These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rebuttal: Nerf Without Cause: Jump Drives

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#361 - 2013-01-21 23:07:33 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
I think you need to tell the OP that, not me. You are focusing on only sov and the taking of. Please start the thread over instead of derailing it for your own campaign.

Thank you.


What do you think the "small entities" being discussed are trying to do?

Entities (regardless of size) based exclusively out of NPC null who have no interest in Sov cannot be significantly disrupted (and can easily make routes to HS through NPC space no matter how short jump ranges are). So NPC space entities really aren't important in this discussion, because they have the same logistical advantages that Large groups do (guaranteed safe routes to HS) even though they don't have to make any effort to take or defend them.

More importantly, the article this thread is based of is specifically talking about small, sov-holding entities. And the OP is specifically talking about sov holding entities. And you specifically discuss Sov in your complaints about as-yet-undefined "power projecton." (Here)

So, when the whole thread is focused on how a nerf to Jump Drives/Cynos would affect the ability of small groups to take, hold, and live in Sov space, you can see how saying "woah, woah, woah, stop focusing on Sov, we're not talking about sov here" sounds just a little silly.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#362 - 2013-01-21 23:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
That's NOT THE POINT OF NULL.


He is right you know. Null is about turning botted isk into RL monies. You need to be able to project power over stupid distances in order to do that effectively.


Playing a game for fun is so... last decade.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#363 - 2013-01-22 15:53:39 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I think you need to tell the OP that, not me. You are focusing on only sov and the taking of. Please start the thread over instead of derailing it for your own campaign.

Thank you.


What do you think the "small entities" being discussed are trying to do?

Entities (regardless of size) based exclusively out of NPC null who have no interest in Sov cannot be significantly disrupted (and can easily make routes to HS through NPC space no matter how short jump ranges are). So NPC space entities really aren't important in this discussion, because they have the same logistical advantages that Large groups do (guaranteed safe routes to HS) even though they don't have to make any effort to take or defend them.

More importantly, the article this thread is based of is specifically talking about small, sov-holding entities. And the OP is specifically talking about sov holding entities. And you specifically discuss Sov in your complaints about as-yet-undefined "power projecton." (Here)

So, when the whole thread is focused on how a nerf to Jump Drives/Cynos would affect the ability of small groups to take, hold, and live in Sov space, you can see how saying "woah, woah, woah, stop focusing on Sov, we're not talking about sov here" sounds just a little silly.



As a byproduct. The article was in regards to how it wouldn't work because of the logistics of jump freighters having an increase of jumps. This was focused on groups already in sov null. Not the introduction of newer blood and smaller groups. That was me advocating the change in support of the op who posted the rebuttal to the original article, to which you are arguing because of taking sov in the first place.

Sorry if it seems silly, but that's because of the direction you took of it. You decided on the witch hunt of me, not the other way around. Just because I support an idea, wether I understand the mechanics of it or not, does not refute the thoughts or opinions of the original poster, or the author of the article that brought on this thread to begin with.

In short, reel it back in and stay on topic, which is what I'm trying to do.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#364 - 2013-01-22 16:10:53 UTC
A cyno nerf would definitely make small independents more likely to try taking sovereignty.

Whether it would make a material difference to their ability to do so and hold it against larger groups is an open question that won't be answered by forum shouting.

It would also make it more difficult to hold large sovereignty areas, but again it is an open question whether the large alliances and coalitions have the resources to meet that bar.

The main issue is whether it would get more *people* into the action, or if it would just be the same crowd pulling in additional alts to make the increased logistics happen.

I know multi-clienting is the way EvE is played, but there are reasons that many game designers going all the way back to the beginning of multi-player online games consider multi-clienting an exploit all by itself.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#365 - 2013-01-22 18:41:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
As a byproduct. The article was in regards to how it wouldn't work because of the logistics of jump freighters having an increase of jumps. This was focused on groups already in sov null. Not the introduction of newer blood and smaller groups. That was me advocating the change in support of the op who posted the rebuttal to the original article, to which you are arguing because of taking sov in the first place.

Sorry if it seems silly, but that's because of the direction you took of it. You decided on the witch hunt of me, not the other way around. Just because I support an idea, wether I understand the mechanics of it or not, does not refute the thoughts or opinions of the original poster, or the author of the article that brought on this thread to begin with.

In short, reel it back in and stay on topic, which is what I'm trying to do.



So new blood magically doesn't run into the same problems as existing smaller groups in Sov null would, because they're new?

Newcomers to the Sov map have always started out by taking the worst space available. Why? Because it is almost always the least well defended space. After holding that for a while, they'd start eyeing their neighbors who had slightly less terrible space, and try to take that, and so on and so forth.

Unfortunately, due to a number of HS buffs and Nullsec nerfs, even the best Nullsec space is barely better for the line member than HS, and due to the ridiculous r64 nerf/tech buff, the only truly valuable moons are so concentrated (in number and, less importantly, location) that it is perfectly feasible (and in fact, virtually obligatory, due to their individual value) to defend each and every moon with overwhelming force (unlike r64s where you wouldn't bother strongly defending a far flung one). Notice that the ability for groups to project power hasn't changed since the r64 nerf (in fact, it's been reduced by the JB nerf), but because the incentive to project that power is so much higher, they project it.

So, newcomers are essentially screwed from the start. Not because of the mechanics of logistics or fleet movement or any other measure of power projection, but because there's no economically viable way for them to develop an alliance income in some little toehold.


Not knowing mechanics is fine. Refusing to learn the basic gist of them when they're repeatedly explained to you is not; if you intend to participate in a discussion about those mechanics.


There's no witch hunt here. You were trying to make coherent arguments, I tried to help you, and you took that as some sort of personal attack and launched into more inchoate rambling. And again, the entire thread is about Sov and the ability of new and or/small groups to take and/or hold it. Saying "woah, woah, woah, lets not talk about Sov, let's stay on topic" is ridiculous.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#366 - 2013-01-22 18:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
A cyno nerf would definitely make small independents more likely to try taking sovereignty.

What do you consider a "small" group?

Even then,
INDEPDENT?

Uhm, no.
No.

NO. You should NOT be able to take any sov as an "independent" group. I doesn't matter how big you are. INDEPENENT groups have no business in sov.

You, more than anyone, belong in low sec.


There is no such thing as a large INDEPENDENT group in null. Everone works with someone.


You, specificaly, are the people I'm talking to when I say, "null is not for that type of gameplay."

You're a 15 man corporation, with no allies, and you think you should be able to hold sov. That is absurd.
That is NOT what null sec is for. You want to be a PIRATE.

Go to low, or roam someone elses space.
You are not an empire, and null sec is specifically stated by CCP as being a place for EMPIRE BUILDING.

Small independent groups are not empire builders. You are a pirate faction. Play your role properly.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#367 - 2013-01-22 19:07:00 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
As a byproduct. The article was in regards to how it wouldn't work because of the logistics of jump freighters having an increase of jumps. This was focused on groups already in sov null. Not the introduction of newer blood and smaller groups. That was me advocating the change in support of the op who posted the rebuttal to the original article, to which you are arguing because of taking sov in the first place.

Sorry if it seems silly, but that's because of the direction you took of it. You decided on the witch hunt of me, not the other way around. Just because I support an idea, wether I understand the mechanics of it or not, does not refute the thoughts or opinions of the original poster, or the author of the article that brought on this thread to begin with.

In short, reel it back in and stay on topic, which is what I'm trying to do.



So new blood magically doesn't run into the same problems as existing smaller groups in Sov null would, because they're new?

Newcomers to the Sov map have always started out by taking the worst space available. Why? Because it is almost always the least well defended space. After holding that for a while, they'd start eyeing their neighbors who had slightly less terrible space, and try to take that, and so on and so forth.

Unfortunately, due to a number of HS buffs and Nullsec nerfs, even the best Nullsec space is barely better for the line member than HS, and due to the ridiculous r64 nerf/tech buff, the only truly valuable moons are so concentrated (in number and, less importantly, location) that it is perfectly feasible (and in fact, virtually obligatory, due to their individual value) to defend each and every moon with overwhelming force (unlike r64s where you wouldn't bother strongly defending a far flung one). Notice that the ability for groups to project power hasn't changed since the r64 nerf (in fact, it's been reduced by the JB nerf), but because the incentive to project that power is so much higher, they project it.

So, newcomers are essentially screwed from the start. Not because of the mechanics of logistics or fleet movement or any other measure of power projection, but because there's no economically viable way for them to develop an alliance income in some little toehold.


Not knowing mechanics is fine. Refusing to learn the basic gist of them when they're repeatedly explained to you is not; if you intend to participate in a discussion about those mechanics.


There's no witch hunt here. You were trying to make coherent arguments, I tried to help you, and you took that as some sort of personal attack and launched into more inchoate rambling. And again, the entire thread is about Sov and the ability of new and or/small groups to take and/or hold it. Saying "woah, woah, woah, lets not talk about Sov, let's stay on topic" is ridiculous.



I'm not understanding why you are trying to explain something I've already explained to you I'm doing.

I don't need you to copy what I'm saying.

This isn't my thread. I have disengaged. Let it go.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#368 - 2013-01-22 19:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzy Warstl
You make a good point, I am happier with lowsec and NPC null than I am with sovereign nullsec.

I put it down to my natural charm :)

But that doesn't mean that smaller groups (15-20 people, who knows how many characters) shouldn't be challenging sovereignty instead of asking nicely if they can play in sovereign null.

They should be doing just that, and it should be possible to find a place that anybody big enough to roflstomple them can't afford to care about.
[Edit:]
I'm thinking early Irish kingdoms over continent-spanning Empires.

Obviously as a member of a continent-spanning empire you wouldn't be in favor of this, and WH space does provide one avenue for smaller semi-sovereignty, but there are large gaps that show up when people start comparing capabilities.

More variety would be good to see (and no, my small corp isn't interested in your space, we've got quite enough to keep us busy).

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#369 - 2013-01-22 19:12:19 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
A cyno nerf would definitely make small independents more likely to try taking sovereignty.

What do you consider a "small" group?

Even then,
INDEPDENT?

Uhm, no.
No.

NO. You should NOT be able to take any sov as an "independent" group. I doesn't matter how big you are. INDEPENENT groups have no business in sov.

You, more than anyone, belong in low sec.


There is no such thing as a large INDEPENDENT group in null. Everone works with someone.


You, specificaly, are the people I'm talking to when I say, "null is not for that type of gameplay."

You're a 15 man corporation, with no allies, and you think you should be able to hold sov. That is absurd.
That is NOT what null sec is for. You want to be a PIRATE.

Go to low, or roam someone elses space.
You are not an empire, and null sec is specifically stated by CCP as being a place for EMPIRE BUILDING.

Small independent groups are not empire builders. You are a pirate faction. Play your role properly.



Actually Nat, I have a question, in all seriousness. If most people have alliances made up of smaller sized corps to create one entity (I'd assume to satisfy the number of chiefs versus number of indians) yet those corporations COULD hold as many people as an alliance could.... why would it matter if it was independant or an alliance?

It would just be a matter of making pacts and using politics with your neighbor wouldn't it?

For instance (And you could answer this since I'll use your group as an example) if Goons were 25 corps of 100 people each, and decided to consolidate 2500 people into one group (corp), wouldn't they still be able to accomplish the same thing if they so chose? Reason I ask, is you mentioned earlier how Goons could take sov away from No Value at will and also iterated how corps were designed to hold that many people.

Again, not trying to argue, but trying to solidify all that you have said so far to better understand what the capabilities really would be, regardless of how they are currently used.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#370 - 2013-01-22 19:25:17 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Go to low, or roam someone elses space.
You are not an empire, and null sec is specifically stated by CCP as being a place for EMPIRE BUILDING.

Small independent groups are not empire builders. You are a pirate faction. Play your role properly.

100mil or the pod goes pop.

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 ?
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#371 - 2013-01-22 20:02:09 UTC
The last post in this thread pretty much clarifies my "positioin" about "small gang" activity.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=196420

I believe, very much, that the small gang needs **** to do in null.

Small gangs should be able to have an impact on sov holders, yes. If small gangs want to impact at a corporate level, fine. You do not get to complain that 30 supers were dropped on you, with a support force of 500.

You asked the corporation to come out and shoot you, that's what you get.

I'm all for one corporation being able to go out and causes collateral damage to another corporation. That makes sense, and small gangs can be utilized in that way with some form of hit and run objectives.

That has nothing to do with claiming sov though.

