EVE Search - What determines Sovereignty? An examination of the concept.

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

What determines Sovereignty? An examination of the concept.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.12 21:33:00 - [61] The gate guns idea worries me a little. Lowsec gate guns have the unfortunate effect of restricting gatecamp composition to only those ships able to permatank them, and I wouldn't like to see the same limitations become a factor in 0.0 warfare - interceptors or dictors should be able to roam solo or in small groups and camp gates for careless residents without being vapourised by auto-defences the second they aggro a defender. The 'gate fortifications' idea is worth sticking with though, so maybe some sort of gate defences other than guns? E-war, or perhaps even remote reps? -----------
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.12 23:10:00 - [62] POS's are gay. How come 0.0 powers have no cool structures compared to Empire? Why is our sov system so boring and our capability to build player empires so limited? Proposal for the sov-holding Planetary Defense Platforms: Planetary defense platform is a large structure with anti-structure (way, way, way bigger than dread firepower) artillery for enforcing sovereignty (the ability to build an empire-esque array of other structures at that planet). Up to two can be built. They're separated in stable orbits with the planet in the way, so that they never actually see each other. If one is built at an enemy planet, it will start wiping out all the POS's and other structures in orbit, with the exception of other defense platforms. Yay death stars. If you win sov or contest sov at a planet, say byebye to that planet's POS's. The structures are built in light of the fact that they won't survive the largest assaults and are designed instead to attempt to disperse attacking and defending force's interests to allow more room for tactical maneuvering and function as a more robust tool of sov. Modulation Arrays =D Using quantum entanglement power transfer, sensor array triangulation, and gravitational tide harvesting, it was made possible for an assistance structure to have a direct relationship with the main structure and to bolster its defenses. The added vulnerability of the satellite structures is seen as a trade-off whereby vulnerability to small threats is the price paid to force the distribution of large threats, the ones that a defensive structure is required to help cope with. PDP Modulation Array benefits: 50% bonus to shield resists. (The defensive systems of the platform work with the sensors of array to identify sources of incoming fire and modulate the shield to cope with them) This boosts HP and shield recharge at the same time. 25% bonus to power grid. Extra guns at the main platform will come online. Array interaction: After looking at the goals of what Fahtim put into the low-orbit structures, I've decided to investigate sub-systems. They're very good force multipliers and also a very immersive game mechanic. Array subsystems are sub-targets that have less HP than the array and are much, much smaller, representing the keyhole that a weapon must hit to penetrate defenses at a surgical level. Subsystems are below the targeting capability of all caps, even triaging carriers. Industrial repairs can't be done on surgical damage. To make damage seem logical (weapons hit for full damage, regardless of how much gets through the keyhole) perform damage calculations twice. Once for the array. Once for the subsystem. Subtract the subsystem from the array amount and apply that to the array as a whole. The subsystem has its own HP. Logistics cruisers and SB's are the new sexy in array warfare. SB's for having huge DPS in tiny sig radius weapons and capability to dish it from afar. Logistics for having inordinately huge...logistics capabilities. Going to keep working on this. What's our method of exposing empires to gang warfare at the moment?
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 00:06:00 - [63] I'm thinking up some new ideas just from reading what Kelsin's arguing. 1) Should huge passive income streams be invulnerable to disruption? 2) Should living in a system as a productive citizen mean interference with the sovereigns? 3) Should living in a well-kept empire mean exposure of these citizens to all the lawlessness of virgin 0.0? I'm going to say no to all three. Here are some solutions I've come up with. Let me know how they sit with this discussion circle. 1) To seperate the idea of living in a system and having sovereignty over a system, I'd like to see something on the order of colonies implemented. Colonies could be like the infrastructure you provide to your local population of care bears that allows them to live in your space and perform economic activity (and defenses cough) without allowing them access to your outpost. Colonies should have separate modules that allow them to perform many of the rites of station services. Refining, trading, repairs etc. These modules store taxes in their own facilities. Sort of like communal grain mills that keep a portion. If you raid them, you can steal the stuff that's kept as well as disrupting operations. Colonies under the protection of a defense platform are indestructible. 2) On moons, the fix is simple. Instead of harvesting arrays, have a system of drones that do all the mining. They're vulnerable while en route back inside the bubble. If you can't redeploy them every so often or defend them, you lose access to your sit-back-enjoy-the-isk income. HP is about that of a BS. They have to move a few kilometers to get inside the bubble. Can be interdicted. Economic sovereignty requires de-facto sovereignty is my angle. Yes, you will get attacked by people at odd timezones. These attacks will not be sov-changing fleets, but small groups of raiders. No excuses for not doing something about them. In orbit around planets, it should be possible to construct a harvesting platform. Like other modules under the colony system, they are a passive income system that is vulnerable to disruption. The platform itself is indestructible when protected by a planetary defense platform, but the shipments of goods are not. They are harvested by drones that warp back and forth to the platform. Gas giants provide gas products. Solid planets provide solid products. Availability is much more equal than moon mineral availability. 3) Gate guns are kinda cool. I am attracted to them. If they lock slowly, they're not a fence, but an anti-fence. You can pass through, but you can't stay. Very valuable to those living in a 0.0 empire. Possibly another option (since colonies and defense platforms can be in any system) would be to have a protective shield on the colonies and outposts like a POS. Expose some of the more passive elements of income and infrastructure to small gangs, but give back a little in the form of letting the defenders undock and get organized to attack those threats.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.13 01:54:00 - [64] Originally by: NanDe YaNen I'm thinking up some new ideas just from reading what Kelsin's arguing. 1) Should huge passive income streams be invulnerable to disruption? 2) Should living in a system as a productive citizen mean interference with the sovereigns? 3) Should living in a well-kept empire mean exposure of these citizens to all the lawlessness of virgin 0.0? I'm going to say no to all three. Here are some solutions I've come up with. Let me know how they sit with this discussion circle. 1) To seperate the idea of living in a system and having sovereignty over a system, I'd like to see something on the order of colonies implemented. Colonies could be like the infrastructure you provide to your local population of care bears that allows them to live in your space and perform economic activity (and defenses cough) without allowing them access to your outpost. Colonies should have separate modules that allow them to perform many of the rites of station services. Refining, trading, repairs etc. These modules store taxes in their own facilities. Sort of like communal grain mills that keep a portion. If you raid them, you can steal the stuff that's kept as well as disrupting operations. Colonies under the protection of a defense platform are indestructible. 2) On moons, the fix is simple. Instead of harvesting arrays, have a system of drones that do all the mining. They're vulnerable while en route back inside the bubble. If you can't redeploy them every so often or defend them, you lose access to your sit-back-enjoy-the-isk income. HP is about that of a BS. They have to move a few kilometers to get inside the bubble. Can be interdicted. Economic sovereignty requires de-facto sovereignty is my angle. Yes, you will get attacked by people at odd timezones. These attacks will not be sov-changing fleets, but small groups of raiders. No excuses for not doing something about them. In orbit around planets, it should be possible to construct a harvesting platform. Like other modules under the colony system, they are a passive income system that is vulnerable to disruption. The platform itself is indestructible when protected by a planetary defense platform, but the shipments of goods are not. They are harvested by drones that warp back and forth to the platform. Gas giants provide gas products. Solid planets provide solid products. Availability is much more equal than moon mineral availability. 3) Gate guns are kinda cool. I am attracted to them. If they lock slowly, they're not a fence, but an anti-fence. You can pass through, but you can't stay. Very valuable to those living in a 0.0 empire. Possibly another option (since colonies and defense platforms can be in any system) would be to have a protective shield on the colonies and outposts like a POS. Expose some of the more passive elements of income and infrastructure to small gangs, but give back a little in the form of letting the defenders undock and get organized to attack those threats. 1) You can already disrupt income streams. 2) Jade mentioned this very idea in Iceland. It was a bad idea then and it's a bad one now. Making a boring system more boring because you think it might be personally interesting to sit there and shoot drones all day isn't a solution. 3) I'm not quite sure what the question here is, but 0.0 is lawless by design. To change that changes both the fiction and the nature of the gameplay. Originally by: Crazy GankKiller LOL first u sell them the region and then u claim it back... Darius grow some integretie...
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:03:00 - [65] Seriously Darius, A POS is a giant macro-miner that can't be removed without winning a sov-contesting battle, one that currently is guaranteed to be a giant fleet fight where being severely outnumbered means assured defeat. I'm not asking to take a hundred guys and win against a thousand, but I'd like to do a hundred guys worth of damage. You seem so confident in all your statements that an alliance shouldn't have to put up with a small gang when that gang has no capability to affect the alliance as a whole in a sov contesting battle. Should they not have to put up with it at all? That's essentially what you're arguing. I'm arguing that an alliance should have to deal with smaller threats as smaller threats. Non-long term consequences to short term disruptions.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:13:00 - [66] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Seriously Darius, A POS is a giant macro-miner that can't be removed without winning a sov-contesting battle, one that currently is guaranteed to be a giant fleet fight where being severely outnumbered means assured defeat. I'm not asking to take a hundred guys and win against a thousand, but I'd like to do a hundred guys worth of damage. You seem so confident in all your statements that an alliance shouldn't have to put up with a small gang when that gang has no capability to affect the alliance as a whole in a sov contesting battle. Should they not have to put up with it at all? That's essentially what you're arguing. I'm arguing that an alliance should have to deal with smaller threats as smaller threats. Non-long term consequences to short term disruptions. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. Originally by: Crazy GankKiller LOL first u sell them the region and then u claim it back... Darius grow some integretie...
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:15:00 - [67] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/08/2008 02:16:29 Originally by: NanDe YaNen Seriously Darius, A POS is a giant macro-miner that can't be removed without winning a sov-contesting battle, one that currently is guaranteed to be a giant fleet fight where being severely outnumbered means assured defeat. I'm not asking to take a hundred guys and win against a thousand, but I'd like to do a hundred guys worth of damage. You seem so confident in all your statements that an alliance shouldn't have to put up with a small gang when that gang has no capability to affect the alliance as a whole in a sov contesting battle. Should they not have to put up with it at all? That's essentially what you're arguing. I'm arguing that an alliance should have to deal with smaller threats as smaller threats. Non-long term consequences to short term disruptions. In all seriousness as I've already stated the nature of what you're asking for already exists. Try it some time. I'm confident in my statements because we have small gangs. They disrupt enemy operations. I know this because I read their forums. I said this in Iceland when the bad moon-drone idea you magically came up with was mentioned. The same person proved their lack of knowledge on the subject by stating that nobody is ever financially damaged by sov warfare. Originally by: Crazy GankKiller LOL first u sell them the region and then u claim it back... Darius grow some integretie...
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:15:00 - [68] I can't touch moon mining in a Rapier
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:17:00 - [69] Originally by: NanDe YaNen I can't touch moon mining in a Rapier You can't touch a Nyx either... how should we redesign the game to make sure you can conquer large things solo in your tiny insignificant hull? Originally by: Crazy GankKiller LOL first u sell them the region and then u claim it back... Darius grow some integretie...
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:24:00 - [70] There you go again. It's not about wanting to take over the world in a kestrel. All I'm asking is that it's not possible to simply ignore everything from a kestrel up to POS siege gang. 10 hippies crossing the road won't make the world change, but you're bent on the notion that since they can't make the world change you shouldn't have to deal with them at all. At current, if it's not a sov-changing gang, it can be ignored 100%. Stay at home tactics ftw. To all economics and logistics disruptions, the same defense will work 100%. Get to the station. Safe up and cloak. Jump clone somewhere else. The bad hippies will go away.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:36:00 - [71] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/08/2008 02:36:21 Originally by: NanDe YaNen At current, if it's not a sov-changing gang, it can be ignored 100%. Stay at home tactics ftw. This is the basis of your argument and it is patently false. Originally by: Crazy GankKiller LOL first u sell them the region and then u claim it back... Darius grow some integretie...
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 02:40:00 - [72] Alright, tell me what they're going to do? Station services? ten hours of shooting anyone? This shit's boring and bad for the game. At least if there were some cost associated with leaving such a gang to rot in space, there would be an incentive to get a gang together instead of just deciding to rearrange the hangar.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 03:05:00 - [73] I'm going to take this another direction. You think I'm talking about running around in a bunch of velators and breaking the foundation of an empire instantly. I'm not asking for permission to win at the game. There needs to be more granularity between going out to reinforce towers and camping a JB in an SB. Something in between reinforced and incapped. Best I've come up with so far is a structure that can be "un-aligned" by shooting it. Tripping this condition immediately sends it into a localized reinforcement that eats a tiny amount of stront at a constant rate until it's repaired and gives back unused stront. A gang of ten domi's won't burn down your hardware, but they will disrupt the operations until you re-align them (however that works) or catch them in the first place. Read me clearly. Some objective in between the 35m shield required to take a tower into reinforced and the lucky breacher who finds a lone hauler. More granular exposure for more granular losses.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.13 03:06:00 - [74] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/08/2008 03:11:43 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/08/2008 03:10:26 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/08/2008 03:07:35 Originally by: NanDe YaNen Alright, tell me what they're going to do? Station services? ten hours of shooting anyone? This shit's boring and bad for the game. At least if there were some cost associated with leaving such a gang to rot in space, there would be an incentive to get a gang together instead of just deciding to rearrange the hangar. I never said sov warfare was perfect. I said turning it into faction warfare isn't the answer. Turning it into CS in space isn't the answer. You can run gangs through 0.0 right now and kill people and that hurts. Does killing a few battleships hurt? Yes. Should a small fleet be able to dent an alliances sovreignty by playing minigames? No, Not as they've been presented thus far. As it stands today the barrier to entry for 0.0 is very high, yet somehow people manage to do it. There is no entitlement to the space for you or anyone else. It takes superior leadership and organization. It should. I think one thing people could spend more time thinking about is "Why are so few successful and how can we enable more people?", rather than "How can I change 0.0 to make my fleet of 12 stealth bombers sov killers?". :edit: To clarify. I'm not against changes to the way things work in 0.0. I'm against the ones that have been proposed thus far as the fundamental reasoning behind them is wrong, leading to poor mechanic suggestions. In most cases it's because of ignorance, but that does not make them correct. Originally by: Crazy GankKiller LOL first u sell them the region and then u claim it back... Darius grow some integretie...
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 03:17:00 - [75] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I never said sov warfare was perfect. I said turning it into faction warfare isn't the answer. Turning it into CS in space isn't the answer. You can run gangs through 0.0 right now and kill people and that hurts. Does killing a few battleships hurt? Yes. Should a small fleet be able to dent an alliances sovreignty by playing minigames? No, Not as they've been presented thus far. As it stands today the barrier to entry for 0.0 is very high, yet somehow people manage to do it. There is no entitlement to the space for you or anyone else. It takes superior leadership and organization. It should. I think one thing people could spend more time thinking about is "Why are so few successful and how can we enable more people?", rather than "How can I change 0.0 to make my fleet of 12 stealth bombers sov killers?". Darius, I've been following your replies to threads like these for a while. It's not about fairness or making the game UT2k. What twenty pilots can do, a hundred pilots can do five times better. More granularity of exposure and more granularity for hits to static processes won't change Goons or anybody else's place in the game. What it will do is open up the field for a few hundred pilots to bypass the main fleet and go cause disruptions at home across a wide territory and engage in a more mobile war. This isn't really what I'm after though. I've been throwing the bulk of my efforts and decentralizing POS combat to create some more realistic area of engagement than "Meet us at 5-11 tomorrow at 8:42. Bring your blob." More granular targets in the home territory are just one other way of accomplishing this relationship. More opportunities to wear on an alliance than just at the pos combat.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.13 03:26:00 - [76] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I never said sov warfare was perfect. I said turning it into faction warfare isn't the answer. Turning it into CS in space isn't the answer. You can run gangs through 0.0 right now and kill people and that hurts. Does killing a few battleships hurt? Yes. Should a small fleet be able to dent an alliances sovreignty by playing minigames? No, Not as they've been presented thus far. As it stands today the barrier to entry for 0.0 is very high, yet somehow people manage to do it. There is no entitlement to the space for you or anyone else. It takes superior leadership and organization. It should. I think one thing people could spend more time thinking about is "Why are so few successful and how can we enable more people?", rather than "How can I change 0.0 to make my fleet of 12 stealth bombers sov killers?". Darius, I've been following your replies to threads like these for a while. It's not about fairness or making the game UT2k. What twenty pilots can do, a hundred pilots can do five times better. More granularity of exposure and more granularity for hits to static processes won't change Goons or anybody else's place in the game. What it will do is open up the field for a few hundred pilots to bypass the main fleet and go cause disruptions at home across a wide territory and engage in a more mobile war. This isn't really what I'm after though. I've been throwing the bulk of my efforts and decentralizing POS combat to create some more realistic area of engagement than "Meet us at 5-11 tomorrow at 8:42. Bring your blob." More granular targets in the home territory are just one other way of accomplishing this relationship. More opportunities to wear on an alliance than just at the pos combat. Still there needs to be realistic limits on what small gangs can accomplish, and I don't think killing POS should be within their capabilities. They could do small objectives that make the big battle easier, but shouldn't be the big battle.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 03:30:00 - [77] I've supported small-gang reinforcement (a time and fuel expense) but never small-gang POS destruction (a sov and property expense). I'll leave the implementation out of it, but for instance, I'd like to see this as a possibility: Twenty man gang goes in and chews on moon miner for two hours while dodging POS fire. Moon mining discontinued until somebody hops out there with a carrier or ospreys and dodges twenty-man gang fire. This is granularity. It's not a large expense. It's somewhere between changing the map and costing the holding alliance some money for leaving you alone.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.13 04:25:00 - [78] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. And subtle, too! ------------------ Fix the forums!
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 04:37:00 - [79] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Darius JOHNSON SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. And subtle, too! I was very impressed by the eloquence. I know he's basically already driven to insanity by having to deal the arguments for sov changing hands over something trivial (like capture) so it's an understandable reply.
Fahtim Meidires Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.13 04:47:00 - [80] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Darius JOHNSON SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. SMALL GANGS CAN ALREADY IMPACT THE FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF LARGE 0.0 ALLIANCES. And subtle, too! I was very impressed by the eloquence. I know he's basically already driven to insanity by having to deal the arguments for sov changing hands over something trivial (like capture) so it's an understandable reply. It doesn't make him wrong. Small gangs have a tactical role already, and there's nothing more small gangs can do because of timezones.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.13 05:39:00 - [81] Originally by: Fahtim Meidires It doesn't make him wrong. Small gangs have a tactical role already, and there's nothing more small gangs can do because of timezones. I didn't claim it made him wrong. I claimed it made him a ***** who wasn't contributing much of anything to the conversation. Hardly unique around these parts, of course(and I include myself in that), but that doesn't stop me from poking fun. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.13 13:57:00 - [82] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON :edit: To clarify. I'm not against changes to the way things work in 0.0. I'm against the ones that have been proposed thus far as the fundamental reasoning behind them is wrong, leading to poor mechanic suggestions. In most cases it's because of ignorance, but that does not make them correct. Darius, frankly you're reading what you want to read, rather than what is there. Nobody has proposed anything close to "12 stealth bombers become sov-killers" or "CS in space" here or anywhere else, and in fact in this very thread people have agreed on just the opposite. The baseless comments you're making are unconstructive to the point of trolling. Let's get back on track please, this is a very constructive thread and obfuscating the discussion with off-track rants demeans the openminded and productive debate that was taking place.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.13 19:22:00 - [83] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/08/2008 03:11:43 As it stands today the barrier to entry for 0.0 is very high, yet somehow people manage to do it. There is no entitlement to the space for you or anyone else. It takes superior leadership and organization. It should. I think one thing people could spend more time thinking about is "Why are so few successful and how can we enable more people?", rather than "How can I change 0.0 to make my fleet of 12 stealth bombers sov killers?". Hey Kelsin, you might some perspective on this issue. You're in a non-0.0 alliance. Why don't you start a thread outlining/discussing the reasons that a competent, healthy, and motivated high-sec or low-sec alliance cannot realistically break into 0.0 and thrive there under the current system. Then we can look at ways to enable more people to attempt to play king-of-the-hill in 0.0.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.13 19:27:00 - [84] Originally by: NanDe YaNen At current, if it's not a sov-changing gang, it can be ignored 100%. Stay at home tactics ftw. Tell that to GS blackops (small ship/small gang force that lives in enemy territory disrupting logistics, ratting, mining, etc). They were a prime driver in the collapse of BRUCE a couple of months ago.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 19:37:00 - [85] Originally by: Toman Jerich Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/08/2008 03:11:43 As it stands today the barrier to entry for 0.0 is very high, yet somehow people manage to do it. There is no entitlement to the space for you or anyone else. It takes superior leadership and organization. It should. I think one thing people could spend more time thinking about is "Why are so few successful and how can we enable more people?", rather than "How can I change 0.0 to make my fleet of 12 stealth bombers sov killers?". Hey Kelsin, you might some perspective on this issue. You're in a non-0.0 alliance. Why don't you start a thread outlining/discussing the reasons that a competent, healthy, and motivated high-sec or low-sec alliance cannot realistically break into 0.0 and thrive there under the current system. Then we can look at ways to enable more people to attempt to play king-of-the-hill in 0.0. Troll The answer is because POS warfare is about capitals and who can field the most shyt at a scheduled battle. No amount of tactics can make up for that moment when you're cyno'd in on by a hundred caps. 0.0 presence is black and white when it comes to differentiating the capitally rich with the capitally poor. I have been a part of this on both ends. Up in the north poor little non-coalition alliances getting overwhelmed by 100+ caps and who cares what they had. Down in the Southern North watching SMASH dissolve and RK turn terrorist. This is why I'm pushing mainly to increase the legitimacy of Sov holding tools such that they allow more room for tactics and skill. I'm avoiding being Robin Hood. It's not about saying a huge fleet shouldn't be more effective than a smaller fleet. I want to open up the field for a tactically immaculate attack carried out against a lazy enemy to give them the upper hand. At current, it's blob vs blob on one grid with General Lag leading his forces against General Desynch in a contest of nerves in tolerating such a randomized situation.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 19:40:00 - [86] Originally by: Toman Jerich Originally by: NanDe YaNen At current, if it's not a sov-changing gang, it can be ignored 100%. Stay at home tactics ftw. Tell that to GS blackops (small ship/small gang force that lives in enemy territory disrupting logistics, ratting, mining, etc). They were a prime driver in the collapse of BRUCE a couple of months ago. Their towers didn't get burned out by blackops gangs. In the end affecting sov requires capitals. Because the fights are scheduled and happen on one grid, they require Moar capitals. I only want to change the fights to multi-grid.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.13 19:46:00 - [87] NanDe, just ignore the trolls - keep engaging in thoughtful discussion and it will bear fruit. CCP already agrees with many of the basic principles we've been talking about and it's simply a matter of distilling them into a few proposals without getting derailed by trolling. I'd just advise sticking to base principles for the most part so as not to get off track, and a good list of changes can be developed to put through to the CSM.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.13 20:03:00 - [88] Not that I particularly see myself as a neutral broker, but being neither with goons nor star fraction, I'm taking the opportunity to call out anyone who goes over the table as a troll. Toman's post was 100% troll. Star Fraction is out of Providence because of CVA or whatever and Toman was trying to poor some salt on that fact. Anyone who attempts to disrupt discussion with no clear goals for progress will get toasted when it comes time to bring a final proposal to the CSM.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.13 20:13:00 - [89] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 13/08/2008 20:17:17 Originally by: NanDe YaNen Troll The answer is because POS warfare is about capitals and who can field the most shyt at a scheduled battle. No amount of tactics can make up for that moment when you're cyno'd in on by a hundred caps. 0.0 presence is black and white when it comes to differentiating the capitally rich with the capitally poor. I'm not trolling. I'm really interested in hearing what the problems are. As for what you suggested about needing 100 caps: What's stopping you as high-sec or low-sec alliance? All it takes to get a 100-strong capfleet is ISK and cap-capable pilots. Anyone can train for caps, and anyone can earn the ISK for them. They honestly don't cost that much. For example, Star Fraction has a not-insignificant capfleet without being a 0.0 entity, and nothing is stopping them from getting more. So, I don't really buy your first justification for why a healthy, determined high-sec or low-sec alliance can't carve out space in 0.0 under current mechanics. Originally by: NanDe YaNen Not that I particularly see myself as a neutral broker, but being neither with goons nor star fraction, I'm taking the opportunity to call out anyone who goes over the table as a troll. Toman's post was 100% troll. Star Fraction is out of Providence because of CVA or whatever and Toman was trying to poor some salt on that fact. No, I wasn't. The only things I know about SF are that they have a number of capital pilots and a lot of T2 BPOs. Nothing about their history in 0.0. I had no idea they'd even tried to head into 0.0 in the past.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.13 20:32:00 - [90] Originally by: Kelsin He's drawing you off-topic NanDe. There is not a question of "Why can't Alliance X do Y?" The question is how to improve the territory control system of Eve. I think an important part of identifying the ways to improve the sov system is to identify all the problems with it. You've already identified one well-known problem: the game can't tolerate a lot of ships on a single grid (or a single node, for that matter). But there are other problems that need to be addressed. I think that one important problem is the perception that it's not generally possible for a capable group of people to get a foothold in 0.0 and begin to expand. We should pin down what game mechanics make 0.0 so static and think of ways to address them. Of course, if I'm interrupting a private conversation between you two then feel free to ignore me. Or you might want to take it to email or something if you're having trouble filtering out the "noise".

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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