the victor. As for anoming etc, it needs a major rework if VOLT wants its plan to go into place. I live in provi with you dudes. I rip through sites how Baltec1 mentions, often times I am waiting on sites because the other sites are either taken up or are in respawn timers. This can also happen in the surrounded areas where I live usually sending me to go do indy things or tool around in a hangar ship spinning and BSing on coms. That's not even with a Pimp fit ship.. thats just a t2 fit BS and good skills and knowing how to work rats. If you are going to have more pilots come into the systems the spawn rates of anoms has to be at least tripled or more. We are not even capital ratting like the big boys do in deeper null due to "politics". Adding more anoms isn't the best of things either. That is just adding more of the same systems that exist today and adding more of the click repeat action we all suffer from now. The system in its whole needs a rework. Either tougher sites with Fatter rewards but push corporations to work together as groups in sites, similiar to wormholes, or more dynamic action hitting Nullsec areas. The cure isn't more of the same.. Its more of the NEW. Get more play out for the soloist, Get more dynamic sites out for the group building mechanics, Get the null AI into a tougher AI that us nullbears are going to be challenged with. Take that Burner AI or Incursion AI and drop it into a new form of sites and dump them all over Null, make the loot worth it, and put a decent randomizer on them so they are not just wiki'd overnight. But these are changes that will take time.. and we have to wait to see if CCP goes Occupancy based SOV which in the minutes they seems against, or SOVless, which they seemed for.. I also am for. Ditch SOV all together and if you feel like moving.. just effing move. If you want a station Brawl for it and take that area over by force. But eff all those timers and mechanics.. get the corp/alliances/coalitions actually needing to work correctly to fill in all the time zone gaps and become more efficient at what they do. This is EVE.. were not supposed to be easy mode. You want to keep it.. hold it.. work for it.. and defend it. If you stagnate..because you got comfortable.. then you deserve to lose it.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9201	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:36:26 - [35] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. This is simply a lie. Nothing else to really say about it. It's demonstrably mathematically impossible even if yuo include mining upgrades.
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate 180	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:41:52 - [36] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. This is simply a lie. Nothing else to really say about it. It's demonstrably mathematically impossible even if yuo include mining upgrades. how does Mining updates come into play with ratting.. He is talking about what the bulk of must nullseccers do.. which is rat.. me being and Industrialist even knows this. You will not find many at all PVPers willing to hop into a mining ship. Provi where we live is an entirely different mentality. Where he lives.. not gonna happen.. toss the mining upgrades out of the window. What he is speaking is true.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 632	Posted - 2014.12.22 18:35:38 - [37] - 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 - [38] - 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
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 556	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:32:03 - [39] - 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. Translation: Mah fleat of 23.000.000 titan makk site tuh fast, isboxer stoobittttthhhh. signature
Anthar Thebess 850	Posted - 2015.02.04 12:51:04 - [40] - Quote Big blocks will be as long as timers and wining them requires it.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3416	Posted - 2015.02.04 13:09:31 - [41] - Quote 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.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 857	Posted - 2015.02.04 13:22:54 - [42] - 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
Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 148	Posted - 2015.02.04 14:43:31 - [43] - 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. What disease? Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Pilot -> Corporation -> Alliance. Nothing larger. Ever. Why? No seriously, why? Alliances didn't always exist mechanically, so how did you come to the conclusion that they are the correct place for mechanically supported power structures to end?
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 56	Posted - 2015.02.04 15:58:13 - [44] - Quote Xavier Thorm wrote: 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. What disease? The disease of human nature. Unfortunately, there's no cure. Alliances and coalitions exist for the simple reason that it makes sense for them exist. Alliances because you need one to hold space and coalitions because it's the only reliable way to protect & keep vast swaths of space once you have it. The problem, as baltec right points out, is that we should never have needed to hold vast swaths of space to keep alliance members interested in the first place. Having to hold these large areas of space means people have to fly farther for fights, and having to blue up large numbers of people to protect your holdings only compounds the problem. There are two ways to fix this issue: 1) Ask people to play in a suboptimal manner. (LOL, cause that will happen). 2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members. I'll give you a for instance. If you packed all of Goonswarm (not the CFC, just the Goons ~12k pilots) into Deklein, they wouldn't need a coalition to hold the space. They'd have enough pilots to defend it without help, especially with the reduced jump ranges limiting your capital entry points. But their members would starve for content and money making opportunities. If you collapsed the member count to the point where they could all reasonably live in Deklein, the couldn't hold the space. This is the catch 22 that the large blocs have found themselves in for years. Occupancy sov is the right answer - as long as CCP gets the details right. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 148	Posted - 2015.02.04 16:14:18 - [45] - Quote Elenahina wrote: Xavier Thorm wrote: 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. What disease? The disease of human nature. Unfortunately, there's no cure. I think you missed the part where my post was comprised entirely of rhetorical questions in an attempt to encourage Alvatore to defend his dramatic assertions, but I appreciate your insightful comments anyway. I hope CCP can find some way to make individual systems support more players which is more elegant than simply adding more PVE content of the same kind we have now. I don't really want to see the value of ISK, minerals, and meta modules all be decreased simultaneously.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 858	Posted - 2015.02.04 16:53:20 - [46] - 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
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 976	Posted - 2015.02.04 17:23:48 - [47] - Quote 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.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1545	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:23:46 - [48] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Wrong again. 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. 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"?
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 110	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:42:20 - [49] - Quote Anhenka wrote: 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. What will prevent you is another edit to the OP, coming up soon, to save the phenomena. I post a lot of bad ideas, and if I have to amend the original idea more than 3 times, or go back on the original intent, the idea has not been thoroughly thought through and deserves to sink into obscurity. A system works best if there are few and very simple rules governing behaviors. For example the complex movement of a group, "flocking" can be simply modeled using 3 rules: avoid crowding neighbors steer towards average heading of neighbors steer towards average position of neighbors Very simple rules that result in what appears to be complex movement. Saving the phenomenon(greater complexity) in eve is unwise. There are enough space lawyers as it is, and the more complex a system is, the more likely it is to be gamed. Also, I can just imagine the bad old days of pos-sov- grind come again, but less fun. Outposts take ages to drop, and they don't provide KB padding for the whores, making the grind even tougher to scrape up a fleet for.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 859	Posted - 2015.02.04 20:01:52 - [50] - 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
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 646	Posted - 2015.02.05 01:12:37 - [51] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Wow, no. First, how about we make it so that alliances actually exist? You know, instead of being a slapdash hotfix that has held for years and years? Alliance bookmarks first and foremost, obviously, but nonetheless, you don't just build bad on top of bad. Yeesh. They talked about making alliances actually functional in the summit that just passed. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 646	Posted - 2015.02.05 01:14:54 - [52] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. I have no problem with 30,000 guys being unable to fly under the same banner. Because to hell with 2000 man fights, I'm tired of tidi. That said, 80 people really cannot be supported in one system (without lots of mining). Mining is no way to live. I'm 99.9% sure the Geneva Convention banned the practice of forcing people to mine for a living. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy 674	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:56:58 - [53] - Quote 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. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á- [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Hairpins Blueprint CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 124	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:09:34 - [54] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: TL;DR Add additional ratting sites that require teams to complete them. i would like to see that ... : ( there is nothing like that in null sec right now. Let's hope new sleepers will bring it.
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 646	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:18:58 - [55] - Quote 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. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 862	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:54:41 - [56] - 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
Cutter John The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.02.14 20:29:56 - [57] - Quote I hate fatigue... I rarely even log in because of it... It hampers what I can do as an individual. I prefer to be self reliant, with fatigue, I can't Jump my own **** without having to sit ad and wait in a station... It sucks...
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 107	Posted - 2015.02.14 21:35:04 - [58] - Quote Elenahina wrote: Xavier Thorm wrote: 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. What disease? The disease of human nature. Unfortunately, there's no cure. Alliances and coalitions exist for the simple reason that it makes sense for them exist. Alliances because you need one to hold space and coalitions because it's the only reliable way to protect & keep vast swaths of space once you have it. The problem, as baltec right points out, is that we should never have needed to hold vast swaths of space to keep alliance members interested in the first place. Having to hold these large areas of space means people have to fly farther for fights, and having to blue up large numbers of people to protect your holdings only compounds the problem. There are two ways to fix this issue: 1) Ask people to play in a suboptimal manner. (LOL, cause that will happen). 2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members. I'll give you a for instance. If you packed all of Goonswarm (not the CFC, just the Goons ~12k pilots) into Deklein, they wouldn't need a coalition to hold the space. They'd have enough pilots to defend it without help, especially with the reduced jump ranges limiting your capital entry points. But their members would starve for content and money making opportunities. If you collapsed the member count to the point where they could all reasonably live in Deklein, the couldn't hold the space. This is the catch 22 that the large blocs have found themselves in for years. Occupancy sov is the right answer - as long as CCP gets the details right. Why would their members starve? They can go anywhere and risk getting shot like everyone else. Risk/reward.............
