These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#801 - 2014-07-15 20:16:21 UTC
Shirolayyn wrote:


- replace the static security status of a system by a system that is linked to player activity in the system. The more activity, the lower the security status will become (as pirates find out that there is something worth to plunder). This could be linked to an already existing mechanic of the industry and military status of a system. Effect: populated systems with high military and industry levels get the best anomalies as well, supporting more players than systems with lower populations. On the other side, neglected systems will loose security status with time. Everyone can make his haven everywhere and prosper, and regions deserted of populations literally become a desert.



If the goal is to spread people out more to maintain areas of sovereignty wouldn't it be better to have the sec rating scale the other way? The more people in system and the higher the indexes the higher the security rating...this would make players venture into the empty space for better bounties etc. Then the secure areas (alliance home systems) would become higher sec system and this would fit with S&I activities (it makes no sense for S&I to be better in a warzone...). Of course taxes would go to the sov owner rather than the empires / CONCORD.

Excuse me whilst I wrap myself in foil so that I roast nicely in the incoming flames...
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#802 - 2014-07-15 21:15:24 UTC
its a little nonsensical that the empires pay capsuleers in 0.0 for killing pirates ... you would think with the empires decline they would do anything too reduce the power of capsuleers

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#803 - 2014-07-15 23:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Harvey James wrote:
its a little nonsensical that the empires pay capsuleers in 0.0 for killing pirates ... you would think with the empires decline they would do anything too reduce the power of capsuleers


Actually I'd think they would do more to get empire friendly capsuleers onside. Planetary Governershps, make them CONCORD agents (much like making gunslingers deputies in the Wild West), that sort of thing. The only thing that would save the empires from capsuleers from null would be hisec Privateers.
Doris VanGit
Control-Space
DARKNESS.
#804 - 2014-07-16 01:22:04 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Doris VanGit wrote:
Unfortunatally its been along time since i lived in Null, so i cant really comment in detail.

However, looking at some of the posts on here there are some interesting points being put across.

A few suggestions i would throw on the table are;

1. Remove the Titan bridge, afterall is this ship not powerful enough without putting a fleet of 200 ships straight on a POS. This means that peeps have to fly to the destination, which could lead to that fleet being attacked on route. May reduce a little lag as well. That way if you want BS on field straight away they use Black Ops with Capital support.

Or reduce the the number of ships to 20, and but a timer on the timer for bridge usage.

Will peeps really want to fly so far just to held some renters out? Will this change how the larger alliances conduct there wars? I dont know

2. Remove Supers and Titans from low sec. This means that smaller corps can have there fun as well, without being counter dropped by bigger more powerful alliances just because there are caps on the field. Also see 1, in regards to the Black Ops and caps in low sec. Therefore less Bat Phoneing and peeps may have to fight there own battles. If the cant fight them, there loose the space.

3. Think i have to agree with the passive income, that someone mentioned in an earlier reply. Remove the expensive moons and put them into mining sites. After all its the bigger alliances that control these and dont give the smaller alliances/corps a chance. Why should the bigger alliances have a free run to all the high end isk by doing a little work?

Just my 2 pennies worth



If you are going to remove the titan bridge then the jumpbridge has to go then so its fair. Because a Jumpbridge can send the same amount of people forward. Or Perhaps the titan bridge can only bridge people to the sun .


Firstly thanks for your reply.
Yeah remove both bridges, i like that.
Also following your comments about the SOV units. I like the idea they should be able to be destroyed fairly quickly. But how about once anchored they cant be attacked for say 4 weeks. Then all pos's customs offices etc have to pay a tax to the owner of the new units. Just for being anchored in that system. This should be automatic, similar to the allianace fee. And from the same account.

After a while peeps will start to get a little fed up with this, and maybe go back to occupying smaller areas. Therefore giving others the oppotunity to live in null, without the need to bow down to a larger alliance.
Only a thought
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#805 - 2014-07-16 03:00:17 UTC
Jump bridges probably need to go, but that is not enough. We also need adjustments to the Eve map.

Before my corporation moved to Delve, we were in Tenal. Our closest hostiles were across the regional boundary in Cobalt Edge. We could not hot drop them from our secure areas in Tenal. They could not hot drop us from their secure bases in Cobalt Edge. Even though it was only one gate jump from SF- to HB-, it took something like 7 jumps to move a carrier between those two systems. This made it a wonderful boundary. We roamed across that border into their space, they roamed across the border into our space. If we wanted to do a Black Ops drop on them, we at least had to sneak into their region to do that. If someone from their side wanted to AFK cloak all day in our best ratting systems, it wasn't that big a deal - we knew they couldn't bridge a gank fleet on to us without us completely losing track of all the little corners in our region. This encouraged us to keep tabs on what was going on in our space. The small gang stuff was great, until we accidentally crushed IRC. Then it took a while to get new active roamers over there - but once they got there we all had fun.

I think Eve needs more regional boundaries like that - ones that cannot be jumped across by any capital or super capital ship. Other places it would be good if Jump Drive Calibration V carriers could jump across, but super capitals could not. It might also be a good thing to allow capitals (but not super capitals) to take certain gates.

As you got further away from the high sec core, the distance between constellations would get slightly larger. Additionally, the distance between systems should be slightly increased. Just make it slightly harder to jump from one side of a region to another.

The inter and intra region connectors should also be considered. All too often Eve regions have a central pipe that is easily camped. Make it so that there are more ways around some of the choke points.

If super capitals could not jump from one region to another as easily, it might be easier for smaller entities to hold on to a small, remote place once they got a toe hold there. Yes, it would also be easier for the established defenders to hold the space, but they could not hold as much. People would have to make the choice as to where they want to concentrate. If an established bloc wants to put 200 super carriers into Deklein, they probably won't ever lose it, but they will have a harder time controlling Branch, Tribute, Fountain, etc.

If it is harder for you to get curb-stomped, then you give renters an incentive to become more independent.

Additionally, on a regional level, the reduced risk from hostile super capitals could make it more likely that they actually get used in small numbers - making them more vulnerable to sub capital gangs.

Now, over time, what could happen is that the major blocs have 200 super carriers in each region they control. So, we accompany that with a major nerf to super capitals. First, get rid of the electronic warfare immunity. That was a pants-on-head stupid decision. Then nerf them down so that super carriers are roughly 2x the EHP of a carrier (or whatever number works). Leave the price alone. Titans get nerfed down to where they are roughly 2x the EHP of a dread (or whatever number works). Basically, super carriers to carriers and Titans to dreadnoughts is the same as HACs to T1 cruisers. Like everything else in Eve, you get something that is marginally better, but the costs are exponentially higher. As it is, super carriers and Titans are exponentially better to match the exponential price tag.

Obviously, this would also change logistics. Logistics across different regions would require more risk, because more ships would have to take some gates. Those choke points would be ideal conflict generators - or force people to live and build in their region. Regional logistics would become more dependent on locally produced minerals and fuels. Producing local materials gets easier because it is harder for the random AFK cloaker to hot drop you from far away.

In conjunction with this change, I'd recommend that jump fuel for all capitals become a separate item from racial isotopes. Instead, jump fuel would be a standardized commodity that could be produced from any regional ice. Or, add different kinds of ice to each belt in each region, while keeping the overall amount the same.

And, while we are messing with the map, add a low security belt around each empire. Make it so it is harder to haul everything to Jita in a freighter and you will have four distinct regions with their own market hubs.

Don't let jump freighters jump straight from high sec to a cyno. Make them take at least one gate or WH to get out of high sec.

Then stick NPC 0.0 or low sec constellations in between sovereign space as buffer regions. Each 0.0 region should become sovereign space, so someone could get sovereignty in Venal for instance. But groups that want to harass the sovereign entities could work the space between to harass logistics or lead roaming gangs into the sovereign space. By the same token, since there are no NPC stations in the middle of a region, it becomes harder for NPC 0.0 based groups to hot drop from the safety of an NPC station. They can hit the edges of each region, but they have to get away from the safe space to get deep inside of it. By the same token, if a sovereign capital fleet tries to move from one region to another, they can be harassment bubbled by anyone in that station system if they try to use the station as a jump point.

That's a lot of thoughts that I have been kicking around the past few weeks. Interested to hear your feedback.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#806 - 2014-07-16 05:27:58 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Yeah everyone is going to just disband and decide not to win. Mhmmm ok.

If you're winning the game - then enjoy it.
If you cant enjoy - then you're not winning.
Ever thought of it?
[/quote]

http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/07/11/winning-not-essential-for-having-fun-in-sports/72347.html
"winning not essential for having fun in sports"

There is no correlation between winning and fun.

Currently the problem we have is that there are only 2 Coalitions (effectively) left. So basically this is the EvE version of the Cold War. Nobody can attack anybody without everyone going to war completely. Using your capitals (analogous to nukes) will basically cause a capital counter strike and a counter counter strike of which nobody is very sure who will win, if there is indeed a victor. And then if someone does win, then what? There'll be only 1 coalition. But yeah, no more 3rd parties to attack (except for scuffs in provi of course).

So yeah, what we need are anti-coalition mechanics. Removal of Power Projection is a very good way to diminish the effectiveness of a coalition. Currently someone in the most opposite of sides of the galaxy can effectively support each other with ships and people by way of jump drive/bridge. Take that away then there is no reason for the most northern entity to be allied with the most southern entity. You'll be limited pretty much to those in direct proximity to you. For there to be any reasonable ties.
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#807 - 2014-07-16 08:18:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
"winning not essential for having fun in sports"

This is true.

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
There is no correlation between winning and fun.

This is not.
"John is hay" doesnt mean "hay is John".
Logics, use it.

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Currently the problem we have is that there are only 2 Coalitions (effectively) left.

If this is a problem for you - why dont you join the third coallition? Or the forth? Or create a fifth? Or at least urge that someone should create it for you to join?
Why the hell instead of doing something, you just go to forums and start ranting and whining.
Oh CCP!
Oh please!
Break those dudes apart!
That's just pathetic.
And dishonest.
Those dudes want to be together. They like each other. They enjoy flying back to back in one fleet. And you want to cruelly break that harmony with CCP's hands. Why?
Anthar Thebess
#808 - 2014-07-16 11:54:33 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
"winning not essential for having fun in sports"

This is true.

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
There is no correlation between winning and fun.

This is not.
"John is hay" doesnt mean "hay is John".
Logics, use it.

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Currently the problem we have is that there are only 2 Coalitions (effectively) left.

If this is a problem for you - why dont you join the third coallition? Or the forth? Or create a fifth? Or at least urge that someone should create it for you to join?
Why the hell instead of doing something, you just go to forums and start ranting and whining.
Oh CCP!
Oh please!
Break those dudes apart!
That's just pathetic.
And dishonest.
Those dudes want to be together. They like each other. They enjoy flying back to back in one fleet. And you want to cruelly break that harmony with CCP's hands. Why?


There is only one issue with your logic.
EvE is game, it is not life.
You play games for fun , and friends.
If in one game there is less fun , some of your fiends will search for other games , and they will be pulling other people after them. ( check how many people moved from 90% in eve 10% in other games to 5% eve:Skill Quene , 95% other games)

This leads to less players and less fun , this leads to constantly dropping active player base.
Like i already stated before , current number of players actively logging in is at levels this game had in 2008.
You can say 24k is still a lot of people .

Yes , but those 24k include also people that play currently in EVE:Put New Skills Online.

This is bad , this is not END of eve , but this is simply bad.

Upcoming expansion is focused on Industry.
Sorry CCP , like you stated , you didn't touched this for years.
Yes it was a bit outdated, but people didn't say : we are bored because industry UI is not shiny.
People sitting deeply in industry , play most of the game out side of game.
This is simply different type of players , they sit in excel sheets and recalculate every thing over and over again, to maximize profit.
They have maximum number of production/research slots on multiple characters.
Yes they will be happy to have something shiny.
But may i ask simple question :

CCP was those 20 thousand active players eve gained and lost since 2008 industry focused people?

In other games i was always "multi crafter" and i always liked complexity , something that eve already had.

From my personal experience those 20 thousand active players where :
1. PVE people :
- that at some point got bored constantly doing the same missions, over and over again.
- rat farmers that have enough doing belts , or warping from one anomaly to another
2. PVP people:
- that simply lost their "love" to the game when they got hotdroped for the 50th time this week
- people not liking constant blobs every where
- people that don't like 2% TIDI
3. New players :
- discouraged at the beginning, because before they actually can do something they need to skill up, especially when they discovered that for the last 2 weeks they were skilling wrong set of skills
- people that stated simple "NO" to EvE when fiend told them that they will fly fully fitted frigate in a week , and they will be still missing core fitting skills for the next year.
- people that current item prices made this game a nightmare. Loosing first cruiser hour after buying it , is always a serious blow , especially when those people still don't know how to make isk.
- annoyed , that no one want them to corporations, as they don't have isk, knowledge, can be spies.

But , hell , we will have shiny industry interface , and probably 4k less active players in 4 months.
Who cares about issues raised by players?
After all they are just players, how they can now what are the issues in this game?
h4kun4
Gang Bang Pandas
Snuffed Out
#809 - 2014-07-16 13:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: h4kun4
tl;dr all of the 40 Sites

All Math i provide are just ideas, mostly i just made them up so you have Math Examples.
I am sorry if my capitalizing irritates you, bad habit from the german language writing. (Germans not only capitalize Names, but also all Substantives.)

ArrowJump Drives should be unaffected, at least for Blops, JFs, Carriers, Dreads and Rorquals, SuperCaps should experience an increase in fuel consumption and Super Carriers a range drop to be head on with Blops and Titans.

ArrowCaps shouldn't use stargates, its ok like how it is now

ArrowNo need for JF bubble immunity and warp core strengh changes

ArrowThe alchemy idea is not bad at all

ArrowLeave Military and Industry level mechanics as they are, but change strategic level mechanics to a mechanic where a System can only level up strategic when its actually used.

Suggestion: Strategic Level = (Military + Idustry) /2, if the quotient is a deciaml number, its always rounded down.
Example: Mil level 3 + indu level 3 = 6/2 = Strat Level 3
Example 2: Mil level 5, Indu level 2 = 7/2 = 3.5 = Start Level 3

Since you are not only ratting and mining there should be another way to level up strategic.

Suggestion 2: x = jumps in the last 24 hrs * 100 / 25 || √x = >35 = 0,5 Strat Level cumulative (if √x = >70 = +1 Strat Level)
Example: AB-CDE had 327 Jumps between the last two downtimes
327 * 100 = 32700 / 25 = √1308 = 36,166[...] = System gains 0,5 Strat Level

You can only place an IHub if the Strat level is 1 or higher, if it decreases to 0 with an IHub inside, after Next DT it switches to Anchored mode and the IHub can be killed without RF, if Strat level reaches 1 again, i can be onlined manually.
If the IHub drops under the needed Strat level for certain upgrades (like Cyno Jammers) they stop working right after the next DT.

ArrowAlso a like on Sov cost modifiers. Unused Sov or "Colonial" Sov costs more
I also have an Idea for that one, i didnt think about it too much because i just got it while writing this:
Adding some sort of Home System/Constellation/Region to the Alliances Executor Corp, all Sov within theese borders has a cost modifier (of -50%)
- Systemwide is added automatically at skill Empire Control 5
- Constellational is added automatically at skill Sov 3
- Regional is added automatically at skill Sov 5
Home Sys/const/Region gets a Bonus of 100% to the Strat Level Modifier of Jumps between the DTs.

I would also like to introduce more modifiers (only small ones: 2,5%; maybe 4% max):
Sov Costs, Bountys, Refinery Yield, POS Fuel consumption, LP, Mission Rewards
The System/Constellation/Region used is the one where the Executor Corps HQ is set.

ArrowThe ideas on modifiers for Home Sys/const/Region could also be added to HighSec/LowSec/FW and NPC Null Corps and Alliances.
Highsec: Charters, Industry Job install, (bountys, LP, Mission reward?) refining yield - (2,5%)
Lowsec: POS Fuel, Industry Jobs, bountys, LP, mission reward, refining yield, office rental fees (3,5%)
FW: LP Output, industry jobs, refining yield (3,5%)
NPC Null: POS Fuel, industry jobs, bountys, LP, mission rewards, refining yield, office rental fees (4%)

ArrowAlso a like from me for the Idea with the RF and HP modifiers, but i would line it up with the Strategic Sov level Idea.
Strategic Level modifies the RF timers and structure resistances by 5% Each level:
0 = -10% RF Time; -10% Resistance
1 = -5% RF Time; -5% Resistances
2 = Current Level
3 = +5%....
... and so on

ArrowI don't apprechiate the Idea of destroying Stations, but honestly, i have no idea if there has to be a change...if i had to - the only one that jumps in my mind right now is a 24-48 hour deadzone timer after flipping, but that makes sov tanking even more to a test of patience

Arrow That Idea of hacking stuff....i dont know if i should like it, because i can be an annyoing cloaky neut *** then or if i should hate it, because all cloaky neuts become even more annyoing ****

ArrowOres need to be rebalanced somehow in null, the permanent shortage of mexallon and the senselessness to import it due to fuel pices and the actual obsolescence of Meta 0 425mm Rails after cruis are not good for the economy.

ArrowDeathclone changes are in my opinion needed, but i would rather cap the number ofices or increase wakeup station costs by the distance its away (1 mil per lightyear?)
h4kun4
Gang Bang Pandas
Snuffed Out
#810 - 2014-07-16 14:08:03 UTC  |  Edited by: h4kun4
accidental, repost...
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#811 - 2014-07-16 15:19:29 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Stuff about restricting jumps between certain regions.


What you described can be easily facilitated by lore, as certain anomalies do exist on the New Eden map ( E.G. Black Rise, Trace Cosmos, Vapor Sea) that are impossible to navigate. While cynosural navigation bypasses the requirements that jump gates have, this doesn't mean that it is not susceptible to interference.

Presence of such areas could be used to provide limitations to power projection across certain areas in a lore-friendly manner without the need of a major map rearrangement. The only thing it needs is a clear way to display such forbidding regions.

And its lore-friendly and all :)

I see it as one of those old maps, with illustrations of sea serpents and krakens and giant whirpools.
SFM Hobb3s
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society
#812 - 2014-07-16 17:37:41 UTC
Seeing a lot of huge change suggestions in this thread. Many of them seem to focus on the idea of making holding sov more work...but I really don't think that's the way to go. Making it more work, or more costly, won't change anything. Ever seen one of the coalitions take on an SBU in solely bombers? I've seen it. It's more work, and the masses will willingly do it, resulting in a net zero change.

What's needed is a forced technical limitation.
Mario Putzo
#813 - 2014-07-16 18:02:22 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Seeing a lot of huge change suggestions in this thread. Many of them seem to focus on the idea of making holding sov more work...but I really don't think that's the way to go. Making it more work, or more costly, won't change anything. Ever seen one of the coalitions take on an SBU in solely bombers? I've seen it. It's more work, and the masses will willingly do it, resulting in a net zero change.

What's needed is a forced technical limitation.


It greatly depends on the manner of work required. If CCP was to implement activity based sov control it would force the big blocs to have multiple divisions of people in varying areas all working at keeping sov contention high (similar to FW contention).

This would mean instead of having blobs fighting blobs once or twice every few months you would have fleets fighting fleets more frequently that could escalate into large conflicts.

If you were required to be active in holding systems (lets say the metrics tracked during the Gekko Contest) you would see something like this.

Fleet A responsible for [Region]
Wing 1 Responsible for [Constellation]
Squad 1 Responsible for [System]
(etc)

So lets say a big enemy is scouted en route to said region. Squads would form up to wings, and wings would for into the fleet within the region. Should the need arise, neighboring Fleets in other Regions could begin to form up as support fleets.

With the increase in PVE activity you would have an increase in PVP activity in order to defend or assault.

The level of work is relatively unchanged, the only change is the ease of retention. You could go around an take all the space you want, using makes it harder for enemies to flip it back. So you either defend constantly by using the space for PVE/PVP or you choose to sit in staging system and wait for Jabber to say ok we lost these systems last night, lets go flip them back.
WarFireV
The Maverick Navy
Snuffed Out
#814 - 2014-07-16 19:04:34 UTC  |  Edited by: WarFireV
Vesan Terakol wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Stuff about restricting jumps between certain regions.


What you described can be easily facilitated by lore, as certain anomalies do exist on the New Eden map ( E.G. Black Rise, Trace Cosmos, Vapor Sea) that are impossible to navigate. While cynosural navigation bypasses the requirements that jump gates have, this doesn't mean that it is not susceptible to interference.

Presence of such areas could be used to provide limitations to power projection across certain areas in a lore-friendly manner without the need of a major map rearrangement. The only thing it needs is a clear way to display such forbidding regions.

And its lore-friendly and all :)

I see it as one of those old maps, with illustrations of sea serpents and krakens and giant whirpools.



Other lore reasons can be also be attributed to the Empires trying to crack down on the pod pilots power. I mean they did just release a trailer of the Amarr Navy vs a fleet of pod pilots.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#815 - 2014-07-17 04:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Erutpar Ambient
Skia Aumer wrote:

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
There is no correlation between winning and fun.

This is not.
"John is hay" doesnt mean "hay is John".
Logics, use it.

EvE would be the best example where losing is just as much fun as winning. And also where winning can also not be fun a significant portion of the time. (F1 was bad, then came Drone Assist)

Also your example needs work. How about this: All lesbians are homosexual, but not all homosexuals are lesbians.... I like lesbians ;)
Quote:

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Currently the problem we have is that there are only 2 Coalitions (effectively) left.

If this is a problem for you - why dont you join the third coallition? Or the forth? Or create a fifth? Or at least urge that someone should create it for you to join?
Why the hell instead of doing something, you just go to forums and start ranting and whining.
Oh CCP!
Oh please!
Break those dudes apart!
That's just pathetic.
And dishonest.
Those dudes want to be together. They like each other. They enjoy flying back to back in one fleet. And you want to cruelly break that harmony with CCP's hands. Why?

I explained why this is a problem in general, not just for me. But i guess you weren't able to comprehend it. Maybe you should reread what i said assuming a small paragraph isn't in the TLDR category for you. The truth is, there's no way for another coalition to be formed with the current mechanics. The 2 remaining blocs are comprised of almost ALL of the previous coalitions combined. They have the power to stamp out any new groups that try to emerge as well as the most recently crushed 3rd bloc comprised of not new groups of players.

This is why we are here! Because this is the problem.
Cyaron wars
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#816 - 2014-07-17 06:39:19 UTC
CCP, please give us some highlights on your vision of nullsec in future.
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#817 - 2014-07-17 06:41:24 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Currently the problem we have is that there are only 2 Coalitions (effectively) left.

If this is a problem for you - why dont you join the third coallition?

I explained why this is a problem in general, not just for me. But i guess you weren't able to comprehend it.

Indeed, I cannot comprehend what is "problem in general".
If this is the problem for you - go and do something about it. And by "something" I dont mean ranting.
If it doesnt concern you - keep having a good time in EVE, why whould you bother?

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
The truth is, there's no way for another coalition to be formed with the current mechanics.

And I want to be a part of that impossible coalition, and laugh in the face of likes of you when we crush our enemies.
That is a challenge, I know. But I like challenges, they are the reasons I play EVE.
I dont want CCP to stand on my way.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#818 - 2014-07-17 07:26:42 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:

Indeed, I cannot comprehend what is "problem in general".
If this is the problem for you - go and do something about it. And by "something" I dont mean ranting.
If it doesnt concern you - keep having a good time in EVE, why whould you bother?

This does concern me (as with a great many people) however, there is nothing any one person can actually do about it. Thus the problem is not of a personal nature, but is just a problem in general. What it would take to fix it is basically everyone agreeing not to coalesce into large groups. Which to a lot of those entities would put them at an extreme disadvantage. So that option is not viable. Does that make sense to you?
Skia Aumer wrote:

Erutpar Ambient wrote:
The truth is, there's no way for another coalition to be formed with the current mechanics.

And I want to be a part of that impossible coalition, and laugh in the face of likes of you when we crush our enemies.
That is a challenge, I know. But I like challenges, they are the reasons I play EVE.
I dont want CCP to stand on my way.

While i admire your zeal, it is unfortunately without impact on this issue. If you're character is any indication to your experience then it would appear your ignorance has gotten the best of you.

To be able to get to the point of being on part with the current 2 remaining coalitions, first you'd have to recruit, what? some 30,000 pilots/alts? Then you'd have to build up a force of Super Carriers and Titans if you want to be effective in the least. But in order to build those Supers you have to own Sovereignty in a system for long enough to be able to build those ships in the first place, and then in the numbers required to rival the current contenders. But because they have the already existing super fleet they can just come in and wipe out your sov before you can even put up a capital ship assembly array.

So basically null sec is the Polaris skill.
-To inject Polaris, you have to already have Polaris V.
-To obtain and hold sov in null sec you need to have a massive super fleet, and to build a massive super fleet you need to be able to obtain and hold sov in null sec.

In other words, you can't learn Polaris.
Anthar Thebess
#819 - 2014-07-17 07:57:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Every day i learn that players from Polish community ( alliances across the whole universe ) just have enough of this nonsense , and going to other games.

Now i'm just waiting to see if the failure of newest expansion will persuade CCP do actually do something within next 2-3 months , before doing the same.

Yes at first - new industry will make spike of players that will reactivate, just to check what's new , but i don't believe that this will put any thing positive to game.

Reason is simple.

PVE/PVP
1 account = max 1 ship on grid.

Industry
1 account max:
Trade : 3x 300 orders
Manufacturing : 3x 11 production lines
Research : 3x 11 lab operations

Just to compare impact :
Player can put 1 ship per account or/and run at max skills (900 trade orders , 33 manufacturing and 33 laboratory operations)

So every thing that CCP will do for a pilot sitting in a ship is from 33 to 900 times more important than for industry people.
I don't have any thing against people that actually do industry , but like in the life.
Whatever they produce, someone have to buy this , and current CCP approach allowed CCP to gain 20 thousand active players since 2008 and then loose those players.

Why people already stated this for last years what is the reason , this topic is the best example what is NOT wrong as intended in eve. What is the reason that after each spike we have bigger downfall of players.

Yes it will be probably fun producing now, it will be so shiny , but there is less active people in this game - who will buy what you produce?
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#820 - 2014-07-17 09:02:43 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Now i'm just waiting to see if the failure of newest expansion will persuade CCP do actually do something within next 2-3 months , before doing the same.


I think you'll have to wait till autumn. They have vacations now.

CCP took strange way to expand this game. They don't deal with main issiues. Rebalance, rebalance, paint job, rebalance. Do something with sov!!! no, we must rebalance first. Rebalance for what? I don't know, is it a game code? Lack of boldness? Is it hard to conclude that even with imbalance ships people would have reason to fight, they just need purpose?

I don't think removing coaltions will change anything. Players don't have motivation to fight because current mechanism is ill. It evolved to a state of "cold war". All those big word about EvE as "sandbox, big players battles, living breathing unniverse" are bait. This is a simple build-destroy game at the end. We will have "build" soon, now we lack "destroy".

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville