EVE General Discussion

I very much doubt your version of events.
A supercapital fleet on the move is not something that goes unnoticed by any competent alliance leadership.

So, assuming that sort of blockade is actually bad for the game, how do you think nerfing Cynos/Jump Drives/etc. would prevent it?

From the sound of it, you didn't have any PL Supercaps watch-listed, so they could have snuck up to within just about any range without you noticing, so clearly nerfing range doesn't change anything.

A limit on the number of ships coming through each Cyno would have meant (say it's 2 ships/cyno), that the first couple cynos would have been a HIC and a Carrier, both with Cynos. You're unlikely to kill either before the geometric progression takes hold and they're able to bring in as many ships as they like (at the cost of fielding an equal ratio of Carriers:Else). Fielding that ratio wouldn't be a problem for PL, but would be for most smaller groups.

Finally, what's the difference between them cynoing the blockade in or jumping it in through gates? A fleet does not take much time at all to cover 8 jumps (from Aridia), and if they've got the overwhelming force that you claim they had, you're not going to prevent them from making those 8 jumps.

Doesn't limiting the mass capacity of cynos make every alliance effectively smaller?

If a small alliance wants to take and hold a constellation or two, they get their stuff in and keep it there.
Cynos without mass limits are purely for mass force projection which is only useful when:
1. You have large amounts of force to project, and
2. You have a reason to project it.

Neither of these is the case for small sovereignties.

Jump range limits obviously work against small sovereignties by increasing the number of groups they need to stay on good terms with, but mass limits should result in the breakup of larger coalitions by reducing the advantage to being in one and the disadvantage to not being in one.

I think CCP is angling towards a jump drive spool-up time.

Light cyno, wait X seconds, capitals can jump in.

That is simply not correct. CFC grided down much of its acquisitions in early 2012 with subcapitals because they were in fear of NC. and PL hotdrops. Similarity smaller entitles who need control only one or two systems for their own needs can grind down those structures in subcapitals as well. Only thing capital blob is needed is industrial scale grinding of entire regions, that are then mostly left unused by actual owner, possibly rented, but in truth mostly unused. Actually making grinding structures harder for capital ships (by making it more annoying to deploy them) could be useful as it would discourage capital blobing entities form taking more systems then they intend to use.



Yes, but that is significant improvement compared to what we have now where almost instantaneously any gang can, instead of 2 ships, be dropped by some dozens or even hundreds of dudes in capital ships and support sub-capitals.

Say you we have 20-40 men gang. There are many fits and ships they could be using that could alpha your Lachesis and run away before reinforcement come. Just loading grid and locking targets of the next wave would give them some 15 s more to react, kill tackler and run away.

Of course at the end of day cyno mass limit might not be best solution to power projection. It is currently my preferred, as it has minimal impact on deployment of solitary or small number of capitals, and scales well with deployment of larger groups and blobs making them more complicated to handle.


Also I think there is misunderstand how removing power projection is supposed to discourage homogenisation of 0.0 space. By making long distance travel slower and/or more annoying you encourage 0.0 alliances to concentrate their asset in smaller area that are faster/simpler to reach and defend, and discourage them form bluing their neighbours because they would have to travel longer to get fights.

Truth is cyno jump mechanics are only one part of this power projection problem, other 2 are titan bridges and jump bridges, they need handling as well. More about that.

16.14 million people visited Disneyland in 2011 according to Wikipedia.
3142 individuals are known to have visited the summit of Mt Everest . . . ever (again, according to Wikipedia).
So, you can see that when it is harder to get somewhere, fewer people get there.

Yeah, cause CFC is what we call a "smaller entity".
We're able to grind structures with subcaps simply because we have sheer numbers. Smaller entities don't.


One or two systems isn't enough for any semblance of security. At all.

Because the only difference between Mt Everest and Disneyland is the effort it takes to get there. (Couple further differences: an Everest summit is going to take more than 2 months while a trip to Disneyland probably takes less than a week, Everest kills a large proportion of visitors while Disneyland kills very few, climbing Everest requires previous mountaineering experience while Disneyland has made standing in line optional, and so on.)

A better analogy for what happens when a large, organized group faces a new logistical challenge would be the Berlin Airlift. By the end of the Berlin Airlift, it was bringing in more supplies into West Berlin by Air than had previously been brought in by Rail. The best 24hr total was just shy of 13,000 tons of cargo.

In other words, if you have virtually unlimited funds and manpower, introducing new logistical challenges (cutting the railroad) can be entirely overcome by throwing money and manpower at the problem.

Guess who has virtually unlimited funds and manpower. (Hint: It's the large groups). Guess who does not have virtually unlimited funds and manpower. (Hint: It's the small groups).

Now, which group can emulate the Berlin Airlift better if CCP cuts the railroad?

Well, 101 people died working on the airlift, there were 25 plane crashes (out of 280,000 round trip flights: 560,000 takeoff/landing cycles), and it cost less than $5 Billion (inflation adjusted).

My biggest question about it is who got the 98 million frequent flier miles?

Anyway, I would guess that JF logistics is more dangerous (JF deaths/jump), and costs more (Cost/GDP). I suspect that the average JF dies before their 23,800th jump (if any have made that many).

[quote=RubyPortoFirst: Nobody's saying "Null is about Empire, not combat" except you (when you're attributing it to other people).

Second: I still do not see anything in that text about what concrete goals you hope might be achieved through nerfing "power projection." Honestly. I don't.

So, please, take a moment to organize your thoughts and tell me what specific goals you hope to achieve through nerfing "power projection" and how nerfing "power projection" will achieve those goals. Hell, make a list. Nobody cares whether or not your post is in paragraph form/looks nice/etc so long as it's legible, coherent, and on topic.

Template:
I want to nerf Power projection so that:
a) Goal 1
b) Goal 2
etc

That nerf will help bring about Goal 1 because:
a) Reason 1
b) Reason 2

Goal 1 would improve the game because:
a) Reason 1
b) Reason 2

And so on.


I think that you're honestly trying to make a point here, and I think that you just need some help organizeing it in a legible, coherent way. If I thought you were trolling, I wouldn't go through this effort to try to figure out what your point is, and if I were trolling, I'd certainly not go through this much effort at all.[/quote]


Large groups and small groups do not systematically correllate in regards to comparison. What I'm trying to say (when not feeling like I need to defend something that's not mine via personal attacks/troll) is that it is way harder for a small group to even CONSIDER trying to get a foothold in space or do anything knowing that it's that much easier for a larger group to mobilize a supercap fleet, make a long jump trivially to that new corps area, and bash the **** out of their newly made station.

If jump drives were nerfed, it would make the logistics of the smaller group easier to bob and weave their way through than establishing a traditional trade route (see "new" used loosley for the smaller group, the experience isn't there yet so therefore the risk is greater). Also, it would encourage smaller groups to move to null because it would be a matter of assaulting larger groups trade routes since we all know (Mynnna explained about how jump freighters would have more jumps to make, more outposts needed to be secured) that industry being what it is, it would give that smaller group a better chance to hit a freighter that it would be to assault a pos knowing all those supercaps would be at the ready.

Now, would it be impossible for those huge alliances to cover their butts and work the logistics? No. They could muster the numbers to get it done.

But it would give an "advantage" to the smaller group to accomplish "something" over the larger groups and introduce them to null politics (as the larger group already knows how to handle upstarts).

This would help the smaller group by making "power projection" easier to manage. Since monetarily a smaller group can still find ways to cause damage to the larger. Might not be significant, therefore not OP, but it definiately would bring appeal and make things possible by NOT allowing that same said power projection of the larger group go unchecked.

Atleast, that's what I'm trying to argue.

I want to nerf Power projection so that:
a) Larger groups have their force range reduced
b) Jump freighters have a more difficult route
etc

That nerf will help bring about Goal 1 because:
a) Larger groups have to spread their force to "patrol" their controlled space (make held space more active)
b) Encourage more people from non null to expand into null

Goal 1 would improve the game because:
a) Reduce force projection
b) Bring more life into null (new blood new corps new sov)