There is no such thing as "small gang sov ownership", nor should there ever. Small gangs have a place all their own, they have no reason to claim sov, nor should they be given mechanics that allow them to.


The only thing small gangs need in null, is the ability to inflict some level of collateral damage at a corporate level (keeping in mind that you SHOULD get corporate level response), as well as be able to find people in null space to antagonize.

The "people in space" thing is a legit issue, that CCP needs to start adressing, and would go a long way to supporting you guys who enjoy small scale combat.


Nerfing bridging isn't going to help you. CCP created the mechanic specifically to alleviate the tediousness of moving large forces long distances; so that there would be more large scale warfare. These gusy already endure the structure grind to claim sov, there's no reason to add another layer of tedium.

CCP keeps doing things to encourage more large scale conflicts, and you guys keep asking them to nerf things that would cause less.

CCP isn't going to do what you guys want them to do, in the way that you expect them to do it, because won't do what you want it to do. Small gangs, HOLDING sov, does not support what CCP is doing with null sec.



https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=195938&find=unread
I'm begging CCP for them to do a wholey original idea, high sec player corp station control in all .7 and below systems.

Support it and encourage CCP to do stuff like that so that smaller gangs can have something to control and contribute meaningfully towards in EVE.

And were warfare won't involve things like titan bridges, capitals, supers, and moon goo.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#372 - 2013-01-22 21:15:53 UTC
That's a point in an interesting direction.

What I'm thinking about is more "edges of the Roman Empire circa 200CE". There should be a practical limit to how big a nullsec empire can be in the absence of a competing empire, and nullsec itself should be considerably larger than that to allow for competing empires.

Nerfing logistics is the obvious way to put that limit in without just making more space or putting a heavy clamp on sovereignty mechanics.

Simply adding more space so that there is "bad space" that is beyond the practical interests of large empires holding "good space" would probably suffice.

As you note, CCP has said that they are looking at more ways of getting more players with ownership interests in parts of the game. Putting more ownership interests in NPC space is one way, simply expanding non-NPC space is another (albeit a crude one).

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#373 - 2013-01-22 21:34:05 UTC
I am starting to come to the conclusion that the way null is currently handled is a social problem not a mechanics problem, and since emergent/sandbox/null/whateveryouwannacallit is done player side, changing mechanics would be a jumpstart to "changing things up"(even though incorrect).

Since AngryMustache has posted his findings concerning the chinese server and the way they control their sov with far less numbers, they seem to have a much better grasp of things and how to make it work.

As such, null should be left alone, even if people do not know how to handle it "correctly" they are making it work to the best of their ability. And that's fine.

It is also why I retracted from my campaign of speaking of "smaller groups" because people think "small" is meant to be a 5-20 man roaming fleet, arbitrarily ignoring scale. Again, that's fine. Us as american players seem to be a bit too extreme in our boundaries anyways.

However, I respectively disagree that a "SMALLER" group of people are not able to hold sov, or can make a difference, or shouldn't be in null.

Granted, the larger group CAN in fact dictate terms, and yes, can make life miserable for the smaller.

But I do not believe anyone can tell anyone not to try.

Unless you really want null to turn stale.

Anyways, I'm disappointed my question didn't get answered, but oh well, guess it's hate or nothing on GD forums =P.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#374 - 2013-01-22 21:37:11 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
That's a point in an interesting direction.

What I'm thinking about is more "edges of the Roman Empire circa 200CE". There should be a practical limit to how big a nullsec empire can be in the absence of a competing empire, and nullsec itself should be considerably larger than that to allow for competing empires.


There is. You saw it with BOB and the GBC, you saw it with the NC, and you're (maybe) seeing it now with the CFC/HBC breakup. Just like the Roman Empire, EVE's large empires rot at the core before succumbing to outside pressure. The rot is caused by a breakdown in social cohesion leading to bitter rivalries within established empires.

Quote:
Nerfing logistics is the obvious way to put that limit in without just making more space or putting a heavy clamp on sovereignty mechanics.


People keep saying that like it's true. When it's demonstrably (and has been demonstrated to be, ITT even) false.

Quote:
Simply adding more space so that there is "bad space" that is beyond the practical interests of large empires holding "good space" would probably suffice.

As you note, CCP has said that they are looking at more ways of getting more players with ownership interests in parts of the game. Putting more ownership interests in NPC space is one way, simply expanding non-NPC space is another (albeit a crude one).


Yes, more space to thin out an already thin Nullsec population. Great idea.

How about making Nullsec livable again. You can grind NPCs in the perfect safety of HS for upwards of 90% of the income you can get ratting in top end Sov Space. Risking a Sentry Carrier in Anoms is simply not worth the ~8m/hr premium you get over HS PvE. Add to that the fact that you can only have maybe 5 of those carrier pilots in a high end, fully upgraded system before they start bumping into each other (driving their income right down to HS levels or below), and the fact that you have to invest a couple billion ISK to upgrade the system in the first place (and monthly Sov bills), and it's pretty clear why nullsec is largely a deserted wasteland outside of large fleets.

Maybe fix industry so that there's a decent reason to actually mine in Nullsec. Or, god forbid, build things other than Supers.

Maybe develop a way for Alliances to gather most of their income from their members useage of their space (of course, this relies on the space actually being worth using, so see above), instead of from moons whose income has really no connection to who owns the space they're in (PL, one of the bigger Tech holding alliances, traditionally does not hold Sov anywhere, let alone holding it to defend their moons).

Null is static because the only real benefit of owning Sov is the ability to hold your ... stick ... up high and say "mine's bigger than yours." And that's simply not enough of a reason for most groups.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#375 - 2013-01-22 21:50:38 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
That's a point in an interesting direction.

What I'm thinking about is more "edges of the Roman Empire circa 200CE". There should be a practical limit to how big a nullsec empire can be in the absence of a competing empire, and nullsec itself should be considerably larger than that to allow for competing empires.


There is. You saw it with BOB and the GBC, you saw it with the NC, and you're (maybe) seeing it now with the CFC/HBC breakup. Just like the Roman Empire, EVE's large empires rot at the core before succumbing to outside pressure. The rot is caused by a breakdown in social cohesion leading to bitter rivalries within established empires.

Quote:
Nerfing logistics is the obvious way to put that limit in without just making more space or putting a heavy clamp on sovereignty mechanics.


People keep saying that like it's true. When it's demonstrably (and has been demonstrated to be, ITT even) false.

Quote:
Simply adding more space so that there is "bad space" that is beyond the practical interests of large empires holding "good space" would probably suffice.

As you note, CCP has said that they are looking at more ways of getting more players with ownership interests in parts of the game. Putting more ownership interests in NPC space is one way, simply expanding non-NPC space is another (albeit a crude one).


Yes, more space to thin out an already thin Nullsec population. Great idea.

How about making Nullsec livable again. You can grind NPCs in the perfect safety of HS for upwards of 90% of the income you can get ratting in top end Sov Space. Risking a Sentry Carrier in Anoms is simply not worth the ~8m/hr premium you get over HS PvE. Add to that the fact that you can only have maybe 5 of those carrier pilots in a high end, fully upgraded system before they start bumping into each other (driving their income right down to HS levels or below), and the fact that you have to invest a couple billion ISK to upgrade the system in the first place (and monthly Sov bills), and it's pretty clear why nullsec is largely a deserted wasteland outside of large fleets.

Maybe fix industry so that there's a decent reason to actually mine in Nullsec. Or, god forbid, build things other than Supers.

Maybe develop a way for Alliances to gather most of their income from their members useage of their space (of course, this relies on the space actually being worth using, so see above), instead of from moons whose income has really no connection to who owns the space they're in (PL, one of the bigger Tech holding alliances, traditionally does not hold Sov anywhere, let alone holding it to defend their moons).

Null is static because the only real benefit of owning Sov is the ability to hold your ... stick ... up high and say "mine's bigger than yours." And that's simply not enough of a reason for most groups.



http://themittani.com/features/new-eden-behind-great-firewall

Was a good read on how they do things and support the income you say sov needs from the playerbase.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#376 - 2013-01-22 21:54:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

Since AngryMustache has posted his findings concerning the chinese server and the way they control their sov with far less numbers, they seem to have a much better grasp of things and how to make it work.


That's simply false.

http://themittani.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_stopgap/public/2013.01.06.02.28.40.jpg

The HBC has like 22k pilots in it. The CFC's around 20k. And that's on a server with 350-400k Accounts. TGA (one Alliance) on Serenity has 26 thousand pilots. PIBC has 21 thousand (and appears to be allied with Fadeklin [10k] and July Union [6k]*). And Serenity has far less than half the population of Tranquility.

