EVE Search - Does anyone see a problem the way Eve is headed?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Does anyone see a problem the way Eve is headed?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zackalwe Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.10 11:02:00 - [271] Originally by: Draahk Chimera Since I was the first to suggest changes to how sov works. On page 2 if you are interested. I of course thinks that is the best idea. And about tech 3 and wormholes. As far as I understand from the fanfest video it will be conquarable. Wich means there must be poses. Wich in turn means that there must be capitals or else the first alliance to place a faction deathstar will win forever and ever. And if all current systems stay the way they are how will wormholes change anything for non-powerblock alliances? So I scan a wormhole. I tell my Atlas mates and we roll in and place a pos and start collecting tech 3 stuff. 3 hours later a GBC or NC or Drone/Goon member scans the wormhole too and in comes 150 capitals, 10 titans, 20 mommas and 600 regular ships. Well that was fun for 3 hours. Yes they said it was conquerable but not using the existing sov mechanics I thought. Maybe some new T3 harvester that can be placed by a hauler? But not attached to a POS. Easy to kill if the defending fleet is defeated. Anyway its not been revealed yet but that is my hope, that wormhole space isnt POS spammed, and just generates fantastic sub-cap fights.
Malcanis Caldari R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2008.12.10 11:04:00 - [272] Originally by: Zackalwe Originally by: Minigin yes that would be fantastic for all of 2 months until a super coalition decides to move close to the edge of that space and effectivly control the entire thing. i used to complain to alliance leaders about having too many standings... i think it would be prudent and fun of ccp to remove standings from the game. Darknesss > viva le revolution! tbh. I dont believe you can move closer to wormhole space, its only accessed by the wormholes, which I presume shift about every now and then. (This is the only way exploration can be continually tied to wormholes is if they are not permanent). Its also possible that the wormhole space itself isnt permanent. The point being that large, existing jump bridge networks make it easy, fast and cheap for tier 1 coalitions to move huge blobfleets that will utterly crush any fleet that isn't fielded by a comparable tier 1 coaltion. The wormhole just adds one more jump.
Zackalwe Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.10 11:18:00 - [273] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Zackalwe Originally by: Minigin yes that would be fantastic for all of 2 months until a super coalition decides to move close to the edge of that space and effectivly control the entire thing. i used to complain to alliance leaders about having too many standings... i think it would be prudent and fun of ccp to remove standings from the game. Darknesss > viva le revolution! tbh. I dont believe you can move closer to wormhole space, its only accessed by the wormholes, which I presume shift about every now and then. (This is the only way exploration can be continually tied to wormholes is if they are not permanent). Its also possible that the wormhole space itself isnt permanent. The point being that large, existing jump bridge networks make it easy, fast and cheap for tier 1 coalitions to move huge blobfleets that will utterly crush any fleet that isn't fielded by a comparable tier 1 coaltion. The wormhole just adds one more jump. Well at least it wont be a cap-blob if the deign is like this. As for alliances fielding more sub-caps than other alliances, what can you do about that really? And also if you did do something how could you justify it? Alliance A is only allowed 50 ships because corp B cant field more than 50? How would that be justified? Most of the complaints recently have been because of super-bloc cap blobs. With these removed in wormhole space, at least the more skillful alliances have a chance if they are outgunned.
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.10 11:46:00 - [274] Originally by: Malachon Draco What would happen if CCP made the following changes: 1. Sovereignty becomes usage-based. Doing stuff like mining and ratting gains you soveignty points, which slowly decline over time (so if you stop ratting/mining, your sovereignty slowly declines. The immediate effect would be that alliances would be forced to use their own space in order to maintain it as a cushy homebase. Smaller groups of raiders could actually degrade sovereignty by harassing miners and ratters. It can also reduce blobbing, would you really be willing to send a 300 man fleet halfway across the galaxy if it means your own sov starts degrading? Maybe you'd only send 100 or 150? As one of the only 0.0 alliances (not aligned to the uber blocks) that actually does live in and defend its own space this is on the face of it this is a nice idea however it faces significant practical implementation problems and would significantly reduce the incentive for conflict in EVE. If your sov declined purely on the basis of mining/ratting then the only incentive to go to war with people would be population pressure - which would occur only when you memberships reaches a certain level that your current territory is over exploited. It would also mean that 0.0 alliances would become carebearish entities focused on mining and ratting rather than fighting to claim new territory. I have lived in 0.0 for over 3 years yet I rarely rat/mine and tbh I would quit EVE if I had to. Creating a system where alliances are forced to do boring things to hold sov doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current system to me. That said I also agree that thanks to Titans (not jumpbridges which are significantly less mobile and therefore vulnerable to your enemies (and require an infrastructure to support) that the big blocks can far to easily move huge forces across the map and can therefore leave their home territory relatively derelict because they know that if they are attacked at home they can return home quickly before too much damage is done. Personally I would like to see the logistics/bridging power of Titans nerfed as I think that will have a much more realistic effect in limiting the size of transgalactic blobs. Going back to your 'usage' idea maybe this could be based on the amount of traffics/jumps in a certain region - although how that would work in a NRDS region like Providence where a lot of the traffic is by neutrals/friendly alliances I do not know. I don't think introducing a system which forces alliances to complete exclude people from their regions is a particularly good idea. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Tholarim Amarr Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.12.10 12:21:00 - [275] Edited by: Tholarim on 10/12/2008 12:22:34 1. remove riskfree travel. 2. remove jumpbridges into jammed systems, make them only possible from sov 4 to sov 4. Forcing people to use gates again, creating more fights and chokepoints. 3. Change functionality of titans. Make it a proper mobile station, with super defence if in an anchored state. Not flying around like a mobile death star. Sort of like the british HQ mobile in COH! 4. more capital sub-classes. Capital fights now are very straightforward. Add in ECM,logistics, anti-support, etc. caps for making these fights longer and more interesting. 5. Make running player owned stations cost a load more, and add some real benefits (instead of the crappy ones atm)for the owners compared to npc stations. That way corps like mine won't own 5 stations, and do **all with em. 6. Redo the Sovereignty completely. pos's are crap. No reall idea on how they should do this. But the current system is horrible, and encourages blobbing. I know all this will probably lead to my alliance losing it's space, since we did anger a **load of people. But we've been stationary for way to long anyways. Thol.
Nick Adlerburg Caldari Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.10 12:27:00 - [276] Alright after countless reading passing through intercaod trium vs tcf+NC fighting etc etc. Gathering ideas all around from the topic (some realy good and thanks for not trolling around) now i put em in order. 1 Change sov. gaining from POS grinding and endless strugle for more POSes to the old Outpost sov. gaining, outposts would go down much faster but that ment that if you'd lose one fast you'd be able to regain it as well. 2 More NPC and player owned 0.0 regions. Its going to help reviving of small gangs new small alliances etc etc. 3 Creation of sub empire sub 0.0 regions where new comes from empire can roam outside of 0.0 politics and pirates can have their fun as well. Like areas between empire and 0.0 that are going to have lots of pvp but not in the state 0.0 is as of today. 4 I dont say remove jump bridges,titan JB,Jump Freighters etc etc. But nerf em so it takes alot longer to assemble a cap fleet and even more to move it to one region to another or move assets with no risk. 5 Introduce cap. hunter ships as in real world naval battles that we have dread hunters small ships armed with torpedoes capable at launching an attack against behemoth big ships. So it could be nice to introduce some T2 ships and some new modules that are going to specialaise on cap ship killing that would make a cap ship assault much more risker and would give power back to small gangs. 6 More agents and NPC in 0.0 that will feature unique missions and aspects that you cant see in empire space. 7 Introduce a submarine stile ship imo a BC class ship (since bc's are quiet neglected) that is going to use cloaking devises as they should have been dealing no crazy dmg but harassing warfare is always usefull and it would benefit smaller Alliances if they would get into war with a bigger one. 8 Dont nerf DD but find a way that it could counter it like a ship or module T3 (since T3 are comming in march) that would create a small umbrella which would protect or lesser out the damage caused from a DD. 9 Fortifications for Outposts if Outpost sov. gain is alloud it'd would require some further deffences on it that would add some difficulity on gaining them. 10 Stop nerfing nano or small ships speed tank was an aspect ballancing old and new players plus that it was givving small ship gangs more fun and more power with the constant nerfing we ended up on this Huge Cap vs Cap fleet fights. 11 No insurance for 0.0 ships, its logical you are in outer space outlaw or even pirate forming your own state. When did you see rebels or guerillas having anything insured companies would reject em. If insuring is so critical then alliances could set up their own insurrance company that would let the unspend ISK flow somewhere plus that would make one more aspect of the game player based. 12 Border systems if Jump Freighting is so important taxation must occur so when a jump freighter wants to leave from empire space to go back to 0.0 the state there must put a tax on the stuff. That would make it more official and would need more thinking before sending Jump Freighters. 13 And hopefully final if i remember correctly. Nerf Jump Bridges allow jumps only between one region at a time and only if the system is owned by the alliance that has the jump bridge plus if in a fight hack bridge system modules (always when talking about strong modules meaning T3) should be introduced that are going to jam or partialy jam the jump bridges from allowing them to let ppl jump to the other side. I hope you find my ideas good enough and would hope to see more creative ideas pop up :) Fly safe lads
Malachon Draco Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.10 12:59:00 - [277] Edited by: Malachon Draco on 10/12/2008 12:59:45 Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Malachon Draco What would happen if CCP made the following changes: 1. Sovereignty becomes usage-based. Doing stuff like mining and ratting gains you soveignty points, which slowly decline over time (so if you stop ratting/mining, your sovereignty slowly declines. The immediate effect would be that alliances would be forced to use their own space in order to maintain it as a cushy homebase. Smaller groups of raiders could actually degrade sovereignty by harassing miners and ratters. It can also reduce blobbing, would you really be willing to send a 300 man fleet halfway across the galaxy if it means your own sov starts degrading? Maybe you'd only send 100 or 150? As one of the only 0.0 alliances (not aligned to the uber blocks) that actually does live in and defend its own space this is on the face of it this is a nice idea however it faces significant practical implementation problems and would significantly reduce the incentive for conflict in EVE. If your sov declined purely on the basis of mining/ratting then the only incentive to go to war with people would be population pressure - which would occur only when you memberships reaches a certain level that your current territory is over exploited. It would also mean that 0.0 alliances would become carebearish entities focused on mining and ratting rather than fighting to claim new territory. I have lived in 0.0 for over 3 years yet I rarely rat/mine and tbh I would quit EVE if I had to. Creating a system where alliances are forced to do boring things to hold sov doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current system to me. That said I also agree that thanks to Titans (not jumpbridges which are significantly less mobile and therefore vulnerable to your enemies (and require an infrastructure to support) that the big blocks can far to easily move huge forces across the map and can therefore leave their home territory relatively derelict because they know that if they are attacked at home they can return home quickly before too much damage is done. Personally I would like to see the logistics/bridging power of Titans nerfed as I think that will have a much more realistic effect in limiting the size of transgalactic blobs. Going back to your 'usage' idea maybe this could be based on the amount of traffics/jumps in a certain region - although how that would work in a NRDS region like Providence where a lot of the traffic is by neutrals/friendly alliances I do not know. I don't think introducing a system which forces alliances to complete exclude people from their regions is a particularly good idea. I understand that you don't want to be forced to mine or rat (and I share the feeling, I haven't mined in nearly 2 years and rarely rat), but the idea would not be that it would require all members, or an insane amount of ratting to gain sov. What I would suggest would for example be that every day an alliance can gain say 50 sov points in a constellation from ratting. For each 10m in bounties, 1 point is gained, up to the maximum of 50 (just a rough example). That way, if at least 500m worth of rats is killed in the constellation, the max sovgain from ratting for that day is reached. It would indeed force alliances to make sure that some people rat or mine, but it could be set at a sufficiently low level that its not too difficult to reach, yet high enough to make it possible for an enemy to really disrupt it if he puts effort into it. Potentially, you could also still allow POS to also generate a bit of sovereignty, but only at a very base level, so that it would require ratting/mining to gain the protection of high sov levels. As for the NRDS policy, I don't have an immediate solution, but I realize that would get complicated. As for the reasons to go to war, there are enough alliances who really don't need a reason, so I don't see that as a big problem.
ardik Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.10 13:40:00 - [278] hey guys, instead of these ******ed 'LETS MINE FOR SOV :DOWNS:' ideas, how about thinking up something people would want to do AND would be worth fighting over. Because if it isn't worth your time and not even fun, then chances of people putting their ships on the line in fights that aren't horribly imbalanced is negative a fukcing billion lets call this idea: STATIC COMPLEXES :O
Holly Hotdrop Caldari TunkbwahCorp GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.10 13:42:00 - [279] Originally by: ardik hey guys, instead of these ******ed 'LETS MINE FOR SOV :DOWNS:' ideas, how about thinking up something people would want to do AND would be worth fighting over. Because if it isn't worth your time and not even fun, then chances of people putting their ships on the line in fights that aren't horribly imbalanced is negative a fukcing billion lets call this idea: STATIC COMPLEXES :O Hm, thats a v.good idea, you handsome devil. fighting over plexes used to be a good source of GOOD FIGHTS
Malachon Draco Caldari eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.10 14:20:00 - [280] Static objectives could work, it would be a bit like the idea with Moonmining POS without stront timers (that change alone would change the 0.0 game considerably I bet)

Ioan Metorsky Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.10 14:42:00 - [281] Don't worry. There will always be those who are willing to stab their allies in the back in exchange for several thousand dollars.
Varrakk Caldari Phantom Squad Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.12.10 14:53:00 - [282] Originally by: Malachon Draco Static objectives could work, it would be a bit like the idea with Moonmining POS without stront timers (that change alone would change the 0.0 game considerably I bet) Isnt this how faction warfare works?
ardik Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.10 15:03:00 - [283] Originally by: Varrakk Originally by: Malachon Draco Static objectives could work, it would be a bit like the idea with Moonmining POS without stront timers (that change alone would change the 0.0 game considerably I bet) Isnt this how faction warfare works? except the rewards are shtit so its more of a free war dec than someone fighting over resources
Sister Beth Amarr Infinity Enterprises Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.10 15:57:00 - [284] Solution 101 1. Create a new 0.0 Region with gates that limits ship type entry 2. Create a natural phenomenon preventing cynos and bridging in this area 3. POS mechanics alter to match smaller ship combat (no insta poping crusiers) 4. Insert new highest value moons at the furthest reasches of the area (creating access issues) 5. Create the area along a new high sec corridor (pushing it away from existing powerbase hubs) 6. Limit NPC stations to prevent clone placement What this would create is: - a high value area of space only defendable by smaller ships. - Fuel and high value produce transports travelling through hostile 0.0 space - more targets for smaller gangs and a requirement for scouting/planning counters - commitment to defend assets from the holding corp (no bridges or clone jumps) Realise: a) biggest blobs still win b) defending this region pulls resource from other fronts (as travel is restricted) c) more fun for smaller gangs and small ship pilots d) creates a dilema for mega alliances, sit tight on existing assets or commit to aquiring these new moons Super Caps, Caps and BS blobs can keep doing their thing, and anyone who wants to have fun can come join the party. The area would be called Claustrum.
Zhula Guixgrixks Gallente Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.12.10 16:43:00 - [285] Introduce "space weather" affecting cyno/JP activity. Level of "space storm" can affect cyno/JP routes: - 4/4, cyno/JPs are jammed (natural cyno jammer) - 3/4, ships using cyno/JPs will be redirected to neighbour systems - 2/4, ships using cyno/JPs land off grid. - 1/4, ships using cyno/JPs land on grid + offset in km. - 0/0, everything works fine All probability based. "Space storms" are sweeping randomly through galaxy. Guerilla/enemy forces can influence space weather by dispersing strontium (more strontium = bad weather).
ardik Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.10 17:35:00 - [286] Originally by: Sister Beth Solution 101 1. Create a new 0.0 Region with gates that limits ship type entry 2. Create a natural phenomenon preventing cynos and bridging in this area 3. POS mechanics alter to match smaller ship combat (no insta poping crusiers) 4. Insert new highest value moons at the furthest reasches of the area (creating access issues) 5. Create the area along a new high sec corridor (pushing it away from existing powerbase hubs) 6. Limit NPC stations to prevent clone placement What this would create is: - a high value area of space only defendable by smaller ships. - Fuel and high value produce transports travelling through hostile 0.0 space - more targets for smaller gangs and a requirement for scouting/planning counters - commitment to defend assets from the holding corp (no bridges or clone jumps) Realise: a) biggest blobs still win b) defending this region pulls resource from other fronts (as travel is restricted) c) more fun for smaller gangs and small ship pilots d) creates a dilema for mega alliances, sit tight on existing assets or commit to aquiring these new moons Super Caps, Caps and BS blobs can keep doing their thing, and anyone who wants to have fun can come join the party. The area would be called Claustrum. so an area with more pos, more high value moon bull****, except now you can only kill the pos with frigs and cruisers! why should pos with its 50 million regenerating hp be an incentive to have smaller gangs? maybe if there were static plexes with gates that limited ship entry by ship class then yeah, you'll have ship-class based combat where smaller gangs means not having to split loot as much so it encourages small gangs over big ones. hmm, thats a good idea that ccp should, perhaps, pursue...
ardik Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.10 17:37:00 - [287] Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Introduce "space weather" affecting cyno/JP activity. Level of "space storm" can affect cyno/JP routes: - 4/4, cyno/JPs are jammed (natural cyno jammer) - 3/4, ships using cyno/JPs will be redirected to neighbour systems - 2/4, ships using cyno/JPs land off grid. - 1/4, ships using cyno/JPs land on grid + offset in km. - 0/0, everything works fine All probability based. "Space storms" are sweeping randomly through galaxy. Guerilla/enemy forces can influence space weather by dispersing strontium (more strontium = bad weather). Oh i love probability based gameplay, that ** is tight! that said i dont know what the ** the problem would be with landing cap ships off grid from the cyno in most cases and it doesnt solve anything.
Elfaen Ethenwe Caldari Infusion.	Posted - 2008.12.10 17:48:00 - [288] Originally by: ardik Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Introduce "space weather" affecting cyno/JP activity. Level of "space storm" can affect cyno/JP routes: - 4/4, cyno/JPs are jammed (natural cyno jammer) - 3/4, ships using cyno/JPs will be redirected to neighbour systems - 2/4, ships using cyno/JPs land off grid. - 1/4, ships using cyno/JPs land on grid + offset in km. - 0/0, everything works fine All probability based. "Space storms" are sweeping randomly through galaxy. Guerilla/enemy forces can influence space weather by dispersing strontium (more strontium = bad weather). Oh i love probability based gameplay, that ** is tight! that said i dont know what the the problem would be with landing cap ships off grid from the cyno in most cases and it doesnt solve anything. - 4/4, cyno/JPs are jammed (natural cyno jammer) - 3/4, ships using cyno/JPs will be redirected to neighbour systems immoblie for 15min - 2/4, ships using cyno/JPs land off grid. immobile for 5min - 1/4, ships using cyno/JPs land on grid + offset in km. immobille for 1 min** - 0/0, everything works fine that would work a little better, giving a defending force a chance to probe/lock down whatever jumped in. <><><>Together we gank, devided we pop<><><><>
Orange Faeces Minmatar THE INTERNET.	Posted - 2008.12.10 18:59:00 - [289] I can sense that many of you are upset, and it concerns me deeply. Don't Panic! THE INTERNET. is here to help! I explained in an earlier post how 1. When CCP gets rid of local all the small-gang incontinence you are now experiencing will pass smoothly; And 2. BoB, and the attitude they've taken towards 0.0, is the real cause of powerbloc naptrain blobbing (i.e. keep your eyes on da real killa, to quote RATM). Taking sight of the ongoing whining, however, I have another set of insights to sooth you... If you are a PVP focused alliance that is having trouble holding 0.0 space (lets call this group Tri) perhaps you should consider two additional points: 3. While you were busily training Skirmish Warfare Spec V and Heavy Assault Ships V, etc... the rest of 0.0 was busily training their dread skills. In eve, as in life, being able to win a small-gang fight only gets you so far and 0.0 is designed this way too. Low-sec on the other hand is yours for the taking. This leads me to me to.... 4. Instead of focusing on lol-gangs and having a wonderful K/D ratio, you should have been focusing on making viable, reciprocal strategic alliances for yourselves. If what you bring to the table is superb small-gang tactics, then a mercenary role may be a strong suit for you, and that is commendable. <smack paragraph removed ... yay for self-control> This is how eve is designed and it seems that CCP has reaffirmed that fighting over fixed resources (i.e. static moons and the occasional plex) is something they look favorably on. oF --- The Other Orange
Shpuntik Minmatar Invicta. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.12.10 19:18:00 - [290] i like the idea of npc 0.0 spliting up alliance 0.0 and empire. Removing cyno jammers would change alot in the game for everybody it would mean you no longer have to risk 200 man BS gang just to take a system thats defended by 3 titans imo it has been one of the main killers for alliance warfare along with the moon holding. ---InViCtA---

Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.12.10 19:29:00 - [291] The concept of Soverignity is what is flawed. I doubt there is a single 0.0 alliance that actually thinks the Sov mechanics are any good. The Current system encorages people to spam towers to maintain sov. Towers reserved for Mining are used for claiming territory. This means that the market for non-rare moonmins are in oversupply (If a sov tower is going to sit there, it may as well mine any old crap to pay towards fuel etc) Then the nature of these towers, and the addon modules, give a big incentive for mass attacks. I would thus conclude that Sov Mechanics are the issue here. -- Billion Isk Mission
ardik Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.10 19:37:00 - [292] Originally by: Lord WarATron The concept of Soverignity is what is flawed. I doubt there is a single 0.0 alliance that actually thinks the Sov mechanics are any good. The Current system encorages people to spam towers to maintain sov. Towers reserved for Mining are used for claiming territory. This means that the market for non-rare moonmins are in oversupply (If a sov tower is going to sit there, it may as well mine any old crap to pay towards fuel etc) Then the nature of these towers, and the addon modules, give a big incentive for mass attacks. I would thus conclude that Sov Mechanics are the issue here. hm interesting. ok how about this, lets assume the only thing worth anything at all in eve online is maybe 30 static plexes in 0.0. all you need to run them is like 5 homeboys in battleships, which incidentally is the largest ship class allowed to enter. you still think eve would revolve around a **** waving competition over who had the most useless stations and the largest cap fleet, or maybe it would be about controlling plexes through small scale fights. iuno! i mean, whats the point of stations in 0.0 anyway, strictly speaking you can rat/mine out of a pos with no real disadvantages. maybe the problem are the stations themselves :O
Super Twinkey69 Minmatar D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.10 19:39:00 - [293] p3niz
Orange Faeces Minmatar THE INTERNET.	Posted - 2008.12.10 19:40:00 - [294] Edited by: Orange Faeces on 10/12/2008 19:42:21 Originally by: Lord WarATron The concept of Soverignity is what is flawed. I doubt there is a single 0.0 alliance that actually thinks the Sov mechanics are any good. The Current system encorages people to spam towers to maintain sov. Towers reserved for Mining are used for claiming territory. This means that the market for non-rare moonmins are in oversupply (If a sov tower is going to sit there, it may as well mine any old crap to pay towards fuel etc) Then the nature of these towers, and the addon modules, give a big incentive for mass attacks. I would thus conclude that Sov Mechanics are the issue here. Does anyone else spot the logic error here? I sure do. And considering the source of the comments its to be expected: "The Current system encorages people to spam towers to maintain sov." No. A correct premise to your argumentation would have read: "The Current system encorages people to spam towers to defend or take sov." So tower spam, while sad and weak, is sometimes the only way to hold off people who want to take your space. Some tweaks to how/which towers are able to hold sov is perhaps in order, but drastic changes are not in order. The conclusion that tower spam is somehow messing with the moon mineral markets is ridiculous. oF --- The Other Orange


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] :: 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.