These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Let the hammer fall

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-12-25 17:34:30 UTC
Zenethalos wrote:
The issue is not the large coalitions or the proliferation of empty space. There are a severe lack of things to do 0.0 and the core sov mechanic makes it tedious and boring for the average line pilots. Mix that with the potential for great moon goo income why would you want to risk losing it all to a rival power bloc when you guys can just bro up, secure your income and have fun basing every one else with safety and impunity. Those who control the spice...


Only CCP can change that and because it is that way. It's the best they start from scratch.

Let the hammer fall on SOV 0.0 and it's super caps, titans and so on. New game systems and mechanics are needed to populate the place.

Large coalitions and alliances would be able to exploit the new systems to much. The very same way they do it today. They are part of the problem. With large i mean everything above 2000/3000 characters.

Let the hammer fall!
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-12-25 17:36:56 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
Zenethalos wrote:
The issue is not the large coalitions or the proliferation of empty space. There are a severe lack of things to do 0.0 and the core sov mechanic makes it tedious and boring for the average line pilots. Mix that with the potential for great moon goo income why would you want to risk losing it all to a rival power bloc when you guys can just bro up, secure your income and have fun basing every one else with safety and impunity. Those who control the spice...


Only CCP can change that and because it is that way. It's the best they start from scratch.

Let the hammer fall on SOV 0.0 and it's super caps, titans and so on. New game systems and mechanics are needed to populate the place.

Large coalitions and alliances would be able to exploit the new systems to much. The very same way they do it today. They are part of the problem. With large i mean everything above 2000/3000 characters.

Let the hammer fall!

Obviously high sec charaters are experts on null.

You're a coward.
Stop being a coward.

Post with your null main or shut the **** up.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-12-25 17:38:47 UTC
PS: CCP should ban anyone that makes a post about how null needs to be fixed when they post with a character with no null history.
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-12-25 17:40:04 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

There's simply no acceptable way to say this other then,

Post with your main *****, or stop bitching about null.

Untill then your just another high sec character bitching about **** you're not involved in.


Edit: At least you can see with who and where I play when I make an observation about something.
My balls are laying on the table for everyone to see, I'm not hiding like a coward.


There is always a more acceptable language to talk about something.

Your friends claim the rights you want to take from me to talk about other parts of the game they don't like. I do the very same.
Coward or not. You don't silence me with that.
It's always better to be a living coward than a dead hero. Blink
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-12-25 17:42:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyprus Black
While you're at it, replace all titans with monster trucks? A CSM member has seriously proposed it before Oops

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-12-25 17:47:32 UTC
SOV 0.0 alliances are in the huge game about wealth, fame, reources and so on. They are like national states. National states have no friends.
The removal of the ability to set standings towards other alliances is just natural. If you hate someone declare a war to make them flashy or shoot any neutrals you encounter in your space. More PVP. More destroyed ships.
It has something for all aspects of EVE. From mining over industry to the way of the warrior.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-12-25 17:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Miri Amatonur wrote:
SOV 0.0 alliances are in the huge game about wealth, fame, reources and so on. They are like national states. National states have no friends.
The removal of the ability to set standings towards other alliances is just natural. If you hate someone declare a war to make them flashy or shoot any neutrals you encounter in your space. More PVP. More destroyed ships.
It has something for all aspects of EVE. From mining over industry to the way of the warrior.

This will change nothing. If player faction wish to have diplomatic relations with another player faction, they will have them, with the help of interface in the form of standings or without. And it's worth stating that idea of cutting interface support from anything is never a good idea.

I do understand that it's GD's tradition to create gazillion of threads on the same damn subject, but could you please at least propose changes that would actually work towards your agenda (nvm that they probably won't be implemented anyways)?

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-12-25 17:53:17 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

There's simply no acceptable way to say this other then,

Post with your main *****, or stop bitching about null.

Untill then your just another high sec character bitching about **** you're not involved in.


Edit: At least you can see with who and where I play when I make an observation about something.
My balls are laying on the table for everyone to see, I'm not hiding like a coward.


There is always a more acceptable language to talk about something.

Your friends claim the rights you want to take from me to talk about other parts of the game they don't like. I do the very same.
Coward or not. You don't silence me with that.
It's always better to be a living coward than a dead hero. Blink

We didnt' all come from SA dirrectly to null, contrary to what you think.

Everyone knows what high sec is like.

You don't know a damn thing about null as far asnyone knows. Youv're corp history is comprised of a yera of NPC corp life.

Nat may only have a month of high sec history, but the player has 6 years of worth of to draw from. I know what I'm taling, according to the character you're posting with, you do not.


Post with your null sec main. You have no right to talk about what is needed if you can't prove you have first hand experience with it.

I've never done faction warfare, I've never made a thread talking about what it needs.

Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-12-25 17:54:14 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:

This will change nothing. If player faction wish to have diplomatic relations with another player faction, they will have them, with the help of interface in the form of standings or without. And it's worth stating that idea of cutting interface support from anything is never a good idea.

I do understand that it's GD's tradition to create gazillion of threads on the same damn subject, but could you please at least propose changes that would actually work towards your agenda (nvm that they probably won't be implemented anyways)?


I see your point but i don't have to share it. The removal of standings shall not prevent diplomacy. But diplomacy becomes much more interesting if friendly fire is live on the battlefields. You'll always have it. It's always annoying as small as it may be and might prevent coalitions in the future.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-12-25 17:54:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Miri Amatonur wrote:
SOV 0.0 alliances are in the huge game about wealth, fame, reources and so on. They are like national states. National states have no friends.
The removal of the ability to set standings towards other alliances is just natural. If you hate someone declare a war to make them flashy or shoot any neutrals you encounter in your space. More PVP. More destroyed ships.
It has something for all aspects of EVE. From mining over industry to the way of the warrior.

You appear as out of touch with reality as you are with null politics.


You don't need "standing mechanics" in the real world to know who's yor friend or foe.

Genius.
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-12-25 17:59:20 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
(...)

You don't need "standing mechanics" in the real world to know who's yor friend or foe.

Genius.


Thank you for your support. Thought the real world knows friendly fire. I'm looking forward to have it ingame.
Zenethalos
Doomheim
#32 - 2012-12-25 18:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Zenethalos
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
PS: CCP should ban anyone that makes a post about how null needs to be fixed when they post with a character with no null history.


If only.

I'm not longer a residence of 0.0 with such a reduced play time so I reside in empire FW hoping to see some awesome changes to the sov mechanic in the future.

The underlying cause of all of this is CCP. They created mechanics that facilitate this current age of coalitions with no incentive to de-homogenize the major players alliances.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-12-25 18:01:30 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
(...)

You don't need "standing mechanics" in the real world to know who's yor friend or foe.

Genius.


Thank you for your support. Thought the real world knows friendly fire. I'm looking forward to have it ingame.

And apparently you're not familliiar mechanics at all.

Friendly fire exists guy.

Having even a basic understanding of game mechanics would go a long ways to helping with your credibility guy.
You should learn them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2012-12-25 18:03:02 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
It's the playground of large coalitions. Most systems aren't used.
The coalitions brought the risk vs reward system to the ground. Where is the risk if most players there are blue to each other?
From all the players who aren't blue, obviously, as well as from some who are… after all, it's not like null is without continuous conflicts between a number of factions.

Quote:
Remove the abitlity for alliances to set standings towards other alliances or corporations beside NPCs. Limit the available standing markers for Corporations below 10.
Great idea. It would solve absolutely nothing and create a huge swath of problems, and most likely make sure that even fewer people could ever get a foothold in null. Same goes for the idea to use costs as a limiter.

Quote:
Limit the proliferation of Super Capitals, Titans and the ability to project power. The mechanics of Capital ships, Super Capitals, Titans, Jump Bridges and Cynosural Fields have to be changed.
How, exactly, and what difference would it make?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-12-25 18:05:06 UTC
Zenethalos wrote:
The issue is not the large coalitions or the proliferation of empty space. There are a severe lack of things to do 0.0 and the core sov mechanic makes it tedious and boring for the average line pilots. Mix that with the potential for great moon goo income why would you want to risk losing it all to a rival power bloc when you guys can just bro up, secure your income and have fun bashing every one else with safety and impunity. Those who control the spice...

If 90% of the space was not worth crap, and moo goo was better dispersed, sprinkle in some other strategic combat options to take sov that does not require large fleets and then maybe, just maybe 0.0 will become interesting enough and rewarding enough to not blue up all your neighbors.


uhhhh dude...that was the greatest two paragraphs I've read on GD that I didnt write...

nailed it

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Zenethalos
Doomheim
#36 - 2012-12-25 18:09:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Zenethalos
Quote:
Remove the abitlity for alliances to set standings towards other alliances or corporations beside NPCs. Limit the available standing markers for Corporations below 10.


This is an abhorrent idea. This would only lead to the current power blocs ingesting all of the little guys they rent/share space with to save the headache. It would create an intel channel nightmare and create an even greater disturbance in an already needlessly boring environment when you have to right click and check every one who does not have a green/blue star beside their name,
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-12-25 18:10:24 UTC
Zenethalos wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
PS: CCP should ban anyone that makes a post about how null needs to be fixed when they post with a character with no null history.


If only.

I'm not longer a residence of 0.0 with such a reduced play time so I reside in empire FW hoping to see some awesome changes to the sov mechanic in the future.

The underlying cause of all of this is CCP. They created mechanics that facilitate this current age of coalitions with no incentive not to de-homogenize the major players alliances.

The diplomacy stuff is fine, it's working as intended.

CCP gave us the ability to build corporatins with a few thousand members, and then ally those corps with other several thousand strong corporations.

Then they put in a not insignificant investment into server technology to allow for fights with upwards of a thousand ships.

The only reason a system caps at around 2000 people is due to server capabilities and nothing to do with CCP not wanting several thousand ships shooting the **** out of each other over space. If they could support 5000 ships in a system shooting each other, they'd path it in tomorrow.

They designed the game, creatd tools, and invested in server infastructure and the development of server tech to allow us to "blob".

Why in the world do you guys think that we aren't doing exactly what CCP wants us to do. They woudn't allow us to form alliances with with over 10k members -you only need like 3 corps to that guys- and then put us all on a server with the means of allowing nearly 2000 ships to shoot each other in a fight if that's not what they wantd.



Low sec is available for everyone who doesn't want to be involved in emprie bulding, but still want the small gang/ holding, and pvp experience.

M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#38 - 2012-12-25 18:15:28 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

You gusy never ***** about empty high sec systems, which there are a lot of.



What game are you playing... There is no such thing as an empty highsec system, there might be systems that are less populated, but there is ALWAYS someone online in any given system in highsec. Always.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-12-25 18:18:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
CCP could fix null by creating a place were people who aren't interested in emprie building can take there small friends and familly corp, build a station, and fight with other corporations, and were there isn't a proliferation of supers and titans to worry about.

They could even call it low sec so that people know that it's a different area from NPC emprie space, and player run empire space.

They can even throw in some kind of faction based pvp system so that people have a reason to take part in "war" but don't have to deal with all the sov and standing mechanics.

Wonder why CCP never made such a place.

RollRollRollRoll
Samantha Utama
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-12-25 18:20:37 UTC
Dare to be bold, OP. FFS.
Previous page123Next page