EVE General Discussion

Flying capships single handedly is ridiculous; 1 player in a supercap SOLOPWNS 10 players, so given enough time and money, there's no reason not to outfit your entire alliance with caps.

They should have made supercaps a teamwork effort instead of a solo deathmobile.

One pilot drives, 8 others target and fire one high slot module each, x others remote control 5 drones each.

It would have made more sense, as supercap blobbing would require almost as much players as subcap blobbing.

You make it sound like it's impossible for sov to change hands. Go find a sov map from a year ago and one from today. Two entities who were supposed to be invulnerable, IT Alliance and the Northern Coalition, are gone. Once supercaps are finally nerfed those alliances who poured all of their resources into nothing but I-Win buttons are going to have a very hard time keeping their space and hopefully the necessity of having a huge supercap fleet before even attempting to make a place in nullsec will be greatly reduced.

For now I would suggest taking your corp and finding a nullsec alliance that shares your ideals and goals and hooking up with them. There are plenty of options that don't include mandatory CTAs, alarm clock ops, paying isk for "rent", or becoming a slave.

BRUCE ?

Allow Titan's DD player owned stations and blow them up.

How would you defend this and is it too easy to do? Just asking.

Anyway it could put things in null on a hair trigger.

- Crippling costs associated with multi-region holdings.
- Penalties for operating outside own sov. (US managed to bankrupt itself fighting abroad but ISK is crappy balancing tool so mechanic penalties are better).
- Do away with EHP grinds for system control (leave it for station control).
- Give small fleets/roams ability to do hurt enemy more than making them dock up does.
- Harsh, consistent and constant pressure on botters and other EULA violators.

There is your foundation for a dynamic null. Once you put more ego's in charge things go downhill at a brisk pace (problem with the bloc system we have now is that all the space is "controlled" by a handful of people).

Trust in the human animals overwhelming desire to blow its own hand off!

For the umpteenth time:

Remeber that powerblocks aren't as solid as they sometimes seem.

I serieously wonder what'd happen if you'd end up with half of DRF's space being utter crap for a three month period due to the vagaries of the RNG, and the rest staying very good. Ima stand back an watch with interest then.

edit; however, more influence on economies in 0.0 from roaming gangs does seem a good thing. As long as it's a papercut system, where lots of small easy disruptions end up causing big grief if not countered well. things like temporary disabling of moon miners, outposts, gates etc.

Was rolling with an another idea mentioned earlier...

It seems if you could explain some sort of a regional (or more likely multi-regional) natural space phenomenon that would disrupt resource income at some level you could encourage power-bloc and 0.0 sov shifts.

Examples of this would be massive asteroid showers crashing through regions at high speed resulting directly in a constant, small amount of dps applied to ships-in-space for weeks; Maybe electromagnetic radioactive nebulae clouds are drifting through these large regions of space affecting the reliance of the local chat channel or scanning functions...

... Or suppose regions of space become infested with asteroid crabs that diminish the size of all asteroids for several months.

By adding a rotating random (but temporary) negative factor applied to regions of nullsec you could encourage more shifts within the power blocs and more 0.0 wars in general. Wars, need I remind you, are what fuel the economies of EVE so this would be to the benefit of everyone! By putting some random regional Power at a disadvantage, other alliances could use this sudden weakness to their obvious advantage. If the Power has sufficient defense, however, that weakness may shift back upon an oppressor.

These shifts would be shifts in the ability to harvest resources, whether that is belts, moons, or both, it would somehow ultimately hamper production and it would have to cover a large area of nullsec (maybe even a quarter of the total space at a time) and it would have to be for an extended amount of time, on the scale of several months.

Obviously the idea has room to grow but I think it's sound, eh?

Wars are almost always fought over access to resources - food, valuable minerals and the like.

In our own history,as technological advances have been made certain resources have become more or less valuable over time and depletion and discovery of them has made them more, or less prevalent over time.

It is the need to acquire these resources that generates migrationary pressures which in turn has led to more conflict.

Unless the current model of static resources shifts a status-quo will be the inevitable result as current occupiers become so well established and so wealthy as a result that nothing can challenge them.

C.

The only stalemate we have is in High-sec.

Look at the history of null-sec. There were always cries and whines about stalemate and "chinese" server. But alliances died, were reborn, died again. I think every null-sec alliance on the current political map has gone through that cycle, maybe even more than once. Except maybe TEST, but they are fairly new, and im sure they will have their chance to fail-cascade and come back stronger, or maybe just die.
Even the most stable political figure of the last few years - NC, has fallen down recently. And still there is some BS about stalemate.