These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So this is it for eve, is this the future, is it?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#521 - 2013-09-03 13:43:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Linistitul wrote:
We could regulate the blue doughnut via a limited number of treaties and get rid of the blue lists at corp & alliance level. Instead of making someone blue you will have to make a treaty with that entity.

You'd also have to remove the ability to set oranges/reds at corp/alliance levels, as nothing stops "the blob" from oranging their allies and shooting everyone not orange/red. Doing this, you'd outright kill NRDS and severly limit the ability of corps to warn their members of known gankers in their home systems.

In addition, even blue'ing on an individual level would have to be limited; setting tthe 10 - or even 100 - splinter alliances that re-form after the large entities have been disbanded to blue on an individual level seems hardly an excessive effort if it only has to be done once...

In the end you'd have to completely gut the UI to ensure that groups organized outside of the game have no easy way to reckognize each other inside the game. Now, that might just be me, but "let's make our UI obscure and confusing so people have no idea who they're dealing with" does not seem to be a strategy that wins you any game design awards...

As long as it hurts the largest coalition out there. Specifically the ones who have to deal with the new paperwork.

We'd have a director of "standings setting"

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 ?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#522 - 2013-09-03 13:51:55 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
As long as it hurts the largest coalition out there. Specifically the ones who have to deal with the new paperwork.

We'd have a director of "standings setting"

Dude, what paperwork? Don't we shoot blues anyway?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#523 - 2013-09-03 13:58:40 UTC
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
You have been banned for using the following exploit: having friends. This ban will not expire.

children these days have no idea what word 'friend' means.... They think 'friend' is a person in your address book, social network or alliance.....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#524 - 2013-09-03 14:05:11 UTC
JinSanJong wrote:
1) We play on ONE server, ONE world, therefore alliances that formed years ago, have a massive advantage over newer players.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Why do old alliances have an advantage over new ones just because it's single universe? Why, if old always beats new, do we have a long history of new alliances beating old ones silly?

Quote:
2) Every good moon location in eve is known to all major alliances, and deathstar poses erected, NO other alliances could ever hope to takedown these poses.
…except, of course, that this happens on a daily basis when alliances start to clash. There is no POS in the game that can't go down in a single siege cycle, and the determining factor is not age, but numbers. So even if point 1 somehow made sense, it wouldn't matter for point 2. Oh, and you know that moon income is pretty trivial to replicate through other means, right? What allows you to build up huge capital forces is having sov and planting CSAAs. The resources part can be done by anyone.

Quote:
3) We used to have a few hundred alliances back then (8 years ago) now we have thousands, but none of these will ever have the same chances as the older alliances, thats NEVER.
So neither goons nor TEST have had any impact on the ownership of space, CVA and BoB are still around and firmly entrenched in their space, and ASCN still holds the south… right? No. The thousands of alliances we have today exist because the old ones fell apart. The big ones that exist today have actually fallen apart too, only to reform in new configurations. Any alliance that is started today can do the same: gather enough people and go to town. Again, it's not a matter of age, but of how many you can gather under a single banner.

Quote:
4) its too easy to move across the universe quickly. Cynos in place you could move across one side of eve to the other in like 10 mins. Thats ridiculous. Anyone even sniffs your assets you candrop a capital fleet, large sub cap fleet in no time.
…but, apparently, you can't destroy these assets? Which one is it?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#525 - 2013-09-03 14:10:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
the determining factor is not age, but numbers.

You just need to blob effectively.
Tippia wrote:
So neither goons nor TEST have had any impact on the ownership of space, CVA and BoB are still around and firmly entrenched in their space, and ASCN still holds the south… right? No. The thousands of alliances we have today exist because the old ones fell apart. The big ones that exist today have actually fallen apart too, only to reform in new configurations. Any alliance that is started today can do the same: gather enough people and go to town. Again, it's not a matter of age, but of how many you can gather under a single banner.

Again, blobbing
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
4) its too easy to move across the universe quickly. Cynos in place you could move across one side of eve to the other in like 10 mins. Thats ridiculous. Anyone even sniffs your assets you candrop a capital fleet, large sub cap fleet in no time.
…but, apparently, you can't destroy these assets? Which one is it?

