These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dear Jim'll CCP could you fix it for me to goto 0.0
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-09-05 19:14:11 UTC
Malphilos wrote:


... you're happy with the way things are. Reasonable.

You realize sovereignty itself was a change?

Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I think everything should be attainable by every person in game.


No, you don't. To wit:

Natsett Amuinn wrote:
When did CCP say that sov is intended for small corps to take? They didn't. It's about large scale war and diplomacy. Go play GW2 if you don't like it.




You do know that doing that to a post, specifically changing something someone wrote to something they didn't, only makes you an ******* right?

Given how you were able to take what I posted, cut it up, and change my wording, I'll have to assume you're literate; I'll try this again.

I've never asked CCP to change game mechanics just to suit me.

How about you focus on something other than the corp I'm in and stop being a douche on the Internet.
Adeleda Adoudel
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-09-05 19:15:21 UTC
Having numbers helps a lot. Not disputing that here. But I recently watched a video on YouTube of a 40ish man Drake gang owning a 150 man CFC alphafleet ( maels and scorps). Using very goodbye tactics such as defensive bubbles and constant strategic align points to hold the vast majority of the fleet to around 130km away.
This video showed me, as a former member of a CFC alliance, that although numbers usually win in generic slugfests, good skill trumps nubs half skilled to fly battleships.

Tl;Dr - 40 drakes can own a full fleet with proper piloting.

Sidenote- reducing fight numbers goes against half of what inspires people to play Eve. The massive battles that aren't possible in other MMOs.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#63 - 2012-09-05 19:19:05 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:



Given how you were able to take what I posted and change my wording to I'm a douche on the Internet.


This is fun.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-09-05 19:26:43 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Given how you were able to take what I posted, cut it up, and change my wording, I'll have to assume you're literate; I'll try this again.

I've never asked CCP to change game mechanics just to suit me.


And why is that? I note you've given up on the "everybody should be able to do everything" type nonsense, so we'll assume it's because you're pretty happy with the way things are.

Just as I said before.

Natsett Amuinn wrote:
How about you focus on something other than the corp I'm in and stop being a douche on the Internet.


I don't recall mentioning your corp. Sorry, I took you for an individual.

On the internet. Roll
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2012-09-05 22:17:25 UTC
Frank Gallagher wrote:
Fleets have a maximum number, and i think that should be all that you are allowed to bring to the fight.

Eat a bowl of dicks.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
C DeLeon
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2012-09-05 22:28:59 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
It's the fault of the people on the outside, looking in.

You want something, but don't want to put in the effort or work to achieve it. Stop blaming the game for your inability to do what others before you have.

If you want it, figure out how to take it and stop expecting the devs to change the game so you can do what many corps have already figured out.

What is it with you people that expect the devs to "make it fair for you", as if the rules were different for the groups that have sov today. Quit asking CCP to **** up the sandbox for your own self entitled desires.


The Mittani as the CSM chairman pushed most the super nerf and now the goons (and allies) are sitting on the most valuable territory while half of nullsec is blue to them. Get off your high horse. The blobs based on raw numbers are I-win button as much as supers were back then. CCP have to deal with it because this is what will **** up the sandbox on the long run.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2012-09-05 22:39:59 UTC
C DeLeon wrote:
The Mittani as the CSM chairman pushed most the super nerf and now the goons (and allies) are sitting on the most valuable territory while half of nullsec is blue to them. Get off your high horse. The blobs based on raw numbers are I-win button as much as supers were back then. CCP have to deal with it because this is what will **** up the sandbox on the long run.

We incidentally also have the biggest supers fleet too, so we would've won anyways.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Oregin
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#68 - 2012-09-05 22:42:32 UTC
I see some of the comments suggesting that small alliances should not be able to take on big alliances and I agree with this. You shouldn't be able to roll in and mess with something so strong.

However, I'd argue that it'd be nice if there was a way that smaller alliances could get a foot on the ladder so to speak and at least chip away at larger alliance sov.

Realistically, though, there's no way logical way that I can think of to make this effective.

What I would suggest, however, is that CCP disincentivise holding massive swathes of space. Why don't CCP introduce an exponential tax on sov such that holding enough systems to house the large alliances and them have a good selection of profitable moons is realistically profitable but make it such that alliances would not want to hold onto space that does not offer enough income or strategic advantage to make it a wanted acquisition.

Although I've been a cog in a number of large machines over the years, I have no real grasp of what numbers, today, would be a reasonable figure. But I think this would mean fewer empty systems with unnecessary sov and offer small alliances a slice of the pie...a slice that could be profitable to them because of their smaller holding, but not profitable enough to outweigh the taxes that a larger alliance would have to pay.

Now I'll go out on a limb and say that changes to local and a sov tie in to local visibility would increase the tactical value of system sov but again, it'd be about weighing up the pro's against the taxation con's.

In terms of lore, just throw in a cost to run sov mod networks.

TL:DR make it such that alliances really value the systems they hold and don't just hold systems for the sake of it.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-09-05 22:48:34 UTC
Oregin wrote:
However, I'd argue that it'd be nice if there was a way that smaller alliances could get a foot on the ladder so to speak and at least chip away at larger alliance sov.

Realistically, though, there's no way logical way that I can think of to make this effective.

Simple: make SOV easier to take and lose.

Oregin wrote:
Why don't CCP introduce an exponential tax on sov

Say hi to GSF1, GSF2, GSF3, test1, test2, test3 etc. You'll be seeing a lot of those.

Oregin wrote:
TL:DR make it such that alliances really value the systems they hold and don't just hold systems for the sake of it.

You've obviously never heard of this thing called "strategic buffers" and "strategically important systems".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2012-09-05 22:55:19 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Oregin wrote:
However, I'd argue that it'd be nice if there was a way that smaller alliances could get a foot on the ladder so to speak and at least chip away at larger alliance sov.

Realistically, though, there's no way logical way that I can think of to make this effective.

Simple: make SOV easier to take and lose.

Exactly. With the system as it is now it's literally impossible to wage anything resembling guerrilla warfare (or whatever the spaceship equivalent would be).

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-09-05 22:56:35 UTC
Gorilla warfare. :v:

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2012-09-05 23:46:34 UTC
Frank Gallagher wrote:
I just thought i'd get a discussion going on how you could possibly fix 0.0 so that smaller alliances could get out and take on the bigger alliances for their sov.

The blob has always caused the lag issues and node crashes, for which you gave us TIDI. The outcome of all battles will be decided on who has the most numbers in system. But what about the smaller alliances in game, how do they get a foothold in 0.0 to grow their alliances ?

Fleets have a maximum number, and i think that should be all that you are allowed to bring to the fight. 250 vs 250 in a system would reduce TIDI and probably the stress load on the sever, plus fights would come down to skills and FC's abilities. Just imagine going into fights knowing that your 5 years of skill training and pvp experience will have some sort of outcome on a fight rather than it being who has the greater number of pilots.

Give the minnows and skill based pvp a chance please.

I remember being part of D0GS OF WAR alliance.
A good way to break into 0.0 space is not getting your alliance blacklisted by being a renter scam alliance.
hth
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#73 - 2012-09-05 23:52:14 UTC
Chokichi Ozuwara wrote:
Remove local, and 0.0 will get very intredasting.


i love it when people suggest that removing local would actually harm large alliances

lol

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-09-05 23:53:48 UTC
C DeLeon wrote:
The Mittani as the CSM chairman pushed most the super nerf and now the goons (and allies) are sitting on the most valuable territory while half of nullsec is blue to them. Get off your high horse. The blobs based on raw numbers are I-win button as much as supers were back then. CCP have to deal with it because this is what will **** up the sandbox on the long run.


hi the CFC currently has the largest supercapital fleet in the game

hope this helps

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2012-09-05 23:59:43 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
When Apocrypha was in conception, CCP proposed an idea that several constellations and regions of nullsec could only be accessible through wormhole travels. I think this would be a brilliant addition to the game and it would make nullsec more accessible for small budding alliances.

Even if this doesn't happen, it would still be a neat concept to shut down the gates in systems owned by an alliance. They can still be accessed via wormholes, but for an alliance to isolate themselves from the major super cap blobs it would give them a major leg up and a chance to actually survive in nullsec.
In practice the regions with the most small-scale alliances are those with easy access to highsec while those harder to get to (example: Omist) have been under the thumb of big power blocs since the server onlined.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#76 - 2012-09-06 00:01:53 UTC
Adeleda Adoudel wrote:
Having numbers helps a lot. Not disputing that here. But I recently watched a video on YouTube of a 40ish man Drake gang owning a 150 man CFC alphafleet ( maels and scorps). Using very goodbye tactics such as defensive bubbles and constant strategic align points to hold the vast majority of the fleet to around 130km away.
This video showed me, as a former member of a CFC alliance, that although numbers usually win in generic slugfests, good skill trumps nubs half skilled to fly battleships.

Tl;Dr - 40 drakes can own a full fleet with proper piloting.


congratulations on finding out that a long-range fleet can kill a short-range fleet if it can dictate range

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-09-06 00:03:31 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Currently large numbers hold no disadvantages in any real way whatsoever.


you can't be serious

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Te Tumatauenga
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-09-06 00:17:41 UTC
Actually I think the style of honour described in the Battletech universe would be the perfect solution for Eve. FC's should "bid" on the size of the fleet they bring, with the lowest bid bringing the greatest honour meaning that sovereignty could be decided by small gang warfare.

However that doesn't quite fix the problem either, because instead of being a war of who has more pilots it becomes a war of who has more isk. To rectify this CCP could add instanced small gang pvp arenas to the game where ships aren't permanantly destroyed. This would have the added advantage of ships such as faction fit nightmares finally becoming viable in pvp because isk loss doesn't matter.

Further to this we could level the playing field between small and big alliances even better by removing non-consent pvp from nullsec allowing smaller alliances, even one and two man groups, to rat without having to worry about bully alliances stopping them and they can then have true parity with the big players.
Vellamo Lyr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-09-06 00:24:14 UTC
C DeLeon wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
It's the fault of the people on the outside, looking in.

You want something, but don't want to put in the effort or work to achieve it. Stop blaming the game for your inability to do what others before you have.

If you want it, figure out how to take it and stop expecting the devs to change the game so you can do what many corps have already figured out.

What is it with you people that expect the devs to "make it fair for you", as if the rules were different for the groups that have sov today. Quit asking CCP to **** up the sandbox for your own self entitled desires.


The Mittani as the CSM chairman pushed most the super nerf and now the goons (and allies) are sitting on the most valuable territory while half of nullsec is blue to them. Get off your high horse. The blobs based on raw numbers are I-win button as much as supers were back then. CCP have to deal with it because this is what will **** up the sandbox on the long run.


How's Fountain treating you?
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#80 - 2012-09-06 00:51:37 UTC
Te Tumatauenga wrote:
Actually I think the style of honour described in the Battletech universe would be the perfect solution for Eve. FC's should "bid" on the size of the fleet they bring, with the lowest bid bringing the greatest honour meaning that sovereignty could be decided by small gang warfare.

However that doesn't quite fix the problem either, because instead of being a war of who has more pilots it becomes a war of who has more isk. To rectify this CCP could add instanced small gang pvp arenas to the game where ships aren't permanantly destroyed. This would have the added advantage of ships such as faction fit nightmares finally becoming viable in pvp because isk loss doesn't matter.

Further to this we could level the playing field between small and big alliances even better by removing non-consent pvp from nullsec allowing smaller alliances, even one and two man groups, to rat without having to worry about bully alliances stopping them and they can then have true parity with the big players.



I've read enough of your posts to say this is a troll and a good one at that.


If its serious then i counter propose instead of your suggestion we add a NPC vs NPC arena and player can apply to have jobs selling spacepopcorn and spacet-shirt by shooting them our of popcorn/tshirt cannons on their ships.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli