These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Small corps, 0.0, numbers and capitals.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gimmie The Money
Doomheim
#1 - 2011-10-20 19:43:15 UTC
There are 2 very common arguments/disagreements going on in EVE and on the forums as of late. These 2 are;

- It's not fair that smaller corps/alliances have a hard time taking sov.
- The people with the most (super) capitals or numbers win.

I'm failing to see any problem with this, and here's why. Just as an extremely vague example, you won't see Iraq invading, defeating and occupying Russia any time soon. Why? Well. They're too small. They don't have the assets. They don't have the numbers. Now I know that comparing EVE to real-life is generally frowned upon, but seriously, what is the problem with this?

EVE is an MMO. The first M in that abbreviation? It's massive. Fact is, it would be simply wrong and make no sense at all for 100 guys in battleships to go up against 2000 guys in capitals, kill them all, and take over their space. I don't understand why this is such a huge issue. Is it unfair? Well, it depends on the way that you look at it. It's unfair that the smaller guys are rather limited to what they can do, however they don't have numbers or assets, what can you expect them to do?

Whilst I'm not condoning the blob of capitals or supers, that's just how it works. If 2 super powers of the real world went to war right now, chances are the guys with 100 tanks and 10 carriers are going to win against the guys with 10 tanks and 1 carrier.

It would also make no sense for some little African tribe to come along to the USA wielding spears and taking over the place. So why do you expect this to happen in EVE? If you want sov, if you want assets, and if you don't want to be blobbed, be part of the blob. That's just how it works. Will it change? Probably not. Why? Because fact is GENERALLY, numbers win. Obviously not always, but the general outcome is that the guys with double the numbers of the other guys are probably going to slaughter them.

No, you can't have what I'm smoking.
Defleshed
C.A.R.E.
B.E.A.R.S.
#2 - 2011-10-20 19:49:19 UTC
Profound... I agree with you entirely.
Reverand Pastor
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2011-10-20 19:50:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Reverand Pastor
Whie I agree with you in principle and your logic makes sense the linear thinking doesnt apply to EVE. The best man/country/alliance should win but the playing field is slightly skewed. Moons, T2 Production, SuperCaps etc can only be producedt in a limited amount of places relative to EVE. From production to logistics the opposing force has zero chance since access to the products needed to supplant anyone are owned by the people you wish to supplant. Supercaps especially change the dynamic since the days of getting 100 bs and having a go are long gone. I think thats where people are saying the game has become stagnant in null. This is no fault of any alliance they are playing the game put in front of them, but some kind of change would be welcome.
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#4 - 2011-10-20 20:08:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Metal Icarus
Does that give a right for Russia to invade all of western europe with the Red Army? No.

In other words, hogging soverignty for the sake of hogging sovereignty is not how nullsec should work. Those super alliances have a right to use them, but it is abusing their own power when they prevent anyone else from using the space (IMO). Therefore preventing people from populating nullsec. Filling null with empty systems with the excuse of "We need to find renters!!!".

Consider how monopolies are illegal, and how banks that become "to big to fail". Their has be regulations on how much sov an alliance can hold. (bolded for emphasis)

I do agree on this, that they worked hard to get that sov, and all those super caps, but those super caps should be limited for defence once sov gets past a certain threshold. Otherwise, it is hurting small alliances, and no one would be able to stand independently.

OR is it the destiny of every small alliance to dissolve and sell their soul to the large alliances? (IMO this exacerbates the problem)

Also, if this is going to continue on like this, there has be a renting contract function that at least lets people be able to keep their identity while renting should they rent as a corp/alliance.
Gimmie The Money
Doomheim
#5 - 2011-10-20 20:19:17 UTC
Metal Icarus wrote:
Does that give a right for Russia to invade all of western europe with their super caps? No.

In other words, hogging soverignty for the sake of hogging sovereignty is not how nullsec should work. Those super alliances have a right to use them, but it is abusing their own power when they prevent anyone else from using the space (IMO). Therefore preventing people from populating nullsec. Filling null with empty systems with the excuse of "We need to find renters!!!".

Consider how monopolies are illegal, and how banks that become "to big to fail". Their has be regulations on how much sov an alliance can hold. (bolded for emphasis)

I do agree on this, that they worked hard to get that sov, and all those super caps, but those super caps should be limited for defence once sov gets past a certain threshold. Otherwise, it is hurting small alliances, and no one would be able to stand independently.

OR is it the destiny of every small alliance to dissolve and sell their soul to the large alliances? (IMO this exacerbates the problem)

Also, if this is going to continue on like this, there has be a renting contract function that at least lets people be able to keep their identity while renting should they rent as a corp/alliance.


If Russia wanted to invade the west, they have the 'right' to. However they won't because they will probably be slammed by the rest of the world. The difference in EVE is that Russia (cwatididther) have the power to invade the west, and as such... well look at the map.

However, I do agree with the using up of sov for the sake of it, however removing the right to spam sov won't change a thing. If the sov spamming got fixed by CCP, nothing is stopping the big alliances from defending "their" space. It'll just result in the same thing. Fact is, if a big alliance doesn't want a smaller one in it's space whether the systems have their name on them or not, it's going to end the same way.

Thank you for a decent reply though, it makes a bit more sense now.
Thur Barbek
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2011-10-20 20:21:57 UTC
Metal Icarus wrote:

Does that give a right for Russia to invade all of western europe with their super caps? No.

Consider how monopolies are illegal, and how banks that become "to big to fail". Their has be regulations on how much sov an alliance can hold. (bolded for emphasis)


Roll Monopolies are not illegal in most parts of the world. Look at the US 2-3 years ago about banks being "to big to fail" lol.

Also if you look at history, the majority of countires with the "best" army/weapons did tend to take over vast portions of the world. for example: the Romans took most of Europe, the mongols took over Asia, even companies like the East India Co. ended up controlling most of the world for a time. The last one did it through markets not armies... but same thing.

Now, what gave them the right to do that? The word "right" is an opinion based word. No two people have the same definition of it.
Lharanai
Fools of the Blue Oyster
#7 - 2011-10-20 20:32:12 UTC
lets try to keep it in one thread

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=23191

Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously
MNagy
Yo-Mama
#8 - 2011-10-20 20:36:28 UTC
I posted a simillar suggestion in another forum and wanted some input here.

The arguement here is that a big corp/alliance can gobble up ALL the null sec. Thus leaving nothing for everyone else.

This i say is 'valid'/

But...
If eve had something like the game "Civilizations 4" had ( corruption )....
Lets say - the more systems you hold, the exponential cost it costs you monthly to hold them.

By doing that - an alliance/corp can grow (people wise) to however big they want to, but they can only have buildings in a limited amount because after a certain time - the isk penalty is greater than the isk reward.

In the end you will either have 2 alliances who are friends - or 2 alliances that are enemy's because there is 'space' left over for a 2nd alliance to start to setup shop.

If you take the above idea 1 step further, and do a 'corruption' idea to the amount of toons in an alliance, then you in turn also create more alliances fighting for the same space.

I understand people might say - if i want to have a 10 000 member alliance or corp i shoud be able to...
That is true,
But the outcome of that is that you now have 10 000 people who have nothing to do in null, and another 90 000 toons in hs not wanting to go into null.

Just a thought.

And yes, I am one of those people who chose to setup in a wh vs null because i can only play a couple hours a night (if that at all) and I know our corp / alliance could never 'compete' with a huge massive alliance. So why bother trying.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2011-10-20 20:36:36 UTC
Thur Barbek wrote:
The word "right" is an opinion based word. No two people have the same definition of it.


In context of this discussion, imo, the word "right" means "Until you stop me."
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#10 - 2011-10-20 20:36:57 UTC
You guys are right, they do have the right, but that does not mean they should.

The irony of my own statement about to big to fail was not lost on me, but I failed to mention that I knew of the irony.
Caulk H0lster
Kazakh Ministry of Wealth Redistribution
#11 - 2011-10-20 22:29:32 UTC
Numbers, whether they be supercaps or conventional ships or whatever, should not be the ONE deciding factor in any engagement. Numbers should be important, but having more dudes should not preclude a small group of skilled individuals any chance of success. Right now, that's about the way it is. What is there for small gangs to do in 0.0? About the only thing they can successfully do is set up nuisance camps with drag bubbles, and gank stragglers. That is their role. That role does not contribute to ANYTHING related to sov mechanics, or really anything other than their own personal kill counts.

