These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Grats CCP, No armsrace will every be possible vs current tech holders
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#61 - 2012-07-08 17:16:29 UTC
If all the people who whine about the CFC and their tech holdings banded together they could probably field equal or greater numbers than the CFC in the battle for tech control, but they won't, why? because they're all too busy squabbling with each other to actually pull their fingers out of their posteriors and do something about it.

/me dons flame retardant suit

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-07-08 17:19:32 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If all the people who whine about the CFC and their tech holdings banded together they could probably field equal or greater numbers than the CFC in the battle for tech control, but they won't, why? because they're all too busy squabbling with each other to actually pull their fingers out of their posteriors and do something about it.

/me dons flame retardant suit



They tried and CCP changed the wardec system.

Which actually worked for us, PL had about 35 hi-sec corps arrayed against -A- at the time.
Cameron Cahill
Deaths Consortium
Pandemic Horde
#63 - 2012-07-08 17:25:57 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If all the people who whine about the CFC and their tech holdings banded together they could probably field equal or greater numbers than the CFC in the battle for tech control, but they won't, why? because they're all too busy squabbling with each other to actually pull their fingers out of their posteriors and do something about it.

/me dons flame retardant suit



They tried and CCP changed the wardec system.

Which actually worked for us, PL had about 35 hi-sec corps arrayed against -A- at the time.


Cause tech moons are in Hi-sec........
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2012-07-08 17:29:13 UTC
Cameron Cahill wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If all the people who whine about the CFC and their tech holdings banded together they could probably field equal or greater numbers than the CFC in the battle for tech control, but they won't, why? because they're all too busy squabbling with each other to actually pull their fingers out of their posteriors and do something about it.

/me dons flame retardant suit



They tried and CCP changed the wardec system.

Which actually worked for us, PL had about 35 hi-sec corps arrayed against -A- at the time.


Cause tech moons are in Hi-sec........



Oh who were the first to scream when there were 4000 "pubies" arrayed against them? We changed our logistics routes, you guys cried all over the place.
Forum Clone 77777
Doomheim
#65 - 2012-07-08 17:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Forum Clone 77777
CCP should just implement a feature where you can sabotage enemies moons, so that they need to be actively defended if they are gonna keep on producing the materials.

Obviously Im not talking about some lonely bomber doing a small quick raid, but youd need to put effort and RISK into sabotaging your enemies moon aswell.

Say a dread could bombard a moon and it would be down until next downtime.

And tech moons should be spread out evenly'ish otherwise.. Well look at our current situation.
forestwho
Doomheim
#66 - 2012-07-08 17:31:27 UTC
Doesnt matter all, fact is..... 0.0 is numbers and super... both are easy to be bought with isk and isk promises to good corporations. Fact is, exessively amount of isks on one side is not healty and is severly disbalancing the game for many years to come....
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#67 - 2012-07-08 17:31:30 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
dexington wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
If only 10% of high sec dwellers were to form an alliance, they would likely out number even the largest null sec alliance by 7 to 1.


Judging from the public opinion on the forum, you are better off staying in empire. The 0.0 population use to much time complaining about how bad everything is in 0.0, empire seem like a nice place why would anyone leave?

Living in empire means more time to shoot at red dots and less time complaining on the forums, and you don't have to take part in the space politics, which seems to be mostly posting on the forums about how great you corp/alliance is, and how terrible everyone else is.

There is probably only two ways to get 10% to leave empire space, the carrot or the whip. Seeing how there is nothing that comes close to being a carrot, nothing is happening unless ccp nerf empire space to hell.



My point is that if Empire Dwellers do not like the way things are right now, the same tools that Goonswarm et al have used to build their empire are also available for high sec dwellers. If they choose not avail themselves of said tools, then complaining about the way things are at present is as pointless as two bald men fighting over a comb.

It should not require CCP stepping in to solve the problems of either group (barring the possible redistribution of Tech moons). EVE has always been about player choices over and above any mechanic, nerf or buff. If players cannot make the effort to get off their comfortably padded couches and do something for themselves, then they should expect nothing to change.


I don't completley agree here.

Your choices currently are rent, or NPC space if you want to go on your own.

Some corps have pulled it, Black Aces went from renter, to trial, to member and onward in -A-. I wish them luck, they were chill as **** to fly with.


NPC space has issues with ability of denial, and renting has basically SOV bills. Eitherway there are bigger fish.

Fact is that supers drive null, and you can't build supers without sov, you "may" be able to buy them, but they don't appear from air, and there isn't a huge market, generally the people with the ability and the security to build them don't farm them out.

All good also.

The catch 22 is you need sov to build supers and you need supers to hold sov.


Your choices are the same now as they have always been, fight or go home. It is the defeatist and weak willed attitude of other players that allows such large null sec alliances the room to spread. Yes, getting a foothold in null is not as easy as it once was, but that does not mean it is impossible, it just requires a little more effort.

If the enemy has big ships that you don't have, then bring excessive numbers of smaller ships. As I said earlier, if only a fraction of the high sec population formed an alliance, or at the very least a band of corporations, they would out number even the largest of the null sec alliances by at least 7 to 1. I dare anyone to see off those kinds of numbers.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Cameron Cahill
Deaths Consortium
Pandemic Horde
#68 - 2012-07-08 17:34:01 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Cameron Cahill wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If all the people who whine about the CFC and their tech holdings banded together they could probably field equal or greater numbers than the CFC in the battle for tech control, but they won't, why? because they're all too busy squabbling with each other to actually pull their fingers out of their posteriors and do something about it.

/me dons flame retardant suit



They tried and CCP changed the wardec system.

Which actually worked for us, PL had about 35 hi-sec corps arrayed against -A- at the time.


Cause tech moons are in Hi-sec........



Oh who were the first to scream when there were 4000 "pubies" arrayed against them? We changed our logistics routes, you guys cried all over the place.


Where did we cry?
forestwho
Doomheim
#69 - 2012-07-08 17:34:57 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:

Your choices are the same now as they have always been, fight or go home. It is the defeatist and weak willed attitude of other players that allows such large null sec alliances the room to spread. Yes, getting a foothold in null is not as easy as it once was, but that does not mean it is impossible, it just requires a little more effort.

If the enemy has big ships that you don't have, then bring excessive numbers of smaller ships. As I said earlier, if only a fraction of the high sec population formed an alliance, or at the very least a band of corporations, they would out number even the largest of the null sec alliances by at least 7 to 1. I dare anyone to see off those kinds of numbers.


Most high sec ppl are isk making alts of whoever or whatever. The ones that are not are ppl that just joined EVE or not intested at all in pvp (the wowish ppl). I fight a empire ppl fleet outnumbers 7-1 anyday of the time. Skill does matter you know... exept in 90% tidi ofc....
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Commonwealth Vanguard
#70 - 2012-07-08 17:35:14 UTC
Oh look, this thread again.

"I cant organise a big enough coalition of people to beat their coalition of people so CCP please can you fix it for me so they are less strong please."

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Cameron Cahill
Deaths Consortium
Pandemic Horde
#71 - 2012-07-08 17:35:59 UTC
forestwho wrote:
Doesnt matter all, fact is..... 0.0 is numbers and super... both are easy to be bought with isk and isk promises to good corporations. Fact is, exessively amount of isks on one side is not healty and is severly disbalancing the game for many years to come....


The one side took the isk. if its not balanced then its the other sides fault for not seeing their chance and taking it for themselves.
Werst Dendenahzees
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2012-07-08 17:38:51 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If all the people who whine about the CFC and their tech holdings banded together they could probably field equal or greater numbers than the CFC in the battle for tech control, but they won't, why? because they're all too busy squabbling with each other to actually pull their fingers out of their posteriors and do something about it.

/me dons flame retardant suit



They tried and CCP changed the wardec system.

Which actually worked for us, PL had about 35 hi-sec corps arrayed against -A- at the time.


Hey -A- I know you are bad, but parroting Jade Constantine is a new low
forestwho
Doomheim
#73 - 2012-07-08 17:40:12 UTC  |  Edited by: forestwho
Cameron Cahill wrote:
forestwho wrote:
Doesnt matter all, fact is..... 0.0 is numbers and super... both are easy to be bought with isk and isk promises to good corporations. Fact is, exessively amount of isks on one side is not healty and is severly disbalancing the game for many years to come....


The one side took the isk. if its not balanced then its the other sides fault for not seeing their chance and taking it for themselves.


I dont realy care who has the isk now, fact is... next couple of years were all effected by this disbalancement and it doesnt exacly makes the 0.0 wars/ politics/ pew pew/ explosion quality any better.....

There is alot more involved that creates the EVE experiance than just pew pew.... if ppl are leaving the game because its so disbalanced and sooo obvius retared, the internal fun of being in a 0.0 is affected.... thereby less valued and the game dies a little bit

This happends on small scale but has a butterfly affect that will cause hugh inpact on long term... this is what im trying to explain in my first post... but as obvius my english isnt as good as my brains & eve experiance
Dave stark
#74 - 2012-07-08 17:42:59 UTC
forestwho wrote:
Cameron Cahill wrote:
forestwho wrote:
Doesnt matter all, fact is..... 0.0 is numbers and super... both are easy to be bought with isk and isk promises to good corporations. Fact is, exessively amount of isks on one side is not healty and is severly disbalancing the game for many years to come....


The one side took the isk. if its not balanced then its the other sides fault for not seeing their chance and taking it for themselves.