Quote:
It is also why I retracted from my campaign of speaking of "smaller groups" because people think "small" is meant to be a 5-20 man roaming fleet, arbitrarily ignoring scale. Again, that's fine. Us as american players seem to be a bit too extreme in our boundaries anyways.


So what do you think a "smaller group" is? If you're going to complain that other people are using the wrong definition of a term, please define it.


*That's just the apparently allied groups that hold Sov. No idea which of the other large alliances co-locate as blues without holding Sov.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#377 - 2013-01-22 22:11:10 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

Since AngryMustache has posted his findings concerning the chinese server and the way they control their sov with far less numbers, they seem to have a much better grasp of things and how to make it work.


That's simply false.

http://themittani.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_stopgap/public/2013.01.06.02.28.40.jpg

The HBC has like 22k pilots in it. The CFC's around 20k. And that's on a server with 350-400k Accounts. TGA (one Alliance) on Serenity has 26 thousand pilots. PIBC has 21 thousand (and appears to be allied with Fadeklin [10k] and July Union [6k]*). And Serenity has far less than half the population of Tranquility.

Quote:
It is also why I retracted from my campaign of speaking of "smaller groups" because people think "small" is meant to be a 5-20 man roaming fleet, arbitrarily ignoring scale. Again, that's fine. Us as american players seem to be a bit too extreme in our boundaries anyways.


So what do you think a "smaller group" is? If you're going to complain that other people are using the wrong definition of a term, please define it.


*That's just the apparently allied groups that hold Sov. No idea which of the other large alliances co-locate as blues without holding Sov.



You use the same information to say its false, then prove why it's true. I do not wish to continue an argument of verbal semantics. More alliances hold more sov on the chinese server and are still able to accomplish more, while your argument about how large groups prevail is only shown by what, 70% of sov on our own? Using YOUR argument and examples, either Test OR Goons would own over half by themselves without the other being able to exist!

My example of smaller? Less than. For instance....

Quote:
The HBC has like 22k pilots in it. The CFC's around 20k. And that's on a server with 350-400k Accounts. TGA (one Alliance) on Serenity has 26 thousand pilots. PIBC has 21 thousand (and appears to be allied with Fadeklin [10k] and July Union [6k]*). And Serenity has far less than half the population of Tranquility.


My definition would be the 6k versus the 26k. 6k is smaller than 26k. Fadekin which is 10k is also smaller. Sov map of the chinese server shows that even with a smaller population, they can hold sov more spread out and evenly, even with the forces holding sov to be way different in size.

Just because I say a smaller force should be able to get a foothold, does not mean I am insinuating that a small pirate gang lull about taking sov like its a fw beacon.

You're inability to discern between a thought and raw text is bewildering to where you need to say what I'm saying.

Also, you posted about how you would want a better income generating source for null, and whereas on the chinese server, it is proven (and even remarked on) how they do just that, and support industry even using way less trade hubs.

I'm sorry you felt the need to argue mechanics and show how I am wrong. I admitted defeat and moved on, and even voraciously found things to read and devour to learn, and came across data and proof that shows where null might in fact have a problem, and yet you want to argue socially now.

Unfortunately, you are going to find fault in everything and think everything is just fine, so it just shows me you are not going to be satisfied no matter what is said or done.

Good day and safe flying.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#378 - 2013-01-22 22:16:32 UTC
What you see on Serenity and TQ is a product of culture.

As it should be, because it's not a CCP enforced state.

They gave us the tools to do what WE wanted, an that's exactly what the players did.


I think CCP would call it,

WORKING AS INTENDED.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#379 - 2013-01-22 22:21:39 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
What you see on Serenity and TQ is a product of culture.

As it should be, because it's not a CCP enforced state.

They gave us the tools to do what WE wanted, an that's exactly what the players did.


I think CCP would call it,

WORKING AS INTENDED.



Yea that's what I said, that it was a social problem and not one driven by mechanics.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#380 - 2013-01-22 22:30:10 UTC
I'm just using it as an example that CCP doesn't enforce any specific state in null sec.

Not even one where the small gang can gain sov.