These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Author
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#281 - 2014-07-07 22:13:53 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:

I think supers and capitals are cool and exciting. They make cool headlines and we need them for the hitpoints of structures. The problem has always has been power projection. Hell we have so many of the things because its easy as hell for 1 guy to move the minerals to build one to nullsec in a single day.

We shouldn't, though. Grinding EHP sucks. Grinding EHP is also the only way to take sov right now. Those can't go together when the only thing that lets you grind EHP without suicide involves 300b+ in supercaps and a batphone to your friendly neighborhood CFC/PL/N3 supercap FC who will show up to save your bacon if your unfriendly neighborhood PL/N3/CFC supercap FC shows up to blow you up for giggles.

They are cool and exciting because they're the only thing left where losses are significant - back in the day wiping a dread fleet was a horrific disaster, while today we could have the HED turkey shoot and have the CFC show up next week with a brand new dreadfleet. But you risk mudflation by just saying well now supercaps must be a thing because we must have a more expensive thing.

And we have so many of the things because for years you needed supercaps to be anyone. Moving minerals to 0.0 might be an easy day's work, but getting them compressed, and getting them uncompressed and into the tower...not so much (you're looking at 50 round trip freighter runs on the 0.0 side - you can outsource the highsec ones if you can afford to risk your build station being overloaded when they arrive). People would have built nearly as many if they were five times as hard to build because you simply had to have them to be anyone in the AOE/Tracking titan era. Now, less so, but you're building as fast as you can con people into flying them and so are we because we can'r risk the other side getting a definitive supercap edge.


If it were just supers that were the problem, nerfing them would be the solution. Supers still need to be nerfed - make them twice as good as a dread and cost 5 times the price, but its not the only thing that needs fixing.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#282 - 2014-07-07 22:19:47 UTC
Mr Rive wrote:

If it were just supers that were the problem, nerfing them would be the solution. Supers still need to be nerfed - make them twice as good as a dread and cost 5 times the price, but its not the only thing that needs fixing.

It's not. I posted above what I consider the core problems to be, I just was reiterating my super point (because it got compressed due to the character limit) that supers in their current state are really bad for the game.

It's also not good enough to just make them super-dreads though, given how different they are from dreads - mostly ewar immunity and no siege mode makes them too good to just be sort of a t2 dread.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
Pandemic Legion
#283 - 2014-07-07 22:19:47 UTC
This ******* thread
Tara Read
Doomheim
#284 - 2014-07-07 22:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tara Read
Retar Aveymone wrote:
As a result, even if you have resisted joining a coalition, any war you get into can rapidly escalate to one with a coalition on the other side and you simply must be friendly with their enemy to survive. Most stupid responses to bipolar eve just tell people to have less blues. Idiots who follow this advice end up like TEST. You may not like coalitions, but you'll learn to live with them or you'll learn to live in highsec in the current system.


And this paragraph essentially sums up the state of Null Sec from politics, to power projection and sov. This game is no longer about staking your own claim in a violent universe, it's now about joining two sides or being eaten alive.

Ironically the highest posts objecting to Manfreds ideas are members of the CFC. Which really should come at no surprise. TEST may have died but for all their blathering at least they broke away and did things away from the HBC.

What I find particularly offensive is that those of us who pay for our own subscription? For those of us who log in we need to in your own words "live with" coalitions or go to highsec. I actually do neither and laugh at your assumption that any of us give a crap about 1000 man blobs.

Your idea of Eve and our idea of Eve is entirely different and why these changes need to take place. People need to stop hiding behind numbers and Supers and actually play the game.

You need to play the game. Or does my post offend you? The CFC needs to die. The NC as well need to die. Or this game will die. It's already started. Yesterday the CFC formed a 1000 man blob to fight against BL's 100.

When BL logged your members raged including Blarf. How dare we deny your 1000 people content? You don't get it do you? There's too many fish in this ever shrinking blue sea.