I dont realy care who has the isk now, fact is... next couple of years were all effected by this disbalancement and it doesnt exacly makes the 0.0 wars/ politics/ pew pew/ explosion quality any better.....

you clearly do care or you wouldn't have made a forum thread about it.
forestwho
Doomheim
#75 - 2012-07-08 17:44:00 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
forestwho wrote:
Cameron Cahill wrote:
forestwho wrote:
Doesnt matter all, fact is..... 0.0 is numbers and super... both are easy to be bought with isk and isk promises to good corporations. Fact is, exessively amount of isks on one side is not healty and is severly disbalancing the game for many years to come....


The one side took the isk. if its not balanced then its the other sides fault for not seeing their chance and taking it for themselves.


I dont realy care who has the isk now, fact is... next couple of years were all effected by this disbalancement and it doesnt exacly makes the 0.0 wars/ politics/ pew pew/ explosion quality any better.....

you clearly do care or you wouldn't have made a forum thread about it.


srry wasnt finished editing above post
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2012-07-08 17:44:14 UTC
Sorry that we're better at internet spaceships than you are. Your bitter tears fuel our war machine.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Dave stark
#77 - 2012-07-08 17:44:34 UTC
forestwho wrote:
srry wasnt finished editing above post

oh, ok. carry on.
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Commonwealth Vanguard
#78 - 2012-07-08 17:44:43 UTC
Also Im going to post again because you guys whining are really annoying me.

Technetium and isk DOES NOT WIN WARS. Morale and activity along with players who are actually enjoying themselves win wars.

And if isk is the real issue, MAKE MORE, it doesnt have to be technetium you know, if you put some effort in you can make plenty of isk. For instance:

A Fullerides reaction set which can be made in lowsec, you need a two moons preferably in one system or close by, one needs to be Platinum, that is th eonly isk moon you need for this. Yes you need to buy technetium, but you produce Fullerides and that will net you between 1 and 2.5 billion isk PROFIT EVERY 8 DAYS depending on the market.

My corp runs one of those and a few carbides and sylramics, pretty easy stuff and easy to manage and we make alot of isk, that is just at corp level. If you cant be bothered to do it and just want an easy isk tap then perhaps you dont deserve the right to become powerful enough to challenge teh CFC.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#79 - 2012-07-08 17:46:00 UTC
forestwho wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:

Your choices are the same now as they have always been, fight or go home. It is the defeatist and weak willed attitude of other players that allows such large null sec alliances the room to spread. Yes, getting a foothold in null is not as easy as it once was, but that does not mean it is impossible, it just requires a little more effort.

If the enemy has big ships that you don't have, then bring excessive numbers of smaller ships. As I said earlier, if only a fraction of the high sec population formed an alliance, or at the very least a band of corporations, they would out number even the largest of the null sec alliances by at least 7 to 1. I dare anyone to see off those kinds of numbers.


Most high sec ppl are isk making alts of whoever or whatever. The ones that are not are ppl that just joined EVE or not intested at all in pvp (the wowish ppl). I fight a empire ppl fleet outnumbers 7-1 anyday of the time. Skill does matter you know... exept in 90% tidi ofc....


Could you please refrain from using made up statistics, it rather muddies the waters somewhat. How you come to the conclusion that everyone in high sec is either an alt of a low sec pilot, or a newbie is quite beyond me. You might also want to learn to distinguish between those pilots who are risk averse, and those who simply do not bother. One will run, the other will very likely turn and bite you back.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
forestwho
Doomheim
#80 - 2012-07-08 17:48:21 UTC  |  Edited by: forestwho
Rico Minali wrote:
Also Im going to post again because you guys whining are really annoying me.

Technetium and isk DOES NOT WIN WARS. Morale and activity along with players who are actually enjoying themselves win wars.

And if isk is the real issue, MAKE MORE, it doesnt have to be technetium you know, if you put some effort in you can make plenty of isk. For instance:

A Fullerides reaction set which can be made in lowsec, you need a two moons preferably in one system or close by, one needs to be Platinum, that is th eonly isk moon you need for this. Yes you need to buy technetium, but you produce Fullerides and that will net you between 1 and 2.5 billion isk PROFIT EVERY 8 DAYS depending on the market.

My corp runs one of those and a few carbides and sylramics, pretty easy stuff and easy to manage and we make alot of isk, that is just at corp level. If you cant be bothered to do it and just want an easy isk tap then perhaps you dont deserve the right to become powerful enough to challenge teh CFC.


This is corp level income making, whitch is nice... but an alliance needs a lille bit more isk. And fact is if you fullscale to alliance needed income the market saturates and profits decline. Im sure non tech holding allies has plenty of other income. But so the the tech holding alliances if they are smart.... The moon income is extra on top of all that...