These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Grow some extremely durable genitalia.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#601 - 2012-05-30 07:56:22 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So your agreeing with my points from the other post
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1377678#post1377678
That sovereignty systems should require activity in order to hold on to the system, allowing smaller alliances to move into the useless systems..

I love how you take a statement of fact (there are systems which have a strategic importance, even if they aren't used), and go off on a tangent with "so you agree with $completely_unrelated_topic, then?"

Frying Doom wrote:
Please see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1377678#post1377678

Yeah, see, the problem I have with those suggestions is that they're the wrong bandaid for the job you're trying to achieve, for the most part.

Capital systems and sov costing less as the distance from the capital system increases will just lead to either rich fucks like us keeping on keeping on, or we'll end up with GSF1 GSF2 GSF3 to cover the exact same space. And, again, balancing anything on cost doesn't work, the only thing that actually works to balance things in a game such as EVE is resources which are actually finite, such as time and effort put into it by normal humans, which means that the whole "cost of operating capital and super capital ships would increase or decrease based on ddistance from capital system" won't really work, and it's an illogical and arbitrary mechanic. Ask yourself this question: what would this do to an attacker with absolutely no sov?

Frying Doom wrote:
Wormholes are not just empty because of not having a local channel as has been stated repeatedly there is alot more involved to moving to a wormhole than just loosing local.

And no local works in WHs because very little in a WH is actually static and must actually be probed down instead of just scanned down using the built-in scanner, and the rewards are scaled accordingly.

So I guess you're in agreement that nullsec should have its rewards tripled.

Frying Doom wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work.

So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet?

Obviously because we can't use our JFs in there.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#602 - 2012-05-30 08:00:15 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work.

So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet?


You can't online TCUs in those systems.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Frying Doom
#603 - 2012-05-30 08:49:04 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work.

So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet?


You can't online TCUs in those systems.

Thanks for the quote it was exactly what I was looking for.
Sorry I'm just getting sick to death of people like Shepard Wong Ogeko saying Wormholes are just Null without local.

It not just wrong to say it is just SO WRONG.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#604 - 2012-05-30 08:53:30 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Sorry I'm just getting sick to death of people like Shepard Wong Ogeko saying Wormholes are just Null without local.


Nobody is saying that, they're saying that people who want to play without local should play in wormholes and accept the intrinsic challenges of living there, challenges completely different to the challenges in other parts of the game.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Frying Doom
#605 - 2012-05-30 09:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Oh God.
Lord Zim wrote:

I love how you take a statement of fact (there are systems which have a strategic importance, even if they aren't used), and go off on a tangent with "so you agree with $completely_unrelated_topic, then?"

Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
A lot of systems really have nothing in them worth doing. Few belts, few anoms, no rare materials. Some of the systems you think are empty might actually have some strategic importance, and we would rather you think they are empty and unused so that you don't go poking around in them.

Hardly a statement as you are implying that ALL the systems in sovereignty are of strategic importance. I was commenting on a point I made in the other post about how large alliances are swallowing up Null for no reason other than to stop others.

Lord Zim wrote:

Yeah, see, the problem I have with those suggestions is that they're the wrong bandaid for the job you're trying to achieve, for the most part.

Capital systems and sov costing less as the distance from the capital system increases will just lead to either rich fucks like us keeping on keeping on, or we'll end up with GSF1 GSF2 GSF3 to cover the exact same space. And, again, balancing anything on cost doesn't work, the only thing that actually works to balance things in a game such as EVE is resources which are actually finite, such as time and effort put into it by normal humans, which means that the whole "cost of operating capital and super capital ships would increase or decrease based on ddistance from capital system" won't really work, and it's an illogical and arbitrary mechanic. Ask yourself this question: what would this do to an attacker with absolutely no sov?

Please re-read as it says
-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month
not the opposite. As for GSF1 GSF2 simple CCP would disband you for using an obvious exploit.

Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work.

So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet?

Obviously because we can't use our JFs in there.

No because you can't in wormhole space showing the sum total of your knowledge of wormholes. They are not Null without local and they are empty for completely different reasons. Saying Null without local is the same as wormholes is like saying Null and Hi-sec are the same at because they both have a local channel, Its a crap analogy.

edit: error in text due to smashing my head against the same brick wall. Well it looks like one its that think.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#606 - 2012-05-30 09:22:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Frying Doom wrote:
Hardly a statement as you are implying that ALL the systems in sovereignty are of strategic importance. I was commenting on a point I made in the other post about how large alliances are swallowing up Null for no reason other than to stop others.

Some systems are taken because they're valuable to use, some are taken because of their strategic importance. This is basic strategic thinking. vOv

Frying Doom wrote:
Please re-read as it says
-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month
not the opposite.

So, keep supers and capitals in a different corp/alliance with no SOV, because that circumvents the "distance from capital system" cost increase? Okay then.

Frying Doom wrote:
As for GSF1 GSF2 simple I would disband you for using an obvious exploit.

No, actually, you won't.

Frying Doom wrote:
No because you can't in wormhole space showing the sum total of your knowledge of wormholes. They are not Null without local and they are empty for completely different reasons. Saying Null without local is the same as wormholes is like saying Null and Hi-sec are the same at because they both have a local channel, Its a crap analogy.

If you scream, then we can hear when you hit the bottom of the sarchasm you just fell into.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#607 - 2012-05-30 09:37:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Hardly a statement as you are implying that ALL the systems in sovereignty are of strategic importance. I was commenting on a point I made in the other post about how large alliances are swallowing up Null for no reason other than to stop others.

Some systems are taken because they're valuable to use, some are taken because of their strategic importance. This is basic strategic thinking. vOv

Frying Doom wrote:
Please re-read as it says
-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month
not the opposite.

So, keep supers and capitals in a different corp/alliance with no SOV, because that circumvents the "distance from capital system" cost increase? Okay then.

Frying Doom wrote:
As for GSF1 GSF2 simple I would disband you for using an obvious exploit.

No, actually, you won't.

Frying Doom wrote:
No because you can't in wormhole space showing the sum total of your knowledge of wormholes. They are not Null without local and they are empty for completely different reasons. Saying Null without local is the same as wormholes is like saying Null and Hi-sec are the same at because they both have a local channel, Its a crap analogy.

If you scream, then we can hear when you hit the bottom of the sarchasm you just fell into.


Oh God...

The only bit I will answer is I forgot to add "if I was CCP", the rest of this verbal garbage isn't worth the effort. Strangely repeating the same thing over and over and over and over is getting weary at this point. So I will nick out have whats left of my brains be smashed out with a hammer then I can come back and discuss things on your level.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#608 - 2012-05-30 09:52:08 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
The only bit I will answer is I forgot to add "if I was CCP", the rest of this verbal garbage isn't worth the effort. Strangely repeating the same thing over and over and over and over is getting weary at this point. So I will nick out have whats left of my brains be smashed out with a hammer then I can come back and discuss things on your level.

You're the one that wanted to link captial and supercapital costs to the distance between a capital system and its source/destination. How would your idea impact non-sov holders?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#609 - 2012-05-30 10:32:35 UTC
this thread and ideas suck Lol

have a cookie!
Frying Doom
#610 - 2012-05-30 11:09:36 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
The only bit I will answer is I forgot to add "if I was CCP", the rest of this verbal garbage isn't worth the effort. Strangely repeating the same thing over and over and over and over is getting weary at this point. So I will nick out have whats left of my brains be smashed out with a hammer then I can come back and discuss things on your level.

You're the one that wanted to link captial and supercapital costs to the distance between a capital system and its source/destination. How would your idea impact non-sov holders?

The capital & fort ideas are specific to Sov holders, so it would have as much effect on them as the current sov system does....None at all. Unless you mean if they want to claim sov and as I have said before having to defend your own territory locally would discourage overextension. So it would mean they could actually get some sov space.

Anyway this thread is about the removal of local, the rest of my proposal is in Jita Park speakers corner and I dislike running someone elses thread off the rails.

So to re-iterate this is about removing local. See post 1.

I believe the removal of local from Null only would cure that sector of alot of its woes and prevent alliances from just having a land grab.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#611 - 2012-05-30 11:19:40 UTC
But... Well... What I mean to... **** this, I need a drink...

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#612 - 2012-05-30 11:37:02 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
The capital & fort ideas are specific to Sov holders, so it would have as much effect on them as the current sov system does....None at all. Unless you mean if they want to claim sov and as I have said before having to defend your own territory locally would discourage overextension. So it would mean they could actually get some sov space.

So, in other words, keep the cap fleet in a neutral alliance to keep the costs down. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#613 - 2012-05-30 11:55:05 UTC
Reply is to be found at
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110157
As it is not about No local.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#614 - 2012-05-30 11:59:05 UTC
Probably the first smart thing you've said in a while, even if the way your suggestion to "hinder sovereignty sprawl" is based on the worst balancing item in the eve universe (isk), and is so hilariously easy to game/has huge downsides/drawbacks it's not even funny.

Kind of like your and caliph's "remove local entirely" suggestions.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lustralis
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#615 - 2012-05-30 12:12:59 UTC
I like the WH model for a lot of things. I like that there are no belts, just gravs. I think there shouldn't be any ice or roid belts in Eve at all but that all resource things like that should be probed out - or in high sec scanned without a probe (so noobs can access the content).

I'm not sure about local. The trouble here is that the attacker ALWAYS knows where he can find players to gank - he knows where their stations are. So even if you remove static content like asteroid belts, you still have the problem of static content elsewhere. The attackers can move around, which kind-of sucks.

Then there's the social aspect of local. Like last night, I'm new to a 0.0 region and there's no way of introducing myself and letting the locals see who I am without scaring the ***** out of them by just flying up alongside and saying HI. Local is a kind-of social glue in many respects.

Just have constellation chat? Would it really make a huge difference?

I'm not convinced it should be removed...
Frying Doom
#616 - 2012-05-30 12:15:26 UTC
Repost from Jita park, as Zim doesnt seem to like it there.
Lord Zim wrote:
Probably the first smart thing you've said in a while, even if the way your suggestion to "hinder sovereignty sprawl" is based on the worst balancing item in the eve universe (isk), and is so hilariously easy to game/has huge downsides/drawbacks it's not even funny.

Kind of like your and caliph's "remove local entirely" suggestions.

No the balance to the sprawl is having to actively defend your systems while actively using them. The idea of added cost for larger areas is not mine but I do support it when coupled with a Jump nerf it will make the null space provinces more provincial.

Lord Zim wrote:
Kind of like your and caliph's "remove local entirely" suggestions.

The idea is primarily his, mine is just part of the changes I think need to happen in Null.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#617 - 2012-05-30 12:51:53 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
The idea is primarily his, mine is just part of the changes I think need to happen in Null.

I've shot large holes in his idea, and I've pointed out large holes (or hilariously exploitable holes) in your "package of changes". And I've pointed out alternatives which have much more of a sandbox feel to them, would make warfare in nullsec more fluid, and would naturally limit the amount of systems any given alliance/coalition could hold, and would make taking space in nullsec more easily accessible to smaller alliances than today's ****-tastic sov system.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Dors Venabily
United Starbase Systems
#618 - 2012-05-30 12:55:38 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:

Caliph Muhammed wrote:

It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.

Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets.

Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks.


This is pretty much how it works now, even with local.


This it is not relevant to local at all.
Frying Doom
#619 - 2012-05-30 13:53:10 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
The idea is primarily his, mine is just part of the changes I think need to happen in Null.

I've shot large holes in his idea, and I've pointed out large holes (or hilariously exploitable holes) in your "package of changes". And I've pointed out alternatives which have much more of a sandbox feel to them, would make warfare in nullsec more fluid, and would naturally limit the amount of systems any given alliance/coalition could hold, and would make taking space in nullsec more easily accessible to smaller alliances than today's ****-tastic sov system.

I find this strange use of the term "sandbox" hilarious "Sand Box" just means it all occurs in one environment that's it.

So if CCP changed the game tomorrow into a non pvp game where we all flew dragons, if this all occurred within the one environment (Realm, bank of servers what ever you want to call it.) it would still be in the sandbox. Thats not directly at you Zim the phrase is everywhere today.

I personally feel alot of your holes that you have poked in the no local are more opinions than wholes, but that is your view point and I have mine.

As to your points on the Null package, I think some of your ideas are actually quite good points and others like some of the ones I am supporting require more honing to get the right balance.

Unfortunately that's it from me tonight, down side when you live near the start of the world :)

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#620 - 2012-05-30 14:36:44 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I find this strange use of the term "sandbox" hilarious "Sand Box" just means it all occurs in one environment that's it.

That's not my interpretation of the term, my interpretation of the term is "a set of fairly loose rules which the players live by to govern a very, very deep ".

Frying Doom wrote:
So if CCP changed the game tomorrow into a non pvp game where we all flew dragons, if this all occurred within the one environment (Realm, bank of servers what ever you want to call it.) it would still be in the sandbox. Thats not directly at you Zim the phrase is everywhere today.

If you'd taken WoW, and made it into a single sharded universe/world, it still wouldn't be a sandbox. If you'd taken old MMOs like planetside or DAoC, they'd still not be sandboxes.

Frying Doom wrote:
I personally feel alot of your holes that you have poked in the no local are more opinions than wholes, but that is your view point and I have mine.

I've backed up my "opinions" with a fair bit of facts. vOv

Frying Doom wrote:
As to your points on the Null package, I think some of your ideas are actually quite good points and others like some of the ones I am supporting require more honing to get the right balance.

The main problem I have with your "castles and forts" idea is that it's not a loose set of rules, it's actually a fairly constricting set of rules, much like today's SOV system. Personally I think I'd prefer it if it was more descriptive than prescriptive (so there'd still be the urge to get your name on the map, but since it's more a case of "lawless space", it's easy come easy go), since it makes more sense and it'd probably end up creating a much more fluid map. And, that's where I believe the majority of risk should be.

Having said that, the main problem I have with the "just remove local" idea is that my idea of how risk should be distributed in nullsec is less on the individual level (although there should of course still be risk there. duh.), and more on the corp/alliance level. "No local" doesn't do squat to the corp/alliance level risk, but it dramatically increases the amount of work and risk the individuals have to do/put themselves in.

To be honest, I would've been surprised by the fact a majority of those who keep yelling "harden the **** up" aren't jumping all over these kinds of changes, if it hadn't been for the fact I keep getting the vibe that those who are for removing local, (especially when they're giving no alternatives as a replacement) are for removing it because it'll make their own lives as gankers easier. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat