Ships & Modules

Oh why CCP? Why did you go with the crybabies that couldn´t recruit Huginn pilots?

Nanoage was golden age of EVE. Cinematicly fast flying ships, lot´s of small gang fun. Small ships should be FAST!

I like the people that believe solo pvp isn't dead, keep this in your head and go make some sweet videos!

It is very difficult, CCP hasnt been kind on Solo PvPers, hence why i decided to create my own corporation/alliances. I feel now it's stupidly difficult if you don't have the isk, the kit and the time to field it. I used to fly round geminate unscouted in a hyperion with no links and get good fights, Now i'd just get hotdropped or blobbed by ECM drones. It's a real shame that this game can't be fun for everyone, like it was before.
-Buhhd

I would by no means mock your idea of strategy and teamwork. Don't make the mistake of assuming that i am a solo-minded player because i take their side or aknowledge their existance. It's as with RP, i consider it quite ridiculous myself but i also aknowledge that there are people who consider that fun and that they bring life and depth to the sandbox. I enjoy the fact that they exist, as with any scale or orientation. If anything, my concern is the game being streamlined - but let's look at the rest...



You solve it by introducing mechanics that do not rest upon volume, since volume implies more numbers or larger resources. The Deathstar-grind of pre-Dominion sovfare was beginning to outline these problems, they were aknowledged by most everyone, and yet the Dominion mechanics made that worse. It retained a hitpoint grind while introducing more form-ups.

A TCU may not have the hitpoints of a Deathstar but it is still rampantly more effective to apply more numbers or resources on it. Not on the player-interaction, but on the mechanical interaction. That is the problem.



It's not a bad thing, most of us would like you to fight that way as it would enable interaction between us. Numbers should, and will always, be a factor to determine power. The problem with the current mechanics is that other factors are not in balance, to the point where they hardly help determine power at all.

I disagree with the notion that it would encourage global coalitions and less political diversity though. First of all, global coalitions already exist. We are down to 3-4 actors in sovspace proper. We have been as such for many years. The problem is that you have alot of entities sidelined or displaced out of reach, that could re-enter the scene. On a more direct note, i'd like to think the ability of more (smaller-) groups to interact with the mechanics of sov and infrastructure would result in a necessity to deal with domestic threats.

The idea is to force you to spread wide and thin to create more action, not to kill off a large alliance out of spite.

Attrition today is all about fielding numbers to timers, think about what would happen if it was about responding to a variety of more or less severe threats - while each represent some threat. Think about sov close to roaming hotspots (NPC null), how individual groups there would interact with frequency, without the need to cooperate and form coalitions of their own to amass more numbers.

There is a natural balance between the size of an alliance, the size of the space it needs and it's ability to cover all that space. That's what we need back into the game.



I think you overestimate the value of skillpoints and organisational growth. Both of us aknowledge that the lower average have improved alot, but don't make the mistake of thinking the majority of groups are on an equal tactical standing. Since none of us belive small-gang PvP is completely dead, we also know the amount of groups that exist that can interact with you in PvP and win battles even punching above weight, but never wars of currently defined attrition. That attrition is the poison.




This is the main crunch-point between us. I tend to stay away from fatalistic words, but anyone can see that such PvP is growing more scarce, which also mean PvP on a whole is growing more scarce (looking at the number of separate engagements). That can't be a fine thing for anyone, even if they don't necessarily favour the same gameplay.

It's not people adapting at fault for current trends, it's the ongoing design choices.

Let me give you an example:
I'm delighted it was decided to give lowsec some attention and introduce things like POCOs.

Yet, what is a POCO? It's a hitpoint-based objective with multi-day timers. The effects that followed around them, even at such menial income, resulted in somewhat sizable engagements. We're looking at gangs of 100 and numbers or resources more fit for sovereign conquest, with "lowsec coalitions" forming in light of it. It's a very good example of how design-trend affect the sandbox.

POCOs are not for sporadic interaction. They do not encourage emergence. Compare to the TCU, less HP or not. Still HP, same issues. It still encourages numbers and resources beyond what you would choose for finding some spaceships to shoot. It's not saving that miner and meeting up with his patrol...

Wildcat I think you should uninstall because I think you will set the world record in tears shed over a videogame if you make (yet another) terrible thread soaked with your tears.

Lets be honest. You are just buttmad you can't do what you could do in the past and you are COMPLETELY unable to adapt to the times ahead. There are still hilariously broken/overpowered strategies you could use to win fights (I'll help you out, it involves a T3 being in a system), but I don't think you are physically capable of imaging life without your +10km/s nano ships and your 200km falcon.

I await for your next tearful outbreak.

Small gang PVP is still working just fine. If you haven't figured out how to adjust your tactics when the game rules change, then that's your own deal.

I want my 14079 ms Sabre back CCP!

I do a lot of solo sabre pvp too,

however this form of pvp shooting T2 transports, bombers and other cloaky **** isnt considered as "pvp" by many parties as ganking a raven with a vagabond.

Another thing is how do people define solo-pvp.
Its without scouts, without boosters?? Purely 1 char or just 1 on the KM?
Recently a dude from my alliance said in comms like me is not doing really solo pvp, because of my scout alts placed around the system.

Do you include scout alts in that equation? Because I'd like to know where this groundswell of "it ain't solo if you're scouted" came from. Near as I can figure it's popularity is a new thing.

I consider soloing to be just that, one character, no scouts, no boosters. Not that I have any problem with using multiple accounts, but it isn't solo.

Solo and small gang is not dead but is sure rare, even in lowsec
Reason for this is obvious, people don't like to lose. more people you have more chances of winning right?

the only thing that can fox that is creating game mechanics that encourages small groups, by giving them more reward.
perfect place for that is lowsec, CCP has perfect chance now, when fixing FW.

As rewards are given for plex capturing and killing of enemy milita, those rewards can scale according to gang size (just like incursions). capturing plex "costs" N LP, 10 people capturing a plex is N/10, or some other formula, I haven't thought about it really.

same could apply to theoretical pirate/anty-pirate warfare that was mentioned several times in assembly hall and can be quite good feature if done properly.