And eventually when your line members unsub and become bored maybe then it will make sense.
Bobmon
The Collective
Northern Coalition.
#285 - 2014-07-07 22:20:57 UTC
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#286 - 2014-07-07 22:27:59 UTC
Tara Read wrote:
Ironically the highest posts objecting to Manfreds ideas are members of the CFC. Which really should come at no surprise. TEST may have died but for all their blathering at least they broke away and did things away from the HBC.
...
When BL logged your members raged including Blarf. How dare we deny your 1000 people content? You don't get it do you? There's too many fish in this ever shrinking blue sea.

TEST died because they're morons. They got the full backing of the N3 coalition despite their idioticy - they just had to cede an entire region to get it. They just lost anyway because they were irredeemable morons. You've got to love that every offensive N3 managed while Goonswarm was cocking up the initial phases of the war ground to a halt without us lifting a finger because TEST didn't notice the altcorp we had in their alliance despite months of SBUs vanishing, and that was just one of the many hilarious TEST cockups. As to the second thing, I don't know what nonsense you're referring to but it assuredly didn't happen.

More to the point, your entire post is emblematic of the biggest mistake people make discussing the survival issue. EVE's gameplay forces coalitions. You cannot solve it by whining about hostile coalition lords: they're coalition lords because that's the only way to win. People who won't play the game get thrown out by people who will. You can't solve the problem by bitching about the bad people who are winning the current game because if you take them out they'll just be replaced by new people willing to play the game as it is instead of how you want it to be. Evolution is a ***** when it's selecting for something you don't want.
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#287 - 2014-07-07 22:29:36 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Basically the idea that you can just nerf specific things and solve power projection is a fantasy. It's garbage and while you can slap on individual bandaids to prolong the time people will suffer through the current model the best you can do is manage the symptoms.

The complaints about power projection really add up to complaints about one thing and its side effects: bipolar eve. Bipolar eve is the creation of tons of factors that make it so that the only viable way to survive is to be able to count on about half the universe being blue to you if things really go down. That is the child of tons of factors, most poorly understood by the Marlonas of the world. Manny - though I disagree with him a lot on the changes you need to make - gets that you need really fundamental changes that rework core aspects of the game.

The main driving forces behind bipolar eve are:

1) Survival. It is possible for any war to become a galactic war. Just being bigger than your neighbor doesn't mean you can beat them, because your neighbor can beg admission to a coalition and suddenly call in a lot more support. This support can come from anywhere. Many people focus too much on rapid movement - that PL can be anywhere on the map in 10 minutes. That's a thing, yes, but not a big one. If PL takes two days to deploy, they still can deploy and suddenly shift the tide. As a result, even if you have resisted joining a coalition, any war you get into can rapidly escalate to one with a coalition on the other side and you simply must be friendly with their enemy to survive. Most stupid responses to bipolar eve just tell people to have less blues. Idiots who follow this advice end up like TEST. You may not like coalitions, but you'll learn to live with them or you'll learn to live in highsec in the current system. There are countless things that feed into this. That you can cyno capitals from one end of the map to another, and fight on two fronts at once. That modern doctrines use small ships (HACs, T3s, etc) that can often be imported much more easily than battleship fleets. That alliances are rich enough to stock markets themselves and not rely on motivating their members to do it. That alliances can import battleships en masse anyway when they're not using small ships. Jump clones. Podding. Dominion sov. All of these feed into it and you can't just hit one and expect the problem to go away.