Cutter John The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.02.14 21:41:11 - [59] - Quote 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.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 922	Posted - 2015.02.15 05:49:44 - [60] - 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
Cutter John Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.02.15 09:51:45 - [61] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Yeah keep living in your bubble. If the mechanic is broken, the mechanic is broken. I enjoyed being self reliant when it comes to personal logistics. I do play with others, quite often. But why should I involve them in a personal project? Why should someone else be involved in my personal fitting operations. The point is that it is broken, and makes the game a less enjoyable experience. Regardless you have lost a pilot from your own alliance. Enjoy the last few years of Eve, it is going to crap, and you do not deserve a seat on CSM X.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1050	Posted - 2015.02.15 10:03:09 - [62] - Quote Cutter John wrote: Yeah keep living in your bubble. If the mechanic is broken, the mechanic is broken. I enjoyed being self reliant when it comes to personal logistics. I do play with others, quite often. But why should I involve them in a personal project? Why should someone else be involved in my personal fitting operations. The point is that it is broken, and makes the game a less enjoyable experience. Regardless you have lost a pilot from your own alliance. Enjoy the last few years of Eve, it is going to crap, and you do not deserve a seat on CSM X. Oddly enough, repeatedly insisting that a mechanic is broken without providing even the slightest support for that statement does not magically make the mechanic broken. I personally think it's the best change CCP has made in years. Not having goon fleets travel from three regions away to jump on my ass every time a fleet goes out is such a nice change of pace. And don't worry, since most people only know Jen from the forums, and his/her ideas are basically ignored, laughed at, or ridiculed by at least 80% of the people posting in his/her threads, I think his/her campaign is already shot.
Cutter John Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.02.15 10:09:27 - [63] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Cutter John wrote: Yeah keep living in your bubble. If the mechanic is broken, the mechanic is broken. I enjoyed being self reliant when it comes to personal logistics. I do play with others, quite often. But why should I involve them in a personal project? Why should someone else be involved in my personal fitting operations. The point is that it is broken, and makes the game a less enjoyable experience. Regardless you have lost a pilot from your own alliance. Enjoy the last few years of Eve, it is going to crap, and you do not deserve a seat on CSM X. Oddly enough, repeatedly insisting that a mechanic is broken without providing even the slightest support for that statement does not magically make the mechanic broken. I personally think it's the best change CCP has made in years. Not having goon fleets travel from three regions away to jump on my ass every time a fleet goes out is such a nice change of pace. And don't worry, since most people only know Jen from the forums, and his/her ideas are basically ignored, laughed at, or ridiculed by at least 80% of the people posting in his/her threads, I think his/her campaign is already shot. I have never seemed to have that problem. Anyhow I am out, Any further posts from this toon won't be me.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 930	Posted - 2015.02.16 06:05:25 - [64] - 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
Reeses Peices State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.16 06:49:05 - [65] - Quote Jen, The problem is that every Corp or alliance wants a space to call their own. when you have Alliances that have hundreds of Corps, they will each want to spread out and each claim a system for themselves. This happens in Empire, Lowsec, Null, and J-Space. The simple fact is that New Eden isn't big enough for all of us. 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. I would keep region sizes the same, and add 1 system for every 30 active capsuleers. Add 1 more Hi-sec Region, many more Null Regions and Alot more lowsec regions with or without FW, then add maybe another 250 systems to J-space. Then remove Jump Bridges and fatigue, keeping Jump ranges as they are. Regardless everyone is entitled to their opinion. No one cares if Jenshae Chiroptera doesn't care.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 930	Posted - 2015.02.16 06:58:59 - [66] - 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
Reeses Peices State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.16 07:56:38 - [67] - Quote I doubt that is the issue, respawns happen rapidly, I have lived in several regions of Null to Include Strain, Deklain, Providence, Catch, Branch and Tenal. Re-spawn of Rats and DED sites are not the Issue. I have seen groups of supers, carriers, and T3 cruisers go through complex after complex to fund alliance events. I know that not all space was made the same, but this is an issue that CCP also needs to address. Even fixed, it does not mean that less space is more. It will just means that the playing field will be even between current Null blocks. However there needs to be more space to accommodate more entities entering Null. Once you have all of this fertile land, do you know what will happen. Null will have a surge of players coming out to play in it in all blocks. Each group will Expand as these groups go out to create a home for themselves, likely within an existing block. There is no reason to constrain movement when movement isn't the issue. The Issue is the Imbalance within regions and NPC faction loot. Allot of this was due to now gone GM's playing favoritism in the drop tables for their alliances space. As much as I disliked our Goon Overlords, I had the best time residing in branch from 2008-2010. My time in Nulli Secunda, was complete crap as it was impossible to fund SRP and Events. And I didn't have much time to enjoy Provi as the changes from Pheobe just ruined my mood to play much less log in.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 934	Posted - 2015.02.16 08:06:12 - [68] - 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
Reeses Peices State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.16 08:46:28 - [69] - Quote Then we are in agreement that Eve needs to re-balance all of the Null resources. Second, if this does work, then what is the glue that holds the CFC together. They reached critical mass years ago and still managed to continue growing. They are led by very organized leaders but despite having several hotheads and their own brand of psychopaths. How do they manage to hold such a diverse grouping of people together? Third, why do we need to to penalize individuals jumps as much as group jumps. Why not add decay to system's ability to support a cyno after so much mass has jumped. Exact same mechanic used currently for wormholes would work. Yes you could have 4 max size fleets cynoing in at 4 different systems, but wouldn't this affect projection while allowing more groups to go to battle and doesn't limit anyone to fighting only at their neighbors house. I preferred massive 7 way battles that maxed out TIDI where groups came from all over eve for a fight with everything they had.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 938	Posted - 2015.02.17 02:01:11 - [70] - 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
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1067	Posted - 2015.02.17 03:08:15 - [71] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. There not being an infinite amount of people who actually live or want to live in null, that's an odd assumption. Namely that if large groups are mechanically forced to live in compact areas though harsh activity based sov, that the majority of groups would choose to compact down to groups of systems near potential enemies. 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. Holding more space than you absolutely require allows you to have strategic depth so that you have non critical systems bordering your enemies, a measure of protection from titan or Blops bridged fleets due to physical LY distance, and shields your primary PvE systems from being close to your enemies. It allows you to set up space control through JB's so that you have more operational mobility within your space compared to anyone invading or roaming through. As the impact of Blops and titan bridges is highly dependent on how much coverage of your enemies systems you can achieve, scrunching large numbers of people down into small clusters of systems and permitting your enemies to live nearby is a good way to get all your systems threatened 24/7 with the shadow of sudden Blops and Titan bridge fleets. The more space you have, the more enemies it takes to achieve meaningful coverage of an area. I'm also not sure (lets be serious, I'm entirely sure it's not) it's a good idea to try and use game mechanics to force all groups into such small spaces so that there is empty space for anyone to step into anytime they want. If space is in nearly no way a limited resource, what's the point of fighting over it?
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 943	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:28:27 - [72] - 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
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 116	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:22:30 - [73] - Quote Reeses Peices wrote: I doubt that is the issue, respawns happen rapidly, I have lived in several regions of Null to Include Strain, Deklain, Providence, Catch, Branch and Tenal. Re-spawn of Rats and DED sites are not the Issue. I have seen groups of supers, carriers, and T3 cruisers go through complex after complex to fund alliance events. I know that not all space was made the same, but this is an issue that CCP also needs to address. Even fixed, it does not mean that less space is more. It will just means that the playing field will be even between current Null blocks. However there needs to be more space to accommodate more entities entering Null. Once you have all of this fertile land, do you know what will happen. Null will have a surge of players coming out to play in it in all blocks. Each group will Expand as these groups go out to create a home for themselves, likely within an existing block. There is no reason to constrain movement when movement isn't the issue. The Issue is the Imbalance within regions and NPC faction loot. Allot of this was due to now gone GM's playing favoritism in the drop tables for their alliances space. As much as I disliked our Goon Overlords, I had the best time residing in branch from 2008-2010. My time in Nulli Secunda, was complete crap as it was impossible to fund SRP and Events. And I didn't have much time to enjoy Provi as the changes from Pheobe just ruined my mood to play much less log in. 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.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 945	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:31:59 - [74] - 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 - [75] - 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15375	Posted - 2015.03.05 01:43:56 - [76] - Quote 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1044	Posted - 2015.03.05 02:52:13 - [77] - 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

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

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