Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Say......... Aren't you that "Bat Country" guy??? Aren't bat country kinda like "gankers"???


Why are you arguing for something that might make ganking harder!?!


TRAITOR!

/shakes fist,
/gets torch
/gets pitchfork...

rabblerabblerabble!

I would be a member of that corp, yes. And we do have a penchant for the odd gank on occasion, I'll admit.

When it comes to the hisec ganking, I'm actually a bit torn. On the one hand the fact that people keep insisting that hisec is safe, not safer makes me support the gankathon. On the other hand, I do worry that we might be going too far. vOv

I'm pretty sure this as well.

I would hardly call swallowing up all the land possible a strategy. It is just the exploitation of a broke mechanic.
Frankly if you actually had to actively defend your areas locally this would be impossible. Its only due to a rather boring sov system and an overpowered Jump drive system that makes it possible.

Your statement is almost a rally cry to why Null needs fixing, Your idea of what strategy should make as much sense as the United states conquering North and South America for "Strategic Value". Sounds good looks great but the USA is too small and too broke to capture and hold such a large area indefinitely.

Null is broken, it needs fixing if you cannot understand that you should just go gank miners in Hi-sec. I hear the pay isn't bad.

Like I said, you just don't have the capacity for strategic thought.

The simple fact that you can't see the inevitable outcome of some noob alliance trying to hold sov in some crappy spur off another alliance's space is further proof.

The static and largely linear gate routes in null would lead to a form of hydraulic despotism that would turn all those little alliances into de facto renters.

All I can see is that you do not appear to understand strategy. Under the current Sov and Null mechanics taking everything you can makes sense given what the moons make for the alliances this coupled with the ability to move a huge fleet from one side of your territory to the other easily. But being able to do this really makes no sense as far as game play is concerned. Denying your enemies a foot hold is a good strategy but it really should come with the penalties for over extending yourselves. It doesn't the current mechanics are one sided and need changing.

And once again you are talking about gate camps that without local to give them warning would just be sitting ducks, unless as some people have said they are cloaked at which point they would be completely no threat.

Well Null is almost twice the size of all of empire space, so I think if you actually had to locally defend your own space it would work its self out.


Only 1 well the Sovereignty system, it is so usless in its current form.


I agree and given the current free intel tools and broken Sov system and overpowered Jump mechanics, They don't stand a welks chance in a supernova.

This being why Null is so empty, there is no reason for anyone small to go out there.

Yes it is about manpower and money and that's exactly what i am proposing not just a simple we took it and if you try to take it we can concentrate our entire force in one area scenario but rather a scenario where if you deplete your forces everywhere to take on an attack you actually leave parts of it more vulnerable, partially by the jump nerf but also by the sov bar where your deserting your space makes it easier to take. Where smaller alliances would have a bonus of actually being in their capital system and close by plus there activity levels in such a small space would make it harder to take there space.

I noticed that you seem to not wish to discuss the basis of this thread very often. The removal of local. Is this because you can even see holes in the few arguments given against the idea. And the current hulkagedon is actually proving the point. I use local to check characters titles to see if they are likely to be mining before I even go looking.

As to how much space you should currently hold, well that would be an idea completely for your upper management based on what they believe they could safely sustain and actually use. Rather than just what they can pay for.

as for your comment
"Awesome that you are honest about having no clue exactly what your improved nullsec would look like. "It would work itself out" doesn't really fill people with any confidence that such a nullsec would really be an improvement."

I could do like CCP did and promise alot of crap that never came about, even though they employ people just to figure out these things or I can be truthful and say I think these are heading in the right direction but no one really knows.

Anyway back to No local in Null sec and the fact I have heard alot of crap but no real arguments as to why removing it wouldn't be good for Null sec. There are alot of good reasons for it but bugger all other than scare tactics against it.

I thought you wanted the limiting factor to be how much it cost based on the distance from the "capital system"?


I hear "well-reasoned facts" is the new "scare tactics".

No never had the idea is based on cost from capital and fort systems but the main limiting factor is of course your ability for local defense and your activity within the system.


I hear "well-reasoned facts" is the new "scare tactics".[/quote]
I dont think I have heard a single well reason fact at all actually, for the removal of local. Why Sov currently sucks Yes and why Null needs more science and industry Yes. But nothing I can think of on removing local.