2) Lack of serious inhibitions in controlling space. It is trivial to have bills automatically paid and maintain sov over an entire region without any serious effort. As a result there's nothing that really disincentivizes sprawling as far as you can. Keeping sov only requires effort when you face an attack. With pos warfare, you'd have to fuel a tower in each system you wanted to keep - but having only a single tower meant it was easy for a surprise attack to overwhelm you as your attacker got up more POS by surprise because you were lazy about the region. Now, any attacker hitting some renter system that no goon has been to in a year faces nearly the same obstacles as if they choose to invade Deklein itself. Sprawl does not strain an organization. Many people try to say that cost should go up exponentially. That's just not workable: cost does not balance things well in EVE, especially in 0.0 where the old guard will always be richer than the upstarts. Plus, you just evade the exponential costs through one of many obvious and unpatchable ways around it. Maintaining an empire needs to cost effort. We can always find more isk. We can't always find more people to run towers, in space we don't live in.

3) Dominion Sov: Nobody likes this. The fundamental problems with it however are generally not comprehensively understood: people see individual things wrong with it but rarely assemble them into a coherent whole because Dominion Sov is bad both for the attacker AND the defender, something people often miss.

Why dominion sov is bad for the attacker is generally understood: that all your progress resets entirely if you lose a single fight, fights are based on gigantic bricks of EHP, and that when facing an enemy who has given up you still have to grind every bit of that EHP anyway.

...

Dominion sov, by reducing everything to timer fights over EHP, screws everyone.

4) Supercaps. Death to supercaps. It is one of the great things about B-R that now that there is rough supercap parity, everyone can finally agree on death to supercaps in theory without it being nearly as political. Supercaps make it essentially impossible for anyone to field any supercaps or capitals without being able to batphone 51% of the galaxy's supercaps. Their speed and their invulnerability to anything but more supercaps make them utter death to new alliances in EVE. Nobody can build a capital fleet or a supercap fleet without being on good terms with their local supercap lords - and with Dominion sov, you need those.

Honestly, this is probably the best post in the thread. If you think that making logistics a PITA for everyone in eve is a magic bullet that will get rid of coalitions and make sov fun again, you aren't thinking things through.

Coalitions will still exist. 2000+ man fleets will still exist. Jump cloning and death cloning will still exist. Fast warping ships (intys, grav capacitor T3s) will still exist. So it take capitals a day to stage on the other side of eve instead of an hour, so what? The blocs will still move their caps in to steamroll any serious opposition.

Until you get rid of some of the reason for coalitions existing (e.g. Massive EHP structure shoots, little effort to actually hold vast tracks of sov in peacetime), the coalitions will continue to do what they have been doing.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#288 - 2014-07-07 22:32:03 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Long and very good post.



Along with the power projection nerf it adds in things like attrition. For a force to come to your home and try to conquer it they must overcome your resupply capability. Remember neither the attacker or defender can whistle up a fleet of jumpfreighters to resupply from Jita. Material and resource management would become integral parts of any attacker or defenders strategy. A sov holder who is less capable PVP wise might be able to withstand a siege better than attacker who is better at PVP shearly via being able to stockpile or replace losses easier and better. The defender would have a inherent advantage because they would have the infrastructure in place to build locally then a invader. So conquest would have added new dimensions of gameplay in the overall battleplan.

Things Like

Interdiction - Attackers and Defenders would seek to deter , interfere or disrupt activities to resupply be it by logistics via empire or by miners and builders. So you are talking about things like gatecamping raiding parties on logistic activites. You are talking about protecting and raiding mining parties. You are talking hacking and disabling things like mining upgrades on ihubs or the refinery at the station or factory lines. Having coverage of siphons on moons.

To be clear on the hacking mechanic. Have you ever watched a movie where someone is trying to break into a safe? You got the guy trying to break into a safe meanwhile the alarm is going off and his/her cohorts are doing there best to protect the guy cracking the safe so he isn't interrupted. The same would apply on unhacking the hack or it would expire after a certain period of time.

So in the context of how it fits into gameplay. A roaming gang could come in and start a hack on some service or upgrade it sets off alarms in the form of system wide emote and evemail notification. Now the sov owner can respond and wham you have content. On the conquest scale you would want to disable services and upgrades to aid in attrition.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Tara Read
Doomheim
#289 - 2014-07-07 22:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tara Read
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Ironically the highest posts objecting to Manfreds ideas are members of the CFC. Which really should come at no surprise. TEST may have died but for all their blathering at least they broke away and did things away from the HBC.
...
When BL logged your members raged including Blarf. How dare we deny your 1000 people content? You don't get it do you? There's too many fish in this ever shrinking blue sea.

TEST died because they're morons. They got the full backing of the N3 coalition despite their idioticy - they just had to cede an entire region to get it. They just lost anyway because they were irredeemable morons. You've got to love that every offensive N3 managed while Goonswarm was cocking up the initial phases of the war ground to a halt without us lifting a finger because TEST didn't notice the altcorp we had in their alliance despite months of SBUs vanishing, and that was just one of the many hilarious TEST cockups. As to the second thing, I don't know what nonsense you're referring to but it assuredly didn't happen.

More to the point, your entire post is emblematic of the biggest mistake people make discussing the survival issue. EVE's gameplay forces coalitions. You cannot solve it by whining about hostile coalition lords: they're coalition lords because that's the only way to win. People who won't play the game get thrown out by people who will. You can't solve the problem by bitching about the bad people who are winning the current game because if you take them out they'll just be replaced by new people willing to play the game as it is instead of how you want it to be. Evolution is a ***** when it's selecting for something you don't want.


When did I ever mention Mittani or Progod? They are only faces to entities that are larger than anything Eve's creators could have envisioned 10 years ago.

Evolution is very basic. Evolving. Changing. Morphing into something that benefits the entity. Except these coalitions aren't evolving they are stagnating! Your line members are clamoring for something so bad that now the major power players have gone to Provi for even scraps of pvp.

And you assume that should these changes take place another coalition will rear it's ugly head to take as much sov as the CFC holds now? This is what the discussion is about.

How to prevent and avoid the sort of bloated stagnation your coalition now provides as "content" to thousands of players. And this is what the average null player cannot grasp. Do you know how many people apply to low sec Alliance's desperate for fights?

Do you know how many people have flowed back to low sec because they are utterly sick of the same tired bullshit being wrought about the "next" good war? People want content. They want conflict.

What good is isk if you can't use it? This is the dilemma groups like PL are facing now. Sure you got a Super, a Titan, and isk out the ass but no one to fight?

Therein lies the fundamental problem Manfred is trying to solve. You can't provide content when you outlaw conflict.

Here is the root of the problems now facing Null Sec. It Is BOTH mechanic and player driven based. How we fix these issues require drastic changes. If you truly want a vibrant Eve you can't just have two sides making fake wars while getting rich with no effort.
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#290 - 2014-07-07 22:51:15 UTC
Querns wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
You can achieve much of what you want with some smaller changes:


  1. Jump drive cool downs on combat capitals

This is not a meaningful restriction, as I can just own multiple hulls and/or pilots (depending on implementation) and use them Pony Express style to achieve the same gameplay as today. These types of restrictions just gate gameplay out for pilots with less money or time (typically, but not always newer players) with no real meaningful restriction for the time or money richer players.

So lets cater to the rich and organised who can just burn 30j with interceptors to their 500 BS cache in the warzone instead.

This thread has AIDS and most of the suggestions in it are hilariously disconnected from the one thing that matters in terms of having power to project in the first place: warm bodies. If I can simply stockpile ships in strategic locations then you can nerf jumpdrives or logistics or exotic dancers however much you like, the little guy will still get stomped by those with more people.

If your end goal is a more diverse null sec, then you need to address reasons to diversify, not arbitrary limitations on distance that only hurt the small and poor anyway.
Cyaron wars
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#291 - 2014-07-07 22:58:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyaron wars
Manny, very nice article. Glad someone else apart from Marlona pointed out that JBs and JDs are screwing this game by making roaming useless or a blobfest.

Inb4goonwhine about how somebody will screw their ratting with that ihub hack :D
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#292 - 2014-07-07 22:59:01 UTC
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Querns wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
You can achieve much of what you want with some smaller changes:


  1. Jump drive cool downs on combat capitals

This is not a meaningful restriction, as I can just own multiple hulls and/or pilots (depending on implementation) and use them Pony Express style to achieve the same gameplay as today. These types of restrictions just gate gameplay out for pilots with less money or time (typically, but not always newer players) with no real meaningful restriction for the time or money richer players.

So lets cater to the rich and organised who can just burn 30j with interceptors to their 500 BS cache in the warzone instead.

This thread has AIDS and most of the suggestions in it are hilariously disconnected from the one thing that matters in terms of having power to project in the first place: warm bodies. If I can simply stockpile ships in strategic locations then you can nerf jumpdrives or logistics or exotic dancers however much you like, the little guy will still get stomped by those with more people.

If your end goal is a more diverse null sec, then you need to address reasons to diversify, not arbitrary limitations on distance that only hurt the small and poor anyway.



Cool you burn you're inteceptors over here and project you're power with the stockpile you have. While you are gone I am gonna burn your house to the ground. What are you gonna do burn 250 back? Great your power has been halved in both places.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#293 - 2014-07-07 23:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Tara Read wrote:

Ironically the highest posts objecting to Manfreds ideas are members of the CFC. Which really should come at no surprise. TEST may have died but for all their blathering at least they broke away and did things away from the HBC.

I object to Manfreds ideas and I'm in Moa. You'd be hard pressed to find a nominally more anti-CFC entity out there. This isn't a partisan issue. The problem of coalitions and stagnation needs to be dealt with, no one disagrees with that. But nerfing jump ranges across the board won't fix that. You have to tackle the underlying issues (explained very well in this post) which caused the stagnation in the first place.
ProphetGuru
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#294 - 2014-07-07 23:05:22 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:

Coalitions will still exist. 2000+ man fleets will still exist.

Until you get rid of some of the reason for coalitions existing (e.g. Massive EHP structure shoots, little effort to actually hold vast tracks of sov in peacetime), the coalitions will continue to do what they have been doing.



This is what I was trying to say earlier. This is the real issue in eve. The rest of it are just symptoms grown out of the blob mentality that has spiraled out of control since 2004.

You need to break the usefulness of the blob. You have to make people WANT to not be in 2000 man fleets. I'm not sure these changes do it. They target and make one aspect difficult for a portion of the player base, but they don't really address the underlying issue. They could be part of the solution, but not the solution.

That is not going to be an easy sell given the power blob wielding entities possess right now.

CCP doesn't exactly have a history of making such fundamental changes. It's taken them 10 years to do an industry revamp for petes sake. They usually go the route of enabling the majority. If it gets too hot they just re-balance battleships again to distract the masses.
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#295 - 2014-07-07 23:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Quaan
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Querns wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
You can achieve much of what you want with some smaller changes:


  1. Jump drive cool downs on combat capitals

This is not a meaningful restriction, as I can just own multiple hulls and/or pilots (depending on implementation) and use them Pony Express style to achieve the same gameplay as today. These types of restrictions just gate gameplay out for pilots with less money or time (typically, but not always newer players) with no real meaningful restriction for the time or money richer players.

So lets cater to the rich and organised who can just burn 30j with interceptors to their 500 BS cache in the warzone instead.

This thread has AIDS and most of the suggestions in it are hilariously disconnected from the one thing that matters in terms of having power to project in the first place: warm bodies. If I can simply stockpile ships in strategic locations then you can nerf jumpdrives or logistics or exotic dancers however much you like, the little guy will still get stomped by those with more people.

If your end goal is a more diverse null sec, then you need to address reasons to diversify, not arbitrary limitations on distance that only hurt the small and poor anyway.



Cool you burn you're inteceptors over here and project you're power with the stockpile you have. While you are gone I am gonna burn your house to the ground. What are you gonna do burn 250 back? Great your power has been halved in both places.

I set my timers accordingly.


And pay my sov bills. ;)


edit: If you are questioning the ability to have those stockpiles in the first place, let me tell you about this alliance that used to do just that. You might have heard of them.
Cyaron wars
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2014-07-07 23:05:53 UTC
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Querns wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
You can achieve much of what you want with some smaller changes:


  1. Jump drive cool downs on combat capitals

This is not a meaningful restriction, as I can just own multiple hulls and/or pilots (depending on implementation) and use them Pony Express style to achieve the same gameplay as today. These types of restrictions just gate gameplay out for pilots with less money or time (typically, but not always newer players) with no real meaningful restriction for the time or money richer players.

So lets cater to the rich and organised who can just burn 30j with interceptors to their 500 BS cache in the warzone instead.

This thread has AIDS and most of the suggestions in it are hilariously disconnected from the one thing that matters in terms of having power to project in the first place: warm bodies. If I can simply stockpile ships in strategic locations then you can nerf jumpdrives or logistics or exotic dancers however much you like, the little guy will still get stomped by those with more people.

If your end goal is a more diverse null sec, then you need to address reasons to diversify, not arbitrary limitations on distance that only hurt the small and poor anyway.


Burning a fleet far away from home make it very vulnerable to ambush, even if it's inty fleet. None of the FCs is protected from retards in fleet and number of retards in fleet grows with geometric proportion compared to size of the fleet. That itself will encourage people to camp the route from point A to point B in order to kill strugglers, slowpokes etc. Also don't forget that in order to stockpile ships somewhere u must deliver them there first, which won't be an easy task as well.
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#297 - 2014-07-07 23:11:01 UTC
Cyaron wars wrote:
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Querns wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
You can achieve much of what you want with some smaller changes:


  1. Jump drive cool downs on combat capitals

This is not a meaningful restriction, as I can just own multiple hulls and/or pilots (depending on implementation) and use them Pony Express style to achieve the same gameplay as today. These types of restrictions just gate gameplay out for pilots with less money or time (typically, but not always newer players) with no real meaningful restriction for the time or money richer players.

So lets cater to the rich and organised who can just burn 30j with interceptors to their 500 BS cache in the warzone instead.

This thread has AIDS and most of the suggestions in it are hilariously disconnected from the one thing that matters in terms of having power to project in the first place: warm bodies. If I can simply stockpile ships in strategic locations then you can nerf jumpdrives or logistics or exotic dancers however much you like, the little guy will still get stomped by those with more people.

If your end goal is a more diverse null sec, then you need to address reasons to diversify, not arbitrary limitations on distance that only hurt the small and poor anyway.


Burning a fleet far away from home make it very vulnerable to ambush, even if it's inty fleet. None of the FCs is protected from retards in fleet and number of retards in fleet grows with geometric proportion compared to size of the fleet. That itself will encourage people to camp the route from point A to point B in order to kill strugglers, slowpokes etc. Also don't forget that in order to stockpile ships somewhere u must deliver them there first, which won't be an easy task as well.

It still favours the big player who can just put enough players over at point B to mine and build the crap on site if needed under this new regime.

My point, which is very simple, is that no arbitrary limitation on projection will have any bearing on how much power I have in the first place and the little guy, whom all these grand plans claim to help, will still get stomped by the numbers.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#298 - 2014-07-07 23:11:38 UTC
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Querns wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
You can achieve much of what you want with some smaller changes:


  1. Jump drive cool downs on combat capitals

This is not a meaningful restriction, as I can just own multiple hulls and/or pilots (depending on implementation) and use them Pony Express style to achieve the same gameplay as today. These types of restrictions just gate gameplay out for pilots with less money or time (typically, but not always newer players) with no real meaningful restriction for the time or money richer players.

So lets cater to the rich and organised who can just burn 30j with interceptors to their 500 BS cache in the warzone instead.

This thread has AIDS and most of the suggestions in it are hilariously disconnected from the one thing that matters in terms of having power to project in the first place: warm bodies. If I can simply stockpile ships in strategic locations then you can nerf jumpdrives or logistics or exotic dancers however much you like, the little guy will still get stomped by those with more people.

If your end goal is a more diverse null sec, then you need to address reasons to diversify, not arbitrary limitations on distance that only hurt the small and poor anyway.



Cool you burn you're inteceptors over here and project you're power with the stockpile you have. While you are gone I am gonna burn your house to the ground. What are you gonna do burn 250 back? Great your power has been halved in both places.

I set my timers accordingly.


And pay my sov bills. ;)


edit: If you are questioning the ability to have those stockpiles in the first place, let me tell you about this alliance that used to do just that. You might have heard of them.


Accept that when deployed your index's fall and your sov gets more expensive and your sov structures become easier to kill. There again we are talking about the power you can project being tied to the time it takes you to travel. Furthermore how are you going to stockpile those ships? Build them locally? Freighter them in? Both of these take time and take people to do. All of which can be interdicted. Because those 500 BS hulls aren't getting jumped in in Jumpfreighters or in the holds of carriers supercarriers or titans anymore. Unless they are moving by gate. Moving by gate hmmm you are gonna need some protection or that logistic chain is easy pickings.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Anthar Thebess
#299 - 2014-07-07 23:14:42 UTC
Nice, this topic is thriving.

I think the most important thing is to move income outside of the alliance control to something that will bring income to alliance member.

I think it is better when alliance members have bigger income rather when large alliances gain their isk in a passive way.

Boost income of all player activities requiring player actions.
Nerf moon mining , shift acquiring those minerals to miners.

If in gallente region of space we have galente moon minerals , then why we cannot find those minerals in ore belts?
So when someone is mining belts there is slight chance that on each cycle few units of local minerals will spawn in ore hold.

I agree about ground control, something that this games need, and the wormholes are excellent back door for logistics.
Someone will finally install upgrades increasing their numbers.

Capitals , by all means they need changes . Limiting range , increasing fuel consumption for super capitals , why we will not rework how the jump drive works ?

WHY this have to be INSTANT jump?
Why capitals cannot "warp" to their destination based on their mas, so low mass shield capitals arrive quicker , instead of traveling 2 minutes per LY crossed they will use 3/4 of this time.

Lets at the same time bind capitals to the systems , while in the interstellar warp (for example)
let say 10LY maximum jump range , so something like this should be possible :
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Thanatos,444/B-VIP9:BRT-OP

but what if we add that capitals cannot leave 2 LY from the nearest sun, while keeping this maximum range?
We will get something like this :
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Thanatos,444/B-VIP9:WE3-BX:BRT-OP

So your jump path will have to correspond system placements.

Look at this from the other side:
11.653 LY distance, so instead of insta jumping we have capitals that will spend over 22minutes to cross this space.

"But someone will be waiting on the end of the cyno"
Yes , unless we add randomness in jump out place , so you can appear anywhere in the system.

"What about jump freighters , they will be scanned down and tackled before they will be able to warp"
I don't have bloody idea , but i don't like exceptions.
Maybe it is time to guard exit points for a jump freighters?

Still i hope that something good will come out of this.
Ground control is something i miss in this game , every one every time can get everywhere.

Think about new type of game play , where one cynojamed system can block in/out capital movements for few constellations ... as this is the only system on the route where capitals will be able to keep 2LY from sun flight path.

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#300 - 2014-07-07 23:15:02 UTC
Lucas Quaan wrote:

It still favours the big player who can just put enough players over at point B to mine and build the crap on site if needed under this new regime.



Ok so you are going to mine and build the crap on site. Cool while you are trying to mine and build I am going to raid your mining party. Now you are going to need to protect it. Or do you think the local inhabitants are going to sit idly by and watch you build up a stockpile cache in which to harm them?

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny