These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Breaking the Blob - Discussion / Ideas
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2012-11-09 11:47:20 UTC
Snot Shot wrote:
But removing SOV, standings so only the controlling Alliance can dock, and capping Alliance sizes, would bring Null Sec back to the roots of what it was always supposed to be, a sand box, instead of a handful of concrete blocks which takes years to fall apart because of boredom in most cases.

It would allow for many to step forward and lead capped Alliances instead of falling under the wheels of the existing herds of Null Sec sheep controlled by a handful of people. It would intensify the political and diplomatic scene beyond the control of a few and would rely on many to lead etc.

Then CCP would never have to listen to the excuses players make for why Null Sec is broken again as the players would be jockeying for position every day in the law less space of Null Sec instead of it being the safest place in the game..
.




I don't think you quite understand what a sandbox is. Hard limits on just about everything is really not what the rest of us think of when we hear the word. Without standings, sov and with hard caps on everything, you're killing the entire concept of nullsec. No more 3k+ player fights, you'll be lucky to break 500. No more reasons to fight, since you can't take territory, build supercaps, have friends, you're down to skirmishes over moons and roaming through empty space. Doesn't that sound like fun?
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-11-10 19:33:39 UTC
I came to this thread expecting a stupid OP. I left satisfied.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Snot Shot
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-11-12 03:04:41 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Snot Shot wrote:
But removing SOV, standings so only the controlling Alliance can dock, and capping Alliance sizes, would bring Null Sec back to the roots of what it was always supposed to be, a sand box, instead of a handful of concrete blocks which takes years to fall apart because of boredom in most cases.

It would allow for many to step forward and lead capped Alliances instead of falling under the wheels of the existing herds of Null Sec sheep controlled by a handful of people. It would intensify the political and diplomatic scene beyond the control of a few and would rely on many to lead etc.

Then CCP would never have to listen to the excuses players make for why Null Sec is broken again as the players would be jockeying for position every day in the law less space of Null Sec instead of it being the safest place in the game..
.




I don't think you quite understand what a sandbox is. Hard limits on just about everything is really not what the rest of us think of when we hear the word. Without standings, sov and with hard caps on everything, you're killing the entire concept of nullsec. No more 3k+ player fights, you'll be lucky to break 500. No more reasons to fight, since you can't take territory, build supercaps, have friends, you're down to skirmishes over moons and roaming through empty space. Doesn't that sound like fun?

I think I got the whole sandbox thing but I don't think you get the entire concept of nullsec. It's not to be blue to all of it. Its time for CCP to get the fire hose out and break up this giant daisey chain you folks got going out there tbh.

No more 3k player fights......good. 3k player fights seen to take about 4 hours to kill a few ships in TiDi. I know thats what the CFC relys on so you can keep re-shippin and over whelming but I thin its ok to lose that upper hand at this point...Pirate

Sure you can do all of those things......but you will actually have to put effort into it instead of being F1 Monkeys and space sheep....Straight

I think a few of these changes could be great for the game..........I just scares you apparently..Shocked
.

Twitter = @Snot_Shot  - “If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

evesnotshot.blogspot.com
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2012-11-12 05:20:38 UTC
Without tossing in too much kerosine into the fire, the battles in EVE are already well worth achieving "epic battle" status when alliances clashes.

But I don't know if a cap would help that much.

If one does not want mega alliance coalitions bunching up, then there has to be a limit to "bluing". Unfortunately, that would not stop background gentlemen agreements.

For the sake of open PVP, if it helps so that more battles can occur especially for smaller alliances, then indeed CCP should do something. Doing nothing is just not a good idea.


Thing is, there are currently not many reasons or boundries to keep one from establishing massive blocs - or getting steamrolled by one. Somewhere, there has to be a system to ensure that true rivalry exists between various player factions than just handshaking alliance agreements all the way to Mordor.

Removing Standings is noble, but there are "reallife standings", as mentioned above with background gentlemen agreements.

Another "Thing is": The game does not really feature that realm pride feature. I am referring to how it was in classic MMORPG Dark Age of Camelot. In Eve terms, it would be hard-to-impossible for the four playable factions to communicate via chat. Another thing is that the players themselves truly lived their side as in "A MINMATAR WOULD NEVER GO HAND IN HAND WITH AMARR".
I'm derailing, but that should be said.

But to be exact, there can be little things done, so that one does not immediately have to be forced the join the big guys just because they can't beat them. Then again, it is not that easy to suggest things without the blocs themselves going arab spring on the change.

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#25 - 2012-11-12 05:50:28 UTC
Make it so that the average player can make good money and small alliances can afford holding sov without being forced to own tech moons or vast renter empires, and so you don't have to spend hours (or require hundreds of people to) grinding down an objective. The reason there are gigantic coalitions are because they are simply necessary to survive.

When you provide other ways to earn isk, and make objectives less grindy, you will see coalitions crumble as old hatred and long-standing grudges start to take hold, like every single unstoppable "super coalition" that has ever existed.

It's not an attitude issue, nobody enjoys taking away potential PvP content unless it is absolutely necessary. Hard limits like alliance limits, standings caps, etc won't work and are simply a band-aid fix.
Powers Sa
#26 - 2012-11-12 05:58:45 UTC
posting in a snot shot thread crying about my coalition that people are actually taking seriously

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Herbinator d'Arcadie
Arkadian Knight
#27 - 2012-11-12 08:57:54 UTC
Snot Shot wrote:
... Its time for CCP to get the fire hose out and break up this giant daisey chain you folks got going out there tbh. ... I think a few of these changes could be great for the game..........I just scares you apparently..Shocked
.

+1/-1
I agree with you 50%. I disagree with ratcheting down the wild creativity that a good sandbox presents.

A subtile, incidious destabilizing mechanic should be a fundamental component of the game. Nobody likes the stale, paralizing semi-perma state that isolates the best part of Eve ... its vastness. Having the real estate permanently locked up is not an attractive feature for newer players.

"Block" pigs. Refuse to fly with them.
Previous page12