These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

You CANT Nerf HighSec!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2001 - 2013-01-03 01:32:05 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Yes, in fact diminishing returns should be put both in hi sec to prevent "newbies" making 3500 maelstrom at a time but also in null sec to prevent alliances from taking more than say 5% of the whole space.

If we can take more than 5% of space and defend it, then there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to. None, zip, zilch, nope, nuh uh, nada. This isn't the problem of today, the problem of today lies squarely at the hands of the sov system, where actually defending those 5%+ is way too easy. Fix that to make taking a system less of a one week waterfall mechanic with 8 hours of warning prior to its start, and every alliance in nullsec will be forced to decompress to a more manageable size.

Thinking of ridiculous limits like "you can't own more than 5% of nullsec space" is stupid and should be met with a frying pan to the face.


Or, you could have read my post which states "diminishing returns" and "say 5%" which are a TLDR version of your text.

If you had dimishing returns you could still take 100% of the territory but it'd be so pointless or hard to keep it that alliances would naturally settle down to the "largest known best size", 5% being a "say" as in "example number" not set in stone.


No amount of DR rules will prevent who want to put the effort into to from controling more than 5% or any arbitrary number you could put instead. The coalition system alraedy prove how the alliance level is not the upper limit of possible management without even being implemented in the game.
Frying Doom
#2002 - 2013-01-03 02:14:03 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Yes, in fact diminishing returns should be put both in hi sec to prevent "newbies" making 3500 maelstrom at a time but also in null sec to prevent alliances from taking more than say 5% of the whole space.

If we can take more than 5% of space and defend it, then there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to. None, zip, zilch, nope, nuh uh, nada. This isn't the problem of today, the problem of today lies squarely at the hands of the sov system, where actually defending those 5%+ is way too easy. Fix that to make taking a system less of a one week waterfall mechanic with 8 hours of warning prior to its start, and every alliance in nullsec will be forced to decompress to a more manageable size.

Thinking of ridiculous limits like "you can't own more than 5% of nullsec space" is stupid and should be met with a frying pan to the face.


Or, you could have read my post which states "diminishing returns" and "say 5%" which are a TLDR version of your text.

If you had dimishing returns you could still take 100% of the territory but it'd be so pointless or hard to keep it that alliances would naturally settle down to the "largest known best size", 5% being a "say" as in "example number" not set in stone.


No amount of DR rules will prevent who want to put the effort into to from controling more than 5% or any arbitrary number you could put instead. The coalition system alraedy prove how the alliance level is not the upper limit of possible management without even being implemented in the game.

It should not be that you have the ability to take more than 5% and defend it.

It should be that you take more than 5% and use it.

If Sov is based off usage then people will have to mine, rat ect.. with an AFK cloaker in the system.
It will give small gangs a lot of ability to harass an area and get kills
It will mean that gaining sov will require both military and industrial forces.

Not the stupid way it is now where you spend no time in a system and only ever go there if someone attacks it.

Yes system upgrades, sov ect should be based on usage not isk, You dont make an area yours just by dropping some space flag in it, you must use it.

I will admit it was not the smartest move CCP ever made tying Sov to Isk and then giving out isk via super afk moon mining.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#2003 - 2013-01-03 02:19:00 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

You're equivocating, here. The point is the limit is still stupid.

If scalable content is added to nullsec, even stricter limits than 5% max sovereignty may be necessary to maintain any reasonable level of organizational balance.

But that's assuming CCP ever decided they are willing to open that can of worms at all. Limited nullsec content with unlimited sov is frankly easier to manage for them.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2004 - 2013-01-03 02:22:55 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

You're equivocating, here. The point is the limit is still stupid.

If scalable content is added to nullsec, even stricter limits than 5% max sovereignty may be necessary to maintain any reasonable level of organizational balance.

But that's assuming CCP ever decided they are willing to open that can of worms at all. Limited nullsec content with unlimited sov is frankly easier to manage for them.

How does that make any sense?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#2005 - 2013-01-03 02:44:58 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
It should not be that you have the ability to take more than 5% and defend it.

It should be that you take more than 5% and use it.

If Sov is based off usage then people will have to mine, rat ect.. with an AFK cloaker in the system.
It will give small gangs a lot of ability to harass an area and get kills
It will mean that gaining sov will require both military and industrial forces.

Not the stupid way it is now where you spend no time in a system and only ever go there if someone attacks it.

Yes system upgrades, sov ect should be based on usage not isk, You dont make an area yours just by dropping some space flag in it, you must use it.


You're missing her point. It's not about usage vs. defense, she is talking about social interaction evolving beyond anything CCP can build mechanically. It makes zero difference whether or not you defend the space or use the space, that is not what limits you to 5%. If 12 Alliances each managed to hold and use 5% of 0.0 space, but were in a coalition together, you now have a social entity that owns 60% of EVE's nullsec territory. CCP cannot stop that diplomatic relationship from forming. Which is just a fancier way of saying numerical limits on sovereignty are completely useless and are a waste of time to discuss.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#2006 - 2013-01-03 03:20:48 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

You're equivocating, here. The point is the limit is still stupid.

If scalable content is added to nullsec, even stricter limits than 5% max sovereignty may be necessary to maintain any reasonable level of organizational balance.

But that's assuming CCP ever decided they are willing to open that can of worms at all. Limited nullsec content with unlimited sov is frankly easier to manage for them.

How does that make any sense?

Isn't doing less easier for CCP? Seems to make sense, unless the implication was that EVE was dying.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Frying Doom
#2007 - 2013-01-03 04:39:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
It should not be that you have the ability to take more than 5% and defend it.

It should be that you take more than 5% and use it.

If Sov is based off usage then people will have to mine, rat ect.. with an AFK cloaker in the system.
It will give small gangs a lot of ability to harass an area and get kills
It will mean that gaining sov will require both military and industrial forces.

Not the stupid way it is now where you spend no time in a system and only ever go there if someone attacks it.

Yes system upgrades, sov ect should be based on usage not isk, You dont make an area yours just by dropping some space flag in it, you must use it.


You're missing her point. It's not about usage vs. defense, she is talking about social interaction evolving beyond anything CCP can build mechanically. It makes zero difference whether or not you defend the space or use the space, that is not what limits you to 5%. If 12 Alliances each managed to hold and use 5% of 0.0 space, but were in a coalition together, you now have a social entity that owns 60% of EVE's nullsec territory. CCP cannot stop that diplomatic relationship from forming. Which is just a fancier way of saying numerical limits on sovereignty are completely useless and are a waste of time to discuss.

You missed the point of me missing the point.

There is no way at all to prevent a coalition from forming today, next year or when ever, so instead of worrying about things that cannot ever be fix lets worry about things that can.

Now your 12 alliances can form a coalition and own 60% of Null sec kind of easy to do with alliances able to get anywhere within their alliances in no time flat to defend a system under attack and with a system based on isk (especially with moon mining running around).

What I was saying was in relevance to the 5% not the 60%, you may have 12 alliances forming a coalition but if they each do not have the ability to use 5% of Null sec each they will lose it so your 60% might only end up as 20%.

The current isk based system is rather silly and has led us to where we are now if the system is usage based it allows for casual players better as well as giving more targets for pvp and preventing massive alliances that are taking more space than they can actually use.

Also nice of you to pop up and comment on the current results of this thread, oh wait..but I shouldn't complain you made a special appearance just to give me crap.

But seriously your future input would be welcomed.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2008 - 2013-01-03 05:10:43 UTC
gimmick posting is hilarious
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2009 - 2013-01-03 05:17:20 UTC
Building an item and then refining it down should never yield the same amount of minerals/components as it took to create it. It should always, always be less.

Does anyone else agree?
Hilmar Fudd
Wery Wascally Wabbits
#2010 - 2013-01-03 05:20:47 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
gimmick posting is hilarious



Goons are Hiwarious.

My bruddah fiddling wile Wome burns is mo hilwarious.

Bwing in da Wovians with auto auto Death ways. Doons go boom many Wovian KM's all happy.

They really wanna pway Hellwo Kitty anyway...makes mommy happy.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#2011 - 2013-01-03 05:23:35 UTC
Hilmar Fudd wrote:
Bwing in da Wovians with auto auto Death ways. Doons go boom many Wovian KM's all happy.


Jester pls

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Frying Doom
#2012 - 2013-01-03 05:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Retracted

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Hilmar Fudd
Wery Wascally Wabbits
#2013 - 2013-01-03 05:31:34 UTC
I hab Pwex in Jiba u buy cheap.


900M K jus cuz u PMS. Spwecial Goon alt deal.
Hilmar Fudd
Wery Wascally Wabbits
#2014 - 2013-01-03 05:34:42 UTC
Wut, u only Goonie up now?
Frying Doom
#2015 - 2013-01-03 05:36:51 UTC
Hilmar Fudd wrote:
I hab Pwex in Jiba u buy cheap.


900M K jus cuz u PMS. Spwecial Goon alt deal.

Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2016 - 2013-01-03 05:38:45 UTC
This thread has reached new lows, emergency action has been taken.
Frying Doom
#2017 - 2013-01-03 05:43:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Retracted

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#2018 - 2013-01-03 05:45:18 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
No wait wait..let me guess

You just spent days at the summit hammering out the basis for another isk based Sov system didn't you.

Lol


Let's Chribba-third-party a gentlemen's wager. How much do you truly believe your own bullshit? Let's either see the money, or knock off the shitposts. That is, if you actually care about the integrity of the thread as you've claimed.... Roll

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2019 - 2013-01-03 05:52:56 UTC
Dang, and I was just getting the popcorn out of the microwave.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Frying Doom
#2020 - 2013-01-03 06:47:08 UTC
So once again Hans my apologies, I look forward to hearing your and any of the CSMs ideas in relation to this thread.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!