You need to outblob supercaps

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 ?
JinSanJong
Doomheim
#526 - 2013-09-03 17:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: JinSanJong
Tippia wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:
1) We play on ONE server, ONE world, therefore alliances that formed years ago, have a massive advantage over newer players.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Why do old alliances have an advantage over new ones just because it's single universe? Why, if old always beats new, do we have a long history of new alliances beating old ones silly?

Quote:
2) Every good moon location in eve is known to all major alliances, and deathstar poses erected, NO other alliances could ever hope to takedown these poses.
…except, of course, that this happens on a daily basis when alliances start to clash. There is no POS in the game that can't go down in a single siege cycle, and the determining factor is not age, but numbers. So even if point 1 somehow made sense, it wouldn't matter for point 2. Oh, and you know that moon income is pretty trivial to replicate through other means, right? What allows you to build up huge capital forces is having sov and planting CSAAs. The resources part can be done by anyone.

Quote:
3) We used to have a few hundred alliances back then (8 years ago) now we have thousands, but none of these will ever have the same chances as the older alliances, thats NEVER.
So neither goons nor TEST have had any impact on the ownership of space, CVA and BoB are still around and firmly entrenched in their space, and ASCN still holds the south… right? No. The thousands of alliances we have today exist because the old ones fell apart. The big ones that exist today have actually fallen apart too, only to reform in new configurations. Any alliance that is started today can do the same: gather enough people and go to town. Again, it's not a matter of age, but of how many you can gather under a single banner.

Quote:
4) its too easy to move across the universe quickly. Cynos in place you could move across one side of eve to the other in like 10 mins. Thats ridiculous. Anyone even sniffs your assets you candrop a capital fleet, large sub cap fleet in no time.
…but, apparently, you can't destroy these assets? Which one is it?


I think I explained this enough and in enough detail, i dont think i need to spoon feed it to you. For some reason Tippa you always live in a world of complete denial. Im sure you must be a CCP employee. But that's your choice. Howeveras i have already said the alliances you are talking about are only new alliances in name, they are still the same old vet players.

See you are just being pandantic as usual. yes it is numbers, but out of those blobs (which is needed) are actual vet players? PL are purely vets, NC. purely vets. So may say goons are not but they actual leadership and majority of players have bene around for years, once established then new players can join. But a lot of other 0.0 alliances required experienced players that have played for some time. The clear fact is that most of the major alliance are run by LONG term players. Simple as.

The point was your average alliance couldnt take down assets because larger alliances and more established alliances just blob again simple really.

im sorry Tippa but most of the time you do talk utter nonsense. Youll try make an argument just for argument sake. But again thats your choice. Twist it how you want, be in as mjuch denial as you please, keep burying your head in the sand. My opinion will stay the same.
Linistitul
Gea'Vii Enterprises
#527 - 2013-09-03 19:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Linistitul
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Linistitul wrote:
We could regulate the blue doughnut via a limited number of treaties and get rid of the blue lists at corp & alliance level. Instead of making someone blue you will have to make a treaty with that entity. Something like this:


You'd also have to remove the ability to set oranges/reds at corp/alliance levels, as nothing stops "the blob" from oranging their allies and shooting everyone not orange/red. Doing this, you'd outright kill NRDS and severly limit the ability of corps to warn their members of known gankers in their home systems.

In addition, even blue'ing on an individual level would have to be limited; setting tthe 10 - or even 100 - splinter alliances that re-form after the large entities have been disbanded to blue on an individual level seems hardly an excessive effort if it only has to be done once...

In the end you'd have to completely gut the UI to ensure that groups organized outside of the game have no easy way to reckognize each other inside the game. Now, that might just be me, but "let's make our UI obscure and confusing so people have no idea who they're dealing with" does not seem to be a strategy that wins you any game design awards...



That escalated quickly. I think you are stretching things too much mate, there's no need to go that far. And please, quote the relevant text:

Linistitul wrote:
We could regulate the blue doughnut via a limited number of treaties and get rid of the blue lists at corp & alliance level. Instead of making someone blue you will have to make a treaty with that entity. Something like this:

- Alliances: limited number of treaties, can only make treaties with other alliances.
- Corps: limited number of treaties, can only make treaties with other corps.
- Players: can make unlimited number of player friends.

CCP then will only have to balance the numbers of treaties that an alliance or corp can make from time to time to ensure that we have conflict and the blue doughnut is gone for good. You could also have some sort of treaty history and see who has honored or broken his treaties.


"Players: can make unlimited number of player friends." - that means no corporations or alliances. Good luck setting 20000 players blue...

I agree with you that many should have a less enjoyable game so that a few can be happy playing NRDS politics, it mimics real life. Treaties could be a nice feature if we could solve that red/orange problem that a minority of players have. For that we could use relevant (to where you are) security status.

Ex: you're an entity that has sov space. If a third party (that means not the sov holder or blues) commits an aggressive act towards somebody in your space, his corporation/alliance will get a sec status hit towards your faction (including your blues) and while in your space it will display as criminal in your overview.

So if you're CVA and a neutral attacks somebody in your sov space, his corp/alliance will get negative sec status (until you decide to reset - people should be able to do that) and everyone from that corp/alliance will start displaying as criminals in your and your allies overviews as long as you see them in your sov space or allies sov space.

No longer you will see meaningless (to 0.0) flashy hi-sec criminals, you will see only those that are relevant to your faction. Of course, the current rules for empire criminals will still be available in empire. The beauty of the relevant security status is that the mechanics are already in place.
Tara Read
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#528 - 2013-09-04 08:34:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tara Read
JinSanJong wrote:
Just one giant doughnut of renter space!? Is this what eve has now become?



Since when did Eve in it's design and creation bringing a myriad of endless possibilities and choices to players become what YOU just stated? And if we are talking renters Alliances I remember a certain Band Of Brothers being the original renter empire cracking the whip in which started The Great War and this gave birth to the original Goonswarm.

For those of us old enough to remember it this was back when Titans were still a marvel to behold and 100 man fleet fights were considered "big" even for Null Sec. How about stop worrying about the politics that don't even concern you and play the game in a way that makes you happy?

I still look amazed at people in their ignorance who think Null Sec "endgame" or that there even is a concept of endgame. Eve is forever changing. There is a plethora of opportunity to be had in low sec, in high sec, in K space etc. Let us imagine that the CFC folded tomorrow.

That the same fate that ended BoB befell the CFC. What would change? Nothing except the name of the owner of that space. New renters would come in under the guise of another Coalition and you'd have conflict vying for control of said space. Point being is since Sov mechanics are the way they are little would change except for who owns what.

Why don't just you stop giving two f@^&s about the "blue doughnut" and just play the game the way you want to? It sounds to me like you are willing to blame a coalition of active players for your dissatisfaction with your own personal enjoyment of New Eden. Do you think I care about Sov?

No. I'm a Pirate. I prey upon all those who hold Sov and those who don't. I play the game the way I want to and get enjoyment out of it. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture for a moment. In all of Eve's grand scale and design you should be happy these coalitions exist.

They feed content, keep subscriptions going, stop CCP's checks from bouncing and further a game that has now lasted over a decade. I'm sure there is something in the thousands upon thousands of stars spread throughout the cosmos for you to do.
JinSanJong
Doomheim
#529 - 2013-09-04 09:21:21 UTC
Roll
Tara Read wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:
Just one giant doughnut of renter space!? Is this what eve has now become?



Since when did Eve in it's design and creation bringing a myriad of endless possibilities and choices to players become what YOU just stated? And if we are talking renters Alliances I remember a certain Band Of Brothers being the original renter empire cracking the whip in which started The Great War and this gave birth to the original Goonswarm.

For those of us old enough to remember it this was back when Titans were still a marvel to behold and 100 man fleet fights were considered "big" even for Null Sec. How about stop worrying about the politics that don't even concern you and play the game in a way that makes you happy?

I still look amazed at people in their ignorance who think Null Sec "endgame" or that there even is a concept of endgame. Eve is forever changing. There is a plethora of opportunity to be had in low sec, in high sec, in K space etc. Let us imagine that the CFC folded tomorrow.

That the same fate that ended BoB befell the CFC. What would change? Nothing except the name of the owner of that space. New renters would come in under the guise of another Coalition and you'd have conflict vying for control of said space. Point being is since Sov mechanics are the way they are little would change except for who owns what.

Why don't just you stop giving two f@^&s about the "blue doughnut" and just play the game the way you want to? It sounds to me like you are willing to blame a coalition of active players for your dissatisfaction with your own personal enjoyment of New Eden. Do you think I care about Sov?

No. I'm a Pirate. I prey upon all those who hold Sov and those who don't. I play the game the way I want to and get enjoyment out of it. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture for a moment. In all of Eve's grand scale and design you should be happy these coalitions exist.

They feed content, keep subscriptions going, stop CCP's checks from bouncing and further a game that has now lasted over a decade. I'm sure there is something in the thousands upon thousands of stars spread throughout the cosmos for you to do.


Exactly your jst a pirate in lowsec, justbecause YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't. So stop forcing YOUR opinion on me or others. Your complete rant wall of text was nonsense, good day sir
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#530 - 2013-09-04 09:31:25 UTC
JinSanJong wrote:
I think I explained this enough and in enough detail, i dont think i need to spoon feed it to you. For some reason Tippa you always live in a world of complete denial.
No, I live in a world of evidence, and you offer very little of that stock. You do offer a lot of suggestion and insinuation that doesn't particularly match evidence, though, which is why I have to ask you to clarify things further.

So no, you have not explained in any detail how having a single universe gives a massive advantage to old alliances, nor how this supposed relationship explains why there are so many old alliances out there that aren't doing all that well…

Quote:
See you are just being pandantic as usual. yes it is numbers, but out of those blobs (which is needed) are actual vet players?
Doesn't matter. What matters is that new players have the same opportunities as old ones using the same tools as old ones, and that history has shown on multiple occasions that being old is not much of an advantage in and of itself. Yes, learning how to play the game well takes a bit of time. So what? That's how all learning goes. Welcome to non-instinctual life.

Quote:
The point was your average alliance couldnt take down assets because larger alliances and more established alliances just blob again simple really.
…and the counter-point is that this isn't a problem. If you want to be an above-average alliance, stop being so insular or prejudiced, and start doing what needs to be done. You have the tools; choosing not to use them because of some preconceived notion that it's no use because the old guard will beat you up is just lazy and dishonest.

Quote:
im sorry Tippa but most of the time you do talk utter nonsense. Youll try make an argument just for argument sake.
No. Most of the time, I don't buy the baseless and counterfactual nonsense people are trying to peddle, and I make an argument for the sake of correcting those problems.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#531 - 2013-09-04 09:38:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
JinSanJong wrote:

Exactly your jst a pirate in lowsec, justbecause YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't. So stop forcing YOUR opinion on me or others. Your complete rant wall of text was nonsense, good day sir

That's just it, we do care. You're quite content to push YOUR agenda on us, but totally unwilling to listen to people pointing to parts of YOUR agenda that are pants on head stupid.

There's some good reasoning put forth in this thread as to why some of what you're trying to push as the future would be bad for Eve, you've chosen to completely ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what YOU want. You suggested instancing for example, that's a ridiculous suggestion to make for a game that is marketed, developed and sold as a single shard universe.

In your OP you asked a question, people have tried to answer it, you don't like the answers you've been given, so you act like a petulant child, grow up.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
JinSanJong
Doomheim
#532 - 2013-09-04 10:04:17 UTC  |  Edited by: JinSanJong
Tippia wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:
I think I explained this enough and in enough detail, i dont think i need to spoon feed it to you. For some reason Tippa you always live in a world of complete denial.
No, I live in a world of evidence, and you offer very little of that stock. You do offer a lot of suggestion and insinuation that doesn't particularly match evidence, though, which is why I have to ask you to clarify things further.

So no, you have not explained in any detail how having a single universe gives a massive advantage to old alliances, nor how this supposed relationship explains why there are so many old alliances out there that aren't doing all that well…

Quote:
See you are just being pandantic as usual. yes it is numbers, but out of those blobs (which is needed) are actual vet players?
Doesn't matter. What matters is that new players have the same opportunities as old ones using the same tools as old ones, and that history has shown on multiple occasions that being old is not much of an advantage in and of itself. Yes, learning how to play the game well takes a bit of time. So what? That's how all learning goes. Welcome to non-instinctual life.

Quote:
The point was your average alliance couldnt take down assets because larger alliances and more established alliances just blob again simple really.
…and the counter-point is that this isn't a problem. If you want to be an above-average alliance, stop being so insular or prejudiced, and start doing what needs to be done. You have the tools; choosing not to use them because of some preconceived notion that it's no use because the old guard will beat you up is just lazy and dishonest.

Quote:
im sorry Tippa but most of the time you do talk utter nonsense. Youll try make an argument just for argument sake.
No. Most of the time, I don't buy the baseless and counterfactual nonsense people are trying to peddle, and I make an argument for the sake of correcting those problems.


No Tippia you are what we call a 'drainer' go away your boring the hell out of me now with your nonsense
JinSanJong
Doomheim
#533 - 2013-09-04 10:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: JinSanJong
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:

Exactly your jst a pirate in lowsec, justbecause YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't. So stop forcing YOUR opinion on me or others. Your complete rant wall of text was nonsense, good day sir

That's just it, we do care. You're quite content to push YOUR agenda on us, but totally unwilling to listen to people pointing to parts of YOUR agenda that are pants on head stupid.

There's some good reasoning put forth in this thread as to why some of what you're trying to push as the future would be bad for Eve, you've chosen to completely ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what YOU want. You suggested instancing for example, that's a ridiculous suggestion to make for a game that is marketed, developed and sold as a single shard universe.

In your OP you asked a question, people have tried to answer it, you don't like the answers you've been given, so you act like a petulant child, grow up.


Lol ironically you have just done what you're complaining about. Funny. You don't like my opinion that's your problem not mine. I don't know you and never will so you are pretty irrelevant in the bigger picture. Thanks

Just worry about yourself, why are you getting so angry because I don't agree with what you do? Weird
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#534 - 2013-09-04 10:19:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
JinSanJong wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:

Exactly your jst a pirate in lowsec, justbecause YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't. So stop forcing YOUR opinion on me or others. Your complete rant wall of text was nonsense, good day sir

That's just it, we do care. You're quite content to push YOUR agenda on us, but totally unwilling to listen to people pointing to parts of YOUR agenda that are pants on head stupid.

There's some good reasoning put forth in this thread as to why some of what you're trying to push as the future would be bad for Eve, you've chosen to completely ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what YOU want. You suggested instancing for example, that's a ridiculous suggestion to make for a game that is marketed, developed and sold as a single shard universe.

In your OP you asked a question, people have tried to answer it, you don't like the answers you've been given, so you act like a petulant child, grow up.


Lol ironically you have just done what you're complaining about. Funny. You don't like my opinion that's your problem not mine. I don't know you and never will so you are pretty irrelevant in the bigger picture. Thanks

Just worry about yourself, why are you getting so angry because I don't agree with what you do? Weird

No I haven't , I'm not trying to push any agenda at all, least of all my own. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. You're entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine.

What I have done is point out that you've chosen to ignore or denigrate anything that doesn't match your agenda, without actually considering that you may be wrong. That is acting like a child.

If you're referring to my comment about instancing, please enlighten us as to how it would be a good thing in a game that is, by design, not instanced?

If you can present a coherent argument for instancing, or any of the other things you've suggested without resorting to ranting at your detractors then I'm more than willing to listen.

FYI I'm not a lowsec pirate, I merely used your response to Tara Read as an example of your responses to people.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#535 - 2013-09-04 10:27:36 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:

Exactly your jst a pirate in lowsec, justbecause YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't. So stop forcing YOUR opinion on me or others. Your complete rant wall of text was nonsense, good day sir

That's just it, we do care. You're quite content to push YOUR agenda on us, but totally unwilling to listen to people pointing to parts of YOUR agenda that are pants on head stupid.

There's some good reasoning put forth in this thread as to why some of what you're trying to push as the future would be bad for Eve, you've chosen to completely ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what YOU want. You suggested instancing for example, that's a ridiculous suggestion to make for a game that is marketed, developed and sold as a single shard universe.

In your OP you asked a question, people have tried to answer it, you don't like the answers you've been given, so you act like a petulant child, grow up.


Lol ironically you have just done what you're complaining about. Funny. You don't like my opinion that's your problem not mine. I don't know you and never will so you are pretty irrelevant in the bigger picture. Thanks

Just worry about yourself, why are you getting so angry because I don't agree with what you do? Weird

No I haven't , I'm not trying to push any agenda at all, least of all my own. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. You're entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine.

What I have done is point out that you've chosen to ignore or denigrate anything that doesn't match your agenda, without actually considering that you may be wrong. That is acting like a child.

If you're referring to my comment about instancing, please enlighten us as to how it would be a good thing in a game that is, by design, not instanced?

If you can present a coherent argument for instancing, or any of the other things you've suggested without resorting to ranting at your detractors then I'm more than willing to listen.


Jonahs right Jin, the reason people are dogpiling you is because you havent presented a shred of evidence to back up your arguement, stop going 'lalala i cant hear you' everytime someone asks you for proof and you might get taken seriously. Youve already been told why your ideas as presented in the OP wont work, try convincing us with hard facts rather than hiding behind 'its just an opinion you guys are big meanies'.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#536 - 2013-09-04 10:27:38 UTC
JinSanJong wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
JinSanJong wrote:

Exactly your jst a pirate in lowsec, justbecause YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't. So stop forcing YOUR opinion on me or others. Your complete rant wall of text was nonsense, good day sir

That's just it, we do care. You're quite content to push YOUR agenda on us, but totally unwilling to listen to people pointing to parts of YOUR agenda that are pants on head stupid.

There's some good reasoning put forth in this thread as to why some of what you're trying to push as the future would be bad for Eve, you've chosen to completely ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what YOU want. You suggested instancing for example, that's a ridiculous suggestion to make for a game that is marketed, developed and sold as a single shard universe.

In your OP you asked a question, people have tried to answer it, you don't like the answers you've been given, so you act like a petulant child, grow up.


Lol ironically you have just done what you're complaining about. Funny. You don't like my opinion that's your problem not mine. I don't know you and never will so you are pretty irrelevant in the bigger picture. Thanks

Just worry about yourself, why are you getting so angry because I don't agree with what you do? Weird


If we go by the logic that by not knowing someone, they're irrelevant, then I have to ask... why should anyone have given this thread the time of day? You accuse people of not caring just because they're "lowsec pirate scum" but I see a lot of people who care enough to comment on this thread and consider you relevant enough to address. Perhaps you should show some respect to people who have addressed your concerns rather than flinging invectives like a monkey flinging its own poop and just dismissing anyone that doesn't agree with you by virtue of feeling rejected.

Because that's what it is, isn't it. It's the rejection effect. That's why you're getting your panties in a twist. However, anyone that was to stop and think rationally rather than respond emotionally, you might actually be able to make sense of why your nonsense is so widely rejected, and begin to understand that EVE works the way it does not because it suits one person's style of play, but because it allows you to discover new styles of play.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#537 - 2013-09-04 10:29:22 UTC
You know if we look back to the point where Goonswarm lost Delve, which was, what 2009? Early 2010? Not all that long ago...

Can anyone point to a sov region which hasn't changed hands at least once since then?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#538 - 2013-09-04 10:33:15 UTC
not sure, when was the providence purge by -A-? cant remember if that was before or after the goons whelped delve

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#539 - 2013-09-04 10:49:25 UTC
Linistitul wrote:
Barzai Mekhar wrote:

You'd also have to remove the ability to set oranges/reds at corp/alliance levels, as nothing stops "the blob" from oranging their allies and shooting everyone not orange/red. Doing this, you'd outright kill NRDS and severly limit the ability of corps to warn their members of known gankers in their home systems.

In addition, even blue'ing on an individual level would have to be limited; setting tthe 10 - or even 100 - splinter alliances that re-form after the large entities have been disbanded to blue on an individual level seems hardly an excessive effort if it only has to be done once...

In the end you'd have to completely gut the UI to ensure that groups organized outside of the game have no easy way to reckognize each other inside the game. Now, that might just be me, but "let's make our UI obscure and confusing so people have no idea who they're dealing with" does not seem to be a strategy that wins you any game design awards...



That escalated quickly. I think you are stretching things too much mate, there's no need to go that far.


Where exactly am I "escalating" or "stretching" things? I give arguments why the proposed changes are either ineffectual or cause quality of life issues while refraining from personal attacks. I consider that a normal discussion.

Linistitul wrote:

And please, quote the relevant text:

Linistitul wrote:
We could regulate the blue doughnut via a limited number of treaties and get rid of the blue lists at corp & alliance level. Instead of making someone blue you will have to make a treaty with that entity. Something like this:

- Alliances: limited number of treaties, can only make treaties with other alliances.
- Corps: limited number of treaties, can only make treaties with other corps.
- Players: can make unlimited number of player friends.

CCP then will only have to balance the numbers of treaties that an alliance or corp can make from time to time to ensure that we have conflict and the blue doughnut is gone for good. You could also have some sort of treaty history and see who has honored or broken his treaties.


"Players: can make unlimited number of player friends." - that means no corporations or alliances. Good luck setting 20000 players blue...

I agree with you that many should have a less enjoyable game so that a few can be happy playing NRDS politics, it mimics real life. Treaties could be a nice feature if we could solve that red/orange problem that a minority of players have. For that we could use relevant (to where you are) security status.


Talk about "escalating" things quickly. So far your proposed changes negatively impact:
-Members of the blob that are happy being in a large alliance
-Members of NRDS 0.0, that are happy they can be in 0.0 without being in a large alliance
-Any corp that highlights undesirable or dangerous elements via standings without going into all-out war with them
-Anyone using positive standings to keep track of corps that are "generally cool guys".

and you suggest that I want "the few" to have an enjoyable game at the cost of everyone else?

Linistitul wrote:

Ex: you're an entity that has sov space. If a third party (that means not the sov holder or blues) commits an aggressive act towards somebody in your space, his corporation/alliance will get a sec status hit towards your faction (including your blues) and while in your space it will display as criminal in your overview.

So if you're CVA and a neutral attacks somebody in your sov space, his corp/alliance will get negative sec status (until you decide to reset - people should be able to do that) and everyone from that corp/alliance will start displaying as criminals in your and your allies overviews as long as you see them in your sov space or allies sov space.

No longer you will see meaningless (to 0.0) flashy hi-sec criminals, you will see only those that are relevant to your faction. Of course, the current rules for empire criminals will still be available in empire. The beauty of the relevant security status is that the mechanics are already in place.


And everyone not in CVA (from my impression most players in providence) is unable to recognize the threat that known criminals are in the current system? Another solid idea without any collateral damage whatsoever.
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#540 - 2013-09-04 11:33:55 UTC
JinSanJong wrote:


Exactly your jst a pirate in lowsec, justbecause YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't. So stop forcing YOUR opinion on me or others. Your complete rant wall of text was nonsense, good day sir


You are doing same thing .

People that are in sov thing decided this way and it is fine.So either find group of people that will live up to your plans or just deal with it.

Atm current sov holders think this is better for them, and I guess they spent hours figuring out how to get as much isk for their trouble of taking that space.

Point is if you dont like it move on and find something else to do,there is enough things to do in EVE that is not sov and make all isk that you need for your goals.