When sov mechanics were changed and the nano nerf strangled small gang warfare, CCP always maintained that while they thought certain things were out of balance with the gameplay, they had no intention of destroying small gang warfare. They even suggested that small gangs would be able to participate in the new sov war mechanics by allowing them to contribute in various ways, like striking key components of infrastructure. I'm pretty sure what they meant was that small gangs can attack station services and disable, say, the fitting service, so nobody could refit their ships. That's a cool idea, but the problem is, the fitting service has more HP than is reasonably possible for a small gang to bring it down, so when you wanna disable services, guess what you do now? That's right, bring in the supers for 5 minutes.

Mechanics have turned supercaps and titans into the answer for every tactical problem. There isn't much you can't take care of without throwing supers at it, assuming you have more to throw than the other guys. It's just stagnating everything, because generally before a fight starts, everyone knows who's really gonna win. There was a time when fleets of hundreds of dreads scared PL and their mighty supercap blob, but those fleets haven't been seen in close to a year, and that supercap blob has probably grown beyond the fear of a few hundred dreads at this point.

IMHO, CCP really needs to look at the resources it takes to deploy supercaps, as well as sov mechanics. Titans and supercarriers should not be used as lulzmobiles to drop on rookie ships or small gangs. The resources required to field them should be such that careful though and consideration should be used before they are deployed, and there should always be a real fear of losing them once deployed. The jump in, gank, jump out, all within 2 minutes thing is what needs to go.

Of course any entity powerful enough to have a fleet of supercarriers and titans should always have an advantage on the battlefield when they decide to use them, but they should not be "I win" buttons either, which they pretty much are currently.

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#12 - 2011-10-20 22:42:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Metal Icarus wrote:
Does that give a right for Russia to invade all of western europe with the Red Army? No.

In other words, hogging soverignty for the sake of hogging sovereignty is not how nullsec should work. Those super alliances have a right to use them, but it is abusing their own power when they prevent anyone else from using the space (IMO). Therefore preventing people from populating nullsec.


In this single argument you just resume one of the back side issues from SOV mechanics.

So what happens is "some" under strict rules of KB ratio, CTA's activity or minerals/ice/mods/ships fixed low cost and pay large amounts of isk to have the right of being there, see "blued", but can be kicked at any moment for whatever reason, just like individuals can be kicked and loose/have their assets stuck for undetermined time.

This simple drawback cumulated with the fact mining in null is even less worthy than mine in high sec with a simple cruiser, rating/cleaning anoms became almost worthless.

With these simple facts would you leave high sec for null?
Would you take the risk to loose all you have for dreams?
Can you think for a second you have any chance if you're running some "normal" corp? (normal= casual, not playing all day long)

(I'm surely and voluntarily forgetting some stuff)
Gheng Kondur
Serva Fidem
#13 - 2011-10-20 22:55:39 UTC
You can't equate RL and EVE in this way. In RL people die, in EVE we appear in a new clone. The cost is not comparible and there is no UN conventions in place.

Little countries survive in RL due to the UN and threat of mutual total destruction for the big boys. Change EVE to dead is dead and this logic would work as people wouldn't risk years of training for a quick laugh through killing the little guy. Without that risk, we have what we have and that can only be changed through game mechanics.
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#14 - 2011-10-20 23:14:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lipbite
Solution is "semi-carebear nullsec":

1) non-capital nullsec areas connected with

2) bubble-free "highways" to hi-sec

All mechanics already available in the game (like gates with ship type limit and non-cyno systems). Just I doubt CCP is able to implement new ideas faster than in 2-3 years (read: before potential bankruptcy) because they already have tons of half-done features to finish - like walking in stations, faction warfare, NeX, T3 frigates/BS/capitals - while pace of their work is way behind players demand. CCP became too massive to react in timely manner. Or they were like that right from start and it's players who changed dramatically - anyway I doubt we'll see "small corp friendly nullsec" before 2013th.